A look at the metaphysic approaches of Consciousness-only, mind-matter-dualism, materialism, and solipsism

Introduction

This paper lays the basis for any scientific or spiritual investigation, by using empirical evidence, logic, basic set theory, and simple common sense.

It is based on two statements:

1. You are aware of what you are aware of, and of nothing else, and of nothing other than what you are aware of.
2. A part of the content of something cannot be the origin of that something.

These statements seem self-evident to me. One is pretty much a tautology, and the other is simple set theory basics. Any attempt to contradict them leads to self-contradictions or logical errors.

Statement 1 rebuts mind-matter-dualism and materialism. Statement 2 rebuts materialism and solipsism.

Any serious investigation, theory or hypothesis should not contradict the logically sound principles laid out in this paper. If the basis of your investigation contradicts logic, empirical evidence and set theory basics, you will probably not get to correct conclusions.

This paper only lays the basis for investigation. If you develop something on the base of this paper, please let me know of it!

And if you think that you know of a first principle that is more fundamental than awareness, please let me know, too. But please consider that my first reply might be a simple question: Are you aware of this first principle, or are you not aware of it?

Awareness

Everything that you are aware of is in your awareness.

If something is not in your awareness, you are not aware of it.

If a part or an aspect of something is not in your awareness, you are not aware of this part or aspect.

This includes its existence. If something is not in your awareness, you cannot know that it exists.

You also cannot be aware of an outside of your awareness. If you are aware that there is an outside, it means that what you call outside is in your awareness, and not outside of it.

If something is outside of your awareness, you cannot be aware of it.

You are aware of something exactly to the extent that it is in your awareness.

To summarize:

Everything that you are aware of is in your awareness, completely in your awareness, only in your awareness, and nowhere else.

And that's exactly what the approach of Cosciousness-only says: Everything is in awareness, and only in awareness.

And now you might say: „But this table over there is clearly outside of my awareness!“

And the question is: Are you aware of the table, or are you not aware of the table?

If you are aware of the table, it means that the table is in your awareness.

If you are not aware of the table, there is no table you can refer to.

So the table is in your awareness, and only in your awareness.

And now you might say: „But the table is obviously out there!“

And the question is: Are you aware that the table is out there, or are you not aware that the table is out there?

And the answer is of course that you are aware that the table is out there.

Which means: Even the table's being out there is in your awareness. And nowhere else.

And you could be stubborn and say: „But I know that there is something outside of my awareness!“

And the question is: Are you aware of that which you call outside of your awareness, or are you not aware of it?

If you are aware of it, it is in your awareness, and if you are not aware of it, you cannot say anything about it, because you don't know anything about it. You don't even know that it exists.

Outside is in your awareness, and nowhere else.

To make this more concrete, let's assume that you state „I know that the table is out there even if it is not in my awareness“.

The question is: What table are you refering to? Is the table you are refering to in your awareness, or is it not in your awareness? Are you talking about „the table outside of my awareness“ that is in your awareness, or are you talking about any „table outside of my awareness“ that is not in your awareness while you are talking about it?

You cannot refer to anything that is not in your awareness. The statement that something exists that you are not aware of is a contradiction in itself, because it states a reference that it simultaneously denies. This is logically impossible.

This stubbornness actually leads us to another approach, the approach of mind-matter-dualism.

Mind-matter-dualism

This approach says that there are two fundamental principles: matter and mind. And the two cannot be reduced to one. Mind and matter are two realms that cannot be reduced to each other, but somehow, they interact.

This approach says that there is a table out there, and something about the table is coming to you, and somehow what is coming to you from the table is being transformed into mental stuff, and then the table is in your awareness. But what is in your awareness is of course not the table out there in the world of matter. What you are aware of is just a mental representation of the table.

The table is out there, and what is in your awareness is only a representation of the real table, which is completely outside of your awareness.

The question is: Are you aware of the table, or are you not aware of the table?

If you are aware of the table, it means that the table is in your awareness. If you are not aware of the table, you cannot even talk about the table, because there is no table to refer to.

And furthermore, are you aware of the table, or are you aware of a representation of the table? Stay with your concrete experience: Look at the table, and tell me whether you are aware of the table or of a representation of the table.

If you are stubborn and stick to the statement that you are only aware of a representation of the table, and not of the table itself, the question is: How do you know that something is a representation if you are not aware of the thing the representation represents?

