Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
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.
This is actually an implication on one of the worlds leading theory of consciousness, Integrated Information Theory. It gives a mathematical measure of consciousness (as integrated information) and one of the surprising implications of that is that theres actually no matter that has zero integrated information. If we use this metric to measure human consciousness the implication is that a rock, say, has a small amount of consciousness.
Of course this theory is not without its issues, and I don’t personally subscribe to it, but I think it goes to show you that we all need to be more open minded to alternative possibilities to the typical “consciousness is just neurons firing” view. We don’t actually understand consciousness well enough to be jumping to that conclusion yet.
Yeah, I haven't looked into that one. Just read old philosophy and also a bit on analytic idealism from Bernardo Kastrup
https://philarchive.org/rec/KASAIA-3
It's gaining a bit of mainstream recognition but... A lot of cultural baggage resists it.
Yeah I feel you on that one. People who haven’t looked into this topic think that you have to think that consciousness is nothing more than neural firings or youre some sort of religious apologist, even though when you actually look into what researchers in this field are saying they are in large part skeptical of that viewpoint
Unfortunately they're not talking about IIT.
So more/less controversial depending on your views on mysticism I suppose.
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.
I wouldn’t be so dismissive. This is a very active area of research, and sometimes philosophical ideas like this can be the launchpad from which new scientific theories can be constructed.
An example of this is panpsychism (the idea that all matter has some level of consciousness). Many consider this a woo-woo theory. But now we have Integrated Information Theory, which is probably the most popular theory of consciousness right now. And it is a panpsychist theory: if its mathematical measure of consciousness is correct, then all matter would have some nonzero level of consciousness.
Now, I don’t subscribe to this theory, but thats not the point. My point is that with immature fields of research like this, we have to tolerate philosophical speculations (we have to start from somewhere, right?). So though you may not like these speculations right now, there is a really real chance they may the groundwork for an innovative scientific theory.
So let’s not immediately shut down these ideas by labelling them as “religion”. Lets give these ideas room to breathe, grow and mature, because thats how we make progress when we’re just starting out.
Well, like with all ~~religions~~ speculative fields with zero evidence back it, I'll consider it further when they present some empirically testable claims. Right now, it rests on the same level as "The rock-god Unk-Amun who lies in backyard created the universe via timetravel, which can be shown by the number of atoms in Unk-Amun".
Or possibly "The number of peas on my dinnerplate shows the level of my household's Runath". What is Runath? Well, it's obviously the thing that's measured by the number of peas on my dinnerplate.
That does not speak in it's favor.
If you want to be that guy who dismisses the most well respected theory from a field you know nothing about, then okay. Just know that this makes you sound very stupid.
It's an untestable "theory" that has no predictive power and explains nothing. It could be entirely true or entirely false and it would make no difference. It's literally useless.
This is false, it makes a number of concrete predictions and the theory is mathematically precise.
🪨🧠🙏 Unk-Amun 🙏🧠🪨
I mean, he doesn't demand worship, but you will get an extra burger during grilling if you say a prayer.
🙌 O' mighty Unk-Amun, may you forever bestow double burgers alongside our Runath. 🙌
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.
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.
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.
It's not solipsism, as I specifically said in my first post. It's idealism. There's a significant difference. I suggest you read on it before throwing around terms.
You'd have to prove all matter has consciousness for this right? Rocks, the sun, hydrogen atoms. We have evidence for the existence of reality before life but not the other way around.
No.
All of those things exist inside A consciousness.
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?
Or rather, nothing exists until it is perceived?
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_problem_of_consciousness
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism
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:
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.
"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
Begging the question / Circular reasoning
False analogy / Irrelevant comparison
Tu quoque / Defensive turn
Begging the question (repeated)
Equivocation
Appeal to ignorance / Appeal to unfalsifiability
Rhetorical trap / Straw‑man implication
Special pleading (implicit)