I'm not saying it's impossible to inquiry. Nothing should be ruled out. Perhaps we'll find the "consciousness particle" tomorrow.

Please stop putting yourself in that frame of mind. A consciousness particle, as I've said many times, is more in line of vitalism or dualism. It is my understanding that the current idea is that we are dealing with a very complex emergent behavior.

But it is outside the scope of current science. It remains in the realm of metaphysics. I think any honest and well-informed scientist would admit to that.

I very much don't think so. Some areas of how it works are of course firmly in the philosophy side but not the dualism part. I think we are way past beyond that.

The burden of proof is not on me. It's on you. You're the one making the extraordinary claim that we have some understanding of consciousness. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

As I said several times, I think it is no longer on me since we can see how changing the brain changes the consciousness. I have offered several lines of inquiry that support the idea that consciousness is what the brain does whereas you keep asking for more evidence. The problem seem to be that you want me to present the whole picture or nothing at all.

It was never my intention to present the idea that we know exactly what consciousness is or how it works. Just that it is what the brain does. Like if we didn't know how fire worked but that that is the source of the light and the heat of a candle.

You have offered no proof. You have offered a great deal of jargon and attacks.

As I said, I offered attacks only when you were deviating from the subject or inserting a random proposition without saying how they support your argument. Plus I very much don't think I just rehashed jargon, a few times at most, honestly, and usually explaining my understanding.

I think we are beyond talking about this issue at this point for our differences, aside from the idea you seem to have that I'm claiming something stronger than I actually am, seem to be of a judgment call. I think we have enough evidence to rule out a soul whilst you do not. We keep rehashing the same lines again. That's an impassé.

And yes that's what I'm arguing all along: that consciousness is what the brain produces, and if there's no brain there's no consciousness, either before of after life. Nothing at all about how much of it we understand.