Looking below the surface

[Jim B.]

So we will know the theory is right through the theory itself?

No, by how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts.

[The Pixie]

So we will know the theory is right through the theory itself?

No, by how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts.

Exactly. Science!

[Jim B.]

So we will know the theory is right through the theory itself?

No, by how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts.

Exactly. Science!

No, that's not it. Consciousness isn't necessitated by physical facts, so it wouldn't be "solved" by science. It's not necessitated by structure and function. This is a slightly subtle point.

[The Pixie]

No, by how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts.

Exactly. Science!

No, that's not it. Consciousness isn't necessitated by physical facts, so it wouldn't be "solved" by science. It's not necessitated by structure and function. This is a slightly subtle point.

So how well the theory fits with things we know magically?

This is the bit you dance around, and claiming it is subtle really does not cut it. How do we know these "many other things we know" if not via observation and experience? And you even said including empirical facts!

How is this different to relativity, which was accepted because of how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts?

[Jim B.]

So how well the theory fits with things we know magically?

This is the bit you dance around, and claiming it is subtle really does not cut it. How do we know these "many other things we know" if not via observation and experience? And you even said including empirical facts!

How is this different to relativity, which was accepted because of how well the theory fits in with and/or helps us make sense of many other things we know, including empirical facts?

It's different because of the different explanatory target. Relativity theory is a physical theory. Consciousness really isn't a physical thing so it can't be explained by a physical theory. It will have to be confirmed empirically and empirically predictive, but competing theories of consciousness are equally good at such things, so observables may not be able to determine which of the mutually exclusive theories is the right one.

So let me ask you; How will you know when consciousness is 'solved' empirically? What kinds of data and what threshold for the amount of data will have to be cleared when we can say "We've got it! This is it!" What criteria wold you say wold have to be in play that would justify saying "This set of physical phenomena just IS consciousness. We have an identity!"