warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
Ok, but just imagine if someone wanted to claim something similar for a math issue, and say things like "well, we don't have to examine what [x] means, cause we already can speak of some tangent of it".Consciousness itself is not explained by external stuff, unless you set out to define it specifically in such a context. And this isn't what the current question/issue set to discuss
'of relevant': there is a reason why (since ancient times) philosophy was divided into parts, one of which was Physics (ie about external stuff), and the other was Dialectics (internal) (to be very general in what each dealt with) (also there was the Ethics, but that isn't 'of relevant' here)
If this was a math issue, we would say "All equations seem to indicate that nothing happens before birth and nothing happens after death. But let's revisit if there's new data or breakthroughs to indicate otherwise"