Mental imagery as non-physical perception pt. 2

[AgnosticBoy]

Critics of scientific realism ask how the inner perception of mental images actually occurs. This is sometimes called the "homunculus problem" (see also the mind's eye). The problem is similar to asking how the images you see on a computer screen exist in the memory of the computer. To scientific materialism, mental images and the perception of them must be brain-states. According to critics, scientific realists cannot explain where the images and their perceiver exist in the brain. To use the analogy of the computer screen, these critics argue that cognitive science and psychology have been unsuccessful in identifying either the component in the brain (i.e., "hardware") or the mental processes that store these images (i.e. "software").

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_image

I presented this argument a few months ago on this forum. I will play more of an information-seeking role here because I was left unsatisfied in the last thread. So again, I pose this challenge to materialists to use empirically-verifiable evidence to explain how or why mental images are physical when we DO NOT perceive them with our senses (hallucinations, dreams, etc).

Here's an easier way to put it:
1. Why aren't scientists able to observe our mental images (our hallucinations, dreams, etc) if they are physical?

2. Since perception involves our senses, then how am I able to perceive mental images without my senses?

I want scientifically verifiable peer-reviewed evidence-based answers to my questions. If you don't know, then just admit it. Don't simply tell me that scientists will figure it out - that's FAITH ... not scientific EVIDENCE.

[Clownboat]

I still maintain that the standard scientific explanation for consciousness is weak and unconvincing.

This is why people have accused you of complaining about the best explanation we have so far.
It's like you are complaining that the Koenigsegg Jesko Absolut, just isn't fast enough for you. I can acknowledge that it isn't fast enough for you, but it is still the fastest we got, unless you have something better to offer. Here in this thread I have not noticed a better explanation (/faster car).

How is a hallucination an end-to-end physical phenomenon?

It doesn't seem to be, but perhaps I am not understanding your question?

In my view, consciousness is a brain state

An emerging property of a functioning brain to be precise.

and more

Allow me to now complain about this explanation, that isn't an explanation, explains exactly nothing and isn't the best explanation currently available.
Again, it's like you are complaining that our fastest car just isn't fast enough.
My complaint would be that you aren't even presenting a car.

[AgnosticBoy]

I still maintain that the standard scientific explanation for consciousness is weak and unconvincing.

This is why people have accused you of complaining about the best explanation we have so far.
It's like you are complaining that the Koenigsegg Jesko Absolut, just isn't fast enough for you. I can acknowledge that it isn't fast enough for you, but it is still the fastest we got, unless you have something better to offer. Here in this thread I have not noticed a better explanation (/faster car).

A better explanation is not required to show that one explanation doesn't work or is flawed. Of course, it would be ideal to have a better explanation, but absent that doesn't automatically make the materialistic explanation valid.

For the record, I don't have my own explanation or theory to account for all facts/observations, but what I do have are data points or evidence that don't align with the current paradigms. Mental imagery is just one piece of evidence that I've gone through in this discussion.

How is a hallucination an end-to-end physical phenomenon?

It doesn't seem to be, but perhaps I am not understanding your question?

The point i was trying to make is that brain activity is involved, but it's not the entire story. This goes back to the hard problem when it comes to understanding how does brain make subjective experience or we can even ask if the brain is even causing or just correlating with experience. A good test to prove either way is to see if consciousness can exist without brain in some way, shape, or form. And I would argue that there is evidence to suggest just that but it gets to a point to where we can't measure it any more.

In my view, consciousness is a brain state

An emerging property of a functioning brain to be precise.

That's where my money is at, as well.

Allow me to now complain about this explanation, that isn't an explanation, explains exactly nothing and isn't the best explanation currently available.
Again, it's like you are complaining that our fastest car just isn't fast enough.
My complaint would be that you aren't even presenting a car.

At the least, all that's needed to show that science has a problem is evidence against the materialistic paradigm. The fact that even just exploring alternatives or just questioning materialism gets some scientists riled up shows that this goes beyond just evidence, but rather it's also about not wanting associations with spirituality, religion, or even just simply wanting their ideology (materialism) to be right at all costs.

[A Freeman]

What people commonly refer to as their "conscience" is actually God speaking to them.

Every individual soul is a spiritual-Being that is temporarily incarnated inside of the human body they see in the mirror. Hence the designation human+Being.

The soul is connected to our Creator via His Holy Spirit, which serves as the conduit through which all wisdom, guidance, communication and even an "early warning detection system" flow.

The human body is connected to Lucifer/Satan/Iblis, who uses the body to tempt us with Earthly pleasures and treasures.

This system was set up to teach and test us, to see if we actually want to learn how to be good/unselfish (thereby serving our Creator and our fellow souls), or whether we wish to continue being evil/selfish (thereby serving the "self"/ego and Satan).

This is why human "science" will NEVER be able to understand nor explain ANYTHING spiritual. It is impossible for a human to see or hear anything spiritual, because they lack the facilities to do so. The motivations and inner workings of the spiritual-Being (soul) will remain a mystery forever to those who have forgotten who and what we really are.

[A Freeman]

The battlefield is, and always has been, IN THE MIND.

Within each mind, there is the spiritual-Being, which should be in control, and there is the human imagination and its incessant, random musings.

A very simple test that can be conducted by any spiritual-Being, to see if they are in control of their own mind, is as follows:

1) sit in a comfortable chair, or lay flat on a bed, and close the bodies eyes;

2) clear the mind of all thought and maintain that peace and clarity; and

3) see how long it is before the first random thought "jumps" into the mind.

For most, the time interval is usually very short (e.g. 1-2 seconds) which should tell them that they are not in control of their own mind.

Instead, most are swimming in a sea of emotions, allowing those emotions to lead them wherever they go. Thoughts and regrets about the past. Plans and concerns about the future. NEVER their mind on where they are (the present moment) and on what they are doing.

Just as one can exercise the body and train it through practice to do things it otherwise could not do, it is possible to learn to control the mind, seeing the thoughts that enter it as they are forming. It simply requires one recognize there is a higher, spiritual self, a willingness to explore and learn about how the mind actually works, and enough practice.

There are a few videos on the human "self" (the ego) that are instructive, and which may be found at the following hyperlinked article:

Who Lucifer REALLY Is And Why You Should Care

This is why "science" will never be able to understand much less explain things like intuition, a "gut-feeling", premonition, NDEs, etc., because they are all beyond the physical realms in which human science operates.

[Clownboat]

A better explanation is not required to show that one explanation doesn't work or is flawed.

I never said it was. I said you are complaining about the best explanation that we have. I acknowledge your complaints about our best explanation and note that it remains the best explanation available.

Of course, it would be ideal to have a better explanation, but absent that doesn't automatically make the materialistic explanation valid.

Your lack of being able to provide a better explanation is not what makes the materialistic explanation the best explanation. We just note your complaints and your inability to suggest something better.

For the record, I don't have my own explanation or theory to account for all facts/observations, but what I do have are data points or evidence that don't align with the current paradigms. Mental imagery is just one piece of evidence that I've gone through in this discussion.

Your complaints are acknowledged. They are not super interesting though. A better explanation would be interesting.

The point i was trying to make is that brain activity is involved, but it's not the entire story.

I here your claim, but brain activity does seem to be the entire story. What is this other part of the story we are not aware of and how do you know about it?

This goes back to the hard problem when it comes to understanding how does brain make subjective experience or we can even ask if the brain is even causing or just correlating with experience. A good test to prove either way is to see if consciousness can exist without brain in some way, shape, or form. And I would argue that there is evidence to suggest just that but it gets to a point to where we can't measure it any more.

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

At the least, all that's needed to show that science has a problem is evidence against the materialistic paradigm. The fact that even just exploring alternatives or just questioning materialism gets some scientists riled up shows that this goes beyond just evidence, but rather it's also about not wanting associations with spirituality, religion, or even just simply wanting their ideology (materialism) to be right at all costs.

Now you are just projecting religious thinking on to others. You are religious and you want your ideology to be right. Science is a method used to arrive at truths and it is the best mechanism to date humans have come up with to do just that. If there are Gods that affect our world, science will detect them (the affects) and it is wrong for you to assume that there is some ideology that must be maintained.

Bottom line, if any Gods are real, we would want to know about them. Materialism is not some religion that must be protected. If it's wrong, it is simply wrong and a better mechanism will be accepted. Science corrects itself all the time. Therefore it is unfair and not accurate to compare it to religions that just claim to be true and deny any suggestions to the contrary.

[Clownboat]

What people commonly refer to as their "conscience" is actually God speaking to them.

Every individual soul is a spiritual-Being that is temporarily incarnated inside of the human body they see in the mirror. Hence the designation human+Being.

The soul is connected to our Creator via His Holy Spirit, which serves as the conduit through which all wisdom, guidance, communication and even an "early warning detection system" flow.

The human body is connected to Lucifer/Satan/Iblis, who uses the body to tempt us with Earthly pleasures and treasures.

This system was set up to teach and test us, to see if we actually want to learn how to be good/unselfish (thereby serving our Creator and our fellow souls), or whether we wish to continue being evil/selfish (thereby serving the "self"/ego and Satan).

This is why human "science" will NEVER be able to understand nor explain ANYTHING spiritual. It is impossible for a human to see or hear anything spiritual, because they lack the facilities to do so. The motivations and inner workings of the spiritual-Being (soul) will remain a mystery forever to those who have forgotten who and what we really are.

This is the science sub forum. Your post is against the rules and it is silly.
If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

[AgnosticBoy]

A better explanation is not required to show that one explanation doesn't work or is flawed.

I never said it was. I said you are complaining about the best explanation that we have. I acknowledge your complaints about our best explanation and note that it remains the best explanation available.

The materialists might have the best explanation but has it been scientifically verified? That's the distinction between best explanation and the *correct* one.

For the record, I don't have my own explanation or theory to account for all facts/observations, but what I do have are data points or evidence that don't align with the current paradigms. Mental imagery is just one piece of evidence that I've gone through in this discussion.

Your complaints are acknowledged. They are not super interesting though. A better explanation would be interesting.

My complaints are also based on evidence as opposed to the unconfirmed theories that people usually put out there. For instance, there's an explanation that mammals and birds grow larger in colder environments. My evidence, which you called complaints, would be like having evidence of mammals not growing larger in colder environments.

We shouldn't ignore such evidence, but rather we should revisit the explanation, and modify or discard it.

The point i was trying to make is that brain activity is involved, but it's not the entire story.

I here your claim, but brain activity does seem to be the entire story. What is this other part of the story we are not aware of and how do you know about it?

It appears to be the entire story because that is all scientists have been able to observe. However, there's no real understanding with those observations that would explain how brain causes consciousness (the answer to the 'hard problem') so we can't rule out or conclude that the brain is all that's needed.

Just think about this, the ONLY reason scientists even know about subjective experience (beyond him or herself) and how it correlates with brain activity is because everyone is able to report their experience to each other. Scientists didn't discover consciousness just by studying the brain alone and that's likely because nothing about brain activity shows how or why consciousness exists. Now if we could go back in time before the first neural correlates (NCC) study and just remove any input from the subject, or even think hypothetically about a world where no one reports their subjective (private) experience to others, then scientists would be the dark about subjective experience. They'd just presume that there's no subjective aspect to consciousness.

This goes back to the hard problem when it comes to understanding how does brain make subjective experience or we can even ask if the brain is even causing or just correlating with experience. A good test to prove either way is to see if consciousness can exist without brain in some way, shape, or form. And I would argue that there is evidence to suggest just that but it gets to a point to where we can't measure it any more.

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

I'm stating as a fact that consciousness, either completely or partially, is non-physical or unlike any other physical thing in the Universe. I'm stating this based on evidence as opposed to some religious doctrine or personal opinion. That may not amount to a theory because I can't explain the how or why, but that doesn't mean the evidence for such a view is non-existent or that we should ignore it.

Again, there are several lines of evidence I can go off of, starting with the most simple which is that subjective experience can not be observed objectively (e.g. hallucinations, mental imagery, etc). Also, there are conditions where the brain is functioning at a minimal or impaired level (near-death or beyond even) where it shouldn't have capacity for vivid experience, and lots of people have come back out of those conditions report that they were still able to have vivid experiences. I can even use that point in reverse to make a case by showing that the brain/body can function without consciousness via 'automatic behaviors' (mainly complex behaviors that body/brain can do while we're asleep). In my view, it makes it easier to argue for an independently functioning consciousness the lesser it is tied to or needed by the brain.

