>>13666801You don't get it. You've already made a metaphysical assumption about the nature of reality itself before then explaining how things work. This is a trap. Science is about how things work, the physicalist position has nothing to do with the field of science, it's sheer philosophy.
Maybe you could have a dream where you can manipulate the world around you to produce result A or B, but the material in that dream is not actually made from something called matter that is solid and existent in some outside domain. That is just what it seems like from the point of view of the character viewing the dream from inside of it.
That is not our experience of reality. Our experience of reality is that the substance of all things is mental precisely as it is in a dream... Now a layman will take this and their ego self will think this means they should be able to control reality, or that they should be able to read people's minds, or that particles shouldn't exist because they can't see them etc. etc. This is untrue and would be like a leaf on a tree thinking it ought to be able to control the tree's branches or something.
Materialism is on the way out, because it is entirely impossible (and blatantly so) to reduce immaterial experiences to objects found out there in the world... You speak of computation as though your computer is currently having some crazy immaterial existence. How could you know? And it wouldn't matter if it was, because you still cannot find that experience as an object. It's glaringly clear.
When you find the precise "switch" in the brain that renders a person unconscious, you will mistakenly believe the problem is solved, because again it is self-centric thinking like believing the implications of such a worldview means you ought to be able to will a million dollars into your bedside drawer... No brain loses consciousness, consciousness loses brains, and consciousness isn't even a thing by itself it's just void.
