Oh my God. This is actually the first thread I've ever seen you make, or that I can recall. This must be important to you. I say it exists, it is already proven, it cannot be denied and it is the dynamic force in our universe. It guides energy, energy being the static force that molds to the shape of the "container". Also, since consciousness is always evolving, time exists, a static moment in time has a certain universe, the next moment it is different. In fact, it is hard to be sure if there is even such thing as a moment, one can never prove it existed, except our recollection of it, and the future which seemingly portrays the past events that led up to it. Consciousness is definitely the unified field theory of quantum physics. It is the possibility of communication. These are all things that can be discussed and better understood, these are simply my thoughts on the matter currently. And since time changes, my understanding will become better.
Read William James' essay of the same name... You should feel fortunate -- it's not everyday that a highly specific philosophical question that occurs to you personally has already been explored by one of the masters. http://fair-use.org/william-james/essays-in-radical-empiricism/does-consciousness-exist
.. before you answer this question, friend, we must settle on a definition which sets the parameters for us to judge to by that which does 'exist'. So, what's the most acceptable and general definition you would like to use for the term "exists"?
Op... if you took the time to think out the words you typed to form this post, then consciousness exists. If you are questioning yourself about the existence of a consciousness then that is proof you have consciousness. If you are living and breathing, and you know that you are living and breathing, then you have consciousness.
You can't claim something is proven, without providing proof. Redefining it, although easy, is not proof. Claiming it's a possibility does not prove its existence. You're questioning his perception of existence, but not consciousness?
Before you can determine if something exists, shouldn't you first determine what it is? Unless you're assuming existence can be outside physical reality. Then I think it would be a legitimate question. But you know what they say about assuming
Consciousness just is. It doesn't need to be determined. If you have it then it exists. The harder question to answer is: what is it? But there's an easy answer - it doesn't need defining. However, as that won't stop us from attempting to, you might say it is that which allows us to know we are.
1.) Is a concept about a physical entity, i.e., empirically measurable, like a actual physical entity is?
How so? To believe the latter can precede the former, i.e., to believe the 'then' can precede the 'if', just because the former precedes the latter, i.e., just because the 'if' precedes the 'then', is a fallacy, friend. Inotherwords, the argument isn't circular and to consider it as such would be a fallacy. If 'x' is European, then 'x' Christian. Now, in reverse. If 'x1' is Christian, then 'x1' is European. You see how that's not a fallacy, and that the argument ISN'T and can't be circular.
Who said anything about empiricism? Fair enough. But to an extent, we may identify patterns in others.
The things I'm reading in this thread aren't bringing me much clarity. They are bringing complication, stipulations, conditions, and terms. If a philosophy isn't about feeling good, living life skillfully, and not creating trouble for other people, what good is it?