Still, consciousness definitely exists and is definitely weird. And I don't think it's futile to try and learn about it. It's just not going to be philosophers that give us any answers (as usual).
Take chemistry and astrology as examples. Why do we consider chemistry more valid? It's not because chemistry steps outside of physics' boundaries; it's that it gives us useful answers based on physics. Anything in chemistry that doesn't fit with physics we see as a mistake. But this doesn't mean chemistry doesn't have its place. It tackles parts of the world physics covers in broad strokes, just as physics uses math to detail its findings. Saying physics could exist without math, or implying a problem in physics could be solved outside of math, goes against the whole idea of what physics is.
Saying 'philosophy is dead' ironically shows how successful philosophy has been. We don’t need to constantly refer back to philosophy for everyday scientific questions because those frameworks are already well-established. Philosophy comes into play when we’re faced with truly strange or new questions that challenge our current understanding.
I swear that the administrative convenience of treating domains of science as distinct subjects rather than subsets and supersets and entirely separate from philosophy in K-12 has caused confusion and dogmatic rigidity on a global scale.
No, they grew from experimental evidence. I'm not aware of any scientific knowledge that came from pure thought experiment without experimental validation. Pretty much the only thing you can use that for is maths.
You can say "but lots of discoveries came from medieval philosophers", but that's just because they didn't have a separate word for scientists. I'm using the modern definition of the word, which really makes my argument almost tautologically true. By the modern definition if any philosopher actually provided and answer to a question then people would call it science.
To name a few, modern physics, chemistry, and psychology are rooted in alchemy and astrology.
A major problem is that people accept the literal interpretations of those practices to either discount or credit them. Ironically, this stems from the self-imprisonment in material existence, the bonds of which occult studies seek to cut.
That's ironic, because this is the most popular theory of consciousness among analytic philosophers: physicalism. It says that consciousness is identical to some physical process.
The problem with this theory is the knowledge argument. Mary grew up in a room without colors. Inside the room, she did learn everything about the brain. For example, she knows exactly what physical process is associated with the experience of "red". One day, she goes outside for the first time, and sees a rose. Does she learn something new? Something she didn't already know from knowing everything about the physical correlate of having experiences of red?
> In other words, if physicalism is true, then Mary’s complete knowledge of all the physical facts will include knowledge of what it is like to experience color. When she does have the actual experience for the first time, there should be no surprises. If there are, then she didn’t really have all the physical facts.
This can easily be undermined, e.g. with strong psychedelic disassociatives such as salvinorins which can brutally alter this sense of self and bodily consciousness through very localised, very specific central receptor action. Another example could be the use of mirror images to treat phantom limbs in amputees.
To some it might be frightening to realise one has never been outside a very small part of the brain and never directly experienced anything but projections sent there from a collection of slimy mammal parts that aren't conscious at all.
I'd like to suggest comparing observations from Merleu-Ponty and late modern neuroscience, perhaps Bear et al, Neuroscience: Exploring the Brain (pick a previous edition to get it cheap).
Ha perhaps I should have been more specific - I want correct answers!
And I want answers because a) I'm interested, and b) answers to scientific questions tend to let us make new cool things!