The reason Atheris is surprised that I am arguing this position is that he knows that I am certainly not a materialist. My argument is merely that you have a tendency to mis-categorize things and thus form incoherent illusions of distinction.
There are two types of “naive”
A) Those who have not thought about a subject sufficiently to see the mistakes in thought
B) Those who have erroneously thought about a subject and can’t see their mistakes in thinking.
Both represent types of blindness. You believe that I am type A and I believe that you are type B. At least I give you credit for thinking. You believe that I do not think sufficiently to see your superior truth and I believe that you have mis-stepped in your thinking into a fantasy of superiority, as is even more common among philosophers than not thinking at all. Naive-philosophizing.
I don’t merely think it. I know it. And most certainly not from a naive condition of either type.
Everything is magic to those who can’t see how it works, “Of course Man never walked on the Moon. He would have just fallen off.”
Your claim is that you cannot see how such a thing could happen, therefore it doesn’t happen. I agree with you in that you personally cannot see how it could happen. I don’t believe that you are lying about your inability to understand it. It is your somewhat egocentric conclusion that I disagree with, “Because I can’t personally understand it, it can’t exist”.
I do not believe what I believe because of not being able to understand alternatives. I believe what I believe because I very seriously understand every detail and clearly see that there is no room for any alternatives (not to mention experiential evidences).
You speculate on what might be true and draw conclusions. I deduce what must be true from the total lack of alternatives and settle on the only conclusion possible. I have reason to believe that I have thought more deeply about these things than you, most certainly not a type A nave. You appear to draw conclusions based on your own inability to see how something works and thus “stitch together a reasoning”, form a superstition (the thing that every atheist believes of theists and is as old as old gets).
So let’s dispense with the personal posturing of who is superior and focus on the actual reasoning at hand.
You say;
…yet you have not shown that incoherence. You merely state it as an axiom in your mind. It reminds me also of JohnBannon’s insistence that the universe absolutely had to have a beginning, even though he cannot come up with a reason why it must; "It just must". You are not showing why it must be your way. And when asked, you simply repeat that it must followed by accusations of naivety. That is an indication of something who has a “gap” in their thinking. But because it is a gap of thought, they can’t explain it (else it wouldn’t be a gap).
That is merely an issue of how pedantic we want to get with words such as “brain”, "central nervous system, or just “auto-response mechanism”.
That jelly fish is doing nothing any more complex than a machine can do. In fact, machines today are far, far more complex in their “sentient like” behavior. To you, today’s technology is magic because you cannot see how a material object could ever be conscious. But rather than accept “magic”, you merely obfuscate the definition of “conscious” and claim that the machines are not conscious.
Androids will (and some are already) have far more knowledge than you, more intellectual capacity than you, more understanding than you, more strength than you, more speed than you, and more consciousness than you. And they will (and some do already) see you and me as no more than a relatively blind child or ape, completely incapable of understanding the world. They are designed to be so superior by those very clever people who are capable of designing very dangerous things.
What I would tell you is that you do not comprehend what constitutes “experience” and thus are not really qualified to ask that question.