> The point is that just because you can't prove something to yourself it doesn't make the belief incoherent.

If a proposition doesn’t make predictions about my empirical experience then what is it saying?

And if a proposition does make such empirical predictions, than it’s effectively just a name for those predictions.

That’s essentially the view I’m coming from.

> At any rate, there's plenty of things we believe about say quantum mechanics without being able to observe them directly by using theory and observing secondary effects.

I don’t know any physics so I can’t comment.

Why are propositions about consciousness different from propositions about faeries?