Quantum Theory proves consciousness moves on after death?

[Mathilda]

Evie, let's start by hearing how you define consciousness. Because there's no point arguing that a brick has it if we all have a different idea of what consciousness is.

Then we can discuss whether these are good definitions and ore closely examine the evidence for the existence of whatever we call consciousness in non-living objects,

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

[Dom]

Evie, let's start by hearing how you define consciousness. Because there's no point arguing that a brick has it if we all have a different idea of what consciousness is.

Then we can discuss whether these are good definitions and ore closely examine the evidence for the existence of whatever we call consciousness in non-living objects,

You show me yours and I'll show you mine.

Good question. Personally, I think that everything that is aware of it's environment is conscious. That includes all life then. You can easily tell that all life is aware of it's surroundings in some way, because all life reacts to the surroundings as best it can while trying to stay alive.

[Alan V]

I don't think anyone in this discussion denied the existence of consciousness, so I don't know who you are arguing against with that rather long part of your reply.

I'm arguing against eliminativism and reductionistic behaviorist functionalism

And I am arguing in favor of emergentism, which is neither eliminative or reductionistic.  That's why I only addressed the objections in your point 3 above.

Just because a view doesn't explicitly deny X doesn't mean that it doesn't implicitly deny X. There are many views that people can hold that when logically taken to its conclusion entail things that they claim to not agree with.

Hence the part about how the deniers deny that they are deniers. Nobody here is going to admit that their view, if true, would entail a nonexistence of consciousness, which makes their view absurd (after all, as soon as they realized that that is what their view entails they'd stop holding it). But that doesn't mean that that's not what they're actually saying. It just means that that's not what they're trying to say. People who express absurd views rarely realize that the views they are expressing are absurd.

I think we are on equal footing here, since by your own definition you may be a denialist as well (as I pointed out).

Shall we assume we are both arguing in good faith instead of going down that rabbit hole?

[Alan V]

This is not a problem for emergence theory as long as consciousness is framed as a process rather than a substance

I don't see what difference it makes. Are you familiar with process theory? The idea that substances ultimately are processes.

Well, the usual argument against emergence is that it springs an entirely new substance on reality.  I thought you were not only aware of that, but were arguing exactly that point.

Whether consciousness and non-consciousness are substances or processes ... the point is that we only have evidence of the former and not the latter. And we don't have a reductionist explanation for where the cutoff point is.

Sorry, but I don't agree with Zeno's paradox as it is applied to awareness.

There's no evidence of how one emerges from the other (again, whether we're talking of substances or processes). And if there's no emergence at all then we're left with either eliminativist, dualism or panpsychism. And panpsychism is much less problematic than the other two.

I think we have plenty of evidence for the evolution of the senses, on which awareness and consciousness are based.  That's why I don't agree with Zeno's paradox as applied to consciousness.  In fact, you can bridge the gap, just like you can in the gray area between life and non-life.

Why postulate the existence of the non-experiential when nobody has, nor can have, any evidence of any such thing ... even in principle? Evidence is empirical and empiricism is experience-based. It's honestly completely Q.E.D. and the only retort people have is that panpsychism is so counterintuitive that they deem it to be "crazy" or "weird" or "wooey". They haven't actually got an argument. Strawmanning panpsychism is the best people can do (which, by definition, doesn't even address it).

I told you, because the only consciousness we know of is a property of both life and brains.  Awareness seems to be a property of all life, as Dom pointed out.  We have no evidence, through observation of behaviors, to impute consciousness to anything else. Occam's razor applies.

You say we don't have arguments.  You just disagree and are overstating your own case.