I hope you realize the gravity (pun intended) of your own assertions of what must exist (namely that consciousness must be inherently true outside of our ideas of them, since our all observations are made within the framework of consciousness) rhythm. You are supporting my original argument (at least the argument I intended, even if I did so poorly) with such statements. (please note my argument was never about what actually existed but what one necessarily must believe exists to believe objective reality exists). You state observations and therefore consciousness must exist for science to exist, which, if one adds "belief in" before "observations" and "science" in this sentence was basically the conclusion of my argument.
I know you don't want to admit this. And likely won't.
I know you don't want to admit this. And likely won't.
