What God is to the Universe is what your mind is to your body

[The Grand Nudger]

You are asking me whether a camera does or doesn't experience things subjectively.  The answer is I have know way to know whether a camera experiences anything, but I don't believe that it does so.

No, I'm asking you whether or not seeing red is qualitatively or quantitatively different than what a camera is doing, for the third time.   

You just keep telling me that you don't think cameras see red.  It didn't answer that question the last few times, and it won't answer it this time either.

You know that some material systems are capable of processing information.  You do not know which systems can/can't experience qualia, or why it is that ANY systems experience qualia.

There's that arbitrary distinction again.  Unless you know -and can demonstrate- that qualia is not a term for information processing as it occurs in, say, -your- brain....then the question begs the question.  Hey, you may not be wrong...you;re just going to have to find another way to express it.

As we've argued many times, I'm happy to say that something about the brain allows for qualia.  However, within the brain are very many levels of organization, and we do not know at what level qualia emerges.  It could be at a QM level, or at a molecular level, at a neuronal level, or it could require specific types of integration of information.

You have a misunderstanding of qm/our brains.  We are not qm creatures.  We do not have qm brains.  Perhaps there is such a thing as qm qualia (I wouldn't know) but it has little relevance to a human being, or a human brain.  Perhaps, similarly, there is such a thing as a molecular qualia, but here again that bears little relevance to human qualia, a human brain.  The last two seem legit...though it seems to be an issue of both, not one or the other.  Some things with nuerons do appear to have qualia, and it does appear that only certain types of information make their way into it. This, in itself, provides problems for the idea of a quantum or molecular qualia but doesn't outright rule them out...after all, if qm particles or simple molecules could be arranged such that they performed the function of nuerons, and then those arrangements cobbled together such that they form a analog of the brain,perhaps they too could experience qualia. Perhaps there are even other arrangements of qm particles and molecules that could -also- experience qualia, things which -aren't- brain analogs...a conscious camera (or any other machine), or a conscious cosmic cloud, for example.  Hence, nuerology...................

As you know, it is my hunch that all energetic transmission represents a primitive spark of mind.  You do not have a good explanation of why mind emerges at whatever level you think it emerges at.

I wouldn't use the word hunch to describe that, personally, lol.  

The reason brainwaving is unsatisfying to me is that it doesn't identify what actually allows mind to supervene.  If it's something intrinsic only to brains, then the answer is "brains."  If it's something intrinsic to QM, then the answer is, "It's everywhere."  In the former, the OP is bullshit.  In the latter, you could call the Universe itself the mind of God, and that would actually mean something.

I'm sorry that nuerolgy doesn't satisfy, there's really nothing more I can say on that count....except that you might not want to allow your disatisfaction with the explanations on offer to push you over the qm wooster edge.   Most notably because qm woo doesn't actually do what you want it to do. It doesn't, for example, suggest or imply that qualia is anything other or more than information processing. If qualia were a qm phenomena, our best explanation of qm qualia would -still- be information processing...and then we find ourselves ignoring the brain - an obvious and specific mechanism for information processing, well evidenced and testable...in favor of a non-obvious and nebulous mechanism, with no evidentiary support and no means of testing it, which doesn't apply to creatures or structures of our scale so far as well can tell...in the first place. It doesn't, for example, propose anything -other- than a material monist consciousness or qualia. Lastly, thre simple invocation of a possible qm qualia doesn't imply or suggest that the universe is or has a mind. That's a -massive- non-sequitur, nevermind that there's no evidence that it is or does. You see, if qualia were a qm phenomena, that qm is everywhere does not mean that qualia is everywhere, and doesn't change the fact that it does not appear to be everywhere.

You're simply flirting with a concept of consciousness and qualia that borders on a cosmic fallacy of composition, while ignoring concepts and explanations which do -not- have these problems and -are- in evidence, however incomplete or unsatisfying their subsequent descriptions may be, which add no explanatory value and rely upon concepts wholly owned by and dependent upon the explanations and descriptions you deem to be insufficient or unsatisfying. This is an impressive and comprehensive failure to properly leverage reason....even if every alternative proposition you've put forward actually was true, and all the "brainwaving" were false.

It's a non-trivial difference given the nature of the OP.

The OP and thread title aren't salvageable.....no matter -what- the status of consciousness or qualia is.