@ProfessorSushing There has been a semantic mix-up. Consider a dream: your character interacts with other, as you stated, distinct characters, but as Vylt notes, all ultimately share one consciousness: your dreaming self. Idealism argues that since we can't distinguish dreams from reality, assuming a separate "true" reality and independent minds is superfluous.

@Vylt I am curious how belief in Idealism will change your life? I used to think similarly but over time I have come to the conclusion of this quote: goodreads.com/quotes/1501096 In part due to the unresolved question of free will. Happy to discuss more.

@tejasvi I am afraid I cannot make sense of your comment, which sadly denies me the opportunity to provide a more constructive reply.

@tejasvi I love a good dream analogy, though I’d go further by suggesting that every point of view is really the self, whereas in a dream, this might not be the case, at least not in the same way. I realize I was rather vague about how this changed my life. Honestly, I believe (though I’m not sure) that every moment experienced is experienced by me. So if I cause you to suffer, that’s me directly experiencing that suffering, just as if I make a mistake now, it’ll cause me suffering later. I’m curious how you relate this to free will. I’m fairly convinced of determinism myself.

@ProfessorSushing Before attempting to clarify, I must ask your thoughts on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_argument so that we have somewhat shared vocabulary.

@Vylt Agree with the increase in empathy. However it gets compensated by the masochist tendencies where we subject ourselves to pain with different justifications. I have two fundamental questions: What exists? and What to do? Idealism only answers the first one. From idealist lens, determinism is a subset of free will. If you reject the idea of free will, it becomes the self fulfilling prophecy of determinism. Determinism also has materialistic undertones indicating decisions arising from an external non-experiential source. On the other hand accepting free will feels meaningless in Idealism.

@tejasvi I may misunderstand, but I don’t think idealism implies that reality itself has agency or cognition. It could still affect “what to do,” though, if I am you, then I must act as if I am you, and everyone else. As for free will, I’m curious what exactly is meant by “free,” “will,” and the phrase “free will” itself.

@Vylt Agree idealism does not directly address the agency. However if we assume it to be all encompassing description of reality, the algorithm of determinism does not seem to be contained within that reality because otherwise the thoughts would reify into something more like external matter. I understand free will as a negation of determinism where my actions are only dependant on my idealistic self.

@tejasvi With one caveat I dismiss the dream argument as untenable. It seems to me there are clear differences between dreams and our waking experience. The caveat is that clearly all our waking experiences are mental constructs, so they have that in common with dreams. The key difference is that there is a sustained and detailed character to our waking experience that I believe is best explained by assuming it correlates with an external, objective reality.

@tejasvi I see what you mean, but I don’t think idealism rules out determinism. If everything is experience, then cause and effect could just be patterns within experience, not something external. I’m also unsure what “free will” would mean without causes, would actions arise from nothing? Even in idealism, thoughts and choices are experiences unfolding within the same continuous reality.

@ProfessorSushing It is possible to have a sustained detailed character in a dream as well, though often it is hard to recall the continuity after waking up. It is similar to how it is hard to recall yesterday's experiences with same fidelity as current reality. Ability to recall a set of experiences in context of different set of experiences has no bearing on one set of experience being more real than the other. To illustrate: existentialcomics.com/comic/502

@Vylt By determinism you mean the causal chains which are fundamentally the correlation patterns. Here free will is the superset where presence of correlations is not a necessity. The unfolding thoughts need not to follow/correlate with the preceding thoughts. An example reality that determinism disallows is the one of perpetual surprise at meta level, devoid of causality. Idealism does not rule out determinism but it contextualizes it as part of a more general framework which allows non-determinism. Ironic enough, I'm providing reasons for the existence of experiences devoid of any reason.

@tejasvi you miss my point. I am quite prepared to believe an individual dream can be consistent, but collectively dreams are not. To claim they are indistinguishable from waking experience seems deliberate denial to me.

@ProfessorSushing Collectively the dreams are not consistent from the vantage point of current reality. However if we believed the same metaphysical superiority of this waking reality in our dreams then it would be possible to distinguish dreams from the waking reality. Something which you agree is not. Therefore we can not compare with the dream realities due to one sided perspective of current reality which is distorted by for example different perceptions of time.

@tejasvi I think both Physicalism and Idealism allow for non-determinism in theory. I just haven't seen convincing evidence for (or against) it. I tend to stick with what can be observed. Whatever lies beyond this system is far beyond what I claim to understand.

@tejasvi Again I confess I have no idea what your comment means. Would you care to express it in plainer language?

@ProfessorSushing I think he might be saying that we can’t truly compare dreams and waking life because we judge only from the waking side. In dreams, reality feels just as real, and time behaves differently, showing that our sense of reality depends on the state of consciousness we’re in. In my opinion waking life is privileged. It offers a consistent, brain-based account of dreams, so it’s reasonable to trust that view until evidence says otherwise. Still, this explains only how dreams occur, not what reality is. I lean toward idealism, as I think it explains more with more parsimony.

@Vylt thank you. But in what way, exactly, can we not ‘truly’ compare dreams and waking life? What elements of judgement can we not apply? And how do dreams feel ‘just as real’? Mine certainly don’t.

@ProfessorSushing I think we can compare the two states from the waking state, but not from the dream state. I think we agree here though. I was replying mostly to how I differ from tejasvi after clarifying. If I am wrong, please correct me.

@Vylt I agree we cannot analyse anything from a dream state. My objection is to the suggestion that conscious analysis is therefore not 'true'. It seems to me that the results of conscious analysis are at least sufficiently 'true' to determine that the conscious state and the dream state are not indistinguishable, which seems to be the perverse claim made in the dream argument.

@Vylt Evidence lies in material realm. Idealism aims to cover all possibilities including claims without evidence. My pet project is to reconcile determinism and free will in a way that does not require a prewritten destiny or self agency.

@ProfessorSushing There is no metaphysical law which prevents this chat to be happening in a dream. From this I conclude there is no one true reality while admitting that the realities can feel individually privileged while they are experienced.