[DonQuichotte (OP)]

It is in fact very convenient for materialists to assume that "all is matter ,including the mind ", and hence "the mind is in the brain , or the mind is just brain acivity ", and then, they misinterpret scientific experiments on the subject , in order to make them fit into that  false  materialist unfalsifiable a-priori  held concepion of nature .

And conveniently,  you reject any and all evidence, in order to support your a-priori immaterialist conception of nature.

Once again : i am a dualist ,in the sense that i do believe that this universe is made of 2 totally different substances : matter and mind : how they do interact with each other ? = there is still no faslifiable theory of the mind out there yet ,so .

In short :

Reality is both material physical and mental : we do live in those both dimentions or worlds at the same time : matter is just one single side of the whole pic of reality in that sense thus : the mental is the other side of the same coin : the mental that's non-physical and non-local and hence more fundamental than matter can ever be .
Plus , modern physics have been revolutionizing our conventional classical conception of matter as well ,to the point where we do still do not know what matter itself is exactly = matter itself that's not only made of matter , or that's not made of matter , as some scientist said once = matter itself might turn out to be no matter ,after all , who knows ?

When physicists will be able to tell us what matter exactly is , then, and only then, we can pretend to try to "know " what the mental is , the latter that's more fundamental than matter can ever be ,once again .

Did you at least try to read my relevant posted excerpts on the subject ? Guess not .
You are thus not even serious , let alone scientific ,if you happened not to have tried to read any of those relevant excerpts= you cannot a-piori dismiss non-materialist views on the subject + Do not behave as if modern physics are complete either : they are just in an evolutionary process , not definite or complete  .Will be ever complete ? of course not ,since science is not about definite knowledge , just about conjectural approximate one, not about the truth  .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Folks :

You do behave and think , as if our human scientific knowledge of the moment is true = definite and certain complete ,ironically enough, as to exclude a-priori , per definition ,and per -se any new ideas ,innovations,  insights , discoveries, falsifiable theories , conceptions of nature ...that might turn out to be "singing outside of and beyond the materialist mainstream phony false and temporary 'scientific world view " meta-paradigm"= that's in fact exactly what materialism in science has been doing , paradoxically enough , by imposing its false materialist conception of nature as the true  definite and almost complete  'scientific world view " only the minor details of which do need to be filled in still = no wonder that those materialists physicists lunatics such as Hawking have been trying to come up with a "theory of everything " = a theory of nothing in fact ,while science,per definition, science as an evolutionary ever-changing , ever -evolving process ,  is in fact absolutely not about any complete definite true  "theory of everything "  .
That was exactly what classical physics have thought ,by pretending that there was nothing left to discover , by pretending to explain 'everything " once all the minor details would be filled in , classical physics  on which fundamentally incorrect asssumptions sand-castles the outdated false and superseded 19th century  materialism was built .

Well, for your info :

Science is not about definite or complete knowledge , not about the truth , just about conjectural temporary approximate knowledge ,which also means that you will have to throw a lots of your presumed scientific knowledge out of the window, soon enough (That's a normal process, since science is an evolutionary , ever -changing and ever -evolving process ) ,simply because that presumed scientific knowledge of yours has been just materialist belief assumptions, no empirical facts .

Old poor Popper would be hysterical ,if he would happen to live in this time and age , where the materialist mainstream 'all is matter ,including the mind -scientific world view " has been  taken for granted for so long now, without question , as the true definite and almost complete "theory of everything " haha , by ossifying science and by keeping science imprisonned within the materialist false dogmatic conception of nature-orthodox unquestionable secular religion= by turning science into a secular atheist irrational orthodox dogmatic religion  .

What a shame ...for almost all humanity in fact,that's been equating such a superseded outdated and false ideology such as materialism with no-less than ...science  .

Science does not require materialism, as science does not need to be materialistic : science should be neither materialist nor otherwise : science should be metaphysically neutral in fact : but , since science is just a human activity , science can therefore never be metaphysically neutral, ever : metaphysically neutral science is hence a mythical unrealistic idealist naive utopia .

