*You interpret* the evidence as meaning this, but this is not what the evidence itself says.
I disagree. The universe that seems to exist seems to have existed for billions of years. As we have no evidence of any consciousness that's been around that long, beyond idle speculation, I conclude that the universe exists independent of mind.
Time may be a concept that ermerges out of our consciousness and the "lack" of consciousness in the early universes may just mean we had no physical avatar back then, but nevertheless the cause for it being observable could be our awareness *now*.
Physical time may simply be the attempt of consciousness to make sense of its evolution.
Lots of things "may be". It "may be" that the universe and our memories were created just a few minutes ago, and that the evidence upon which materialistic models are built are a cosmic practical joke. It "may be" that the universe is a playground for immortal minds, created to wile away eternity. It "may be" this, that, or the other thing... Wishful thinking and imagination, however, do not make something so.
The universe is a mystery, but it's a consistent and predictable (within limits) mystery. An evidence-based, materialistic model of the universe that
seems to exist
seems to work. I don't see what's to be gained by simply making stuff up.
As I said my intention is not me being right and you being wrong, but me understanding what you mean, which could help you to understand what you really mean, too.
I mean that I'm not interested in explanations for which there is no evidence, aside from their entertainment value. My imagination is probably on a par with the next guy's. I could sit around and come up with all kinds of comforting explanations for the existence of the universe and humanity's place in it, but, where the rubber meets the road, I'd just be making stuff up.
I think you are a bit fast with your conclusions and take a bit too much for granted. You know how long your your particular personality has been there as a physical manifest object.
But it may be that consciousness is beyond time and personality and causing them to be perceived.
Sure, it may be. There's the little problem that there is no evidence indicating that this is the case, but it may be.
I'm looking forward to it.
No, it indicates a particular expression of consciousness as perceived by others vanishes... But this does not preclude the possibility that you may be ressurected some time later (which I think does not contradict any physical law), or that the informational pattern that corresponds to your personality continues in an other relative environment (that may be largly or completely out of our present reach of communication).
I disagree. There is no compelling evidence that indicates that human consciousness can exist outside a living brain. When the brain goes, so does consciousness. Don't get me wrong. I enjoy sci-fi/fantasy as much as, if not more than, the next guy. I don't, however, believe an explanation simply on the basis of someone having made one up.
Furthermore I don't think we need much evidence to see that consciousness does not end (or rather, that we can not know what this really means). All we need is the subjective certainty "I am conscious" and understand that this can not subjectively change (because the negation of "I am conscious" "I am unconscious" can not be directly experienced).
There seems to be no alternative to "I am conscious and will always be" and if there is no alternative to something, we don't need any additional evidence to conclude it's true.
But there is an alternative: Consciousness has a beginning and an end. If you're aware of evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing it.
As I recently said to a friend, ontology is a dead end so I go with what works. Unlike our mystic and psychic friends, I make no claims of having special knowledge or secret powers. A materialistic model of the universe that seems to exist seems to work. I have no idea if reality is an illusion or, if it is indeed an illusion, what lies behind it.
