The Profound difference between the Religious World View and the Scientific One:

[wavelength]

You can predict the next step or state of a deterministic machine.  You can predict the nth state of a deterministic machine, but you cannot, in general, predict the final outcome of a deterministic machine or process.  I don't have to prove this to you do I?  You cannot pre-determine the output without simulating or running the machine in the first place, but that leads back to the original problem.  Determinism is not the same as predictable.  We can predict the next state of a machine, but we can't in general decide it's final outcome.  I'm tired of debating this point with you when it's obvious you only have a cursory understanding of this topic.

With all respect, I think there is a confusion of different levels of statements here, probably because I didn't make myself clear. If I have a computer in initial state and I load a program in it and then it performs one step at a time, each time using a set of a specific series of inputs, the outcome after the n'th step will always be the same. This behaviour clearly shows that the computer does not 'decide' anything. There is only passive processing which leads from step i to step i+1 and finally to step n. The computer doesn't go 'hmm, what should I do here', there is no choice. Of course, in general, you need to go through all of the steps at least once e.g. by running the program (or calculating everything with a pencil and paper), to know the outcome, I never questioned that. Rice's theorem talks about the possibility of making certain general statements about algorithms, it does not invalidate the deterministic behaviour of a deterministic machine. I don't think I used the term 'predictable'. If I did, sorry. I think this should clear up the misunderstanding.

Material vs immaterial in my mind is equivalent to scientific vs superstitious.  You are positing that there are things there that are material but aren't observable or understandable by science.  Why wouldn't they be observable by science?

Well, why would they?
What is your definition of 'material'.
Is 'Space' itself material?

If they can affect the material world (like consciousness) then they can be observed, tested, and are subject to the scientific method.

Interesting philosophic statement. Which scientific experiment leads you to this conclusion, that if something affects the material world it must be measurable? Is this a scientific theory or an absolute truth?

Doing so is beyond the scope of a post on the internet, wouldn't you agree?  We can agree that the atomic theory of matter is supported by mountains of evidence.  I'd rather not go down an existential rat hole defining what an atom is.

The point was that the atom is a scientific model of what the material world is made of, nothing more and nothing less. It is not equal to it. To believe that it is the same, you must pre-assume that there is nothing more to the world than its scientific aspects, which there is no scientific proof of. If this equality would hold true, one implication would be that the world consists of empty space with some small stuff in-between, we don't know what it is made of. Not a very satisfying answer to the question of material manifestation. Of course there is no certainty, that atomic theory (or better it's successors) will not be overthrown in the future by new scientific theories, but that's beside the point.

For the same reason you don't believe in the flying spaghetti monster.  It's unlikely to exist and it's existence makes no difference to reality.

The only thing that makes it unlikely for you (awareness that is) is that you cannot measure it scientifically, right?

It makes no difference to the scientific model of reality, the difference it makes in reality is that we wouldn't have this aware conversation, if awareness didn't exist.

[wavelength]

Alles nur Wunschdenken.

Ich selber glaube an das unsichtbare, fliegende, vierkoepfige Wienerschnitzel, das sich durch wissenschaftliche Mittel nicht beweisen laesst.

Not once did I use wishful thinking or the need for faith in this thread, did I? 

[wavelength]

no one can prove the negative but if your a logical person you would obviously admit that nothing immaterial has ever been observed, the universe is composed of matter/anti-matter etc... and all forms of matter such as energy. There has never been a shred of evidence for something immaterial, and by definition we could never have any, so your belief that there is something other then the material of universe is based on nothing, since the universe is material, and faith(an irrational belief).

For all you say here you must pre-assume that there is nothing more to the world than scientific aspects. Of course there is no scientific evidence that says otherwise, that is a logical consequence of reducing the world to its scientific aspects in the first place.

When you say, 'the universe is material', then what is Space?

As if this is not enough take brain injuries via hypoxia, mechanical damage or pathology to particular brain structure(s) and observe its affects on consciousness, there are vast differences.

I don't deny that the brain is a necessity for human consciousness and that its physical state has influence on it. But again, that does not prove that there is nothing more to the brain than what can be scientifically measured and also not that there is nothing more to consciousness than the brain.

lets say there is a soul or something immaterial in the brain. First off your making the classical cartesian category mistake. On top of that say there is a soul which creates your consciousness, your YOU, the emotive being that experiences everything. Explain multiple personality disorder? these people show vastly different personalities, changes in immune assays (cd4+, cd8+), pathology(some retain or lose allergies) and accent, as well as temperments. These peole when interviewed believe they are different people and from all objective criteria they really are. Are there multiple souls in this being? how does this immaterial soul or souls interact within the being?. The idea of multiple soulds inhabiting a brain seems dubious and stretches creduality to its breaking point. However, its much easier to accept that the multiple YOUS is really just a brain malfunction, specifically a upset in neuropeptides, and generally a pathology of the brain as a whole.

