You make two major claims in your comments that are highly contentious.
Firstly, that science can explain everything that needs to be explained. This implies philosophy and religion have no place in discussion amongst intelligent people. This is frankly a very shallow worldview. Any competent scientist knows the limits of science and what questions it best answers and which it does not, indeed cannot.
Your dismissal of some of the questions on the meaning of human existence and related philosophical questions is rather sad. There is much richness thinking about things beyond the measurable, quantifiable and physical.
Are you trying my ego now? I don't understand what my dismissal of meaning of human existence is. To be honest we didn't even touch that subject
. I think you are missunderstadning me here. I cetainly don't hold the absolutistic view that science, at least has, or even that it will answer all the questions we can ask. I said that science don't really know what consciusness is. There is nothing that says we will not know about it at some point. Maybe we will not, who knows. There are questions that we can't possibly answer that lie outside of our human posibbility to answer ever. For example, if you believe in cosmologic explanation of God, that Got created universe, thus he/she should be outside of our universe, and since we can by definition get outside, we can't possibly answer that question. I have no idea if it is either important or even a valid question though, importance might be one of those personal attachments we humans attach to things and ideas. There is real physical world that exists out there, with us in it, and there is our own view and experience of the world with values attached to it. Those are two different things.
I have actually written a paragraph about philsophy in the other thread about time and observers. I see philosphy as a part of real world and as scientific as math, but I differ between philosphy and new age nonsense, including sectarian religious off-shots (these days everybody seems ot have personal belief and explanation of supernatural etc). I have no idea if I am intelligent or not, but I certainly don't see how philosophy would not have a place in discussion among intelligent people and how you manage to derive to that. I have no idea how you come to conclusion that I don't find it valuable to think beyond what is measurable or valuable, but I assure you, that is solely your very own personal conclusions. We might find different things measurable or valuable, I don't know you personally so I have no idea what you find valuable or measurable. Since I wrote both that post above and other one about time, I think it is pretty clear I find philosophy and questions about life and meaning very interesting, so I am not sure if you are testing my ego here or it's something else here to be honest.
You also sound like I am missing some deeper intellectual, profundly higher dimension of life if I would like to explain things like conscusness. I don't either see why would our knowledge abouot something made it less rich, vauable or interesting to us, or why we should not be able to gain knowledge about conscusness ever? After all it is part of our human existence. Why does it have to be somehow so drastically different than other parts of our body? I have no idea if it is or not, but why do we have to put it on a piedestal, and somehow be less profane beings if we try to understand it and explain it? Should it somehow take away a crown from consciousness if we knew what it is? Should we be less rich somehow if we knew what it is? Should we be a tiny bit more sad and less of persons if we dissect it and learned abouot it? It's a little bit arrogant view that you imposed there don't you think?
When it comes to this about being, as said in beginning, there are questions we can't possibly answer, at least yet. We can't communicate with insects, plants or animals, at least not at that level so they can speak to us about their consciusness. My personal view is that at least animals have a degree of consciusness and a kind of reason like we, just in maybe less degree than humans, To be honest, I see humans just as another animal art. Oh yes, I am soul-less too. If you think you are better person than me bc YOU believe you have soul, that can we disopute
Anyway, I haver perfectly understood what you said glassynails, you didn't need to explain it twice, but what if I said that you have a prt of Hitler and Himler in you? As the matter of fact we all have. We consist of such incredible number of particles that get spread all over the world and become a part of other molecules and other living beings. Somewhere there are parts of Socrates and Plato floating around. Anyway, we have no proof that conscusness is part of those particles, or those atoms making up stones, water or floating free through the universe as photons, myons, neutronons etc. At least I hope you don't have Hitler's consciusness (or me). There are many questions one can ask that can not be answered, but many of those are not valid. Sure we don't know if your conscusness or soul will continue to exist after the life and can't answer it, but does it have any meaning to you at all? But just because one can't proof it wrong, it does not by necessity mean it is correct either. Also as you explain, if your conscusness is going to turn into something radically different such as conscusness of an insect, is it then same constuesness, and is it even relevant (if you are not living in some of Kafka's novels of course)? Furthermore, do we have any proof of such thing then? Our evidence thus far points toward that conscusness does not exist outside living beings. We can make fantasies about parallell worlds and parallell lifes and so on, but thing is how much of fantasies and how much of reality those are.