Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate

[Belinda]

Sameness of quality is a useful abstraction from total experience. Unless we could pretend that qualitative sameness exists we could not quantify.

To go in the exact opposite direction of Stalin...

Quality is a quantity on its own!

I like to think I am clever enough to understand and agree with what you write, but I'm afraid that is a step too far for me. I'd like to ask you to explain, please.

[owl of Minerva]

Here is the Video related to the above Debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-uaZvcCuo

Stephen Hawking's proclamation that philosophy is dead was clearly hyperbole. But when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of reality, has philosophy really got anything left to contribute? Does the rise of physics demand the end of metaphysics?

Debating these questions are:

Carlo Rovelli, Centre de Physique Théorique of the Aix-Marseille University
Eleanor Knox, King's College London
Alex Rosenberg, Duke University

Chair: Ritula Shah, Journalist and Broadcaster

The Annual Debate. "Has Science Killed Philosophy?" 1930 GMT, Wednesday 17th November 2021

I have listened to the video.
Both the Physicist - Carlo Rovelli, and Physicist/philosopher -Eleanor Knox agree there is no way Science will Philosophy, however the philosopher -Alex Rosenberg is optimistic Science will kill Philosophy when all the questions to be raised are answered by Science which is a possibility in the future.

What Alex defends is, whatever questions that are left then are merely pseudo-questions.

Your views?

[simplicity]

Your views?

It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Science is the best we can do to explain the physical Universe and philosophy is the best we can do to explain existence.

Both are 100% Grade A, government approved BULLSHIT.

And they both exist [in the forms they do] because the vast majority simply cannot deal with any truth what-so-ever. Therefore, it is the primary occupation of the elite to concoct all sort of tales to satiate the sheeple so they can continue to dream their way through life. For this labor, the sheeple allow the elite to do anything they want [which they do quite well].

[owl of Minerva]

Here is the Video related to the above Debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2w-uaZvcCuo

Stephen Hawking's proclamation that philosophy is dead was clearly hyperbole. But when it comes to understanding the fundamental nature of reality, has philosophy really got anything left to contribute? Does the rise of physics demand the end of metaphysics?

Debating these questions are:

Carlo Rovelli, Centre de Physique Théorique of the Aix-Marseille University
Eleanor Knox, King's College London
Alex Rosenberg, Duke University

Chair: Ritula Shah, Journalist and Broadcaster

The Annual Debate. "Has Science Killed Philosophy?" 1930 GMT, Wednesday 17th November 2021

I have listened to the video.
Both the Physicist - Carlo Rovelli, and Physicist/philosopher -Eleanor Knox agree there is no way Science will Philosophy, however the philosopher -Alex Rosenberg is optimistic Science will kill Philosophy when all the questions to be raised are answered by Science which is a possibility in the future.

What Alex defends is, whatever questions that are left then are merely pseudo-questions.

Your views?

My reaction to the video is what they got right is that science will have full knowledge, if not understanding, of physical reality and at that point it will have nothing more to research. Philosophy whose domain is also the empirical world, will with science come to the end of knowledge, if not to understanding of what physical life is or its origin. I was disappointed in Carlo Rovelli, whom I admire, saying that the question of what life is has been decided. I do not think it has been. Science and philosophy will be in tandem to the end of knowledge of the physical world. Philosophical thought will provide the theories, as Higgs did, for the Higgs Boson, which scientific research verified. The accumulation of knowledge will not be the death of metaphysics which begins where physics ends.

To understand all this it is necessary to consider the philosophy of higher ages where five external elementary qualities; we know what they are: earth, water, fire/heat, air/atmosphere, and space, has been and are being researched. The three inner elementary qualities: sensory mind, intelligence and individuality are beginning to be researched; physical research of the total eight elementary qualities will reveal all there is to know about the elementary; fundamental nature of empirical life.

Higher age philosophy perceived man as microcosm, the universe as macrocosm. Man having no more elementary qualities than the universe. No more than a smart phone has than computer, or a transistor radio than a non-transistor radio. The difference is size and mobility not components. Science ends when complete knowledge of the eight elementary qualities both macro and micro; universe and man is achieved.

