If by, "the universe," you mean material or natural existense (that existense which we directly perceive), that does not necessarily mean the same thing as reality.
From The Autonomist, Introduction to Autonomy:
Reality is what is so, whether anybody knows what is so or not. Reality includes everything that is and excludes everything that is not. It includes everything, not as a random collection of unrelated things but every entity, every event and every relationship between them. It includes fictional things as fictions, hallucinations as hallucinations, historical things as historical things, and material things as material things. Reality does not include fictions (such as Santa Claus) as material or historical facts. It does include the fact that Santa Claus is a common fiction used for the enjoyment of Children at the Christmas season.
Now, the interesting thing here is that the strict materialist believes that material existence is all there is, and except for those things which are concepts, nothing else exists, and from that view reality and material existense or the material universe are therefore all there is and the equivalent of reality.
The problem is, consciousness itself cannot be material. Material existense is all we are conscious of, but we cannot directly perceive consciousness. Consciousness in others is inferred (we certainly cannot directly perceive anyone else's consciousness) and our own is known in the same way we know we see. We cannot see our 'seeing', we know we see because we do it.
If material existense is that which we are conscious of, consciousness itself cannot itself material. Conscious and the content of consciousness cannot be the same thing.
There is the further question of rational/volitional consciousness. Material existense is "determined," that is, the laws of science, (cause and effect) determine all that occurs. If consciousness is nothing more than a material event, it is a caused event. This is a problem for both volition (which if caused is not volition at all) and reason, because the ability to reason depends on knowledge; but, if knowledge is nothing more than caused events there is no reason to suppose they are "rational." Thinking, if caused by material laws, is no more rational than a hiccup, caused by whatever physical and physiological laws apply, and all our supposed knowledge is just whatever physical laws have determined.
There is certainly room in a strictly objective understanding of epistemology and metaphysics for something more than material existense.
These are very dangerous concepts to suggest to those who have not yet even discovered the difference between perception and conception and still believe their ideas are "caused" by some kind of mystic "essence" or "universals" "uniting with their minds," (as if they had minds).
Hank
You amaze me Hank, rarely does anyone think so clearly. And state it so clearly.
Now, the interesting thing here is that the strict materialist believes that material existence is all there is, and except for those things which are concepts, nothing else exists, and from that view reality and material existense or the material universe are therefore all there is and the equivalent of reality.
The problem I have with this is that one cannot make the 'strict materialist' statement in all honesty. There is no way any one person, or even humanity as a whole, can know enough at this point to assert that the Universe is 'strictly material.' In fact, in light of recent theories and discoveries, it isn't material at all, but nearly entirely energy. Even material is a form of energy - E=Mc2. So accusations as to what 'materialists' believe are over rated, except for those materialists foolish enough to embrace them.
The rest of your comments on consciousness fall along these lines. I look at the idea of 'materialism' the same way present physicists look at Aristotle's 'Earth, Air, Fire and Water' definition of reality. We already know this is an outmoded model. The 'immaterial' aspects of reality, such as the wave interference that generates a hologram, are as 'real' or even more so, than the 'material' of a proton, which can be converted to 'immaterial' energy at any point.
And you are right, the implications are tremendous. But as long as we seek to force our new concepts into old bottles we will never arrive at the way things really are. That there isn't an 'essence' of cat 'uniting' with something in the mind doesn't mean there isn't something 'nonmaterial' animating the cat.
I live by the ocean by choice for one of these reasons. I love to go out on a pier and look at the waves as they travel into the shore. Try and wrap your mind around what is happening there and you will see that there is an element to reality that is 'non-material' that passes through us every moment of every day. The best word we have is 'process' but that says so little.
There is so much more to the mystery here than most are willing to consider. And that, I think, is the issue. It is much more comfortable to think you have all the answers given in a little black book somewhere than to really contemplate the mystery. Takes more courage than most have.