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.

So just to be clear, you think an electron is conscious in some small way? Or are you saying consciousness exists with or without matter?

Consciousness is the principle within which electrons exist.

Well then sounds like you’re suggesting the universe is consciousness in and of itself as many religions do.

I thought you were talking about panpsychism which at least has potential paths to falsifiability.

Falsifiability? Prove that matter exists before consciousness.

Rocks aren’t conscious.

Rocks have existed longer than brains.

The argument isn’t if rocks have individual consciousness.

The fact is that rocks exist inside consciousness.

Universe-is-a-brain theory, got it.

Trouble is the burden of proof lies with you on that.

Nope. If you want to say anything (matter, rocks) exist before consciousness, you’re going to have to prove it first. Else, you’re insisting on a materialist dogma.

Just because the idea is novel to you personally, doesn’t mean it’s outlandish.

en.wikipedia.org/…/Hard_problem_of_consciousness

No that’s not how science works, there is no evidence that consciousness existed before matter whereas there is plenty that matter existed before consciousness. Your extraordinary claim that it does requires evidence which you haven’t provided.

If you were to provide anything tangible to go on rather than reiterating your point I might consider it further. If not it’s actually yourself pursuing unfounded idealist theories.

It’s not novel to me, I’ve heard other spiritualists spout similar nonsense many times before.

“plenty that matter existed before consciousness”

Prove it. Prove that anything exists outside consciousness right now, that isn’t just an appearance inside consciousness.

“Prove it”

That’s not how science works either. Nothing is 100% proved but we have enough evidence to suggest it is way more likely than your theory:

​There is a massive gap between the origin of the universe and the arrival of anything with a nervous system.

Drugs alter consciousness, as does brain damage. If consciousness was independent of matter this wouldn’t be the case.

If consciousness existed first and could somehow create matter it would violate the Law of Conservation.

You could speculate about anything but without evidence you’re just making up your own form of religion mixed with solipsism.

Everything you’re describing is something that appeared in consciousness and was then put to words, which are not reality, just symbols pointing to an experience inside consciousness.

You’re doing the science sounding equivalent of the Christian “god is real, says so in the bible, and bible was written by god, therefore it’s true”.

Also your education is not too good on the matter if you think I’m saying anything new. This philosophical stance has been around for centuries. I’ve already pointed to idealism.

So you are now just arguing for solipsism which tells us nothing about the universe and is unfalsifiable. Science is what we can agree on as a shared reality, not whatever comes into your head or what someone random wrote down. It’s not dogma, it’s verifiable and if there was enough to evidence to the contrary I’d consider changing my mind.

I don’t think you’re saying anything new, quite the opposite, I’m just saying everything you believe is nonsense as are the scriptures you and other “philosophers” (spiritualists) have been wasting your time on for centuries.

I’m not arguing for solipsism, as I said in my initial post. I’m pointing out that your “shared reality” is only “shared” because consciousness makes it so. Idealism doesn’t deny the external world; it says the “external” is already a construct of mind. Your objection assumes matter is the default, but that’s the very premise in question. Science can’t falsify idealism because it relies on observation, and observation is consciousness in action. You’re using the tools of matter to dismiss what makes tools (and matter) intelligible in the first place.

For your position to make any kind of sense it requires thinking we are part of one shared consciousness that is the universe. There is no evidence for that and worse, it’s unfalsifiable, so just a personal belief.

I got tired of arguing with religious people long ago so I’ll leave you to continue contemplating idealist nonsense which will never help us understand the universe any more than using the term “god” to explain everything.

There is no evidence for that and worse, it’s unfalsifiable, so just a personal belief.

“Please prove to me that God isn’t real by using the Bible”

One day maybe you will understand rationality, evidence and the scientific method but until then enjoy your woo-woo.

“Rationality”

You’re the one who is resorting to just calling everything that doesn’t align with your beliefs “nonsense” and “woo-woo”. That’s about as far as rationality as you can get. You don’t have to like philosophy but then don’t start arguing about it, especially if you don’t know how to recognize logical fallacies in your own arguments.

You clearly don’t even know what a logical fallacy is as your posts are full of them.

You’re asserting consciousness is ontologically prior, so the burden of proof lies with you; however your posts commit several errors: burden‑of‑proof reversal, begging the question / circular reasoning, equivocation (private perception vs intersubjective measurement), category error (treating epistemology as ontology), special pleading / unfalsifiability, straw man of scientific practice, and a false analogy to scripture.

You accuse me of fallacies, but let’s be clear:

Burden-of-proof reversal: You demand I prove consciousness is fundamental while assuming matter is - without proving matter exists outside consciousness. That’s the very circularity I’m highlighting.

Begging the question: Claiming ‘rocks existed before brains’ assumes a materialist timeline, which is the premise in dispute. Your “evidence” is just experience within consciousness.