What would remain for philosophy or discover. It would be beyond physics and therefore metaphysical. The philosophy of the higher ages did not consider consciousness as an elementary quality. It was without qualities and therefore not subject to motion, time, space, or the atom; the sum total of the physical world, subject to beginning, middle, and end.

What remains as the metaphysical world is existence and consciousness, likely synonymous, which are not easily accessible either to research by science or philosophy as are the elementary qualities which are available to empirical research.

[uwot]

Science is the best we can do to explain the physical Universe and philosophy is the best we can do to explain existence.

Both are 100% Grade A, government approved BULLSHIT.

Really? Do you have a better idea?

[simplicity]

Science is the best we can do to explain the physical Universe and philosophy is the best we can do to explain existence.

Both are 100% Grade A, government approved BULLSHIT.

Really? Do you have a better idea?

I believe the point be that NOBODY has (or will ever have) a better idea.

Things are the way they are. Acceptance, not understanding, is THE key.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your views?

It's the pot calling the kettle black.

Science is the best we can do to explain the physical Universe and philosophy is the best we can do to explain existence.

Both are 100% Grade A, government approved BULLSHIT.

And they both exist [in the forms they do] because the vast majority simply cannot deal with any truth what-so-ever. Therefore, it is the primary occupation of the elite to concoct all sort of tales to satiate the sheeple so they can continue to dream their way through life. For this labor, the sheeple allow the elite to do anything they want [which they do quite well].

I am aware you are ignorant of what is relevant here and have very rigid & dogmatic view about life & reality, thus your response above which is very pessimistic.

Philosophy-proper* is fundamentally a function of the brain/mind and is tool based on the diagnostic method, e.g.
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
* philosophy-proper to be distinguished from armchair, pseudo-, pure academic and bastardized philosophies.

Science is also a tool and it is a double-sided sword that cuts both ways.

To ensure science cuts the right way we have Philosophy of Morality/Ethics proper which is a sub-tool of philosophy proper.

With the above, there will be inherent controls to ensure the government, elites, or whomsoever will be guided to the right. Fortunately a positive optimal path is trending slowly at present but will expedite in the future when we increase [. I am optimistic] the philosophy-proper-Quotient of the average person.

[Veritas Aequitas]

My reaction to the video is what they got right is that science will have full knowledge, if not understanding, of physical reality and at that point it will have nothing more to research.

Nope both physicists did not agree with that. Only Rosenberg who propose that. You have to listen to video again.

I even mentioned that in the OP which you linked above as well;

• I have listened to the video.
  Both the Physicist - Carlo Rovelli, and Physicist/philosopher -Eleanor Knox agree there is no way Science will Philosophy, however the philosopher -Alex Rosenberg is optimistic Science will kill Philosophy when all the questions to be raised are answered by Science which is a possibility in the future.

Philosophy whose domain is also the empirical world, will with science come to the end of knowledge, if not to understanding of what physical life is or its origin. I was disappointed in Carlo Rovelli, whom I admire, saying that the question of what life is has been decided. I do not think it has been. Science and philosophy will be in tandem to the end of knowledge of the physical world. Philosophical thought will provide the theories, as Higgs did, for the Higgs Boson, which scientific research verified. The accumulation of knowledge will not be the death of metaphysics which begins where physics ends.

Philosophy do not rely directly with the external empirical world but depend on science as a source of knowledge from the empirical world. What philosophical-proper does is to provide the constitution, principles and framework for scientists to generate scientific knowledge [empirical].
Based on the external empirical knowledge, philosophy derive transcendental empirical principles to guide science.

Science is merely a subset of philosophy-proper, so science has to be killed before philosophy-proper get killed!

I didn't 'hear' Rovelli claimed 'the question of what life is has been decided.' I don't think he would play God with such statement or maybe it is in a certain context. At which time in the video?

