Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

for Rhythm... I assume since you did not address my latest response concerning your criticisms of the argument that you don't have any problems to bring forward concerning that response at the present time. with that being said, i'll briefly address your criticisms of the evidence brought forward from QM.

The bridge isn't "only there because you observe it" - you've made the most common and ridiculous mistake on the periphery of QM.

the bridge is only there as solid particles because you're observing it. apart from that observation, it is a wave of potentialities which can only be expressed in mathematical terms... that obviously makes it fundamentally different from matter apart from observation. this is why it is accurate to say matter isn't there apart from observation. it 'materializes' upon wave function collapse.

The way you take the word "observe" to mean, in your everyday life, -is not- what is meant by observation in QM.

right... but i'm saying the implications of the QM term has implications concerning mind's effect on reality... particularly the ability to collapse wave functions. I would say this was shown most clearly with the delayed choice quantum eraser experiment, where physical interaction between the measuring device and the particles was ruled out; and it was found that the measurement doesn't just cause collapse in the present, but also loads a back history as though the particles were acting materialistically before they were measured.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6HLjpj4Nt4

The bridge isn't there -as I perceive it- even when I'm observing it.

if you're referring to the added qualia in our perceptions, then you're right. however, QM further shows that the bridge isn't solid material when it's not observed. it's a wave of potentialities, which doesn't seem to be an accurate description of matter... thus the statement, 'the bridge is not there when you're not observing it.'

Insisting our perceived reality is the only real reality is just begging the question.

I certainly don't believe our previewed reality is the only reality. I just think physical reality is merely a manifestation in our perceptions, and doesn't exist apart from that. so the reality that exists beyond your perception are other minds, and their mental constructs. even so, I wouldn't call this question begging. we're talking about the metaphysical belief with the fewest assumptions and the most consistent with experience. such a particular conversation wouldn't be an argument for truth, but one for what's most reasonable. thus it's not question begging, but then again it's not proof. but if you want proof, that's what I presented the OP argument for.

[The Grand Nudger]

You're still making the same silly mistake already commented upon.  -I- don't have to observe the bridge. It doesn't disappear when -I- stop looking..it doesn't appear when -I- start looking. My personal observations are not the "QM Engine". Put down the kool-aid, it's not good for you.

Not sure why we're talking QM though.....here again we see the stolen concept in action. QM and QFT, both -very firmly- rooted in materialism.

[Rational AKD]

You're still making the same silly mistake already commented upon.  -I- don't have to observe the bridge.  It doesn't disappear when -I- stop looking..it doesn't appear when -I- start looking.  My personal observations are not the "QM Engine".  Put down the kool-aid, it's not good for you.

Not sure why we're talking QM though.....here again we see the stolen concept in action. QM and QFT, both -very firmly- rooted in materialism.

yes... minds aren't the only thing with the ability to collapse a wave function. everything with the ability to interact has the ability to collapse a wave function. minds happen to fall into this category. but if we were to look at the philosophical implications of this, science has created a bridge between objective reality with subjective perception... that objective reality is in fact affected by subjective perception. but if subjective perception is merely an informational feed granted by material interactions... it can't affect material interactions purely through this feed. so in order to have this interaction of wave function collapse by mind, we must think of mind as something more than just a passive observer caused by material interaction. such a view is not compatible with the material model of mind, thus we move to an immaterial concept of mind. if we discount substance dualism, then we have left an idealistic view of reality. in an idealistic view of reality, all would be mind or derived. so we cannot distinguish in such a world a material interaction causing wave function collapse from a mental interaction causing wave function collapse. all would be considered mental, thus we conclude conscious observation causes wave function collapse.

and really the QM discussion was brought up by bennyboy, and I used it as an opportunity to briefly introduce some QM evidence. I may start a new thread on this topic if I feel confident enough.

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't -get- any QM evidence though, as an idealist.  Do you understand why? That "qm evidence" argues against both your premises and conclusions, and likewise your premises and conclusions argue against -it-. I'll suggest the same to you that I suggested to Benny, google "stolen concept". IDK, I'm starting to think that you're more of a quantum spiritualist than a monistic idealist.

[Redbeard The Pink]

This is getting so goddamn tedious.


Yes, I used a tool of reason (Occam's Razor) to demonstrate why your reasoning is flawed (you haven't ruled out simpler/more likely/more easily testable explanations before moving on to "God-mind did it."). At no point did I say reason is entirely useless, and since your arguments and claims are devoid of evidence and constructed purely of reason, evidence is not required to refute or even dismiss them. Don't bitch at me just because you both issued the challenge and chose the weapons.


