> it seems a bit unfair to exclude anti- (or at least non-) materialists for not having a theory.
I do not exclude them on the basis of not having (what you consider to be) a theory. They have a theory: consciousness has a non-physical dependency. The materialists theorize that consciousness is merely physical.
The issue I have is that non-materialists seem to be bad at conveying this theory. Just claim belief in the non-physical upfront. The chess vs weather comparison is a terrible analogy. They seem to lack the courage of their conviction and in turn dress up a simple concept.
I do not exclude them on the basis of not having (what you consider to be) a theory. They have a theory: consciousness has a non-physical dependency. The materialists theorize that consciousness is merely physical.
The issue I have is that non-materialists seem to be bad at conveying this theory. Just claim belief in the non-physical upfront. The chess vs weather comparison is a terrible analogy. They seem to lack the courage of their conviction and in turn dress up a simple concept.