New Argument for God

This video explores the meta problem of consciousness proposed by David Chalmers and argues that naturalistic processes couldn’t have given us knowledge of consciousness.

This is my video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WJVvZNi0Fi8

Can naturalistic processes explain how humans came to know that subjective experience exists?

[Laird]

First of all, welcome to the forums, @PonderPoints.

I've watched all four of your videos, and I like the thoughtful, considered approach that you take in them, using thought experiments, analogies, and concrete examples to illustrate philosophical points and arguments. I also share some of your insights, and two in particular are crucial to conclusions I draw in philosophy of mind, but they are different conclusions to the ones you've drawn, although there are also significant similarities.

In any case, I'll focus on the video you've shared in this thread. Rather than deconstructing it at the start, I have some clarifying questions:

1. You say that "subjective experience is in the same position [as ghost dragons] because both of them have no causal effects". Are you saying that subjective experience has no causal effects whatsoever, or just that it has no causal effects on anything natural aka physical?
   
   
2. Is the knowledge that concerns you - that of our own subjective experiences - natural aka physical, or supernatural aka non-physical? I of course don't mean knowledge in the abstract; I mean it in the embedded sense, in the sense of its substrate.
   
   
3. Along similar lines, when you refer to "us" knowing, is the aspect of us that "knows" natural aka physical or supernatural aka non-physical? (I know from one of your other videos that you believe that we are souls that are more than our bodies, so I know that you understand us to have both physical and non-physical aspects.)
   
   
4. More generally, in the context of your assertion that "If something has no causal effects, then there's no naturalistic way to learn about it existing", what are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the sort of knowledge that concerns you in this argument (that of one's own subjective experiences)? For example, does it require anything non-physical? If so, what? Does it have a physical component, e.g., some configuration of neurons in the brain?
   
   
5. You conclude that for us to have knowledge of our subjective experiences, we must have been "supernaturally designed with that knowledge". "Designed with" in this context is ambiguous. It might mean designed to have the general capacity for that knowledge, or it might mean designed to have the specific, applicable knowledge in all specific, applicable circumstances. Maybe there are other possible meanings. Can you clarify as to what you actually mean?
   
   
6. Does God have causal effects?
   
   
7. Is God, ultimately, natural aka physical, or supernatural aka non-physical, or some combination?
   

Incidentally, I think you're right to prefer "subjective experience" to "consciousness", for the very reason you give: "consciousness" means different things in different contexts. I came to a similar conclusion recently.