Your premises are irrelevant, flawed, and/or just wrong, as I and others have already pointed out and thoroughly explained.


Your conclusion does not follow from your premises; again this has been thoroughly explained to you, and again you seem mystified by it.


Even if they weren't, though...even if we granted every premise and conclusion without thinking twice about them...this tells us nothing about the contents or rules of our Universe, how it operates, why it operates, why it's here, or what our purpose is in it, and it still leaves us without a way to know if this supposed mind-thing even actually exists, let alone where it comes from, how it operates, why it operates, why it's there, what its purpose is, what it wants us to do, if it wants us to do anything...there is literally no way to learn anything about this thing except through "introspection" (read: daydreaming and asserting one's imagined musings as facts).


There is a reason science ignores claims that cannot be tested, proven, or disproven. At best they give it a "Sure, maybe, but where's your evidence?" to which the near-universal response is "But you can't prove me WRONG!" Nobody cares. Prove that you're right, and prove it in a way you can demonstrate. When you talk about the fundamental nature of shared reality, everything we observe suggests that it is objective, physical, and self-sufficient. When you begin trying to explain how and why such a thing exists as it does, you are walking into an arena that is dominated by evidence. Yes, reason is often used to draw conclusions from evidence, but attempting to use mere reason on a field where evidence is king is like trying to beat a shield fighter with a shield but no sword. Sure, you can defend yourself, but you're not going to score any points.

[Rational AKD]

Yes, I used a tool of reason (Occam's Razor) to demonstrate why your reasoning is flawed (you haven't ruled out simpler/more likely/more easily testable explanations before moving on to "God-mind did it.").

no you didn't... as I pointed out at best using the exact same wording you used... they make an equal amount of assumptions. but I could point out that on the most fundamental level of our experience... we only experience mental constructs. thus we cannot know of a world where matter exists apart from mind (because we can't know of a world that is void of mind, and subsequently knowledge). so really you're assuming there is a foreign substance that is causing our experience... and our mental constructs are interpretations of an independent physical substance... so you're assumption of realism puts you at least one assumption ahead of idealism, thus by Occam's Razor, you're view is less reasonable.

At no point did I say reason is entirely useless, and since your arguments and claims are devoid of evidence and constructed purely of reason, evidence is not required to refute or even dismiss them.

uhm... no. even if you're right about me not having evidence, you can at best dismiss what i'm saying without evidence... but to refute it requires evidence. but as you only seem to consider empirical observations evidence (which I've already shown was problematic), you can't claim you've refuted my claims by use of Occam's Razor. that is a principle of reason, thus doesn't fit you're skewed definition of evidence.

Your premises are irrelevant, flawed, and/or just wrong, as I and others have already pointed out and thoroughly explained.

you have only pointed out what was wrong with premise 1.. and possibly premise 4 which was quickly addressed (and since it wasn't readdressed i'm going to assume it was also resolved). others put in their 2 cents and left, so i don't think they can reasonably be counted. Rhythm had actual reasons for his objections, which has mostly been resolved. in fact, i think he now only disagrees with premise 5 if that. he had a misunderstanding of premise 4 which was resolved, and he hasn't voiced any objections to his new understanding.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises; again this has been thoroughly explained to you, and again you seem mystified by it.

only Rhythm gave actual reasons why the logic is invalid, which again... was because he misunderstood premise 4. everyone else just says it doesn't follow... but then don't explain why.

Even if they weren't, though...even if we granted every premise and conclusion without thinking twice about them...this tells us nothing about the contents or rules of our Universe, how it operates, why it operates, why it's here, or what our purpose is in it, and it still leaves us without a way to know if this supposed mind-thing even actually exists, let alone where it comes from, how it operates, why it operates, why it's there, what its purpose is, what it wants us to do, if it wants us to do anything

so why should a philosophical argument in itself answer all scientific and religious questions? we have different fields of study for a reason... right?

there is literally no way to learn anything about this thing except through "introspection"

except realism, determinism, and most likely atheism are falsified by it... but I guess that's just details...

(read: daydreaming and asserting one's imagined musings as facts).

if that's all you think epistemology is... I'm not surprised you don't understand the argument.

There is a reason science ignores claims that cannot be tested, proven, or disproven.

science is a field specialized in empirical observation... it doesn't make philosophical arguments and conclusions... it presumes philosophical principles such as empiricism, and bases their methodology on it. but that also means they can only make observational physical conclusions... not metaphysical conclusions.

