If I were to argue that the theory of everything is consciousness, am I arguing psychologism, thus arguing against physicalism?

 

When I keep reducing the parts to the whole, I see consciousness being the thing that explains "why" things are what they are. "Gravity works that way because that is how I observe it to be." Consciousness is a necessary condition for gravity to exist: Thus, at least one being has to be conscious to recognize gravity's existence. I've been thinking about this a lot, and a lot of signs point toward solipsism for some reason. At least one person has to be conscious for gravity to exist, but if a someone does not exist, that someone cannot say gravity exists. Thus, gravity does not exist to that person. Thus, the way gravity works does not exist to that person. If I'm not conscious, then I have no reason to believe gravity exists.

 

However, the conundrum comes to be whether or not consciousness is reducible. As the ToE, I argue no.

Edited September 28, 20169 yr by Genecks

Gravity does not exist on the Mars or Moon.. ?

Unconscious people do not 'float'; they fall to the ground.

This would also require that stars and planets (which require gravity for the creation and existence) must have sprung into existence when the first organism became conscious. But how did that first conscious being evolve if there were no planets.