Yes, this has been the core of the debate. One cannot first define Consciousness as emerging from the brain and then ask the question whether it emerges from the brain. I define it exactly the opposite, which brings us into metaphysics.
Rich
... thus far, the con side of the debate seems to be mostly about pointing out potential problems with the mind-brain identity theory and using this as the basis for a claim that competing metaphysical theories are equally valid ... when contrasted with the pro side of the debate (which has argued many significant instances where the mind-brain identity theory is more consistent with scientific knowledge than the alternatives), these potential problems appear to be minor wrinkles that will eventually be ironed out as our scientific knowledge increases ... I say this because the con side of the debate has yet to argue any instance where a competing metaphysical theory is more consistent with current scientific knowledge than is the mind-brain identity theory (that's not to say that there aren't any - it's just to say that none have been successfully argued) ...
Let's go back to the TV analogy, in which metaphysical consciousness is the TV transmitter and the brain is the receiver. Now, even if one believes that, it is still important to consider the role of the receiver, because if it is faulty the picture will be distorted or non-existent. And what's the use of a TV transmission if you can't receive it properly or at all?
Consciousness, to me, refers to the actual experience of a sentient being, not to some abstract or ethereal substance existing independently.
I suggested some time back that we ought to call the latter "meta-consciousness", and reserve the term "consciousness" for the former, i.e. actual experience. On that basis, I suggest that this thread is specifically about consciousness, not meta-consciousness.
Some people (the biologists) think of the brain as the TV transmitter; others think of it as merely the receiver. Discussion on this point is fruitless, as there is no conclusive way of deciding the matter. Can we therefore concentrate on the more limited question of how consciousness (regardless of its origin) is affected by the brain? Because that's important too.
The admission that the seat of consciousness is not be found, by science, is enough for the debate to be open ended.
... at any rate, my guess is that you'd have a hard time finding anyone on the pro side of this particular debate that would agree with you that consciousness will never be scientifically understood ...
... at this point, we don't even know if there is a (single) "seat" of consciousness
The affirmative posed by the topic was: Consciousness is a Biological Problem.
I would say: We don't know and there are all kinds of views on the subject none of which seems to be satisfactory to everyone, but my own view satisfies me the most. I am sure you are satisfied with your view.
Rich
But I also would guess that the theories involving consciousness will evolve in ways that look nothing like they do today. But it takes time - whatever time might be.
...
