| > 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. |