If consciousness is primary, how could that be evidenced?

[Bunyip]

Many recent threads have discussed materialism, spritualism, idealism and many other philosophical approaches and positions.

One of the critical points of difference that has emerged is the argument about whether consciousness is a product of matter (materialism), or matter a product of consciousness (idealism).

Other than traditional wisdom, what evidence for idealism is there, or could there be? How could we go about testing it as a hypothesis?

 

[MD]

Many recent threads have discussed materialism, spritualism, idealism and many other philosophical approaches and positions.

One of the critical points of difference that has emerged is the argument about whether consciousness is a product of matter (materialism), or matter a product of consciousness (idealism).

Other than traditional wisdom, what evidence for idealism is there, or could there be? How could we go about testing it as a hypothesis?

You can't, some things are untestable. Either we accept that it's fundamental or we continue along this futile path of materialism until a century from now we accept that it's fundamental.

The latter will probably happen.

 

[Bunyip]

You can't, some things are untestable. Either we accept that it's fundamental or we continue along this futile path of materialism until a century from now we accept that it's fundamental.

The latter will probably happen.

So it is not testable, but we must accept it - why? Why accept the untestable?
In what way is materialism futile? It has enabled the most spectacular explosion of human knowledge in history. A few centuries of materialism has moved humanity further out of the darkness of the past than did thousands of years of idealism.

 

[MD]

So it is not testable, but we must accept it - why? Why accept the untestable?
In what way is materialism futile? It has enabled the most spectacular explosion of human knowledge in history. A few centuries of materialism has moved humanity further out of the darkness of the past than did thousands of years of idealism.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it false. You continue to try to explain it away through your own lens but don't even understand why it can't happen. Whatever is happening is internalized. Unless there is some way to merge my mind and your mind through wiring, it won't happen. And all that will prove is that your mind exists, to prove that consciousness arises out of biological and electrical processes is like proving televisions create their own programs. Correlations do not necessarily imply causation and someone who is as 'SCIENTIFIC' as you should know that.

And idealism wasn't the truth for thousands of years, depending on the culture. In the West and Middle East it has been substance dualism. Get your terminology straight if you're going to demand you're way is the right way.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Many recent threads have discussed materialism, spritualism, idealism and many other philosophical approaches and positions.

One of the critical points of difference that has emerged is the argument about whether consciousness is a product of matter (materialism), or matter a product of consciousness (idealism).

Other than traditional wisdom, what evidence for idealism is there, or could there be? How could we go about testing it as a hypothesis?

I don't believe it's at all possible to find evidence for any epistemology, because the nature of their concepts is metaphysical and not to mention we have no way to test reality, because we are bound to it.

 

[Bunyip]

I don't believe it's at all possible to find evidence for any epistemology, because the nature of their concepts is metaphysical and not to mention we have no way to test reality, because we are bound to it.

Science has proven to be a reliable and consistent method for testing reality. I think you are referring to hard solipsism, which of course,would apply to idealism and materialism alike. We have to assume reality is real in order to function, and if reality is not real - but some sort,of artificial construct it makes no difference in practice and is hence irrelevant. Materialism can certainly be evidenced, it is unlike idealism in that regard.

 

[George-ananda]

This is a good thread idea, Bunyip!

It can't be evidenced physically and it has to be experienced. The Self-Realized saints claim this as experience; then they know, not just believe. They describe the layers of consciousness between us and the divine. To experience the divine all these intermediary layers must be stilled; no mean feat.

One saint I admire tells us to not take his (or anyone's) word for it but to find out for ourselves. At first we have to take what they tell us as a hypothesis and follow spiritual practices to progress until Self-Realization. Unfortunately, Brahman-realization won't come in our first few meditation efforts.

After much consideration, I accept it intellectually as the most advanced understanding and part of mankind's greatest wisdom tradition.

 

[Bunyip]

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it false.

Sure, doesn't make it true either. So that is moot.

You continue to try to explain it away through your own lens but don't even understand why it can't happen.

You have misread the OP, I am not trying to explain anything away - I am asking how a specific proposition can be evidenced, you say that it can not - which obviously leaves nothing to be 'explained away'.

Whatever is happening is internalized. Unless there is some way to merge my mind and your mind through wiring, it won't happen. And all that will prove is that your mind exists, to prove that consciousness arises out of biological and electrical processes is like proving televisions create their own programs.

No, televisions are just receivers. They do not create their own programs.

Correlations do not necessarily imply causation and someone who is as 'SCIENTIFIC' as you should know that.

Yes, I do know that thanks.

And idealism wasn't the truth for thousands of years, depending on the culture. In the West and Middle East it has been substance dualism. Get your terminology straight if you're going to demand you're way is the right way.

Again, you must have misread the OP. I am not making any demands - I am asking a question.

 

[Bunyip]

This is a good thread idea, Bunyip!

Thankyou, I am trying to get to the heart of this.

It can't be evidenced physically and it has to be experienced. The Self-Realized saints claim this as experience; then they know, not just believe. They describe the layers of consciousness between us and the divine. To experience the divine all these intermediary layers must be stilled; no mean feat.

One saint I admire tells us to not take his (or anyone's) word for it but to find out for ourselves. At first we have to take what they tell us as a hypothesis and follow spiritual practices to progress until Self-Realization. Unfortunately, Brahman-realization won't come in our first few meditation efforts.

After much consideration, I accept it intellectually as the most advanced understanding and part of one of mankind's greatest wisdom traditions.

