Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Redbeard The Pink]

you misunderstand the intent of the first premise. i'm not saying 'you can't prove it wrong therefore it's true.' i'm saying 'it's impossible to prove it wrong, therefore it's unreasonable to presume it's impossible.' this simply follows, the definition of reasonable is a position that can be reasoned. if you can't prove it false, then you can't possibly reason it's impossible thus it's not reasonable to presume as such. this makes it reasonable to presume solipsism is possible as per premise 2.

It basically doesn't matter what the intent behind your first premise is; the premise itself is fallacious. Your claim (however you choose to word it) is that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of a mind whose dreams encompass all of reality, and I'm telling you that because that statement is non-falsifiable it is logically irrelevant, and that it fallaciously misplaces the burden of proof. This is the first premise we're talking about, and not your conclusion.


Really, though, the possibility of your statement depends on how you define the term "mind." To me, a "mind" is most accurately defined as an animal's intellect, or the quality that allows an animal to be aware of and experience the natural world; because science seems to indicate that this quality is a series of chemical and electrical processes residing within brains and the sense organs attached to them, it's not unreasonable to assume that a mind without a nervous system of some sort is a paradox, and therefore an impossible object. If a mind without matter (specifically brains/nerves) is an impossible object, then solipsism fails by definition.

in what world does 'introspection' translate to 'presuppositions'?

In a world where people attempt to establish argumentative premises that can't be accepted as fact on their own without further scrutiny.

what 'false logic' is there?

Misplaced burden of proof. Premise #1.

based on false logic and speculation? which premises are speculative?

Well, for one thing, the premise that all of reality is dreamed up by an all-encompassing mind is purely speculative because it's completely untestable and lacks evidence entirely.

how about the only thing that exists is a mind, and produces lesser minds from his thoughts. and he produces a simulation of an apparent physical world.

How can it simulate a physical world if there is no physical world for it to simulate? If the only iteration of a physical world is this "simulation" that exists inside this hypothetical mind of yours, then this iteration is, for all intents and purposes, the only physical world. It is not a simulation of anything.

perhaps it was a poor choice of words on my part. I meant, he mapped out a world in likeness to a physical one.' the world he mapped out of course would be completely fabricated as there is no actual physical world to look at.

Ok, so now you're using the word "likeness," which is just another synonym for "simulation" and "resemblance." You cannot use language to escape this problem because the problem is with the concept and not the language. You cannot have a "likeness" of physical reality unless physical reality is a thing that exists and can therefore be emulated.

except you didn't address my reasoning, rather just criticized the conclusion. at least, not until this later post.

No, I've pretty well just been dwelling on Premise #1 because it's bullshit.

wait... what was that I heard? regardless? so i'm not using false logic after all?

Yeah, you are. Premise #1. I honestly haven't looked too far past that because if you're starting with a fallacy, whatever you're following it with basically doesn't matter. Nothing can logically follow from a logical fallacy.

so by falsifiable you mean... what exactly? because making an argument automatically makes it falsifiable by the condition of debunking the premises or the validity of the logic. I can only assume you mean empirically verifiable in which case I would have to whole heartedly disagree with you. not everything can be empirically verified.

By falsifiable I mean "can be proven false." Your premise cannot be proven false by virtue of its structure rather than its merit...that is, unless one considers a mind without matter to be an impossible object, in which case your premise can be proven false by way of impossibility.