External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?
You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.
You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:
The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. Ironically even into a pair of eyes. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.
What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain.
That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.
Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an accident but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.
There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.
Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. Consciousness is at the very basis of our existence and existential inquiry. It's also very puzzling. Most people don't realise that's what the soul refers to and the philosophical basis for religion. It's really the basis for the first questions. The observation that you exist. Many people miss it. People didn't know how to explain these things more precisely. I'll read a religious text that'll casually mention a flaming apricot flying by and it's obvious that probably referred to a meteorite.
The soul is not only compatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.
If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.
You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?
Another scary progression is science denying the human soul while Hollywood anthropomorphises cars and the average leftist especially just gobbles it up. I can't say I believe in Satan but that sure does look like Satan's work.
Ultimately, you can observe nobody's consciousness but your own directly. However, it's a very reasonable assumption that other people have a similar consciousness. You're biologically similar, you can hold conversations, you can read what they write, we react to physical and emotional stimuli in similar ways. The same can't be said for a lamp. Consciousness is a thing that something has, to some degree, or doesn't have. If it's not physical, why's cutting a living human brain in half result in two lumps of unconscious flesh? If the lamp is conscious, where? What part of the lamp gives it consciousness? Pain is an indicator that something's wrong, and is definitively physical as well. It's reasonably understood, which is how local anesthetics were developed. It also has an obvious evolutionary advantage, in that it's a strong deterrent from doing things that harm your body, like holding your hand in a fire. Human brains are also much better at prediction and problem solving than others. If you have convincing proof of a "soul" outside the electrical impulses in our brains, go claim your Nobel Prize and get your name put down in history forever.
It's by definition not physical. That doesn't mean when you see a physical thing it's not a part of the same thing. A physical thing isn't necessarily the whole thing. Consciousness is not a physical quality. Physical is what we can observe in common objectively. It's not the observer itself (which also observes itself).
If you take a physical entity it's physical because that's the only part of it you can consciously perceive through external stimuli and measure scientifically. It's not the whole and the only quality it possesses only that which it expresses to you internally. So it's not purely physical as we mean it. Obviously physical matter is not entirely physical matter but physical matter with the potential to internally experience consciousness. The physical part refers to its outside. It doesn't know about the inside.
It might not do that all the time and it might not be physical all the time. The thing is science really has very little comprehension of what physical matter actually is other than something it can measure from an external perspective. It can find out how gravity behaves but it cannot tell you fundamentally what it is or why it is. You're going down the road of the measurement of the thing is the thing itself.
Pain is an indicator that something's wrong, and is definitively physical as well. It's reasonably understood, which is how local anesthetics were developed.
I don't think you have the capacity to comprehend based on that. An indication to what? Define wrong. Why does it need to be indicated that something is wrong?
I can program stuff that sends signals that something is wrong but why would it need to feel pain for real, as a real phenomena? It's completely unnecessary for a physical system. Why would it actually hurt?
Consciousness is undeniably derived physically. Again, if you have any proof to the contrary, that it's from some supernatural soul, your name would go down in history forever. But you don't.
If you are telling the truth, then you have no consciousness that is able to act through you. You are purely a physical entity. Like a rock. Simply a bunch of atoms but arranged differently. You are saying you have no soul. You are saying that you feel nothing, no pain, no experience at all. You are saying that you're a biological chat bot and nothing more.
External consciousness is impossible to prove. That's why scientists hate it. Blood flow isn't consciousness. You obviously haven't read it all to understand what consciousness truly is. You're treating it like a lamp that you can turn on or off and see it turned on and off. But can you see the lamp seeing you see it turned on or off (or I guess only off in this case)?
You don't understand consciousness at all. Most people don't. It's not externally observed phenomena. It's that which observes. It's things like why are you you and not someone else? You're right that it's clearly not entirely detached from physical material which is my point from the start but completely wrong when you say it can be demonstrably physical. It being tied with the physical is not the same as it being the physical. In science physical does not refer to properties of material such as what it feels. What you're saying is they can measure how much pain a photon is feeling or something. Either you've got the terminology wrong or you don't know what it is I'm referring to.
You might understand more if you start to think about it in relation to its evolution:
The process of evolution is not conscious itself or at least need not be, it's natural. In its blindness it will walk into anything and everything. Ironically even into a pair of eyes. It will exploit all the properties of a material it can. If that includes inducing the potential for that material to experience things for real then it won't hold back.
What I directly observe in evolution is an interface. The information is very specific. If you create software you create an interface for the human. It shows them only what they need. You do no show all the underlying data or the code. The computer does that out of sight. The same phenomena exists in the brain. What we consciously experience is extremely specific and user friendly. It's high level processed data and filtered for us. We're unconscious of much of that processing or underlying data despite the fact that it resides in the brain.
That we're only privy to the end result of very specific processing and data, though at varying levels from raw to processed in a way that's highly utilitarian, like being in the cockpit of the jet with all the readouts, that suggests a selective process of what and what not to load consciousness with or what to display on the HUD. We have evidence for this when people with head injuries or intoxication consciously access part of their brain they usually can't when it malfunctions. This evolutionary process is unlikely to have happened in a leap given the enormous complexity of the brain but instead evolved through animals and some hundred million or more years.