At the least, all that's needed to show that science has a problem is evidence against the materialistic paradigm. The fact that even just exploring alternatives or just questioning materialism gets some scientists riled up shows that this goes beyond just evidence, but rather it's also about not wanting associations with spirituality, religion, or even just simply wanting their ideology (materialism) to be right at all costs.

Now you are just projecting religious thinking on to others. You are religious and you want your ideology to be right. Science is a method used to arrive at truths and it is the best mechanism to date humans have come up with to do just that. If there are Gods that affect our world, science will detect them (the affects) and it is wrong for you to assume that there is some ideology that must be maintained.

Bottom line, if any Gods are real, we would want to know about them. Materialism is not some religion that must be protected. If it's wrong, it is simply wrong and a better mechanism will be accepted. Science corrects itself all the time. Therefore it is unfair and not accurate to compare it to religions that just claim to be true and deny any suggestions to the contrary.

I thought my username made it clear that I'm non-religious!

I can agree with you about science. My point is about scientists (many of them but not all).

[Clownboat]

The materialists might have the best explanation but has it been scientifically verified? That's the distinction between best explanation and the *correct* one.

Copy/paste to save time: "I said you are complaining about the best explanation that we have."
Please note that I am not claiming that you are complaining about the correct explanation as I'm open to being shown a better one if such a thing exists.

My complaints are also based on evidence as opposed to the unconfirmed theories that people usually put out there. For instance, there's an explanation that mammals and birds grow larger in colder environments. My evidence, which you called complaints, would be like having evidence of mammals not growing larger in colder environments.

Copy/paste: "Your complaints are acknowledged. They are not super interesting though. A better explanation would be interesting."

We shouldn't ignore such evidence, but rather we should revisit the explanation, and modify or discard it.

I'm fine with the current explanation. You have complaints. What I'm asking for is a better explanation if there is one. So far, nothing has been offered.

It appears to be the entire story because that is all scientists have been able to observe. However, there's no real understanding with those observations that would explain how brain causes consciousness (the answer to the 'hard problem') so we can't rule out or conclude that the brain is all that's needed.

I have not concluded that the brain is all that's needed. I acknowledge that is all that seems to be required, but if you want to argue for something else being needed, you need to do so.

Just think about this, the ONLY reason scientists even know about subjective experience (beyond him or herself) and how it correlates with brain activity is because everyone is able to report their experience to each other.

This doesn't inform us about anything though.

Scientists didn't discover consciousness just by studying the brain alone and that's likely because nothing about brain activity shows how or why consciousness exists. Now if we could go back in time before the first neural correlates (NCC) study and just remove any input from the subject, or even think hypothetically about a world where no one reports their subjective (private) experience to others, then scientists would be the dark about subjective experience. They'd just presume that there's no subjective aspect to consciousness.

Ok.

I'm stating as a fact that consciousness, either completely or partially, is non-physical or unlike any other physical thing in the Universe.

Then you are correct as consciousness isn't physical because it is a state of being aware. Us being aware seems to stem from our functioning brains, but I'm open to whatever else you are suggesting that provides us with this awareness that isn't the brain.

I'm stating this based on evidence as opposed to some religious doctrine or personal opinion. That may not amount to a theory because I can't explain the how or why, but that doesn't mean the evidence for such a view is non-existent or that we should ignore it.

Copy/paste: Then you are correct as consciousness isn't physical because it is a state of being aware.

Again, there are several lines of evidence I can go off of, starting with the most simple which is that subjective experience can not be observed objectively (e.g. hallucinations, mental imagery, etc).
Also, there are conditions where the brain is functioning at a minimal or impaired level (near-death or beyond even) where it shouldn't have capacity for vivid experience, and lots of people have come back out of those conditions report that they were still able to have vivid experiences. I can even use that point in reverse to make a case by showing that the brain/body can function without consciousness via 'automatic behaviors' (mainly complex behaviors that body/brain can do while we're asleep). In my view, it makes it easier to argue for an independently functioning consciousness the lesser it is tied to or needed by the brain.

