I do not mean to come across as being unpleasant or dismissing other
people's crackpot ideas. It's a big pot and all are welcome to share.
The constructivists argued that it was not enough to show that there was
not evidence to support a proposition, you also had to find evidence to
support the
Matt
One could easily argue that on the basis that you cannot scientifically prove
any of the absolute assertions you just made, that you cannot be correct, but
to what end? Let's unpack your perspective.
1) "Science doesn't explain everything." vs Science explains everything it
explains.
2)
That is dismissive. You are dismissing the very idea that there may be
more to the experience of consciousness than contemporary science can
explain. As I mentioned before, Marvin Minsky (a well known
self-proclaimed atheist) and I agreed that the mystery of conscious
will be explained by science
Science doesn't explain everything. It just tries to. It doesn't explain
why the universe exists. Philosophy does. It exists as a necessary
condition for the question to exist.
Chalmers is mystified by consciousness like most of us are. Science can
explain why we are mystified. It explains why it
