I think where you are getting tripped up Norfolk is the fact that you are of the opinion that physical objects prove their own existence since we observe them as being real in the physical world. The argument then turns on whether or not the self actually exists which you claim is evidenced by the fact that you are able to perceive feelings and physical things.
What my argument is is that in order for any of the physical objects we observe or our feelings to be trusted as actually existing we must have implicit trust in the accuracy and truth of our consciousness.
For that to be the case we must believe that consciousness is inherent to the universe; that consciousness has always existed and observes all things at all times.
If this were not the case then there would be no basis to believe our observations true outside of subjective perception.
Here is where my mind has travelled from this point... I have a more complete argument on another computer but it's out
In order for consciousness to prove it's own existence (at least as far as humans can understand how things can be proven outside of pure thought) it would need to manifest itself physically (the physical universe).
What my argument is is that in order for any of the physical objects we observe or our feelings to be trusted as actually existing we must have implicit trust in the accuracy and truth of our consciousness.
For that to be the case we must believe that consciousness is inherent to the universe; that consciousness has always existed and observes all things at all times.
If this were not the case then there would be no basis to believe our observations true outside of subjective perception.
Here is where my mind has travelled from this point... I have a more complete argument on another computer but it's out
In order for consciousness to prove it's own existence (at least as far as humans can understand how things can be proven outside of pure thought) it would need to manifest itself physically (the physical universe).
