>>13293844Of course science and technology let's us accomplish things we couldn't do with our brains alone, but that's not really what I'm getting at when I say that science doesn't let us escape those instincts. When it comes to questions about justifying knowledge gained from science, why and how it works, how it should work, the limits of science, the existence of scientific entities, etc, this is all justified in one way or another with assumptions not so different from the ones that lead us to believe consciousness exists. Science doesn't justify itself in that sense, it's always going to rest on our intuitions.
>Physics isn't narrow because it forms the basis of every other scientific fieldIt's not narrow if you believe that modeling of the behavior of matter tells you everything about the world, sure. I clearly don't agree with that. Also, even if all scientific fields are reducible to physics in principle (which is contentious), few scientific fields requires physics to get off the ground and function.
>Yes, obviously. If you take the mathematical models seriously, as you should, you learn a lot of things about the "nature of the world". Common sense ideas of geometry had to revised with the advent of relativity to give an example.I don't disagree science can lead us to a better understanding of the world, but if there is more to the world than the way matter behaves and how it is structured, then mathematical modelling is going to ultimately be limited to predicting behavior, while the underlying nature remains locked away.
>Also as said above, consciousness is a product of biology, which is in principle reducible to physics.That's what's up for debate here.
>I meant that the theories which try to explain how the supposed non-physical consciousness interacts with the physical world are ridiculous.But what is ridiculous about panpsychism specifically?
