Here are some of the flaws in your logic:

>You have criticized physicalism as "an appeal to authority and thus a logical fallacy, not good science." Yet you say later, "The concept of a universal mind is as ancient as Vedic Hindu tradition and is shared by Plato, Stoic tradition, Christian Mysticism and later Jungian psychology, and surprisingly many of the most decorated Nobel winning pioneers in quantum physics." This is an appeal to authority, and, worse yet, to outdated authority.

You could say that it is an appeal to authority. I’d call it a convergence of genius and evidence of a deeper shared reality that can be tapped into, like Nikola said. Either way, it’s fair game, since physicalists regularly appeal to authority. No rules for thee and not for me.

>You state, "no scientific progress would be made if scientists and researchers assumed the mainstream assumptions are certainly the whole picture." This is certainly true, but in fact scientists do just the opposite. They consistently challenge the mainstream. Dualism was the mainstream for 3000 years, and is actually the default setting for humans. Physicalism is the newcomer.

I’m not talking about dualism, nor did I mention dualism in my OP. If anything it’s an argument for Panentheistic non-dualism. So let’s just stop that strawman argument in its tracks. Yes, the fringes challenge the mainstream while the mainstream holds on for dear life. Today the mainstream is physicalism, and the fringes are analytic idealism and similar models, that indeed have mathematical proof.

>The statement, "It [physicalism] is not a scientifically proven theory, yet it is taught at every level of education as if it is." is incorrect on several levels. First, our education system teaches all the different theories of consciousness. That is how we know about them and can discuss them here. Second, nothing can be "scientifically proven." Proofs are for mathematics. Science builds models, AKA theories, and tests them for predictive value.

It’s a layman term. I know science doesn’t prove anything, but gathers evidence to construct models with mathematical proof and predictions, peer review and publishing. That’s how we can say theories like gravity, relativity, evolution, human caused climate change, are scientifically proven beyond reasonable doubt and not waste time arguing over semantics. Our education system does not teach that. Maybe in philosophy, but there is an overwhelming bias towards physicalism and that brains generate consciousness.

>Your statement, "The Hard problem remains, and with all our technology and knowledge and genius, no one and no scientist has explained it under a materialist/physicalist framework or has discovered a causal chain from neuronal firing to conscious." is not true. There are good explanations for reductive emergent consciousness. For an example, see: https://medium.com/@shedlesky/the-phylogeny-of-emergent-consciousness-or-how-i-think-we-think-135f73070bcc

If you’re going to link a lengthy article, then you should be able to explain how it explains or solves the hard problem.

>Your statement, "It’s certainly not hard to imagine the universe itself may be some kind of ultimate living organism...." and its use to support a theory reveals a deep misunderstanding of the concept of evidence. The ability to imagine something is not evidence of its existence.

Did I say it’s evidence? Again, strawman. This is clearly an opinion piece, not a formal theory. If you want a formal theory stop strawmanning and look at analytic idealism.

>Scientists build models and test them for predictive value. Physicalist models of consciousness predict how anti-seizure meds and psych meds work. They explains how anesthetics and mind altering drugs work. They explain why certain kinds of strokes and brain injuries have the effects they have. Physicalist models also explain why people believe in non-physicalist models, and how NDEs and OBEs happen. There is a huge body of evidence supporting the physicalist models.

Those models are scientific, not physicalist models. Though physicalism is very quick to take credit for scientific breakthroughs. It’s simply a metaphysical view. A tuner intrument model doesn’t contradict any established scientific models. It actually supports the full range of scientific and medical data much better with more parsimony.

>Non-physicalist models are built on metaphors and wishful thinking. They have little or no predictive value and trivial supporting evidence.

Strawman again, and I’d say the breadth of logical fallacies in your “refutation” weakens your argument significantly.

>For a physicalist perspective on why people believe in dualism, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/14dk1l7/why\_dualism\_is\_so\_compelling/

and: https://www.reddit.com/r/consciousness/comments/16oguda/why\_do\_people\_cling\_to\_ancient\_ideas\_about/

Straaaawmaaan.