What a depressingly hopeless predicament .

[dlorde]

...So, that detected brain activity  6 secs before the patients' in question  awareness of their own conscious decision making on the subject , in those experiments you mentioned , that detected brain activity prior to that specific conscious process was / is just the image of that specific conscious process , not its cause ,since any given conscious process would require no time space or energy : a bit like the phenomena of light : just an analogy : that take place instantly : when you turn on the light switch , for example ,the  electric current process seems thus to take place millisecs before the appearance of the light in the room .

In your analogy, the electric current flowing does cause the light to appear, and the delay between switching it on and the light appearing is well understood. Electrical technology relies on our understanding of this causal relationship.

If the phenomena of consciousness require no time, space, or energy, and take place instantly, we should not expect to detect their physical precursors well before the individual is aware of them.

Something like that , i don't know

Both the experimental evidence and your own analogy contradict your unevidenced assertions about consciousness. You don't know why, yet you persist with these assertions.

A strong belief held in the absence of evidence is called faith, and a strong belief held in the face of conflicting evidence is called a delusion.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

...So, that detected brain activity  6 secs before the patients' in question  awareness of their own conscious decision making on the subject , in those experiments you mentioned , that detected brain activity prior to that specific conscious process was / is just the image of that specific conscious process , not its cause ,since any given conscious process would require no time space or energy : a bit like the phenomena of light : just an analogy : that take place instantly : when you turn on the light switch , for example ,the  electric current process seems thus to take place millisecs before the appearance of the light in the room .

In your analogy, the electric current flowing does cause the light to appear, and the delay between switching it on and the light appearing is well understood. Electrical technology relies on our understanding of this causal relationship.

Well, don't be so unimaginative ,simplistic and short sighted as not to have noticed that i said that that was just an analogy .

If the phenomena of consciousness require no time, space, or energy, and take place instantly, we should not expect to detect their physical precursors well before the individual is aware of them.

We don't know what "aware of them " is ,or rather what or how the conscious process takes place ,so to speak then : you are just trying to explain away my speculations on the subject via your own false materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " physical theory of nature .

We don't know nothing of non-physical or mental forms of causation : and they should be totally different from the conventional physical ones, logically .

Don't change the subject : the main issue here is : materialism is false ,and hence the materialist "the mind is in the brain or that the mind is just brain's activity " extension of the materialist conception of nature is also false ,logically .

So, we must try to look for non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness : there are none now , that does not mean there will be none in the future .

Could Newton possibly predict Einstein's relativity theory ,or quantum mechanics ?
Could Einstein himself predict the future evolution of modern physics ?
Can anyone of us , for that matter , possibly predict future scientific developments on the subject of consciousness ?

Those are the main issues here .

Something like that , i don't know

Both the experimental evidence and your own analogy contradict your unevidenced assertions about consciousness. You don't know why, yet you persist with these assertions.

All i know is that materialism is false , and hence not 'all is matter " , and therefore consciousness must be non-local and non-physical .

There must be some flaws in those experiments you mentioned , since they were conducted under the materialist false mainstream dominating 'scientific world view " = the way and the results of those experiments cannot be but biased and a-priori suggestive .

That there are no falsifiable theories of consciousness now , does not mean there will always be none .

A strong belief held in the absence of evidence is called faith, and a strong belief held in the face of conflicting evidence is called a delusion.

Well, that's exactly what you will see reflected in the mirror when you will put your own materialist false conception of nature in front of the mirror ,so to speak :
What extraordinary evidence has been delivered by materialism then, regarding the extraordinary claims of  the materialist conception of nature ? and hence what extraordinary evidence has materialism been delivering regarding its " the mind is in the brain " materialist extraordinary claims ? Those experiments you mentioned ?

Come on, be serious :

Any idiot can design experiments as to make them fit into his /her a-priori held biased suggestive belief assumptions ...pfff...

