I disagree. In this example, nothing is being presupposed. There is no need to assume either consciousness creates matter or matter creates consciousness when working through it. What I have done in this example of the room, is only to take a concrete observation into account and then look at the two hypotheses under question; namely consciousness is a result of matter, and matter is a result of consciousness. The first hypothesis explains this observation without any difficulty, while the last one doesn't really seem to be able to explain it without further ad-hoc hypotheses and assumptions.



Not really something new. The christian philosopher George Berkeley was a proponent of this form of subjective idealism. He saw a real problem with situations like that of the room, and concluded that if something is going to exist between observations, then it must be in the consciousness of somebody in the meantime. This something was, unsurprisingly in his case, God. You do the same kind of argument, just that you imply some kind of all-pervasive, unknown consciousness. This seems to me like a complete ad hoc, and it has really no explanatory power, no predictory power and it introduces new unknowns that make the hypothesis less likely (Occam's Razor). And in this case the objects under discussion exists independently of our consciousness, because they are apparently defined by this all-pervasive consciousness you introduced, and the result is identical with the result of an objective, material world.

As for the rest of your post, I am not sure I follow your story. Are you by this implying that some kind of mind is just telling a story to itself? That there is no world, no people, no nothing - it's just a story told by some undefinable, unknown Mind or Consciousness that is... is where? Well, whatever floats your boat, but however amusing it is to entertain this - how likely and rational does this seem at all? Regardless of your answer to that question, it remains completely metaphysical and thus completely removed from reality as we know it and not contingent upon how the universe actually works. Such an assertion or argument is pretty much on equal footing with my often used example of unicorns in every house, placed so no can find them. It's absurd, doesn't make much sense and is an assertion that can't, in strict terms, be touched at all by the very nature of its formulation.

I also raised many other problems you didn't care to reply to. It's fine if you don't want to, but I asked those questions not to necessary "prove" you wrong or anything, but just because I wonder how one should solve them/explain them satisfactory with your hypothesis.

As a final remark; if we first assume that there actually exists something outside our consciousness, i.e something that is ontologically objective, which there are many good arguments for doing, then we have (scientific) methods to determine whether or not something existing independently of our consciousness is likely or not.

All of our semantics aside gibran2, I am not sure that the problem of consciousness will ever be solved, or if it even can be. All the paradoxes seem to meet there, and they put you out for a real spin

the scientific method assesses evidence, or lack thereof.

not really.

it's analogous to data and information, in computer science.
one is unprocessed, the other is processed.
you may or may not determine useful information, "facts" as you call them, from evidence.

You are wrong. I am not presupposing anything, I said I wasn't sure. How is that presupposing anything?

Someone predicted my birth sign, big deal. Just as big a deal as those weakly horoscopes fitting just about anyone.

The guy who predicted my sign did so because I said something that reminded him of key characteristics for Gemini. He even phrased it as a question. There isn't anything spooky going on, and my beliefs run very nice with statistics, which shows that there is no statistical significance to "predictions" made by astrologers.

I may very well have misunderstood the definition of mysticism - if so I am sorry - but to me the hallmark of proper mysticism; as practised by the sufis, jesus, zen monks, et al; seems to be that it's practitioners do not make claims about other people's realities; but focus on a radically subjective knowledge which simply can't be put into words.

In this way mysticism is a radically scientific idea! What can be more in the spirit of science than accepting what is experienced for what it is? Die fröhliche wissenschaft as Nietzsche put it. And the Buddha mentioned that the most important thing was to never believe anything that he said.

However if you are using your personal experiences to deduce thruths for other people you're not practising mysticism--you are practising religion.

Embracing crackpot theories and neglecting to acknowledge objective truths about the reality we live is hardly a substitute for critical thinking.

I've been extremely interested in my own consciousness for years now, and sometimes I wonder if mysticism was "knowledge" developed directly from drug use. It seems like a lot of people here just embrace the knowledge they feel they've accessed through the use of psychedelics, and then just entirely dismiss everything else that exists in the physical world as illusion, or less real than the psychedelic experience. I think that is a serious problem for an individual, to solely embrace one aspect of life as ultimate truth and then to dismiss everything else.

It dilutes you, it can make many seem gullible, and though you may feel as if the psychological shackles society can impose on you have been removed, it seems as if the psychedelics are beginning to bind your hands behind your back without you even realizing it.

I have metaphysical experiences all the time, they just don't add up to anything once the drug wears off, and that is the problem. It is all too subjective, and it only exists in one's mind, where it should ultimately stay as a personal truth, not spouted off as universal fact. If the scientific method cannot touch these realms of experience, how can one actually embrace them as ultimate truth? I think if a lot of the people here believed the things they claim, they would be out doing way more radical things in this physical reality than they are doing, but it doesn't seem anyone is really doing anything, except taking awesome mind bending drugs which inspire the profound spot in your brain.

sic erat scriptum

What problems did you raise that I didn’t respond to? I may have missed them due to the many intervening posts in this thread. If you don’t mind concisely re-stating them, I’d be glad to address them.

