Ask Lemmy

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."