We can agree to disagree on the former of what you replied. But I'm honestly completely fascinated with this conversation.
I guess I subscribe to ontology and epistemology as my mind set. As a philosopher, it is sometimes hard for me to get out of this mindset, but i'm always open to hear others.
Let's assume that things can exist without consciousness, and that consciousness is an emergent property of that which is. If consciousness never emerges then how can the existence of anything be proven?
I'm not arguing that this proof isn't subjective based upon consciousness. But I would rather take the stance of something which I can conclude, as opposed to something which is a toss up of personal preference. I can say that if consciousness is then it follows that existence is determined by consciousness. However, if consciousness is emergent then I could make any claim and say it's true, simply because I said so.
Once again, I support a ontological and epidemiological mindset when approaching the topic. It is true that just because someone is deaf doesn't mean sound does not exist. In that case, sound is completely subjective based upon that person's perception of the world. However, if ears, or hearing mechanisms, never existed then sound - that which is heard - never existed.
Personally, I want to think the way you do. It would allow for alternative dimensions, other universes, abstract thoughts, etc. Unfortunately I am confined to my world of subjectivity based upon my consciousness.
(December 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm)Darwinning Wrote:(December 20, 2011 at 2:29 pm)Perhaps Wrote: It is the only thing which, essentially, 'allows' the universe to exist. For what is existence if there is nothing to observe it being in existence?
Does a bear shit in the woods?
This seems like a self-centered "the universe only exists because I see it" argument to me. Also, essentially idealism. Which is fine, if that is what you believe.
I guess I subscribe to ontology and epistemology as my mind set. As a philosopher, it is sometimes hard for me to get out of this mindset, but i'm always open to hear others.
Let's assume that things can exist without consciousness, and that consciousness is an emergent property of that which is. If consciousness never emerges then how can the existence of anything be proven?
I'm not arguing that this proof isn't subjective based upon consciousness. But I would rather take the stance of something which I can conclude, as opposed to something which is a toss up of personal preference. I can say that if consciousness is then it follows that existence is determined by consciousness. However, if consciousness is emergent then I could make any claim and say it's true, simply because I said so.
(December 20, 2011 at 5:36 pm)Darwinning Wrote:(December 20, 2011 at 4:10 pm)Perhaps Wrote: Without the conscious mind, what exists? Existence is ontological which necessitates a mind or thought. You couldn't even presume that physicality or naturalism was true without consciousness.
Without ears, you could not listen. That would not mean there is no sound.
Once again, I support a ontological and epidemiological mindset when approaching the topic. It is true that just because someone is deaf doesn't mean sound does not exist. In that case, sound is completely subjective based upon that person's perception of the world. However, if ears, or hearing mechanisms, never existed then sound - that which is heard - never existed.
Personally, I want to think the way you do. It would allow for alternative dimensions, other universes, abstract thoughts, etc. Unfortunately I am confined to my world of subjectivity based upon my consciousness.
Brevity is the soul of wit.
