bio evolution, light, sound and aroma

This is a naive analysis of conscious experience.When I stand on a drawing pin I experience a sharp pain ....in my foot... and not in my head. I also perceive the car outside my house to be outside my head.Experience doesn't tell us where experience is located it tells us where the ..contents... of experience is located.When people give verbal report they are unable to tell you which brain location might be causing their experience. It is the indirect observer who is crudely correlating the subjective report to the brain.And what about when you are dreaming? I don't experience being in my brain when I am dreaming. The correlation between brain regions is not explanatory. The person is in their mental realm when dreaming.One problem with positing consciousness in the brain is that you can't escape your mind and never experience the world directly to know it exists and therefore are stuck in internal realm of mental representations and chronic skepticism.That is one of the reasons embodied perception theories have challenged the notion of things existing only in the brain as representations for conscious consumption but then they struggle with the problem of dreams and other things that are not direct perceptions like memories.Other theorists like panpsychics and substance dualists posit consciousness as a distinct layer of reality.You seem prejudiced only to examine consciousness as of the brain and are suffering possibly from confirmation bias.If we weren't conscious then the mechanical view of reality would be far more compelling. Unfortunately we have a mental realm.

The Gage case is still the most cited example and almost the foundation and justification for the correlation project.It was just recently cited in support of the mind brain connection on the "Axons and Axioms" podcast run by academics.The surprising thing about the Gage case is how functional and normal he was after the drastic injury and he managed to hold down jobs. One key claim was that he became more aggressive although none of these claims are seen as sufficiently substantiated anymore. But considering he went through the trauma of a shocking accident and severe injury you wouldn't expect him to be psychologically identical to previous to the trauma. So the case was approached with limited skepticism unfortunately (but predictably?)Most other cases of brain region claims are disputed including the Fusiform face area which is given one of the most clearly delineated roles. Fusiform face area - Wikipedia

I am not sure what your problem with dispositions is. I am not sure how anything could come to exist without dispositions.If there were no limits on reality then anything could happen so there must be limits and constraining forces. Pigs don't develop wings because that is not a viable option for them. Are you suggesting that DNA can create anything and is not constrained by rules of biochemistry?I am not sure what your stance on emergent properties is but I don't see how they could emerge without dispositions. Are you saying that if consciousness emerges from the brain theee is non lawful causal reason for that?The causal explanation would usually cite the disposition of prior state to create the emergent property.An example of a lack of disposition is the inability of A to be come B. Such as the inability of pure water to transform into sugar.An example of a latent disposition is the ability of glass to shatter whether it does over its lifetime. If you make a glass and then melt it down years later and it never shattered it still had the disposition to do so under the right circumstances.It seems you want to deny reality of having these dispositions and to have evolution creating new things from scratch simply to make the only creative force blind evolution. A biased stance.From a dispositions stance you can posit evolution and a creator of the dispositions. The ultimate disposition is that of the universe or reality in which evolution is purported to happen. That is why the likes of Krauss would like to exorcise the need for a creator here and try desperately to have an unitelligent creation of physical laws from quasi nothingness.You are no more entitled to your claims than me.

Yes they do.When you know the dispositions of glass you know that it wouldn't be a suitable material for making certain things with because of its disposition to shatter.Also you you would not expect a bird to evolve glass wings because they wouldn't function adequately. As in the case of the pig and wings you can rule out lots of things evolving (the predictive value) because they don't have the adequate disposition to be selected or survive. And the same in the case of pink and green polar bears. These don't need to be selected to against if they aren't likely to emerge even as defunct forms.Synergy and Emergence don't displace dispositions. Something won't emerge without a disposition to do so you need the correct chemicals and context and forces for something to emerge it is not the magic creation of something new.Such as the example with pure water it has an impressive but limited set of dispositions on its own without the addition of new chemicals or forces.