On naturalism and consciousness

[Angrboda]

The first thing to note is that what you have is an argument from ignorance. "I can't imagine X, therefore not X." This is a minor point, so let's move on.

Let’s not. People that see an “argument from ignorance” typically accept that physical monism as the default position. I think the real question for these people is this: If all naturalism can offer is its own promissory note then why should it be preferred over any other theory? Sensible people take things as they appear to be until shown otherwise. Since dualism appears to be the case, why not accept it until the naturalists can actually produce a robust theory of consciousness.

This is all irrelevant to the question of whether the argument posed is a fallacious argument from ignorance. It has nothing to do with the physicalist position being assumed. Nor with whether dualism is sensible. These are red herrings that obfuscate the primary fault with the argument. As posed, the argument is invalid. No amount of whining about default positions will change that.

…it must also explain how thought is inherently about things. Until you can do that, you're left with the rather unsatisfying "it just is”[/i]

That is an unfair demand. Subjectivity is experienced directly and without mediation. You know thoughts are about things because that’s how thoughts, and other qualitative experiences, are known.

And yet that's the same demand which you made of physicalism above. That's special pleading.

None of your declarations about what experience is establish that it is what you say. They're just bare assertions.