>> consciousness is the only thing we can authoritatively know for sure is real
> this is a commmon goalpost-moving strategy
It's not a goalpost-moving strategy, it's the ultimate one. Your comment exemplifies the difference between science and philosophy. The very idea that "once we know X, we will fully understand humanity" is a common but misguided refrain in science. Science may very well eventually discover "X", but any argument that it will provide widespread meaning or understanding is essentially a philosophical argument.
Silly but fun example as an experiment: scientists create a device that allows you to read and respond to each and every neuron that fires in your head, and also know the downward effects of these firings on your senses, organs, and thoughts. On one hand, that will provide incredible insight into how humans think and process information. On the other, it will fundamentally change what we consider "thinking" and "reacting" to stimuli. Even if scientists created such a gadget, we'd need philosophers to understand how it effects us.
>any argument that it will provide widespread meaning or understanding is essentially a philosophical argument.
You're just stating this, what you are saying doesn't actually mean anything.
> we'd need philosophers to understand how it effects us.
I have no problem with philosphy, Dennett is a philospher. But what you're saying makes no sense to me. What kind of understanding are you talking about?
> this is a commmon goalpost-moving strategy
It's not a goalpost-moving strategy, it's the ultimate one. Your comment exemplifies the difference between science and philosophy. The very idea that "once we know X, we will fully understand humanity" is a common but misguided refrain in science. Science may very well eventually discover "X", but any argument that it will provide widespread meaning or understanding is essentially a philosophical argument.
Silly but fun example as an experiment: scientists create a device that allows you to read and respond to each and every neuron that fires in your head, and also know the downward effects of these firings on your senses, organs, and thoughts. On one hand, that will provide incredible insight into how humans think and process information. On the other, it will fundamentally change what we consider "thinking" and "reacting" to stimuli. Even if scientists created such a gadget, we'd need philosophers to understand how it effects us.