Drawing the line between feeling and fact

[solvann]

@rick

Matter does not create, it only reconfigures. It further goes without saying that the material bits of this universe cannot rearrange or reconfigure themselves into something that does not exist, for not only is the notion absurd on its face, but the outcome would obviously not be a reconfiguration or rearrangement of existent material at all; instead that would again be creatio ex materia. The ‘nonmaterial’, such as what the instinctual passions are said to be, could therefore neither be a creation of material nor a rearranged formulation of material.

Instinctual passions are said to me ‘nonmaterial’?
There is a reason why Richard came up with the Actual vs Real split. Instinctual passions and the feeling being are real (but not actual). And like @claudiu mentions, just because something is not actual doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in this only existing universe. As to what sort of existence a unicorn in a dream has, that’s more a question of defining ‘existence’ and a step out into philosophy.

@rick

But consider that “non-solid’’ does not mean non-material (gas, for example) and you’ll find that the analogy you put forward does not hold up.

Fair enough, this was me wrongly guessing at where you see a contradiction, because I’m still confused about your position. My next guess is what @claudiu last wrote to you so will wait for your reply on that.

@rick

Yes to the actual and non-actual split; no to the solid and non-solid split.

Perhaps you can drill into what it is about actual vs non-actual you see a problem with?
Forgetting about actualism for a second: A dream is said to not be real, but a bed for instance, is. When you awake from a dream you realize it was not real and you find yourself in a very real bed, all without breaking any laws of the universe? Can you explain how the actual/real split (as coined by Richard to better describe his experience of living in the actual world) is different for you?