>Some boundaries of scientific knowledge are quite visible. For example, consciousness. You might argue that consciousness emerges from matter interacting in a

>Some boundaries of scientific knowledge are quite visible. For example, consciousness. You might argue that consciousness emerges from matter interacting in a complex way (emergentism), and you might be right, but this is accepted as a serious scientific theory although it has zero content -- no way to falsify empirically, no explanatory mechanism proposed. There is nothing wrong with it as a hypothesis. At least science is investigating the issue, while philosophy (with some exceptions) seems to be preoccupied with merely pumping its intuitions that this can never be - intuitions that, by the argument you presented in the above quote, have 'zero content.'