Sounds like an argument from incredulity to me (I don't understand X therefore we should consider Y).
If you feel that consciousness comes from somewhere outside of the brain (in part at least), please present what you have. Incredulity won't amount to much though.

[AgnosticBoy]

My complaints are also based on evidence as opposed to the unconfirmed theories that people usually put out there. For instance, there's an explanation that mammals and birds grow larger in colder environments. My evidence, which you called complaints, would be like having evidence of mammals not growing larger in colder environments.

Copy/paste: "Your complaints are acknowledged. They are not super interesting though. A better explanation would be interesting."

This is not a helpful explanation, and amounts to dismissing. For instance, you're not addressing my evidence - why is it wrong, why is it right, what specifically are the strong and weak points, etc.

All it takes to show that consciousness is not physical like all the other things in the Universe is evidence. A theory goes beyond just evidence. The Sun exists since we have evidence (we all see it), and that's the case even if we couldn't explain the how and why (theory).

We shouldn't ignore such evidence, but rather we should revisit the explanation, and modify or discard it.

I'm fine with the current explanation. You have complaints. What I'm asking for is a better explanation if there is one. So far, nothing has been offered.

We've both acknowledged that I don't have a theory. What about addressing the evidence? It's worth noting that my evidence has already been battle tested with some of the top thinkers (i.e. DrNoGods, Divine Insight, Benchwarmer, etc) in this thread. I'd like to think i fared well or at least made a good debate, but I'll leave it up to the audience to read through it and decide.

It appears to be the entire story because that is all scientists have been able to observe. However, there's no real understanding with those observations that would explain how brain causes consciousness (the answer to the 'hard problem') so we can't rule out or conclude that the brain is all that's needed.

I have not concluded that the brain is all that's needed. I acknowledge that is all that seems to be required, but if you want to argue for something else being needed, you need to do so.

That's what I've done using evidence. We seem to be conflating theory, evidence, argument. There are levels of differences between the three. I've presented evidence and arguments.

In fact, let me say based on all of the available evidence, it's more reasonable to say that the brain is just a medium for consciousness as opposed to being the sole source or cause for it. This is better because it accounts for all of the evidence involving interactions between the two while also leaving it open to account all of the other interactions that occur without the brain. Being just a medium, could also lend support for other things being conscious, like Ai. It's less restrictive, makes less assumptions, etc.

Just think about this, the ONLY reason scientists even know about subjective experience (beyond him or herself) and how it correlates with brain activity is because everyone is able to report their experience to each other.

Scientists didn't discover consciousness just by studying the brain alone and that's likely because nothing about brain activity shows how or why consciousness exists. Now if we could go back in time before the first neural correlates (NCC) study and just remove any input from the subject, or even think hypothetically about a world where no one reports their subjective (private) experience to others, then scientists would be the dark about subjective experience. They'd just presume that there's no subjective aspect to consciousness.

This doesn't inform us about anything though.

It's more of a thought-experiment to illustrate how unlikely it would be for scientists to figure out or explain consciousness by just looking to the brain.

I'm stating as a fact that consciousness, either completely or partially, is non-physical or unlike any other physical thing in the Universe.

Then you are correct as consciousness isn't physical because it is a state of being aware.

I kinda get what you're saying.

I've had some even say that consciousness is a 'process' and not an entity or object that we would look at as we do other physical objects (a table) - a category error so-to-speak. But then there are these internal experiences or even a world some would say, filled with mental objects and behaviors that tend to have the same effects on the brain/body as you would doing the actual physical act (e.g. wet dreams). So I think it's more than just a process.

I'm stating this based on evidence as opposed to some religious doctrine or personal opinion. That may not amount to a theory because I can't explain the how or why, but that doesn't mean the evidence for such a view is non-existent or that we should ignore it.

Copy/paste: Then you are correct as consciousness isn't physical because it is a state of being aware.

Well it's more than just a state of awareness. It is also experiencing or creating things that we would say are non-physical. Refer to my explanation above regarding the mental world and objects in it.

