>>11578050There are so many problems with this.
First, material does not need to "arise from" consciousness, or vice versa. If you define material as containing consciousness, then your definition of material just becomes substance, in which physical and mental reality are both contained. And vice versa, if you define consciousness as containing material, then your definition of consciousness becomes substance, in which is contained physical and mental reality. Spinoza is so far ahead of everyone that in the 16th century he came up with mind-body parallelism, where with any physical change there is a corresponding mental change, and vice versa.
Next, he claims we are not thinking of breathing while breathing, which we are, since we can always feel ourselves breathing, which is a perception, which is conscious, which is a thought, which is in the mind.
He then claims that we create our own realities within our own minds. But we do not CREATE these thoughts, we transform thought. Though does not come from nowhere. It has to be contained in everything, since there is nothing outside of everything that can come to be. The method of transforming could then be analyzed, to which we would then realize you don't have free will either, which is what this retard is trying to sneak into his theory via consciousness. The reason we experience a feeling of free will is because we cannot know ourselves. If we could know ourselves, then we would need to know ourselves knowing ourselves, which would mean we would need to know ourselves knowing ourselves knowing ourselves etc. etc. which is impossible, which is why you always run into paradoxes with self-referntiality hence Godel's theory and Russels set theory paradox.
Next, reality cannot originate from consciousness, since there would need to be some method of origination from consciousness over both, of which would become your new reality. This reminds me of Leibniz's metaphysical cheat with God harmonizing monad consciousness.
