If consciousness is primary, how could that be evidenced?

[Bunyip]

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

Well no, they don't exist physically - they only 'exist' as abstracts, they only exist conceptually.

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.

 

[JM2C]

A few centuries of materialism has moved humanity further out of the darkness of the past than did thousands of years of idealism.

Idealism is the one that shapes the mind into materialism.

 

[atanu]

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?

If inert non-intelligent matter gave rise to the intelligence in a deterministic way, then what chance you (or me) have of determining whether a proposition is true or false?

 

[atanu]

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.

I wonder whether without consciousness I would ever know any matter. So, why we never ask the question to ourselves: Is there any matter independent of awareness?

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

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?

It looks to me that you're asking is there an epistemological approach that can give a rational basis for selection one set of ontological assumptions over another. I'm not a philosopher, but I haven't heard of any theory or system of thought that explains both the materialist and idealist positions; the two are quite distinct systems, and both are based on assumptions that cannot be tested or verified within its own system, and apparently, cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of anyone outside each system. So, my answer is that I don't think there is, or even could be, evidence that would allow one to choose one system over the other.

The assumption that material reality actually is an illusion cannot be tested, because no matter how refined and detailed and consistent our study of the material world is, it could be evidence that the illusion of material reality is really just very refined, detailed and consistent. No amount of material evidence can show that it ISN'T "just" an illusion.

 

[Bunyip]

If inert non-intelligent matter gave rise to the intelligence in a deterministic way, then what chance you (or me) have of determining whether a proposition is true or false?

What has how matter arose got to do with whether or not I can determine if a proposition is true or false? What is the link?

 

[Bunyip]

It looks to me that you're asking is there an epistemological approach that can give a rational basis for selection one set of ontological assumptions over another. I'm not a philosopher, but I haven't heard of any theory or system of thought that explains both the materialist and idealist positions; the two are quite distinct systems, and both are based on assumptions that cannot be tested or verified within its own system, and apparently, cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of anyone outside each system. So, my answer is that I don't think there is, or even could be, evidence that would allow one to choose one system over the other.

The assumption that material reality actually is an illusion cannot be tested, because no matter how refined and detailed and consistent our study of the material world is, it could be evidence that the illusion of material reality is really just very refined, detailed and consistent. No amount of material evidence can show that it ISN'T "just" an illusion.

Seems safe to assume reality is real, and if it isn't it makes no difference. So materialism remains the more rational position.

 

[idav]

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 what we have tested thus far is what's fundamental is data. The data needs is to be linked, which it is but it's conceptual. Existence is fundamentally all knowing.

 

[Bunyip]

I think what we have tested thus far is what's fundamental is data. The data needs is to be linked, which it is but it's conceptual. Existence is fundamentally all knowing.

Can you elaborate, I'm not sure what you mean?

 

[idav]

Can you elaborate, I'm not sure what you mean?

For example they run tests that suggest the universe is like a computer.
The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation | MIT Technology Review

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Seems safe to assume reality is real, and if it isn't it makes no difference. So materialism remains the more rational position.

But it is still just an assumption, you cannot be certain it makes no difference, and I suspect there are Idealists who would disagree with you, and assert the same in their own support.

Personally, I take the position that we must treat material existence as if it is real, but recognize the possibility that it is an illusion, and if so, then there is something else going on that may be more important--and to ignore it and focus only on the illusion would be a logical mistake. In other words, I claim the pragmatic philosophical position between materialism and idealism.

 

[atanu]

What has how matter arose got to do with whether or not I can determine if a proposition is true or false? What is the link?

I did not say anything about 'matter arising'.

 

[Willamena]

Idealism is the one that shapes the mind into materialism.

How so?

 

[Willamena]

For example they run tests that suggest the universe is like a computer.
The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation | MIT Technology Review

I think the author missed a point in his narrative: that if the "simulation" does not differ from the "real," then it is real.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think the author missed a point in his narrative: that if the "simulation" does not differ from the "real," then it is real.

I disagree: if this effect is not detected, it simply means that we cannot distinguish whether it is a different kind of simulation, or "real." We experience the universe as real; it either really is real, or it is an illusion--while this proposed test might allow us to confirm that it meets the criteria for being considered a simulation if the expected signal is detected, not detecting the signal does not eliminate either possibility. A simulation is a simulation, whether or not we can detect it's nature using the tools available to us--not being able to detect that it's a simulation doesn't make it "real," it makes it impossible to distinguish if it's real or a simulation; that does not make it "real," but it does make it so we can treat it as real.

 

[Willamena]

I disagree: if this effect is not detected, it simply means that we cannot distinguish whether it is a different kind of simulation, or "real." We experience the universe as real; it either really is real, or it is an illusion--while this proposed test might allow us to confirm that it meets the criteria for being considered a simulation if the expected signal is detected, not detecting the signal does not eliminate either possibility. A simulation is a simulation, whether or not we can detect it's nature using the tools available to us--not being able to detect that it's a simulation doesn't make it "real," it makes it impossible to distinguish if it's real or a simulation; that does not make it "real," but it does make it so we can treat it as real.

I disagree. Even if a signal does indicates a simulation, if that signal is real, the simulation is real. All that's been accomplished is to eliminate a perceived divide.

 

[Whiterain]

I see the mind itself as another dimension that isn't respected as one. It's a totally different dimension where your free to build your own realm.

As far as the science, I don't know you need Cognitive science - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My delusions of Thoth taught me or unlocked the power of my mind to see it as another dimension or realm.

There inlays my keep, a coincidentally Satanic place when I was finished. It was quite a laugh as he went through there pointing a few things out and told me I need to get some help. I'm just attracted to it, I don't worship the Fallen one's, that I know of.

You can build a realm in your mind and it will almost be exactly as you remembered it every time.

He taught me how to focus when under inconceivable stress as well. I would have snapped a long time ago if it weren't for my minds creation of this lovely delusion.

So a Professional physician would say they're coping devices. Not acknowledging them as the Gods I say, only delusions and that I need to understand they're delusions.

 

[JosephThomas]

I didn't read everything you said Whiterain, but I agree. Your mind, by definition of Dimension is in fact one.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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 think it can by way of the phenomina itself.

Consciousness seems cumulative by which "lesser" conciousness culminates to a "greater" overall phenomina. If consciousness is studyable, then a good place to start is to study the reactive qualities in chemicals and molecules and go from there to more complex arrangements.

 

[Whiterain]

I didn't read everything you said Whiterain, but I agree. Your mind, by definition of Dimension is in fact one.

Thanks, pardon my psychosis.... I do not think your average person is in touch with the power of the mind.

I have only arbitrary things to say regarding the state of the human mind. In previous ages the average mind must have been much more complex other than relying on immediate impulses, needs and stimulus.

No one sees their actual mind as a dimension, and a dimension to build in major constructs. Like your dream house I could use in metaphor, construct your dream house in your mind.

I was aware of the imagination but my current condition is making the mind a whole dimension of construct and communication.

Like communicating with extra sensory perception.