They didnt come to any metaphysical conclusion "based on their research as neuroscientists".
Its not a conclusion you can draw based on neuroscience.

Lets break it down:

Penfield - wrong, never came to that conclusion

Eccles - The only Dualist on your list, he speculated about Dualism due to a lack of explanations, but never draw any real conclusions

Friston - wrong

Koch - wrong

Tononi - wrong

Hameroff - theorized about quantum mechanics being connected to spiritual experience. No conclusions tho.

Eagleman - wrong

Also, even you probably realize that Dualism can only be an opinion and never anything more, because the spiritual side is as anti-scie tific as anything could ever be, so whatever anyone ever says about it is just pulled put of their ass.

This post was edited by Kaltrato on Feb 5 2026 03:08pm

physicalism and dualism are "only an opinion" if you're saying that only empirical evidence validates either. so you're also pulling it out of your own ass to act like you're right and everyone else is wrong

Listen: Spiritualism, Supernaturalism, Divinity, whatever name you wanna put on non-scientific things that no one knows if they exist, its ALWAYS just pulled out of someone's ass.

The rest, the natural world, is science.

I am not saying only empricial evidence is a thing, but some kind of foundation certainly needs to be there. Something.

and what if consciousness is beyond scientific equipment, does that put it into the supernatural or divine?

No.

neuroscientist David Eagleman said that mysticism/divine and science are at the same crossroads with consciousness, that it goes beyond scientific measurement or data collection to explain. yet you say that this phenomena which we know as consciousness does not go beyond science?

your answer is simply we don't know, well okay when we don't know we also can't go around saying other people are wrong or pulling from their ass if they're attempting to advance the topic. I think you're just a dick tbh

I answered a question of yours. The question was if us not being able to figure something out means divine or supernatural. The answer is a clear No. I am not a dick, I am normal. I understand how the world works, but you dont.

People didnt know how lightning works at some point. They also thought its divine. Is lightning divine? No its not. Scientific research figured it out. Its natural. Human limitation in understanding certain things doesnt mean those things are not natural or divine/holy/spritual/ supernatural/otherworldly/esoteric. It just means we dont know whats going on. Humans arent around for very long. Figuring stuff out is hard you know? Science is not magic, its trial and error, its hard work.

If someone makes a supernatural claim, he pulls it out of his/her ass because we dont have a way to come to such a conclusion. We have no frame of reference for it.

This post was edited by Kaltrato on Feb 5 2026 04:44pm

You seem to think that by clinging to empirical evidence as the proving grounds for everything makes you safely in the right. You also seem to think that everything is explainable by scientific measurements or collecting memory or data. What I’m challenging you on is what if there are things that exist beyond the plane in which science operates? Neuroscience, physics, and philosophy have been working on consciousness for thousands of years and have seen many scientific advances over the several booms in that timespan. They still can’t say this is where consciousness or experience resides.

I’d also add that you seem to think you have no faith. There is a degree of faith to believe that the universe is not as it is by intelligent design. There is a degree of faith to think that love is not really distinguishable from a box of chocolates if we go off of pure brain scans.

What's the scientific basis for thought? Hand-wavy "thought is ion gradients" is not science. Without theoretical models and complementary experiments to validate the models, what differentiates thought and divine revelation/epiphany?

Is thought itself also "pulled out of someone's ass"? Does thought thus not exist? If so, how did you type out this reply? What was the reason your fingers went to those keys?

Whats the non-scientific basis for thought? Does the lack of explanation make the use of a word valid that we cant even define properly?