False analogy: You dismiss idealism as “unfalsifiable woo,” but your own materialist assumptions are equally unfalsifiable.

I’m not reversing the burden; I’m exposing the symmetry: neither of us can prove our starting point without circularity. But I can point to the fact that to say anything about the world, you need consciousness first.

I’m not begging the question; I’m asking you to justify your assumption that matter is independent of observation.

My analogy isn’t false, it’s precise: You’re demanding I disprove your framework using your framework. That’s not logic; it’s a trap.

Feel free to explain how it’s not circular to insist that a challenge to materialism must be proven within materialism.

• Burden‑of‑proof reversal

  “Burden-of-proof reversal: You demand I prove consciousness is fundamental while assuming matter is - without proving matter exists outside consciousness.”
  This restates the original burden shift as a defense: asserting your opponent must prove matter’s independence does not remove your obligation to support your positive claim that consciousness is fundamental.

• Begging the question / Circular reasoning

  “Begging the question: Claiming ‘rocks existed before brains’ assumes a materialist timeline, which is the premise in dispute. Your “evidence” is just experience within consciousness.”
  Treating the disputed premise (that rocks predate minds in an ontologically independent way) as if it were already established is using the conclusion as a premise.

• False analogy / Irrelevant comparison

  “False analogy: You dismiss idealism as “unfalsifiable woo,” but your own materialist assumptions are equally unfalsifiable.”
  Equating the epistemic status of two different positions without showing they are actually comparable in testability or explanatory power is an unsupported analogy.

• Tu quoque / Defensive turn

  “I’m not reversing the burden; I’m exposing the symmetry: neither of us can prove our starting point without circularity.”
  Responding to a charge by claiming the accuser does the same (tu quoque) avoids addressing whether your own move meets evidentiary standards.

• Begging the question (repeated)

  “But I can point to the fact that to say anything about the world, you need consciousness first.”
  Presenting that claim as a settled fact without argument assumes the very point under dispute.

• Equivocation

  “I’m not begging the question; I’m asking you to justify your assumption that matter is independent of observation.”
  The terms independent, observation, and exist are used in shifting senses across the response (epistemic vs ontological), which blurs the argument and makes the charge less precise.

• Appeal to ignorance / Appeal to unfalsifiability

  “False analogy: … your own materialist assumptions are equally unfalsifiable.”
  Treating the absence of a decisive disproof as evidence that two positions are equally warranted is an appeal to ignorance unless you demonstrate comparable evidentiary status.

• Rhetorical trap / Straw‑man implication

  “My analogy isn’t false, it’s precise: You’re demanding I disprove your framework using your framework. That’s not logic; it’s a trap.”
  Labeling the opponent’s method a “trap” without showing how their specific move misapplies logic risks mischaracterizing their argument rather than refuting it.

• Special pleading (implicit)

  “I’m not reversing the burden; I’m exposing the symmetry…” and the overall tone of insisting your standard is the correct one.
  Claiming your position is exempt from the usual requirement to provide independent support while insisting others must disprove theirs functions like special pleading.

Please don’t take this the wrong way. But you are pattern matching what bsit saying to woowoo stuff you’ve heard in the past, but this is causing you to misunderstand what he’s actually saying. So you’re talking past one another.

Why don’t you try to summarize, in your own words, what bsit is trying to say, so we can see clearly where the misunderstanding occurred?

I really don’t see why I’m the one that’s been asked to explain this quackery, my standpoint is the default scientific position.

From what I can tell it’s just poorly worded idealism. They think consciousness can exist without matter (or worse consciousness somehow creates matter) with no proof or reasoning, then just repeating “Prove me wrong.” without addressing any of my counter points.

There are fringe ideas in this space that do merit some thought as other have suggested such as panpsychism and IIT but that is not what this person is floating.

I really don’t see why I’m the one that’s been asked to explain this quackery,

I’m not asking you to explain it, I’m just asking you describe what you think his position is, just so we can make sure that we’re all on the same page.

Well I described it as best I could but to be frank their position was pretty incoherent and changed over the course of the thread in an attempt to avoid scrutiny.

Are we on the same page now?

Are we on the same page now?

