Like a firefly to a bright light, my attention was drawn to the far-reaching words of yours. Now I hope to satiate my sparked curiosity. I admit the multitude of questions, so if they appear to be abundant, I suggest paying attention only to those marked with " * ", they, at least to my mind, might pose some challenge to the presented philosophy, whereas answers to such promise the most benefit.

1.Questions about the introduction

I see your introduction as a triplet of fundamental preassumptions that are necessary for the reader to accept in order to successfully follow your thinking path and reach your conclusion. However, I’m facing certain difficulties with comprehending some of them.

I’d be most grateful for an elaboration on the “(If an individual was born in another individual's biology, they would; act, think, choose, and express to exactly how that individual existed, and is going to exist.)” part, since I utterly fail in understanding it. Here a shy attempt to reconstruct the message(which most likely is wrongful, why I’m asking for aid): If we take the essence of a person(while this thought experiment you suggest on its own already implies, that identity isn’t bounded to biological constructs and/or at least the identity can be separated from its physical containment) and translocate this ideal ego cogito to another physical hull (sort of like swapping characters in a videogame I guess), it will necessarily repeat patterns the “provider of the other so called biology” would have shown, meaning that the biological hull determines the specific features and hence behavior of an individual. However, I struggle with the referent of your “that individual…” since depending on the addressee the meaning of the sentence might be completely opposite to what I have guessed.

The second assumption was clear to me: an individual is (in a certain way) an existence, and this entity has the ability of recursive perception, meaning humans can make their stream of consciousness the object of their stream of consciousness.

Unfortunately, I’m also experiencing difficulties with your third assumption “(You are experiencing as a copy. It is in you, to create you, in all dimensions of you.)”. Is it meant, that an individual’s depiction of itself is a copy of the state of affairs it experiences in the present time? Kind of like a photo of a firework which “duplicates” the show that actually takes place in a sense? That’s quite understandable, but then what is the second part(“It is in you, to create you, in all dimensions of you.)” of the statement about? Am I correct if I understand it this way: a representation is a part of my identity, whereas my identity on its own is constructed entirely(=what you mean with “all dimensions of you”) from such representations of the outer-world(or external environment as you used the expression, should I correctly apply the division of reality on the level of an individual in what happens inside of his mind and what occurs beyond the mind border).

2.”How Were Humans Influenced By The Concept?”

I suppose you name the yet to be defined consciousness as the “Concept”, using the neutral word “concept” as a place-holder. That is a clever move indeed.
I find the idea of existence-justification as a survival-necessity (for the thinking ones) after the surpassed epoch of constant struggle(and thereby transition to times that expose humans to the risky pondering-activity) really admirable. It sort of refuses the stereotype of the harsh stone-age versus the bubble-wrap century devoid of “substantial” conflict (and paradoxical struggle stemming from constant leisure and lack of “more immense fight for survival” instead).

*External understanding: everything beyond the mind; internal understanding: everything within the mind(experiences of the subject within the subject), right? A correct representation of your dichotomy is crucial for further comprehension.

*In what way does an imbalance between inner and outer understanding pose a risk, could you please provide an example? That would help a lot. Also, what understanding does existence-justification belong to, external or internal?

Attempting to break into your discourse and adopt its language: approaches for human existence-justification (via meaning) that come from the past are outdated and not effective due to the increase in both internal and external understanding people managed to collect since those times. “Social engineering”(in this case =instructions for meaning, like religions, existentialism, hedonism, etc.) dated “back then” left its marks on modern phenomena, but fails with a solid foundation of meaning.

Despite your arduous and ambivalent wording, I’d like to indulge in some emotional impressions: whether you came up with this idea on your own or adopted it from others it doesn’t matter, the idea that meaning is, along with other survival necessities like nourishment or sleep, crucial to a successful life continuation is just beautiful. And twice as much for philosophy-lovers.

