> Everything must be explainable as physics, and layers above like mechanics, chemistry, biology. Psychology as a field - in the "West", which is basically a global culture now - is based on that assumption.
That's right. It's pretty amazing how much is based off of that assumption which has no realistic basis. I guess it's a "convenient" assumption.
But if we start to think that hey, maybe consciousness is the root of it all, not matter, then we can see why science doesn't understand consciousness at all: it's like trying to find the screen while studying the pictures on it. You can study all the biology, physics, and matter on the screen, but you won't find the screen in the details. In this analogy, consciousness is the "screen" in which all appears. I think mainstream science will shift MASSIVELY once they start looking into as a legitimate possibility.
> That's right. It's pretty amazing how much is based off of that assumption which has no realistic basis. I guess it's a "convenient" assumption.
Beliefs and speculations also have no realistic basis. We can't prove, reproduce or properly model them in an objective manner.
One definition of science states that it is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
I hold the view that philosophy precedes science, i.e., not all branches of philosophy can be regarded as science.
> But if we start to think that hey, maybe consciousness is the root of it all, not matter (...)
From your statement, there's nothing wrong going that way, but you'll have a hard time trying to defend it as science if it's based on beliefs.
Given that we and everything around us consists of particles obeying the laws of physics, I don’t think it’s odd that the burden of proof should lie with those suggesting the existence of something else.
Remember, we are to the best of our knowledge beings that have evolved from simple cellular organisms obeying the laws of physics. The idea that through that process of evolution we have somehow broken out of the sandbox is extraordinary enough that it would need pretty compelling evidence, no matter how attractive the idea might be.
> Given that we and everything around us consists of particles obeying the laws of physics, I don’t think it’s odd that the burden of proof should lie with those suggesting the existence of something else.
If anything, the burden of proof does lie on those who say the particles are "out there" and give rise to consciousness, because experience says otherwise. Everything you and the scientists may study happens within their own consciousness. It is not possible otherwise. We can only know the truth if we experience it, and anything else is a belief system until proven otherwise. Thus it is with those that claim there is an "out there" outside of consciousness that lies the burden of proof.
No one is denying the physical world exists and all that goes with it, including the evolution of physical matter. The question is what comes first: the consciousness or the physical?
That's right. It's pretty amazing how much is based off of that assumption which has no realistic basis. I guess it's a "convenient" assumption.
But if we start to think that hey, maybe consciousness is the root of it all, not matter, then we can see why science doesn't understand consciousness at all: it's like trying to find the screen while studying the pictures on it. You can study all the biology, physics, and matter on the screen, but you won't find the screen in the details. In this analogy, consciousness is the "screen" in which all appears. I think mainstream science will shift MASSIVELY once they start looking into as a legitimate possibility.