On: What insects can tell us about the origins of cons...

[xamuel]

The thought experiment isn't science, I never claimed it was. Science is for studying physical things in the real world. The thought experiment in question is for studying the scientificness of a claim. The scientificness of a claim is not a physical object in the real world.

Traditional science (rolling balls down inclines, etc.) would all remain perfectly valid even if I'm the only conscious being and the whole world is in my mind. Science experiments still suggest laws to explain how that world in my mind works. (Note, I'm not advocating solipsism, I'm merely refuting your claim that solipsism is inconsistent with science.)

[the_af → xamuel]

I'm not arguing that solipsism is inconsistent with science. I'm arguing it's unproductive. Solipsism, the brain-in-a-vat, philosophical zombies, etc, are all rejected by science as a human activity because they are useless as starting points.

The starting point of all science is "something can be known about the universe beyond my own mind". Without it, there can be no science, nothing to be known or understood. Therefore, science can safely assume that whatever consciousness is (as perceived by the scientist), it's likely shared by other healthy human beings that behave similarly to the observing scientist. It can also make educated guesses about other organisms (or even unhealthy human beings).

> Traditional science (rolling balls down inclines, etc.) would all remain perfectly valid even if I'm the only conscious being and the whole world is in my mind.

I don't think so. If the external universe is a completely whimsical figment of your imagination, you can infer nothing from it, and no experiment is meaningful. Your starting point must be to assume the universe outside your mind is real.