[berndi]

I'm having a hard time understanding your post -- my depth of thinking may well not be on par with yours. Its obvious that science as a whole explains a hierarchy of phenomenona, with a given phenomenon (like radiation propagation) often being explained ("why does it happen in this specific way") by a more fundamental theory that provides an overarching account of a set of phenomena.

The point is that every update of a scientific theory shifts old "why" questions to new ones. Science will not ever and does not aim to provide an answer to the ultimate question of why anything exists at all or why a given theory of everything applies rather than another (indeed, string theory for example posits a possible, if not actual theory of everything).

In this sense, in the scientific study of consciousness, we do not aim for an ultimate account of why the laws of nature give rise to consciousness. Instead, it is about explaining a natural phenomenon within a theoretical framework that allows us to make predictions with respect to experimental outcomes.

[antonvs]

> The point is that every update of a scientific theory shifts old "why" questions to new ones. Science will not ever and does not aim to provide an answer to the ultimate question of why anything exists at all

I don't see how any of that is relevant.

The examples I gave are so definitively answered that we can derive the relevant laws mathematically, and prove that they must apply in all universes with the necessary properties. I've provided such a derivation in this comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27336901

There are many other examples along these lines in science.

Even if scientists tomorrow decided that some variant of string theory is a more accurate model of the world than quantum field theory, it wouldn't affect these answers.

There's no aspect of the explanations of inverse square laws or conservation laws that have had their answer undermined by updates to a theory, or are less explanatory because we e.g. don't know the origin of all existence.

Science has definitively answered "why" questions in those cases, and many others.

[ganzuul]

There is a logical answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing, but interpretations of it are varied. If you accept that consciousness (hard) is a natural phenomena then it is much less of a leap. However, you do lose the ability to conclude with certainty that your individual consciuosness did _not_ instantiate the entire universe, which tends to lead to a very self-centered path of inquiry which often only skirts around the main issue. If you are further attached to the logic of the Law of the Excluded Middle, then megalomania is always close at hand and probably the reason why this knowledge isn't shouted from the rooftops.

This idea has been around for thousands of years and is similar to the central teaching of Advaita Vedanta. Indeed, we are continuing a truly great tradition of inquiry in our natural philosophy of science.