Hello everyone. I'm happy to have found these forums.

In recent times my interpretation of reality has shifted from a strict physicalist position to one in which I've come to question the assumptive foundations which underpin our perceptions of reality. This is mainly born from the perplexity of the hard problem of consciousness and the discoveries of modern science, particularly quantum mechanics and the seeming 'emptyness' of reality (such as the empty space found in atoms for instance) and the role of mind in 'constructing' our concepts of colour, shape and so forth. Think Kant and his concepts of noumenon and phenomenon.

I certainly adhere to the principles of science and feel it has great value but like to note that its explanatory power is limited to within an objective framework. I think that due to its nature as a methodology it does not and can not explain the internalised subjective concepts of mind. It will certainly explain the neurological correlates of thoughts, desires, emotions, sense of self etc, considered the easy problem, but in terms of why we are actually aware of any of it and why we have an internalised world in here to ponder it all, I consider this beyond the realms of classic scientific observation, prediction, testing, data and methodology.

I do feel that in modern times a sense of unhelpful 'scientism' has emerged in many circles which attempts to shoehorn metaphysical materialism into scientific fact and expect all perceptions of reality to work around this framework. This is flawed. The default position should always be simply 'I think therefore I am' and nothing more, from there everything that is made is assumptive and in order to approach any sense of truth we need the utility of science and the logic of philosophy.