And this is where this particular argument always ends. It's only a question of how long it will go on till it peters out. And then in a day, or a week, or 10 minutes, it will just start up again. I'll see you then.

This wouldn't happen if you argued with me.

It's interesting you use the word hidebound to describe the...academics. Have you noticed the inconsistencies in their positions? They want everything to be physical but are alright with information being an abstract concept. Or claiming scientific understanding of information by referencing Claude Shannon. Or genetic information. Or physical information. The point being these are all incompatible as a whole and they don't see the problem in it....they are saying 'because science' without backing it up with a fundamental basis.

I'm saying physicalism or dualism should be logically consistent with your position on consciousness, information, time perception, physical matter...the whole list.

Yes, I cannot grasp why researchers are usually so afraid of thinking outside their box. Not long ago scientists were arguing that consciousness doesn't exist and they still haven't found a 'scientific' way to prove that it does. They don;t seem to notice that the study of consciousness goes back to before the invention of writing but prefer just to ignore previous research. No hard problems arise for the traditional explanation of consciousness, provided by people who actually study it and do not just speculate/ Physicalism and dualism do not survive analysis,and yet still they are endorsed. Apparently ideology trumps logic and reason. . . . .

If you're saying that an explanation of consciousness must work in metaphysics then I fully agree and would expect everyone to do so. Otherwise the explanation will not work. I happen to like information theories, but only if the information space is part of the theory and not just forgotten. As Schrodinger notes, as well as all the multitude of phenomena there is the 'canvas on which they are painted'. .

Sure. Understanding the nature of deep learning in neural nets has given me a lot of insight into the nature of human intuitions, the reliabilty or lack thereof of human intuitions, and what it takes to change intuitions.

I seriously doubt this - but can't imagine how you could demonstrate your new understanding so won't push the point.

I seriously doubt this - but can't imagine how you could demonstrate your new understanding so won't push the point. — FrancisRay

It's not just my understanding, and it is not all that new. If you are interested in learning about the subject, the 2016 Atlantic article How Google's AlphaGo Imitates Human Intuition is a decent popular level article touching on salient points.

Alternatively, if there is something that you have real expertise in, and you recognize the role that intuition plays in your exercising that expertise, then perhaps in discussing your area of expertise I could point out things that would give you a greater recognition of how intuition works in yourself.

Admittedly, this stuff is somewhat esoteric at this point in human history, but there is no magic involved, and understanding of it is inevitably going to become more widespread. (Barring a near total collapse of human culture.)

Sorry, I wasn't thinking about metaphysics at all.
But if you get as far as our brains operating in an environment of non-physical content then metaphysics...or mental content without physical limits...is better understood.

My instincts are to avoid metaphysics so I just don't deal with it much unless someone brings it up.

Anyone who has been around here long knows we have beat information theories to death. And there is no consensus.

I like information as brain state because it's logically defensible in a philosophical debate and is a singular definition that doesn't separate brains from what information is.

Hello Janus,

There do seem to be laws of nature; there are constantly observed regularities, and very little, or perhaps even no, transgression of those laws

Do you agree that your commitment to the laws of nature is faith-based and not a publicly observed piece of data? Observed regularities not laws: these are two different things. One is the absolute principle which affects entities within its jurisdiction, and the other is simply something we have observed many times.

I have said that both what is publicly observable and the principle of consistency (validity) in logic are unarguably important in those domains of inquiry where knowledge is most determinable

Are you saying that logical consistency coupled without observation is all that we can know? That would exclude all laws of logic except for the law of noncontradiction (which, to me, seems like special pleading), the laws of nature, and literally any other metaphysical claim. Why?

Secondly, that one should be logically consistent, since it is not publicly observed, would be a matter of faith under your view as well. Again, either, I think, you will have to concede that we can know things without observation (and then open the door to metaphysics proper) or get rid of all principles which are beyond observation (including logical consistency).

They are pragmatically necessary if you want to have a coherent and consistent discussion about anything is all.

