Subjective does not mean untrue.
Strawman, no one said that it does.
Can a person take 12 scientists and their equipment with him into the experience of his own consciousness ? Not that we know of.
The reliability and limits of testing are only limited to what we know, we don't actually know 'consciousness' to be anything that isn't testable.
So again, you're wrong and are pleading to make excuses so you don't have to accept the possibility that consciosness is nothing more then a physical response. See, its not that consciousness exists within or without, we instead need evidence.
All evidence so far shows a direct correlation between physical changes and the state of what we call consciousness. No evidence shows otherwise, it is reasonable to make a conclusion based on available evidence and absence of evidence can be sufficient qualification along with evidence. Which again, science being the wonderful analytical and logical tool that it is, is always open to new evidence/information.
But.. until you provide some, you don't possess any reasonable expectation of logic and objective criteria of evidence for your assertions. Your assertions are little more then wishful thinking, hiding behind outright dishonesty and blustering obfuscation.
So can we discount all such unverifiable experiences as untrue ?
Red herring, no one argued this. Instead of responsibly taking what I say and responding to what I say, you instead make up this strawman to harp on instead. It allows you to obfuscate the discussion into a different direction where you again make ludicrous unsupported assertions and poorly worded arguments. So instead of addressing the complete lack of any substantial scientific and reasonable coherent logical information for your claim, beyond conjecture and hearsay anyway.. we are here.
All such unverifiable, unnecessary, unpredictable, and untestable things have no relevant meaning to what we can conclude.
Appeal to scienctific test as the one
No, a basic appeal to the only method of knowing anything reliably. If you have another means of logical analysis of a subject, please make an argument for it.
and only arbiter of truth and dismissal of all else as 'woo' is simply being as dogmatic as any theist.
Wrong again, since you're still harping on the larger strawman you've constructed that no one actually argued for, I have to point out that science is not he arbiter of truth. In fact, science being the absolute arbiter of truth would actually contradict the methodology of science in being able to determine anything. We cannot prove or determine absolute truth in science, for anything.
If the experience of non physical consciousness turns out to be the primary nature of existence and if physical experience turns out to be (just) one manifestation of that primary consciousness then it is quite likely that science will never be able to verify it.
Meaningless.
It also creates a condition where we could discover every conceivable tie from physicality and consciousness and still have that be true.
We can make the exact same idiotic appeal to any subject we deem to make it up for:
If the experience of the movement of the moon around the earth is due to a completely non physical cause of invisible pink leprechauns riding unicorns then it is quite likely that science will never be able to verify it.See, it only requires us to make up a conclusion we have no evidence for and conclude it as true, then to be as stupid as you are and present it as a reasonable argument for anything. We can even presuppose this situation into everything we already know about gravity, physics, and astrophysics - because it can be claimed for anything/everything.
Now, why do you think this relevant at all?
Because science exists only in the physical realm....
Your definition of 'physical' is lacking and incoherent. It is essentially being used as interchangeable with anything that exists and exists to be observed, ie natural. If something doesn't exist or doesn't exist to be observed, then it has no effect on natural existence. You can't then try to tie in things that do not exist to be observed in a state where it could make observable changes on existence.
I know you're trying to make some kind of idiotic argument against philosophical naturalism vs methodological naturalism, but again they are not one and the same. You've done nothing but pigeon holed yourself again based off your own ignorance and tendency to dishonestly rationalize your own contradictions away.
You cannot then appeal to science against that possibility because science cannot help in that scenario.
The only thing agree with, however you can't appeal to anything to show that it does exist. It is just as meaningless as the invisible pink unicorn riding leprechauns that make the moon go round the earth.
Skeptics rule out this possibility on principle ..
False, I just pointed out what could exist and be unobserved. You are again responding to an argument no one makes and is part of a larger idiotic strawman.
and then claim that lack of the possibility of scientific testing is their rationale.
The lack of it being observed. Testing requires something to test.
This assumes physical experience to be true reality thus begging the question (assuming what it purports to be demonstrating).
Which is a pleading qualification, ( physical experience ), please demonstrate that something else exists if you're going to make this argument as bad as it is.
