Humans create models for everything they know about in the universe, and then we create a 'theater' in our head which is animated, and we process what did what and who interacted with who / what right? It's in essence a very simple model of the entire universe, inside everyones heads, and its always filled with new things and new connections between things. There are really almost an infinite amount of things in this theater of the mind, in every person, that has no explanation, but still humans feels like they understand them. Science could be said to aid in creating this theater, in that scientists will do experiments, see results, and then remember them because they are valid at the time. If I walk on the ground for long periods of time, ever since I could walk, I add into my theater that I will most likely be able to walk without flying into the sky involuntarily tomorrow, and the day after. Then science comes in and explains why later. But what I'm wondering is, where is the line between subjective learning, and science? It may seem stupid to ask but bear with me. If I hold an apple in my hand and I try to squash it, but fail because the apple is too dense and hard, isn't that a type of science? I observe, and I learn. It may not be the scientific /method/, but it is still observation, repetition and probability assesment. Now with philosophy, many of the problems people ask that can't be proven or disproven by science yet, are still concepts that arise from inside the theater of the mind of the person. There is something there, but how do we separate between what is in the mind and what is in the world? Well people say science, and I agree. An example to help ease this would be consciousness, plain and simple. Take color, color is in fact an after effect of conscious visual perception. It is light waves at a certain frequency within the spectrum that ends up being perceived by the observer as a color. As far as I know you can't really see a color without being conscious. You can detect obviously the frequency of the light wave, but you can't actually experience the color, right? So this is immediately a problem between philosophy and science because that color is not really in the theater of science, but rather in the theater of the subjective. Like many things in philosophy you now have something which is completely subjective, the essence of the color red; but there isn't a physics book that can explain what red looks like, at least not yet. Maybe this isn't philosophy even, I'm a complete newbie to it, but this is my idea and I hope someone will have some answers for me.