A Conscious Universe

[bennyboy]

Stop saying there's no difference between physical and mental in idealism. Nobody's saying that, unless you are. Are you?

Differences -that make a difference-. I'll say it, if no one else wants to. It does seem as though there is very little difference between your idealism and my materialism. So much so that if, for example, your idealism were true then the description of mind, consciousness, qualia (everything, really) that I'm offering via computation by physical objects still holds as a proof of concept for how information machines do information to information.

Methodologically identical, though we still have the nagging solidity of kicked stones to explain away.

As I've said, I think for mundane life, there really is little difference. Even if I'm just the awareness of a brain of its own function, I still enjoy the experience surfing the net with my morning coffee sitting next to me. And even if the universe is only ideas, the feel of sand between your toes, or the sun on your face, is real enough.

It is at philosophical (and now, scientific) boundary conditions that these views really differ: what the hell IS a photon, for example?

However, it seems to me that at those boundary conditions, philosophy and science are beginning to merge together. Science challenges our understanding of what it even MEANS to say something is "real." And here's where I think the difference in world views will really matter: in deciding WHAT hypotheses to put forward as candidates, and what models to filter new information through.

---

So how would you go about determining whether one of these positions is true? And if this is impossible, how would you go about establishing which position, if either, should be the dafault position?

By mapping out the brain and having a full understanding of the mechanisms by which external stimuli produce a conceptualized order of sensation within an individual experience. Of course, the gap that still exists in asking what things are "in-themselves" may be forever unknowable and allow a certain type of cynic to continually peddle nonsense under the banner of philosophy.

Okay. Let's say we've completely mapped the brain. Let's say that given any subjective description I can give of my experience at a given moment, you can show me a high-res image of the related brain activity, right down to the individual dendrites in each neuron in my brain.

Let's even say that the measurement equipment is so fast and precise that you can show me a movie, record in holographic perfection my brain function at every given moment, and then formulate a new experience by stimulating individual nerves.

How do you feel this would establish that the universe resolves down to physical reality, about which ideas are merely a description, rather than ideas, of which matter is merely an expression?