Well, I finished reading the @anilkseth BBS Response article. Going in I predicted that he would not specify any sort of evidence or experiment which would lead him to pre-commit to saying, "My confidence in biological naturalism is reduced" or even "This raises my confidence in computational functionalism". This prediction seems to have been right. There's a point in the paper which I find particularly illustrative. He criticizes panpsychism because it "generates no testable predictions". So the natural question is: Okay, what testable predictions are you willing to make based off BN? None. "If we did experiment X, biological naturalism would predict we see result Y. If we instead get result Z, this is evidence against BN." - There is nothing like this in his paper. "If we did experiment X, computational functionalism would predict we see result Y, while biological naturalism would predict result Z. If we get result Y, that's evidence in favor of CF, if we get Z that's evidence in favor of BN." - There is also nothing like this in his paper. To be clear, there are plenty of cases where he says "If we observe phenomenon X, that's evidence against CF". When it comes to specifying ways where the theory he doesn't believe in might be contradicted or falsified, Seth is no slouch. When it comes to applying that scrutiny to his own belief in BN... well it doesn't come to that. He just straight up doesn't do that. Biological naturalism has no predictive power greater than that of panpsychism, or any other theory of consciousness. If it does have this predictive power, Seth is certainly not taking the opportunity to use it. I think that public figures have certain responsibilities. One of those is not to overrepresent their case when suggesting courses of action. Seth should admit that his BN stance is unfalsifiable, and provide that as context when he advocates for treating it as the "default". There is nothing wrong with making logical leaps, or even leaps of faith, in the face of uncertainty. I don't have any issue with a Christian arguing to convince me that the teachings of their faith should inform society's decisions. But they have to disclose that this is a matter of faith for them, and not selectively apply evidentiary standards and burdens of proof. Alternatively, if Seth wants to continue asserting BN as some sort of scientifically backed theory, he should specify even a single condition under which that theory might be falsified or at least contradicted. A hypothesis being testable, it having predictive validity, is the entire basis of the scientific method. In his own words, "BN and CF should justify themselves". We've had plenty of theory, we don't need another paper saying "more research is needed but in the mean time assume I'm right". It's time to gird your loins and make some testable predictions. In the interim here is my suggestion: We should not treat *any* theory of consciousness as the default. I have read everything I can get my hands on in this field and given how high the stakes are, there is nobody who is reasoning from solid enough ground to trust during this high stakes of a situation. The closest I've seen is @drmichaellevin or @MiTiBennett. And even them I think are still just not quite there (though Bennett in particular I have to give praise for doing yeoman's work to try and formalize/operationalize his ideas). In the very near future we are going to need to navigate through a time of great change and upheaval. To do so based on unfalsifiable speculation is not only sloppy, it is a dereliction of moral duty.