- #106
Canute
- 1,568
- 0
Of course I understand that, and of course the scientific assumption is necessary to science. However that doesn't make it true, and it is precisely the reason that science cannot explain consciousness. Science is based on an assumption that doesn't allow it to explain it. (In a sense science is based on the assumption that it cannot explain it). The is why Chalmers, McGinn et al (and Hypno and me) argue that the assumption should be dropped.Originally posted by metacristi
Canute
Are you able to understand that otherwise the scientific quest become incoherent even before trying to understand the smallest fact about nature (consciousness included)?That's why that axiom was introduced,it is absolutely necessary.
Our disagreement is not about the certainty of scientific proofs, or the certainty of proofs in general. It is about whether science can explain consciousness in the same way it explains everything else. Nobody is asking science to explain it better than it explains anything else.The idea is that the principles that define the functioning of the universe can be discovered.But since we openly accept that our scientific theories are always provisional there is no claim that we know the truth in absolute.Basically we cannot realize when we find the true laws of nature.That's why in science and philosophy there is a clear distinction between scientific laws and the true laws of nature if really there are such laws. [/B]
Last edited: