Reply to comment

"he two positions are in practice indistinguishable, and they lead to the same research..." I do not entirely agree with the above statement for this reason. Allowing for an "inexplicable" explanation or understanding of consciousness limits the degree to which research results are accepted, and how they are interpreted. A researcher that publishes their results, based upon materialistic science, yet is open to "inexplicable" explanations, does not interject into his/her results their wider views. Besides, what is explicable anyway? In other words, what is the difference between an explanation and a understanding? Until a explanation rises to an understanding, the results are not intrinsically superior to other methods of serious exploration. I would suggest that the "religious sciences" have much to reveal about the nature of consciousness.

As well, I question the term inexplicable, in the present context. Inexplicable, operates in a categorically distinct domain from materialistic science. They are not strictly compatible. Yes, there are scientific facts, processes, and results that cannot, as yet, be scientifically explained. But why would a scientist research the nature and origin of consciousness if they believed it is fundamentally inexplicable? Would that not constitute a monumental wast of time and effort?

I am suggesting that the term inexplicable, in the context of consciousness research, is a misnomer, and therefore the article confuses the truth. I am suggesting that some researchers believe that certain aspects of consciousness, as much of science, is inherently inexplicable. You might ask why. Mainly, in spite of opinions to the contrary, human intelligence is inherently limited. The notion that science will eventually understanding everything is demonstratively unfounded. Such an assumption would necessitate a verifiable principle, harboring an absolutely internal and unquestionable consistency, applicable to every sphere of science. Clearly, no such principle exist in fact, or sound theory.

Differently, what truth is derived from an understanding of consciousness? Do I need to understand the nature and origin of a tool in order to use it? Knowing the origin and evolution of a hammer might lead to the creation of a better hammer. Certainly, a better understanding of brain science might lead to new and improved treatments for various dysfunctions, or learning strategies. What will a "complete" understanding of consciousness afford, assuming that is even possible, and such understanding lie within our cognitive grasp? I offer this question for consideration.