Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Larehip
Using this logic, I could say that energy is created from the object when the object is created and when that object is destroyed, energy is also destroyed. Is that true? No. Energy is always conserved meaning it cannot be created or destroyed. There is no reason to assume the same would not be true of consciousness.
|
Yes, there is, because all evidence points to consciousness as being the consequence of interactions taking place in a brain. Without an organ, or possibly something else, to facilitate such interactions, no consciousness can arise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Larehip
Science has a split personality that way. It holds a materialist view in that matter is the fundamental building block of the universe and that consciousness arises from it (i.e. consciousness is epiphenomenal). I disagree, I say that consciousness is the fundamental building block of the universe and that matter is epiphenomenal (the idealist view although there are a variety of idealist philosophies that do not agree).
|
That is a pretty wild assumption to make, I think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord Larehip
Yet quantum mechanics, the very basis of modern physics has already yielded a number of scientifically verified findings that disputes if not disproves the materialist view.
One of the most startling is the discovery that particles are really waves and that it is, in fact, consciousness that collapses this wave function to a localized area in space-time--what we perceive as a particle. Without consciousness, this reality would not exist but in potentia.
|
This is how far I got into your post before I met another statement and assumption. How do you know wave function collapses only happen as a result of consciousness?
I have heard that it is actually possible to know that they do take place in the absence of an observer, but exactly why I can't remember. I may look it up. Quantum physics are very difficult and I'm sure most quantum physicists will agree. As a result, one should be careful when using it as a basis to construct one's world view. This is difficult pioneer science. Are you sure you understand it all correctly? As Richard Feynman said, "if you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".
From the general principle of occam's razor, one should accept that the universe is not generated from our consciousness alone. The alternative raises too many difficult questions. For instance, if everything is generated by our consciousness, why then this illusion of cause and consequence going way back to a time when seemingly there was no consciousness? Why do we dream up evolution? Why don't we know everything about the universe? How was the universe created? Why does the universe, or we as we create it, trick ourselves, for example by leaving dinosaur fossils for us to find?
Furthermore, following your line of thinking, it seems that pursuit of knowledge about material things seem futile. Yet for all we know, cause and consequence do seem to affect us in predictable ways. Dinosaurs seem to have lived, f.ex you can have a sensation of looking at a fossil or touching an old bone. And if the world does exist independently of consciousness, we will have improved our situation by learning more which is true.
What do you gain from believing it is all generated by your consciousness? Almost nothing. It seems a hopelessly futile and solipsist idea to me. What do you gain from believing the world would exist even if you were not in it? A universe you could possibly hope to understand.