To understand all this it is necessary to consider the philosophy of higher ages where five external elementary qualities; we know what they are: earth, water, fire/heat, air/atmosphere, and space, has been and are being researched. The three inner elementary qualities: sensory mind, intelligence and individuality are beginning to be researched; physical research of the total eight elementary qualities will reveal all there is to know about the elementary; fundamental nature of empirical life.

Higher age philosophy perceived man as microcosm, the universe as macrocosm. Man having no more elementary qualities than the universe. No more than a smart phone has than computer, or a transistor radio than a non-transistor radio. The difference is size and mobility not components. Science ends when complete knowledge of the eight elementary qualities both macro and micro; universe and man is achieved.

What would remain for philosophy or discover. It would be beyond physics and therefore metaphysical. The philosophy of the higher ages did not consider consciousness as an elementary quality. It was without qualities and therefore not subject to motion, time, space, or the atom; the sum total of the physical world, subject to beginning, middle, and end.

Note my general fundamental position between Philosophy-proper and science above.

What remains as the metaphysical world is existence and consciousness, likely synonymous, which are not easily accessible either to research by science or philosophy as are the elementary qualities which are available to empirical research.

Existence is not a predicate and consciousness in this case as you implied is something too illusory. The definition of consciousness I accept is;

• Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.
  WIKI

What is problematic with the term 'consciousness' is due to bad ideology, e.g. physical realism which propose there is an independent reality from human conditions.

Whatever is to be regarded as known-reality must be verified and justified empirically and what is unknown reality must be possible to be be verified and justified empirically.

[Skepdick]

I like to think I am clever enough to understand and agree with what you write, but I'm afraid that is a step too far for me. I'd like to ask you to explain, please.

I am just treating qualities as epistemic/mental, quantities as ontological; and I am putting ontology first.

In the spirit of quantum physics everything is made up of quantum fields.

So any particular mental state/qality is some (very complex and humanly incomprehensible) quantum state.

[Belinda]

Skepdick wrote:

I am just treating qualities as epistemic/mental, quantities as ontological; and I am putting ontology first.

I understand qualities are epistemic. As for quantities, if as you say these are ontological, don't you imply that any given quantity is a Platonic Form with an essence all of its own? And it follows, that maths is extramental?

In the spirit of quantum physics everything is made up of quantum fields.

I suspect I'd have to be a physicist to understand that. Is there a way you might describe what that means, without your also having to explain it from primary school level to present speed? Me, I think a quantity must be a quantity of something, even although that "something" be the human agent that differentiates.

So any particular mental state/qality is some (very complex and humanly incomprehensible) quantum state.

If my mental state is, say 90% euphoria plus 10% melancholia, do melancholia and euphoria break down into quanta? For the sake of argument are they comparative quantities of psycho -active chemicals such as dopamine? Isn't there a stage of analysis where we have to have faith that some quality (however small the quantity) is real even if it transcends our experience?

[owl of Minerva]

My reaction to the video is what they got right is that science will have full knowledge, if not understanding, of physical reality and at that point it will have nothing more to research.

Nope both physicists did not agree with that. Only Rosenberg who propose that. You have to listen to video again.

I even mentioned that in the OP which you linked above as well;

• I have listened to the video.
  Both the Physicist - Carlo Rovelli, and Physicist/philosopher -Eleanor Knox agree there is no way Science will Philosophy, however the philosopher -Alex Rosenberg is optimistic Science will kill Philosophy when all the questions to be raised are answered by Science which is a possibility in the future.

Philosophy whose domain is also the empirical world, will with science come to the end of knowledge, if not to understanding of what physical life is or its origin. I was disappointed in Carlo Rovelli, whom I admire, saying that the question of what life is has been decided. I do not think it has been. Science and philosophy will be in tandem to the end of knowledge of the physical world. Philosophical thought will provide the theories, as Higgs did, for the Higgs Boson, which scientific research verified. The accumulation of knowledge will not be the death of metaphysics which begins where physics ends.

