Consciousness is fundamental to reality. Science-based thinking (but not science itself) has put matter as the fundamental element but actually has never been able to prove it. To be able to prove that matter gives rise to consciousness, you’d have to step out of consciousness and point to matter. Which you cannot do. Not talking about individual consciousness where you can just point at someone’s brain: that experience of pointing at someone’s brain is happening inside consciousness, how else would you know about it.

Not to be confused with Solipsism, that’s the thinking mind. I’m talking about Idealism, the raw state of pure experience before thought.

Science-based thinking has put matter as the fundamental element but actually has never been able to prove it.

The scientific method has never proved anything ever. It just fails to disprove, and the theory gets stronger every single time.

I would posit that you (and Plato) are just wildly defining undisprovable concepts that serve no purpose and can neither be proven nor disproven. Which makes your hypothesis more like a religion.

Scientific thought demands proof of consciousness using matter as the base assumption, yet matter itself is only ever observed through consciousness. It’s a circular trap: the method assumes what it’s supposed to prove.

Scientific thought demands proof of consciousness using matter as the base assumption

Would it? I’d say that would depend on the theory being defended at the moment. Which one are you talking about, and how does it define consciousness?

I don’t need to defend the idea with the ideas of a system that hasn’t first proven itself.

To say anything about the world, you blatantly obviously need consciousness first. That’s the status quo. The burden of proof is on materialists.

I already gave definitions in my first post.

To say anything about the world, you blatantly obviously need consciousness first. That’s the status quo. The burden of proof is on materialists.

Burden of proof for what? That you need a brain to make observations of the world? That’s not a hard claim to support.

You, however, seem to assert some form of magical super-consciousness that seems utterly undisprovable

What would you know about brains if not for consciousness?

Ohhhhhh, its solipsism in a trenchcoat.

Indeed, I can’t solve the problem of hard solipsism, but neither can you. I can only say that we’ve made a pretty successful run at things by just assuming we all share an objective reality.

And if that reality doesn’t exist outside my brain, I’m a pretty fucking impressively smart girl, with some really fucked up issues.