The problem in these discussions is that mind is often conflated with consciousness. But the hard problem distinguishes between the two, as does Vedānta. Consciousness is that which experiences mental and physical phenomena—a subjective experience. Consciousness is the subject, not an object.

Meaning. If everything is reduced to physical interactions down to the subatomic level, then there is no meaning to our lives, the claims we make, or this discussion. Our experiences and the fact we experience is of no consequence. What meaning does emergence offer?

I am not claiming that experience is non-physical, I am arguing the that the experiencer of experiences is non-physical. BTW, I am representing Vedānta philosophy (broadly speaking) and I appreciate this discussion!

Experiences are experienced by an experiencer—consciousness. While cognitive science may be proving that there are physical correlates for experience, what is to be said for the experiencer who is distinct from, and subjectively experiences, the mental and physical?

I agree that there is no scientific way to prove the claim that consciousness is independent of matter. However, consciousness is presupposed by making the claim, i.e, one must exist as a subjective experiencer in order to make any claim.

The article and its references make a distinction between mind and first person consciousness. It does not suggest that the mind or brain is independent of the physical, but rather consciousness is. The distinction lies in the difference between what is observed (mind and matter) and the observer.

Are you suggesting that first-person, subjective consciousness is a non-physical, emergent “pattern”?

I would argue that there are levels of agency that correspond to body and mind, with further subtle levels of agency within the mental realm. For example, see Frankfurt’s concept of higher order volition.

Agreed, but I believe part of the definition of an ‘invasive species’ is the fact is that the species were introduced by humans.

Maybe ‘unnatural’ means ‘unsustainable.’

To deconstruct this framing of the natural environment as an object to be exploited, I would argue that the natural environment would need to be framed as a subject herself, with her own agency, and with whom humans must ethically commune with due human dependency on the nature herself.

Crispin, while this may be true in some cases, one could also argue that stoicism helps people process and cope with inevitable suffering, such as disease, aging, disability, and death.