Unfortunately I don’t think so.

with no proof or reasoning, then just repeating “Prove me wrong.” without addressing any of my counter points

This is the issue I think. Bsit was making coherent philosophical arguments about the mind’s relationship to matter. As I read it (or she) was saying something along the lines of:

• It doesn’t make sense, conceptually, for consciousness to be a causal result of material processes (S/he linked to the linked to Wikipedia page on the hard problem. The hard problem is a phrase coined by David Chalmers in this now famous and extremely influential paper. It’s well worth a read but basically he identifies the conceptual difficulties associated with the idea that consciousness is a causally necessary consequence of matter.)
• But matter, at least in an epistemic sense, is a consequence of consciousness (You can’t get out of consciousness to experience matter without it; the idea is incoherent. We know consciousness first and foremost, and matter is just an appearance in consciousness. For example, if you are dreaming or hallucinating, there might not be any real matter in sight, but you would still be in touch with your own first person experience, i.e. your own consciousness.)
• So maybe the above-mentioned epistemic dependance is actually an ontological dependance (If you know A and B are always coupled, but you know that A cannot cause B, ie theres an AB hard problem, but B could conceivably cause A, then maybe it makes sense to explore the possibility that B cause A. Thats idealism.)

That is, I think, a charitable interpretation of Bsit’s arguments.

The pattern recognition I was talking about was, basically, you say talk about consciousness that sounded vaguely new-age, and you saw Bsit was saying this isn’t a scientific matter, and you thought, ah, here we have another anti-intellectual crank who must be making some logical errors (at least that’s how it seems, judging by your comments).

But that’s not a fair characterization. Because reason why it’s not a scientific matter is because Bsit is an anti-intellectual, but because he/she is dealing with a metaphysical matter, one that examines the fundamental assumptions of science itself (this is not the same as questioning the scientific method; it is just examining what we take for granted we perform experiments and construct theories etc). Maybe you don’t think we should question these assumptions and so you don’t like metaphysics. That’s fine. But you at least have to admit that the arguments are complex enough to warrant more than a simple dismissal

Well this is a shame as we seemed to be in agreement on the comment thread above. I didn’t even pick you up of the fact that none of the papers you linked were evidence for panpsychism, just exploring where consciousness is located in the brain and potential mathematical frameworks for it.

bsit wasn’t making coherent arguments, they were putting out unfalsifiable theories and then linking things like the Hard Problem of Consciousness which doesn’t support their point, it’s just an ongoing problem yet to be explained by science. You mentioned yourself that one possible way to do this would be via further research into IIT.

I see no paths to evidence for idealism myself and asked for some but received none. So yes, I’m afraid I will dismiss a theory which doesn’t make any predictions and can’t be proved/disproved. Doubly so if the advocate starts comparing my scientific understanding to the Bible then starts abusing logical fallacies.

To address your extremely charitable interpretation… What does matter being an interpretation of consciousness even mean to you? To me it would mean that we are some kind of Boltzmann brain imagining the universe into existence. If that’s the the case then it’s basically solipsism which bsit flat out rejected multiple times.

I didn’t use the word anti-intellectual but if we can’t agree on definitions and the fundamental axioms of a shared reality then we really are in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Well this is a shame as we seemed to be in agreement on the comment thread above.

Hey I’m still all for the good vibes here. We’re still on the same page, I shouldn’t have phrased it like that. I’m just saying that our understanding of what Bsit was saying differs. I would also like to add, for the sake of goodwill, that I’ve really enjoyed chatting with you here.

I didn’t even pick you up of the fact that none of the papers you linked were evidence for panpsychism, just exploring where consciousness is located in the brain and potential mathematical frameworks for it.

I know, I wasn’t trying to provide evidence for panpsychism, I was just trying to show that IIT makes predictions (something that the guy I was talking to was denying).

I see no paths to evidence for idealism myself and asked for some but received none. So yes, I’m afraid I will dismiss a theory which doesn’t make any predictions and can’t be proved/disproved.

This is I think where the fundamental disagreement lies. Bsit was making a philosophical claim, so the apparatus of science doesn’t really work here. We can’t really prove or disprove the idea using experiments, we can only discuss how coherent the idea is. In this sense philosophy is more like math than science.

To address your extremely charitable interpretation… What does matter being an interpretation of consciousness even mean to you? To me it would mean that we are some kind of Boltzmann brain imagining the universe into existence.

I think this is the fundamental issue. It’s easy to miss, but you’re framing of it is still implicitly putting matter first by assuming that, in order for there to be experience, there would need to be Boltzmann brains. But in idealism, everything, even Boltzmann brains, would be happening within consciousness. Consciousness comes first, brains come second (the two happen to be coupled, but even this experience of them being coupled is happening within consciousness). Consciousness is like a giant container that contains everything else within it. Consciousness is like a canvas, and the material world is like the paint on that canvas. We construct stories about how the changes in the brain cause changes in consciousness, and those stories are true (there are clear correlations here), but they themselves are happening on the canvas.

A good way to think of this is like 3D space, or extension. Except for a point, every shape is within space (ie it has length, width, height). and is within space. It doesn’t make sense to ask which of the shapes cause space (is it the spheres? the trapezoids?), or which shapes come before space (maybe its the cubes), because shapes by necessity cannot exist unless they are immersed in space. In the same way, under idealism it wouldn’t make sense to think about Boltzmann brains (or any kind of brains) causing experience; that would be like asking which shapes cause space. Instead, consciousness is just the dimension brains and all other physical objects exist within. They cannot exist without objects in the same way that shapes cannot exist without three-dimensional space.

