Contra Metaphysical Idealism

[archangle]

But it seems for ideas to "be" you have to have some type of particle exchange.

If this were so, then the ideas wouldn't be the fundamental building block of the universe, and idealism would be false. Basically, it's taking a physical world view but not requiring that "things" underly properties.

However, while this works for physics-- i.e. for explaining the things we can all observe and talk about, it doesn't work for psychogony. Why is it that the exchange of physical particles (verb or noun) results in/requires the subjective awareness of qualia?

that is what they are looking for. But there are large amount of interactions in the brain, so large in fact that we can ignore the individual particles at times. Like ignoring quarks when we do chemistry.

They will find that the concentrations of neurotransmitters and how they interact to leads to a type of thought pattern. And "probability" will be a big part.

But for now we can't really go past what they know. How will this information be exchange in the brain? for now particles. But we can look at the two things they do know, waving and particles.

1) a particle exchange. That is a valid answer for now. Maybe not the only answer though.
2) how about a "wavering"?

The information could be transmitted through a wave. A wave is not a particle. If the 'waving" is seen to have specific patters then that would indicate some type of "information"

a neat example of this is a large group of people is a confined space. You can see waves through the group at times. again, not a metaphor. I don't do metaphors.

This notion would also fit your idea thingies. Think of two fields of different energy potentials waving near, or on each other. Where they interact you may have enough energy for the particles we see "pop" into existence. Again, this is not a metaphor it is field theory and they are using it.

I have to say again, this is past me. We need to be very careful how we are using it.