Overview:
1.0 We believe that we’re conscious beings with whole, continuous, existences. We’re aware, think, sense, and feel. We believe that we make free choices.

1.1 Consciousness requires an immaterial mind.
• Based on known properties of physics, neither particles of matter, nor fields or any type, are sufficient to produce our conscious experience.
• Emergent properties exist only within conscious minds and therefore cannot be their cause
• Immaterial minds bridge the gap between what physical matter can do with what we experience.
• The behavior of any undiscovered properties of matter, that could explain the basis of consciousness, would have to operate in such a way as to be the result of a pre-existing, immaterial, intelligence. Furthermore, such properties might be the interface between the material and the immaterial and therefore would not be a strictly material answer to consciousness.
• The immaterial mind can be considered “soul like.” Or perhaps just an indication the soul exists.
• The immaterial mind is to the brain as a PC’s CPU is to a motherboard. It is the “Intel inside.”

1.2 The perceptions we experience exist solely within our mind. Even though our perceptions may (probably) accurately represent the external, objective, material world upon which they are based, they are nonetheless separate and distinct from it.
• While sensory receptors transmit, via generic neural impulses, their interaction with the objective world, these interactions are not what our mind experiences.
• Our minds create perceptions based on the neural stimuli. The stimuli do not have any of the characteristics (e.g. wavelength of light, temperature of air) of the world they represent.
• These perceptions are a portrayal of the material world, not the world itself. For example, when we look to the horizon, we perceive an image that is created in our mind, not the actual horizon. Every moment of our lives involves the actions of our immaterial mind.
• We do not directly experience anything in the material world. All experiences are through the creation of perceptions. Our perceptions are what we directly experience.

1.3 The basis of consciousness matters
• If all we are is matter, than nothing ultimately matters – it just is.
• If we’re more than matter, with an immaterial mind, then there is a basis to consider morality, individual responsibility and the intrinsic value of life.

 
2.0 How most people think of perception and consciousness, if they ever think about it:
4.1 The internal world of the mind faithfully recreates the external, objective world. Colors exist as we see them, as do sounds, etc.
4.2 Our sensory organs simply transmit what is happening outside, to our mind, without transforming it. It’s like looking over a wall with a periscope where the aperture is the sensory organ and the eye piece is the mind. The essential nature of what we’re experiencing is directed, but not changed.
4.3 Scientists are proving how the brain thinks
All of this is false

3.0 Illustration: “Football stadium analogy” of the requirements of visual perception and the limits of physical matter .
3.1 You’re sitting in the upper deck of a football stadium, near mid-field. On the opposite side of the stadium is a large section of fans who, on cue, raise different colored squares of cardboard. When they do that, you see a recognizable image.
3.2 Think of the fans with the cards as neurons, the colored cards as subjective perceptions and you (the viewer) as our conscious mind.
3.3 Limitation: The fans with the cards actually only hold up cards with values on them that signify the color. The value is the state of matter (certain molecules, electrical charges, etc,) in the neuron that corresponds to the result of its processing. There is no color in the neuron, no projection of red onto the cell wall. Likewise, nothing on the outside of the neuron, no electric charge, no relationship of synapses, no neurotransmitter, is the color we perceive.
3.4 Issue: There is nothing between the fan-neuron and you-the-viewer to turn the value on the card into the color we perceive. Likewise, there is nothing to know that a certain value, from a certain fan-neuron, signifies one thing vs. another (i.e. sight vs. sound).
3.5 Limitation: Each card-holding fan is inside a windowless cylinder. The only direction they receive is from flashes of white lights coming from different electrical connections. On the basis of which lights flash, and how frequently, the fan would generate a value that reflected the result of all the lights, with no awareness of what the lights meant. The fan would have no idea what color the value would signify nor would they be able to know anything about the image they were trying to help generate. Finally, the generated value is strictly internal to the cylinder. There is no mechanism for that value to be externally known. There is no mechanism to display that value on a card above the fan’s head.
3.6 Issue: How would an internal state become externally known?
3.7 Limitation: Each time the fans create new values inside the cylinders, they replace old values without any connection to the old values. Each image replaces the prior image.
3.8 Issue: No mechanism to compare current and prior images. No ability to determine rate-of-change and motion.
3.9 Issues: There is no material you-the-viewer in the upper deck that can see the values or images. You-the-viewer is just another neuron inside another windowless cylinder. You-the-viewer can take on the value of any of the fan-neurons but can’t see the values of all of the other fan-neurons. And there is still nothing capable of generating or experiencing subjective perceptions (e.g. color red).
3.10 Conclusion: Beyond the internal lights in the cylinders, and current passing through the “external wires”, there is nothing material that explains what we experience as conscious beings.