I never mentioned the term 'soul', we do not have to go that far. Quite obviously, I don't know exactly what goes on in another person, simply because I am not him. A scientist who scientifically examines such a patient also does not know that. Even if there would be multiple personalities in one being (which I very much doubt, and which is a very vague concept), still there is always 'someone' who experiences something.

i would ask whats your evidence for the immaterial also?

As I said, I am not really talking about material vs immaterial. I am talking about aspects of the world that cannot be measured or tackled scientifically. If we are looking for something that cannot be scientifically tackled, an easy example is the question: what is material made of? Science can always only find smaller particles but never explain what they are made of (apart from even smaller particles). So in the end, you cannot measure what matter is made of, it's simply beyond the scope of science. There is an infinite number of examples like that of course.

[MMC78]

Interesting philosophic statement. Which scientific experiment leads you to this conclusion, that if something affects the material world it must be measurable? Is this a scientific theory or an absolute truth?

This is self-evident.  If something affects the physical world, then it is by definition measurable.  If something is measurable, then it's behavior can be analyzed via the scientific method.

The point was that the atom is a scientific model of what the material world is made of, nothing more and nothing less. It is not equal to it. To believe that it is the same, you must pre-assume that there is nothing more to the world than its scientific aspects, which there is no scientific proof of.

This is exactly what I believe.  There is no proof, but there are mountains of evidence.  Science has refuted the existence of thousands of gods, conquered superstition, and freed us from religious bondage.  If there exists something that is not comprehensible via material scientific analysis, then it cannot not affect the material world.

If my awareness is immaterial, then how does it affect the movement of my hands over this keyboard?  Is it the old pineal gland again? 

By stating that the conscious is immaterial you must do one of two things: relegate the conscious to something impotent which cannot affect the material world, or explain how the immaterial conscious can influence and affect the material world.

This is the classic dualist paradox and I've never seen a logical resolution.

[wavelength]

This is self-evident.  If something affects the physical world, then it is by definition measurable.  If something is measurable, then it's behavior can be analyzed via the scientific method.

By what definition should this be the case?
By definition, everything that is a physical (in the scientific sense) aspect of the world, is measurable, just because otherwise it would not have been included in the scientific realm to start with. But there is no definition that says that there can be nothing that affects what can be meausured, which itself cannot be measured.

This is exactly what I believe.  There is no proof, but there are mountains of evidence.  Science has refuted the existence of thousands of gods, conquered superstition, and freed us from religious bondage.  If there exists something that is not comprehensible via material scientific analysis, then it cannot not affect the material world.

So believe is what you need? If there are mountains of evidence, name me one. We have already established that there can never be a scientific one. Why would you believe in something that has absolutely no scientific proof to it? Sounds alot like religious fundamentalism to me.

BTW, I agree that science has freed us from alot of superstition, no doubt about that.

If my awareness is immaterial, then how does it affect the movement of my hands over this keyboard?  Is it the old pineal gland again?

By stating that the conscious is immaterial you must do one of two things: relegate the conscious to something impotent which cannot affect the material world, or explain how the immaterial conscious can influence and affect the material world.

This is the classic dualist paradox and I've never seen a logical resolution.

Again, I did not bring up material vs. immaterial. This would suggest that science deals with the material world and everything else must be immaterial. This of course would be dualism. But this dualism only emerges if you start from the 'scientifistic' world view. I start from a holistic world view where science deals with scientific aspects only (according to the very definition of science).

E.g. if I examine a chair I can say that it is made out of wood and I can say that you can sit on it. Just two aspects of the same chair. There is no duality in that. Of course a 'woodist' would state that it's nonsense that you can sit on it, since it has nothing to to with the chair's woodyness and since it cannot be woodified, it must be abandoned.

I already stated that the pineal gland theory is nonsense. Simply because when talking about it in this way, we are staying in the scientific realm only, and thus, nothing can be sayed about it beyond it's scientific attributes to start with.

If you think science offers a satisfying explanation for the 'material' world, maybe you know what matter is made of? Or Space?

