Decades-long bet on consciousness ends

In the day-to-day practice of science i.e. when empirical inquiry 'works', there certainly are underpinning philosophical assumptions, whether or not they are reconsidered or appreciated with every experiment. The implicit in the act of hypothesis testing, some variant of which most scientists in day-to-day practice, are assumptions about the nature of probabilities, inference etc. The NHST framework that is typically used came about after extensive battles over philosophical considerations that apply to significance/hypothesis testing between Neyman and Pearson vs Fisher. The fact that I never write that a hypothesis is (as a research biologist) is 'proven', but some variant that of it having withstood an attempt at falsification, is loaded with Popperian critical rationalism.

> Math is the precise language needed to speak about these methods and the knowledge.

Except math can't map directly onto reality, or data generating processes that are studied, unless you are presupposing some kind of logical positivism (and I doubt you are). We need probabilities, statistics, and frameworks to map all of this uncertainty, and they must be underpinned by some sort of philosophical assumptions that can't be derived from science itself.

> Look at the achievements of science. That is how you get convinced it gives us a grip on reality.

But that in and of itself is a philosophy of science, one of instrumentalism. However, it only extends to whether science can be useful, but not whether it is accurately describing reality or is true.

Firstly let me say human consciousness is many layers of personification and abstract meaning, all of which wonder of existential awareness of being as the ultimate actualization of those who have it.

This proposition is that it is existential reality itself that is dormant “potential of being”, which biotechnology animates and extends. The scope of consciousness lies in whatever the substrate is made of. In our case, likely the 2D crystal lattices of neuron microtubules.

These through aggregation couple and combine such that a shared resolution may capture and reveal an analog “image”, much like wave front holography. Many sub-scopes compete for the illusion of singular awareness consciousness which gets us wondering.

It is this holographic sieve that can be said the echo chamber of one’s personal consciousness. All of the wetware provides perception, enables action, and an ideal container for this process to occur.

Further, neural and behavioral strategies structure and develop character of individual cognition, creating such variety of conjecture as we find among us.

By this sieve of consciousness, and the distribution of potential over time, all strategies of life may emerge. That primitive continuity of will which determines to exist comes by the capacity to maintain corporeal scope of existential being.

Life technology emerges from the intrinsic capacity for consciousness as a sieve of the potential of existential being. Consciousness, how ever large or small is the inflection upon this potential of existential being.

This is the core confusion I think. I find philosophy very relevant for the way I reason and solve problems and evaluate arguments, and in this sense philosophy is powerfully practical. But it’s true that for any given claim, there is always the possibility of taking the opposite position. This lack of final, case-closed consensus doesn’t mean that philosophers individually haven’t converged on true beliefs or haven’t made progress. It’s just that unlike mathematical truths, we can write out the proofs of our arguments, but there’s always someone who disagrees about one of the starting assumptions. So then civilians who haven’t heard of people like Parfit think to themselves, wow 2k years and you can’t tell me anything about ethics or logic or epistemology — it’s like bro just read the literature