Correct. But it would be faith based on your view irregardless: you were arguing that metaphysics (such as idealist theories) are faith-based because they are not publicly observable evidence. My point is that this self-refutes many principles (such as logical consistency) under your own view: you are cutting your own head off (and this is why full-blown empiricism, which is just scientism, is self-defeating).

But they cannot determine what is true. This is a basic understanding in logic; that you can have valid arguments which are unsound, because although the conclusion(s) are consistent with the premises, the premises may be untrue, or even nonsensical.

Logical principles determines what is true insofar as they are the form of the argument; so I can say that an argument with a logical contradiction in it is false because it violates that logical law. Logic itself, as you noted, cannot invalidate nor validate arguments past their form. But, why does this matter for you claim? If you admit that using logic is not faith based, then I can equally claim that using occam’s razor is not faith based; and just use the argument from parsimony to argue for idealism, which you said was somehow faith based!

This wouldn't happen if you argued with me. — FrancisRay

Is that because you are so wise and articulate? I already spent three or four days discussing this with @Quixodian, @Patterner, and @schopenhauer1 before you started to participate. Those three are certainly capable of making the case. As I noted, this subject gets worn out pretty quickly. We've all made the same arguments before and will again.

I'm trying to decide whether our differences are matters of fact or metaphysics. I have a prejudice toward considering intractable questions as metaphysics, which allows me to put them aside without it feeling like I'm cheating, but I'm not sure here.

If science is not the correct method for studying consciousness, please describe a program of study that might be.

Is that because you are so wise and articulate?

Oh no. Certainly not. It's because I endorse non-dualism and for this no problems arise.

I already spent three or four days discussing this with @Quixodian, @Patterner, and @schopenhauer1 before you started to participate. Those three are certainly capable of making the case. As I noted, this subject gets worn out pretty quickly. We've all made the same arguments before and will again.

You'll find that those who do not understand non-dualism do not understand metaphysics and as a consequence cannot make sense of consciousness. I would cite the whole of modern consciousness studies for evidence. I'm coming from somewhere else and endorse the explanations given by the Buddha, Lao Tzu.and Schrodinger, which are entirely ignored and usually unknown to most people working in modern consciousness studies.

I'm trying to decide whether our differences are matters of fact or metaphysics. I have a prejudice toward considering intractable questions as metaphysics, which allows me to put them aside without it feeling like I'm cheating, but I'm not sure here.

I don't believe there are any intractable problems in metaphysics. If you look you'll see that all those who claim metaphysical problems are intractable do not know the Perennial philosophy. This is not a coincidence.

If science is not the correct method for studying consciousness, please describe a program of study that might be

.
The empirical sciences are unable to prove consciousness exists. This is why back in the mid 20th century the orthodox 'scientific' view was that it doesn't. Using sensory empirical methods to study consciousness is not a scientific approach. A scientific approach would study the actual phenomenon. This requires a 'hands-on' approach, as employed by the old science of consciousness,

The critical issue is dualism in whatever form it takes. To make sense of metaphysics and consciousness requires abandoning it. Once one abandons dualism progress is possible, If one sticks to it no progress is possible, as is evidenced by the history of Western philosophy.

I don't regard the approach taken by modern consciousness studies as scientific and suspect neither would Karl Popper. I feel a scientific approach is required. But this would mean investigating consciousness and not just talking about it, and this idea is too mystical for dualists and materiallsts.

The fact remains, however, that non-dualism allows us to explain consciousness and metaphysics, and until it is falsified or refuted there will be no good reason to conjecture it is wrong. But on this topic ideology seems to cause endless problems. Most people argue against it without even bothering to find out what it is. This approach is not scientific or even in accord with basic standards of scholarship.

I hope my indignation at this sloppy workmanship is not too obvious. .
.

. .

It's because I endorse non-dualism and for this no problems arise. — FrancisRay

I'm confused. I've always considered the people who search for answers to the so-called hard problem of as the dualists. Looking back over your posts in this thread, you come down on the side of @schopenhauer1 and the rest of the hard problemers. Doesn't that make you a dualist? Or do I have the terminology mixed up?

