@Pathfinder,
Pathfinder - How much of the following summary would you agree with?
1. The brain and consciousness are closely related.
2. There can be no consciousness without a brain (or some physical apparatus that works similarly to a brain).
3. Biologists acknowlege the hard problem of consciousness (some more openly than others), but realise that science cannot at present solve it. Some believe that science will never solve it.
4. Nevertheless, biologists continue to discover facts about the brain. Because of (1) above, these facts are relevant to consciousness.
5. Philosophers need to take account of the relevant physical facts, because their metaphysical speculations must be consistent with these. It is no use having a metaphysical intuition if it contradicts the science in any way. Philosophers should welcome the work of biologists, since it narrows down the field of metaphysical speculation and gives it focus.
6. For example, you earlier argued that good and evil character were independent of the brain. You based this on the assumption that all brains work in the same way. But it turns out that this is incorrect: brains work the same in a
general sense, but every brain is different at a
detailed level, and the differences between the brains of psychopaths and those of normal people are particularly marked. These differences correspond closely to moral character. So it is unnecessary to invoke a brain-independent basis for good and evil. This is an example of scientific knowledge usefully informing metaphysical speculation.
If you disagree with any of the above points (e.g. point 2), can you please give specific reasons.
