I don't think it is. I don't think any evidence has been offered, except brain reactions to the environment. Of course, since the brain works on a stimulous-reaction basis — Alkis Piskas

I have heard theories that the brain could be a sort of “transmission tower or receiver” that has the capacity to condense and accelerate the properties and abilities of the environment at large that exist anyways - a sort of sluggish, slow and inefficient awareness. That is to say that our ability to feel emotions, to imagine, to reason is like a “self-contained” “hyper-dynamic” “rapidly evolving” system that emulates the natural world but in a way (learning) that enables us to adapt to whatever nature throws at us.

In this way the brain doesn’t generate consciousness, It simply concentrates it/ empowers it, so that our body - an environment created by and an extension of “the environment” (outside ourselves) has the capacity to gain control or be the leading edge of awareness - which is not exclusive to us or even living things for that matter.

The theory sort of suggests that consciousness as we know it is all of evolution crunched down into a plastic, malleable semi- fluid, semi- crystalline electrochemical representation of the nature from whence it came.
It’s a bit “panpsychism” except we cannot appreciate the consciousness of lower order life and chemistry because it’s so inefficient, slow and disordered to be considering aware (even if it has a limited capability to be so).

I was confused because the word “material” seems misleading in that it suggests only the set of things that have mass/matter (which I and many think to be synonymous with materials). — Benj96

I don't blame you. :smile: It indeed looks like "materialism", etymologically at least, refers only to matter. But don't forget that materialism, as a philosopy was develped in ancient times, even the term itself was not yet used. (Re: Archimede's Atom and Greek atomists - Democritus, Leucippus, etc.).
But the existence of what we call "energy" has to wait for quite long to "make the news". And at some point humanity was presented with Einstein's famous equation relating mass to energy. And todya we can talk about

That’s why I used the term physicalism (even if erroneous) because it seemed not to depend on matter being the only way something can exist. — Benj96

No, no. It was not erroneous at all! I just made a remark that you had to connect "physicalism" to "materialism" so that people won't think you are talking about something different than materialism, which is still today the prevailing term. On the other hand, the term "physical" is much mor commonly used in a lot of contexts, e.g. physical universe/world, physical laws, physical vs non-physical, physical attraction, and so on.
I also prefer to use the word "physical" instead of material in a lot of cases.

The subject of your topic is quite important --I want to believe for most of us here-- regardless of the term used.

I have heard theories that the brain could be a sort of “transmission tower or receiver” that has the capacity to condense and accelerate the properties and abilities of the environment at large that exist anyways - a sort of sluggish, slow and inefficient awareness. — Benj96

Don't listen to rumors! :grin:
Well, one can describe the receiver-transmitter mechanism of the brain in a lot of pompous ways. The don't change this basic characteristic of the brain. Moreover, these "pompous" descriptions often include blunders such as "abilities of the environment". How can the environment have any kind of ability, since the word refers to something that only humans and animals possess, things they are able to do, like skills, etc.
Then we have another one: "sluggish, slow and inefficient awareness". There is no such a thing as a sluggish or slow awareness. Awareness does not move!!

In this way the brain doesn’t generate consciousness — Benj96

You can say that again!

The theory sort of suggests that consciousness as we know it ... — Benj96

I'm not sure if we can as "as we know it" ... I have started to believe that everyone has a different definition. description and view of the term.
"As we know it", should refer to its common, basic meaning, which is the state of being aware --i.e., being able to perceive or notice-- things in our environment and within us.
Now, the further one deviates from that, the more fancy and insubstantial things one can say about consciousness, and about which I don't give a damn.

Fair. You make valid points I need to go and consider. Food for thought.

Thanks. :smile: