I think we can invert that scenario, philosophy can describe the things which science has no means to do.
Its also an ignorant shot, consider art and poetry [oh and yes consciousness, perception, what thought is in your expereince prior to become language], then also conceptual and collocative thought. If you don’t perceive them in your minds eye, you are seriously deficient in your mental capacity. Look deeply!
jeez are you drunk or something 
I see the conversation really moved on since my departure huh.
No offence Am. but seriously, learn some neuroscience. This thead just makes you look foolish to anyone with even a passing knowledge. On a more comedic note: ‘Am’ is a bad word for vagina in Turkish slang.
The’re simply differant schools of thinking Tab, of course the Materialist stance is closer to Occams Razor, but Occams Razor is simply a rule of thumb not an unbreakable law of reality.
I cast a spell of:
Reveal wishful thinking.
sigh
Was that the sound of a deflating balloon…?
No it’s me being dissapointed in the state of this discussion.
Tab
Are you calling me a cunt 
shall we stop this churlishness right here ole chap!
Viking thought experiment; if I take an axe and plunge it into a conscious living human head, then clasp my hands onto the split skull and open it up exposing the brains innards; would I see anything which resembles the mental experience? Would I literally see colours and if spliced carefully in some manner, would I see the image in our minds eye as if displayed on a monitor?
If I looked at it in every possible manner, through a microscope or via any instrumentation [remember that the colours on a screen are not in the brain], would I see what I am seeing? Would there be words in there, concepts, any quale et al?
What passing knowledge denies this? 
_
Go break your TV, see if you can find the picture.
If nothing else, it’ll give you more time to read.
The question of where does it all first come and why existence, this is THE question(s), and eventually one gets tired of thinking about them. The options are:
“it” or the Universe, comes from something else that doesn’t need a first cause, i.e. something outside or of “it,” that has the property of not needing a first cause, and can cause other things like Universes, and some people call this God.
“it” as a whole, i.e. the Universe, contains the property of not needing a first cause, it just always was and is, in some form, existing, and that’s that. How it did does and will do this is a mystery to humans, and most other animals excluding perhaps dolphins.
Occam’s razor suggests that option 2 is simpler. It’s often been human nature to explain the unexplainable by saying some magic being called God who doesn’t follow the known laws of nature is the one who magically makes it happen. When we didn’t understand how a giant light could hover and move in the sky, many posited the god Apollo. It’s mainly earthling behavior to not even think of these questions (see arthropods). But we did. Yay for us. I think. And it dawns on me just now that there are probably still questions we haven’t even fathomed asking.
There are many things we don’t yet know about the universe. I don’t think we’ll have an answer to the question of why IS? Or even how IS? in our lifetimes. more likely we will dismantle the question itself as containing embedded fallacies relating to human perception. Or we might augment our beings into something else better equipped to deal with these questions.
In the meantime, what we know for sure is that we are here. So there’s gotta be a reason how here got here. I think. Um…maybe? And so on.
Always, always, Always include a third option (is no wonder why they can’t figure anything out). In this case;
3) Both 1 & 2
Which happens to be the Reality.
that’s ridiculous, it should have been obvious that the analogy pertained to the fact that those things don’t literally reside in the physical. You just cant answer it, so you resort to infantile tactics.
Slow John
If we see it as an ongoing thing ~ which I do, I would also see it as an eternal ~ necessarily. Then what we have is emergent properties which in my view we erroneously only accept in terms of energies [what if renamed that?], and a universal constant ~ whatever that may be, but for me it cannot be a creator as that’s like first cause scenario. There is just this thing we call reality, and within that there are reals and false reals, it can be anything and it doesn’t stick to the rules.
Argh. ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
Anyway. Quetz/am, thank you for reminding me to stop posting in threads likely to make me crazy. I should know better.
From Tab’s point, we can see though that these phenomena are connected to the physical matter. This is why a T.V functions. And we can reproduce the effect.
What does your analogy signify to you?
It’s in the nature of a tree seed to produce a tree, given the right supporting causes and conditions. That doesn’t mean a seed is a tree. It isn’t - it’s a seed. Similarly, it is in the nature of matter to produce consciousness. I think there may have been consciousness before the big bang. Maybe there’s been zillions of big bangs prior to the most recent. Maybe consciousness had something to do with causing the most recent big bang. But this is all just speculation. Maybe all matter is conscious, but in a way we dont’ recognize. It’s below our radar - we can’t detect any meaningful “consciousness” in a rock, but that doesn’t mean much really.
That the actual image, the colours on any screen are perceptual [take a look at any optical illusion to see that, then watch horizons; do we see the same thing on bbc I player or on you tube] and only exist in your minds eye. Its exactly the same thing with TV’s as in your brain in terms of the physics only portraying what the image should look like to you, rather than actually being that image.
Secondly; Even if that were not true [it is though], the TV screen would have the colours when we look at it, the brain does not! Its simply not there.
Thirdly; I have yet to see a piece of technology which shows what consciousness is ~ literally. Atm the tech only reads the EM fields in the brain, its quite a jump to say that em is conscious, that would probably mean energy is conscious ~ being transferable n all.
I’m happy to go with the prrof if anyone wants to show me it? except tab, he has shown himself to not be a gentleman.