What of mine is there to refute when all I am saying is that *you* have no substantial evidence that consciousness is a product of molecules. I'm not trying to say it is quantum; I'm only saying that until there is enough evidence of a mechanism you can't say that a molecular mechanism is more probable than a quantum one.<quoted text>
Easy enough to refute. Simply provide evidence of a consciousness that is not molecular.
No one can spell out the mechanism. Just because we have complicated networks, that somehow gives you the right to assume they produce consciousness rather than functioning as a conductor of it?
Again, I am not making a claim. I am telling you that you cannot claim consciousness is of molecular origin until you know that op be true.Your 'point's understood. It is your evidence that is in question.
Likewise there is no reason to conclude it exists on a molecular level either, just because we see electrons flowing. We plain ol don't know what consciousness is.There is not - as yet - any reason to conclude that consciousness exists at any level lower them the molecular unless you can demonstrate that there is some characteristic at the quantum level that corresponds to the molecular.
I'm not saying it exists on the quantum level I'm saying we have no idea what it "exists on".