A Conscious Universe

[bennyboy]

Hi bennyboy,

That doesn't say much about the framework in which brains exist, which is the question.

But it does address the question of where consciousness comes from: brains of sufficient complexity. The framework for that complexity is formally addressed by evolutionary biologists.

If the universe is idealistic, then everything in it, including humans and the human brain, are all idealistic as well. Nobody (I think) is here disputing that brains seem to be the seat of consiousness in human organism. What is disupted is the ultimate nature of reality.

Really? I'm surprised you don't understand that we're not solely reliant on our individual intuition in order to come to our conclusions. Serious study results in practical and theoretical experimentation. It's crucial to remember that the 'collection of information through the senses' is not done in isolation and we don't automatically trust our biological senses but instead create mechanisms & tools with which we can in/validate what we sense and intuit.

That's fine, but the shared experiences which we refer to as objective are not exclusive to objectivity. You could make observations in the Matrix, and establish consistent relationships between your perceptions, and confirm your hypotheses with third parties.

No, it's a statement of trust, earned trust, not just in the methodology which is being applied but also in response to the findings already made. It couldn't be further from 'faith'.

If you say science hasn't "yet" solved a problem, and there are no similar problems which science has solved, then the "yet" isn't merited. Science has solved the problems of how to build good bridges, how to vaccinate against some strains of flu, and how to land a man on the moon. None of these deal with anything deeply philosophical, like why things exist rather than not, or why objective material would have actual subjective experiences (rathing than just seeming to).

There's no plausible explanation of psychogony right now,

There's plenty plausible! Integrated Information Theory is starting to yield some interesting results. And just because there's no current, robust, comprehensive explanation doesn't mean we discount the progress that has been made.

I find it interesting that you consider IIT a strong argument against idealism. Is it just because it's a scientific theory?

nor has any similar problem been solved in the past which gives us reason to think that the question of mind will be solved at any point in the future.

Untrue. Many supernatural assertions have been overturned as a result of the application of methodological naturalism. So many, in fact, that I feel quietly confident saying that 'the question of mind' will likely yield similar results.

Hmmm. Equating human mind, the center of all that we know and experience, with "ghosts 'n' sich" doesn't seem so equal to me.