If consciousness is primary, how could that be evidenced?

[idav]

Consiousness comes Before object, since you need consciousness to know the object, and not the other way round...

There needs to be an object to be conscious of even if that object is the self.

 

[leibowde84]

You can't, some things are untestable. Either we accept that it's fundamental or we continue along this futile path of materialism until a century from now we accept that it's fundamental.

The latter will probably happen.

Never say never.

 

[Ekanta]

There needs to be an object to be conscious of even if that object is the self.

Then you are conscious of both (object or "self") arn't you? CONSCIOUS of both! So in both cases consciousness comes first. It doesnt matter how you turn it around. To say there is an object without consciousness becomes a useless statement, cause there is no consciousness to verify it.
And between, in dreamless sleep, there is consciousness, but no object. So the statement "There needs to be an object to be conscious of" cant be true.

 

[Hawkins]

Genesis 101:
The Tree of Life is well guarded from the reach of humans. Humans have no way to detect life beyond a physical death. If you choose to rely on your knowledge (as tempted to the Tree of Knowledge), the same day you eat of it the same day you are surely die.

Were humans in stone age given a chance to know what black holes are? No, humans in stone age were isolated from the truth of the existence of black holes. There are the kind of truths unreachable by humans in a certain time frame. Just like humans in stone age are unable to reach the truth of black holes, today's humans are unable to reach a certain kind of truths including the nature of consciousness. This is natural, not something of a surprise.

The limit of human science is that it is for the reality of our realm which is a 3D space. Spiritual things on the other hand, are about a reality in another realm another space. It is naturally expected that science is unable to reach such a realm until humans can do experiments in another time-space.

 

[idav]

Then you are conscious of both (object or "self") arn't you? CONSCIOUS of both! So in both cases consciousness comes first. It doesnt matter how you turn it around. To say there is an object without consciousness becomes a useless statement, cause there is no consciousness to verify it.
And between, in dreamless sleep, there is consciousness, but no object. So the statement "There needs to be an object to be conscious of" cant be true.

If aware of self then self is the object. Being aware doesnt necessarily mean being aware of self when looking at other lifeforms.

 

[Twilight Hue]

There needs to be an object to be conscious of even if that object is the self.

Definitly. It's completely obvious that consciousness is just an emergent property of living matter. It's pretty deluded to think it's something other than what it actually is.

 

[ether-ore]

Many recent threads have discussed materialism, spritualism, idealism and many other philosophical approaches and positions.

One of the critical points of difference that has emerged is the argument about whether consciousness is a product of matter (materialism), or matter a product of consciousness (idealism).

Other than traditional wisdom, what evidence for idealism is there, or could there be? How could we go about testing it as a hypothesis?

Since this section of the forum concerns theological concepts, my answer is a theological one from the doctrinal perspective of my particular belief system which I do not think comes under the heading of traditional wisdom. I do not believe there is or ever will be (in this sphere of existence) empirical evidence upon which to test the hypothesis of idealism. I happen to believe that any information on the subject of the relationship between matter and consciousness must be revealed by God. The doctrine of my faith says that matter and intelligence are both eternal; the implication being that there are discrete spiritual forms of matter (for spirit is matter... refined beyond detection) that are naturally intelligent. These intelligent entities or 'intelligences' are capable of changing state and being added upon, but are otherwise eternal... without beginning and without end. God causes the change in state, it is not self induced... and they are us.

 

[Ekanta]

Definitly. It's completely obvious that consciousness is just an emergent property of living matter. It's pretty deluded to think it's something other than what it actually is.

And how do you even know that? Because of consciousness! How do you know you have a body? Because of consciousness! How do you know anything? Because of consciousness! THAT is the obvious, and the rest is pure denial.

 

[atanu]

Definitly. It's completely obvious that consciousness is just an emergent property of living matter. It's pretty deluded to think it's something other than what it actually is.

In Buddhism, mind is an eternal absolute category (ParamArthikA) and not emergent.

 

[idav]

In Buddhism, mind is an eternal absolute category (ParamArthikA) and not emergent.

And how do you even know that? Because of consciousness! How do you know you have a body? Because of consciousness! How do you know anything? Because of consciousness! THAT is the obvious, and the rest is pure denial.

It cant work that way. With that logic the observer would need to observe the self in order for self to manifest. You cant solve the problem of where intelligence came from by saying it requires intelligence.

 

[Twilight Hue]

In Buddhism, mind is an eternal absolute category (ParamArthikA) and not emergent.

Nope.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And how do you even know that? Because of consciousness! How do you know you have a body? Because of consciousness! How do you know anything? Because of consciousness! THAT is the obvious, and the rest is pure denial.

It's not knowing at all. Awareness.

Emergent property my friend.

The aggregates.

Consciousness has nothing to do with cognisence. Its plain as day when you first opened your eyes without a thought that goes with it and when you go to sleep and it drops away. If that is not emergence well....

