Everything you’re describing is something that appeared in consciousness and was then put to words, which are not reality, just symbols pointing to an experience inside consciousness.
You’re doing the science sounding equivalent of the Christian “god is real, says so in the bible, and bible was written by god, therefore it’s true”.
Also your education is not too good on the matter if you think I’m saying anything new. This philosophical stance has been around for centuries. I’ve already pointed to idealism.
So you are now just arguing for solipsism which tells us nothing about the universe and is unfalsifiable. Science is what we can agree on as a shared reality, not whatever comes into your head or what someone random wrote down. It’s not dogma, it’s verifiable and if there was enough to evidence to the contrary I’d consider changing my mind.
I don’t think you’re saying anything new, quite the opposite, I’m just saying everything you believe is nonsense as are the scriptures you and other “philosophers” (spiritualists) have been wasting your time on for centuries.
I’m not arguing for solipsism, as I said in my initial post. I’m pointing out that your “shared reality” is only “shared” because consciousness makes it so. Idealism doesn’t deny the external world; it says the “external” is already a construct of mind. Your objection assumes matter is the default, but that’s the very premise in question. Science can’t falsify idealism because it relies on observation, and observation is consciousness in action. You’re using the tools of matter to dismiss what makes tools (and matter) intelligible in the first place.
For your position to make any kind of sense it requires thinking we are part of one shared consciousness that is the universe. There is no evidence for that and worse, it’s unfalsifiable, so just a personal belief.
I got tired of arguing with religious people long ago so I’ll leave you to continue contemplating idealist nonsense which will never help us understand the universe any more than using the term “god” to explain everything.
You’re the one who is resorting to just calling everything that doesn’t align with your beliefs “nonsense” and “woo-woo”. That’s about as far as rationality as you can get. You don’t have to like philosophy but then don’t start arguing about it, especially if you don’t know how to recognize logical fallacies in your own arguments.
You clearly don’t even know what a logical fallacy is as your posts are full of them.
You’re asserting consciousness is ontologically prior, so the burden of proof lies with you; however your posts commit several errors: burden‑of‑proof reversal, begging the question / circular reasoning, equivocation (private perception vs intersubjective measurement), category error (treating epistemology as ontology), special pleading / unfalsifiability, straw man of scientific practice, and a false analogy to scripture.
Burden-of-proof reversal: You demand I prove consciousness is fundamental while assuming matter is - without proving matter exists outside consciousness. That’s the very circularity I’m highlighting.
Begging the question: Claiming ‘rocks existed before brains’ assumes a materialist timeline, which is the premise in dispute. Your “evidence” is just experience within consciousness.
False analogy: You dismiss idealism as “unfalsifiable woo,” but your own materialist assumptions are equally unfalsifiable.
I’m not reversing the burden; I’m exposing the symmetry: neither of us can prove our starting point without circularity. But I can point to the fact that to say anything about the world, you need consciousness first.
I’m not begging the question; I’m asking you to justify your assumption that matter is independent of observation.
My analogy isn’t false, it’s precise: You’re demanding I disprove your framework using your framework. That’s not logic; it’s a trap.
Feel free to explain how it’s not circular to insist that a challenge to materialism must be proven within materialism.
Everything you’re describing is something that appeared in consciousness and was then put to words, which are not reality, just symbols pointing to an experience inside consciousness.
You’re doing the science sounding equivalent of the Christian “god is real, says so in the bible, and bible was written by god, therefore it’s true”.
Also your education is not too good on the matter if you think I’m saying anything new. This philosophical stance has been around for centuries. I’ve already pointed to idealism.
So you are now just arguing for solipsism which tells us nothing about the universe and is unfalsifiable. Science is what we can agree on as a shared reality, not whatever comes into your head or what someone random wrote down. It’s not dogma, it’s verifiable and if there was enough to evidence to the contrary I’d consider changing my mind.
I don’t think you’re saying anything new, quite the opposite, I’m just saying everything you believe is nonsense as are the scriptures you and other “philosophers” (spiritualists) have been wasting your time on for centuries.
I’m not arguing for solipsism, as I said in my initial post. I’m pointing out that your “shared reality” is only “shared” because consciousness makes it so. Idealism doesn’t deny the external world; it says the “external” is already a construct of mind. Your objection assumes matter is the default, but that’s the very premise in question. Science can’t falsify idealism because it relies on observation, and observation is consciousness in action. You’re using the tools of matter to dismiss what makes tools (and matter) intelligible in the first place.
For your position to make any kind of sense it requires thinking we are part of one shared consciousness that is the universe. There is no evidence for that and worse, it’s unfalsifiable, so just a personal belief.
I got tired of arguing with religious people long ago so I’ll leave you to continue contemplating idealist nonsense which will never help us understand the universe any more than using the term “god” to explain everything.
“Please prove to me that God isn’t real by using the Bible”
One day maybe you will understand rationality, evidence and the scientific method but until then enjoy your woo-woo.
“Rationality”
You’re the one who is resorting to just calling everything that doesn’t align with your beliefs “nonsense” and “woo-woo”. That’s about as far as rationality as you can get. You don’t have to like philosophy but then don’t start arguing about it, especially if you don’t know how to recognize logical fallacies in your own arguments.
You clearly don’t even know what a logical fallacy is as your posts are full of them.
You’re asserting consciousness is ontologically prior, so the burden of proof lies with you; however your posts commit several errors: burden‑of‑proof reversal, begging the question / circular reasoning, equivocation (private perception vs intersubjective measurement), category error (treating epistemology as ontology), special pleading / unfalsifiability, straw man of scientific practice, and a false analogy to scripture.
You accuse me of fallacies, but let’s be clear:
Burden-of-proof reversal: You demand I prove consciousness is fundamental while assuming matter is - without proving matter exists outside consciousness. That’s the very circularity I’m highlighting.
Begging the question: Claiming ‘rocks existed before brains’ assumes a materialist timeline, which is the premise in dispute. Your “evidence” is just experience within consciousness.
False analogy: You dismiss idealism as “unfalsifiable woo,” but your own materialist assumptions are equally unfalsifiable.
I’m not reversing the burden; I’m exposing the symmetry: neither of us can prove our starting point without circularity. But I can point to the fact that to say anything about the world, you need consciousness first.
I’m not begging the question; I’m asking you to justify your assumption that matter is independent of observation.
My analogy isn’t false, it’s precise: You’re demanding I disprove your framework using your framework. That’s not logic; it’s a trap.
Feel free to explain how it’s not circular to insist that a challenge to materialism must be proven within materialism.