You'll find that those who do not understand non-dualism do not understand metaphysics and as a consequence cannot make sense of consciousness. I would cite the whole of modern consciousness studies for evidence. I'm coming from somewhere else and endorse the explanations given by the Buddha, Lao Tzu.and Schrodinger, which are entirely ignored and usually unknown to most people working in modern consciousness studies. — FrancisRay

If you've read much of what I've written here on the forum, you've seen that a lot of my metaphysics is based on my understanding of the Tao Te Ching. I don't see any contradiction between that and a belief that consciousness can be fruitfully studied using science.

Sorry, it's the first I've heard about non-dualism, but that's not surprising because I just hate reading philosophy, so I never do.

As a test, does non-dualism have any insight into time perception? The materialist/physicalist view seems to have some difficulty with it and they may need to concede that the brain has an ability to deal with the non-physical. Dualism based on physical matter seems to do better. Does non-dualism have any insight on how we perceive time? I have a problem with metaphysics being more fundamental than physical matter.

...time perception? The materialist/physicalist.view seems to have some difficulty with it and they may need to concede that the brain has an ability to deal with the non-physical. — Mark Nyquist

What gives you that impression? I'm a materialist/physicalist/naturalist and certainly don't see myself as having any particular difficulty with time. (Relatively speaking.)

Might that be a conclusion you jumped to, in light of my not having responded to your earlier post?

I agree with you that...

There really is a problem of terms and definitions here to sort out. — Mark Nyquist

...and there are matters of learning as well.

Suppose that physical reality is all that there is. In that case, wouldn't "dealing with the non-physical" equate to "dealing with the nonexistent"?

Do you agree that your commitment to the laws of nature is faith-based and not a publicly observed piece of data? — Bob Ross

I'm not committed to the laws of nature: I'm saying that regularities are observed everywhere; if you want to study things and try to understand how they work, what alternative is there to observation?

Are you saying that logical consistency coupled without observation is all that we can know? That would exclude all laws of logic except for the law of noncontradiction (which, to me, seems like special pleading), the laws of nature, and literally any other metaphysical claim. Why? — Bob Ross

Why can you not carry on a discussion with me without distorting what I've said? I've said that what we can know via observation, logic and mathematics is all we can know. If you think there is some other kind of knowledge which can actually be demonstrated to be such, as opposed to being merely speculation, then please offer up an example.

Secondly, that one should be logically consistent, since it is not publicly observed, would be a matter of faith under your view as well. — Bob Ross

More distortion!. That is not my view at all, and nothing I've said states or implies that it is. How will I know what you think if your argument is not coherent, consistent and does not contradict itself? This has nothing to do with faith, but with coherency and intelligibility.

Correct. But it would be faith based on your view irregardless: you were arguing that metaphysics (such as idealist theories) are faith-based because they are not publicly observable evidence. My point is that this self-refutes many principles (such as logical consistency) under your own view: you are cutting your own head off (and this is why full-blown empiricism, which is just scientism, is self-defeating). — Bob Ross

I've said many times that all metaphysical positions, including materialism or physicalism, cannot be tested by observation, and so are faith-based, How does this refute the principle of logical consistency and what are the many other principles you claim it refutes?

Logical principles determines what is true insofar as they are the form of the argument; so I can say that an argument with a logical contradiction in it is false because it violates that logical law. — Bob Ross

The principle of consistency determines what is valid not what is true. It might help you to take a course in elementary logic. The conclusion of an invalid argument may indeed be true.

There is the non-physical which I agree is by definition physically non-existent. But what I meant is a brain supported concept of something, such as the past, that is understood to be non-physical.

I thought we agreed not so long ago.
Anyway, I was asking FrancisRay.
I need to go back to see who said what.
I forget. I'm regular here sometimes but there are gaps in what I follow. Non-dualism was new to me.

You're probably right. I made it sound like you were conceding something. My fault.

