AB,
And what comprises neural processes?
In essence they are just movement of electrons.
That give rise to all sorts of complex phenomena that each of the constituent components and events do not have. This is emergence 101, and there’s no “just” about it.
There is no hint of explanation as to how such activity generates the entity of awareness which comprises you and me.
Not true. There are lots of “hints” in the form of reason, evidence, competing hypotheses etc. Doubtless too the picture will become clearer as more discoveries are made that build on that knowledge.
The use of such labels as "agency" does not come close to explaining the existence of conscious awareness.
It’s not intended to. “Agency” merely describes the everyday sense of dualism we all have that there’s a separate “me” somehow working the controls rather than the logic- and evidence-based conclusion that the “me” is in fact a property of an integrated whole.
And the concept of "information flow" is also meaningless as an explanation, because information only exists as an interpretation within the conscious perception of the human mind.
Wrong again. Information flows exist whether or not we conceptualise them. The brains of caveman had information flows too, even though the concept was unknown to them.
Outside our conscious awareness, information does not exist.
Did you mean to say that? How do you suppose, say, someone in a deep coma – ie, profoundly not conscious – is still able to breathe if not for information passing across the relevant synapses etc?
Also…
You can’t have an “also” when everything before it has just collapsed into a heap of wrongness, but ok…
…your favorite term "emergent property" is just another human label which means nothing outside human conscious awareness.
Wrong yet again. All descriptions of observed phenomena are “just” “human labels” because it’s humans who observed, described and named them. “Gravity” for example is one such, but it doesn’t “mean nothing” – ie, cease to operate – if it’s not named or observed. You’re desperately confused about this.
In essence, you fail to appreciate the impossibility of material reactions alone being able to generate a single entity of perception.
In essence, you fail utterly to explain why you think such a thing is impossible. Rather than just repeat it as an unqualified article of faith why not finally at least try to tell us why all the reason and evidence we have already that points that way must be wrong?
No matter how complex the neural network is in terms of physical pathways for the electrons to travel - the end result can be nothing more that another physical reaction. Conscious perception is not physical reaction - it is awareness of physical reactions. Can you not see the impossibility of physical reactions being able to somehow perceive other physical reactions? In the material scenario, all you have is endless chains of reactions which merely produce further reactions, not awareness of reactions.
No, I can’t “see” that because you’ve never once managed to demonstrate that it’s there to be seen. Stop asserting and start reasoning and then perhaps there’ll be something to consider at least. Until then, I’ll stick with where the logic and evidence points rather than with the mindless assertions of a superstitionist.
I have no doubt that your own conscious awareness in combination with your freedom to think will come up with yet further attempts to explain the impossible and proclaim that everything can or will be fully defined by nothing but predetermined physical reactions of material elements.
But it’s not impossible at all – unlike by the way your fundamentally self-contradictory nonsense about a magic little man at the controls for which there’s no evidence whatsoever and that’s neither deterministic nor random in its doings. Essentially all you’ve attempted here (yet again) is one long argument from personal incredulity. You’re telling us that you don’t have either the knowledge, or the wit or the honesty to address the mountain of evidence against you, and you populate that gap in your thinking with various fantastical conjectures that utterly lack any reason, any evidence or any means of investigation.
I’ve explained this to you countless times already: fallacious arguments are always wrong arguments. Just trying them over and over again doesn’t make them less wrong, it just makes you more obtuse. If you genuinely don’t want to be thought of as the village idiot or fruit loop around here, then for your own sake if not for anyone else’s try at least to obtain even a basic grasp of how reason-based argument works so you won’t continually fall into the same rhetorical traps that falsify your efforts every time you try them.
