" E is incorrect, as biologists have found many corollaries of consciousness, but this is improper to call these parts of consciousness itself. "
It's wrong to call known, demonstrated and understood function as "correlation". Altering the mechanics alters the function. That is a fundamental fact in psychology and pharmacology.
"Once you understand that viewing mind as a machine prohibits the possibility of free will, the rest of the argument falls apart."
You should be able to prove this and give an alternative explanation. Free will is a concept. Concepts can't exist w/o a physical machine to support their existence. That's axiomatic.
" there is no reason to necessarily link the word "creationist" with "young-earth creationist".
The word was coined in ~1860-70 meaning literal Gen. and young Earth creation. Just as their is no valid reason to change the definition of the word marriage, theirs none to change the meaning of this word.
"It's wrong to call known, demonstrated and understood function as "correlation". Altering the mechanics alters the function. That is a fundamental fact in psychology and pharmacology."
You are mixing terms. I wasn't calling it "correlation" as in "correlation instead of causation". I agree very much that it is causation. But it is called a "correlary" because it is not the thing itself. If I were to wire pain circuits in a computer, that would not cause it to get a conscious self that could feel pain. In life (at least human life, possibly others), we have consciousness, which is not something that is even explainable in terms of matter and motion. Noone is claiming (or has ever claimed in my knowledge) that there aren't physically processes involved that affect consciousness. It would be absurd to think so. But that does not indicate that the physical processes are equivalent to the conscious processes.
"You should be able to prove this"
It's very simple. If X is the result of physics, then it wasn't the result of choice. Therefore, if all forces influencing X are physical forces, then the influence of X is not determined by any choice. Physics is a combination of law, and, perhaps, random processes. If X is the result of a law, then we could (given adequate knowledge of intial conditions) determine the outcome beforehand. This means that there was no choice in the matter -- the results could be determined before the physical mind was ever involved. Let's say that in addition to law, there is also chance. But chance is not choice, it is simply randomness. Therefore, while you might not be able to predict the outcome, you cannot say that the outcome is the result of choice, because the deviations from the known are entirely random, not selected. Therefore, in order to bring choice into the matter you have to bring in concepts that are outside of physics.
"and give an alternative explanation."
There is no _need_ to do this, provided my original argument is sound. But the answer is simple -- we have a soul. Sorry if that sounds quaint to modern ears, but in all our learning we still have not found anything that can get past this notion.
"Concepts can't exist w/o a physical machine to support their existence. That's axiomatic."
Actually, it's a baseless assumption.
"The word was coined in ~1860-70 meaning literal Gen. and young Earth creation. Just as their is no valid reason to change the definition of the word marriage, theirs none to change the meaning of this word."
Whether you like it or not, the definition of the word "creationist" currently has more meanings than young-earth. The history of the word is irrelevant in light of current usage. Of course, I'm not entirely sure your history of the word is entirely correct, either.