> One prerequisite for something being scientific is that it must be testable, and this sort of thing is not. So it's not science and I don't waste time conflat

> One prerequisite for something being scientific is that it must be testable, and this sort of thing is not. So it's not science and I don't waste time conflating it with what actually is science. It's an interesting philosophical question. As a dualist, I agree that the question of whether experience exists (and whether there is a soul of some type powering it) is not answerable by science. But many of the people I discuss this with take the attitude that because it can't be answered by science, it's not even worth discussing as a possibility. It feels like a physicist approaching a mathematician with a theory based on experimental results, and being rebuffed for not having a proof. I haven't even read the original article, much less the HN comments, but based on what I've read here (and on my past experience discussing similar subjects on HN), a similar attitude is likely to be at play.