There is still an issue I have with physicalism. Physical matter is restricted to the physical present. Our mental content can deal with past, present and future. Doesn't this stepping outside the physical present make mental content different in kind from physical matter? Without brains nature on it's own would have no mechanisms to know the past or affect the future.
So with brains something extra has been added to the mix that strict physicalism (as a philosophy) doesn't permit.

Does non-dualism have any insight on how we perceive time? I have a problem with metaphysics being more fundamental than physical matter. — Mark Nyquist

You've already bragged about not knowing much about philosophy. Now you've verified that by showing you don't know much about metaphysics either.

Sorry, it's the first I've heard about non-dualism, but that's not surprising because I just hate reading philosophy, so I never do.

As a test, does non-dualism have any insight into time perception? The materialist/physicalist view seems to have some difficulty with it and they may need to concede that the brain has an ability to deal with the non-physical. Dualism based on physical matter seems to do better. Does non-dualism have any insight on how we perceive time? I have a problem with metaphysics being more fundamental than physical matter.

Hmm. This is an odd place to find someone who hates reading about philosophy.

Non-dualism requires a neutral metaphysical theory.for which time does not really exist. The idea of the practice is to transcend time and space. You might like to check out the mathematician Hermann Weyl's book on the continuum. He points out that we do not perceive the passing of time but create it out of memories and anticipations. The continuum of mathematics and physics he dismisses as a fiction. In this respect he endorses the non-dual doctrine.

Metaphysics rejects time and matter as fundamental phenomena. If we believe they are fundamental then metaphysics will be a muddle of paradoxes and antinomies since this idea contradicts logic. Do you really find ti difficult to imagine that matter has a prior origin? Is it not more difficult to believe it does not? . .

I'm confused. I've always considered the people who search for answers to the so-called hard problem of as the dualists. Looking back over your posts in this thread, you come down on the side of @schopenhauer1 and the rest of the hard problemers. Doesn't that make you a dualist? Or do I have the terminology mixed up?

I can see the problem. My position is that the hard problem is metaphysical, and that if this is not recognized then it is hard (intractable) for the reason Chalmers originally gives. As a metaphysical problem it is tractable but only when we abandon dualism. The same would go for all metaphysical problems. In this context 'dualism' would be the belief that two things exist. Non-dualism states there are not two things, hence the phrase 'advaita' (not-two) to describe it. . ,

If you've read much of what I've written here on the forum, you've seen that a lot of my metaphysics is based on my understanding of the Tao Te Ching. I don't see any contradiction between that and a belief that consciousness can be fruitfully studied using science.

It can be studied scientifically. and Yoga is often described as a science, but not empirically. Lao Tzu makes no use of empiricism for his knowledge but explains it by saying 'I look inside myself and see'' He endorses the non-dual doctrine for which reality and consciousness are the same phenomenon and it is a unity, and this is how he can know about Tao and the 'ancient origin', the knowledge he calls the 'essence of Tao'. . .

I wonder how you would go about studying consciousness empirically. Can you imagine a way of doing this? Generally, academic researchers have to rely on second-hand reports. It is telling that scientists used to dismiss consciousness as non-existent for the sake of Behaviorism. This view arose because it cannot be studied empirically. Sometime round the 1980s they changed their mind and decided it did exist but I don't know what brought about this change of heart. It was not any new data. .
. .

Hello Janus,

I'm not committed to the laws of nature: I'm saying that regularities are observed everywhere; if you want to study things and try to understand how they work, what alternative is there to observation?

Where I am confused then, is why you said:

There do seem to be laws of nature; there are constantly observed regularities, and very little, or perhaps even no, transgression of those laws

Saying “there do seem to be laws of nature”, by my lights, is admitting that you believe in laws of nature, am I misunderstanding? Irregardless, if you are saying that you don’t believe in laws of nature, then I am asking you: do you agree with me, by your own terms, that believing in laws of nature is on faith?

To me, it seems like you are denying this as well, am I wrong?

Are you saying that logical consistency coupled without observation is all that we can know? That would exclude all laws of logic except for the law of noncontradiction (which, to me, seems like special pleading), the laws of nature, and literally any other metaphysical claim. Why? — Bob Ross

Why can you not carry on a discussion with me without distorting what I've said?