Philosophy do not rely directly with the external empirical world but depend on science as a source of knowledge from the empirical world. What philosophical-proper does is to provide the constitution, principles and framework for scientists to generate scientific knowledge [empirical].
Based on the external empirical knowledge, philosophy derive transcendental empirical principles to guide science.

Science is merely a subset of philosophy-proper, so science has to be killed before philosophy-proper get killed!

I didn't 'hear' Rovelli claimed 'the question of what life is has been decided.' I don't think he would play God with such statement or maybe it is in a certain context. At which time in the video?

To understand all this it is necessary to consider the philosophy of higher ages where five external elementary qualities; we know what they are: earth, water, fire/heat, air/atmosphere, and space, has been and are being researched. The three inner elementary qualities: sensory mind, intelligence and individuality are beginning to be researched; physical research of the total eight elementary qualities will reveal all there is to know about the elementary; fundamental nature of empirical life.

Higher age philosophy perceived man as microcosm, the universe as macrocosm. Man having no more elementary qualities than the universe. No more than a smart phone has than computer, or a transistor radio than a non-transistor radio. The difference is size and mobility not components. Science ends when complete knowledge of the eight elementary qualities both macro and micro; universe and man is achieved.

What would remain for philosophy or discover. It would be beyond physics and therefore metaphysical. The philosophy of the higher ages did not consider consciousness as an elementary quality. It was without qualities and therefore not subject to motion, time, space, or the atom; the sum total of the physical world, subject to beginning, middle, and end.

Note my general fundamental position between Philosophy-proper and science above.

What remains as the metaphysical world is existence and consciousness, likely synonymous, which are not easily accessible either to research by science or philosophy as are the elementary qualities which are available to empirical research.

Existence is not a predicate and consciousness in this case as you implied is something too illusory. The definition of consciousness I accept is;

• Consciousness, at its simplest, is sentience or awareness of internal and external existence.
  WIKI

What is problematic with the term 'consciousness' is due to bad ideology, e.g. physical realism which propose there is an independent reality from human conditions.

Whatever is to be regarded as known-reality must be verified and justified empirically and what is unknown reality must be possible to be be verified and justified empirically.

I will listen to video again. I take your word it is so.

Neither will get killed, the material is there for science to research and for philosophy to infer, through ideas and abstract thought, BUT the topic, material, the domain they work with and in, is the same for both: the physical world. That was my meaning.

I am not sure at which point in the video Carlo Rovelli made the statement about the question of life being decided. I know he did because it jumped out at me. Maybe towards the end. Listen again and look for it.

Your world view is empirical: the origin of life was physical, evolution was physical, sensation and consciousness emerged from it to awareness, as you say, to internal awareness and by experience; to sentience.

Existence is a predicate to consciousness. There is no consciousness without existence, for you that would mean there is no consciousness without physical existence, because consciousness, in this case self-consciousness is a derivative of matter and forces; the physical world.

My world view is different. Consciousness is metaphysical and fundamental. In the external world it evolved to vitality in plants, sensation in animals, and intelligence in humans. By evolved I do not mean that it became something other than it already was, I mean it was unsheathed with each advance, another way to express it would be to say, it emerged.

I said consciousness is metaphysical because it is. What is your view of the future? Does everyone get mindful and learn to behave and that will bring a better world or it will always be as it is, a dualistic enigma, or will science be our savior?

I will give an analogy here. Imagine we have ego and intellect but not a sense mind: no sensation. We have to infer everything about our bodies as we have no sense of hunger, thirst, tiredness, etc. Our bodies would be an object, objectively viewed and inferences would have to be made of when to eat, to sleep, etc. because otherwise we could die. We would make all kinds of mistakes and have to be careful to avoid disaster.

Our relation to the unknown; to the cosmos, is the same as the above example. As knowers we have a process of knowing, but what is to be known is other, objective, we get to know it by inferences from data, abstract thought, and research. We have no sense of it, we do not feel what it is. So from your perspective there is no solution to what as with Pantheism is a closed system, similar to fish in an ocean, the ocean is all there is, when it eventually will end, as science says it will, mindfulness may have made it better, caused less suffering, but to what purpose?

If we have a process of knowing and something to be known at what point will we be the knower. Science has theories, philosophy has inferences, abstract thoughts, ideas. At what point will they know the nature of reality; be aware of it, as for example we know that we need to eat or sleep without having to infer or research to find out. That is where Consciousness comes in, without it there is no awareness. Whether awareness is subjective, awareness through our sense minds of our bodies or objective, inferences in relation to the environment; the cosmos, it is limited.

Life can be a process of knowing without ever knowing, “awareness of internal and external existence.” There is awareness of internal existence only, there is no subjective awareness of external existence, only an objective awareness of external existence. That awareness is a consciousness that is derivative, not Consciousness Itself.

[simplicity]

I am aware you are ignorant of what is relevant here and have very rigid & dogmatic view about life & reality, thus your response above which is very pessimistic.

You people are all the same...lead with a personal insult. Nobody is interested in your personal opinions. Stick to the subject-matter.

Science is also a tool and it is a double-sided sword that cuts both ways.

To ensure science cuts the right way we have Philosophy of Morality/Ethics proper which is a sub-tool of philosophy proper.

With the above, there will be inherent controls to ensure the government, elites, or whomsoever will be guided to the right. Fortunately a positive optimal path is trending slowly at present but will expedite in the future when we increase [. I am optimistic] the philosophy-proper-Quotient of the average person.

Regardless of your take [or my own], things are what they are. The best any of us can do is the best any of us can do...and we can do that by seeing things as clearly as possible which will facilitate the most accurate/appropriate responses. No need to emotionalize everything.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Your world view is empirical: the origin of life was physical, evolution was physical, sensation and consciousness emerged from it to awareness, as you say, to internal awareness and by experience; to sentience.

Existence is a predicate to consciousness. There is no consciousness without existence, for you that would mean there is no consciousness without physical existence, because consciousness, in this case self-consciousness is a derivative of matter and forces; the physical world.

I am not claiming the empirical is absolutely physical, rather it is just empirical within the empirical framework.
Basically my approach is top-down and inferred from what is experienced and observed of reality where 'consciousness' [as defined] is inferred as an emergent.
Naturally I'll explore [as a scientific pursuit] how consciousness emerges but I am not interested in where consciousness originally arise from 'something' as with a bottom-up approach.

I have argued 'existence' is not a predicate, so it cannot be predicated to anything, thus not to consciousness.
To assert Consciousness [subject] exists as existence [predicate] sounds ridiculous.

Yours is a bottom-up-approach where you assume there is an original source where consciousness is. Note this is merely an assumption you are making.
With a bottom-up approach there is no way your assumption [being so] can ever be true and realistic.
You'll need to understand why you are resorting to the 'bottom-up' approach in this particular case instead of the default 'top-down' approach.

My world view is different. Consciousness is metaphysical and fundamental. In the external world it evolved to vitality in plants, sensation in animals, and intelligence in humans. By evolved I do not mean that it became something other than it already was, I mean it was unsheathed with each advance, another way to express it would be to say, it emerged.

Note I mentioned yours is a bottom-up approach and the best you get is an assumption.

I said consciousness is metaphysical because it is. What is your view of the future? Does everyone get mindful and learn to behave and that will bring a better world or it will always be as it is, a dualistic enigma, or will science be our savior?

I have been reading Carlo Rovelli's book re Time and to Rovelli ultimately [bottom-up] there is no past, present nor future in quantum terms [re Planck's time].
From a top-down approach there is a past, present and future but they are conditional relations and events thus not absolutely absolute.

I will give an analogy here. Imagine we have ego and intellect but not a sense mind: no sensation. We have to infer everything about our bodies as we have no sense of hunger, thirst, tiredness, etc. Our bodies would be an object, objectively viewed and inferences would have to be made of when to eat, to sleep, etc. because otherwise we could die. We would make all kinds of mistakes and have to be careful to avoid disaster.

This can be explained using the top-down approach subject to nothing final but should be coherent, make sense and useful.

Our relation to the unknown; to the cosmos, is the same as the above example. As knowers we have a process of knowing, but what is to be known is other, objective, we get to know it by inferences from data, abstract thought, and research. We have no sense of it, we do not feel what it is. So from your perspective there is no solution to what as with Pantheism is a closed system, similar to fish in an ocean, the ocean is all there is, when it eventually will end, as science says it will, mindfulness may have made it better, caused less suffering, but to what purpose?

Your "what is to be known ultimately" or the unknown, is merely an assumption that cannot be verified and justified as real.

If we have a process of knowing and something to be known at what point will we be the knower. Science has theories, philosophy has inferences, abstract thoughts, ideas. At what point will they know the nature of reality; be aware of it, as for example we know that we need to eat or sleep without having to infer or research to find out. That is where Consciousness comes in, without it there is no awareness. Whether awareness is subjective, awareness through our sense minds of our bodies or objective, inferences in relation to the environment; the cosmos, it is limited.

Based on the top-down approach, there is no need to bother the ultimate nature of reality because there is no such thing in the first place. The yearning to 'know' such thing is merely a psychological impulse of impossibility.

Life can be a process of knowing without ever knowing, “awareness of internal and external existence.” There is awareness of internal existence only, there is no subjective awareness of external existence, only an objective awareness of external existence. That awareness is a consciousness that is derivative, not Consciousness Itself.

Not too sure of your point re Consciousness-Itself. My view is there is no such thing as thing-in-itself [Kantian], therefore no Consciousness-in-itself.

Life is a process of knowing of knowledge within specific framework of knowledge without any concern for the absolutely-absolute source of knowledge re the top-down approach.
What is critical is that such knowing and knowledge [the majority] will contribute to the optimal well-being to the individual[s] and that of humanity.

[uwot]

Science is the best we can do to explain the physical Universe and philosophy is the best we can do to explain existence.

Both are 100% Grade A, government approved BULLSHIT.

Really? Do you have a better idea?

I believe the point be that NOBODY has (or will ever have) a better idea.

Do you understand that there is more than one government on this planet? Is it just your government's philosophy and science that you object to?

Things are the way they are. Acceptance, not understanding, is THE key.

Is that advice from you, or what you think your government tells you?

[owl of Minerva]

Your world view is empirical: the origin of life was physical, evolution was physical, sensation and consciousness emerged from it to awareness, as you say, to internal awareness and by experience; to sentience.

Existence is a predicate to consciousness. There is no consciousness without existence, for you that would mean there is no consciousness without physical existence, because consciousness, in this case self-consciousness is a derivative of matter and forces; the physical world.

I am not claiming the empirical is absolutely physical, rather it is just empirical within the empirical framework.
Basically my approach is top-down and inferred from what is experienced and observed of reality where 'consciousness' [as defined] is inferred as an emergent.
Naturally I'll explore [as a scientific pursuit] how consciousness emerges but I am not interested in where consciousness originally arise from 'something' as with a bottom-up approach.

I have argued 'existence' is not a predicate, so it cannot be predicated to anything, thus not to consciousness.
To assert Consciousness [subject] exists as existence [predicate] sounds ridiculous.

Yours is a bottom-up-approach where you assume there is an original source where consciousness is. Note this is merely an assumption you are making.
With a bottom-up approach there is no way your assumption [being so] can ever be true and realistic.
You'll need to understand why you are resorting to the 'bottom-up' approach in this particular case instead of the default 'top-down' approach.

My world view is different. Consciousness is metaphysical and fundamental. In the external world it evolved to vitality in plants, sensation in animals, and intelligence in humans. By evolved I do not mean that it became something other than it already was, I mean it was unsheathed with each advance, another way to express it would be to say, it emerged.

Note I mentioned yours is a bottom-up approach and the best you get is an assumption.

