There is no assumption required to know that consciousness exists. However, to claim that the only thing that exists is consciousness would indeed be an assumption.
You seem to have relabeled Idealism as Immaterialism, which is fine. Materialism and Immaterialism are indeed both assumptions
So we do agree! Good, because I will remind you of this in about two seconds.
this does not however mean that they are equally as likely. If one assumption explains the data more accurately than an another assumption, then it is a more likely assumption than the other one.
You are getting ahead of yourself. We are still only on step one; we have not discussed any evidence or experiments at this point. You are already jumping to conclusions without any evidence. Please take this one step at a time as I requested.
I am absolutely certain that consciousness and experience exist, these are two immaterial things. I am not certain that any objective material objects actually exist, therefore at the very beginning of consideration, immaterialism is more likely than materialism. You are assuming immaterialism again.
You just agreed not to do this!
We have not yet introduced any evidence showing that consciousness is either immaterial or if it’s tied to a material brain. You are simply leaping to the conclusion that you are trying to prove and you agreed not to make these assumptions.
I am certain that consciousness exists before any assumptions are even considered, assuming Materialism posits something extra without justification whereas assuming immaterialism merely extrapolates the knowledge I already have.
Just because they are both assumptions does not mean that they are equally as likely. So I disagree. You are incorrect.
You have just contradicted yourself as you already agreed that the sentence below is an assumption:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is
If you modify it to
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is…is more likely.
Then you are guilty of making the same assumption as before. i.e. prior to any evidence you are assuming you know where consciousness has come from. The "is more likely" modifier doesn't change it from being an assumption at all, in fact it certifies it and you have already agreed that this is incorrect.
Whether consciousness just exists or whether it comes from a material brain is what we are trying to prove
… you can’t just assume you know the answer… AND YOU HAVE ALREADY AGREED TO THIS
Surely you can see your error here. Correct?
After, I think therefore I am… we do not yet know the origin of consciousness, we only know that
we are conscious, not how
we are conscious
If you cannot comprehend why we cannot jump to conclusions about the origin of consciousness just because we are conscious
, then I will start over at step one again until you get this concept because it is the source of your first mistake.
So if I phrase it like this:
I think therefore I am = I think therefore thought is all that there is, is more likely.
This is an assumption, (same as it was the first time around)
Do you agree that even if I phrase it as above… it is still an assumption?
And PLEASE keep your responses brief. I’m covering as little ground as possible here to keep you on track and there is no need to go galloping off ahead of the conversation. One step at a time! Deal only with what comes after "I think therefore I am"