[vacuity]

Science is limited by what we can falsify, which follows from what we can observe. We should attribute no normative weight to whether something should or shouldn't be scientifically analyzable. So we should always improve our means of observation, as well as our culture towards the things that are difficult or downright impossible to scientifically analyze. Science is a part of philosophy, or a derivation of philosophy with feedback. We should develop all open avenues of philosophy in the course of living.

[Ukv]

> We should attribute no normative weight to whether something should or shouldn't be scientifically analyzable. So we should always improve our means of observation, as well as our culture towards the things that are difficult [...]

I don't mean it necessarily has to be scientifically analyzable with current technology, but it must have some impact on the physical world (even if indirect) - else it cannot be what we're referring to.

[vacuity]

I think we need to define consciousness or soul or whatever first. In the sense of the mind, even, what is a mind? There is something that does have to have some connection to our physical actions, but how we conceptualize that thing is more open-ended. "Physical" is more accurately, if crudely put, "forces and objects we can obviously observe", but science is the very question of what we observe, so we're treading on very uncharted territory with this topic. Maybe we will one day gain access to a very different world that will seem as obvious as being able to pick up a chair.