My brain comes up with philosophies that have no base in the sensory all the time. The concept of infinity, the concept of a logical progression, and with the help of some extremely powerful substances, I have seen and tasted colors that do not exist. (Which really does some fucked up things to your mind.) 

I'm honestly too fucking lazy to read through that massive post. I get about halfway through it and I get really tired of constantly looking shit up, so explain in everyday terms how you established that both my premises are flawed. I really doubt you need to try to impress me with a massive post that I would obviously have no intention of reading, if you can say it with that behemath, I'm sure you can simplify it. 

The question of equality, as I have shown in my other thread, was a logical trap I set up for you to fall in. If you choose to ignore it, good for you. 

Whats the contradiction in describing god as thought?

It is clear that you didn't even read my post:

I never said that a real object was necessary to exist behind some perceptual experience. That is not the basis of our discussion. At any rate, this precisely backs up my point. The use of drugs constitutes a neurochemical alteration, induced by neural hyperpolarization or depolarization, depending on the type of drug being employed. The manner in which this produces sensory experiences, or alters them, has already been described. It is definitely clear that you didn't read my post. The sensory experiences induced by drugs still counter under the description of "sensory experiences", regardless of the real ontological basis behind them.

Then get out. I wasn't too lazy to write it.

Actually, it wasn't "obvious" that you had no intention of reading it. People in debates should read the writing of their interlocutors.

Is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the debate. It is an appeal to emotion.

Jack , how dare you think your "awe" is unique. You are displaying arrogance. This is a common trait of young grasshoppers denied a loving start. You are simply breaking free and your ego is strong, lucky you. You are learning and shouting and that is good. 

We that argue with you are your caring friends. My message to you is , YOU ARE GOD AS I , as all is one, connected. We are all in awe. Nothing is unique, nothing is special.

      YOU are the center of all there is, and still you are not unique .....       

 In other words, you are the center of everything no matter where you go in the entire cosmos of all universes ..... but not unique. Stop silly arrogance , as that is dogma.

  Dogma ,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogma

I think of concepts that I cannot experience. Like what it would be like to not exist. What is the idea of negative numbers? When have I ever experienced a negative of anything?

I might get around to reading it eventually, but I already raised all the points I'm trying to raise int he other thread, and I have no intention of arguing with a biologist about the brain. you know more about it, and my expertise is not in science. Besides, from what I've read you have not proven the non-existence of a soul at all.

Anyways, tommorows my b-day, so Im probably not gonna be on here so dont get all excited and think I "ran away" or "was beaten"

But this is only because abstract conceptualizations such as negative numbers, or indeed, positive numbers, have associated symbolism that can be experienced. This is, indeed, the very basis of abstract thought. It would not be possible to conceive of numbers if it was not possible to experience symbols associated with numbers, visual symbols which are associated, via our capacity with language, with non-experiential conceptualizations. Without this neurological function it would not be possible to think abstractly.

Well, I've punched enough holes in the concept to show that it is not tenable.

Isn't it intuitive to doubt that awareness is a purely mechanical phenomenon?

It is obvious that all we are machines in a sense. However, if the bio-chemical machinery of the senses and memory exist to form a model of reality to be presented to awareness, what is doing the perceiving? Are they one and the same ~ the presenting mechanism and some kind of perceiving mechanism?
 

In me there is an intuitive sense that I am not merely a machine.

Has this ever occured to anyone else?

I find it difficult to see the awareness of self as purely mechanical when I go through the thought experiment of building a self aware machine. To create such a machine I would start by adding cameras and a microphone attached to a sophisticated computer to form a model of the environment. This mechanical assemblage would represent sense experience. I could further imagine giving the computer a behavior mechanism by hooking the environmental model to an adaptive neural network and driving novel behaviors through hard-coded or "instinctual" feedback software (perhaps a drive to seek light for energy). I could further imagine giving the machine a language instinct, with sophisticated turn taking and mimicry software acting as a reward mechanism to stimulate the formation of the ability for the machine to provide some level of sensible responses to spoken language. No matter how sophisticated the machinary and life like the behavior of such a mechanism, I find it difficult to imagine it having awareness of it's own being. It is still just an elaborate simulation.

It could be that awareness is either too simple or too complex a thing for me to see it's mechanism.  Thoughts?

Sure. It's also intuitive to figure that when we get sick, it's because we've offended the gods. Intuitive has value, but let's not get silly and decide that it's amazingly successful at driving us to the truth.

It's also intuitive to think the Earth is flat and the sun moves around the Earth.