///josep... unfortunately, the logic you employ to come to this conclusion is fraught with embedded assumptions and equivocations. It would take an houur or two to dissect your paragraph and list all the problems, and I don't have the time, and you would no doubt just reject them..(we humans are ABLE to deny or accept such 'proofs'...it's part OF being human)///

Sorry Bill D but there is nothing wrong with the logic I employed. Studying subjective brain states with a subjective brain state is self-referential--it goes nowhere.

Once I argued with a self-styled "atheist" who told me the best argument atheists can offer against the existence of god is "Can god make a stone so heavy even he couldn't lift it?" He said that statement disproves the notion of god. I tried to tell him that he was going to make atheists look like utter fools if he thinks he can go into a debate armed with that as his logical proof. The statement is self-referential. It compares god to god and nothing useful can be gotten from comparing a thing to itself. It's not a valid comparison.

A statement has to go somewhere. It has to go from A to B. Statements like the one quoted above go nowhere. A circles around and comes back to A. No different than "Everything I tell you is a lie." It is circular, it goes nowhere, i.e. conveys no useful information as opposed to, say, "Everything josep tells you is a lie." Whether it's true or not is beside the point, it conveys something useful because it isn't circular.

You can't use your subjective brain states to study someone else's subjective brain states and call it an objective study. It can only be objective if an outside consciousness validates your conclusions but that outside consciousness would also be subjective. So consciousness was never addressed in your study and this is necessarily so because we can't get outside our own consciousness to study it objectively. That's pretty much the cornerstone of every epistemological argument.