Why gatekeep like this? If you had developed an interesting account of some engineering topic and were told to leave it to the pros, you would find it deflating

Are you interchangeable with a few mounds containing the exact same amount of the same molecules as your body?

In the exact same configuration? Yes.

Humans are nearly defined by their access to the abstract. The abstract is definitionally non-material.

I dunno about that, latent spaces are looking pretty material these days. I've got several variants saved to my local disk.

Map meets territory.

Materialism is not fundamental; consciousness is. This assumes materialism as fundamental.

> Materialism is not fundamental; consciousness is

What is your epistemological basis for this claim? Any proof of this?

And just for extreme clarity note: at no point have I made a claim yet

Whether monastic materialism or idealism is correct would be an unfalsifiable claim within the framework of natural scientific method. (That method is designed to help us make predictions; interpreting experimental outcome for a statement of objective truth is a misapplication of scientific method.) An existing natural-scientific model can be referenced in a philosophical argument, but the argument remains a philosophical statement. A philosophical argument can still be debated on other merits—e.g., which alternative grants magical objective existence to more arbitrary entities, or such.

The human concept of materialism appears to have been produced by historical humans who were also conscious, which at least sets an order. To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.

Materialism is a theory, not a reality, but its adherents can't tell the difference.

> To call this into question is to render logical debate incoherent.

Unfortunately there are quite a few things of that nature. In no case does it justify blindly picking one of the options and then following up with bold claims based on an arbitrary assumption.

Where did I make the case that it does?

So your epistemology is historicism?

Did you recently discover the idea of epistemology or does your line of questioning have a purpose?

The OP suggested “The engineering-focused materialist way of looking at stuff like this makes my head and heart hurt.”

Therefore excluding “materialist way of looking at stuff” from the question of social theory

I have still yet to hear any elucidation with any type of philosophical rigor of why about the questions of humanity should exclude materialist lenses

Further, at no point was there a epistemological foundation laid for the claim that consciousness is the foundation apriori from materialism

Here's a starter pack of resources:

https://www.harpercollins.com/products/the-holographic-unive...

https://www.essentiafoundation.org/

https://curtjaimungal.substack.com/

Be advised this is not something that can be understood through intellectualization. At some point you have to put down the books and seek out the experience.

I read it as an expression of personal experience, not a declaration of anything.

"Be not arrogant because of your knowledge, but confer with the ignorant man as with the learned, for the limits of skill are not attainable."

Reducing sociology to physics is a category error?

It's missing the forest for the trees.