The mind of the observer does change the observed ,but that does not mean that objective reality is not out there anyway : that's a fact : major proof ? : the materialist false mainstream 'scientific world view " .

Use your imagination, if you've got some ...

[alancalverd]

Any idiot can design experiments as to make them fit into his /her a-priori held biased suggestive belief assumptions ...pfff...

Go on, then, show us the experiment that confirms your beliefs.

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The main issue here , everybody here seems to ignore as such , is as follows ,once again :

Materialism is false , mainly because materialism cannot account for consciousness,and hence all materialist suggestive biased conscious or sub-conscious manipulations of scientific experiments on the subject of consciousness at least , should be rejected , simply because the mind of the observer does change the observed , but that does not mean that the objective reality out there we should be  all  looking for ,is not out there  .

This is really an extremely weird , paradoxical absurd surreal sterile counter-productive ...discussion :

I do tell you why and how materialism is false , also via my tons of multiple displayed posted material here , what do you do ?

Instead of facing the music , you just keep on trying to prove to me that materialism is ..."true" : bizarre ,while science is certainly not about the truth .

I say that convict criminal haha materialism is false or guilty ,beyond a shadow of a doubt , you respond : prove the innocence of your non-materialist conception of nature haha.

No theory of nature in fact in science , including materialism thus , can be true,no matter how many amounts of unsuccessfull falsifications of any of those theories might take place ,now or in the future ,  simply because it would have to take only one successfull falsification of any of those theories ,to make them false , as materialism is , thanks to consciousness .

The materialist mainstream 'scientific world view " and all its extensions cannot be thus true , just temporary , simply because science is not about the truth .

Materialism has been proven to be false in fact , mainly thanks to consciousness , the more when we would realise the fact that 19th century outdated superseded and false materialism was built on the fundamentally incorrect sand-castles of Newton's classical physics .

[RD]

The biggest error ever made in the name of science :

Is that YouTube [currently with a measly 519 views] by the same Bernardo Kastrup whose ignorance was exposed on the jref forum ? ... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8552406#post8552406

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Any idiot can design experiments as to make them fit into his /her a-priori held biased suggestive belief assumptions ...pfff...

Go on, then, show us the experiment that confirms your beliefs.

Well, anyone can consciously or sub-consciously find what he /she would expect to find sometimes ...............via suggestive biased ways ..........by taking illusions or appearances for reality .
Materialists have even been confusing the image of consciousness with the cause of consciousness also, to say just that : how deluded can they ever be indeed .
Not to mention the fact that the mind of the observer does change the observed , via the observer's a -priori held dogmatic belief assumptions : does not mean that objective reality is not out there .
Once again :
There are no non-materialist falsifiable theories of consciousness right now , that does not mean there will be none tomorrow .

The main issue here is ,once again :

Materialism is false , mainly because it cannot account for consciousness , and hence the mind is not in the brain, the mind is not brain's activity ....

Anyone thus who would try to prove materialism to be "true ", and hence that the mind is in the brain, memory is stored in the brain , life is mechanical .... is a paradoxical absurd surreal ... fool that needs some therapy of some sort,simply because science is not about the ...truth , just about conjectural approximate temporary knowledge thus .

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

The biggest error ever made in the name of science :

Is that YouTube [currently with a measly 519 views] by the same Bernardo Kastrup whose ignorance was exposed on the jref forum ? ... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=8552406#post8552406

Yeah ,right : everyone's ignorance was exposed ,except that of materialists who do confuse the image of the process of consciousness with the cause of consciousness , by delivering no extraordinary evidence for their extraordinary " all is matter ,including the mind " absurd claims .

Thanks by the way for raising that confirmation bias in that link of yours = goes perfectly for materialists , as shown by those experiments which were mentioned by our dlorde here ....

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

RD : Thanks indeed :

Confirmation bias : those were the terms i was looking for : none is more guilty of that than ...materialists , ironically enough .