Janus, how can I distort what you have said (in any meaningful sense), if I am asking you questions? What you quoted is me asking for clarification! I am not saying you said that, I am asking if that is what you are saying.
To try and be as fair as I possibly can, to demonstrate to you that I am genuinely trying to understand you, I will layout the core of the issue here. You just said this to clarify “my distortions”:

I've said that what we can know via observation, logic and mathematics is all we can know.

But also said (a while back):

And faith-based beleifs cannot be argued for, because there is no publicly available evidence for them.

There is not publicly available evidence of the laws of logic nor the principles that guide mathematics; therefore, under you view, they are faith-based. No?

To me, it seems like you are special pleading that somehow only faith-based logic and math is acceptable as knowledge, but all other metaphysics is out the window. Why? There literally can’t be observable proof of logic, as it is presupposed in any observation!

If you think there is some other kind of knowledge which can actually be demonstrated to be such, as opposed to being merely speculation, then please offer up an example.

I think we know metaphysical things as well, with principles such as parsimony, logical consistency, coherence, reliability (of the data being used for justification), intuitions, and explanatory power.

I think we can know that every change has a cause, that objects have persistence, that there is a transcendent world (i.e., no solipsism), that there are other proper subjects than oneself, that there are laws of nature, that there are laws of logic, etc; all of which are apparently unwarranted faith-based reasoning since we haven’t observed it—unless we, for some reason, exempt logic from that rule.

More distortion!. That is not my view at all, and nothing I've said states or implies that it is. How will I know what you think if your argument is not coherent, consistent and does not contradict itself? This has nothing to do with faith, but with coherency and intelligibility

I will outline it again. You said:

And faith-based beleifs cannot be argued for, because there is no publicly available evidence for them.

Public evidence is things which are observed. The law of noncontradiction is not justified under any publicly available evidence; and since “faith-based beliefs” are ones which have “no publicly available evidence for them”, then it logically follows that the law of noncontradiction is faith-based (which is the basis of logical consistency). How is this a distortion of your view? It follows plainly from what you have said, and I quoted you to prove it.

I've said many times that all metaphysical positions, including materialism or physicalism, cannot be tested by observation, and so are faith-based, How does this refute the principle of logical consistency and what are the many other principles you claim it refutes?

The law of noncontradiction cannot be tested by observation, therefore it is faith-based (according to you terminology: not mine).

@FrancisRay

When it comes to hard problem (or more broadly mental versus physical or realism versus idealism, etc), one place to start is at the notion of "properties". What does it mean for a property to adhere/inhere in an object, versus a mind?

My position is that the hard problem is metaphysical, and that if this is not recognized then it is hard (intractable) for the reason Chalmers originally gives. As a metaphysical problem it is tractable but only when we abandon dualism. The same would go for all metaphysical problems. — FrancisRay

I agree with your more general comments about metaphysics, but I'm still uncertain about how others apply it to consciousness. I get the impression that hard problemers believe there is a specific, factual explanation for consciousness that is not approachable from a scientific point of view.

It can be studied scientifically. and Yoga is often described as a science, but not empirically. Lao Tzu makes no use of empiricism for his knowledge but explains it by saying 'I look inside myself and see'' He endorses the non-dual doctrine for which reality and consciousness are the same phenomenon and it is a unity, and this is how he can know about Tao and the 'ancient origin', the knowledge he calls the 'essence of Tao'. . . — FrancisRay

This seems like a good explanation to me. My point wasn't that Taoism was established empirically, but that it provides an effective metaphysical foundation for science. On the other hand, I've always seen introspection as a valid source of knowledge, so "I look inside myself and see," can be a credible statement of fact.

