(December 20, 2011 at 5:58 pm)Epimethean Wrote: "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."
You can free yourself from that by adopting a bigger set of toys, one of which is admitting that things are even when we are not. Consciousness does not define existence.
A pretty good essay on this subject:
http://www.bigissueground.com/philosophy...orld.shtml
Very well written essay.
I think we're addressing two different ideas here though. The essay refers to fundamental idealism and fundamental realism, while addressing some steps in between the two. Solipsism holds the belief that all things are mentally conceived and that nothing external exists. Physicalism holds the belief that all things are physical and exist without the need of consciousness.
We, on the other hand, are discussing the possibility of existence without consciousness under consideration of a specific instance. If nothing conscious ever existed or came into being - as it is emergent - could things exist? Personally, I've been anesthetized three times, and each time I was not conscious (this also occurs during deep, dreamless sleep). During that time I remembered nothing, felt nothing, heard nothing, saw nothing, smelled nothing. When I awoke hours later it seemed as if it had only been the blink of an eye.
The point of that story is to show that I was not aware of anything. Nothing existed to me during those time periods. It is one thing to consider the idea of a physical, external world when there is more than one conscious being alive. But imagine if, as was stated earlier, consciousness never came into being - as it is emergent. The fact that there would be nothing to experience existence would effectively negate the fact that things existed.
Opinions on that specific instance?
Brevity is the soul of wit.