At best they give it a "Sure, maybe, but where's your evidence?" to which the near-universal response is "But you can't prove me WRONG!"

it is apparent to me that no matter how many times I correct you on this terrible interpretation of premise 1, nothing will sway you from your straw man interpretation of the argument...

Prove that you're right, and prove it in a way you can demonstrate.

why do I need to adhere to arbitrary standards you set?  if I can prove it... then why do I also need to demonstrate it? I think proving it is sufficient.

When you talk about the fundamental nature of shared reality, everything we observe suggests that it is objective, physical, and self-sufficient.

no... when you observe the fundamental nature of reality... you assume it's all objective, physical, and self sufficient. without that assumption... your 'evidence' doesn't side with either materialism or idealism. there is nothing with the behavior of matter alone that suggests idealism is wrong or materialism is correct.

When you begin trying to explain how and why such a thing exists as it does, you are walking into an arena that is dominated by evidence.

when you're speaking in purely physical terms... yes. but when you talk about the immaterial, especially regarding consciousness, the 'criteria of demonstration' breaks down. you can't demonstrate whether mind is a product of material interaction, or that it is its own substance.

es, reason is often used to draw conclusions from evidence, but attempting to use mere reason on a field where evidence is king is like trying to beat a shield fighter with a shield but no sword.

well, I would say the argument is based off the evidence from the obvious epistemic possibility of solipsism. but your skewed definition of evidence, doesn't include epistemic truths... but that's one reason why I reject your skewed definition.

[The Grand Nudger]

I love how epistemic possibilities are evidence...but evidence isn't evidence...similarly, I enjoy your comments regarding how introspection falsifies realism, determinism...and...hilariously, atheism... an ism which simply can't -be- falsified..as it's a statement regarding ones current status of belief and nothing more, lol. That's it, you've jumped the shark and completely lost my interest.

[Rational AKD]

You don't -get- any QM evidence though, as an idealist.  Do you understand why?  That "qm evidence" argues against both your premises and conclusions, and likewise your premises and conclusions argue against -it-.  I'll suggest the same to you that I suggested to Benny, google "stolen concept".   IDK, I'm starting to think that you're more of a quantum spiritualist than a monistic idealist.

I thought you were gonna explain why... not just tell me I'm wrong... why does the evidence argue against my premises and conclusions? and why is the implications incompatible with my premises and conclusion?

I think QM has implications of idealism. particularly, physicists are starting to conclude space-time is emergent from information. and information can of course come from a mind.

[Rational AKD]

I love how epistemic possibilities are evidence...but evidence isn't evidence...similarly,  

I didn't say evidence isn't evidence... i'm saying the evidence from experience is not evidence for or against any theory of mind. it's about applicability... not identity... such should be apparent to you... but I guess I gave you too much credit.

 I enjoy your comments regarding how introspection falsifies realism, determinism...and...hilariously, atheism... an ism which simply can't -be- falsified..as it's a statement regarding ones current status of belief and nothing more, lol.

you do realize what a belief is... right? it's what someone considers to be true... thus if it is determined that it is not true... the belief is falsified. and since belief is being used in general terms, not in reference to a particular person, i'm of course speaking for the general claims of the belief itself... not the claim that someone believes it. why is it you deny what's painfully obvious to try and jab at straw men? do like trying to easily proclaim victory over having a reasonable discussion?

[bennyboy]

You're still making the same silly mistake already commented upon.  -I- don't have to observe the bridge.  It doesn't disappear when -I- stop looking..it doesn't appear when -I- start looking.  My personal observations are not the "QM Engine".  Put down the kool-aid, it's not good for you.

Not sure why we're talking QM though.....here again we see the stolen concept in action. QM and QFT, both -very firmly- rooted in materialism.

They are rooted in the idea of materialism, and the principles of observation and experimentation.  However, the foundations of modern science have their roots in bouncing billiard balls and falling apples, and have been more and more strained as observations become more refined.  It is not necessary for QM to be true for idealism to be true-- it is evidence that an idealist can present to a materialist that their world view is inconsistent with the best observations people can currently make.

To me, the circularity of assuming there is other than mind, despite having nothing but mind with which to establish truths, is sufficient to take as the default position that all is mind.  Yes, there COULD be an objective, non-mental reality: but given that we have no way to establish this, and that every physical idea is, after all, just the experience of an idea, we might as well take the position that an invisible Sky Daddy exists.  Maybe he does, but why take that position when it adds nothing?