On naturalism and consciousness

[bennyboy]

And you still haven't shown how concepts can give a physical universe. The Matrix example that you quote doesn't work because the Matrix is still in a physical reality.

The physical universe AS WE EXPERIENCE IT is already purely conceptual. Do you really think that the desk you see is the same as what is really there?

The question is whether, if you dig really deep, anything is really there at all beyond the idea of relationships. Seen a QM particle lately? Seen a photon flipping ambiguously between particle and wave forms lately? No? Seen a wave function floating around in space anywhere? No? Seen any of the four fundamental forces in the universe? No? That's because these are ideas, with no observable boundaries in space and time. They do not exist except as ideas, at least insofar as we are capable of directly observing.

Contradictions in your world view. The God existing and not existing.

You point to problems with idealism that are direct parallels to physical monism. In physicalism God also exists-- as an idea, by which you mean a physical/chemical encoding in the brain. In idealism, God exists as an idea, but maybe not as part of that class of experience which is sharable-- i.e. the class of experience that involves observing things with the eyes, the hands, etc.

But don't let's worry about God. Let's think about a family member, say your mother (apologies in advance if she's not currently living). The mother that actually exists in spacetime is a complex ocean of QM particles vibrating in space. But this is not what you experience-- you experience shape, form, smell, and complex abstract qualities: virtue, self-sacrifice, comfort. These are idealistic representations of what your mother actually is.

The only question is whether there is anything real there at all beyond these ideas. And, maybe just as importantly, how would you know, or does it matter?

I'm saying since human reality is already purely experiential, and since the reality of an objective physical universe cannot be proven via experience, Occam's Razor dictates that the universe is more likely idealistic than physical monist.

In physical monism, your base is physical particles and their interactions. Then you have complex interactions. After that, you can build a consciousness. Then, consciousness creates concepts. Then, we get principles. Finally, we get morals.

The problem is that you have no workable model for HOW the complex physical interactions build a subjectively experiencing concsciousness. You don't get to just skip that step, because that's what religious folk do: "See son, God made the universe, created man from the dust of the earth, and breathed life to it. And finally, we get morals." You wouldn't accept the result as proof of your assertions about process, and you shouldn't ask anyone else to accept your narrative without actually demonstrating it to be true. Waving at the brain is not sufficient to show exactly what it is about some systems which causes consciousness to exist rather than not to.

So what different classes are you talking about. There are different levels of complexity, but that doesn't mean their different from each other.

Sure they're different. Some of my experiences involve Angelina Jolie on a magic unicorn dressed in Tomb Raider garb, riding in and out of long tunnels. You have presumably never had that exact experience, and even if you did, the experience of it would probably be substantively different than mine.

Some experiences involve holding weights, feathers and other objects at the top of the school gym roof, dropping them, and seeing what happens. The experience of dropping things and seeing what happens is sharable.