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.
“Burden-of-proof reversal: You demand I prove consciousness is fundamental while assuming matter is - without proving matter exists outside consciousness.”
This restates the original burden shift as a defense: asserting your opponent must prove matter’s independence does not remove your obligation to support your positive claim that consciousness is fundamental.
Begging the question / Circular reasoning
“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.”
Treating the disputed premise (that rocks predate minds in an ontologically independent way) as if it were already established is using the conclusion as a premise.
False analogy / Irrelevant comparison
“False analogy: You dismiss idealism as “unfalsifiable woo,” but your own materialist assumptions are equally unfalsifiable.”
Equating the epistemic status of two different positions without showing they are actually comparable in testability or explanatory power is an unsupported analogy.
Tu quoque / Defensive turn
“I’m not reversing the burden; I’m exposing the symmetry: neither of us can prove our starting point without circularity.”
Responding to a charge by claiming the accuser does the same (tu quoque) avoids addressing whether your own move meets evidentiary standards.
Begging the question (repeated)
“But I can point to the fact that to say anything about the world, you need consciousness first.”
Presenting that claim as a settled fact without argument assumes the very point under dispute.
Equivocation
“I’m not begging the question; I’m asking you to justify your assumption that matter is independent of observation.”
The terms independent, observation, and exist are used in shifting senses across the response (epistemic vs ontological), which blurs the argument and makes the charge less precise.
Appeal to ignorance / Appeal to unfalsifiability
“False analogy: … your own materialist assumptions are equally unfalsifiable.”
Treating the absence of a decisive disproof as evidence that two positions are equally warranted is an appeal to ignorance unless you demonstrate comparable evidentiary status.
Rhetorical trap / Straw‑man implication
“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.”
Labeling the opponent’s method a “trap” without showing how their specific move misapplies logic risks mischaracterizing their argument rather than refuting it.
Special pleading (implicit)
“I’m not reversing the burden; I’m exposing the symmetry…” and the overall tone of insisting your standard is the correct one.
Claiming your position is exempt from the usual requirement to provide independent support while insisting others must disprove theirs functions like special pleading.
Please don’t take this the wrong way. But you are pattern matching what bsit saying to woowoo stuff you’ve heard in the past, but this is causing you to misunderstand what he’s actually saying. So you’re talking past one another.
Why don’t you try to summarize, in your own words, what bsit is trying to say, so we can see clearly where the misunderstanding occurred?
Burden‑of‑proof reversal - >support your positive claim that consciousness is fundamental.
Begging the question / Circular reasoning - Presenting that claim as a settled fact without argument assumes the very point under dispute.
I did offer support, several times. Just because you keep skipping over it doesn’t mean I didn’t. My support is: to say anything about the world, you have to be conscious first. Feel free to refute the fact. Once you do, I’ll respond.
I’m presenting an axiom. Every “proof” you offer for matter is itself an experience appearing within consciousness. I’m not assuming the conclusion; I’m highlighting the only medium through which “evidence” is even possible.
False analogy / Irrelevant comparison
Materialism and Idealism are equally “unfalsifiable” at the foundational level. Science measures the behavior of things (phenomena), but it cannot prove the nature of the “thing-in-itself” (noumena) exists without a witness.
Tu quoque / Defensive turn
It is not a fallacy to point out that you’re guilty of the very “unfounded belief” you accuse me of. It is a valid critique of Scientism (the mistaken belief that the scientific method can solve metaphysical questions)
Equivocation
I’m not “blurring” terms; I’m defining them more precisely. For an Idealist, “to exist” is synonymous with “to be experienced”. You are assuming a secondary, unobservable definition of “existence” outside of experience.
Appeal to ignorance / Appeal to unfalsifiability
Materialism relies on indirect inference. Every “fact” about matter is an appearance within consciousness. Not only that, it’s a thing filtered through language. Idealism relies on direct evidence: the immediate, undeniable fact of experience itself (before labels, words, concepts, map-to-the-territory)
There is zero evidence for matter existing independently of an observer. To claim that matter exists when no one is experiencing it is an unfalsifiable leap of faith, not a scientific “fact”.
