The difference between the two paradigms is what takes precedence, consciousness or matter.
Then I'm thoroughly lost. We are all agreed that there is physical reality - PCs and so forth. We are also agreed that there is a thing called "consciousness", which involves thought. So what the heck is your point? What do you mean exactly by "precedence"?
Seriously - I'm lost. I thought the point was there was either physical universe, or consciousness.
Anfauglir, see if this helps -Paradigm 1
The dominant school of thought in science is that a standard model of sub-atomic particles form the building blocks of matter and the physical universe is made up from this. Consciousness then, whatever it may turn out to be, somehow comes about within that physical environment.
That is what I am calling the standard physical paradigm which many people take for granted.Paradigm 2
The alternative paradigm which I am putting forward (although I didn't invent it) is a Consciousness Paradigm whereby consciousness is the fundamental constituent of reality (constituent is probably not the best word). Perhaps it might be conveyed more clearly if I say 'in the beginning was consciousness'. Then within consciousness, one particular manifestation of that consciousness is the physical world (aka the universe). Consciousness manifests the physical world and relates to that physical world through sense perception.
I will add that many other worlds (other than the physical) are available to consciousness. Examples of these worlds are dreams, imagination, fantasy, hallucination, drug induced trips, mental ideas, NDEs, OBEs, even perhaps emotions, desires, love, will, all of which are non-material phenomena.
Does that convey the 2 paradigms ?
In a nutshell I think the difference is whether consciousness is a sub-set of matter or matter is a sub-set of consciousness. Do you agree there is avery fundamental difference between the two ?