Of course there's an enormous difference. Which explains why the argument carries on, and can become quite vehement.
I've noticed that the "what difference does it make?" line is one taken solely by the materialists. They do this because they implicitly recognise a weakness in their own position. That weakness being that idealism is
a priori batting on a better wicket, due to skepticism as to the existence of mind being patently absurd and self-defeating.
Whereas skepticism as to the existence of a material world, existing independent of mind, is at least not patently absurd, and is not at all self-defeating.
As materialists are exposed to discussions on this matter they become uncomfortable, and try to get out of their fix by trying to argue or imply that idealism and solipsism are the same thing, which they clearly are not.
(So, note to readers, when you see orthodox JREFers writing 'solipsism' a dollar to a dime they're trying to get out of this fix)
Back to whether there's a difference.
Idealism puts mind (consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality. Mind is 'what reality is made of'. Mind is primary.
Materialism puts matter (physicality independent of mind/consciousness if you prefer) at the centre of reality.
Matter/ Physicality Independent of Mind .. is 'what reality is made of'. Matter is primary.
If people can't see how choosing between these two options makes any difference then they have to be living in cloud-cuckoo land.
When Mind is primary there is nothing at all surprising about a whole host of things that orthodox JREFers can't stand.. such as free will, God, intelligence behind the existence of mathematically describable physical laws, the existence of consciousness associated with physical lifeforms, the fine tuning of the universe to enable life, the imposition of determinism at the macro-level in order to enable Mind to take meaningful decisions which will therefore definitely be physically enacted, moral responsibility for ones choices, spirituality, the exquisitely intelligent design of lifeforms, spiritual practice, existence as being objectively directional purposeful and meaningful, the continuation of life beyond Mind's association with a particular organic form, most of the paranormal... etc.. (I could go on for ages but you get the picture)
On the contrary, when Matter / Physicality Independent of Mind (PIM) are seen as primary one is forced to describe all the above as either non-existent, fraudulent, or at the very most as epiphenomena (side-effects) of the existence of PIM.
Thus the great dance of denial begins, in which every effort is made to push Mind to the margins of reality. To see the absurd lengths materialist academia has gone to in this regard please google Behaviorism and B.F. Skinner (its founder), in which it was academically respectable for many years to want to deny that anything of interest happened in the inner conscious life of the human being. That was mainstream academic psychology.
I could take any recent academic discipline and describe a similar kind of denialism of the bleedin' obvious at work, all in order to fit with the desire to push Mind out of the picture as far as possible.
For example, in politics it led to relatively morality-free materialist ideologies which killed upwards of 100 million citizens in 70 years.
Good question. What should we call it then? How might we describe a universe which seems to operate according to a set of predictable laws?
Well, you can call it whatever you like. To me, laws imply intentionality.. wanting to get something done, whether it be legally in the courts, or physically in the created Universe. For intentionality to exist Mind has to exist. So Universal Laws at the physical level are a clear indicator of Universal Intentionality and thus Universal Mind.
If you can present to me a convincing argument which can explain some accidental (non-intentional) genesis of dozens of predictable physical laws and constants, then perhaps I might reconsider
Idealists argue that there is more to the universe than what can be observed.
(so do physicists, with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)
If this 'more' operates under laws, it must also be materialistic in nature...given that materialism is the ontology describing a universe according to predictable, symmetrical laws and principles.
If. That's a huge if.
What you seem to be doing (which is rife among materialists) is applying modes of thought reasonably applicable to the conditioned 'material' space/time Universe, to that which exists independent of it.
It's like someone brought up in an Indian village assuming that everyone in the whole World lives on curry, rice and dahl.
The same may well not apply
So why do people continue to refer to idealism when they can't state how it is different to materialism?
Well, I can. I just did.
Malerin would probably state something similar. Hopefully I've saved him the bother.
Have you been reading the same thread? Either the universe operates under predictable laws, or it doesn't. Even if we're all figments of a single imagination, then that imagination either operates under laws or it doesn't.
Clearly not.
Test it in your own experience. Imagine something, your own imaginary World, if you like. Are you, as the imagination which created that World, limited to the laws which you imposed on it?
He's avoiding that point.
I assume you'll do the same?
I don't think Malerin or myself are avoiding anything. We just happen to be enormously outnumbered here. We receive a lot of crap from dogmatists. If he loses his temper I think it's understandable. Often I just post my point of view and can't be arsed to follow it up because due to experience I know the kind of old, uninteresting, sometimes insulting, dogmatic replies I'm going to receive.
Just to ask, do you think there is no difference?
on him in a reflexive grammatical tense.
I thought you meant 