If consciousness is primary, how could that be evidenced?

[Bunyip]

Can you provide a peer-reviewed reference for that?

Sure, there is a great article from the Autism Research Institute, called 'Research: Autistic Savants' by Stephen M Edelson PhD. It has heaps of good citations and references.

The wiki page Savant syndrome also has heaps of great citations to the relevant research..

 

[Orbit]

And any neuroscientist will tell you that they do not know how consciousness arises. How can you test what we do not yet understand?

 

[Bunyip]

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

I didn't say you did George, re read yourself please. I am asking how you gained that knowledge if you did not experience it and it can not be evidenced.

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

Yes George, HOW does it in any way disqualify the classic materialist view of consciousness? In what way do you think it does that? Surely you would need evidence to challenge materialism? What about your study of the paranormal leads you to think consciousness is primary?

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..

Sure, you said twice that i should re read George - please re read the OP I specified that I was asking for examples OTHER THAN traditional wisdom.

 

[Bunyip]

And any neuroscientist will tell you that they do not know how consciousness arises. How can you test what we do not yet understand?

They do not know how - but they know where from - the brain. They do not dispute the source, they do not fully understand the mechanism. Testing what we do not understand is how we come to learn things.

 

[Orbit]

They do not know how - but they know where from - the brain. They do not dispute the source, they do not fully understand the mechanism. Testing what we do not understand is how we come to learn things.

Ah but how is crucial, isn't it?

 

[Bunyip]

Ah but how is crucial, isn't it?

No not to the question in hand. It is irrelevant.

I am asking what evidence can there be that consciousness is primary, that we do not fully understand the mechanism has nothing to do with establishing the source, especially given that idealists do not understand the mechanism either.

 

[Penumbra]

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?

The most straightforward method of providing evidence that consciousness is fundamental and independent from matter would be to provide evidence of consciousness that exists without matter that is robust enough to go through the peer review process and be published in a leading journal.

 

[Bunyip]

The most straightforward method of providing evidence that consciousness is fundamental and independent from matter would be to provide evidence of consciousness that exists without matter that is robust enough to go through the peer review process and be published in a leading journal.

Oh absolutely. But I gave up on that most obvious truth a few threads ago.

Any example of a consciousness that is known to exist and independant from matter, or any example of an immaterial being would prove idealism.

 

[Orbit]

No not to the question in hand. It is irrelevant.

I am asking what evidence can there be that consciousness is primary, that we do not fully understand the mechanism has nothing to do with establishing the source, especially given that idealists do not understand the mechanism either.

I think it's a misdirected question. Subjective consciousness is experienced, and that experience can't be reduced to bits and bytes.

 

[Bunyip]

I think it's a misdirected question. Subjective consciousness is experienced, and that experience can't be reduced to bits and bytes.

Sure, I agree. I'm not asking for units of measure.

 

[Orbit]

Sure, I agree. I'm not asking for units of measure.

Units of measure are required for a test, though. So my answer is no, there is no way to test it.

 

[Bunyip]

Units of measure are required for a test, though. So my answer is no, there is no way to test it.

Agreed.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

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.

No. I'm referring to epistemology in general. In fact, most philosophical concepts. Philosophy has different methods than science.

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.

Exactly, it's an assumption, nothing more. It's just dead ends. It's like saying, "If you assume the existence of Jesus, you will see that he is real". To say you have to assume reality is real, is to create a bias perspective. Of course you can't do much if you do not suppose it's real, but that doesn't mean itt has to be real. It just means you can't view idealism from an idealist perspective, not in any meaningful way at least.

Materialism can certainly be evidenced, it is unlike idealism in that regard.

Says the materalist.

 

[Bunyip]

No. I'm referring to epistemology in general. In fact, most philosophical concepts. Philosophy has different methods than science.

Sure, I understand. But did point out that it is moot. It applies universally - not specifically to this topic.

Exactly, it's an assumption, nothing more. It's just dead ends. It's like saying, "If you assume the existence of Jesus, you will see that he is real". To say you have to assume reality is real, is to create a bias perspective. Of course you can't do much if you do not suppose it's real, but that doesn't mean itt has to be real. It just means you can't view idealism from an idealist perspective, not in any meaningful way at least.

It is a necessary bias. Necessary to function. Everyone must assume so every day, and act accordingly. At the shops for example, as opposed to when we are philosophising. Which materialists can also do. So where does the distinction become meaningful or practical?.

Says the materalist.

Well yes, and all the idealist has is (apparently) drawn from doubting the existence of reality, whilst materialism presumes the existence of reality. Seems a safer bet to me. Seems a no-brainer. I am trying to understand why it seems anathema to you.

 

[Baladas]

It likely could not.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I think it's a misdirected question. Subjective consciousness is experienced, and that experience can't be reduced to bits and bytes.

true, but maybe the information analogy is relevant.

it's consistent with the concept of God that he can never be proven, faith, free will to chose is required for there to be love, for everything to work

But I think the information systems operating the universe come as close as anything to giving the game away

If you see the word 'help' written with rocks on a beach, it is the information that differentiates this from a random pattern, it's the meaning in the information that tells you creative intelligence is the best explanation.

 

[JosephThomas]

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 think you are confused. Traditional wisdom does not support your definition of Idealism.
I would be curious as to What scriptures you came to this conclusion through. Offering in your humility that no human source of scriptural interpretation was in complete valid nature.

Wisdom could not claim consciousness comes form Idealism. Consciousness comes Existence. Neither can exist without the other.

Can you define spiritualism apart from Idealism?

 

[Bunyip]

I think you are confused. Traditional wisdom does not support your definition of Idealism.
I would be curious as to What scriptures you came to this conclusion through.

My definition of idealism came from the dictionary - not scripture.

Offering in your humility that no human source of scriptural interpretation was in complete valid nature.

Wisdom could not claim consciousness comes form Idealism. Consciousness comes Existence. Neither can exist without the other.

Can you define spiritualism apart from Idealism?

Yes.

 

[Bunyip]

true, but maybe the information analogy is relevant.

it's consistent with the concept of God that he can never be proven, faith, free will to chose is required for there to be love, for everything to work

But I think the information systems operating the universe come as close as anything to giving the game away

If you see the word 'help' written with rocks on a beach, it is the information that differentiates this from a random pattern, it's the meaning in the information that tells you creative intelligence is the best explanation.

Sure, but words are human constructs. You would be unable to think of an example other than things that are clearly human in origin. Whichnis why that analogy fails.

 

[JosephThomas]

Spiritualism, Idealism, and Materialism all co-exist in the Universe now.

God is unchanging. One cannot exist wihtoutt he other, and in fact they are all apart of the very same one. To try and separate them from each-other and theorize should one of the others not exist. Is a flawed science.