Physicalism Redux

So after all these years of discussion, there's no compelling argument for how Physicalism could possibly be true? No argument for how one can morally justify evangelizing the Physicalist faith?

Even after I temporarily suspended by belief that Physicalism is completely incoherent?

I mean we can explain how a computer works down to the level of deep physics, surely by now someone must have a solution to the Hard Problem I'll find satisfactory?

So after all these years of discussion, there's no compelling argument for how Physicalism could possibly be true? No argument for how one can morally justify evangelizing the Physicalist faith?

Even after I temporarily suspended by belief that Physicalism is completely incoherent?

I mean we can explain how a computer works down to the level of deep physics, surely by now someone must have a solution to the Hard Problem I'll find satisfactory?

From what I've read from skeptics, the Hard Problem is usually dismissed as irrelevant and 'ignored by scientists' because it's philosophical, even though I'm fairly certain I've read of scientists who take it seriously or at least mention it in their work. I don't see how it's purely philosophical personally. 

Then there are those who are convinced, and have been for years, that consciousness has been definitively proven to be produced by the brain for a long time, and anybody who thinks otherwise is just ignorant of the 'hard evidence' such as: brain damage, chemical alterations, electromagnetic stimulation, genetics (apparently changing genetic codes can change your experience of colour or something) etc etc...

From what I've read from skeptics, the Hard Problem is usually dismissed as irrelevant and 'ignored by scientists' because it's philosophical, even though I'm fairly certain I've read of scientists who take it seriously or at least mention it in their work. I don't see how it's purely philosophical personally. 

Then there are those who are convinced, and have been for years, that consciousness has been definitively proven to be produced by the brain for a long time, and anybody who thinks otherwise is just ignorant of the 'hard evidence' such as: brain damage, chemical alterations, electromagnetic stimulation, genetics (apparently changing genetic codes can change your experience of colour or something) etc etc...

But what's the explanation that I'd find satisfactory/compelling?

But what's the explanation that I'd find satisfactory/compelling?

Parallel processing in the brain apparently, or the common 'feedback loops of knowledge and information'. Those are two I've come across before somewhat frequently.  

A lot of explanations I've come across read as rather convoluted, but accept they are theories. Several are based on interpretations of evidence we already have and have had for quite some time. 

On the other hand, I have seen militant materialists say they know for certainty that consciousness is brain-based but then accept we don't fully understand it, while others (in the same location of the discussion) say anybody asserting absolutes about consciousness and claiming that it's fully explained should be treated with skepticism???

Parallel processing in the brain apparently, or the common 'feedback loops of knowledge and information'. Those are two I've come across before somewhat frequently.  

A lot of explanations I've come across come across as rather convoluted, but accept they are theories. On the other hand, I have seen militant materialists say they know for certainty, while others (in the same location of the discussion) say anybody asserting absolutes about consciousness and claiming its fully explained should be treated with skepticism???

But where is the "how" that explains the switch ->

1. No consciousness in matter.

2. Consciousness in matter.

Parallel processing and feedback loops just don't seem to be real "how" explanations to me?

It seems incoherent but I am willing to accept the possibility, just need a "how" explanation.

But where is the "how" that explains the switch ->

1. No consciousness in matter.

2. Consciousness in matter.

Parallel processing and feedback loops just don't seem to be real "how" explanations to me?

It seems incoherent but I am willing to accept the possibility, just need a "how" explanation.

That's why I don't understand why 'immaterialists' (sounds better than non-materialists imo) get told to 'shut up' about it. Many just simply don't find 'it just is' a satisfactory explanation for something like consciousness/the self and where it comes from. But then if you don't like any of the dozens, if not hundreds, of theories and arguments for what consciousness is that are presented to you, then you are likely to be told that you simply 'don't understand them'. God forbid you call any of them biased for arriving to their conclusions with some assumptions.

I may have posted this before, but this video is a response someone made to one of those 'Closer To Truth' videos claiming the arguments from some of them are 'pushing woo'. I watched the full video and I wasn't that impressed (it's philosophical rather than discussing evidence). The funny part is the YouTuber in question evidently doesn't watch most of their content otherwise he'd know they have interviewed materialists/physicalists several times, as well as folks like Sam Parnia. CTT isn't trying to promote 'woo' and this YouTuber doesn't even really explain how they are encouraging 'woo'. Then again, the term 'woo' just seems to be a vague label for anything that isn't materialist/physicalist in nature these days, so I'm not surprised. Anyways, here's the video:

He spends a chunk of the video just playing a clip from Daniel Dennett on the 'proper approach' to theories of consciousness or something. He reads off the slides on his video so one can just read the text instead of watching his whole commentary if necessary (he plays clips from the episode many times). He doesn't provide an argument for materialism per say, but rather but criticises a position some 'immaterialists' take which he describes as this in his closing remark:

You're one of those folks who thinks if no explanation of how experience comes from brain activity allows you to see the the neurons firing in any given experience , then it isn't explained. This is silly.

The video looks like a waste of time.

The question for Physicalism is simple, "How do you get Something from Nothing?".  We can make things more specific, like how does a neuron be about Paris if nothing physical has an intrinsic [ability for] representation, but the basic question is always the same.

The "answers", if they can be called that, end up going deep into obfuscation.

Let me state this another way, in the hopes someone can provide an adequate answer after all these years.

1. There's no consciousness in the Universe. Just physical stuff that is quantifiable.

2. This physical stuff is arranged into a particular structure and consciousness, the qualitative first person PoV, suddenly exists.

What goes between steps 1 & 2?

So after all these years of discussion, there's no compelling argument for how Physicalism could possibly be true? No argument for how one can morally justify evangelizing the Physicalist faith?

Even after I temporarily suspended by belief that Physicalism is completely incoherent?

I mean we can explain how a computer works down to the level of deep physics, surely by now someone must have a solution to the Hard Problem I'll find satisfactory?

Why by now? Perhaps it's harder than 2020.

~~ Paul