Us being aware seems to stem from our functioning brains, but I'm open to whatever else you are suggesting that provides us with this awareness that isn't the brain.

That's just correlation. Basically the explanation from that is "this happens then that happens". But why does it happen? How and why does this cause this particular inner experience?

I go back to my view that the brain may as well be a medium for consciousness. If you can show that it causes consciousness to the point that you couldn't have one without the other, then that would disprove the brain medium view.

Again, there are several lines of evidence I can go off of, starting with the most simple which is that subjective experience can not be observed objectively (e.g. hallucinations, mental imagery, etc).
Also, there are conditions where the brain is functioning at a minimal or impaired level (near-death or beyond even) where it shouldn't have capacity for vivid experience, and lots of people have come back out of those conditions report that they were still able to have vivid experiences. I can even use that point in reverse to make a case by showing that the brain/body can function without consciousness via 'automatic behaviors' (mainly complex behaviors that body/brain can do while we're asleep). In my view, it makes it easier to argue for an independently functioning consciousness the lesser it is tied to or needed by the brain.

Sounds like an argument from incredulity to me (I don't understand X therefore we should consider Y).
If you feel that consciousness comes from somewhere outside of the brain (in part at least), please present what you have. Incredulity won't amount to much though.

I see it differently. It's more like the evidence doesn't rule out Y, and it suggests that it could be Y.

In a sense, it's a 'false dilemma' fallacy to say that the evidence only points to the standard materialism one. There are other options based on the evidence.

[Clownboat]

Copy/paste: "Your complaints are acknowledged. They are not super interesting though. A better explanation would be interesting."

This is not a helpful explanation, and amounts to dismissing.

That is because I explained nothing. I informed you that I acknowledge your complaints, find them to be uninteresting and suggested that providing a better explanation would be interesting. I plan to continue to acknowledge your complaints and dismiss them in hopes of being offered a better explanation.

For instance, you're not addressing my evidence - why is it wrong, why is it right, what specifically are the strong and weak points, etc.

In the last post, you argued for a independently functioning consciousness.
Please supply the evidence for us to evaluate that would suggest such a thing.
Things from the last post that are currently not considered as evidence:
- The materialists might have the best explanation but has it been scientifically verified?
- there's an explanation that mammals and birds grow larger in colder environments. My evidence, which you called complaints, would be like having evidence of mammals not growing larger in colder environments.
- there's no real understanding with those observations that would explain how brain causes consciousness (the answer to the 'hard problem') so we can't rule out or conclude that the brain is all that's needed.
- the ONLY reason scientists even know about subjective experience (beyond him or herself) and how it correlates with brain activity is because everyone is able to report their experience to each other.
- Scientists didn't discover consciousness just by studying the brain alone and that's likely because nothing about brain activity shows how or why consciousness exists.
- Now if we could go back in time... then scientists would be the dark about subjective experience.
- I'm stating as a fact that consciousness, either completely or partially, is non-physical
- I can't explain the how or why, but that doesn't mean the evidence for such a view is non-existent
- subjective experience can not be observed objectively
- there are conditions where the brain is functioning at a minimal or impaired level (near-death or beyond even) where it shouldn't have capacity for vivid experience, and lots of people have come back out of those conditions report that they were still able to have vivid experiences.
- the brain/body can function without consciousness via 'automatic behaviors'

Where is the evidence for some independent functioning consciousness though?

All it takes to show that consciousness is not physical like all the other things in the Universe is evidence. A theory goes beyond just evidence. The Sun exists since we have evidence (we all see it), and that's the case even if we couldn't explain the how and why (theory).

Again, consciousness is a state of being aware. We agree that this state of being aware it is not physical. You seem to agree about this 'state of mind', but want to argue for it being independent of a functioning brain. I note that drugs and damage to our brains does in fact affect our awareness. What do you note that would suggest that our awareness comes from some independent thing yet to be identified?

We've both acknowledged that I don't have a theory.

Theory! I'm waiting on a valid hypothesis at this point.

What about addressing the evidence?

The evidence that our ability to be aware of our surroundings comes independently from our brains is what? Present it and I promise I'll address it if possible.

