This is my current theory of Prof Chalmer's Fallancy

I've had a quick scan. I expect I missed quite a lot. You've put in a lot of work, and I like the website design.

What seems missing from your idea is a mechanism whereby the brain becomes conscious. Without that I can't get excited about the idea of machine consciousness.

The idea that a brain is sufficient for consciousness is highly controversial and thus not a sound starting point. But.. I may have misread you. Is your diagram meant to illustrate that method?

Personally I find it confusing to base your idea on Dasein, and would suggest finding a different word. Just about everybody is confused by Heidegger's use of this term. Certainly I am. If you're going to use Dasein in the theory, I think you may also need to include Existenz. As far as I understand it, for Heidegger Dasein arises from this, not from brains.

One niggle. I note you say that evolution requires competition, warfare etc. I wish it were more commonly recognised that evolution may just as well be called the survival of the most co-operative. That is, the fittest may be the most co-operative and helpful, not the most musclebound and aggressive. After all, as someone predicted, it's the meek who inherit the earth.

I'm not able to summarise relative phenomenalism, but I'd recommend the article by Edward Barkin by this title. It's one of the best written pieces I've ever read. A search on 'dependent origination' will bring up plenty of info. on the idea it encapsulates.

Edit. Just checked a reference and got this. Is your definition for Dasein the same as Heidegger's?

"For Heidegger, however, it (Dasein) must not be mistaken for a subject, that is something definable in terms of consciousness or a self. Heidegger was adamant about this distinction, which carried on Nietzsche's critique of the subject. Dasein, as a human being that is constituted by its temporality, illuminates and interprets the meaning of Being in Time. Heidegger chose this term as a synonym for "human entity" in order to emphasize the critical importance "being" has for our understanding and interpretation of the world. Some scholars have been confused on this issue, arguing that for Heidegger "Dasein" denoted some sort of structured awareness or an institutional "way of life"[1] but the textual evidence for this claim is not strong."

Sometimes I wonder if his Dasein and Existenz could be replaced by Samsara and Nirvana.

I understand that not everyone agrees with the brain being solely responsible for consciousness, but that is the view of the scientific community at present. Rather than second guess the complaints of others, I have decided to ignore them altogether. I am going for a fully computational and testable model, people can debate non biological models on forums.

Yes this is a valid complaint, and one I find scientists especially raise. However, there is good reason for using this language

Computationally I see Dasein as having two forms; a function and an Entity within that function. The function is the mind itself (I would therefore equate this with the brain). The Entity is what the function has perceived of itself, by interacting with other sentient beings (ie. the ego), which takes a few years to develop in humans.

Heidegger defines Dasein, very explicitly, at the start of Being and Time. He says it is an entity for which its own being is transparent to itself.

He calls Dasein the "inquirer" entity. By my count, he only once says that Dasein is "ourselves" (though it is continuously implied), mainly to avoid using common language and to promote clearer thought on the subject.