Anyhow, you’ve missed my point by a mile.

I am not suggesting that the primacy of consciousness paradigm or anything like it is “true” or “correct” or can be proven so. What I’m saying is that the primacy of matter paradigm is logically equivalent – it cannot be proven and there is nothing in our experience which suggests it is more likely to be true than any other existential paradigm.

You seem to believe that the primacy of matter paradigm is true, yet you have no evidence that it is. You say we have scientific methods to show that reality exists outside of consciousness, yet – by definition – no human being has ever experienced unconsciousness. No human has ever had the experience of being "outside of consciousness".

As I’ve said before, I don’t necessarily subscribe to the idea that our existence is a dream, but imagining that it is serves a useful purpose with respect to this argument. You claim that there are scientific methods that can prove your existence is not a dream. What are those methods?

I'll make it quick because I need to go sleep now. But you will find everything in posts #55, where you only addressed the room example, and the rest you can find in the post you quoted - where I argue that no assumptions were made with the room example.

I also wrote "All of our semantics aside gibran2, I am not sure that the problem of consciousness will ever be solved, or if it even can be. All the paradoxes seem to meet there, and they put you out for a real spin", so I am not taking any absolute positions either, but I find the primacy of matter more convincing for reasons already presented, and problems associated with the primacy of consciousness paradigm.

I agree that in a strict empirical sense there is no way to confirm either hypothesis, I just think there are better arguments for the primacy of matter than there is for the other. Many of them, as mentioned, have been presented in post #55 and the one you quoted. But I don't know, sometimes on some days I actually slip a little bit over to the other side - much because I have been discussing with you.

Sweet dreams, gibran2 =)

For the sake of argument lets say that someone falls into a wormhole and visits real live million year old aliens from another dimension........

In that highly developed place.. technology would be so far out there would be no way for the person to describe properly what he saw to other PRIMITIVE earthlings.
There especially would be no way for this person to PROVE they saw aliens and alien technology..

But lets say that person did see aliens...and the technology he saw was also real...
There is a chance that that person may have caught a glimpse of something that could send our technology in the right direction...

For example, my DMT trips have revealed to me that "Aliens" do not build spaceships but in fact they grow them.. Aliens create spaceships by using an extremely advanced bio-robotic engineering technology. Of course no way I could prove that I saw it but really who cares?
If I were a scientist, (an open minded one) I would take into consideration the fact that aliens seem to have perfected bio-cyber-engineered technology,

"Hey! they can grow robots!"
this observation might spark my creativity as a scientist...

.Of course I'm not a scientist.. I'm a shaman...my suggestion is that perhaps scientists should listen to some of the far out ideas of shaman a bit more because there is some valuable inspiration there.

---

ALSO, reading this thread made me think..

How can you tell the difference between someone who is genuinely seeking the truth in life compared to someone who simply desires to be right all the time?

That's easy, the person that only desires to be right and does not care about the true nature of existence NEVER changes his or her viewpoint on anything EVER.

Because even the wisest scientist or mystic humbles himself enough to know that they know nothing and could always benefit by learning from others.

Wisdom without proper understanding and compassion to back it up is nothing more than a worthless and tyrannical form of self importance ...

Some times I feel like some people are just short changing the power of observation when they imply that no one could actually see the universe is it actually is,OBJECTIVE..

that is the universe exists totally separate from the SUBJECTIVE interpretation of our perception, all we have to do is side step our perceptual filtering mechanism.

My Saturday night is about to begin, so I too will keep it short for now:

Isn’t it funny that all of the arguments you feel more strongly support the primacy of matter, without existing in your consciousness, wouldn’t – for you at least – exist at all?

I have cleaned the thread of the ad hominen, immature, unconstructive emotional venting posts. I ask you all posting in this thread, specially Citta and ayaya, to read the Attitude page. Before posting, please take a time to reflect WHY you are posting here in the first place, what is it exactly that you want to achieve with the post, and what kind of effects the post can have on the people reading and on the quality of the discussion.


If anybody feels unhappy to have had their posts removed, feel free to contact me, I take the full responsibility.

The first part: the movie Contact puts this into a nice perspective.

The second part: the only thing I will say with 100% certainty is that I don't know anything with 100% certainty.

I never saw the movie contact because someone told me the aliens actually just turn out to be jodie foster's father in the end...

I thought that sounded lame so I never watched it.

Am I missing something? is it a good movie...?

I want to add one thing, just one last thing to this thread before I leave it forever.

If you did not exist, reading this post right now, then it doesn't matter if its mysticism or science because you do not exist. Since you exist, this thread has meaning. I really think its that stupidly simple in the end. Collapse a wave function, no matter how you look at it, if you were not LOOKING AT IT then it wouldn't happen (for you). It's so subtle it slips past your notice but it really could just be that simple in the end...