[MMC78]

By what definition should this be the case?
By definition, everything that is a physical (in the scientific sense) aspect of the world, is measurable, just because otherwise it would not have been included in the scientific realm to start with. But there is no definition that says that there can be nothing that affects what can be meausured, which itself cannot be measured.

What you're saying is that that there's something which is immaterial and can't be measured but can affect the measurable physical world.  This is exactly equivalent to my pink dragon that lives in my garage.  Only I can see him, but try as you might, he can't be measured.  He's incorporeal, and he's cute, and he breathes fire, and only I can see him, only I am aware of him, he's outside of science just like my distant relative jesus.

[wavelength]

What you're saying is that that there's something which is immaterial and can't be measured but can affect the measurable physical world.  This is exactly equivalent to my pink dragon that lives in my garage.  Only I can see him, but try as you might, he can't be measured.  He's incorporeal, and he's cute, and he breathes fire, and only I can see him, only I am aware of him, he's outside of science just like my distant relative jesus.

I am sorry but that's not what I said. We don't have to go as far as material vs. immaterial, I never made that distinction. This duality was introduced by you, not me. You again pre-assume that the difference between material and immaterial is the same as between scientifically measurable and not scientifically measurable. It's easy to show that this is not the case. I already brought a few examples: It is e.g. not scientifically measurable what matter is made of. So clearly there must be more to the 'material' world than just scientific models of it. And how about Space itself for a pink dragon, which is the very basis of all natural science? You cannot 'measure' the one infinite Space. It however seems to be the very precondition to our 'material' world. Do you believe Space exists?

[MMC78]

I am sorry but that's not what I said. We don't have to go as far as material vs. immaterial, I never made that distinction. This duality was introduced by you, not me. You again pre-assume that the difference between material and immaterial is the same as between scientifically measurable and not scientifically measurable. It's easy to show that this is not the case. I already brought a few examples: It is e.g. not scientifically measurable what matter is made of. So clearly there must be more to the 'material' world than just scientific models of it. And how about Space itself for a pink dragon, which is the very basis of all natural science? You cannot 'measure' the one infinite Space. It however seems to be the very precondition to our 'material' world. Do you believe Space exists?

I won't even go that far and my argument still holds.  Let's not make them equivalence classes, but rather let say that IF something is measurable then by definition it is understandable by the tools of science.  I haven't seen one example to the contrary that suggests otherwise.

Your point as to what matter is made up of is seems to be irrelevant to this discussion.  Matter can be defined via a functional, scientific definition.  It behaves in certain ways according to a set of rules.  What it is made up of is irrelevant.  Like so many people you're ascribing a typical 'mid-world' anthropomorphic view of atomic and sub atomic particles. 

[wavelength]

I won't even go that far and my argument still holds.  Let's not make them equivalence classes, but rather let say that IF something is measurable then by definition it is understandable by the tools of science.  I haven't seen one example to the contrary that suggests otherwise.

This statement is too inaccurate. When you say 'If something is measurable', the question is what is included in this 'something'. E.g. the size of an atom is measurable (since by definition, size is a scientific property of the atom). This of course does not mean that what is really contained in what the atom is only a scientific model of, is understandable by the tools of science.

Your point as to what matter is made up of is seems to be irrelevant to this discussion.  Matter can be defined via a functional, scientific definition.  It behaves in certain ways according to a set of rules.  What it is made up of is irrelevant.  Like so many people you're ascribing a typical 'mid-world' anthropomorphic view of atomic and sub atomic particles.

The statement 'Matter can be defined via scientific definition' is also too inaccurate. It can either mean: 'The scientific aspect of matter can be defined via scientific definition', which is self-evident of course. Or it can mean 'Matter can be explained completely via scientific definition', which by definition of science alone is not the case. We have already established that the latter statement can never be derived from scientific methods, so it must either be an absolute truth - deducted via a different body of thought than science - or it requires belief (your words).

What you can say for sure is that you don't care about anything other than scientific aspects of things, because it's irrelevant to you. You're only interested in the scientific 'behaviour' of things. That's your choice of course.

[Necrosis]

This statement is too inaccurate. When you say 'If something is measurable', the question is what is included in this 'something'. E.g. the size of an atom is measurable (since by definition, size is a scientific property of the atom). This of course does not mean that what is really contained in what the atom is only a scientific model of, is understandable by the tools of science.