Now about the connection between “concept”, “consciousness” and “reasoning”(your “reasoning” I use synonymously with “justification” or “meaning in a narrow sense”). If my initial guess was right in your terminology and context “concept” means the idea/representation/depiction of consciousness. However, a concept is a systematization of specific data. That would mean, that, apart from the “concept of consciousness”, there also exists a certain phenomenon humans wish/feel the need to conceptualize. So, what you’re saying in the last abstract of “How Were Humans Influenced By The Concept?” is, that the way of presenting consciousness determines or unlocks certain ideas (including lines of reasoning for existence). That I must confirm. Then again the specific concept of consciousness is bound to circumstances of social engineering(in a broad sense). That has its deterministic implications, but fine, this isn’t a problem. What remains enigmatic though is the relation between “meaning” and “consciousness”. Are they interdependent?

*“If the concept is not what it is supposed to be through human perspective”- a more detailed explanation and an example would immensely contribute to my decryption of your philosophy.

*Also, according to what criteria do you claim that previous attempts of life-reasoning and consciousness-definition failed?

3. From ”What Is A More Scientific Perspective On Consciousness” to an abrupt end. Most important questions.

“Organism and Artificial Intelligence neuro networking are similar and eventually will become the same”- what evidence supports this claim? Similarity of processes isn’t sufficient to predict a merge with complete certainty. And in case of that merge, which would signify a cessation of boundaries that make out the difference between organic and non-organic neural networks, wouldn’t the non-organic become the organic? If not, then a specific explanation of what is meant by “entities becoming the same” is additionally required. Is it a partial similarity, in use of same cosmic principles like the “similarity” between planes and birds, or something else, like equality of capabilities for instance?

Furthermore, a future unity(whatever the meaning) of organic and artificial neuro networks doesn’t necessarily entail, that human consciousness has intrinsic mathematical properties just because it(consciousness) can be reconstructed through use of a certain language.

*What are your arguments for an individual being equivalent to a cluster of mathematical entities? (I hope I’m not embarrassing myself by simply overlooking them) Even if we take for granted the questionable claim, that everything that constitutes an individual as such can be represented through maths, does it suggest without further reasoning that it is maths that lies within the individual? The seeming similarity between artificial and biological neural networks is not an argument. Why something can be viewed a certain way and why something must be viewed a certain way requires different levels of argumentative reinforcement.

With the triad of principles which ought to be followed when conceptualizing consciousness, I fail to backtrack the origins of those principles, therefore an indication of where these expressions were assimilated from would significantly help. Like a reference, preferably with a short explanation of your contextual usage of the words. If those are your authorial discoveries, they would benefit from elaborations a fortiori.

Correct me wherever you see the need to. Looking forward to a reply and anticipate the future joy from comprehension. I refrain from distorting your ideas via my interpretations any further without securing at least a minuscule base of certainty.

It's a pity to hear that, since I aimed at a logically coherent depiction of the physicalists you're debating and the soundness of your argumentation against those. To be honest, I'm curious whether others share your stance on my critique.

A remote consciousness would like to raise awareness about plausible deficiencies contained within the original post. Frankly speaking, I failed to locate a sound counter-proof for the thesis “we are only our bodies” in your post. You might have hinted that some physicalists can be incoherent, yet it doesn’t say anything against the concept on its own.

1.Your reconctruction

Because I was pretty confused by the “obviousness”, I decided to formalize your reconstruction of your opponents’ view.

P1. All mental activities take place in the brain
P2. The brain is a part of the human body
P3. The brain directs all the existence of a human
K. There is nothing else in a human being/life than a body OR The only thing that is in a human being/life is a body

In this explicit form it becomes clear that the conclusion simply doesn’t follow from the premises. P1-P3 suggest, if true, that all mental activities take place in (a part of) the human body and that a part of the human body directs the existence of the human.

