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

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't think you can distinguish between "seems" and "fits into my world view."  Let's start with how it seems there's an objective universe, how it seems some objects have mind as I do, how it seems that people experience as I do.  But why does it seem that way?  If I poke a person's brain with an electrode, he/she might say something like, "Hmmmmm, I smell smoke."  This is our entire criteria for determining that we are studying a system with mind: that it makes a smiley face when we think it should smile, and a pouty face when we think it should be sad.

-as much as I'd like -better- criteria...we simply don't have it...and the cosmos has no obligation to satisfy either of us. If you're searching for sound propositions with which to make inferences...you will invariably be forced to defer to this body of knowledge, as incomplete and unsatisfying as it may be, because of it's existence and sufficience...even if not, necessarily, it's truth.  We attempt to explain the unknown by reference to the known.  What we know is, itself, provisional.

That's fine, if you are trying to determine if something is acceptably human enough to go bowling with.  It's does not serve as very good evidence for what physical systems do/do not have anything like a mind.

It is the -only- evidence.....and I don't know what metrics you;re using to determine that it isn't good.  It's evident..firstly, falsifiable, and matches our predictions and expectations.  It sounds like pretty damned good evidence......and it produces results.  So..either we're very, very lucky...or we're on to something.

Stop saying I call neurology "brainwaving."  I do not.  Neurology is not the science of establishing the details of psychogony, and does not / cannot say at what level of organization the elements of mind supervene.  I've already said that neuropsychology is very useful, and tells us a lot about how the brain is involved in our qualitative experiences.

What it does NOT do is say where mind comes from, why there is such a thing, why it supervenes somewhere/somehow in the brain.  If I'm wrong about that, then go ahead to imright.com, and provide links or studies in which neuropsychologists attempt to answer philosophical questions using science.  Otherwise, you are not only brainwaving but appealing to the authority of scientists whose studies don't address the issues of mind in the way you are pretending they do.

You talk about things seeming a certain way, about "best evidence" etc. etc.  Fine.  Explain why they seem that way.  Produce your evidence.

See, right now, I'm agnostic.  I consider IIT a perfectly valid theory, and panpsychism a perfectly valid theory, and I see the merits in both physical monism, idealistic monism, and even pluralism.  But you are skewed toward a particular view of psychogony, and I do not think your evidence for that view is sufficient.

Yes, you do, and contending that you do not is beneath you.  Everytime I (or anyone else) reference something about psychogeny that nuerology helped us to discover...you go on about how brainwaving isn't sufficient (and frankly..you don;t even need any prodding..you'll launch into it of your own accord).  A psychogeny sans nuerology is, itself, an empty set within the context of our current understanding of mind, and what evidence is available.  Mind comes from...wait for it.....-the brain-.  I'm not going to humor your request that I produce evidence of that, you're aware of it...you must be, to consider it unsatisfying to begin with.

Now try and resist the urge to say I'm brainwaving.  

Interaction.  There must be some way to be conscious -of- something....for there to be consciousness in the first place.  The term, otherwise, has no meaning.

How is that interaction conveyed?

The properties of matter, in those instances in which we are capable of demonstration.  Chemical reactivity, electrical conductiveness, mechanical resistence...in our case, specifically.