If qualia is real, why does it have to be paranormal

It's not proof of production but it certainly suggests my hypothesis as one real possibility.

If for example, there is some entity called a soul, that isn't material, how does it interact with the brain?   Your probable hypothesis must come with much uncertainty as well, no?   Do you in fact subscribe to some kind of a soul? If no, what do you feel is happening?

If my hypothesis is true, I'm stuck with a key issue. I don't know how to measure consciousness. If there is something special about neurons, if it's related to them being organic is someway, how cpuld I test whether something organic eas equally conscious?

Long ago there were very smart skeptics here. They eventually gave up and left. You also will give up. Because these folks need to believe the brain cannot produce consciousness; they fail to acknowledge it could be otherwise and if they do, it's merely grudging lip service.

Long ago there were very smart skeptics here. They eventually gave up and left. You also will give up. Because these folks need to believe the brain cannot produce consciousness; they fail to acknowledge it could be otherwise and if they do, it's merely grudging lip service.

So smart that they believed that two heart surgeons (Lloyd Rudy and his assistant) had accidentally fed their patient all the details of his remarkable observations of the operating room while he was dead, and then swallowed it whole. Yeah, that was real smart, Steve, do you want to hear some more ? 

Long ago there were very smart skeptics here. They eventually gave up and left. You also will give up. Because these folks need to believe the brain cannot produce consciousness; they fail to acknowledge it could be otherwise and if they do, it's merely grudging lip service.

...I thought you were going to point to a thread where you successfully defended your position?

The skeptics left for varied reasons, AFACITell a lot of it had to do with discussions around COVID actually.

But I think in general the skeptics have given up because the materialist-atheist religion is a public failure and also is failing to maintain its hold on academia.

edit: Are you saying you aren't one of the "very smart skeptics"?

"They gave up and left" (A modern fairy tale by Steve 001)

Once upon a time, they gave up and left because we refused to accept that consciousness somehow emerges from a lump of matter, in a pointless universe that nobody caused or designed for any other reason than to one day simply disappear up it's own rear end, despite mountains of assorted evidence to the contrary, that anyone with the IQ of a turnip could recognise (for what it was) if they were simply honest. 

Yes, Steve, what a foolish bunch we are, I must say but you and yours, however are exceedingly smart !

Long ago there were very smart skeptics here. They eventually gave up and left. You also will give up. Because these folks need to believe the brain cannot produce consciousness; they fail to acknowledge it could be otherwise and if they do, it's merely grudging lip service.

You certainly provoke my ego. Am I smart? I love to think so, yet my arguments, amount to questions at the basic levels before we get to much data.

Pet peeve about this forum. Your emojies are massively limited. 
No Cheshire cat, no evil grin, no yin yang symbol. Beware of this one.  , , odgy:, , . Never mind, I will live with these.  but I still wanT a yin yang symbol. What kind of psychic foregoes the most sacred symbol of all?

Despite my addiction to my own rightness, should convincing them truly be my goal? Ultimately have I convinced myself? . ?

"They gave up and left" (A modern fairy tale by Steve 001)

Once upon a time, they gave up and left because we refused to accept that consciousness somehow emerges from a lump of matter, in a pointless universe that nobody caused or designed for any other reason than to one day simply disappear up it's own rear end, despite mountains of assorted evidence to the contrary, that anyone with the IQ of a turnip could recognise (for what it was) if they were simply honest. 

Yes, Steve, what a foolish bunch we are, I must say but you and yours, however are exceedingly smart !

What does pointless mean? Why do you feel things need a "point"?   If you enjoy nice sunset*, did that
 require a point? Did the sun care you enjoyed it? Didn't that point in time have value? I'll grant, your enjoyment, acvording to the laws of evolution is a side effect of chemical ends but does tgat mstter?

How do you magically know what the rules of conscious are or are not. We certainly can agree than a brain has a more intricate configuration than say a rock. We know for example, that the eye transmits images to the brain that the brain performs some pattern recognition on those images. In fact, any amateur programmer now has access to a far simpler simplification based on this model.

Lastly equating IQ with intelligence is very dicey.  Thst's another thread.

But, being intelligent and being right are also not guaranteed to be the same.  Much intelligence can creatively bolster an incorrect position. Speculative fiction depends on that.

*I was in Cape Breton and apparently, a gull was enjoying one. The birds sort of fly about as the sun comes up. This gull just sat on the beach.

But I think in general the skeptics have given up because the materialist-atheist religion is a public failure and also is failing to maintain its hold on academia.

How does one see materialism or atheism as one single belief? Imagine theists pretending to agree with one another.

Lots of academics believe in something. Francis Collins is a random name. I have been to churches full of scientists and engineers.

So smart that they believed that two heart surgeons (Lloyd Rudy and his assistant) had accidentally fed their patient all the details of his remarkable observations of the operating room while he was dead

That's another topic, NDEs. Still, if this were consistently reproducible, patients
supplying data they can't possibly know it is indeed impressive.   A skeptic is 100% going to doubt
the integrity of a single researcher.   There is a noble prize winner who feels AIDS is a lie.

My favorite? Dr. Jason Lysle. A genuine phd in astronomy from a perfectly respectable university, who
believes tye universe in 6000 years old, has regugitated a  bizarre form of relativity to prove his point.
Oroginal theory is from another creationist who totally is a genius with tons of legitamate patents.   

My favorite argument from  Lysle, a man far smarter than I, is my disbelieve in God fails by contradiction because he feels logic itself fails yo exist without God. Very smart ppl can create huge fallacies

How does one see materialism or atheism as one single belief? Imagine theists pretending to agree with one another.

Lots of academics believe in something. Francis Collins is a random name. I have been to churches full of scientists and engineers.

Because they aren't necessarily separate beliefs I put them both in with a hyphen.

How do you magically know what the rules of conscious are or are not.

It's less the rules of consciousness than simply the logical reality that if one starts with matter which has no consciousness one shouldn't expect consciousness to appear.

This is noted by Neuroscience PhD and Atheist "New Horseman" Sam Harris:

It seems to me that just as “something” and “nothing,” however juxtaposed, can do no explanatory work, an analysis of purely physical processes will never yield a picture of consciousness. However, this is not to say that some other thesis about consciousness must be true. Consciousness may very well be the lawful product of unconscious information processing. But I don’t know what that sentence means—and I don’t think anyone else does either.

Also I don't think a computer doing pattern recognition is like me seeing. Why would you think they are the same?