[js1138]

If consciousness has any tangible, or "granular" quality -- as we might expect from a condition of pure "physicality"; and if it is, ultimately, attributable "merely" to particle behavior -- well, all I can say is: So far, I have not seen any evidence, let alone "proof," that demonstrates, let alone settles, the problem.

The problem I have with your argument is the unspoken and unproven assumption that physicality is "mere".

[PatrickHenry]

Mere placemarker.

[betty boop]

The problem I have with your argument is the unspoken and unproven assumption that physicality is "mere".

In this context, "mere" is not a term of approbrium. It "merely" signals the interjection of a relative term into the argument. At the level of the problem we are considering here, "mere" is not fundadamental. All it does is suggest the idea of a hierarchical order of which it is not a determinant, just a result that might be evaluated relative to other results. That is, "mere" takes its place in the scale of a larger scheme.

But that is not to say that I think physicality is king. For all you or I know, physicality is a "mere" epiphenomenon of Reality.

If you disagree, then I welcome hearing your counterargument.