You can only call something a representation if you are aware of the thing it represents. Otherwise, the word „representation“ has no meaning.

But if you are aware of the thing the representation represents, it means that the thing the representation represents is in your awareness.

I would go with the real thing in that case.

You are aware of what you are aware of. The table is what you are aware of.

The approach of mind-matter-dualism states that the content of your awareness – the table – is completely outside of your awareness. And what you are aware of is something completely different from the table, and just its representation.

When in fact your concrete experience tells you clearly that you are aware of the table, and of nothing else.

It's absurd to say that the content of something is completely outside of that something.

It's even more absurd to say that what you are aware of is something completely different from what you are aware of.

Furthermore, the approach of mind-matter-dualism doesn't correspond to our experience. We are not aware of a representation of the table. We are aware of the table.

And furthermore, it also contradicts logic, since you cannot talk of a representation where nothing to be represented exists.

Materialism

There is yet another approach, and it is called materialism. Materialism kind of starts with mind-matter-dualism, but then goes a step further by denying the „mind“ part, and thus eliminating the dualism.

Materialism says there's only one, and it's matter. There is no consciousness as a second entity next to matter. There is only matter. Consciousness somehow pops up when matter is complex enough. But it's still only matter.

Now you could ask a materialist: Are you aware of matter? And can you say anything about matter without being aware of matter first?

Can there be a concept of matter without an awareness of matter? Can there be materialism without awareness?

If you are aware of matter, it means that matter is in your awareness. Materialism says that the content of your awareness is not in your awareness, because your awareness doesn't exist as such. Instead, a part of the content of your awareness – matter – has gotten so complex that suddenly there was something that you foolishly now call your awareness, and in that, matter somehow occurs when you are aware of matter. But it's all just matter.

Which means that the content of your awareness is completely outside of your awareness, and the content of your awareness which is completely outside of your awareness is the origin of the content of your awareness (which is of course completely different from the content of your awareness that is completely outside of your awareness, as is the case in the aforementioned mind-matter-dualism), and the content of your awareness that is completely outside of your awareness is also the origin of your awareness itself – and your awareness doesn't exist, since it is nothing else than the complexity of the content of your awareness that is completely outside of your awareness.

You might call materialism the joy of absurd thinking. But please don't call it science.

No one has ever experienced matter outside of awareness. And we can't be aware of something outside of awareness. So how can you seriously say that this which no one has ever had any experience of, and no one has any access to, be the origin of all?

If someone states that we and everything existing originates from something no one has ever experienced, and no one has any possible access to, you could be kind and call it a religion. But that's a very simplistic religion, and it has absurdity as its core.

The danger of this approach lies in it cutting you off from the only thing that is accessible to you: your awareness. Materialism is the religion of the lost.

Solipsism

There is yet another approach. It is called solipsism. And surprisingly enough, it is more reasonable and stringent than materialism or mind-matter-dualism.

Let's recapitulate:

Everything that you are aware of is in your awareness, completely in your awareness, only in your awareness, and nowhere else.

Now you could say: „Hmmm, if everything that exists is in my awareness, it means that this whole outside world with everything in it is all my projection, and I am the origin of it all, because it is all in my awareness“.

This approach is called solipsism. And it seems plausible. If all is in my awareness, it means that my awareness is all-encompassing, does it not?

But the question is: The entity you call yourself, and of which you say that everything that exists is the projection of – are you aware of that entity, or are you not aware of that entity?

If you are aware of this entity you call yourself, it means that it is in your awareness.

And this entity is in your awareness in the exact same way as everything else is in your awareness. Like everything else, it is in your awareness, and thus you are aware of it.

So it is not correct to say that this entity is the origin of everything. Because everything is in your awareness, including this entity.

And one small part of the content of your awareness cannot be the origin of all the content of your awareness.

And this means that your awareness is bigger than this entity. The awareness we are talking about is not that entity.

And your awareness is certainly also not the property of that entity. Your awareness is much bigger than that entity you call yourself. This entity cannot „have“ your awareness, because this entity is just a tiny part of the vast content of your awareness.

Back to step one: Awareness

Your awareness is all there is. Nothing is outside of this awareness.

And this is who you really are. This awareness that entails everything, and in which everything is.

And this can be experienced. It is actually the only experience there is.

You are awareness. And everything is in you, and is you.

You'd better get used to that. It's who you are.

And you can train that. You can be aware that you are the all-encompassing awareness. This is called awareness being aware of itself.

It is who you are.