[dasil003]

We get angry when theologians try to overstep their bounds into science, so we should also get angry when scientists overstep their bounds into philosophy with all kinds of hamfisted assumptions.

I mean just because an assumption is necessary and reasonable for exploring the mechanics of the universe does not mean you can simply extrapolate to something as mysterious as the nature of consciousness and free will.

[a-priori]

Philosophy ceases to be philosophy when its claims can be tested empirically. The major branches of science (physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc.) were once considered topics in philosophy, but are no longer. It appears that Philosophy of Mind is currently making this transition.

(Edit: Changed "Theory of Mind" to "Philosophy of Mind"... psychology lingo crept in there for a second)

[dasil003]

Absolutely true, however it's a bit overzealous to jump from starting to understand how the brain works to materialistic assumptions about the nature of consciousness of free will.

[a-priori]

See, from my perspective it's overzealous to assume that the conscious mind is not materialistic in nature.

With a question as ill-posed as the nature of consciousness, what's reasonable and what's overzealous depends entirely on your perspective.

[dasil003]

Yes it's overzealous to assume either way. That's why it's philosophy not science.