Consciousness as used here, refers to the private, subjective experience of being aware of our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, actions, memories (psychological contents) including the intimate experience of a unified self with the capacity to generate ...
Science consists of having a theory and testing the theory empirically. This work focuses on the theoretical model, and references numerous studies supporting their position.
That’s not what it says at all. What it’s actually saying is that what we perceive as consciousness is a byproduct of the subconscious and the likely evolutionary value of this construct is to facilitate social transfer of experience. It’s an argument against mind-body dualism which is itself a deeply unscientific concept.
Furthermore, the whole idea of a soul is laughably unscientific since it posits that there’s this magical entity that’s not an emergent property of the physical reality.
I never said I was “For” the soul hypothesis, just that the way this read was “Well we know conciousness isn’t magic, so clearly it doesn’t exist at all in any meaningful way!” Which is… a leap at best.
And this answer seems like more materialist apologia masquerading as science. So we don’t exist, and the illusion that we do is so we can tell other people who don’t exist about how we’re not existing? You see why that’s dumb right?
And, how do we know there isn’t a non-physical reality from which this reality is itself an emergent property? That seems more likely than “People don’t REALLY exist”
The soul is not a hypothesis. The idea has no basis in science. Period.
Again, not what the paper says. I get the impression that you didn’t actually read it, and just keep making straw man arguments here.
Empiricism is the basis for scientific method. Science doesn’t deal with hypothetical that cannot be measured using experimental means. The fact that you posit this suggests you don’t actually understand how scientific process actually works or what science is fundamentally.
It quotes plenty of studies that have data. This is an aggregate analysis of a lot of prior work. It’s hard for me to take your comment seriously when you ignore this.
What I actually pointed out was that you’ve demonstrated lack of understanding of what science is in your comment. I even explained specifically what the nature of your misunderstanding was.
At least you know when to stop digging.