One virtue, I think, of good analytic philosophers is that they will tell you what the fuck they mean when they introduce a technical term.* When analytic idealists say things like this, none of the terms have their conventional sense. Mind at large isn’t a wave in the technical sense. What is the period of a mental state?? Excitation is a technical term that’s supposed to be, in some sense, analogous in meaning to the technical usage in physics. But it gets super easy to hand wave what the fuck that means. “Yea, well, there is an excitation in mind at large and you can think of that in the same way the quantum field is excited.” Uhhh very cool… how? I can define, rigorously, what excitation of the quantum field means, but mental states don’t seem to have wave-like properties, so unless you fill in the details, I have no idea what you’re saying!

Also, this doesn’t count as my monthly anti-Kastrup post, that will come at a later date when I am sufficiently rage baited by someone repeating his stock phrases with sufficient adoration.

*Note: Sometimes philosophers use a term they don’t take to be a technical one, like ‘should,’ and thus do not provide a definition. This is sometimes a problem, and also, not what I’m talking about.