> ...the need some people seem to have to reach for an extra-physical domain for the mind to exist in.
It's because subjective experience (SE) cannot even be defined in physical terms. Or any terms, really.
Instead of any definition of SE, all that's on offer are ostensions that will direct a reader's attention to his own SE if he's having it. Such as:
Descartes: SE is what you're absolutely certain must exist, even if everything else is an illusion.
Nagel: SE is "what it's like to be _____".
Nagel again (same paper, but not quoted enough):
It [SE] is not captured by any of the familiar, recently devised reductive analyses of the mental, for all of them are logically compatible with its absence. [italics mine]
It's because subjective experience (SE) cannot even be defined in physical terms. Or any terms, really. Instead of any definition of SE, all that's on offer are ostensions that will direct a reader's attention to his own SE if he's having it. Such as:
Descartes: SE is what you're absolutely certain must exist, even if everything else is an illusion.
Nagel: SE is "what it's like to be _____".
Nagel again (same paper, but not quoted enough): It [SE] is not captured by any of the familiar, recently devised reductive analyses of the mental, for all of them are logically compatible with its absence. [italics mine]