[RD]

Thanks by the way for raising that confirmation bias in that link of yours ...

But unfortunately you lack the insight to recognise yourself in the bit about
"... rhetorical spin ... arm waving and emotional characterizations ...".

[dlorde]

Well, don't be so unimaginative ,simplistic and short sighted as not to have noticed that i said that that was just an analogy .

Analogous with the experimental results, but contradictory to your acausal 'explanation'  []

We don't know what "aware of them " is ,or rather what or how the conscious process takes place ,so to speak then : you are just trying to explain away my speculations on the subject via your own false materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " physical theory of nature .

We have to take their word for when they became consciously aware of making a choice - unless you think they can be consciously aware of it before before they are consciously aware of it []

We don't know nothing of non-physical or mental forms of causation : and they should be totally different from the conventional physical ones, logically .

Using your own analogy, that's like saying the appearance of light might be causing the light switch to go on. The events in the brain progress in a causal manner until the posteromedial cortices and frontal lobes are involved, and this coincides with the subject's declaration of when they made the choice. The sequence is not significantly different from other causal neural progressions from stimulus to response.

To suggest that the sequence with a conscious end-point has a different causality than other similar sequences is special pleading of the most egregious kind.

All i know is that materialism is false , and hence not 'all is matter " , and therefore consciousness must be non-local and non-physical .

You don't know it, you only believe it. Knowledge is falsifiably justified belief, and you have no falsifiable justification.

There must be some flaws in those experiments you mentioned , since they were conducted under the materialist false mainstream dominating 'scientific world view " = the way and the results of those experiments cannot be but biased and a-priori suggestive .

By all means point out such flaws; otherwise you can see how damaging it is to your case to claim the experiments were flawed because the results don't agree with your beliefs.

If you opened your stance to 'materialism may be false', you wouldn't have to resort to dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your world view.

What extraordinary evidence has been delivered by materialism then, regarding the extraordinary claims of  the materialist conception of nature ? and hence what extraordinary evidence has materialism been delivering regarding its " the mind is in the brain " materialist extraordinary claims ? Those experiments you mentioned ?

It's interesting evidence that is entirely consistent with a material explanation, and quite inconsistent with a non-material explanation. It's been replicated in various ways, and remains consistent; you're welcome to call it extraordinary if you wish - it's your belief it contradicts.

Any idiot can design experiments as to make them fit into his /her a-priori held biased suggestive belief assumptions ...pfff...

True; so are you calling the researchers who designed these various experiments idiots? If so, how are the experiments flawed?

In summary - the results conflict with your belief therefore they must be flawed experiments designed by idiots...

Once again; 'nuff said []

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Thanks by the way for raising that confirmation bias in that link of yours ...

But unfortunately you lack the insight to recognise yourself in the bit about
"... rhetorical spin ... arm waving and emotional characterizations ...".

Yeah, right : i lack many things , i have many flaws ...but that does not make the fact go away that materialism is false , and hence the mind is not in the brain , or the mind is not brain's activity ...........

[DonQuichotte (OP)]

Well, don't be so unimaginative ,simplistic and short sighted as not to have noticed that i said that that was just an analogy .

Analogous with the experimental results, but contradictory to your acausal 'explanation'  []

We don't know what "aware of them " is ,or rather what or how the conscious process takes place ,so to speak then : you are just trying to explain away my speculations on the subject via your own false materialist "all is matter ,including the mind " physical theory of nature .

We have to take their word for when they became consciously aware of making a choice - unless you think they can be consciously aware of it before before they are consciously aware of it []

We don't know nothing of non-physical or mental forms of causation : and they should be totally different from the conventional physical ones, logically .

Using your own analogy, that's like saying the appearance of light might be causing the light switch to go on. The events in the brain progress in a causal manner until the posteromedial cortices and frontal lobes are involved, and this coincides with the subject's declaration of when they made the choice. The sequence is not significantly different from other causal neural progressions from stimulus to response.

