[kbelder]

- Science has, up til now, failed to make even the slightest progress on the origin of consciousness. - Science does not even claim to attempt to answer all questions about the human experience.

Similar argument could be made about every other subject that science has explained, prior to science explaining it. This is just an argument from the gaps.

[smokedetector1]

Wait wait.. I thought nothing is allowed besides rigorously-justified scientific inference. But you've made your position unfalsifiable - there is literally nothing you believe science can't touch, even if it has failed so far to make progress. Is there anything you could imagine that would make you reconsider? Sounds unfalsifiable to me, and many would say that makes your theory logically unrigorous.

I like to call your belief system "science of the gaps." You have no evidence that science can touch the question, but you have faith it will, but worst of all you believe that your faith is superior to other well thought-out theories, which you dismiss automatically as foolish superstition.

Look up refutations of materialism to learn more.

[talldayo]

Science is a process - it leaves room for "we don't know" or "this is wrong" in it's methods. But that alone doesn't mean that determinism and causality are a fraud, it just means that we lack the tools to record and observe what we want. The mystery of the aeolipile did not preclude 20th century aviation, and a lack of particle colliders doesn't revise the recorded history of physics. Science, when applied properly, really is a gap-filling measure. The "God of the Gaps" fails because it collapses as we learn more about our surroundings; in many ways, immaterial epistemology has been driven out of scientific research for the same reason. You can't have your immaterial cake and understand it too.

> Look up refutations of materialism to learn more.

Most refutations of materialism are just observably wrong. I don't disagree with a lot of the concepts, but most of them are used as means to nonsensical ends that only work if you reject the logical basis for everything that currently exists in reality. Anti-materialism is uncomfortably close to "revisionist objectivism" and sends you down a slippery-slope of trying to reframe all of science under a satisfying theory of everything.

Therein lies the conflict of modern traditionalism. Do you want to be correct, or do you want to be happy?

[smokedetector1]

> that alone doesn't mean that determinism and causality are a fraud, it just means that we lack the tools to record and observe what we want

This, like many things strict materialists say, is an opinion masquerading as a rigorous logical conclusion.

> Science, when applied properly, really is a gap-filling measure.

I really don't understand why you think science is immune from the "gaps" criticism. Yes, science has an amazing track record, but only where it applies. Everywhere else, it's been useless. That's not a criticism of science, it's a criticism of those that seek to extrapolate it out to where it has no authority, and should have no authority.

The scientific belief system involves looking at evidence and drawing conclusions, right? The evidence shows science has not touched consciousness. It's not that it has made imperfect progress - it hasn't touched it. Not only that, but there are in-principle, logical reasons to believe it can't (see the "hard problem" discussion). What is the rigorous logical reason for ignoring this evidence and asserting that science will eventually solve every problem? A feeling that it probably will is not a rigorous logical reason.

Obviously, the brain is involved in our experience. But nothing science has discovered rules out the possibility that there's a soul that interacts with the brain, yielding our experience. If there is, cite those studies.

> Most refutations of materialism are just observably wrong.

It would help if you said what, specifically, you find wrong with the most convincing arguments against materialism, which you hint at.

To be honest, I don't understand the rest of your comment. More specifics without "isms" would help.