Further than that we can’t conclude that all mental activities direct all the existence of a human. If a happens in b and b causes c, does it mean that a causes c? Probably not with necessity. A should be identical with b, so that we can say that a always causes c, if b causes c is true. Now, the brain, although indisputably consists of or rather contains mental activities, isn’t equal to those activities(imagine a dead person's brain in a formalin solution).

Just as in the previous example, the conclusion K can’t be reached given the three premises without another supporting one. The additional premise should be like this: the identity of a human(or everything a human is) is the entirety of his mental activities. Without this fourth premise the argument remains simply non-existent. Also, it seems that P3 is obsolete. It could be that P3 intended the content of P4, but the differences in wording and meaning appear to me vast enough for the premises to not be interchangeable.

The reason why I highlighted the misrepresentation was that in order to prove an argument wrong it should at least be in a form of one. After that it’s enough to prove why at least one of the premises is false. The fact that the initial criticized argument wasn't properly formulated already undermines the relevance of your critique.

2.Your first question

Appealing to conversational habits is a weak strategy to criticize a concept. If a person has a certain position and this person happens to express something using wordings that seemingly contradict his initial position, it might show the logical incoherence of a particular individual at best(though doesn’t say anything against the concept itself). Otherwise, we get futile statements like: “Since you, as an atheist, are using the expression “thank god”, you are contradicting yourself”. In other words: one saying that he has a body isn’t equivalent to this person actually having a body. Just as it’s not the same to say “I have a headache” and actually having a headache.

Apart from this, your first question suggests, that ownership of something implies the difference of owner and possession. With respect to this condition, there is still no contradiction in the sentence:”I am a specific part of a body and I have an entire body at use/under control”. The contradiction arises only due to an equivocation of “a part of a body=mental activities in the brain” with “a body”. Although the inner happenings of the brain are part of the human body, they’re not equivalent to it and can’t be used synonymously.

3.Your second question

Should you agree with 1. And 2., the second question couldn’t arise at all. The answer was already given in the hidden premise you forgot to/didn’t mention. According to your opponents’ view, the identity of a human being is the entirety of his mental activities, which evidentially include memories, qualia, sensations, etc. And the addition of the so-called illusionary nature of the “self” doesn’t matter much, since it changes nothing with the premises. Looks more like an excuse for your opponents to indulge themselves in an incoherence, trying to remain “human” in the conventional sense (whatever this may mean to them).

Sadly, you didn’t provide anything in favor of the idealism of human identity, since stating that "something is like this" is no proof without the “, because…” part. Your driver analogy presupposes a non-physicalist approach and is, due to a lack of argumentation for the approach, of little use.

4.Your third question

Lastly, the premise that "the identity of a human is the entirety of his mental activities" indeed suggests that, were it to happen, an artificial recreation of a certain cluster of mental activities would signify the birth of a new identity. Even if that entity doesn't correspond with our expectations of a human mind, we will still have no choice other than to call it a human being according to the initial criteria. Hence, it is irrelevant whether or when scientists will be capable of cloning. What actually matters is the justification of the criteria.

I hope my points were clear and helpful. Let me know if I made any mistakes.

The trend is curious how concepts with a flirty or even amorous attitude towards death dominate the so-called naive life-affirming ones. And we don't need to go to dark places of suicide-philosophers, sufficient enough are statements like ,,life can become horrible enough to justify death as a relief‘‘ that picture a remarkable tolerance towards the end of existence.

We are stunned by and empathetic for thinkers, that postulate life to be intrinsically bad and death intrinsically good, but feel some sort of disgust or arrogance towards those who say vice versa. Maybe it’s because triviality bores those who ,,have chosen a path of enigmatic discovery’’, since most (if not all and not constantly) of us live in the total belief of personal immortality.

Despite my personal doubts regarding transhumanism, that consider historical experience from the failed ,,homo soveticus’’ project, hence the effectiveness and optimality of the problem-solution path, I do find the movement rather refreshing in terms of daring life-approvement absolutism.