Fortunately, we have a better answer, which is that all those phenomena that were far too amazing to possibly be the results of physical process, and thus had to be attributed to mysterious creative forces of the universe, are actually the results of physical processes. That eliminates the need for an impossible interface between the physical and the nonphysical.
Yeah right. You have a better answer for just as long as you can keep your collective heads stuck in the dirt.
First of all…define ‘physical’.
Second of all…an ‘impossible interface between the physical and the non-physical’ is exactly what we have. Check out QM. It is generally regarded as the most robust theory in science. It works for everything from fundamental theoretical science to innumerable practical applications. It also just happens to deny that there is a world independent of observation (as well as insisting that non-physical interaction is a fundamental reality)(…gotta wonder how non-physical and reality can somehow occur in the same sentence…but there they are). Quantum theory says ALL properties are a function of observation. Observation by what? …whatever it is that has the ability to ‘observe’. So far we define such a thing using the word ‘consciousness’.
There is, of course, a great deal of controversy and uncertainty about what all this means. Here is what Andrei Linde (theoretical physics, Stanford) had to say about it:
“Will it not turn out, with the further development of science, that the study of the universe and the study of consciousness will be inseparably linked, and that ultimate progress in the one will be impossible without progress in the other?”
…and Frank Wilczek (theorectical physics, MIT, Nobel laureate):
“The relevant literature [on the meaning of quantum theory] is famously contentious and obscure. I believe it will remain so until someone constructs, within the formalism of quantum mechanics, an ‘observer,’ that is, a model entity whose states correspond to a recognizable caricature of conscious awareness.”
(…”holy alternate paradigms Batman…”!!!!)
Thirdly…what you consistently fail to acknowledge are the very factors that govern how these processes (simple or otherwise) occur in the first place. We call them the laws of physics (QM being the most fundamental of these…and they are anything but simple). Whether or not they even exist is anyone’s guess…but something quite obviously ‘governs’ how these processes occur…cause they certainly occur according to some clearly defined patterns (I think it’s safe to say that there would be no Wolfram type 1,2,3 or 4 processes…let alone any capacity to adjudicate such things…were it not for the fact that the universe is somehow intelligible). Call it whatever you want…but don’t pretend it doesn’t exist cause it (or something) quite obviously does.
What your latest diatribe essentially boils down to is yet another grand case of special pleading.
Yea…look within thine formalizations and what have thee? Simple forms …in truth. But gaze further and what dost thou encounter. Truly…the simple forms combine unto themselves and in their righteousness beget that which is complex.
Here endeth the lesson.
Except that the righteousness of ‘simple forms’ is what we call QM. And QM is itself a function of God only knows what (…or as Feynman famously put it…’nobody understands QM!). And in this case…it actually does seem like something actually has to ‘know’ or else ‘what’ doesn’t happen. IOW…’knowing’ precedes ‘whating’.
How crazy is that? …I’d say just about crazy enough to describe whatever it is that all this actually is. But then again…I think more-crazy is probably going to happen, not less.
So, what do we find when we look into the brain? Is there a big crystal pyramid in there, suitable for collecting cosmic energy? Maybe some symbols in the ancient language of creation inscribed on the inside of our skulls, to make some magic work? Or perhaps matter doing something completely beyond our comprehension, as we might expect for something that interacts with a mystic source of consciousness that's also beyond our comprehension?
I am really wondering how long you are going to stubbornly pretend that you do not get it.
We don’t know what we find when we look into the brain (our ability to even 'look' is severely limited). That is the whole point. Sure, there is a great deal that is understood about this stuff…but what you do not seem to ever want to acknowledge are the basic facts of what is NOT understood…which can be usefully summarized as follows:
We start with what it is we are dealing with:
"The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe ... complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend," Scott Huettel, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University
How much do we know about the bio-chemistry of said most-complex-object?
“As a coauthor of a textbook in cell biology that is updated at 5-year intervals, I am painfully aware of the huge gap that remains in our understanding of even the simplest cells,” Bruce Alberts, biochemist, past president of the US national academy of science
…and…
“For many neurons, we don’t understand well the complement of ion channels within them, how they work together to produce electrical activity, how they change over development or injury. At the next level, we have even less knowledge about how these cells connect, or how they’re constantly reaching out, retracting or changing their strength. It’s ignorance all the way down.”
“For sure, what we have is a tiny, tiny fraction of what we need. Worse still, experimentally mapping out every molecule, cell and connection is completely unfeasible in terms of cost, technical requirements and motivation.”
Henry Markram, director of the Blue Brain Project
…and the usual:
"We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain.”
…from you know who.
Basically…your entire position is nothing more than an example of a typical reductionist materialist approach. What we don’t understand either is explained, can be explained, or will be explained using what we already know.
…but, as we can see from what-we-already-know…there are some universe sized wrenches in those gears.
We could conclude that, until we try removing the water and the fish is still there.
Find some consciousness and remove the functioning of the brain; what have you got?
…very simple. No one knows.
The degree to which you assume the facts is nothing short of inspiring! There is no such thing as ‘consciousness’. It has never been identified, quantified, or adjudicated in any way shape or form ever (ironically…the closest we have got is how it is implicated by QM). It is nothing more than a placeholder for something that seems to exist but which we have no explicit understanding of.
So…first of all, nobody has ever ‘found’ any consciousness. Second of all, since nobody has any way of adjudicating this thing, nobody has the capacity to determine what, if anything, remains when a functioning brain is removed.
OTOH…only the most incompetent of imbeciles could fail to identify either a fish or water. Thus, your extrapolation of Larry's fish analogy is as fundamentally flawed as your own car analogy was in the first place.
