My argument literally ruled out everyone of those except Solipsism.

Please read that again you are very confused. I asked what options would be left if Physical Realism were false.

Every single one you mentioned assumed Physical Realism is true, except for Solipsim

Is that your final answer?

Xtrix, You don't know what consciousness is? Weird. It it literally why you believe anything exists at all. Anyway, I defined it already, but here it is again:

Consciousness is a volitional essence appearing to itself phenomenally as this, that, the other etc. Such states of awareness include: dreams, dissociated perspectives, hallucinations, beliefs, sensory modalities, Introspection, emotions, illusions/ "seeming", abstract thought/ mental constructs etc

And Banno, I would love for you to tell me which Philosophy of Mind would be left, besides Idealism, if Physical Realism is false.

You know how to put two and two together right Banno?

The world is real. It's a real mental world that we perceive AS physical across 5 sensory modalities.

The simplest explanation?

Mentality exists, our human experiences can all flow from this.

Violation of simplicity?

Mentality exists PLUS some ontologically distinct world of the physical PLUS the ontologically distinct world somehow relates to an us even though there's no relation (nonsense)

Just checking back, I will address some people's responses.

Solipsism? First off, the argument was never "only my experience is real" that's a straw-man. The argument is that consciousness as an ontological category is all that is real because no relation can be had with the ontologically opposite known as the Physical. Other dissociated perspectives would be conscious just like me, so there is no reason I cannot infer about them because they are the same ontological category as me. This means I can have a relation with other conscious agents through a perceptual interface of 3D space and linear time experience (look up the Interface Theory of Perception). That's what's happening now. So no, Solipsism is not implied by my argument. I'm only doing away with a Physical world - that says nothing about other conscious agents

Also, Idealism is the view that only consciousness is real. Not only "ideas" are real like someone here implied.

Consciousness is a volitional essence appearing to itself phenomenally as this, that, the other etc. - Internal qualitative experiences are states of awareness such as: dreams, dissociated
perspectives, hallucinations, sensory modalities (touchy-feelings, smells, tastes, visual color pattern experience, audio perception), mystical insights, emotions, illusions/ "seeming", abstract thought/ mental constructs etc

Someone said our senses let us know about a physical world... That's literally what my argument refutes so what you said was incoherent. We sense a mental world through 3D perceptual encoding.

Consciousness upon examination has no physical properties in its essence (introspection verifies this and property analysis). This means no relation can be had with any ontologically opposite purely physical world. Our senses all verify a Geocentric universe too, does that mean we live in a Geocentric universe? All we verify with the senses is how they render reality to us - not how reality is. Our perceptual systems across five sensory modalities merely "stretch out" the world (transcendent consciousness system) for us into dimensions and extended geometric structures within perception right now.

This is because to experience reality as the universal consciousness system, means to become one with it - the climax of meditative experience. Not really good for dissociative fitness or replication.

Now what about this?

Novelty:

This is great and supports Idealism. We do get novelty, and this is only possible because we all the share the same ontological category.

If there was dead matter in between our conscious states no information would be able to get from one to the other. This is how we know that the transcendent realty beyond our consciousness must just be "more consciousness" - not brute physical reality.

Thre is no issue with me believing in other conscious agents and a transcendent consciousness system beyond me.

Error:

What makes us wrong are thoughts (states of consciousness) of things that are nonsense or not true that we can come to with reason.

Agreement:

I addressed this. We all agreed on a Geocentric universe, we all agreed on a Flat Earth.

Intersubjective-agreement across dissociated boundaries only tells us HOW we experience reality, it does not tell us what reality is ontologically. All we know is that it is patterned. This is due to the self-bifurcation of consciousness.

When someone with split-personalities dreams, the split-personalities all experience the same "physical" landscape in the dream from unique perspectives and all the personalies agree. But it's in the mind.

So we have real examples of intersubjective agreement of a physical world when it's just in the mind!

Think of us as split-personalities in a very stable and intense mind dreaming.

Constraints:

Of course there are constraints. If "mental" meant "conforming to our will" then I would never have nightmares and all my dreams would be models on boats with cocaine. Nobody would ever have hallucinations of things they cannot control etc. In a dream you can control it only if you lucid dream.

We can't lucid dream here because this reality is rendered from a more stable Mind than our finite unstable sub-minds.


My stance that Metaphysical Idealism is the only reasonable position holds.

...

Oh, and brain activity is just a 3D perceptual rendering of someone's personal inner life. All objects in perception are like extended "icons" that represent the non-extended "file". Of course there will be tight correlations between them.

People are mistaking the image of a state for the cause of a state. Brain activity does not cause states of consciousness, brain activity is what states of consciousness look like across dissociative boundaries.

Mind does not pop in and out of existence, memory declenches and is lost but consciousness always remains. Of course when there is no memory of consciousness, it "feels" as if we were unconscious

"What about drugs? Hammers? Physical stuff changes consciousness".

No, they are just the icons that represent that change of consciousness. We change eachother's consciousness with the tool of the 3D perceptual interface but the icons cannot change the file.

No, a perception is not the totality of consciousness. I can have an empirical perception, at the same time someone hallucinates.

Consciousness has different modalities.

A perception is a state of consciousness, just like a thought, a dream etc.

So it's completely true.

Just a brain? It would not be like anything as it's just arrangements of particle-bundles.

Brains have to be accomplished by consciousness. And it would be the consciousness that feels like something.

Brains are just patterns of matter.

Consciousness isn't held, it is what holds.

The best definition of consciousness in my view involves what Philosopher Thomas Nagel mentioned in his paper in 1974 (“What Is It Like To Be A Bat?”).

Consciousness is an intangible system of potential posessing the essential quality that there is something - anything - it is like to be this system in and of itself. This system can manifest in different configurations of agents, and also “figments” for consciousness to apprehend that aren’t necessarily agents themselves.

Is there anything it’s like to be a table? Is there anything it’s like to be a computer? If you answer “no” to these questions then this means they are not conscious (yet they may still reside “in” consciousness like a table in a dream).

Is there something it’s like to be you, me, a chimp, or a dolphin? If you answered “yes” then that means we are conscious.

So I think that’s an intuitive definition.

“You only consider yourself conscious right now because there is something it is like to be you.” - Philisopher of mind/ ontology Bernardo Kastrup