A Conscious Universe

[bennyboy]

The sleight of hand of calling them both "idea" does not disguise the seeming fact that you have two distinctly different kinds of idea stuff that has to meet somewhere in the middle. This is the classic interface problem of substance dualism, and I don't see that you've solved it except metaphorically or semantically with vague talk of "context".

Yeah, we've had problems with this equivocation already, but I'm not trying to make it. My definition of "idea" in the context of an idealistic universe is that a concept cannot be resolved unambiguously in geometric space.

I find it odd that you pose challenges to physicalism such as identifying what things are capable of qualia that you can't resolve in the context of idealism. Is a cat capable of experiencing qualia? How does Idealism help us answer this question?

It doesn't. Rhythm (I believe) was making a series of positive assertions about the nature of qualia, and I wanted him to support them. If I make explanations about exactly how qualia work in an idealistic universe, then I'm going to be in the same boat. I wasn't attempting to support what you think I was attempting to support with that line.

Wherever you go across the spectrum, physicalism provides evidence for its position; Idealism just assumes, hand waves, or engages in flowery metaphor that is no more explanatory than "It's magic!" or "Goddidit!"

I disagree with this, obviously. Observation provides evidence for the consistency of experience in the context of mundane life: gravity makes things fall down, chemistry makes things interact in certain ways, etc. There is nothing about any of that that establishes the underlying nature of those experiences.

Physicalism provides compelling, if not conclusive, evidence of the link between brain matter and qualia.
Wherever we find creatures that claim to have qualia, we find brains.

1. That's a little Heywoodian for my taste. "All evolutionary systems we've observed to be implemented are created by intellects (humans), therefore all evolutionary systems are created by intellects." <--> "All systems of qualia we've been able to communicate with have brains (humans), therefore all qualia is created by brains." That's a false syllogism spawned by our complete inability to perceive the qualia of others.

2. I don't have a problem with the brain and its relationship with qualia, because my view of idealism is more about what's "under the hood." Brains are observable, and we can manipulate people's experience by giving them drugs. I don't see how, under any world view, anyone could sensibly argue otherwise.

All the qualia we are capable of experiencing has corresponding sensory organs in the body, from sight to hearing to a network of muscoloskeletal sensors which tell us how are limbs are arranged and give rise to a body image. How does Idealism explain that coincidence? It's almost as if there were a relationship between the physical and the mental.

I explain all this the same way you do: the conglomeration of molecules into proteins, the evolution of genetics over time in response to statistical pressures, etc.

Evidence from the experience of drug use such as alcohol, rohypnol, and LSD seems to suggest that manipulation of brain chemistry brings about concomitant manipulation of the experience of mind. How does Idealism explain that?

Again, I don't want to piss off big-I idealists by representing their positions badly, or wrongly. It is my view that the universe is rediclbe to concepts which cannot be realized unambiguously in a space time framework.

I've edited out most of the rest of your post, because I don't disagree with any of it, except that it necessitates a physical monist position.

In sum, I don't care what is "under the hood" so long as it behaves according to the equations of QM.

Fair enough.

---

It is fine that you don't believe ideas bringing forth something. However, I see this is more of a problem with idealism itself. Here is the argument.

1) Idealism states the fundamental element of reality are ideas.
2) The sourse of an idea has no bearing on how ideas interact.
3) A mind can create ideas
4) I have a mind
5) Therefore, I can use my mind to create ideas in reality.

Where do you think is my mistake?

It's an equivocation on two different meanings of "idea." I can create a car, in the sense that there's a car when there wasn't previously a car. But that doesn't mean that my act of creation created a car out of nothing.

---

Wait, there are two types of ideas, elemental and not elemental? Does your mind work on elemental ideas or non-elemental ideas? How is this not dualism?

Do you not hold that both the brain and the QM particles of which it is made are both "things"? Would you claim that your brain is dualistic because it is made up of "both" QM particles and brain tissue?