It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
... And we invent such theories so that we can keep intact the belief that matter is something that really exists and is independent from mental experience.. ...
originally posted by: Nothin
a reply to: gosseyn
Thanks for creating this OP.
... And we invent such theories so that we can keep intact the belief that matter is something that really exists and is independent from mental experience.. ...
Are you aware of any theories that we haven't invented ?
Perhaps it's like a massive improv, and we're just making 'everything' up as we go ?
originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: gosseyn
Consciousness is a given
Is it really?. Or is it merely one more example of this, ''that the only evidence that we have to prove the existence of this consciousness is our perception
originally posted by: TzarChasm
In order for this ideology to hold any weight, you would have to demonstrate that consciousness preceded matter. In other words, the universe was thinking before the universe physically existed.
originally posted by: gosseyn
originally posted by: TzarChasm
In order for this ideology to hold any weight, you would have to demonstrate that consciousness preceded matter. In other words, the universe was thinking before the universe physically existed.
Consciousness always precedes what is called matter, because without mental experience, there is just nothing. For idealism, there isn't mind on one side and matter on the other, but there is just one ontological category, which is mind, or mental experience, or consciousness, call it as you want. The burden of proof is on materialism to explain how the presumed ontological category that is matter gives rise to another ontological category that is mind. Materialism must explain how electrochemical activity in the brain gives rise to the experience of the red color or the taste of chocolate. On the other hand, idealism doesn't have this problem because it postulates that everything is mind.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: gosseyn
originally posted by: TzarChasm
In order for this ideology to hold any weight, you would have to demonstrate that consciousness preceded matter. In other words, the universe was thinking before the universe physically existed.
Consciousness always precedes what is called matter, because without mental experience, there is just nothing. For idealism, there isn't mind on one side and matter on the other, but there is just one ontological category, which is mind, or mental experience, or consciousness, call it as you want. The burden of proof is on materialism to explain how the presumed ontological category that is matter gives rise to another ontological category that is mind. Materialism must explain how electrochemical activity in the brain gives rise to the experience of the red color or the taste of chocolate. On the other hand, idealism doesn't have this problem because it postulates that everything is mind.
I said you have to demonstrate it. Talking about it isn't demonstration.
originally posted by: gosseyn
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: gosseyn
originally posted by: TzarChasm
In order for this ideology to hold any weight, you would have to demonstrate that consciousness preceded matter. In other words, the universe was thinking before the universe physically existed.
Consciousness always precedes what is called matter, because without mental experience, there is just nothing. For idealism, there isn't mind on one side and matter on the other, but there is just one ontological category, which is mind, or mental experience, or consciousness, call it as you want. The burden of proof is on materialism to explain how the presumed ontological category that is matter gives rise to another ontological category that is mind. Materialism must explain how electrochemical activity in the brain gives rise to the experience of the red color or the taste of chocolate. On the other hand, idealism doesn't have this problem because it postulates that everything is mind.
I said you have to demonstrate it. Talking about it isn't demonstration.
I don't think you understand the discussion.
The current dominating metaphysical belief is that beyond our perceptions, there is something that we call matter, even though the only evidence that we have to prove the existence of this matter is our perception.