4.0 What discrete physical matter can’t produce:
4.1 Sensory perceptions
4.1.1 Subjective perceptions aren’t physical and therefore can’t be produced by strictly material means. Discrete particles can’t neither “be” nor produce colors, sounds, tastes, smells or physical feelings (e.g. temperature, touch, etc.).
4.1.2 The same nerve processes lead to completely different perceptions (e.g. sight vs. sound), therefore, something additional is involved.
4.1.3. We experience things, don’t just have knowledge of them.
4.1.4 Somehow, we have expectations of what we’re perceiving otherwise would be unable to identify objects from the myriad of stimuli we experience. For example, we hear the sound of the violin in an orchestra, not just a blur of noise.
4.2 Objects: In an exclusively particle world, there are no such things as objects such as tables, chairs, etc. These are concepts our immaterial mind create.
4.3 Dimensions:
4.3.1 To perceive in 3D, we need a spatial reference grid
4.3.2 There are four potential possibilities to produce a grid: 1) neurons arranged spatially in exact proportion to 3D grid; 2) neurons are connected to each other according to spatial relation coordinates; 3) direct addressing (e.g. a given neuron, no matter where it is, represents a specific coordinate); and 4) indirect addressing (e.g. a neuron points to another neuron that contains the coordinates of the spatial relation). Note that the last three all require an “interpreter.”
4.3.3 Each of these possibilities has serious limitations that prevent it from working
4.3.4 The problem is compounded by the fact that different senses have 3D perceptions. We can close our eyes and generally place the location of a sound. We can see relative distance of an object. Yet these different perceptual maps are somehow integrated/overlaid. That is tantamount to multiple objects occupying the same physical space, unless something more than matter is involved.
4.3.5 The dimensional spatial reference is dynamic and has a variable scale. We can see well into the distance or only look at things up close, all the time recognizing an object’s proximity including relative to something else.
4.3.6 We can close our eyes, accurately picture where something is and then touch it.
4.3.7 All of this is compounded by the fact that we integrate separate perception grids, one from each eye, into a single perceptual field.
4.4 Motion:
4.4.1 Even when we just have a glimpse of something, we have an idea about its speed and direction.
4.4.2 It’s as though motion is an attribute of an object in a given location.
4.5 Body image
4.5.1 We are aware of the physical boundaries of our bodies
4.5.2 The body awareness is dynamic. It adjusts when we change our position.
4.5.3 When we feel something in our bodies, it seems as though we experience it at the site and not just within our head (where neural processing takes place). It is not knowledge in a central location of something remote.
4.5.4 This is a more challenging variation of perceiving dimensions. It is a completely dynamic spatial grid that can have any number of types of perceptions at any location.
4.6 Whole experiences/perceptions:
4.6.1 All of the various perceptions we have are simultaneously present to us. We evaluate perceptions in direct comparison to, not in sequence of, other perceptions. We know if the yellow flower in front of us smells nice or not.
4.7 Awareness, comprehension and thoughts:
4.7.1 We’re not just data processors. We’re aware of what something means.
4.7.2 We’re not just passive observers of thoughts that pass through our minds. We contemplate and decide.
4.7.3. Our thoughts direct physical actions
4.8 Feelings and emotions:
4.8.1 Like sensory perceptions, feelings and emotions don’t physically exist. There is no state of matter that is happy or sad.
4.8.2 Feelings and emotions are general in effect, spanning periods of time and thoughts.
4.9 Whole existence:
4.9.1 To be more than a thought or perception of any given moment, the wholeness of our experiences, perceptions and thoughts must have some continuity .
4.9.2 . This requires an entity capable of being a whole, a unity.
5.0 Limitations of physical matter
5.1: Characteristics and limitations of particles
5.1.1 They’re discrete. Although they’re influenced by the fundamental forces of physics, they are not part of anything else. There is no such thing as the “sum of the parts” or “wholes.”
5.1.2 The only thing they independently represent is their own state. For example, a positive charge is just a positive charge.
5.1.3 In and of themselves, they have no subjective meaning or representation (such as a color). 5.1.4 They can mean something to something else, but only to the extent that the something else has the capacity to assign and interpret meanings – and discrete physical matter does not have this capability. Furthermore, there is no “something else” if matter is all that exists.
5.1.5 They do not have perceptual capabilities. An atom cannot be conscious, perceive, etc.
5.1.6 They have no “awareness” of themselves.
5.1.7 If they did, it would be self-referential and probably have issues with things like the uncertainty principle.
5.2 Fields do not provide a means around the limitations:
5.2.1 Would need to span more than a few particles
5.2.2 Would need a mechanism to relate to the specific matter that give rise to it, with a high-level of resolution and integration (particle level), while ignoring other matter
5.2.3 Would require a separate field for each type of perception, without interfering with other fields
5.2.4 Would require a means to integrate these fields
5.2.5 Would need something to interpret the fields, then “process them” and then affect the behavior of other matter in a very specific way
5.2.6 None of these capabilities have ever been shown to exist and they would be contrary to the known laws of physics
5.2.7 Furthermore, any such fields would be projections. Projections cannot interpret and alter themselves, let alone alter the projectionist, as would be necessary.
5.2.8 Quantum entanglement, whatever its capabilities, is not a solution to these limitations due to extensive degree of interrelationships. There is nothing to establish and maintain them and they’re too localized.
5.2.9 Any type of field should be subject to easy disruption from things ranging from cell-phones, electromagnetic fields, MRIs, etc. – this doesn’t happen.
5.3 There are no material perceptual or cognitive units capable of experiencing what we do
5.3.1 Individual atoms or sub-atomic particles can only reflect their own state – they lack the capability and information carrying capacity (i.e. number of things they can represent) to be the source of consciousness.
5.3.2 Molecules are combinations of individual atoms whose behavior is influenced by the other atoms in the molecules. Each atom is still discrete and subject to its initial limitations. Therefore, molecules also lack the capability and information carrying capacity to be the source of consciousness. If they did have these capabilities, a large series of molecular reactions would have to be extraordinarily fast and specific, well-beyond any known behavior, in order to produce just one molecular configuration that “meant” something.
5.3.3 Cells are simply collections of molecules. Internally, they can’t do anything that molecules can’t. However, if a single cell somehow did have the capacity to perceive, the speed limitations of biological processes would preclude it from being able to obtain all the information needed from other cells to compile what was needed to for what we actually experience. In other words, a single cell cannot produce all that we perceive in an instant.
5.3.4 The external states of cells are limited to electric charges, the arrangement of synapses and presence of neurotransmitters in specific locations. These are all localized effects. There is nothing to be “aware” of their arrangement/state let alone with the capacity to perceive it.
5.3.5 Collections of cells are discrete. There is nothing to make them a whole (whether particle or field based).
5.3.6 Conclusion: There is nothing with the perceptual capabilities or information carrying capacity to produce what we believe we experience.
5.4 Emergent properties:
5.4.1 Emergent properties are properties that exist in a complex system that do not exist in the individual components. One example of what’s considered an emergent property is lava flow from a volcano. It has certain characteristics that appear to be more than rock.
5.4.2 However, in reality, emergent properties consist of two components: that which are just reflections of the fundamental forces of physics in action (such as heat, gravity) and that which we perceive that is beyond those forces.
5.4.3 On a material basis, they are emergent behaviors, not emergent properties. The actual flow of lava behaves exactly as it should based on the known forces of physics.
5.4.4 True emergent properties are only apparent to conscious minds.
5.4.5 Therefore, emergent properties are the result of consciousness minds, and cannot be their cause. To assert otherwise is circular reasoning.
5.4.6 Example: In the same way billions of legos, no matter how they’re put together, can’t make a nuclear reactor, since radioactivity is not an inherent property of inert plastic, discrete matter cannot produce consciousness since it is beyond the properties of discrete particles.
5.5 Neuroscience
5.5.1 The brain is incredibly complex and there is a lot left to be discovered about it.
5.5.2 Since emergent properties exist solely in the conscious mind, the capabilities of the brain are limited to the capabilities of the physical matter within it
5.5.3 Since physical matter lacks the capability for consciousness, so does the brain
5.5.4 Therefore, we do not need to know neuroscience, or how the brain works to assert that it can’t produce consciousness by itself.
5.5.5 Furthermore, biological processes are too slow to account for everything. The maximum neuron firing rate is 100 times per second. That is not enough time to parse an analysis, conduct the analysis, synthesize the result, evaluate it and then decide on a course of action. We notice changes as quickly as 24 frames per second. That means time for a series of four operations per frame. That is not enough operations.
5.5.6 Finally, there is nothing material based to coordinate clock cycles, as in a computer, to make sense out of what otherwise would be constantly changing gibberish.
5.6 Possibility for discovery of new properties of matter that explain consciousness
5.6.1 If, in the future, scientists discover radically different properties of matter, or “stuff”, that explains consciousness, the necessary level and complexity of integration with brain matter, and the “wholeness” of that stuff, would beg the question of the application of pre-existing intelligence and a dimension of matter similar to what is considered spirit. Therefore, these properties, if they existed, would not provide a strictly materialism based explanation.

