> Now that the "science can't explain the subjective" thing is out in the
> open, I can't help but wonder if this isn't the logical end of the
> discussion? If some folks are going to hold that science can't explain
> the subjective, then maybe there's no point in coming up with elaborate
> schemes to prove that? It seems that any scenario to prove the "failure"
> of science on this, is itself going to be a kind of science or
> engineering or materials scenario, maybe even involving "ghost energy"
> of some sort? How can any materialist or realist scenario prove that
> realism is missing an essential component?
> David Blenkinsop <email@example.com>
This is all fine, except that we are considering uploading ourselves / neural enhancement / etc as a path to trans/posthumanity. So getting a good idea of what subjective consciousness is, and of how its continuity is achieved/behaves, is a pretty important pragmatic, practical consideration for those of us considering this option. It's not just a bunch of philosophical timewasting crap, it matters, and will directly impact us. Ignoring the issue (materialism) may just mean a very personal, subjectively real (although non-measurable) experience of death and extinguishment of self in the near future.
If my consciousness is extinguished inside a singularity, and there is no one there to observe, does it piss me off? Yes!!!!
Not that any of this helps at all, of course.