The statement 'Matter can be defined via scientific definition' is also too inaccurate. It can either mean: 'The scientific aspect of matter can be defined via scientific definition', which is self-evident of course. Or it can mean 'Matter can be explained completely via scientific definition', which by definition of science alone is not the case. We have already established that the latter statement can never be derived from scientific methods, so it must either be an absolute truth - deducted via a different body of thought than science - or it requires belief (your words).

What you can say for sure is that you don't care about anything other than scientific aspects of things, because it's irrelevant to you. You're only interested in the scientific 'behaviour' of things. That's your choice of course.

what you seem to be missing when you type "by the scientific method" is that your proposition is not observable, quantifiable by any measurement whether it is science or other. You seem to keep sliding the goal posts here, immaterial can never be observed as it would be imperceptable to us thus making your proposition futile.

please explain how you know things that cannot be measured, seen, observed, sensed etc can exist. I will be very interested in your theory.

[wavelength]

what you seem to be missing when you type "by the scientific method" is that your proposition is not observable, quantifiable by any measurement whether it is science or other. You seem to keep sliding the goal posts here, immaterial can never be observed as it would be imperceptable to us thus making your proposition futile.

I must repeat myself again, I was never talking about the immaterial, I was talking about what is more than scientific aspects. What I can observe (yet not measure scientifically) is e.g. that I am aware. That I am able to experience this 'material' world. Since for me awareness is logically incompatible with a purely scientific view of the world, this is already proof enough. Without this awareness, of course, also scientific observations would be impossible in the first place, since it is always only an aware being that is able to make any observation, scientific or not.

There is of course a much simpler proof that reality is not equal to its scientific model: The very fact that science makes a model of reality. If I make a model of something, how can I ever expect that it should be equal to the real thing? The very meaning of the world 'model' implies a reduction.

please explain how you know things that cannot be measured, seen, observed, sensed etc can exist. I will be very interested in your theory.

First of all, I didn't say that. I can e.g. observe a tree. The scientific part of this observation is that (only in the sense of the current scientific model, of course) photons hit my retina, signals are sent to the brain, etc. But the most important part of this observation process is that the tree emerges in my awareness (which I know without any doubt), something that is not measurable. As much as the tree is more than just what the current scientific model say about it, my observation of it is also more than that. So I am just talking about a tree, not ghosts or pink dragons.

The question of existance is interesting of course. Again you pre-assume that nothing can exist that can't be measured scientifically. How can you be so sure about that and what scientific method led you to this belief? Science doesn't solve the problem of existance. If you think it does, please define for me scientifically what existance is. The only thing you will be able to come up with is 'everything that can be scientifically measured'. So you can only answer the question by stating what should have been proven in the first place.

I already brought two examples of things that cannot be scientifically measured but do exist: The thing matter is made of and Space itself.

[Deicide]

Is insomnia measurable?

[OzmO]

how about love? 

[wavelength]

Is insomnia measurable?

The number of hours you can't sleep sure is. 
Is your insomnia a physical condition or is it just a restless mind?

[Deicide]

The number of hours you can't sleep sure is. 
Is your insomnia a physical condition or is it just a restless mind?

Wer weiss? Ich gehe morgen zur Schlafklinik, um das unter Dach und Fach zu bringen. Ich habe chronische Schlafstoerung seit etlichen Jahren, doch jetzt scheint sie ihren Hoehepunkt erreicht zu haben, und ich bin am Ende meiner Kraefte. Mittlerweile ist es zum ernsthaften medizinischen Problem geworden, das unbedingt behandelt werden muss.

Falls Du antwortest, bitte tu dies auf Deutsch....

[wavelength]

Wer weiss? Ich gehe morgen zur Schlafklinik, um das unter Dach und Fach zu bringen. Ich habe chronische Schlafstoerung seit etlichen Jahren, doch jetzt scheint sie ihren Hoehepunkt erreicht zu haben, und ich bin am Ende meiner Kraefte. Mittlerweile ist es zum ernsthaften medizinischen Problem geworden, das unbedingt behandelt werden muss.

Falls Du antwortest, bitte tu dies auf Deutsch....

Ich kann nicht viel dazu sagen, ich hatte ebenfalls eine zeitlang Probleme damit, allerdings wohl nicht in diesem Ausmaß. Jetzt habe ich keinerlei Probleme mehr damit. Ich denke bei den meisten Leuten, die an Schlaflosigkeit leiden, ist es einfach die Unfähigkeit, die Gedanken zur Ruhe zu bringen.