I wonder how you would go about studying consciousness empirically. Can you imagine a way of doing this? Generally, academic researchers have to rely on second-hand reports. It is telling that scientists used to dismiss consciousness as non-existent for the sake of Behaviorism. This view arose because it cannot be studied empirically. Sometime round the 1980s they changed their mind and decided it did exist but I don't know what brought about this change of heart. It was not any new data. . — FrancisRay

Consciousness already is and always has been studied scientifically. Psychology can be characterized as the study of mind, including consciousness. Second-hand reports can be perfectly valid empirical data. Our own consciousness is the only one we have access to direct evidence for, at least so far. Also - what we call "consciousness", especially in others, is really behavior which we can study more or less objectively. Consciousness can also be studied by more nuts and bolts science as in cognitive science.

Consciousness already is and always has been studied scientifically. Psychology can be characterized as the study of mind, including consciousness. Second-hand reports can be perfectly valid empirical data. Our own consciousness is the only one we have access to direct evidence for, at least so far. Also - what we call "consciousness", especially in others, is really behavior which we can study more or less objectively. Consciousness can also be studied by more nuts and bolts science as in cognitive science. — T Clark

You’re literally equivocating here in a way that the OP was questioning. Behavior versus mental. Or if it’s not equivocating it’s at least not acknowledging the distinction as that makes the difference.

Or if it’s not equivocating it’s at least not acknowledging the distinction as that makes the difference. — schopenhauer1

The only evidence we have that consciousness exists in anyone but ourselves is our observations of other's behavior. Perhaps that will change with all the new non-intrusive monitoring methods, but we're not there yet.

— "T

I agree with your more general comments about metaphysics, but I'm still uncertain about how others apply it to consciousness. I get the impression that hard problemers believe there is a specific, factual explanation for consciousness that is not approachable from a scientific point of view.

This seems correct to me.If a 'scientific explanation' is one that depends on materialism being true then it would be my view also. I'd say it's the only available sensible view. Unless we abandon our unnecessary and demonstrably absurd metaphysical views then we cannot explain consciousness, mind, matter or anything else. .

As state it is, of course, a gross misuse of the term 'scientific'. If we use Popper's definition then of course there is a specific and factual explanation for consciousness. It's been around for thousands of years, ever since research into consciousness began. .

My point wasn't that Taoism was established empirically, but that it provides an effective metaphysical foundation for science. On the other hand, I've always seen introspection as a valid source of knowledge, so "I look inside myself and see," can be a credible statement of fact.

Spot on. If science rejects non-sensory experience as valid data then it has no reason to believe that consciousness exists and cannot study it. This is pretty much why Behaviorism became the orthodox view for a couple of decades. To deny the existence of mysticism, which is the study of consciousness, is not just a profoundly unscientific way of avoiding the study of consciousness but a laughable one.

I wonder how you would go about studying consciousness empirically. Can you imagine a way of doing this?

I would collect together every book that has ever been published that correctly explains the Perennial philosophy,and hire a fleet of trucks to deliver them to the science department with a note asking them to produce a scientific explanation for why all their authors agree with each other and why everything they say is irrefutable and in accord with modern science and how what they say allows us to solve all metaphysical problems and put the natural sciences on a solid fundamental foundation. They have no 'scientific' method for studying consciousness and discovering the reason, but it might make make them wonder, Would this count as empirical evidence? . . . .

Consciousness already is and always has been studied scientifically. Psychology can be characterized as the study of mind, including consciousness. Second-hand reports can be perfectly valid empirical data. Our own consciousness is the only one we have access to direct evidence for, at least so far. Also - what we call "consciousness", especially in others, is really behavior which we can study more or less objectively. Consciousness can also be studied by more nuts and bolts science as in cognitive science.

My view also. The only consciousness we can study scientifically is our own. Every other method depends on speculation. this seem such a basic and simple point that It's hard to imagine why anyone would miss it, other than for ideological reasons. I am very sure that our view will win the day, but how long it will take to do so is not easy to predict. .

How will I know what you think if your argument is not coherent, consistent and does not contradict itself? This has nothing to do with faith, but with coherency and intelligibility. — Janus

:up:
The discursive self 'is' this coherence. Continual self-contradiction is no longer self-contradiction, but the discursive self dissolving into confusion. First philosophy is explication as much as inference. One need not prove a condition for the possibility of proof, though it seems like one of philosophy's job to fallibly make these conditions explicit.

