1. It doesn't matter whether you're making a distinction of primacy or not. Describing a thing based on a particular frame of reference is pretty damn relevant to what conclusions can be drawn from it. The frame of reference limits the kinds of questions that can be asked or answered about an object.
The energetic description of consciousness is based on it's description as a fluxing electromagnetic field. I don't see where the confusion in this is. Are you saying that a consciousness is not describable by an electromagnetic map of the brain? Yes, yes, it exists because of the physical structure of the brain, but does that mean that an electromagnetic map is in someway irrelevant or incorrect? (Please don't just say yes in an effort to prop up your 'opinion'. It would be interesting if you actually went out on a limb and said what you actually believe, rather than dumping on all and sundry when they try to present another facet of the phenomena).
2. Actually, I've said a lot. You haven't, for example, said a word about energy and matter being fundamentally inseparable, which you didn't seem to know before - "energy without matter has no organization".
3. Merely saying "Indeed, but none of this relates to the question, nor consciousness. So what is your point?" after you've willfully ignored (not disproved, whatever the strength of your belief in assertion) everything that's been said does not make you sound intelligent, nor worthy of debate. It just makes you sound like an adolescent - and more to the point, an adolescent who thinks he already knows everything there is to know. It's quite grating and childish, to be honest. Please stick to logical refutations and not ideological ones, if you can.
The matter-energy relationship relates directly to the question, since your description of the consciousness is based entirely in the material dimension, and claims that any electromagnetic characteristics of consciousness are in some way 'after the fact, and therefore irrelevant'. Even a basic appreciation of nuclear physics or even Einstein's laws would have been enough for you to know how limited your perspective really is - and seemingly based in a desire to have the last word, rather than any serious desire for knowledge.
4. "Meaning what? If this investigation is not based on evidence then you are in the realms of fantasy."
Your refusal to accept another representation of what you want to see as a purely, wholly, and unalterably "material" phenomena is the sticking point here, not any lack of evidence, or realm of fantasy.
It's been a long held understanding - since Einstein's E=MC2 - that energy and matter are two separate representations of the same phenomena. If THIS is where you disagree, then I'd suggest you go through a couple of science textbooks, preferably written by someone you admire. That might make it easier for you to come to grips with a field of science you're clearly suspicious and dogmatic about.
My point, if there's even any point to re-posting, since you're clearly going to ignore everything in this post after the first line, and then come back a few hours later with a bunch of snide non-sequiturs, is very, very simple.
"...given that consciousness can be represented as a type of electromagnetic field, which basic science says can be, and often is, captured, messed with, replicated, and tossed around... well. My certainty dwindles."
Hell, I'm not even making an assertion that's new to science - despite your insistence that I am.
Do you always react this badly when you come across an argument you don't understand? Or have you never had to progress beyond ridiculing everything you've chosen not to think about, and sounding pompous about the few fragments that you have?
You have not presented an argument.
All you are doing is rambling, and when I point out a few inconsistencies you thrash out and tell me I'm stupid.
I do not think you are a worth the time if you are going to behave in this childish way.