On naturalism and consciousness

[Surgenator]

Qualia (the experience of what things are like to a subjective experiencer) are said by you to be physical.

Yeap, chemicals interacting in my brain.

And yet you cannot see them,

Why am I blind?

measure them,

And you took my ruler away.

or establish any criteria by which you can be sure they even exist in a given physical system.

All kidding aside, no one can be sure. I never claimed to be sure. I claim to be convinced. I still leave a little room for doubt.

This is a logical inconsistency-- to claim that something exists which cannot be reasonably inferred without already assuming that it exists.

So you think I started with this belief and found evidence to support it. Then you would be mistaken. I arrived at this belief because of my experiences. I started out not having a world view, developed a dualist world view, and eventually ended up where I am today.

You know whats the best part of my world view, I can make accurate, testable predictions.

For something to be said to exist in a physical framework, it must be locatable in both time and space. Something cannot both be a particle and a wave, because those things are substantively different in nature. We cannot therefore draw an image of a photon as it moves through space. So in what sense does a photon exist?

First, something can be both a particle and a wave. Here is a link http://users.df.uba.ar/dasso/fis4_2do_cu...walker.pdf

Second, QM says that photons have wave-like and particle-like properties. The water down version says that it is both a particle and a wave. There is a clear difference. Also, Quantum Field Theory (the big brother of QM) explains why photons have particle and wave like properties.

Third, a 3D gaussain wave packet going east at 3E8 m/s. Picture drawn.

Forth, a photon exist the same way I think you exist. It is inferred.

There is some framework? Made out of what, concepts? The interactions of the concepts? How does it prevent any other concept from existing in it? How does it prevent the all-powerful, all-knowing, omnipresent God concept from existing in it?

I don't know any more about how an idealistic universe works than you know about a physicalist one.

I don't mean to brag, but I do know a lot about how a physical universe works.

Plus, adding a framework doesn't prevent the contradiction between the God existing and not existing. Because the framework would still have to be either made out of concepts or made out of the interactions between concepts.

Yes, I do think all idealism is a kind of Buddhist "not-being," because I can't picture how a concept(s) can produce a physical(-like) universe.

Have you never dreamed? Or read fantasy or sci-fi?

Yes I have. I also realize that reality doesn't behave like dreams. A story doesn't make objects come into existence.

Atomic means "indivisible," i.e. that you have reduced reality down to its most fundamental possible element/s. If, in the process of reduction, you find yourself resorting exclusively to math, and unable to visualize or spatialize a model of things, then you have discovered that the universe is composed of concept rather than things and their interactions.

Non sequitur. Me not able to visualize a model is more of a comment on my limitations than the universe.