To suggest that the sequence with a conscious end-point has a different causality than other similar sequences is special pleading of the most egregious kind.

All i know is that materialism is false , and hence not 'all is matter " , and therefore consciousness must be non-local and non-physical .

You don't know it, you only believe it. Knowledge is falsifiably justified belief, and you have no falsifiable justification.

There must be some flaws in those experiments you mentioned , since they were conducted under the materialist false mainstream dominating 'scientific world view " = the way and the results of those experiments cannot be but biased and a-priori suggestive .

By all means point out such flaws; otherwise you can see how damaging it is to your case to claim the experiments were flawed because the results don't agree with your beliefs.

If you opened your stance to 'materialism may be false', you wouldn't have to resort to dismissing evidence that doesn't fit your world view.

What extraordinary evidence has been delivered by materialism then, regarding the extraordinary claims of  the materialist conception of nature ? and hence what extraordinary evidence has materialism been delivering regarding its " the mind is in the brain " materialist extraordinary claims ? Those experiments you mentioned ?

It's interesting evidence that is entirely consistent with a material explanation, and quite inconsistent with a non-material explanation. It's been replicated in various ways, and remains consistent; you're welcome to call it extraordinary if you wish - it's your belief it contradicts.

Any idiot can design experiments as to make them fit into his /her a-priori held biased suggestive belief assumptions ...pfff...

True; so are you calling the researchers who designed these various experiments idiots? If so, how are the experiments flawed?

In summary - the results conflict with your belief therefore they must be flawed experiments designed by idiots...

Once again; 'nuff said []

Time up , sorry ,later , alligator : you don't read me well :  worse :  you do choose deliberately, i guess, to ignore my key statements ,without which my words are misunderstood or misquoted out of context beyond any recognition, over and over again, just to suit your a-priori held belief assumptions and purpose :
The above can be summarized just as follows :
Confirmation bias ...= goes also perfectly for materialists ,and for those experiments you mentioned mainly ...
Way to go, scientist .
Objectivity in science is a myth , Mr.
Congratulations indeed .

[dlorde]

Not to mention the fact that the mind of the observer does change the observed , via the observer's a -priori held dogmatic belief assumptions

How does that work? (or if you can't explain it, provide some reference).

Anyone thus who would try to prove materialism to be "true "

No one is trying to "prove materialism to be 'true'"; as you ought to know, it's not a provable proposition.

What scientists try to do is provide useful explanatory models for what is observed.

[dlorde]

The above can be summarized just as follows :
Confirmation bias ...= goes also perfectly for materialists ,and for those experiments you mentioned mainly ...
Way to go, scientist .
Objectivity in science is a myth , Mr.

Confirmation bias is certainly a potential risk where results are borderline - which is why the scientific method has been constantly enhanced to try and eliminate it. These experiments were peer-reviewed and replicated by many different researches around the world, all aware of the dangers of confirmation bias and other errors (as indicated in the links I posted, the experimental designs have been tightened since the original work, and more recent technology, e.g. fMRI, has put it beyond all reasonable doubt). The results are not borderline or ambiguous, they are clear, consistent, and unambiguous.

To claim confirmation bias, you'll need to demonstrate where it could occur in all these unequivocal results. As it is, it looks like you're still clutching at straws to dismiss results that contradict your beliefs. That is the hallmark of crackpottery or delusion.

I think it was Will Rogers who said, 'When you find yourself in a hole, quit digging'.

[dlorde]

Yeah, right : i lack many things , i have many flaws ...

[]

that does not make the fact go away that materialism is false , and hence the mind is not in the brain , or the mind is not brain's activity

You wish. The evidence continues to accumulate consistent with a material explanation, and none whatsoever consistent with a non-material explanation. Can you even describe what evidence consistent with a non-material explanation would look like?

[alancalverd]

the fundamentally incorrect sand-castles of Newton's classical physics

Would that be the classical physics that allows us to fly to the moon? How incorrect can that be? 

