A Conscious Universe

[Surgenator]

Idealism sounds like the math is making the ball fly. Explain in as much detail as possible on how this works, because I don't see understand how information moves, interacts, or has location. The baseball scenerio in idealism terms sounds like "an information packet moving through space, does some math with another information packet to decide where it would move next." And I'm guessing that time and space are real things in idealism and not another packet of information.

No, I wouldn't say that space is real, not in the sense that you view it. In an idealistic view, I'd view space as conceptual. It represents part of the way in which objects are related.

So now information has keep track of how it is related to all other information? How does this not sound ridiculous? In physicalism, the particles don't give two shits what other particles are doing. The closeness of particles determine the probability of interactions (except int the case of the strong force). There maybe a higher probability of interaction that leads the particle in a specific direction, but thats it. This behavior is clearly visible in brownian motion.

I disagree that qualia is necessary. I don't believe it even exist. How do you know qualia is an illusion? Just because you experience something that doesn't mean your experiences reflect reality.

Did I say qualia was an illlusion? That really doesn't sound like something I'd say.

My mistake, too much self editing without a final check. What I meant to say was, "how do you know qualia is not an illusion?"

What I would say is that from the perspective of a physical monism, qualia is nonsense. You can't interact with it, manipulate it directly, or even know for sure it exists.

But it does. I know this for sure, because I experience it. Therefore, a system in which qualia is nonsense cannot be said to represent reality.

We agree at least that qualia is nonsense in physical monism. However, you give your experiences too much credit. You cannot know if your experiences are giving you accurate representation of reality, e.g. optical illusions. You don't know if you have direct access to the properties of your experiences, e.g. subliminal messaging. So you cannot trust your experiences to be accurate or objective, and you cannot trust your access to your experiences to be accurate or objective. Therefore using them as a foundation will lead you a faulty conclusion.

More importantly, how is the existence of qualia falsifable?

I'm not claiming we are co-creating anything. I'm pointing out that the source of the idea is not important for its existence like the source of the particle is not important for its existence. My mind is an idea generator yet my ideas do not manifest in reality. A partice generator creates particles in reality observable by all.

I think you are making an accidental equivocation of ideas as the building block of reality, and ideas as things people think about things. Your idea no more creates elemental ideas than your brain creates new matter.

Wait, there are two types of ideas, elemental and not elemental? Does your mind work on elemental ideas or non-elemental ideas? How is this not dualism?

I never said anything about imagination's limitations. The problem is that the mind can create ideas. If the fundamental element of the universe are ideas, then our imagination can create reality. Like a flashlight creates photons, our mind creates ideas.

First of all, I think it's a bit simplistic to say a flashlight creates photons. It releases them.

Anyway, the thing about ideas bringing forth something new into the universe is interesting-- but it happens not to represent my views on the universe.

Alex has already pointed out that flashlights create photons. I will not comment on it further since he did such a good job of it.

It is fine that you don't believe ideas bringing forth something. However, I see this is more of a problem with idealism itself. Here is the argument.

1) Idealism states the fundamental element of reality are ideas.
2) The sourse of an idea has no bearing on how ideas interact.
3) A mind can create ideas
4) I have a mind
5) Therefore, I can use my mind to create ideas in reality.

Where do you think is my mistake?