Okay this is my last post to show how incredibly horrid your reading and comprehension skills are. You first of all ignored the Huxley post on the genie. Okay I knew that you would do that, being the sneaky person that you are.
"It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. "
Oh I am well aware that is said this, which I also addressed (but yeah,
my reading skills lack). As said, the argument against it being all physical is "we don't fully understand yet / it seems to complex". So, I suppose you are a creationist also because evolution is pretty damn complex itself, hell it took a very long time to fully understand that! This is
not a valid argument, the idea that one line of thought is invalid because our understanding of it is incomplete or we just can't accept things that are complicated.
Also, who cares that he's an atheist? Is that suppose to sway more or something?
I have never said that there isn't a physical basis. I say that there is another aspect to it. Secondly he says specifically that why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all. It seems OBJECTIVELY UNREASONABLE.
Ah I see, so you think it is fully explainable but that is not special enough or what? I mean, if you accept the fact that it has physical causes, why add the mystical nonsense? Again, his argument is "wow, this is complex and not fully understood, therefore magic!"
no, not how it works.
"Chalmers argues that a ‘rich inner life’ is not logically reducible to the functional properties of physical processes. He states that consciousness must be described using nonphysical means. This description involves a fundamental ingredient capable of clarifying phenomena that have not been explained using physical means. Use of this fundamental property, Chalmers argues, is necessary to explain certain functions of the world, much like other fundamental features, such as mass and time, explain significant principles in nature."
Haha, what you made bold even says "have
not been explained by physical terms". That does not imply it cannot, it implies he is too lazy and weak minded to see it through and find the answers. Imagine if every time we did not fully understand something we just gave up and accepted some silly idea. Darwin thought traits were inherited through blending, so do you still accept that? No, because we figured it out in the more than 100+ years after he came up with the idea! When an apple fell on Newton's head, was he just like "oh my, that is magical!" No, actually just the opposite which is why we now know that gravity exists. But, we still do not even fully understand gravity, so I suppose that implies magic.
I mean c'mon, if you are going to hold such lines of thought follow them through.
What a joke.