Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

If I were to argue that the theory of everything is consciousness, am I arguing psychologism, thus arguing against physicalism?

 

When I keep reducing the parts to the whole, I see consciousness being the thing that explains "why" things are what they are. "Gravity works that way because that is how I observe it to be." Consciousness is a necessary condition for gravity to exist: Thus, at least one being has to be conscious to recognize gravity's existence. I've been thinking about this a lot, and a lot of signs point toward solipsism for some reason. At least one person has to be conscious for gravity to exist, but if a someone does not exist, that someone cannot say gravity exists. Thus, gravity does not exist to that person. Thus, the way gravity works does not exist to that person. If I'm not conscious, then I have no reason to believe gravity exists.

 

However, the conundrum comes to be whether or not consciousness is reducible. As the ToE, I argue no.

Edited by Genecks
Posted

This would also require that stars and planets (which require gravity for the creation and existence) must have sprung into existence when the first organism became conscious. But how did that first conscious being evolve if there were no planets.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.