[Deicide]

Ich kann nicht viel dazu sagen, ich hatte ebenfalls eine zeitlang Probleme damit, allerdings wohl nicht in diesem Ausmaß. Jetzt habe ich keinerlei Probleme mehr damit. Ich denke bei den meisten Leuten, die an Schlaflosigkeit leiden, ist es einfach die Unfähigkeit, die Gedanken zur Ruhe zu bringen.

Das sowieso.

Ich arbeite schon seit zwei Jahren durch, ohne jegliche Pause, bis auf einen oder zwei Tage. Ich denke, dass ich einfach ueberarbeitet bin. Wenn ich nur 3 oder 4 Wochen von absolutem Nichtstun haette, wuerde sich das alles von selber bessern, bin ich mir relativ sicher. Leider ist das keine Option fuer mich...

[wavelength]

Das sowieso.

Ich arbeite schon seit zwei Jahren durch, ohne jegliche Pause, bis auf einen oder zwei Tage. Ich denke, dass ich einfach ueberarbeitet bin. Wenn ich nur 3 oder 4 Wochen von absolutem Nichtstun haette, wuerde sich das alles von selber bessern, bin ich mir relativ sicher. Leider ist das keine Option fuer mich...

Wahrscheinlich werden die in der Schlafklinik aber auch nix anderes sagen, als dass du mal Urlaub nehmen solltest. Oder Sie pumpen dich mit einem Haufen Chemikalien voll - die amerikanische Methode 

[Deicide]

Wahrscheinlich werden die in der Schlafklinik aber auch nix anderes sagen, als dass du mal Urlaub nehmen solltest. Oder Sie pumpen dich mit einem Haufen Chemikalien voll - die amerikanische Methode 

Letztere scheint leider die einzige Option zu sein....

[wavelength]

Letztere scheint leider die einzige Option zu sein....

Nützt auch nicht viel, ein Job, wenn er einen ins Grab bringt.
Du weisst eh: Wer sich hat im Job zerrissen, dem wird noch aufs Grab geschissen.

[wavelength]

how about love?

Same thing, of course. It's however always dangerous to come up with such big words in a discussion like that, which can be dealt with using much simpler terms.   

[loco]

The number of hours you can't sleep sure is. 
Is your insomnia a physical condition or is it just a restless mind?

Wer weiss? Ich gehe morgen zur Schlafklinik, um das unter Dach und Fach zu bringen. Ich habe chronische Schlafstoerung seit etlichen Jahren, doch jetzt scheint sie ihren Hoehepunkt erreicht zu haben, und ich bin am Ende meiner Kraefte. Mittlerweile ist es zum ernsthaften medizinischen Problem geworden, das unbedingt behandelt werden muss.

Falls Du antwortest, bitte tu dies auf Deutsch....

Ich kann nicht viel dazu sagen, ich hatte ebenfalls eine zeitlang Probleme damit, allerdings wohl nicht in diesem Ausmaß. Jetzt habe ich keinerlei Probleme mehr damit. Ich denke bei den meisten Leuten, die an Schlaflosigkeit leiden, ist es einfach die Unfähigkeit, die Gedanken zur Ruhe zu bringen.

Okay, stop it or I'll start posting in Español.   

[MMC78]

I must repeat myself again, I was never talking about the immaterial, I was talking about what is more than scientific aspects.

This is why I don't like debating with philosophers, debates focus around the meanings of words rather than any actual substance.  If something is outside of the material world then it is not observable via science.

What I can observe (yet not measure scientifically) is e.g. that I am aware.

Your observation of awareness is itself a material process.  It affects your actions.  The fact that you think you are aware makes you continue this ridiculous argument.  So now you've shown that immaterial things affect the material world.  Along with the first point in this message, we have a contradiction.

That I am able to experience this 'material' world. Since for me awareness is logically incompatible with a purely scientific view of the world, this is already proof enough.

And the existence of the bible is proof enough to believe in the divinity of Jesus.  I don't believe that there are un-measurable, un-scientific, immaterial forces at work because there is no evidence for them.  You have failed to convince me that consciousness is beyond the realm of science.

I already brought two examples of things that cannot be scientifically measured but do exist: The thing matter is made of and Space itself.

Oh god, wtf.  You mean to tell me that we can't measure energy or matter?  Space is the absence of matter?  Space is non scientific because we can't measure it?  Space turns out not to be complete empty, it is measurable.  The composition of matter is an active are of research.  http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

Somewhere deep down, under all of those layers denial, you know that you are very likely wrong.

[wavelength]

This is why I don't like debating with philosophers, debates focus around the meanings of words rather than any actual substance.

