Sculptor1, science has very simple metaphysical constructs. For example take the Standard Theory. This theory is one of the soundest theories in contemporary science. Its metaphysical properties are about "physical" objects that can be predicted and verified by the observation of the results of experiments performed by slamming particles together and seeing what results. As a result we know a lot about the behavior of physical particles when put through these particle accelerator tests.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑April 15th, 2020, 8:10 amWrong again.
Science knows more about that than at any time in history and it continues to learn. Anything you say without reference to this science is idle speculation.Double negative weasel words.Knowing a great deal about the difference between a living body and a dead one is a good start but it is not definitive. Again the lack of knowledge of the nature of our mental/ physical nature is not evidence that there is no deeper nature that science has yet to understand.simple compared to what, exactly?Science has at its disposal only very simple...So what? Even if this were true, there is nothing you could possibly offer this thread which would add to that knowledge....metaphysical constructs that disqualifies it from understanding the real nature of the roots of our metaphysical being.
What science does not have are the metaphysical constructs that could explain the role of the "experiential" nature of consciousness.
Since it is a given that science falls short in that arena, the burden of proof that science has not missed something is on you, Sculptor1.
To that end, prove to us that the standard QM theory which creates everything from a quantum fluctuation of "NOTHINESS" could possibly explain "consciousness". The first problem of that happening is that QM is simply a "Platonic" account of statistical distributions that have no "hidden variables". Thus we must accept the probabilistic "form" without any hope of empirical verification. If Boehm's theory were accepted we could look for deeper explanations because his theories predict the same results as Bohr's but is based on the existence of hidden variables.
Thus there is good reason to suspect that a deeper metaphysical formulation that includes notions of the existence of a "mental" component to reality as proposed by Nagel, Searle and other philosophers has to be considered. Your job, Scuptor1 is to prove that QM has disproved that possibility. Good Luck!