(August 17, 2014 at 4:53 am)Michael Wrote: As a scientist I think most often using a materialistic framework, especially regarding anything biological. So the position of 'consciousness is a product of matter' is almost axiomatic in biological pursuit.
And yet, I have to say, I find the opposite argument, the philosophy of idealism, equally compelling, that what we call matter is a product of consciousness; matter only has any meaning within consciousness.
But while I am well versed, experienced, and trained, in the methods of the materialist, I am almost completely unskilled as an idealist. I perhaps just catch glimpses of truth about which the idealist has a much greater depth of understanding.
I'd like to think there is benefit to understanding in exploring both paths: consciousness from a naturalistic philosophy, and naturalism from an idealist philosophy. I'm not convinced that they must necessarily be mutually exclusive; I suspect that they may be complementary.
So what of the universe for the 13,7 billion years before out consciousness appeared? "Matter a product of consciousness" is an incoherent concept.
Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
Science is not a subject, but a method.