There's no way, statistically, that consciousness isn't a physical phenomenon

Below is a quote that explains a paradox that might help shed some light on this problem.

"There are no colors. There are wavelengths. However, we experience colors. Colors have no true existence. They can't be found in the lists of the components of matter, not in the elements, not in the particles. While there is color theory in quantum physics, it has nothing to do with actual colors. Thus, if you experience colors, you experience something you believe doesn't exist, if you subscribe to scientific materialism, that is.

There are no smells. There are compounds and elements. However, we experience smells. Smells have no true existence. They can't be found in the list of the standard components of matter. Thus, if you experience smells, you experience something that doesn't exist from a materialist perspective. Sulfur doesn't smell like sulfur. Nor is it yellow for that matter. Those things are created in a mind somewhere, so says the standard scientific model.

There is no pain or pleasure. There are nerves somewhere, nerves that create signals. Those signals do something, but they don't actually represent pain. There don't even actually seem to be pleasure receptors, and yet we experience pleasure and pain. There are no material equivalents of pain and pleasure. If you experience those, you experience something that doesn't exist from a materialist point of view, as it has no material equivalent. Similarly, there are no textures.

There are no sounds. When you hear a sound, that is an illusion. There are oscillating pressure gradients in the air, in bone, in skin, in tissues. These have no actual tone, no sound. There is no material equivalent of sound, just materials oscillating. Thus, if you hear sound, you hear something that is illusory from a materialist point of view.

There are no thoughts. When you think a thought, that is illusion, so says materialism. There are no material equivalents of thoughts, no elements that make up thoughts, no atoms that make up thoughts, no particles that make up thoughts. Thus, if you think you think, that is a problem to a materialist, if they are a strict materialist.

In this way, we find that the sum total of our experience has no material equivalents. This is what science tells us most clearly and explicitly.

All these colors, sounds, textures, smells, etc: they all exist in a brain somewhere, so science tells us. That brain is the real mind, the real matter, the real reality. However, these things we experience in this seemingly 3D world are not that. They are in a brain somewhere that puts a bunch of brain centers together to create this illusory 3D space in which all these non-existent, non-material illusions occur. So says the standard model of the brain.

Here's the kicker: what is the spacial relationship between this 3D illusory, non-material, brain-created world and the actual brain? The head we experience can't be the actual thing, so says materialism. It isn't actually here. It is in a brain somewhere, but where? Are the spaces the same? Are the spaces different? Where do you think that brain is relative to all of this?

You might think it was out there somewhere: like the outside shell of a holodeck. You might try to say that the brain we think is in this head is the actual brain: that is the exact opposite of the standard materialist model.

As this entire sensate, experienced world is created non-material illusions in a brain somewhere else, anything the brain can create from an experiential point of view can occur anywhere in this brain, as it is just non-material stuff. Ironically, materialism leads directly to its profound opposite: that all this that we experience is totally non-material and brain-made. So, anything you can imagine a brain creating, which is pretty wide, particularly if you have dreamed, can occur in this field of non-materiality. Why do you have a problem with that, when materialism tells us this is so?"

-Daniel Ingram, MD

/r/philosophy Thread Parent