[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #261
consciousness is one of the Big Three gaps for God. Of which Life is pretty much explained, but not proven, true. Consciousness (including the Hard Problem of perception experience) I think an explanation may be possible in quite a short time, but it's a gap. Same with cosmic origins. Still an explanation gap. And there's the difference between you and me. I say 'we (human knowledge) don't know, so it's unknown. say a cosmic Mind must be the answer. The problem is not materialism, it's irrationality, and that is using the god of the gaps fallacy. The question is there amongs all of us, but the answer really isn't.
First of all, Consciousness is a bit different from everything else, insofar as it's the rug under which the Early Moderns swept everything that wouldn't fit the new Mechanical Philosophy. So, unlike the Scholastics that came before them, the Early Moderns denied the objective existence of so-called "secondary qualities," formal causes, and final causes. Nature was just stuff, with shape, size, number, and motion. We've added to the list: charge, mass, energy, momentum, and temperature - but the basic principle is the same: only those things which can be given a precise mathematical description count as scientifically respectable, and thus mind-independent. Which means that all the obviously non-mathematically describable stuff - qualia, semantic content, purposes, intentions, etc. - have to be the domain of the mind alone, and cannot be in the domain of science.
The Early Moderns saw that this entailed dualism, which, for the most part, they embraced. Moderns, however, thinking that the scientific method has made basic logic irrelevant, don't see this fact.
Second, we use "X of the gaps" reasoning all the time. Can't explain why light from distant galaxies gets bent the way it does? There must be matter we can't see. Call it "dark matter." Distant galaxies more redshifted than they should be? There must be energy in space itself. Call it "dark energy." Any time we believe in something rationally, it's because there's a gap in our understanding that needs to be filled. The process of explaining things just is
filling in "gaps" in our understanding. Inference to the best explanation is a valid
mode of reasoning, not a fallacy, and it doesn't magically become a fallacy when you don't like the Explanation that stands head and shoulders above all competitors.
Not liking the best answer anyone's come up with doesn't magically make the answer "not count."
"The Son of God was crucified; I am not ashamed to say it, because it is most shameful.
And the Son of God died; I believe it, because it is beyond belief.
And He was buried, and rose again; it is certain, because it is impossible."