Hopefully it wasn't Scott Sterling. I don't think he would survive the masters.

We know how to examine the brain to some extent and we have improved on that significantly, we also know that all who we are is contained within our bodies.

We require no metaphysical concept to understand that. My argument is simple here. We are fundamentally real within our context of understanding. We do not require claims that suspend the reality to explain anything about ourselves.

My thinking is that we have no demonstrated need for anything beyond our experiences within our reality to explain these concepts.

I am sorry, had major surgery this morning and am recovering. Not on top of my game. Your link does support that this is poorly defined still.

I donl apologize, I won't be able to continue thus dialog, but it will reference your point.

You will not invest in approaches based on reality? Sounds like we done here.

It's not really the future of physics that is important here. It's the ability for us to inspect claims that were previously impossible to investigate. We have the ability, and increasingly so, to inspect how the brain functions. This path is likely to give us better answers then the last three millenia of speculation with deferrement to untestable metaphysical concepts - such as the soul.

If claimed on reality, then metaphysics need not apply.

Those definitions came from Webster and dictionary.com. if those are controversial then I think the field needs to properly define it.

Proof, not yet that's why we still deal with philosophy around this point.

However, we know humans are rooted in reality. That is testable in many ways. As our knowledge and capabilities have expanded we have been able to remove an increasing amout of things from the realm of philosophy. Just because we have not done it yet, doesn't mean that that it will not fall squarely into the realm of the physical

On the second point. We have no indication that it is required to use metaphysics to explain it. Therefore, investing in examining the brains capabilities and examining for a process.

That is where Occam's razor comes into play. Let's invest our efforts in what so know instead of positing ideas the dont exist without universal by definition.

Incorrect.

Definition: abstract theory with no basis in reality

Or

Definition: an idea, doctrine, or posited reality outside of human sense perception

Both suggest we cannot ascertain the reality, however, as I suggest with bats we can indeed do so.

Through direct examination.

That assertion is false. Why can't we infer taste, eyesight or hearing without experiencing then?

We know eagles have better sight than us without needing their eyes.

We know bats hear better than us, and use it for sight without that capability ourselves.

We know migrating birds have mechanisms for navigating that we do not posses. Even though we have not pinned down exactly what, we know it exists and we don't need metaphysics for it.

The more we know about how each thing works the less we need to be able to experience it ourselves to understand it

We have an observance system because it has demonstrated an evolutionary advantage.

Applying such a concept out of context requires justification to do so. We do not see the universe alive in the same context as we are. What is the justification to apply such a concept to vast empty space, gasses, solids, liquids, and metals out in space?

That is an incorrect statement. My assertion is testable and can be prove true or false through examination. Metaphysical claims have no current mechanism for such a test.

Why do people keep insisting consciousness has anything to do with metaphysics? It doesn't. Consciouness is simply an observance system to process input.

It's part of the brain, it's simply a sub system.

As an examples, you can have a sub system in a computer that monitors the computer. Our monitoring system just has actionable capabilities. No metaphysics required.

Can we start applying occam's razor here please? We will make more progress if we stick in reality and not try to explain stuff through unprovable means.