Physicalism is improbable

My argument against physicalism is simple -- it is impossible for a purely physical description of reality to account for our conscious experience; the view that only matter & energy exist is incompatible with the fact that you are consciously reading and understanding this debate. Thus, I argue that there must exist some non-physical component of human beings (e.g. mind, soul), thereby negating physicalism. This seems to be blatantly obvious. Matter is inanimate -- it has no first-person experience of its own. No matter how complex of a system you build out of matter, the end result is still going to be inanimate, just like the matter it consists of. At best, you can only make a machine which simulates the actions of a conscious being. Of course, the physicalist may ask -- so what? Why can't human beings just be biological machines pretending to be conscious? This sounds reasonable until you remember that there is at least one human being who isn't secretly an inanimate object -- YOU. And you know that because you are consciously reading & understanding this debate right now. Every instant of your life, you have been experiencing consciousness. Trying to claim that you're an inanimate object results in a performative contradiction because even the denial of consciousness requires conscious action. It simply is not debatable that you are actually a conscious being. Many physicalists claim that consciousness can somehow arise out of the physical system that is the brain, but not a single one is able to explain how. Instead, they say non-physicalists are committing an argument from ignorance because "neuroscientists will eventually find a materialist account of consciousness!" But that is simply a mischaracterization of the argument being made here. What I'm saying is that there's an insurmountable barrier to physically explaining consciousness due to the fundamental differences between the "physical" and the "conscious" -- under physicalism, the very idea of consciousness is incoherent because it is inherently first-person, whereas the physical is inherently third-person. The brain is, in essence, an insanely complicated network of neurons. Electrical impulses and chemical signals travel along the pathways in that network, and the physicalist expects us to believe that such mechanistic processes can somehow produce the rich stream of first-person experience we know to be consciousness. Even a complete knowledge of neurology cannot explain how that's possible -- this is evident from the neurological processes that we *do* fully understand: we can talk all day about how endorphins travel along neural pathways in the brain and interact with various receptors to induce responses associated with pleasure, but none of that has any connection whatsoever to the part where we actually *experience* the feeling of pleasure. The same applies to all sensory & cognitive experiences (e.g. seeing color, thinking). It simply doesn't make any sense for inanimate electrochemical reactions to somehow produce conscious experiences on their own. There is a gap between the two which is made impossible to bridge by their fundamentally different natures. Obviously, there is another side to this equation which we are missing -- something necessarily non-physical. The resolution is affirmed. Over to Sargon.