 

[atanu]

Nope.

This is the abhidharma tabulation of the categories. Note that Citta (Mind-Consciousness) is one among the four ULTIMATE REALITY categories:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

 

[atanu]

And according to Yogachara Buddhism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

The Yogācāra school also developed the theory of the repository consciousness (ālayavijñāna) to explain continuity of mind in rebirth and accumulation of karma. This repository consciousness acts as a storehouse for karmic seeds (bija) when all other senses are absent during the process of death and rebirth as well as being the causal potentiality of dharmic phenomena.[95] Thus according to B. Alan Wallace:

No constituents of the body—in the brain or elsewhere—transform into mental states and processes. Such subjective experiences do not emerge from the body, but neither do they emerge from nothing. Rather, all objective mental appearances arise from the substrate, and all subjective mental states and processes arise from the substrate consciousness [98].

..................................

According to Zen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

Zen Buddhism[edit]
The central issue in Chinese Zen philosophy of mind is in the difference between the pure and awakened mind and the defiled mind. Chinese Chan master Huangpo described the mind as without beginning and without form or limit while the defiled mind was that which was obscured by attachment to form and concepts.[101]

..................................

 

[atanu]

It cant work that way. With that logic the observer would need to observe the self in order for self to manifest.

Do you need to observe yourself to know that you exist?

You cant solve the problem of where intelligence came from by saying it requires intelligence.

There is no problem other than the assumption that intelligence is a product.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This is the abhidharma tabulation of the categories. Note that Citta (Mind-Consciousness) is one among the four ULTIMATE REALITY categories:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

I don't really play church with categorization and definitions that are put out.

Just because consciousness is categorized in a column labeled ultimate reality dosent really do much in face of the actuality by which the aggregates manifest and is experienced directly.

Its that simple.

 

[Twilight Hue]

And according to Yogachara Buddhism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

The Yogācāra school also developed the theory of the repository consciousness (ālayavijñāna) to explain continuity of mind in rebirth and accumulation of karma. This repository consciousness acts as a storehouse for karmic seeds (bija) when all other senses are absent during the process of death and rebirth as well as being the causal potentiality of dharmic phenomena.[95] Thus according to B. Alan Wallace:

No constituents of the body—in the brain or elsewhere—transform into mental states and processes. Such subjective experiences do not emerge from the body, but neither do they emerge from nothing. Rather, all objective mental appearances arise from the substrate, and all subjective mental states and processes arise from the substrate consciousness [98].

..................................

According to Zen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

Zen Buddhism[edit]
The central issue in Chinese Zen philosophy of mind is in the difference between the pure and awakened mind and the defiled mind. Chinese Chan master Huangpo described the mind as without beginning and without form or limit while the defiled mind was that which was obscured by attachment to form and concepts.[101]

..................................

I don't practice Yogachara, and I don't see any revelance concerning Chan here in respect to some "ultimate" thingy.

 

[atanu]

That then is the state of affairs. Folks should know that some Buddhists (and a Hindu too) do not actually adhere to the basic teachings of their respective paths. But if one tries talking to them in their respective DIRs, heat flows, silencing all questioning.

 

[atanu]

I don't really play church with categorization and definitions that are put out.

I don't practice Yogachara, and I don't see any revelance concerning Chan here .......

Let me ask humbly "is there an I?"

 

[atanu]

In Buddhism, mind is an eternal absolute category (ParamArthikA) and not emergent.

Nope.

This is the abhidharma tabulation of the categories. Note that Citta (Mind-Consciousness) is one among the four ULTIMATE REALITY categories:

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhamma.pdf

And according to Yogachara Buddhism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

The Yogācāra school also developed the theory of the repository consciousness (ālayavijñāna) to explain continuity of mind in rebirth and accumulation of karma. This repository consciousness acts as a storehouse for karmic seeds (bija) when all other senses are absent during the process of death and rebirth as well as being the causal potentiality of dharmic phenomena.[95] Thus according to B. Alan Wallace:

No constituents of the body—in the brain or elsewhere—transform into mental states and processes. Such subjective experiences do not emerge from the body, but neither do they emerge from nothing. Rather, all objective mental appearances arise from the substrate, and all subjective mental states and processes arise from the substrate consciousness [98].

..................................

According to Zen:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind

Zen Buddhism[edit]
The central issue in Chinese Zen philosophy of mind is in the difference between the pure and awakened mind and the defiled mind. Chinese Chan master Huangpo described the mind as without beginning and without form or limit while the defiled mind was that which was obscured by attachment to form and concepts.[101]

..................................

I don't really play church with categorization and definitions that are put out.

Just because consciousness is categorized in a column labeled ultimate reality dosent really do much in face of the actuality by which the aggregates manifest and is experienced directly.

Its that simple.

I don't practice Yogachara, and I don't see any revelance concerning Chan here in respect to some "ultimate" thingy.

Well. That is the history then.