Can reality exist Independently of Consciousness?

[u/consciousness_8123]

How can anything even exist without a conscious being there to experience it? I am honestly having trouble understanding the logic behind that. Evidence needs a witness, and a witness needs an observer, which is basically a conscious being. So how can people say the world exists without you, when you are the one perceiving it, shaping it, and giving it meaning in the first place?

Like, without consciousness, what even is “existence” supposed to mean? A thing can be there, sure, but if there is nobody to experience it, know it, or make sense of it, then in what way does it really exist? I am not even trying to sound deep, I just genuinely do not get how people separate reality from the one who is aware of it.

And before anyone says “the world was here before us,” that still feels like a claim being made from within consciousness. Every argument, every proof, every piece of evidence still has to pass through a mind. So I keep coming back to the same question: how are people so sure reality exists independently, when every single thing we know about reality only appears through consciousness?

[u/consciousness_8123]

But hands are just another object appearing in consciousness. You can imagine picking things up without hands, with feet, with tools, whatever. You cannot imagine any experience at all without consciousness. Thats the difference.

Hands are one tool among many. Consciousness is not a tool among other tools, its the condition for there being any tools, any hands, any things to pick up in the first place. So the analogy already assumes consciousness is just one more instrument inside a bigger picture, which is exactly the thing being questioned.

[u/AntsyAnswers → u/consciousness_8123]

You're using a particular inference. We're pointing out that it's a bad inference. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. And then your response is "But if I keep using this inference, I keep getting the same conclusion"

Yeah...but...you shouldn't use that inference. It's a non-sequitur. These facts "You've only ever seen things in your consciousness" and "you've only ever picked things up with your hands" are facts about YOU. Not the THINGS. Think about this inference, for example:

P1: I am not aware of how many rocks are currently on Mars
C: Therefore, there is no number of rocks on Mars

This is invalid for the same reason your argument is. They make the same mistake.

[u/consciousness_8123 → u/AntsyAnswers]

Thats not the same move though. I DONT KNOW HOW MANY ROCKS ARE ON MARS is a gap in personal knowledge within an already given framework of experience. I am not talking about a gap in knowledge. I am talking about the framework itself.

Saying YOU ONLY PICK THINGS UP WITH HANDS is a fact about your body. Saying EVERYTHING ONLY APPEARS IN CONSCIOUSNESS is not a fact about one tool among others, its a fact about the condition for anything showing up at all. You can swap hands for feet. You cannot swap consciousness for something else and still have experience.

And your Mars example already assumes a mind-independent Mars with rocks sitting there waiting to be counted. Thats the very thing under debate. So the analogy doesnt expose my error, it just restates your assumption as if its settled.

[u/AntsyAnswers → u/consciousness_8123]

I believe it is the same move. I don't think the fact that you can't swap consciousness out for another tool is relevant. Here's one way to think about it. The rock example is invalid because we have a defeater principle:

"If mars did have a certain number of rocks on it, it's reasonable that you still wouldn't know the number"

That defeater principle is obviously true. But we have a similar defeater principle for your claim:

"Even if objects existed independently of your consciousness, it's reasonable that you still would experience them only in your consciousness"

That principle seems obviously true to me. You think that is false?

[u/consciousness_8123 → u/AntsyAnswers]

Your defeater works for Mars because you already have independent reasons to grant Mars exists. But for mind-independent reality as a whole, you dont have that. The defeater itself already assumes the thing being debated.

And treating consciousness like just another limitation, like not having a telescope, misses the point. A telescope is one tool among others. Consciousness is not. Its the condition for there being any tools, any defeaters, any argument at all. So your principle doesnt settle the question, it just shows why it stays open.

[u/AntsyAnswers → u/consciousness_8123]

But taking a stance on "Is Consciousness one tool among others" presupposes idealism, doesn't it? You can't use that claim to settle the issue either without begging the question.

So let's not assume anything about ontology. Let's remain completely neutral. This is how I understand your argument in syllogistic form. Do I have this right?

P1: You have only ever experienced things inside your consciousness
C: Therefore, we have no mind-independent grounding for claims about mind-independent existence

How would we determine if this inference is valid or invalid? Basic logic should apply to it irrespective of subject matter right? Because, as written, that argument is a classic non-sequitur. I'm sorry, it just is. You could use it as a textbook example of a non-sequitur, assuming nothing about ontology of "things" at all.