I said consciousness is metaphysical because it is. What is your view of the future? Does everyone get mindful and learn to behave and that will bring a better world or it will always be as it is, a dualistic enigma, or will science be our savior?

I have been reading Carlo Rovelli's book re Time and to Rovelli ultimately [bottom-up] there is no past, present nor future in quantum terms [re Planck's time].
From a top-down approach there is a past, present and future but they are conditional relations and events thus not absolutely absolute.

I will give an analogy here. Imagine we have ego and intellect but not a sense mind: no sensation. We have to infer everything about our bodies as we have no sense of hunger, thirst, tiredness, etc. Our bodies would be an object, objectively viewed and inferences would have to be made of when to eat, to sleep, etc. because otherwise we could die. We would make all kinds of mistakes and have to be careful to avoid disaster.

This can be explained using the top-down approach subject to nothing final but should be coherent, make sense and useful.

Our relation to the unknown; to the cosmos, is the same as the above example. As knowers we have a process of knowing, but what is to be known is other, objective, we get to know it by inferences from data, abstract thought, and research. We have no sense of it, we do not feel what it is. So from your perspective there is no solution to what as with Pantheism is a closed system, similar to fish in an ocean, the ocean is all there is, when it eventually will end, as science says it will, mindfulness may have made it better, caused less suffering, but to what purpose?

Your "what is to be known ultimately" or the unknown, is merely an assumption that cannot be verified and justified as real.

If we have a process of knowing and something to be known at what point will we be the knower. Science has theories, philosophy has inferences, abstract thoughts, ideas. At what point will they know the nature of reality; be aware of it, as for example we know that we need to eat or sleep without having to infer or research to find out. That is where Consciousness comes in, without it there is no awareness. Whether awareness is subjective, awareness through our sense minds of our bodies or objective, inferences in relation to the environment; the cosmos, it is limited.

Based on the top-down approach, there is no need to bother the ultimate nature of reality because there is no such thing in the first place. The yearning to 'know' such thing is merely a psychological impulse of impossibility.

Life can be a process of knowing without ever knowing, “awareness of internal and external existence.” There is awareness of internal existence only, there is no subjective awareness of external existence, only an objective awareness of external existence. That awareness is a consciousness that is derivative, not Consciousness Itself.

Not too sure of your point re Consciousness-Itself. My view is there is no such thing as thing-in-itself [Kantian], therefore no Consciousness-in-itself.

Life is a process of knowing of knowledge within specific framework of knowledge without any concern for the absolutely-absolute source of knowledge re the top-down approach.
What is critical is that such knowing and knowledge [the majority] will contribute to the optimal well-being to the individual[s] and that of humanity.

Evolution is top-down not bottom up. Before evolution took place on earth it occurred in space. Earth had to win its place in the galaxy along with the other planets, subject to the resonance between Jupiter and Saturn. Evolution of forms on earth is the evolution of forms propelled by physical forces. Consciousness did not evolve from physical forces, it was top down before it emerged from physical forces, emerging as vitality in plants; sensation in animals; intelligence in man. If it was not there from the beginning in what manner was it created by physical forces, are there any theories or definitions of how that occurred?

The origin of life is not known; there are numerous theories regarding first cause. To say that life emerged from something is not ridiculous. The theories range from electric spark; deep sea vents; from space, or Oparin-Haldane theory of inorganic molecules. Take your pick.

Past-present-future are linear and features of time. What is metaphysical, beyond time does not enter temporal time except as expression. I have also read Carlo Rovelli’s book; events not time is primary. Motion, time, space, and the atom order the events of linear time in the macro world.

To want to know if there is a final cause, what it may be, has been relevant to philosophy and science. There was a beginning, there is a middle, so what is the end and to what purpose; although science does not concern itself with purpose, just how the cosmos may end.

To sum up everything came from something. Otherwise it is something from nothing which defies logic. From beyond space, from space, from any of the above-named theories which are just a few of many. If it emerged from the inorganic it is truly miraculous. It emerged from something prior that existed, otherwise it emerged from non-existence. The former is logical, the latter is not.