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

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, and only subjective agents are capable of establishing a value system.  Therefore, if subjective agents think the capacity for subjective agency is super-important, then it is, by the only measure of importance available-- the arbitrary views of subjective agents.

Not exactly an impressive set of metrics, but it's not as if it matters, since we both agree that it's important, regardless of where it falls in the scheme of "most important things".  

What does seeming have to do with anything?  There is a grand total of zero things which are what they seem to us to be.

You're going to need to get sound propositions from -something-, though, if you insist that we're having a rational discussion.  I use the word seem to allow for us being wrong, but the possibility that we might be is not a sufficient demonstration that -we are-.  Particularly in light of what you were responding to with those comments.

Look, my response to the question at hand is honest and straightforward: we do not know what allows for qualia, and cannot therefore say whether it supervenes on the brain, or on more simple systems which need not be so organized as the brain.  Conflating X-ology with X-ogony is a pretty fundamental error in logic, but this is much how these arguments go: "We study the brain and the mind, and stuff happens, so the brain creates (or simply is) mind.  So far, that's how it seems to be."

This is a horrible misapplication of concept  of evidence.

Your question may be honest, but it's neither straightforward nor rational....and I'm not going to listen to someone who calls nuerology "brainwaving" lecture -anyone- about a misapplication of the concept of evidence.  The question of what allows for qualia, and the question of a full description of qualia...are simply not the same question.    The ability of matter to interact is sufficient to -allow- for qualia...even if our qualia is somehow created or expressed some other way. Further...if there's some point at which you expect -anyone- to exceed what we do know and can infer...from evidence, and just start making shit up to satisfy you....or if you think that someones inability to satisfy you regarding the one is meaningful,  relevant to the other, or helps you to establish some position of your own....you've totally lost your shit.  

Sure there's "close."  If you say, X is God, and you discover almost-X, you can say you've found something which closely resembles your definition of God.  If you discover that everything remotely close to X is wrong wrong wrong, you can say God, by your definition, likely doesn't exist.

Way to lower the standards of reasons such that it becomes unreasonable.    

Close to x and not x are mechanically equivalent regarding means of inference.  If I claimed to have a purple magic wand...that just turned out to be a purple wand (sans magic, 2 out of three aint bad)...I don't have a purple magic wand.