Our brain touches our consciousness but what would be the point of evolution if there's no benefit? There's no plausible explanation for feeling pain for real like whipping an animal if not to motivate the conscious part of us to actuate and serve the brain some benefit. Vision could be explained as an accident but the realism and accuracy of discomfort cannot be explained. Though it does not guarantee it, this strongly hints at free will. Another question is why would it need pain to do its bidding? If it could control the phenomena of consciousness entirely and directly it would not be needed. It's very hard to explain the realism of pain and so specifically in association with a functional purpose without a process to select specifically for that so in evolutionary terms it must achieve something.
There are many benefits to tapping consciousness. As a survival machine, being only physical isn't as strong a driver as experiencing existing and surviving for real. The ability to also incorporate all of the data from your nerves and to feel like you are your entire being for real (holistic experience of your material self) is also a boon.
Science not only ignores God but also the human soul which you should be even more concerned with than people no longer believing in God. The philosophical challenge of why we experience existing for real is at the centre and origin of most religions. That is the likely original meaning of the soul in most, that we experience things for real. As opposed to for example when I program a computer simulation of a person to say ouch I don't expect it to feel pain for real. Consciousness is at the very basis of our existence and existential inquiry. It's also very puzzling. Most people don't realise that's what the soul refers to and the philosophical basis for religion. It's really the basis for the first questions. The observation that you exist. Many people miss it. People didn't know how to explain these things more precisely. I'll read a religious text that'll casually mention a flaming apricot flying by and it's obvious that probably referred to a meteorite.
The soul is not only compatible with the theory of evolution but highly consistent with it and in many respects shaped by it. In a way almost trapped and imprisoned by it, forced to drive its vehicles around. Evolution of the optimal pilot the material makes available.
If you think about the evidence pointing to a hundred million years of evolution, it's been there, the potential, in any material for that long and probably all the way back to the beginning. There is the question of course what excites it and scientists are no where near this.
You know what's scary? If you don't fully understand consciousness it might be because you're not fully conscious. Perhaps there are too many humans and not enough souls or it's just a manufacturing defect, an invisible birth defect. Why would it be supernatural? Are you saying you don't exist? Are you calling my sense of consciousness supernatural? Are you calling me a spirit? It would be a natural quality of the material. For example, what's it like to be an electron? Would it be supernatural to be an electron?
Another scary progression is science denying the human soul while Hollywood anthropomorphises cars and the average leftist especially just gobbles it up. I can't say I believe in Satan but that sure does look like Satan's work.
Ultimately, you can observe nobody's consciousness but your own directly. However, it's a very reasonable assumption that other people have a similar consciousness. You're biologically similar, you can hold conversations, you can read what they write, we react to physical and emotional stimuli in similar ways. The same can't be said for a lamp. Consciousness is a thing that something has, to some degree, or doesn't have. If it's not physical, why's cutting a living human brain in half result in two lumps of unconscious flesh? If the lamp is conscious, where? What part of the lamp gives it consciousness? Pain is an indicator that something's wrong, and is definitively physical as well. It's reasonably understood, which is how local anesthetics were developed. It also has an obvious evolutionary advantage, in that it's a strong deterrent from doing things that harm your body, like holding your hand in a fire. Human brains are also much better at prediction and problem solving than others. If you have convincing proof of a "soul" outside the electrical impulses in our brains, go claim your Nobel Prize and get your name put down in history forever.
It's by definition not physical. That doesn't mean when you see a physical thing it's not a part of the same thing. A physical thing isn't necessarily the whole thing. Consciousness is not a physical quality. Physical is what we can observe in common objectively. It's not the observer itself (which also observes itself).
If you take a physical entity it's physical because that's the only part of it you can consciously perceive through external stimuli and measure scientifically. It's not the whole and the only quality it possesses only that which it expresses to you internally. So it's not purely physical as we mean it. Obviously physical matter is not entirely physical matter but physical matter with the potential to internally experience consciousness. The physical part refers to its outside. It doesn't know about the inside.
It might not do that all the time and it might not be physical all the time. The thing is science really has very little comprehension of what physical matter actually is other than something it can measure from an external perspective. It can find out how gravity behaves but it cannot tell you fundamentally what it is or why it is. You're going down the road of the measurement of the thing is the thing itself.
I don't think you have the capacity to comprehend based on that. An indication to what? Define wrong. Why does it need to be indicated that something is wrong?
I can program stuff that sends signals that something is wrong but why would it need to feel pain for real, as a real phenomena? It's completely unnecessary for a physical system. Why would it actually hurt?
Consciousness is undeniably derived physically. Again, if you have any proof to the contrary, that it's from some supernatural soul, your name would go down in history forever. But you don't.
If you are telling the truth, then you have no consciousness that is able to act through you. You are purely a physical entity. Like a rock. Simply a bunch of atoms but arranged differently. You are saying you have no soul. You are saying that you feel nothing, no pain, no experience at all. You are saying that you're a biological chat bot and nothing more.