Rhetorical trap / Straw‑man implication - Labeling the opponent’s method a “trap” without showing how their specific move misapplies logic risks mischaracterizing their argument rather than refuting it.
I did explain, but well… you don’t read. You just want to prove yourself right.
Special pleading - Claiming your position is exempt from the usual requirement to provide independent support while insisting others must disprove theirs functions like special pleading.
I’m pointing at the Hard Problem of Consciousness. It is actually “special pleading” to claim matter is the only thing that doesn’t need a witness to be “real”.
Consciousness isn’t just the starting line, it’s the entire field. Without it, there’s no game, no players, no ‘matter.’ You’re arguing about the rules of a game while standing on the field and pretending the field doesn’t exist. Matter is the “Guess”: You only assume physical things (like rocks or brains) exist “out there” because your awareness shows them to you as images, sounds, or feelings. In short: You don’t have to prove you are aware, but you do have to prove that the “outside world” exists when you aren’t looking at it
Just in case there’s someone else reading this at this point and is actually interested, go read these (because the person I’m responding to won’t and there’s little point in continuing to argue with someone like that):
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.
Burden‑of‑proof reversal
Begging the question / Circular reasoning
False analogy / Irrelevant comparison
Tu quoque / Defensive turn
Begging the question (repeated)
Equivocation
Appeal to ignorance / Appeal to unfalsifiability
Rhetorical trap / Straw‑man implication
Special pleading (implicit)
Please don’t take this the wrong way. But you are pattern matching what bsit saying to woowoo stuff you’ve heard in the past, but this is causing you to misunderstand what he’s actually saying. So you’re talking past one another.
Why don’t you try to summarize, in your own words, what bsit is trying to say, so we can see clearly where the misunderstanding occurred?
I did offer support, several times. Just because you keep skipping over it doesn’t mean I didn’t. My support is: to say anything about the world, you have to be conscious first. Feel free to refute the fact. Once you do, I’ll respond.
I’m presenting an axiom. Every “proof” you offer for matter is itself an experience appearing within consciousness. I’m not assuming the conclusion; I’m highlighting the only medium through which “evidence” is even possible.
Materialism and Idealism are equally “unfalsifiable” at the foundational level. Science measures the behavior of things (phenomena), but it cannot prove the nature of the “thing-in-itself” (noumena) exists without a witness.
It is not a fallacy to point out that you’re guilty of the very “unfounded belief” you accuse me of. It is a valid critique of Scientism (the mistaken belief that the scientific method can solve metaphysical questions)
I’m not “blurring” terms; I’m defining them more precisely. For an Idealist, “to exist” is synonymous with “to be experienced”. You are assuming a secondary, unobservable definition of “existence” outside of experience.
Materialism relies on indirect inference. Every “fact” about matter is an appearance within consciousness. Not only that, it’s a thing filtered through language. Idealism relies on direct evidence: the immediate, undeniable fact of experience itself (before labels, words, concepts, map-to-the-territory) There is zero evidence for matter existing independently of an observer. To claim that matter exists when no one is experiencing it is an unfalsifiable leap of faith, not a scientific “fact”.
I did explain, but well… you don’t read. You just want to prove yourself right.
I’m pointing at the Hard Problem of Consciousness. It is actually “special pleading” to claim matter is the only thing that doesn’t need a witness to be “real”.
Consciousness isn’t just the starting line, it’s the entire field. Without it, there’s no game, no players, no ‘matter.’ You’re arguing about the rules of a game while standing on the field and pretending the field doesn’t exist. Matter is the “Guess”: You only assume physical things (like rocks or brains) exist “out there” because your awareness shows them to you as images, sounds, or feelings. In short: You don’t have to prove you are aware, but you do have to prove that the “outside world” exists when you aren’t looking at it
Just in case there’s someone else reading this at this point and is actually interested, go read these (because the person I’m responding to won’t and there’s little point in continuing to argue with someone like that):
https://philarchive.org/rec/KASAIA-3 Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology, Bernardo Kastrup
This is a recent philosophical look into Idealism
Some useful wikipedia links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind–body_dualism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map–territory_relation