If we just can't by what deadline?And what do you propose doing if we just can't? Where did you get the idea that we have that level of penetration into natural processes, especially into diagnosing natures? Still, the kind of experiments which seem to suggest non-randomness during mentally coherent events might be a start.
You are misusing Occam. You need to compare two theories that equally well explain the observations. The physicalist theory is incomplete. The neutral monist theory doesn't exist.Just so assertions is all that the mudman religion has had all along, Paul. Like I said before, a philosophy that requires minimum assertions is superior to one that requires convoluted unprovable levels.
You can't be serious. If all you are going to do is proclaim "neutral monism solves the problem with an unspecified consciousness thingy," then who do you expect to care?No, you do. Because you are the one making the kind of assertion that requires science to come out of it. You are the one saying that something arises out of something that it is not. I am saying something arises out of what is already there and is shaped, honed and modified by complexity. Until materialists can show how the eyes actually sparked to life in the gooey sockets of their mudman, their talk is bombast and fiction and nothing else. I seriously wouldn't hold your breath.
~~ Paul