RE: A Conscious Universe
January 31, 2015 at 11:52 pm
(This post was last modified: February 1, 2015 at 12:17 am by bennyboy.)
(January 31, 2015 at 9:38 pm)rasetsu Wrote:I think you are looking for an alternative to brain chemistry. However, there are no observable facts which are not also considered facts in an idealistic universe. The brain is the brain, brain chemistry is brain chemistry, etc.(January 31, 2015 at 8:57 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I don't know the exact chemistry of alcohol on brain function.
More generally, why does manipulation of the brain via substances result in manipulation of the experiences?
The differences, so far as I can tell, only happen at philosophical boundary conditions: establishing the fundamental nature "underlying" QM (if there is such a thing), establishing cosmogony, psychogony, etc.
(January 31, 2015 at 10:14 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: The problem with "an idea" as the solution, one that exists solely in thought without any characteristic identifiable with a world where concepts are provided definition by sense data, is that it cannot, at least as I can see, be understood in terms of how this purely abstract existence could affect physical reality.Because everything that exists, i.e. reality, IS the data.
(January 31, 2015 at 11:08 pm)Surgenator Wrote:That's a lot of questions. Let me answer that, in general, I'd describe most things as you would: momentum is the product of mass and velocity, the speed of light is 300,000km/s., etc. In fact, in all observable cases of physical interactions, I'd accept current explanations: bat has momentum a, ball has momentum b, you do the math, and ball flies toward the outfield.
The main differences occur at philosophical boundaries. What, for example, is a photon: a wave, a particle, both, neither? As an idea, ambiguity is fine. I would not, however, accept that an ambiguous "particle" is real in a physical sense, because there's no way to map it to the dimension of space which is the framework in which physical monism works.
Another example is the mind. In a physical monism, subjective mind is a (very strange) "bonus" to processes which should be able to tick along just fine without it. And before everyone starts shouting about brain chemistry, consider this: how do we even know what physical systems have the capacity to experience subjectively? We don't.
It seems to me much simpler to explain all the universe in terms of an interaction of ideas, than to explain mind in terms of physical elements. This is because we already experience everything we know as a collection of experiences and ideas anyway.