Reminds me of the Christians belief in the second coming. The speculative reasoning of what the future is going to look like during the event may preclude the ability to recognise the event when it actually happens.
Actually the first time Jesus came the people figured he was going to wipe out the very people that nailed him to a cross.

In most intellectual circles everything is subject to scientific reasoning even if the reasoning is inadequate to measure the unknown with the known.

I'd say that what you see as our differences is your approach to life and your interpretation of everyone elses approach.
Without a clear experience of Union the Universe is pieced together by different parts that make up a whole.
Actually the universe holds the differences within itself and does not change if they are removed or added.

How another recognises activity is not necessarily important. More often than not it is a distraction to ones own ability to be aware.

Being aware that there is a relative level of speculativeness to one's conceptualization isn't necessarily important? I think not. That would open the flood gates for all sorts of irrationalism.



Adding or removing something from reality, which we can conceive of as "all that is logically possible", is an invalid proposition.

Anything irrational or not of the expected is frightening to the "rational" need to control the unexpected or unknown.


Invalid or beyond relative levels of comprehension?
Are you really of the mind that there is nothing beyond current logic that can be known, or that logic is fixed/universal to belief and comprehension?

I can only speak for myself, but I recognize that there is likely something of the universal in me or my experiences. Life without consciousness would be the same as being in a coma, and wouldn't be much like the life I know. If I were a zombie robot I would have no fun that I would know of, so that would be unsatisfactory to me.

I feel a need to know things, and knowing requires consciousness. Because I need to know, I need to be conscious. It's basically a humanist view. I like it because it's what I want, or maybe I want it because it's what I like. Does that mean I have no free will because I always desire what I want? No. As with some Presidents, I get to be a decider. I could choose not to be.

While I'm at it, let me just throw in here that love makes the world go 'round, as has been said many times before. Love really is the answer, and without consciousness, there would be no love.

I don't think that information processing is consiousness. Consciousness in its pure form is without information content. However, consciousness is usually bound up in structure (information).

Most of the mental processing done by the brain is unconscious, so it's clear that information processing is not equivalent to consciousness. Consciousness is involved in only the tip of the mental iceberg.

Nature is not wasteful, so consciousness must have a necessary role in mental activity. We know that nothing enters memory without first being conscious (generally, there may be some exceptions). We also know that unconscious performance is degraded compared to focused awareness on a task. For example, people can drive while talking on a cell phone, but they don't do it very well.

Therefore, the philosopher's zombie is not logically possible. There is a functional need for there to be something that it is like to be.