A Conscious Universe

[bennyboy]

Not in the manner that you're proposing, no. As before, all of this applies...and you and I are in -complete- agreement regarding the concepts we use to -describe reality-. But you seem to be deadset on extending that farther than we have any reason to assume that it applies.

No. I'm dead set on extending it less. My experience is purely idealistic, and I have no non-idealistic means of interacting with reality, whatever it might be. The default position is that all existence is idealistic.

[The Grand Nudger]

The default position is that all of your descriptions are "idealistic". That these ideas have a weight and a mass, just like bits........kind of scuttles the "reality as idea" ship. I really need some confirmation on this, you -are- aware that bits are a physical thing, yes?

[FallentoReason]

We all know for a fact, that we can function, converse, feel, negotiate etc., in an imaginary world. So who can say for a fact, that this reality is any more real?

Because we know that our consciences, ideas, or concepts do not dictate what we obsserve unlike in the imaginary world. This is a problem that idealism doesn't address, and my biggest complaint about it.

"Imaginary" isn't on the same plane as "idealism" at all. In an ideal world, everything is still real. It's just not what you think it is i.e. you aren't made of matter. But just because consciousness is all there is doesn't mean you can now start "imagining" away the world and change it to your liking.

[bennyboy]

Since you used the matrix as the example, they are observing a physical system Benny. Various states of a physical machine.

You are stretching the metaphor too far. The point is that they are drawing inferences from an observed physical reality which does not exist as they experience it. Their "space" exists only as information. Their "stuff" is no more than the representation of an underlying framework (computer memory) to which they do not have access.

[The Grand Nudger]

Um, no....you asked what people in the matrix were observing, they are observing the states of a physical machine. That reality -does- exist as they experience it, that's why they experience it the way they do and why it's "the matrix". If we, for example, are in "the matrix" that's our reality, insomuch as we can perceive it. That's the limit of a concept. That's the limit of our machinery - to describe the state of a far more robust machine.

Perhaps you meant "what are people in the magical matrix observing"? The answer, obviously, would be "magic".

Again, confirmation that you understand that bits are a physical thing is required.

[bennyboy]

Um, no....you asked what people in the matrix were observing, they are observing the states of a physical machine. That reality -does- exist as they experience it

No it doesn't. They're experiencing people, buildings, cars, etc. However, there are no actual people there, nor anywhere else. It is the INFORMATION which exists, not the "stuff." The way you are saying things, it sounds like if you play a car-racing game, you're going to be looking behind the monitor to see where the cars are going.

[The Grand Nudger]

There are no people or cars, sure..but there -are- bits...and that is still a physical thing, understand? Information, bits, data...these are words for a description of a physical state of a physical thing. That's why I keep asking for confirmation that you understand this. "The Matrix" is feeding them analogous "bits" of data, and it just so happens to be a more robust physical system than they are...which is, amusingly, precisely where we find ourselves (even if there is no Matrix, ala the movie).

[FallentoReason]

Don't you think that an explanation of mind ought to hinge mostly on mind, rather than on redefining or casting suspicion on the very nature of reality? Must we actually redefine the "ultimate nature of reality" in order to escape a physical mind?

Yes, because just like physical monism is about reducing consciousness to a physical explanation, then so too, can you attempt to reduce the physical world to an explanation of consciousness.

That seems like an awfully roundabout way to go if we want to make some statement about mind and how it can or cannot be explained....don't you think? Personally, I prefer the "put one foot in front of the other" approach.....

But it is one foot in front of the other, just in the other direction.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, because just like physical monism is about reducing consciousness to a physical explanation, then so too, can you attempt to reduce the physical world to an explanation of consciousness.

The trouble here, is explaining why stuff happens in the absence of a consciousness, or even explaining how a consciousness arises in the first place for stuff to mystifyingly happen in the absence thereof.

But it is one foot in front of the other, just in the other direction.

Meh, doesn't seem like it to me. I like to take things one variable at a time. Why assume that everything we know is wrong, in order to argue that one thing we have evidence for is wrong? Can't it be the only thing we have wrong? Can't we have things mostly right, or close to right, and this one thing be in error (and won't we need -something- to be right to even attempt the argument that some other thing is wrong)? If we turn everything into a variable all at once there is absolutely no solution, no way to assign confidence to our conclusion if we simply assert one. Define these variables for me. x+t=y? Now try it with x+t=6.

[FallentoReason]

There are no people or cars, sure..but there -are- bits...and that is still a physical thing, understand? Information, bits, data...these are words for a description of a physical state of a physical thing. That's why I keep asking for confirmation that you understand this. "The Matrix" is feeding them analogous "bits" of data, and it just so happens to be a more robust physical system than they are...which is, amusingly, precisely where we find ourselves (even if there is no Matrix, ala the movie).

You're not allowed to warp Benny's metaphor to your liking. You're literally explaining what it would be like in the *movie* The Matrix, whereas Benny is asking you to take the idea of this Matrix and apply it as a possible as-a-matter-of-fact reality of our universe, except that Neo doesn't exist and we aren't secretly being ruled by machines.

I know you're better than this Rhythm