You can’t say there’d be a physical reality if there were no consciousnesses anywhere ever. Can you?
We’re supposed to believe that we pop into existence at some random point, in some random moment, in the infinity of physical reality. Why should it be us? Why should consciousness ever be attached to some physical object. Why doesn’t physical reality have no subjectivities attached to it? Why shouldn’t physical reality have no subject dependent on the object. What if subjectivity couldn’t exist without physicality, and physicality couldn’t exist without subjectivity. Perhaps they go together, impossible to disentangle one from the other.
Why shouldn’t physical reality be there without knowing it’s there. Everything entirely as it is, planets, people, animals, trees, galaxies, stars, nebula, supernovas, black holes – there, but unaware they’re there. The entire infinite physical reality, as it is now, but totally unaware of itself/that it’s there, in any manner. Why shouldn’t that be the case – why shouldn’t that be reality. Meaning in each organism advanced enough in potential for consciousness, there’s no consciousness occurring. Total blankness of subjective experience across all of physical/objective infinity.
And yet there is, suggesting something to me, which isn’t simply mundane. At the least, it gives one hope that maybe your consciousness won’t just die forever when your body does.
Is the universe there because we’re there (subjectivity = primary, before all else/behind everything ever experienced), or are we there because the universe is there (objectivity = primary, AKA science/naturalism/physicalism)? Perhaps it’s not either way exclusively. Perhaps physical reality wouldn’t be there without consciousness, but consciousness wouldn’t be there without physical reality. They’re interdependent.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.