Indeed Any manifestation of a physical object , will have an inherent geometry , three dimensional geometry , hence the obvious existence of a physical object . Hence , imagination is not necessary to understand , to realize , the object exists .
That's somewhat of a stretch. We are limited local spaces, each with a limited amount of objects inside us.
Consciousness. That's the only point of reference that matters. But, as you said earlier, it is intangible, Outside our ability to measure.
Well, I can offer this in support of your "vision". Roger Penrose maintains that quantum events such as "wave collapse" are proto-conscious physical experiences at quantum scale and pervasive throughout the universe. I am not qualified to comment on that, but Penrose is a Nobel prize in quantum physics recipient. IMO, that is a powerful endorsement by the scientific community and I for one will listen closely to what he has to say, instead of vicariously dismissing his viewpoints and posits as skewed and trivial. If you have not read some of work, this might be of interest (if I understand your viewpoint).
Moreover, your external reality is inside the object (skull) which is inside the space....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why would a "tree consciousness" looks like a tree at all and not much like my own consciousness? Why would the rest of consciousness looks to my own consciousness like a physical world at all? Why would I readily assume other people have consciousness but not trees and not a turd? Why would my own body doesn't seem conscious to me? Isn't much more simple to assume that our subjective mind is just the activity of our physical brain and that without a brain we wouldn't have a mind at all? I would grant you that it's just conceivable that subjective experience is everywhere but only in brains is it anything like a human mind. A grain of sand might for all I know possess some minimal subjective awareness, and only a minimal one because it will have no brain to make it full of colours as our own subjective experience is. Still, even if that's true, what of it? It seems to me that what gives our subjective experience it's value is our complex mind, i.e. the activity of our complex brain. We enjoy a rich experience of the world because of our brain. A grain of sand, assuming it has some minimal subjective experience, has very little interaction with it's environment and has barely any input coming from the rest of the world. Also, if consciousness is what you suggest, then it sounds more like space, a sort inert glass recipient where the thoughts produced by our brain could exist. Not anything particularly spiritually uplifting, if that's what you're craving for. EB
The whole experience is exceptional, but without consciousness there would be nothing watching the show. You have a privileged position in the Universe, a front seat to watch itself as it plays.
Strictly speaking, it's nothing exceptional. Any idiot has it and there are more than 7 billions of us. So what? Any seat in a room is a privileged position to watch what you can watch from there, if only the back of the head of the guy in front of you. Big deal. Further, your "theory" about consciousness existing "on all levels of existence", as alluded to in your OP, is irrelevant to what you are now saying here. If consciousness exists on all level, then there's nothing exceptional about us and we don't have a privileged position. So, which is which? And strictly speaking, it's the human who is watching the show, not his consciousness. You'd need to learn to choose your words more carefully. Fuzziness is boring. Anyway, thanks for answering none of my questions. That's very selective of you. Thanks. I guess this says everything we need to know about your "idea". EB
That's kind of circular, wouldn't you agree? I mean, for something to "matter" requires consciousness in the first place. Without consciousness, literally nothing "matters".
I would say instead that consciousness can't possibly "matter" at all, literally, unless one thinks consciousness is in effect a material thing, which presumably Bowser would vehemently deny. Still, I think it's fair to say our own private consciousness is the only absolute reference we have, "absolute" in the sense that we know our qualia and our qualia are the only things we know. And in this respect it's the unique vantage point, reference, for believing whatever we want to believe in terms of material or physical world, if anything. Yet, once you choose to believe in a physical world and in the possibility of doing science with it, you can take it as a reference point, too, albeit, arguably, only a relative reference point, which is OK, as Einstein could have explained. And from this relative reference point, we can always try to explain consciousness. We may never succeed but we can try, because trying does seem to indeed matter. EB
I don't " believe " in a physical Universe , I know it to absolutely exist . Consciencesness is both matter based , being aware of your environment , hence then in the brain . But also in the spiritual as well. Our Universe was not created by the Brian nor our Consciences . Matter exists because it will . And where it can Life will take hold where ever matter gives Life an environment to begin
This strikes me as somewhat egocentric. The implication, for example, is that I am merely one part of your consciousness, encapsulated in you. It is conceivable that you really think that I'm just another part of you, but I find it hard to believe that this is your true opinion. For starters, it seems to greatly underestimate the otherness of other people. In some ways, I'm a lot like you, no doubt, but in other ways I'm quite sure there are profound differences, at least some of which are not immediately accessible to you.