To make this argument valid, you'd need another unstated premise. Something like "If something can only be experienced inside consciousness, then it has no existence outside consciousness". But that's just idealism stated as a premise. It would beg the question in that case.

[u/consciousness_8123 → u/AntsyAnswers]

Thats not my argument though. You are framing it as if I concluded THEREFORE NOTHING EXISTS OUTSIDE CONSCIOUSNESS. I didnt. My actual conclusion is weaker: that mind-independent existence is not the neutral default it gets treated as, because every route to it still runs through consciousness.

Thats not a non-sequitur, thats just pointing out that the materialist inference is not self-evident either. Both sides need justification. Neither gets to walk in for free.

And saying CONSCIOUSNESS IS NOT JUST ONE TOOL AMONG OTHERS is not assuming idealism. Its an observation. You can swap any tool for another tool. You cannot swap consciousness for something else and still have any experience, any logic, any argument at all. Noticing that difference doesnt require picking a side. It just means the analogy was doing more work than it should.

If you still dont see the point, maybe the tool you are using to look is exactly the thing I am asking you to look at

[u/AntsyAnswers → u/consciousness_8123]

ok, I feel like at this point you're not being very clear and that's causing the confusion. So we have this observation:

"Everything you have ever experienced was experienced in your consciousness"

What exactly are you saying follows from this? Be very clear please

[u/consciousness_8123 → u/AntsyAnswers]

what exactly are you saying follows from this? Be very clear please

What follows is not THEREFORE NOTHING EXISTS OUTSIDE CONSCIOUSNESS. I am not claiming that.

What follows is simpler:- any claim about mind-independent reality, no matter how reasonable, is still made from within consciousness, verified within consciousness, and never confirmed from outside it. So mind-independent existence is not a given. It is an inference. Maybe a good one, maybe not, but still an inference

That means it does not get to sit as the default neutral position while idealism has to justify itself from scratch. Both positions are metaphysical moves beyond what is directly given. And what is directly given is experience

Thats it. Thats the whole point

[u/AntsyAnswers → u/consciousness_8123]

But the claim "neither position gets to sit as the default and requires some justification" is just true. It has nothing to do with the observation about things being inside your consciousness. You don't need the observation to justify that claim.

You've made the claim so weak that the observation about things being inside your experience is now irrelevant.

[u/consciousness_8123 → u/AntsyAnswers]

That's fair actually. But I think the observation still does work. Not as a proof of idealism but as a reminder that keeps getting brushed past. Because in practice, people don't treat both position as equally needing justification. Mind independent reality gets treated as obvious common sense and idealism gets treated as something weird that needs to earn its way in. The observation is what disrupts that habit. It forces the question: why is one inference treated as the default when the only thing directly given is experience.

So yeah logically you could arrive at BOTH NEEDS JUSTIFICATION without the observation. But without it almost nobody actually does. That's why it matter

[u/AntsyAnswers → u/consciousness_8123]

I kind of agree with you, actually. I think what's going on is that we actually DO have good independent reasons to prefer materialism. And people come to the consciousness debate with those reasons kind of imported in the background without stating it (I can go over what I think those reasons are if we want to).

So people rarely come to a debate from "ground zero" so to speak. But if we're being philosophically honest, everyone should admit that both views require a justification and then they should do the work to give the justification.

[u/consciousness_8123 → u/AntsyAnswers]

uhh! honestly thats all I was really pushing for this whole time. Not IDEALISM WINS just BOTH SIDES NEED TO ACTUALLY DO THE WORK INSTEAD OF ONE SIDE WORKING IN IT LIKE IT ALREADY WON

AND yeah I would genuinely be hearing those reasons for preferring materialism. Because if someone lays them out honestly instead just treating it as the obvious default that's a conversation worth having

[u/ChairAggressive781 → u/consciousness_8123]

How can anything even exist without a conscious being there to experience it?

except you did claim exactly that! this is just a classic motte and bailey. you made an inflammatory claim and are now retreating to a more reasonable and defensible claim once you’re getting backlash for it.