"in order to understand this, it would seem you need to know something from quantum mechanics and particle physics as those fields study the ultimate building blocks of what everything else including the brain is made of."

I actually do know something about those things, seeing that I elected to take physics as a credit in college. Absolutely nothing in it demonstrated that consciousness exists without a brain. It doesn't even deal with consciousness, as a matter of fact, but we did deal with it somewhat in both of the philosophy and psychology classes that I elected to take.

"The people who are geniuses in these fields (as the quotes show) seem to agree that there is nothing in the arsenal of the building blocks that could account for the consciousness and subjective experience."

Two problems with that reasoning:

1. Geniuses in those fields, making comments about things decidedly outside of their fields, do not carry the weight you seem to think that they do.

2. The inability to account for the foundations of a phenomena, does not give license to make assertions about it. We modern physicists can't account for gravity, it doesn't appear to be either a particle of a wave, meaning we really don't know exactly how it occurs. Would that, then, give these "geniuses" the right to determine that it is somehow independent of the physical universe? No, it doesn't, because gravity appears to be dependent on mass, much like consciousness appears to be dependent on a mind; and trying to divorce these things from their physical dependency is simply ridiculous on its face.

"I don't know enough, but this line of reasoning definitely makes sense to. If one cannot find any physical building blocks that could account for the consciousness, maybe consciousness is fundamental and not produced by matter/brain."

Or maybe it is a phenomena produced solely by brains, and does not exist outside of them, and we just don't know how it works. No knowing or being able to account for something does not give one a license to simply make unfounded assertions, that way lies madness. You don't know what gravity is? It MUST be god/pixies/cosmic consciousness/bigfoot/aliens, pick your poison, but it is still and unfounded assertion that will poison your ability to approach it unbiased.

"it's very consistent with my feeling that we are not mere electrochemical reactions of the brain."

I feelings mattered in science, the world would still be flat, and we wouldn't know anything about evolution.

"From what the article says, the brain merely imprints upon and gives instructions to the consciousness about what and how to experience."

And what is their evidence for this? Do they account for the fact that someone with brain damage often has their consciousness limited? Brain-dead people are unconscious by definition, they experience nothing. We have every reason, backed by years of studying the brain and how damage affects it, to assert that consciousness is dependent on the brain. Where are yours?

"dependent does not ONLY mean 'produced'. it can also mean 'interacting'"

Actually, we interact with tons of things we are not dependent on, but the things we depend on for our existence are necessary to exist. The consciousness appears to depend on the brain for existence, doesn't it?

"don't you see that it's completely consistent with what the article says? - it can be explained in terms that the link from the brain to the consciousness is cut off and not in terms that consciousness ceased to exist."

So the appearance of limited consciousness isn't actually limited consciousness? Wow. I is becoming quite clear to me that you don't REALLY care if what you want to believe is actually true, just if you can make enough logical contortions and bald assertions to appear to support it. Unfortunately, you have just disregarded unwanted data with an ad hoc rationalization, which bodes poorly for your argument. Every single piece of empirical data shows that consciousness is dependent on the health and state of the brain, every single test we can come up with confirms this, and yet you want to assert that it just "looks" that way? What possible basis could you have for that?

"How do you explain out of body experiences? fraud? there is more to the story than you know"

Oh. Wow. Really? Just when I thought your argument COULDN'T get any worse! Many of the people who who have claimed to have OOBEs have suffered from traumatic brain injuries, sensory deprivation, near-death experiences, dehydration, and other occurrences that would have altered what goes on in their brains. Others literally TRAIN their brains to produce such things. The vast majority of OOBEs happen in a hospital, and I can only say:

1. I know a number of anesthesiologists. They are not impressed by these stories. It is common for patients to be aware during general anesthesia. They remember many details of the people, objects, and procedures in the room. We absolutely expect some number of supposedly unconscious patients to report things that happened that a layperson would assume were unknowable. In fact, The Lancet published research in 2001 that showed nearly 20% of patients retained memories of things that happened when they were clinically dead.

2. What's rarely or never written up in books is the fact that most such "recollections" get their details wrong, and were probably just imagined by the patient. When authors compile stories to promote the idea of NDEs, they tend to universally exclude these; in fact the majority were never recorded anywhere to begin with. If out-of-body experiences are truly part of passing over into the afterlife, then they usually represent an afterlife of some alternate universe where everything's wrong.

3. Some of the stories can't be explained by either of the above. They include specific details that the patient could not have known. Sadly, all of these are anecdotal. They're very interesting and I wish we had more of them, and that controls had been in place at the time. Since they weren't, the scientific method requires us to shrug and say "Neat, but not evidence, let's do it better next time."

As an example of the value of anecdotes in suggesting directions for research, Dr. Penny Sartori placed playing cards in obvious places on top of operating room cabinets at a hospital in Wales in 2001, while she was working as a nurse, as part of a supervised experiment. Although she's a believer in the afterlife, and documented fifteen cases of reported out-of-body experiences by patients during her research, not one person ever reported seeing the playing cards or even knowing they were there.

Incomprehensible? Inconceivable?

I can both comprehend and conceive it.

The whole thing is an argument from incredulity. It is a failure and has no persuasive power.

Instead of showing your ignorance in the subject, why not quote where does the article claim what you think it is saying.
So maybe we get what it is saying from the source rather then your biased interpretation, which btw shows lack of understanding basic English.

"you don't understand what the article is saying about the incomprehensibility of how the physical particles can produce consciousness/subjective experience."
Which part of the article proved "the incomprehensibility of how the physical particles can produce consciousness/subjective experience."??

"What you are doing is basically saying that you and all people are just mere electrochemical reactions in the brain - that there is nothing more to this."
I never said that, but it is your bias that made you think I said that.

I said that the brain is involved and this is a testable fact.
Without the brain there is no such effects that you claimed before.

We cannot claim that "that there is nothing more to this" because that wouldn't be science.

What we do is that we arrive at our conclusions with what we can demonstrate and test.

Currently we know that the physical brain is involved with those effects, until we can demonstrate that there are other factors involved we simply don't claim things.

That is the difference between modesty and arrogance.

from your own link:

"Chalmers closes by repeating that these are crazy ideas, designed to solve a hard problem, “It’s a radical idea, and I don’t know if it’s correct. This is the hardest problem in science and philosophy, so we aren't going to figure it out overnight, but I do think we’re going to figure it out eventually.”"

Which is exactly what I said to you in my original post, eventually we will figure it out.

"No one is able even to conceive how it's possible."
This is wrong, from y research I have found answers to consciousness, it just requires honest critical thinking and patience.
It is just a matter of time to prove such concepts, that is all, but people have solutions to them, the problem is finding a way to test them.

As I said before, scientist do not make unsupported claims, they base their finding on tested and confirmed ideas.
So just because one has come out yet with a solution, it does not mean there is no solution or "No one is able even to conceive how it's possible."
Again this is just arrogance, and making unsupported claims.

Hold your horses and do more research because if I did find hypotheses about this, so should you.