6.0 If all we are is based solely on physical matter, than:
6.1: There is no whole existence or an entity called a being. We would just be the thoughts, emotions and perceptions that we’re “aware of” at a moment in time, nothing more. Concepts such as “personhood” and “potentiality” would be at odds with the fundamental nature of physical matter. During every moment of existence, an old being would cease to exist and a new one would come into existence. Everything would just be a series of perpetual, discrete, instances of consciousness. While aspects of the prior conscious instance would indirectly influence the next one, there would be nothing to actually join those instances into a whole existence.
6.2 No intrinsic value to any life, including human.
6.3 Nothing would remain to either feel good or bad about its prior existence, including the fact that it no longer existed, once a being ceased to exist.
6.4 A life is considered “valuable” only to the extent its continued existence, or how it ceased to exist, impacted the “happiness” of other existing lives.
6.5 The only way to live is to maximize what makes an individual happy (gives pleasure and avoids displeasure) including whether to “help” others and agree to “mutually beneficial” ways to interact.
6.6 Hence tolerance is the greatest good, though, in the end, the reality is might makes right to the extent others impact how an individual lives
6.7 Likewise, there would be no morality. A being couldn’t act differently than it did and there is nothing beyond matter that would be the basis for a moral authority. Nothing is wrong, only potentially undesirable to other beings.

