If consciousness is primary, how could that be evidenced?

[Bunyip]

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.

Actually I can be certain that it makes no difference, and I am certain.

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.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Actually I can be certain that it makes no difference, and I am certain.

I would agree with you here. This thread seems played out, but I guess I want to threadjack and talk about the implications of these discussions.

I can accept the possibility that reality is an illusion, without believing for a second that reality is actually an illusion. My subjective perceptions of the experiences outside myself are reliable enough to accept as true events, regardless of the possibility they are not.

What would terrify me as an idealist is that it can be believed in without any evidence, most of the reliable consistencies can be ignored, and its implications for spiritual growth are all implied as true. If you are an idealist, then you can claim to know everything, whether you follow traditional disciplines or not. Even if you claim that there are traditions and masters and sacred texts that show a spiritual path to reveal truths, you have to assume the possibility that your own consciousness fabricated all of those. All of those traditions could be illusions too, and for the idealist or the dualist, they would have to seriously entertain that possibility of a very dark, very evil existence.

Brahman could a horrible monster of spirit, that feeds on human consciousness at the moment of death. Your illusions of inner peace and spiritual growth in mediation from our whole existence are just a way of Brahman tenderizing your human will, because you "taste" better, metaphorically speaking.

If you assume nothing is necessary to prove, how could you prove that an evil reality/entity does not exist underneath the illusion of reality that you only "thought" you saw through with mediation and contemplation? It's just a mind game, and you can add illusory layers that metaphorically "uplift" of "degrade" you consciousness as much as you want, with no rules or evidence required except believe what makes you feel good.

Ironically, there are many spiritual traditions that many millions share, yet they can't be sure that each other exists? How lonely. How terrible to be a subjective agent of free will in a world of illusions.

Materialism imposes it's own logical structures to limit what is knowable. We can say "I don't know," and be honest about it. We can say "I think I can find out," and be hopeful.

That's what my consciousness gets from materialism - honesty and hope.

 

[Shad]

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

I would point out that the methods of science are philosophical theories within the theory of knowledge. The scientific method is a philosophical method.

 

[oldbadger]

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?

Material consciousness may soon be in existence for all to see... synthetically..... easily!
....... computer development is moving forward so fast.

And we can see consciousness reducing as we consider the human, to the mouse, to the snail, and on downwards to the blade of grass which reacts to light, and on down further.........

What interests me about consciousness is how groups of animals can make a whole creature, as in the Portuguese man-of-war, which is a coupling of three creatures, I believe....... where's our resident marine biologist?

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I would point out that the methods of science are philosophical theories within the theory of knowledge. The scientific method is a philosophical method.

I'd agree. The philosophical method is built around the ability to share reliable observations. Theories of knowledge built around introspection or idealist concept cannot be shared because to be an idealist, you have to admit there are no reliable observations.

It may be essentially philosophical,
But it is rooted in reasonable possibilities, not esoteric wishful thinking from as island of one.

 

[Bunyip]

Material consciousness may soon be in existence for all to see... synthetically..... easily!
....... computer development is moving forward so fast.

And we can see consciousness reducing as we consider the human, to the mouse, to the snail, and on downwards to the blade of grass which reacts to light, and on down further.........

What interests me about consciousness is how groups of animals can make a whole creature, as in the Portuguese man-of-war, which is a coupling of three creatures, I believe....... where's our resident marine biologist?

Yeah, that is indeed a fascinating notion. If you consider that 9/10 cells in our own bodies are bacteria - we are as much a colony as we are an organism also.

 

[oldbadger]

Yeah, that is indeed a fascinating notion. If you consider that 9/10 cells in our own bodies are bacteria - we are as much a colony as we are an organism also.

...and so it looks to me as if consciousness is material. Which only leaves me to wonder whether 'spirit' might exist or not. Mystics and Spiritualists have often spoken/written about the 'nothingness' and tried to describe conditions which are indescribable, unreachable, unattainable unless the seeker is developed and prepared in special ways. The closest which I can describe to 'unreachable unattainable' would be the test results carried out with photons (?) during the 40's, where a photon(?) could and would travel by any and all paths to a given point at the same time, a result which clearly left our materialist world with materialistic rules and physical laws.

