The Primacy of Existence


By Jonathan Awesome

I will here attempt to explain why existence exists independent of consciousness.

The best way to go about this, I think, would be with the fact that
something can not come from nothing. For something to become something
else requires that it be within that things nature to thus change.
Nothing is not a kind of thing, it has no nature. It has no attributes
that allow it to be turned into something, it has no attributes what
ever, it doesn’t exist. Thus all that exist now must have always
existed in one form or another as it could not have come into being
from nothing.

Complex structures presuppose simpler structure
of which they are composed. All things are made of combination of
simpler things down to the basic constituent elements of matter
(whatever they may be). Before something complex can exist it must
develop.

Any mechanism allowing for our kind of comprehension
of reality is necessarily comparable in complexity to our own mechanism
of consciousness: the extremely complex chains of chemical reactions
and structures that make up our brains with the underlying subatomic
structures and interactions which make those chemicals possible and
whatever gives rise to those subatomic structures and interactions.
Something must necessarily exists before consciousness can develop.
This means that the universe did exist without anyone or thing
conscious of it. And should anything conscious no longer exist it would
again exist without anyone to comprehend, perceive or sense anything.
Ergo the universe, all existence, exists independent of consciousness.

Report This Post

3 thoughts on “The Primacy of Existence

  1. Matthew Sherlock

    You are saying that consciousness is the extremely complex chains of chemical reactions and structures that make up our brains with the underlying subatomic structures and interactions which make those chemicals possible and whatever gives rise to those subatomic structures and interactions.

    Is this what cosiousness really is?

    i guess you could only explain ‘how’ reality is independant of consciousness when you can fully understand what consiousness, and reality actualy are.

    Report This Comment

  2. Derek R

    Very well done, I see very little flaw in the thinking of it, though i admit i should still spend more time comprehending the material.

    Either case, the only flaw i see imaginable (or unimaginable) is what if something CAN come from nothing? Science is all theoretical is taken as fact, though as it being theoretical, if ever it becomes disproven, the new philosiphical ideas replace the old (take for example galileo and newton and the old ideas of how the earth was in the center, this was considered a “fact”). This previous statement is just to emphasize science not finding facts, but eliminates those that can’t be facts.

    From there it MAY be possible that something INDEED can come from nothing.

    Course neither of us can truly and completely prove/disprove the notion, but thats the only possible flaw in your thinking of existance. Weak argument, but i believe i provide a strong and pursuasive argument for such a weak point 🙂

    Please reply on your thoughts of my post or w/e you call this.

    Report This Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *