Raising objections is not the same as proving those objections invalidate materialism or anything else. They are just more questions. I took it upon myself to look for an answer. Here's what I found. Look at it this way. Name one thing that is proven to be true argued by a philosopher or Nagel in this case.?
It (PSI) can't get anymore murky than it already is. If it was as clear as you and many others believe it to be there would be no need wonder if the world is immaterial or material.
Steve, if everything is about proof to you, I have no clue what to say. Yes, proof is the end game, but with regards to this stuff, we don't have any proof on either side and who knows if/when we will. What we do have is evidence, some of which I've already mentioned, which to me challenges the idea that consciousness is a product of the brain or reducible to the brain fairly strongly.
What on earth do you mean "name one thing that is proven to be true argued by a philosopher or Nagel in this case"? When did I assert that anything was proof? You asked me to elaborate on what I meant by philosophical issues I have with materialism in general. I gave you an extremely watered down and basic version of some arguments. What you said is pretty vacuous; Nagel points out logical inconsistencies that I think are important to note. It's fallacious to suggest that because questions are created by questioning materialism in the way Nagel has, that that is somehow not important.
With regards to the PSI, you just said "you and others". Again, point me to where I suggested that PSI evidence is crystal clear? You're just saying that to try to make it seem like I'm speaking more in favor of it than I am. I specifically said I'm not in a position to argue strongly with regards to PSI one way or the other. How did you get "if it was as clear as you and others believe" from that?
In essence, you've now made two posts that hand wave away the points made without addressing them at all.