 

[Bunyip]

...and so it looks to me as if consciousness is material. Which only leaves me to wonder whether 'spirit' might exist or not. Mystics and Spiritualists have often spoken/written about the 'nothingness' and tried to describe conditions which are indescribable, unreachable, unattainable unless the seeker is developed and prepared in special ways. The closest which I can describe to 'unreachable unattainable' would be the test results carried out with photons (?) during the 40's, where a photon(?) could and would travel by any and all paths to a given point at the same time, a result which clearly left our materialist world with materialistic rules and physical laws.

Sure. The leap is when we look at what we do not yet understand and arbitrarily decide that it is not understandable - and therefore (for some unfathomable reason) supernatural. If consciousness is indeed a product of physical processes - why on earth would that limit it in any meaningful way? Sheesh - English is just repetitions of the same few letters, and yet it can move me to tears.

The argument I keep seeing boils down to; "Well if it is ONLY a product of the physical, then how can it have value/meaning/truth/etc etc."
As if adding 'only' is somehow an argument.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Sure. The leap is when we look at what we do not yet understand and arbitrarily decide that it is not understandable - and therefore (for some unfathomable reason) supernatural. If consciousness is indeed a product of physical processes - why on earth would that limit it in any meaningful way? Sheesh - English is just repetitions of the same few letters, and yet it can move me to tears.

I get that argument as well, and I agree that quantum mechanics is a challenge to understand. There are interpretations as to why it happens, and there are just as many mathematical descriptions that explain it as there are descriptions for cosmological origins.

The goal, I think with materialism, Isn't to pin it down 100% (though that would
Be nice). It's to determine the most reasonable mathematical explanation among those proposed. If we learn something new, we adjust.

To me, a truly an open mind is the strength to say "I just don't know," and avoid the fallacy of accepting a completely unverifiable worldview just because yours doesn't have easy answers.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Material consciousness may soon be in existence for all to see... synthetically..... easily!
....... computer development is moving forward so fast.

And we can see consciousness reducing as we consider the human, to the mouse, to the snail, and on downwards to the blade of grass which reacts to light, and on down further.........

What interests me about consciousness is how groups of animals can make a whole creature, as in the Portuguese man-of-war, which is a coupling of three creatures, I believe....... where's our resident marine biologist?

It's believed that our DNA nucleus and our mitochondria might have once been separate creatures.

Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[oldbadger]

It's believed that our DNA nucleus and our mitochondria might have once been separate creatures.

Symbiogenesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

....most interesting, Thankyou.....

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I would point out that the methods of science are philosophical theories within the theory of knowledge. The scientific method is a philosophical method.

Yeah, I guess I never thought of it that way. Nice

 

[Shad]

I'd agree. The philosophical method is built around the ability to share reliable observations. Theories of knowledge built around introspection or idealist concept cannot be shared because to be an idealist, you have to admit there are no reliable observations.

It may be essentially philosophical,
But it is rooted in reasonable possibilities, not esoteric wishful thinking from as island of one.

This is only true in part. The opposing school of thought was reasoning of mind. Both empiricist and rationalist use observations and can share ideas. Wishful think would only apply to an idea which lacks observations which a rationalist could reject due to this fact s easily as the empiricist

 

[Kuzcotopia]

This is only true in part. The opposing school of thought was reasoning of mind. Both empiricist and rationalist use observations and can share ideas. Wishful think would only apply to an idea which lacks observations which a rationalist could reject due to this fact s easily as the empiricist

Right, but I wasn't necessarily framing the conversation in terms of the differences between empiricism and rationalism. I was framing the conversation as the differences between materialism and idealism.

Mathematics is accepted as rationalist idea, and we can test our logic. We still share that language, and be in 100% agreement that 1 + 1 = 2. The observations of the scientific method are accepted as a empiricist idea, and we can test them. We still share that language. We use the logical language to explain the empirical data, and make predictions. I don't see them as absolute opposites, I suppose.

