Dearie me
I will reply to several posts at once ....
Skeptical materialist's common misuse of 'Argument from Ignorance' and 'God of the Gaps' ... which are fallacies when these violate the proper use of Occams Razor.
The proper use of Occams Razor chooses between
working hypotheses where both explanations work and fit but one is needlessly complex .... e.g. Special relativity versus Lorentz Ether both theories work, both have the same explaining power however the latter has unnecessary extra entity.
Fallacy 1
In the case of consciousness, there is no materialistic explanation of how it evolves, how it works or why it exists. .... as a result materialists tend to claim 'consciousness' is an illusion or an increasing complexity of processing or material system will cause 'consciousness' to somehow emerge and be understood.
The rule of parsimony does not choose between hypotheses that do currently not work. Claiming materialism is a more parsimonious explanation is merely what Karl Popper called 'Promissary Materialism' ... the belief a materialistic explanation of consciousness will be found without current evidence.
Fallacy 2
I have been accused in this topic above of saying materialism (mind creates matter) is definitely false .. I do not speak in such certainties .... I leave that to 'skeptics' who lack doubt!
I am not saying materialism, interactive dualism, idealism or panpsychism are true or false .....all are contenders, all lack sufficient evidence.... but yes I am defending the alternatives.
*If* materialists are claiming alternatives (panpsychism, interactive dualism, idealism) are false ... without evidence of how any local material process can create consciousness ... they become victims of their own political catchphrases like 'argument from ignorance' !
Is local matter fundamental?
Materialism (mind emerges from local material processes alone) may be true, although there is no proper evidence currently it is true ...what is clearer is that non-locality cannot be shoehorned into being an extension of local material realism ... that (currently) doesn't work and Bell's Theorem suggests any such theory will never work unless ....
Unless one adopts the Many World Hypothesis, to escape the alternatives which already violate material realism (e.g. Copenhagen Interpretation) or imply causality is set forwards and back in time (Transactional Interpretation) - hardly compatible with classical causality or material realism.
As a result the materialist is forced to either 'shut up and calculate' (ignore the philosophical consequences) or consider the Many Worlds Theory to take the luck of how life came to exist.... the alternatives such as interactive dualism, idealism etc. are not forced the Many Worlds Interpretation....these speculate in different areas.
Freedom to speculate on the causal gaps between correlations
While those following materialism (local matter creates mind) are often happy to speculate on unproven many world theories, string theories/extra dimensions .... the alternative philosophies are just as free to do similar.
Idealists are free to speculate after brain death consciousness is more fundamental than matter, consciousness surviving death although earthly personality may not survive death
Interactive Dualists are free to speculate for example on 4 extra dimensions of 'mental space' that is filtered by our normal 4 dimensional Einsteinian space until the interlocking interface called the brain dies, yet, mental space survives.
This matches the Near Death Experience
The brain influencing mental states to some degree does not falsify interactive dualism
Interactive dualism, doesn't just mean 'the brain is a receiver' (and for materialists to claim any process where the brain affects mind to any extent is evidence of absence of a non-local mind ... interactive means the mind effects brain and the brain effects mind ..... for example is the car moving the driver or is the driver moving the car? The answer being both.