6.9 Putting aside sentimentality, the most compassionate thing a society could do for irreversibly suffering, or “defective”, entities is terminate them. While fear and faulty reasoning might prevent such a person from agreeing to this, a compassionate society would act in that person’s best interest, even if they couldn’t.
6.10 Likewise, health care expenditures should be limited for the terminally ill. Only fear and irrational sentimentality would argue against this. The “return on investment “ is too low.
6.11 At the end of the day, stuff just happens, neither good or bad. We can’t act differently. Contemplation and decision making are simply an illusion, something that plays out, that we observe/experience but can’t change. Even philosophical discussions about whether these arguments are valid are involuntary. They’d be just part of the script as well.

7.0 Immaterial minds provide a basis to consider morality, individual responsibility, intrinsic value of human life and spiritual existence.
7.1 With immaterial minds, there is the possibility of free will. A person can contemplate and then make a choice that could have been different.
7.2 The basis of immaterial minds provides the possibility for the existence of a moral authority.
7.3 Free will and moral authority lead to morality and individual responsibility.
7.4 An immaterial mind allows for the possibility of a whole existence, not just a series of snapshots of awareness. We’re more than what we’re aware at a given moment.
7.5 Immaterial minds points towards the existence of the soul and a spiritual basis to life.
7.6 Free will, moral choices and a spiritual basis to life provides intrinsic value to human life.

8.0 How I came up with this stuff
8.1 I approach it from perspective of information processing and basic properties of matter
8.2 I walk through the ways things could work, at a detailed level, and then evaluate the implications
8.3 I ignore neuroscience since that is only required if matter had the necessary capabilities and it was just a question of how things worked (e.g. “engineering”), not whether they were possible

9.0 Conclusion
9.1 There are no alternatives to the two extremes of immaterial and material minds. Immaterial minds can fool themselves into thinking there are other options, only because they have the capabilities they deny. Material minds can’t reason, just react, so doesn’t matter what they “think.”
9.2 Physical matter isn’t sufficient to produce consciousness therefore we have immaterial minds
9.3 Immaterial minds provide a basis for morality and intrinsic value of life
9.4 Immaterial minds beg the question of how they could have come into existence based on strictly material, neo-Darwinian evolution.
9.5 We live in a society where too many people want all the personal freedoms of materialism for themselves, expect the benefits of immaterialism from others, with none of the responsibilities of either.
9.6 People need to take a detailed look at these things – the implications are important. Either nothing has meaning or everything does.