[cheryl j]

Well, don't be so unimaginative ,simplistic and short sighted as not to have noticed that i said that that was just an analogy .

Analogous to what process? What mechanism?
I don't think you understand what an analogy is. An analogy is a comparison between two things that actually exist and are understood. Analogies are illustrative and are a quick and easy way of explaining a concept, but you should be able to explain the process with or without the analogy. I sometimes use the analogy of an army fighting foreign invaders when I teach immunology. But I can explain the immune system, and the function of white blood cells, antibodies, antigens, even without the analogy. You don't seem to be able to explain anything about the referent of your light bulb analogy at all.

[cheryl j]

Did you at least try to read my relevant posted excerpts on the subject ? Guess not .

I have read the excerpts you posted. I was waiting for you to show what aspects of consciousness  quantum mechanics explains, but so far you haven’t, other than to suggest that they are somehow linked.

It appears you are  trying  to insert the immaterial and possibly God into physical reality and consciousness using quantum mechanics as a bridge. 
Regardless of what questions quantum mechanics might raise about deterministic mechanisms, it doesn’t explain anything specific about consciousness, or offer any possible answer to the questions you have repeatedly ignored or treated dismissively in the last 48 pages, including dlorde's most recent one concerning brain activity occurring before conscious awareness.  The only way your interpretation or refutation of that experiment makes any sense is if you are implying that consciousness exerts a backwards causal effect or, as dlorde suggested, you conclude that immaterial consciousness acts before you are conscious of it , which suggests “two consciousnesses” – one that acts before one is aware of it, and without ones consent. You are not able to explain the flaw in the design of the experiment other than to claim it must be flawed because of who designed it.

The other questions your theory can’t explain, and actually contradicts, even with quantum mechanics appended to it, include the following:

If consciousness is immaterial, why is conscious experience not invulnerable to brain damage, disease, genetic defects, mind altering drugs or intoxicants,  aging, etc. If the brain is just the instrument that receives sensory information from the world and executes action, why would damage or altering brain structures or biochemistry change the subjective experience of consciousness? Your answer has been that like a broken radio, the brain is not receiving consciousness properly, but I’ve pointed out several reasons why this explanation doesn’t work with the following examples:

There are two kinds of impairment that result in patients not being able to see objects in half of their visual field. One is caused by a lesion in the optic nerve. The other is caused by a lesion in a part of the brain called the visual associative cortex, that materialists say processes visual information and produces the visual experience. Although both patients cannot see objects in part of their optical field, the patient with optic nerve damage is conscious of it - he will complain "Hey, doc, I can't see anything on my left side! What's up with that?"

The patient with a lesion in the visual associative cortex does not ask this question. He doesn't know he cannot see an object in that part of the visual field, and he doesn't experience a blind spot there. The patient's brain no longer has an area responsible for processing what is going on in that area of the visual field - it ceases to exist consciously. The patient does not complain, because the part of the brain that might notice or complain is incapacitated, and no other part takes over.

So what? you say. In your interpretation, in either case, it's "like" a broken TV set. The real "you" or the non- local consciousness is out there in outer space somewhere, unaffected. But the implications of this are  absurd –is the real immaterial consciousness aware of the lesion in the associative visual cortex?  Is it disrupting the non-local immaterial consciousness in any way? Is the immaterial consciousness  frustrated or annoyed by the lack of information in his visual field? It's odd that the immaterial, unaffected consciousness can't communicate any of this back to the receiver in anyway. From the  point of view of your brain or body, and your own conscious experience,  the non local immaterial consciousness might as well not even exist because it isn’t accessible without specific kinds of brain activity.

