>That you don't recognize this means you should be more charitable in understanding his point of view. Should that understanding have come before or after bein

>That you don't recognize this means you should be more charitable in understanding his point of view. Should that understanding have come before or after being accused of 'Scientism', which feels like an insult, but I can't be sure because I don't really know what that means in context. >The person you're debating doesn't think evolution is going away, not even a little bit, not even for a second. I didn't imply that he did. The point I was trying to get across is that there are some real constraints on the type of explanations we'll have with respect to Consciousness. We are not going to need unknown exotic physics to explain it, and whatever the answer is it will stay comfortably within the current Evolutionary framework. Obviously that could be wrong, but I wouldn't bet on it. This should not be a controversial statement.