I thought the argument that "only consciousness is real" was fascinating.  I don't necessarily agree, but it does beg the question, "What is reality?" Reality only exists because of our perceptions, because we are conscious of them and piece them together to form some sort of truth.  It does seem like a compelling argument to say that only what is witnessed is reality, and things such as testimony do not constitute legitimate knowledge.  However, I don't believe "only consciousness is real" because it seems like a very individualized view of things.  Humans live together, work together, experience together, and perceive together, and to say that consciousness is the only reality seems to split apart the inherent sense of community that humans share.  If "only consciousness is real," whose consciousness are we talking about? No one's consciousness is exactly the same. Whose consciousness is "the most real?"  I don't think a question regarding all of reality for every human being should be so objectified and minimized.

I also like how this question ties into a linguistic debate about whether or not language distorts our perceptions.  The debate mentioned in class reminded me of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which states that humans' perception of the world is strongly shaped by the language they speak.  However, this debate seems to be based around the converse of that statement, that our perceptions of the world are perfect until language comes along to muck it up.

It seems to me that these two issues are very "chicken or egg" in nature.  Which came first, consciousness or reality? Language or perception? Which one shapes the other? As we've seen, questions like this can result in ongoing debates that last for centuries.