When it comes to hard problem (or more broadly mental versus physical or realism versus idealism, etc), one place to start is at the notion of "properties". What does it mean for a property to adhere/inhere in an object, versus a mind?

Good question. This is known as the problem of attributes.

For the Perennial philosophy, as for Kant, extended phenomena are empty of substance or essence. They would be conceptual imputations. They would consist of their attributes and properties and in the words of Meister Eckhart are 'literally nothing. Both mind and matter would be illusory in some sense while the origin of all, which hides behind the veil of mind and matter but is always here and now, would would be prior to both.

If you ask the same question about the objects and attributes that appear in your dreams this would be a roughly analogical situation. . . . . ,

There is still an issue I have with physicalism. Physical matter is restricted to the physical present. Our mental content can deal with past, present and future. Doesn't this stepping outside the physical present make mental content different in kind from physical matter? — Mark Nyquist

It sounds like differences in theories of time is playing a big role in this for you. Do you consider yourself to be a presentist, and if so, are you aware that presentism is problematic in light of all the evidence supporting relativity?

I'm not really interested in getting into an involved discussion of theories of time, so I hope you will look through that link. In any case, it isn't a logical problem for a physicalism, that you hold to a theory of time which is incompatible with physicalism. That only poses a problem for your ability to recognise the merits of a physicalist point of view.

Without brains nature on it's own would have no mechanisms to know the past or affect the future. — Mark Nyquist

Why think nature wouldn't have the ability to affect the future without brains existing? Do you think the Sun's gravitational field didn't affect the course through space taken by the Earth before there were brains?

So with brains something extra has been added to the mix that strict physicalism (as a philosophy) doesn't permit. — Mark Nyquist

I'd say the evolution of brains added what we might call new classes of physical processes to what occurs in the universe, although that is rather circular as it dependent on there being brains to classify physical processes into different sorts.

Regardless, I think you need to develop a more accurate picture of what things look like from a physicalist perspective before you will be in a position to say what physicalism does and doesn't permit.

I do like philosophy (as it is here) but I don't pick up books and spend hours. Maybe a short attention span but if you give references I'll usually spend a minute or two.

There is a lot to sort through on the time question. I think it's two problems. What is time physically? (If it exist at all) and what is time mentally?

This seems correct to me. If a 'scientific explanation' is one that depends on materialism being true then it would be my view also. I'd say it's the only available sensible view. Unless we abandon our unnecessary and demonstrably absurd metaphysical views then we cannot explain consciousness, mind, matter or anything else. . — FrancisRay

Materialism is a metaphysical, not a factual, principle. Scientists don't have to be materialists in order to do science. Nothing "depends" on materialism being true.

As state it is, of course, a gross misuse of the term 'scientific'. — FrancisRay

If you are saying the current state of our understanding of consciousness cannot be considered scientific, I disagree. That's not to say there are not a lot of scientific issues yet to resolve.

To deny the existence of mysticism, which is the study of consciousness, is not just a profoundly unscientific way of avoiding the study of consciousness but a laughable one. — FrancisRay

I don't agree that mysticism is the study of consciousness. Psychology is the study of mind, including consciousness. Introspection is a valid method for studying human psychology. Introspection is not necessarily mysticism. Or mysticism is not necessarily introspection. Or something like that.

I would collect together every book that has ever been published that correctly explains the Perennial philosophy, and hire a fleet of trucks to deliver them to the science department with a note asking them to produce a scientific explanation for why all their authors agree with each other and why everything they say is irrefutable and in accord with modern science and how what they say allows us to solve all metaphysical problems and put the natural sciences on a solid fundamental foundation. They have no 'scientific' method for studying consciousness and discovering the reason, but it might make make them wonder, Would this count as empirical evidence? . . . . — FrancisRay

I think you're mixing things up here. As I understand it, "perennial philosophy" is metaphysics.