From the first-person subjective perspective, we understand consciousness perfectly well. And from the third-person objective perspective, we have a decent understanding of brain states. What we don’t even have is any understanding at all for how something that exhibits purely physical qualities can exhibit purely mental qualities, i.e., how a brain can be conscious. So I think you, speaking for materialism, are getting a little ahead of yourself since materialism can’t currently explain how the mental arises from the physical, at all.

Considering Descartes’ conception of ‘substance’ was scholastic, all you’re saying is that modernists don’t really understand what he or his adherents are talking about. I agree.

Modern philosophers are still doing philosophy, so claiming that in "philosophical terms" substance means what Aquinas or Aristotle meant is just false. You've just stopped paying attention.

Do we? From the first person subjective perspective it seems like we know absolutely nothing about consciousness.

तत् त्वम् असि

Or perhaps it could start "There is thinking, ...", something even neeeel could start to get behind?!

You seem to have a particularly restrictive view on knowledge, one might even say excessively restrictive, since you seem to require certainty. Would you be comfortable starting with the Primacy of Existence as a bedrock, and build knowledge from there e.g. existence -> awareness, awareness -> perception / thoughts , perception / thoughts -> reasoning, or something like that?

I prefer the form "Thou art God". Now that I have created this post, I'm going to love it no matter what.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/substance/
There could be said to be two rather different ways of characterizing the philosophical concept of substance. The first is the more generic. The philosophical term ‘substance’ corresponds to the Greek ousia, which means ‘being’, transmitted via the Latin substantia, which means ‘something that stands under or grounds things’[…]

The second use of the concept is more specific. According to this, substances are a particular kind of basic entity, and some philosophical theories acknowledge them and others do not [...]

So I don’t think you’re correct in saying the term ‘substance’ isn’t philosophically defined in the way I described, even though in some philosophical theories it carries a different connotation.

The reason Descartes has been criticized is because you can't really claim there is "thought" just because you appear to be thinking. The argument is similar to the fatalist view that there is no free will and you just act out what you are programmed to do with the illusion of choice. As for Descartes, you could assume that you are processing information when in fact you are just passively observing what appears to be the processing of information.

I don't buy that entirely, since at the very least there would have to be "observation" in this paradigm, which is why i say that we know that there is something, whether thought, or observation, or awareness, or even an illusion.

The word "knowledge" by definition is restrictive, since without certainty you cannot know. That doesn't mean you can't build a foundation on deductive reasoning which accurately depicts the world. Philosophically speaking however, where there is room for doubt, there cannot be certainty, and without certainty there is no knowledge.

How can you know that your thoughts, perceptions and reasoning are sound? You can deduce that after trial and error things appear to work in a certain way, but you can't know if that way actually portrays reality or not. Since our perceived reality seems to obey certain laws, we can presume what reality is, but only because the doubt that remains does not hinder our thoughts or actions, but it would be an error to conclude that we know.

If you can prove that you know something, I'm all for it, I'm not trying to be a truth-bully...

Here is a question I remember from an epistemology book -
"John's watch stopped working at exactly 11:00:00 PM. Coincidentally, John happens to only look at his watch everyday at exactly 11:00:00 PM. Does John KNOW that it is 11:00 PM?

I always liked that as it bring up a good question of reality and perception. What does it mean to actually know something? We are possibly looking at reality through our broken watch and we may in fact be right, but to say that we know we are right is highly presumptuous.

Just one opinion of many, this is obviously not the only way to think about reality, but it is my personal preference.

I didn't say that.

I thought you meant a different criticism, that "I think, therefore" was already begging the question that there is an "I" that exists and that is thinking.

It's an interesting (and frustrating) topic. I have a perverse interest in presuppositional apologetics, which declares divine certainty is all that can exist, so it's interesting to hear from a theist that rejects certainty. btw, I just want to point out that many ppl equivocate the term certainty, implying they are talking about something that can only be true ("is X certainly true?"), but actually frame their question as degree of confidence ("are you certain of X?").
Knowledge is broader than whether facts are accurate according to reality, and can also be thought of as familiarity of a topic. e.g. Do you know how to play an instrument? You're probably just talking about the theoretical lack of certainty, right? I just don't find this stuff of any consequence since it is beyond our ability to ever experience - this idea that there is a 'real', objective reality that may or may not be what we perceive to be, is really just like the idea of the existence of the supernatural. By definition, it is beyond our ability to experience it, so why would we even entertain the idea with any seriousness? This, to me, is what faith is for, and not for the remote possibility that reality is not how it presents itself. I'm fascinated in why others entertain it and I can't.

Here is an example of a certain truth (that I am also certain is true!): I am not omniscient.

You're right, it is of little consequence, and mainly applies to epistemology, but there is still some applicable truths. This is not meant to be used as a "we can't know anything" trump card, when someone makes a claim. I may have gotten carried away with this line of thought earlier, but only because MB and I were discussing the fallibility of perceptions.
When it comes to philosophy though, this is the line of reasoning that is taken.

Here is one for you: I know that I cannot know Graham's number.

This shouldn't be too hard for a Christian to understand, using their text and theology.

1. If God is omnipresent, where is He not?
2. Do horses beget crows? Do cats give birth to dogs? So, child of God, what did your Father beget? God begets gods.
3. Jesus: Ye are gods. (John 10:34) Psalm 82:6 Ye are gods
4. God is through all and in all (Eph 4:6)
5. In the beginning, when there was only God, what material did God use to create all that was created? There was nothing else, He used Himself. You are made of the Omnipresent Him.

So, at the very least, we are a divine spark from the One Fire that men call God and our essence is The Source.

Text: Yes
Theology: No

Sorry. Dogma would be better, maybe?

So the status of an electron is that it is also God, right?

Not really. What you're saying is "Christians believe *this*" but the *this* is contrary to what Christians believe. All you're doing is taking their words and reinterpreting them to mean what you want them to mean, and not using them how they use them.

The "status" essence of (whatever), ultimately, is that it is a filament of the One, a spark from the Divine Fire, a drop of the Ocean, etc etc etc

So whatever the I am, so is the electron.

Is your argument predicated on using an electron as an example, or could we substitute baseball, car, cloud, or fingernail for it?

Does it make a difference?

That's what I'm asking you. I don't know what an electron is. But, we both are probably familiar with baseballs...

I don't know. At this point, I'm feeling out how you're using the terms.

Okay. We can talk about baseballs, then.

So whatever I am, so is a baseball?

No. Aaron and a baseball are different things or forms. But, as you've heard, by "him" all things consist so, ultimately, they originated from the same Source tho.