>Why do you think that collecting evidence from experiments leads to truth though?
I don't, but I find that it produces results that are instrumental, and I assume that the past behaves analogously to the future, and similar situations behave similarly because this has generally been true in my experience.
>Why should we undertake it?
I'm religious, so certain science is useful to me in accomplishing my goal of attaining heaven.
>These are questions of philosophy, no experiments can answer them.
>We are able to track down and physically explain (thanks to MRI) the sentation, the objective part of consciousness (Chalmers's 'easy problems of consciousness'). That really exist and we can prove it (or we have an idea about experiments to run to prove it)
What we prove is an evidence that is filtered through our sensory faculties and experienced by our minds. Our minds still remain judge, jury and executioner and in this same sense if we are to take seriously the faculties of our minds in assessing the physical world, then we must also take seriously our experience of conciousness which remains even when we are unable to sense the physical world. In this sense our experience of conciousness is more real than our looking at an MRI.
>then we do not need to think subjective experience really exist.
What would follow is that you do not need to think subjective experiences exist for others, but for you to make this assessment you at least must have a subjective experience.
>There's no evidence that consciousness is anything other than a state arising from the physical processes in our bodies
Actually this is backward, "I think therefore I am". There's no reason to believe consciousness is a state arising from a physical process, our experience of consciousness precedes our experience of sensory input and therefore the physical world.
There is more evidence for the reality of consciousness than there is for the physical world, in fact we know for a fact that our understanding of the physical world is aberrational.
edit: evidently alot of empiricists aren't very happy with this comment hahaha
>When a philosophy has enough proofs and credibility, it becomes a science
I completely disagree with this notion of science. To me science is the practice of analysing findings from controlled experimentation and then deriving predictive, reproducible and falsifiable hypotheses.
I'm well aware the physics is just 'natural philosophy', that doesn't make it anymore reasonable to start using it as the tool for metaphysics. It's a clear category error, like trying to use food chemistry to elucidate cognitive psychology in a literal sense.
What's the deal with these things being lumped in with physics? This isn't physics this is just regular philosophy with some scientific sounding language. I feel like this is people reaching for religion but not wanting to admit it to themselves.