 Here are more examples that can be explained by neuroscience but not by non-local immaterial consciousness:

 A lesion in the lateral frontal lobes produces deficits in sequencing. The patient is unable to plan or multitask. Orbital frontal lesions result in a loss of the ability to judge right and wrong. A lesion in the left temporal lobe or Wernickes area destroys a person's ability to comprehend written or spoken language, although he can still, himself, speak normally. When these types of brain damage occur, can the immaterial non-local form of your consciousness still perform these tasks? Again, it must be quite frustrating for the non-local consciousness when his robot like receiver on Earth can't! He's up there multitasking and sequencing properly, making moral judgements, but that silly body on Earth isn't doing what he wants!

If memories are not stored in the brain, why are they unavailable to subjective conscious experience when the brain is damaged?  If  memories are part of the immaterial consciousness, why should memories fade at all?
Some specific examples:
Memories have been localized to even individual neurons in the brain, although researchers did not expect it. Researchers have also been able to erase or create memories in laboratory animals.

One lady in a medical study who suffered a stroke  could not identify or remember the names of fruit. Her intelligence, vocabulary and memory seemed normal in every other respect, and she could identify other common house hold objects - a spoon, a hammer, a chair, a toaster, a tooth brush. But bananas, apples, oranges, or any other kind of fruit were all gone from her memory.

Another woman had brain surgery for an aneurysm. She said she felt normal, the only thing she noticed afterwards was that she could no longer tell time from a dial face clock. She could from a digital clock, but not the kind with the numbers in a circle and big and small hands, that she had understood since she was five years old.
 
What are hallucinations? How are they explained in terms of an immaterial consciousness?
I can explain hallucinations if the qualia of consciousness is generated by the brain itself - for example, the hallucinations that result from temporal lobe seizures.  But how would the immaterial consciousness create a hallucination and at the same time mistake it for reality? Again, you can't blame it on the brain as a faulty receiver, because according to you, conscious experience isn't generated or experienced in the brain. If Obama is not inside the TV, then neither is your hallucination of Obama in the TV.

 The only way one can tell qualia of sensation from hallucinations is by applying rational thought processes if one is able. Say for example, I hallucinate there are five or six baboons running about my living room. I see them. I hear them. Perhaps I even feel one of them brush against my leg and I jump out of the way. But reason tells me, “I live in Canada. It is highly unlikely baboons have gotten into my house. Perhaps it was those wild mushrooms I ate.”  I may doubt whether the qualia are “real” or are qualia from hallucinations, but if the hallucination is generated by my brain chemistry, it won’t go away simply because I have done that - I won’t stop seeing the baboons. If the hallucination is generated by my immaterial consciousness, it should vanish instantly as soon as I negate its reality (thanks to my ample supply of free will.)

If you do attribute hallucinations to the malfunctioning brain instrument, why is the immaterial consciousness unable to distinguish between the false qualia the brain produces, and the real qualia that it produces? Do both brain generated-qualia and consciousness-generated qualia have an identical “raw feel?” Why would the brain be capable of generating qualia, only when it’s malfunctioning, but be unable to, when it’s not. Or to use your tv anaology, how can a broken TV set create a tv program that doesn’t exist, but be unable to create one (only broadcast) when its working properly? It shouldn’t be able to at all, according to your theory, because TV sets don’t create programs, and brains do not generate qualia or conscious experience.

Some other questions to consider:

Why is consciousness developmental, and correlate with biological brain development if it does not require it?

Why does increasing mental ability or intelligence correlate with increasing brain complexity in nature if it doesn’t require it?

Carter says the “dependence of consciousness on the brain for the manner of its manifestation in the material world does not imply that consciousness depends upon the brain for its existence.” Regardless, if I can only experience my own consciousness through its “manifestation” by the brain, I am dependent on my brains existence and its operation for my subjective experience of consciousness either way. Without the brain, I would have no access to the non-local immaterial consciousness, even if it existed.

Popper and others say that new theories replace old theories when a new theory has better explanatory power. You are asking people to replace neuroscience, which explains many aspects of consciousness, but not yet everything, with a new theory that explains no aspects of consciousness. You claim that it will or might, in the future – which is precisely the claim you reject and you use to “falsify” neuroscience and materialism.