That's what I've done using evidence. We seem to be conflating theory, evidence, argument. There are levels of differences between the three. I've presented evidence and arguments.

Then just pretend I'm dumb and that I don't recall where or what you have presented that would suggest that our ability to be aware/our consciousness is independent of our brains.

In fact, let me say based on all of the available evidence, it's more reasonable to say that the brain is just a medium for consciousness as opposed to being the sole source or cause for it.

I observe that everything that informs us about our awareness of what is going on around us stems from our functioning brains (smell, sight, touch, memories, etc.). If you can point to something independent of the brain, please do so.

This is better because it accounts for all of the evidence involving interactions between the two while also leaving it open to account all of the other interactions that occur without the brain.

What interactions are you referring to that occur without our brains involvement?

Being just a medium, could also lend support for other things being conscious, like Ai. It's less restrictive, makes less assumptions, etc.

Our brains are such a medium, but that is my point. Only our brains are the medium that seem to be involved. You have alluded to something independent and I would like to know more about this thing.
me·di·um
/ˈmēdēəm/
noun
the intervening substance through which impressions are conveyed to the senses

I've had some even say that consciousness is a 'process' and not an entity or object that we would look at as we do other physical objects (a table)

The definition of consciousness is understood and this state of being aware is not physical. You can ignore anyone claiming it is physical, like a table.

But then there are these internal experiences or even a world some would say, filled with mental objects and behaviors that tend to have the same effects on the brain/body as you would doing the actual physical act (e.g. wet dreams). So I think it's more than just a process.

Hallucinations are not actually real, but they are very real for the person experiencing them. Everything about hallucinations seem to take place in our brains, the very thing that supplies our awareness/consiousness. Are you suggesting that there is or must be something independent of our brains being involved?

Copy/paste: Then you are correct as consciousness isn't physical because it is a state of being aware.

Well it's more than just a state of awareness.

I currently reject this for definition reasons:
con·scious·ness
/ˈkänSHəsnəs/
noun
the state of being awake and aware of one's surroundings.

Us being aware seems to stem from our functioning brains, but I'm open to whatever else you are suggesting that provides us with this awareness that isn't the brain.

That's just correlation.

You make it sound like it is a negative. It isn't.
While correlation doesn't imply causation, understanding correlation can be valuable for identifying patterns, making predictions, and developing hypotheses. Much like the hypothesis that consciousness stems from a functioning brain and noting how drugs and/or damage to our brains does in fact affect our consciousness.

Basically the explanation from that is "this happens then that happens". But why does it happen? How and why does this cause this particular inner experience?

Well, let's examine drugs then.
Psychoactive drugs are chemicals that change our state of consciousness. They work by influencing neurotransmitters in the central nervous system. Influencing neurotransmitters can significantly impact mood, behavior, and even physical health.
What independent thing from our brains are you arguing must exist?

I go back to my view that the brain may as well be a medium for consciousness. If you can show that it causes consciousness to the point that you couldn't have one without the other, then that would disprove the brain medium view.

Our brains are the medium (the intervening substance through which impressions are conveyed to the senses). Showing that our brains cause consciousness to emerge would not affect actually affect this.

Again, there are several lines of evidence I can go off of, starting with the most simple which is that subjective experience can not be observed objectively (e.g. hallucinations, mental imagery, etc).

Let me grant this for the purpose of debate.
Therefore what?

Also, there are conditions where the brain is functioning at a minimal or impaired level (near-death or beyond even) where it shouldn't have capacity for vivid experience, and lots of people have come back out of those conditions report that they were still able to have vivid experiences.

I fully understand how vivid hallucinations are to the person experiencing them.

I can even use that point in reverse to make a case by showing that the brain/body can function without consciousness via 'automatic behaviors'

Let's grant this for debate. Please make your case and let's see where it leads us.

In a sense, it's a 'false dilemma' fallacy to say that the evidence only points to the standard materialism one.

It is true that I currently observe only our brains seemingly being needed to explain us being aware/conscious. I'm clearly not committing a 'false dilemma' though because I am asking you to inform us about any other option you can dream up that would account for consciousness being independent of our brains. If the evidence only points to something material, it is what it is. This is why I'm interested in hearing about some non material cause you can point to.