[lkadjal]

> In this light consciousness also makes more sense to me, although consciousness feels more like a by-product, our (human) ability to hold an internal model of the world in our minds and interact with it, is pretty advanced.

You can generate all kind of sentences like this all day you want in your consciousness. That does not make it any true.

There is zero evidence for existence of physical matter/materialism.

The only thing we know for sure that exists is consciousness.

And you suggest the complete opposite with zero evidence.

[tambourine_man]

You may want to read on Descartes critiques from last century. Not even your own consciousness is a given.

[lkadjal]

Obviously there is no you. Just the experience. I thought that was pretty obvious.

[tambourine_man]

Again, I suggest you read some more recent philosophy. This is a good start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum#Critique

[aaaaaaaaaajioad]

I always found weird all these discussions about what exists and what not exists in that there is a distinct lack of focus on what existence means.

Even if the only thing to exists (existence level 0, if you wish) was some vague "cognitive activity" would I not exist (existence level 1) in that cognition?

Unless you assume that there is a certain divine level and you are conjecturing about your relative existence compared to it what is the object of talking about the possibility of non-existence?

In my mind this is similar to the theological mind-trip about the universe being a simulation; it is clear that I exist in some sense, rather than focusing on whether my existence is fake or "not real existence" is it not more reasonable to focus on how my existence relates to other existences?

[FeepingCreature]

There is also zero "evidence", by this extremely restrictive standard of "evidence", for existence of any consciousness aside one's own. This rhetorical strategy thus has a weakness: who or what exactly are you trying to convince?

[lkadjal]

> There is also zero "evidence", by this extremely restrictive standard of "evidence", for existence of any consciousness aside one's own.

Yes. That is correct.

> This rhetorical strategy thus has a weakness: who or what exactly are you trying to convince?

Ego dissolution/self realiszation takes time. It's my goal in life. But haven't achieved yet. But your comment do point that I should not waste time on engaging in things like this which builds up the ego more.