Reply to Ed Babinski
Ed: The naturalist has no explanation? In general they have one, that the brain is a unique organ, and they are willing to continue to study it, including studying various components of consciousness and different types and levels of consciousness, because "consciousness" is not all simply one thing simply because a single word is used to describe it. Even linguistic philosophers recognize that words are not equivalent to things, and maps are not equivalent to territories.
VR: Wow. Is that all it takes to be a naturalist? To believe that the brain is a unique organ, to be willing to study it, and to accept the idea that there are different components and types and levels of consciousness?? That's it? I accept all of those things, so I must be a naturalist. I thought that naturalists had to accept a mechanistic (non-purposive) substructure to the world, that that system is causally closed, and that whatever else is real supervenes on that.
To insist too strongly on the uniqueness of the brain is something a naturalist can't push too far. If there is a type of causation that goes on in the brain that does not go on in the rest of nature, then we end up denying a central element of what a typical naturalist is committed to. Blue Devil Knight is right to insist that people not call themselves naturalists if they deny the fundmentals of naturalism.