Regardless, I do not believe that supernatural/deity/transcendent insights gained through introspection, etc. are following the school of rationalism at all. They are personal and not universal, and they do not share core truths. Those ideas cannot be explained without a filter of culture to interpret them. Regional and historical differences in religions show us that. None of it can be considered a priori knowledge, but rather culturally accepted premises. If these truths were a priori, then insights would be gained globally that were the same, and they were be consistent. While not empirically testable, they should be logically testable irrespective of culture which, unlike mathematics, they are most certainly are not.

But again, framing as an empiricism vs. rationalist isn't really doing the rationalist tradition much justice here. But then again, I would be assuming. Certainly I have been discussing all of this from an empiricist viewpoint, because for the most part, that's what I am. But if anyone wants to explain their religious beliefs through the lens of the the rationalist tradition, I am certainly all ears.

 

[Shad]

Right, but I wasn't necessarily framing the conversation in terms of the differences between empiricism and rationalism. I was framing the conversation as the differences between materialism and idealism.

It was not to frame a contrast. It was to show if one tries to dismiss logic the theories of knowledge go with it.

Mathematics is accepted as rationalist idea, and we can test our logic. We still share that language, and be in 100% agreement that 1 + 1 = 2. The observations of the scientific method are accepted as a empiricist idea, and we can test them. We still share that language. We use the logical language to explain the empirical data, and make predictions. I don't see them as absolute opposites, I suppose.

A true comparison is between math and logic. If math is wrong it is not math. If logic is wrong it is not logic. Empiricist data or views can be wrong

Regardless, I do not believe that supernatural/deity/transcendent insights gained through introspection, etc. are following the school of rationalism at all. They are personal and not universal, and they do not share core truths. Those ideas cannot be explained without a filter of culture to interpret them. Regional and historical differences in religions show us that. None of it can be considered a priori knowledge, but rather culturally accepted premises. If these truths were a priori, then insights would be gained globally that were the same, and they were be consistent. While not empirically testable, they should be logically testable irrespective of culture which, unlike mathematics, they are most certainly are not.

True, I point out much of the same when it comes to the idea of innate knowledge of rationalism

But again, framing as an empiricism vs. rationalist isn't really doing the rationalist tradition much justice here. But then again, I would be assuming. Certainly I have been discussing all of this from an empiricist viewpoint, because for the most part, that's what I am. But if anyone wants to explain their religious beliefs through the lens of the the rationalist tradition, I am certainly all ears.

Rationalist views are not, for the most part, out of touch with empiricist. However an issue is a few major rationalist have made claims well beyond the scope of both. An example is the Cartesian Circle by Descartes which is only based on his mind.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

Agreed!

A true comparison is between math and logic. If math is wrong it is not math. If logic is wrong it is not logic. Empiricist data or views can be wrong

QFT. Emphasis mine.

 

[Shad]

This was just to point out that logic and math are valid and sound but the application of each can be wrong either by faulty observation or human error. It would be the difference between 1+1=2 and someone that can not do math, 1+1=3. Logical argument have this issue when a subject is applied rather than basic principles. A is B. A dog is a cat. This is wrong but the principle removed from the topic is still sound and valid. I would also modify the statement to include the fact that rationalist data can be wrong as well since observation is still required.

To provide an example people once thought light was not physical, now we do. However this change was only made when the previous idea was falsified. Likewise one would need to produce evidence which falsifies consciousness is not a product of the brain. This has never been done. So far only verification has been done but verification does not make a theory, the lack of evidence towards falsification does.

This is a key issue. Many still think that verification is the end point of science. It is not. One can have a million pieces of evidence for an idea but all that is required is one piece of evidence to falsify an idea.

All redheads are dumb
Bob is a redhead
Therefore Bob is dumb.

One can provide a single redhead that is a genius, the idea is falsified. One can provide evidence that Bob is a genius, the idea is falsified. You can have 1 billion dumb redheads but 1 intelligent redhead renders the whole idea false.

 

[aoji]

... matter a product of consciousness (idealism)... what evidence for idealism is there, or could there be? How could we go about testing it as a hypothesis?

