Oh man, you make a good argument here GSF, but some of your points are wonderfully put down by Daniel Dennett (my hero) in, hmm, I think it was Consciousness Explained. (I wrote an assignment on this a few years back, I'll just see if I can get the quotes and stuff..)

The Chinese Room thought experiment is essentially a dud. Dennett calls it an Intuition Pump.

“while philosophers and others have always found flaws in his thought experiment when it is considered as a logical argument, it is undeniable that its “conclusion” continues to seem “obvious” to many people. Why? Because people don’t actually imagine the case in the detail it requires.”

He argues that Searle's position may:

“(…) lull us into the (unwarranted) supposition that the giant program would work by somehow simply “matching up” the input Chinese characters with some output Chinese characters. No such program would work, of course”

For a program to work it would have to be:
“extraordinarily supple, sophisticated, and multilayered system, brimming with “world knowledge” and meta-knowledge and meta-meta-knowledge about its own responses, the likely responses of its interlocutor, its own “motivations” and the motivations of the interlocutor, and much, much more”

The point is, that Searle only looks at the man in the box, and not the whole box, which is what answers. While the little man may not have an understanding of the Chinese letters, the man + the reference book does have that understanding. Searle himself argues that this box would pass a Turing test, but that's the whole box, not just the little man inside.

You say

"Let us use another example. Let us say that we have broadcasting towers all over the USA. They are broadcasting all sorts of different programs to all sorts of different people. It is a complex web of towers and receivers but it all seems to work out ok. So, are we to conclude that radio towers are conscious? Of course not, but that is what are are doing with the human experience of consciousness. Lets look at that quickly.

When you experience something, you experience every one of your scenes simultaneously. You remember the sounds, the tastes, the sights...it is all there. However, your brain never really has a point in which all points connect. Your consciousness is something that seems to violate the laws of physics, that things are happening in different locations in space at different times, but for your consciousness, at the same time. This isn't something that is reducible to brain states, and not something that is physically possible in computer technology as we know it. It doesn't matter if it is parallel or not, if things don't touch but are somehow related this is mystifying; and as a result, unreproducible. Perhaps consciousnesses is reducible to one point in the brain we haven't found, but so far, there is no such thing."

And again, I want to refer to Dennett and his "Multiple Drafts theory", which I think is an excellent answer to this. I don't think that consciousness violates physics as such (obviously it doesn't, or it couldn't exist in our physical universe). I think that our consciousness is an amalgamation of sensory input that is processed in our brain and presented in our consciousness as "scenes". I mean, we have a much, much larger flow of sensory input than is presented to us, and our unconscious mind filters though this and presents what is perceived to be relevant inputs to "us" (our conscious minds). I think in the end it is actually reducible to brain states, in the same way that any give program, say firefox with videosift loaded, can be reduced to an electrical state at a given time in my computer.

On the concept on Blue and blueness, I think you are making a Qualia argument. To be honest, I can't remember all the details of that right now, but again Dennet's "Quining Qualia" in one of his books covers it greatly, if my memory serves.

I also love this subject.

First of all, those self-images are NOT his "false self." They are defining characteristics, ethics, and values that found his beliefs. They are not trivial and they are not simply things that "worry" him.

Failing an exam on account of a death in the family makes sense in that stress is a biological suppressant of the immune system and many advanced brain functions.

"Am I a failure?"
No one doesn't express this emotion. This video implies that only a certain population does. That's a lie.

"She wants to party all the time."
Another lie. Anyone...Anyone wants to enjoy their lives. If you are a depressing lump on the couch, she's going to leave... no surprise.

"He doesn't know what to believe in his Christianity anynore"
Well, to be blunt, he hastn't read the book. Period. He is basing his beliefs on what he has heard and not what he has read or thought about.

"He is taking a journey into his own soul"
This is a nice way of saying he's stoned. Drugs have their advantages, but understanding reality is not one of them. This is basically proven in science if you read the literature. Stoned scientists have a brilliant discovery once about every 50 years.

"Once your brain is functioning enough to ask you questions"
This is no "side-comment," you are able to ask your mind and unconsciousness mind questions

"Your soul was never really happy living up to those false expectations"
Bullshit. What do you know about the soul to begin with? NOTHING. This youtuber is plainly made aware that he depends on only unreviewed, wack-job "reporting" of things he wishes were true. No evidence. No Genetics. Nothing. Ignore everything this moron says. He doesn't know what he's talking about.

"He obviously didn't mean shot down."

Parapraxis, or Freudian slip, is an error in speech, memory or physical action that is believed to be caused by the unconscious mind that reveals repressed thoughts or feelings.

"You guys, it's just like a woman you're not interested in hitting on you...you say, "Nope" and move along. Why is that so hard? "

Yeah, the old fear of being raped by the gays, another really strange phobia. I'm guessing this is a result of hundreds of years of religion teaching how homosexuality is a "sin" and all that crap. and I guess we unconsciously connect sins with crimes like rape and so in our unconscious minds gays are likely to be grabbing any ass theyll get.

I'm not gay, but if some gay guy is trying to "hit" on me, who cares? I'm comfortable enough with my own sexuality to know he wont succeed anyway.