Then perhaps we might try the reasonable interchange of ideas? :razz:

What's to stop anyone from effectively arbitrarily saying that something is or isn't an explanation in that case? — Terrapin Station

An argument explaining why the purported explanation fails to explain the phenomenon in question.

If you say that consciousness is identical to brain states, as identity theorists do, then I can ask what is it about those brain states which makes them identical and not all the brain states which are unconscious?

And all the other related questions that go with that. What I'm wanting from an identity explanation is what makes the identity an identity. Just saying it is an identity doesn't work because there are brain states which aren't identical, and it leaves us in the dark about robots and animals with different brain states.

Isn't that more than sufficient for our needs? If not, what does it lack? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

Right, except that in philosophical discussions the lack of clarity leads to much semantic wrangling. However I wonder if that isn't more to win the debate than it is really seeking clarity. And I'm as guilty of semantic wrangling as anyone else.

My favorite is, "I can't make sense of X." Yeah you can. You just don't want to because of the philosophical lens you're viewing it through.

An argument explaining why the purported explanation fails to explain the phenomenon in question. — Marchesk

No one does that in a way that implies an actual demarcation criterion they have for explanations in general.

in philosophical discussions the lack of clarity leads to much semantic wrangling — Marchesk

Yes, semantic misunderstandings are common, and I think the reasons for this are obvious. ( :chin: ) But there is also the paralysing effect of people holding up the discussion by demanding definitions, sometimes of the most commonly-used and -understood terms. I think there is room for a middle-path compromise here? :chin: