When someone starts with "we have to re-think science" is already wrong. Science doesn't work like that. It goes adding and adding, dropping some stuff and adding new stuff. A philosopher talking about "re-thinking" science is quite unscientific. He's a philosopher. Get it?,(reply>), @straightedgerc you are the one saying I feel “entitled”. You put it like that. I didn’t. It’s just my opinion. <br>If it doesn’t seem obvious to you that our brains aren’t computers, that’s your problem. The “operations”, the “software” the “hardware” of our brains are totally different from a computer. What is more obvious then this?,(reply>), @straightedgerc it’s obvious that a brain isn’t a computer at all. Only a biological entity can be conscious, until proven otherwise.<br>Even bacteria are conscious. Different degrees of consciousness separate simple and complex organisms, but all of them are aware of being themselves.<br><br>Consciousness is the awareness of being a unified entity. Of being alive. People who live in a coma aren’t aware they are an entity, their brain and body don't work as a unit, but a bacteria does.,(reply>), A big mistake he seems to make: "we are not rellying on their testimony as evidence for some unobservable realm of feelings and experiences" (while talking about human consciousness) - If he can't accept that our observations are a plausible way of proving the existence of consicousness in other human beings, how the hell can he say it about matter itself?