>>13924378>It had nothing to do with the paper either.You should try reading the paper.
>LolI see right through your nervous laughter.
>Ergo we know what it's like to be a bat, and the paper can be dismissed with a flawed premise.Yet another straw man from you. Again, this isn't about some gap in scientific knowledge, this is about what science is. Science by definition is about structure and behavior, that's it. Consciousness has to do with what it is like to be the subject, is intrinsic and distinct from mere structure and behavior. Stop reading your script and think critically.
>I'll just assume consciousness has a physical explaination, fore it's self evident (to me).Dr. Chalmers already gave the argument against physical explanation. All you're doing is repeating the claim he's already refuted.
