On naturalism and consciousness

[Surgenator]

But none of this explains why, in our universe, mind manifests rather than not.

In physical monism, a mind is not necessary. So it is not required to prove how a mind arises. I only need to show how a mind can arise and still have physical monism be valid. And I did so with the ANN example.

The study of how human consciousness arises is still on going.

Let me phrase our opposition in the simplest terms I can. Given a universe in which objects and energy interact according to mathematically-determinable rules, which view is "correct"?
1) The underlying reality is mathematical (or otherwise conceptual), and this reality manifests in the form of matter and movement. For example, if you look at a wave, you'd say that the pure wave function is the reality, and the position of atoms around that idealistic wave represents a crude approximation.
2) The underlying reality is that of form of matter and movement, and the math is a symbolic representation of that underlying reality. Again looking at the wave, you'd say that the molecules are just moving in response to constantly-changing forces acting on them, and the wave function is a highly-simplified statistical "best fit" for a gazillion atoms, which we cannot possibly calculate individually.

I would say #2, excect for the "which we cannot possibly calculate individually." QM is an imcompete model of the universe. QFT is a little better, but it still doesn't incorporate gravity . M-theory and Quantum Loop theory are still metaphysical mathematics.

I think all "things" ultimately will reduce down to concepts. Things get squirelly at QM, and if we try to discover what framework or sub-particles QM particles consist of, we'll end up with lots of beautiful math, and no actual things we can put our finger on. To me, this represents case (1) above. I'd argue that if all things are reducible only to concepts, then the universe is conceptual-- even though there is a subset of things which behave so incredibly consistently that for convenience's sake we address them on their own level without reference to that underlying reality.

Here is my point, not everything can be reduced to concepts. Case in point, actions are not concepts. Actions have to change something; concepts describe something. You can conceptualize an action, but that is still not an action. For example, you can conceptualize that your dancing, but it doesn't mean your dancing.

Plus, all concepts exist even the contradictory ones. Does that mean reality is filled with contradictions? For example, the concept of a universe where God exist does exist. The concept of a universe where God doesn't exist also exist. If the reality is a collection of concepts, then the universe is where God does exist and where he doesn't exist. Right?

That applies to other living human beings in the here and now, doesn't it Benny? How do you even know that being an ANN would grant you this knowledge . . .

Quite right. Even with other people, I have to make a philophical assumption. In the case of people, it's a fairly comfortable assumption to make: I'm a person, and I think, so I look at other people, and assume they also think.
The same goes for mammals and birds. They have similar brains to mine, and they respond in ways that I do to much of their stimuli.

Mosquitos, I'm less sure. Microorganisms, I'm VERY unsure whether they have anything I'd call subjective consciousness. In the end, I can't even disprove a solipsistic world view in an absolute sense.

So your looking at the similiarity of the brain, which is a collection of physical objects, to support the claim of a third party. I find this very strange since physical things don't exist in concept reality.