Citta said:
I also raised many other problems you didn't care to reply to. It's fine if you don't want to, but I asked those questions not to necessary "prove" you wrong or anything, but just because I wonder how one should solve them/explain them satisfactory with your hypothesis.
As a final remark; if we first assume that there actually exists something outside our consciousness, i.e something that is ontologically objective, which there are many good arguments for doing, then we have (scientific) methods to determine whether or not something existing independently of our consciousness is likely or not.
What problems did you raise that I didn’t respond to? I may have missed them due to the many intervening posts in this thread. If you don’t mind concisely re-stating them, I’d be glad to address them.
Anyhow, you’ve missed my point by a mile.
I am not suggesting that the primacy of consciousness paradigm or anything like it is “true” or “correct” or can be proven so. What I’m saying is that the primacy of matter paradigm is logically equivalent – it cannot be proven and there is nothing in our experience which suggests it is more likely to be true than any other existential paradigm.
You seem to believe that the primacy of matter paradigm is true, yet you have no evidence that it is. You say we have scientific methods to show that reality exists outside of consciousness, yet – by definition – no human being has ever experienced unconsciousness. No human has ever had the experience of being "outside of consciousness".
As I’ve said before, I don’t necessarily subscribe to the idea that our existence is a dream, but imagining that it is serves a useful purpose with respect to this argument. You claim that there are scientific methods that can prove your existence is not a dream. What are those methods?