There are these new Wal-Mart brand, steak flavored, potato chips. As far as matter goes, they're bad-ass! With a little forethought, I can divine their flavor a few hours in advance.


Disclaimer: The above mentioned potato chips are very unhealthy and are probably engineered to kill you. Consult your physician before use.


Science v. Mysticism? -Don't know, but probably related.

Salivation vs. Salvation? -Don't know, but probably related.


Just giving you something to chew on.


Peace.

Oh my – this is long!


Part of the problem here is how you seem to be defining consciousness. Your definition seems to be more in line with “perceptual awareness and related neurological processes”. Relatively unsophisticated robotic sensory systems can be made aware of their surroundings and responsive to them, yet most would agree that such simple mechanical systems are not conscious. The consciousness I’m talking about is a consciousness that, although related in some way to awareness, is not itself awareness. Don’t ask me to define precisely what consciousness is – greater minds than mine, having devoted generations to the problem, are unable to answer that question. It’s much easier to explore what consciousness isn’t rather than to pin down what it is.

The consciousness that neuroscience explores is not the same consciousness that we’re discussing here. Neuroscience investigates states of mind, levels of awareness and responsiveness, reactions to stimuli, etc. This sort of consciousness, if we want to call it that, obviously arises from mechanistic biological processes. But as I said, mechanistic processes, biological or otherwise, do not “produce” the sort of consciousness we are now discussing.

You may consider these types of consciousness to be equivalent. If they are, then you would have to admit that any system capable of responding to its environment is conscious. You would be forced to conclude that thermostats are conscious, that rocks are conscious, and that subatomic particles are conscious. (Panexperientialism)

You make the assumption in your questions that consciousness didn’t exist until beings with awareness existed. If consciousness “created” the universe, how would things be different? Why do you suggest that evolution, the history of the universe, etc. would be different? The primacy of consciousness paradigm claims that consciousness existed before the material universe. Consciousness existed before, and will continue to exist in the absence of, physical beings.

No one can answer where consciousness came from, just as no one can answer what existed physically before the Big Bang. These are mysteries, and they are equivalent mysteries.



We can’t control physical reality with our consciousness because we are physical beings bound by very strict physical laws. As a scientist, I thought you already knew this!

I can’t answer your question regarding how immaterial consciousness creates matter. This is another mystery. But it is a mystery equivalent to how matter was created out of nothing, as claimed by proponents of the primacy of matter paradigm.


Again, the consciousness you are describing is related to neurological processes. This is not the same as the consciousness we’re discussing here. It would be nice if we had distinctive words to describe the two. I agree fully with you that mechanistic “brain consciousness” is a physical process.


Science hasn’t answered the question of how matter – how the physical universe – came into being. There is no scientific evidence or inquiry into “pre-Big Bang existence”.

You can’t reconcile the idea of consciousness creating matter, yet you seem to accept that matter was created out of nothing? (The “nothing” that physicists often talk about isn’t actually nothing. True “nothingness” has no creative potential.)


Once again, confusion over the kind of consciousness we’re discussing.

My claim has never been that everything arises from consciousness. My claim is much simpler: All we know – through direct experience – is that consciousness exists. Consciousness is the only aspect of reality/existence that we are able to directly experience. Everything else is inferred, including the existence of objective reality.


The hypothesis that the brain creates responsive biological systems is compatible with scientific evidence. But there is no evidence that the brain creates the sort of consciousness we’re discussing here. Neither is there evidence that the primacy of consciousness is more likely. However, we can be certain that consciousness exists. As I said before, consciousness is the only aspect of reality/existence that we are able to directly experience. Everything else is inferred, including the existence of objective reality.


If I damage a thermostat so that it no longer properly responds to changes in temperature, does this say anything at all about the nature of consciousness?


Scientists do not investigate the sort of consciousness we are discussing here.


If we accept the primacy of matter paradigm, we have some real problems with respect to consciousness: Materialists acknowledge that atoms are not conscious, individual neurons are not conscious, etc. yet are then forced to claim that consciousness is an “emergent” property. How do scientists explain this? Consciousness of the sort we’re describing doesn’t just pop into existence when a certain level of biological complexity is reached.

I know you’re not a fan of philosophy, but this is ultimately a question that can’t be addressed by science. Science tells us how the physical world works, but doesn’t – and can’t – answer why we’re here in the first place.


I’m sorry, but I think I’ll have to shoot you. I don’t pretend to understand the relationship between matter and consciousness, but it’s quite possible that the material world doesn’t really exist at all. The material world may well be a “state” of consciousness.

Consciousness doesn’t leave a room when people leave a room, especially if rooms and people don’t really exist.

Thanks for your nice reply, gibran2. When you put it all this way, I am persuaded to agree with much of what you say, whilst also understanding better your point of view on this. Many times we have probably been talking above eachothers head on this, I suspect. I might get back to you when I have some time and have thought about it a bit.

Thanks again for your time

Edit; one little question to you gibran2. Do you think it is plausible at all that consciousness could be an epiphenomenon of matter?