Hi Cargest, If consciousness is something outside the material realm then we probably won't be able to study it. It will just be there. We would study the point at which is interacts with the physical brain, but we probably couldn't go beyond that. Science is the best way we have of, as Prozac says, "crawling out of the ghetto of our own minds" (http://www.anus.com/zine/articles/prozak/belief_in_nothing/
). Why? Because of the collection of institutions it is and the type of community it is (peer reviewed, people always checking other people's results: i.e. will to power harnessed and directed towards 'objectivity'). Now science happens to be equipped to dealing with the material world best (you can't empirically observe some "extra-planar faculty"), and shit, it seems to work. So why not try for a purely naturalistic explanation for consciousness or 'existence'? Why is this a defunct aim? Regarding consciousness, science is slowly getting closer to the answer, or at least getting to the point it has a clear idea of the questions to actually ask now. Teams of cognitive scientists, evolutionary psychologists, neuroscientists, are slowly closing in. You work out how the brain works (yes, MATERIALISTICALLY), and you get a greater knowledge of when your dealing with reality or just human projections.
Conservationist says that:
evolution seems to be a method of whatever divine force exists, and we can't prove or disprove a divine force, but it's unlikely it's human-like, so instead we have to view it as some kind of highly abstracted intelligence
And he proceeds to criticize, in the most stupidly retarded way, the search for the purely material basis for evolution, biological life, and most probably, consciousness. I don't know why. Never mind the fact that reducing something to a material basis doesn't necessarily rule out mystery or greater depths to reality. He believes that, as a metal head managing a forum, he knows some slice of primordial sacred knowledge that scientists don't, namely, that science done from a naturalistic/materialist starting point finds truth:
In a linear, material sense only, thus guaranteeing the split we talk about above.
Then I read all the topic created on this forum by him lamenting people who just post to boost their own ego? It seems to me there is often such venom and animosity towards the real world around here, and when it pops up, it reeks of bullshit and will only keep people away. You don't effect change in the world unless you stop bitching, get involved in things that are going on, i.e. in current science, philosophy, or environmentalism and drop the holier than thou attitude which reeks of slave mentality (i don't cut it at science, philosophy or whatever so instead ill just slander it from an internet forum).