I do understand what you are saying - but if it can not be evidenced, then it does not conflict with materialism and leaves materialists nothing to deny. If idealism is entirely a spiritual apprehension then it does not challenge materialism. And the primacy of consciousness remains only an assumption.

Surely whilst our experiences are different George, you would understand that materialism can only be challenged by evidence?

My experience of the world, meditations, and the wisdom I have encountered leads me to materialism, yours to idealism.

 

[George-ananda]

Thankyou, I am trying to get to the heart of this. I do understand what you are saying - but if it can not be evidenced, then it does not conflict with materialism and leaves materialists nothing to deny. If idealism is entirely a spiritual apprehension then it does not challenge materialism. And the primacy of consciousness remains only an assumption.

OK Bunyip, materialism is fine for you if you insist. But I believe not accepting worthwhile information from the experiences of others and other wisdom traditions will leave you with an impoverished understanding of the whole.

Surely whilst our experiences are different George, you would understand that materialism can only be challenged by evidence?

I'm saying it can also be challenged by direct insight. I'm saying science is limited in what it can know by its assumptions.

 

[Bunyip]

OK Bunyip, materialism is fine for you if you insist. But I believe not accepting worthwhile information from the experiences of others and other wisdom traditions will leave you with an impoverished understanding of the whole.

I do accept and value such information, I am fascinated with traditional beliefs and have studied them for many years. My embracing materialism is not at all that I do not understand idealism. I was simply asking how it could be evidenced or tested for. Accepting, understanding and valuing wisdom does not necessitate believing it to be true.

I'm saying it can also be challenged by direct insight. I'm saying science is limited in what it can know by its assumptions.

Sure. Of course. Science is limited to the study of the natural world. It is methodological naturalism. I understand that science is limited, that is a given. Idealism is more limited however in that it can neither be tested for or evidenced.

So sure, both are limited. Materialism can be evidenced and tested for, but idealism can not.

Intelligent men and women used to believe in a great many falsehoods, it is not a criticism of their intelligence or perceptiveness - it is just that our assumptions can be wrong, which is why a way to test them becomes important. The hypothesis that the sun orbited the earth was perfectly rational, drawn from the observable evidence, reasonable, a long held spiritual intuition and fit our experiences - it was also wrong.

 

[Bunyip]

George

Perhaps if I take a different approach - what experiences have you had that made you think consciousness is primary? How would your experience of consciousness be different if it were primary or secondary?

 

[George-ananda]

George

Perhaps if I take a different approach - what experiences have you had that made you think consciousness is primary? How would your experience of consciousness be different if it were primary or secondary?

For me it is intellectual acceptance as I have not experienced Brahman-Realization personally.

My intellectual acceptance of the primacy of consciousness comes from my study of the paranormal (which to me disqualifies the classic materialist view of consciousness) and the teachings of many masters of the eastern tradition (a couple masters in particular).

This is not evidence you must accept as I am not claiming physical proof.

 

[Bunyip]

For me it is intellectual acceptance as I have not experienced Brahman-Realization personally.

How did you experience it then, if not personally or evidentially?

My intellectual acceptance of the primacy of consciousness comes from my study of the paranormal (which to me disqualifies the classic materialist view of consciousness) and the teachings of many masters of the eastern tradition (a couple masters in particular).

Yes, you have said that many times - but the paranormal does not infer the primacy of consciousness. It simply explores the as yet unknown. What about your study of the paranormal infers the primacy of consciousness?

This is not evidence you must accept as I am not claiming physical proof.

I am not asking for proof, I accept that there is no evidence as you say. I acknowledge traditional wisdom - I am just asking for reasons to see consciousness as primary.

 

[Orbit]

Here is the thing that materialism can't answer: where does creativity come from? I think consciousness is analogous -- you have to have the hardware (brain) running to perceive it, but does the hardware *explain* it? I don't think so. Can you test this? Not yet, but as science advances, maybe.

 

[Bunyip]

Here is the thing that materialism can't answer: where does creativity come from? I think consciousness is analogous -- you have to have the hardware (brain) running to perceive it, but does the hardware *explain* it? I don't think so. Can you test this? Not yet, but as science advances, maybe.

Of course materialism can answer to that. Creativity and imagination are qualities of the mind, and the mind a product of the brain. You can test this by damaging the part of the brain involved in creativity (or stimulating it) and observing the results.

 

[Orbit]

Of course materialism can answer to that. Creativity and imagination are qualities of the mind, and the mind a product of the brain. You can test this by damaging the part of the brain involved in creativity (or stimulating it) and observing the results.

By that logic, you could prod my brain and I'd come up with the modern equivalent of E=mc squared. Creativity does not work like that.

 

[Bunyip]

By that logic, you could prod my brain and I'd come up with the modern equivalent of E=mc squared. Creativity does not work like that.

Actually yes it does. Experiments on idiot savants show exactly that. You can make a person more or less creative by stimulating different parts of the brain.

 

[Orbit]

Actually yes it does. Experiments on idiot savants show exactly that. You can make a person more or less creative by stimulating different parts of the brain.

Can you provide a peer-reviewed reference for that?

 

[George-ananda]

How did you experience it then, if not personally or evidentially?

When did I ever say I 'experienced' it. Please re-read.

Yes, you have said that many times - but the paranormal does not infer the primacy of consciousness.

I did not say it infers the primacy of consciousness. I said it disqualifies the classic materialist view of consciousness. Please re-read.

My belief in primacy of consciousness comes from my acceptance of the teachings of many masters who I believe are far beyond me in experience and knowledge..