Wouldn't any evidence produced be labelled anecdotal by the Scientific community?, since its standard would be consistent verification, that any phenomena must be readily repeatable. But like Science, anecdotal evidence could be submitted as a pointer, as to what is implied by its effects. Science theorized Black Holes by observable effects, no? In the case for idealism it could be ghosts, spirits, demons and angels. In the case of ghosts it would point to consciousness without a body, thereby proving that it may not be a product of matter, where consciousness arises with matter and dies with matter. There have been enough cases of ghosts existing that it could at least establish a possibility. To sweep away all possibility as being impossible because it may have happened to "one" person seems ludicrous because if the same standard is applied to a scientist then no theory should ever be considered. Those who have had "other-worldy" experiences cannot be convinced that it was a product of their imagination or brain chemistry; they know what they experienced. To put their experiences into question begs the question as to why Science doesn't use the same standard to their theories? To say that it is impossible because everyone hasn't had that experience is to say that no one should be able to fly through the air like Michael Jordan or float through the air like Nijinsky. Fascinating Secrets – Vaslav and Bronislava Nijinsky! - ILIL ARBEL

And yes, I have a few ghost stories of my own. No one can convince me that they were not real. I shant bother the community with details as the expectant result is very likely to be ridicule, so why bother?

The best retort may be that while ghosts may exist they are an obvious product of consciousness-within-a-body and therefore it doesn't prove that consciousness existed before the body. The "idealist" would then counter with angels and demons...

You cannot test it as an hypothesis. Any such experience would solely be yours and cannot be proven to another. For example, the children of Fatima saw other-worldly apparitions but no one else could see them. FATIMA - The Children

To pique your imagination, or your scientific prejudices, "the Miracle of the Sun" at Fatima was described as and "the sun" appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern." Sounds a lot like a UFO doesn't it?
Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Other descriptions are given in the article.) 40,000 to 100,000 people witnessed the evident. Is that enough proof that UFOs are real? It cannot be mass hypnosis or mass hysteria since others saw "it" from miles away.

 

[Bunyip]

Wouldn't any evidence produced be labelled anecdotal by the Scientific community?, since its standard would be consistent verification, that any phenomena must be readily repeatable. But like Science, anecdotal evidence could be submitted as a pointer, as to what is implied by its effects. Science theorized Black Holes by observable effects, no? In the case for idealism it could be ghosts, spirits, demons and angels. In the case of ghosts it would point to consciousness without a body, thereby proving that it may not be a product of matter, where consciousness arises with matter and dies with matter. There have been enough cases of ghosts existing that it could at least establish a possibility. To sweep away all possibility as being impossible because it may have happened to "one" person seems ludicrous because if the same standard is applied to a scientist then no theory should ever be considered. Those who have had "other-worldy" experiences cannot be convinced that it was a product of their imagination or brain chemistry; they know what they experienced. To put their experiences into question begs the question as to why Science doesn't use the same standard to their theories? To say that it is impossible because everyone hasn't had that experience is to say that no one should be able to fly through the air like Michael Jordan or float through the air like Nijinsky. Fascinating Secrets – Vaslav and Bronislava Nijinsky! - ILIL ARBEL

And yes, I have a few ghost stories of my own. No one can convince me that they were not real. I shant bother the community with details as the expectant result is very likely to be ridicule, so why bother?

The best retort may be that while ghosts may exist they are an obvious product of consciousness-within-a-body and therefore it doesn't prove that consciousness existed before the body. The "idealist" would then counter with angels and demons...

You cannot test it as an hypothesis. Any such experience would solely be yours and cannot be proven to another. For example, the children of Fatima saw other-worldly apparitions but no one else could see them. FATIMA - The Children

To pique your imagination, or your scientific prejudices, "the Miracle of the Sun" at Fatima was described as and "the sun" appeared as an opaque, spinning disc in the sky. It was said to be significantly duller than normal, and to cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds. The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern." Sounds a lot like a UFO doesn't it?
Miracle of the Sun - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Other descriptions are given in the article.) 40,000 to 100,000 people witnessed the evident. Is that enough proof that UFOs are real? It cannot be mass hypnosis or mass hysteria since others saw "it" from miles away.

I think you must have misread - I am not discounting any possibilities.

 

[Ekanta]

Consiousness comes Before object, since you need consciousness to know the object, and not the other way round...