This is I think where the fundamental disagreement lies. Bsit was making a philosophical claim, so the apparatus of science doesn’t really work here. We can’t really prove or disprove the idea using experiments, we can only discuss how coherent the idea is. In this sense philosophy is more like math than science.

And this is why I mentioned it feels like a waste of time. Anyone can claim anything which can’t be proved or disproved so what’s the point in discussing it? I could come up with any old nonsense about the origins of the universe as many religions have done in the past and we could argue for centuries about it getting nowhere.

Consciousness is like a giant container that contains everything else within it. Consciousness is like a canvas, and the material world is like the paint on that canvas. We construct stories about how the changes in the brain cause changes in consciousness, and those stories are true (there are clear correlations here), but they themselves are happening on the canvas.

So I addressed this in an admittedly rather tongue-in-cheek way with my universe-is-a-brain comment. You are stretching the definition consciousness to mean the universe itself, widening an already poorly defined concept in order to fit the idealist theory.

When most people say “consciousness,” they mean the subjective inner experience of a biological organism which simply doesn’t fit your definition.

If we replace the term “consciousness” with “the universe” in bsit’s very first sentence it makes a lot more sense, but it’s also not controversial in the slightest: “The universe is fundamental to reality.”

And this is why I mentioned it feels like a waste of time. Anyone can claim anything which can’t be proved or disproved so what’s the point in discussing it? I could come up with any old nonsense about the origins of the universe as many religions have done in the past and we could argue for centuries about it getting nowhere.

This again comes back to the pattern matching I was talking about. You associate something not being science with it being some psudoscientific nonesense. But that’s not always the case. Think of math: math is not science. There are no experiments you can conduct to prove that 10 x 10 is 100, for example; that’s just something you have to reason through yourself. Does that mean math is a crock of shit? Clearly not.

Philosophy is also like this. It’s not science, but it’s more rigorous then some woowoo speculations. Because philosophy is not just coming up with random ideas and speculations; it is a practice in testing the logical coherence of ideas. When I said that it was more like math than science in that sense, I wasn’t joking. Professional philosophers often use a specific type of algebra to manipulate ideas symbolically, allowing them to formally tease out their logical implications. We don’t need to go that far, but you get the picture. There are a lot of constraints you have to work with in order for ideas to succeed in this domain.

Even if you don’t like doing philosophy, you’ll have to do it implicitly. This was one of the points Bsit was making. Assuming a materialist worldview is taking a philosophical stance on the nature of the world. It is a mistake to treat materialism is a scientific theory; it isn’t. Think of it: what’s an experiment you could do to decide between materialism and idealism? It sounds quite plausible that no such experiment exists.

So then why do many people associate materialism with scientific thinking? Because it is a background assumption of science. And background assumptions like this are the domain of philosophy. If you don’t want to question these background assumptions, then fine. But just know that unquestioned assumptions are often a dangerous thing, especially at the foundational level. We don’t want to be building up from a shaky foundation.

So I addressed this in an admittedly rather tongue-in-cheek way with my universe-is-a-brain comment. You are stretching the definition consciousness to mean the universe itself, widening an already poorly defined concept in order to fit the idealist theory.

I am not stretching the definition, and I’m not saying it’s the universe itself.

When most people say “consciousness,” they mean the subjective inner experience of a biological organism which simply doesn’t fit your definition.

Even in idealism it is still a subjective inner experience. Except when you have a subjective inner experience of a biological organism that is how the organism exists. It is not the organism that gives rise to the experience, but the experience that gives rise to the organism. In idealism, consciousness and all of your other definitions are left intact, except the order of operations is reversed like this.

It might be helpful to think of this in terms of perception. What comes first: your consciousness, or your perception of the colour red? Well, your consciousness comes first, because your perception is a state of consciousness. In idealism, it would be like this not just for your perception of a thing, but for the thing itself. So, say a crowd has the perception of a big rock. The rock would exist because the crowd is there to have that perception or the potential for that perception.

You might think this makes no sense because the organism, a physical object, comes first, before the perception. So clearly physical objects cause these perceptions? But idealism would reject that claim. Because it would reverse the order of operations, as discussed above: an organism, even your own body, is just another object that in perception, so that organism exists due to those perceptions.

Note that this is not the same thing as solipsism. Idealism is not saying your personal, individual perceptions are causing the world into existence. Assuming a nontheistic reading of idealism, it would instead be the collective perceptions of many agents working in unison that bring the world into existence.

I hope that makes sense.