That is your perception just because science uses these words without questioning them (simply because, questioning them is without the realm of science). Nevertheless you make general statements using these words. Don't you agree that little can be said about something if we don't even have the slightest idea what we are talking about?

If something is outside of the material world then it is not observable via science.

So again, you define the material world by what is scientifically measurable. Meaning, you first introduce a dualism and then accuse everybody who argues that there is more to the world, that they are the dualists because they believe in something 'immaterial'. Isn't it obvious that this is not a valid argument?

Your observation of awareness is itself a material process.  It affects your actions.  The fact that you think you are aware makes you continue this ridiculous argument.

I understand your point of view, that's not the problem. The fact alone that we are talking about 'my observation of awareness' again already implies a 'me'. You will never be able to get around that, you always have in mind a conscious entity to begin with. Maybe you can answer my original questions regarding this line of arguments first: "If you are just a biochemical reaction, what exactly are you, the neuron, the atoms the neuron consists of, the electrical impulses, the process, the algorithm implemented by the processes?", "Is there also an aware entitiy in a coffee machine that makes the coffee and reflects upon doing so?"

So now you've shown that immaterial things affect the material world.  Along with the first point in this message, we have a contradiction.

Since I never said that, it doesn't make any sense to answer the question.

And the existence of the bible is proof enough to believe in the divinity of Jesus.  I don't believe that there are un-measurable, un-scientific, immaterial forces at work because there is no evidence for them.  You have failed to convince me that consciousness is beyond the realm of science.

I never said anything about the bible or Jesus. For the other statements, the problem again is inaccuracy resp. invalidity of your definition of terms.

Oh god, wtf.  You mean to tell me that we can't measure energy or matter?  Space is the absence of matter?  Space is non scientific because we can't measure it?  Space turns out not to be complete empty, it is measurable.  The composition of matter is an active are of research.  http://lhc.web.cern.ch/lhc/

Funny because we already agreed on these questions, your response was that it didn't matter what the material world is made of. Concerning Space, please refer me to a scientific article that states 'Space is matter'. No loonatic pseudo-philosophic stuff, please. An article which uses scientific methods only to show that Space and matter are equal...

Or maybe this is a misunderstanding and what you are refering to is the question: Is there such a thing as completely empty space? That of course was not the topic. Empty or not, Space contains matter but is not equal to it.

The only thing about space, physics is concerned with, is that you can measure distances in (part of) space in three (or maybe more, according to some new theories) dimensions, thus forming a mathematical model of space which can be used for formulating scientific theories. Science of course recognizes that the one infinite Space is 'fundamental' for science, meaning, it cannot be defined within science but must be taken for granted.

Somewhere deep down, under all of those layers denial, you know that you are very likely wrong.

Wouldn't you agree that such an un-scientific statement should rather come from my crazy mystic ass than from you? I think we should stay on topic.

[MMC78]

That is your perception just because science uses these words without questioning them (simply because, questioning them is without the realm of science). Nevertheless you make general statements using these words. Don't you agree that little can be said about something if we don't even have the slightest idea what we are talking about?

Philosophy seems to be more about questioning the meaning of words than understanding reality -- personal opinion though many would agree.

So again, you define the material world by what is scientifically measurable. Meaning, you first introduce a dualism and then accuse everybody who argues that there is more to the world, that they are the dualists because they believe in something 'immaterial'. Isn't it obvious that this is not a valid argument?

I understand your point of view, that's not the problem. The fact alone that we are talking about 'my observation of awareness' again already implies a 'me'. You will never be able to get around that, you always have in mind a conscious entity to begin with. Maybe you can answer my original questions regarding this line of arguments first: "If you are just a biochemical reaction, what exactly are you, the neuron, the atoms the neuron consists of, the electrical impulses, the process, the algorithm implemented by the processes?", "Is there also an aware entitiy in a coffee machine that makes the coffee and reflects upon doing so?"

For me, there is nothing more to the world than the material, measurable and scientific.  Those three things are equivalent in my mind.  Namely because I haven't seen any evidence to the contrary.

The coffee machine isn't 'aware' like us because it's simple mechanics do not allow it to observe and react to a complex internal state such as the state of our brains.  By my definition, you can say that a coffee machine which automatically turns itself off after 2 hours is somehow conscious of itself.  Though that would be akin to calling a bacterium a genius. 

I have a question for you.  At what stage of evolution did consciousness arise?  What kinds of animals possess consciousness?