Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Captain Scarlet]

Benny I am not begging the question. I tend towards that conclusion because there is overwhelming, independent and objective evidence to support that assertion.

This it the mating call of the materialist.  But you are ignoring my main argument: since one hundred percent of "evidence" collected is collected through the agency of mind, there's no such thing as demonstrably objective evidence.

I think it is you who are equivocating. If you are going to follow through on scepticism it seems proper to ask some simple questions. Do you have a mind? How do you know? Its properly basic to say you are conscious, but how do you get from Consciousness (basic awareness) to Mind (structures enabling you to think philosophical thoughts).

What's this stuff about structures enabling thoughts?  You'd better tell me where you get this language from, because to me, it is so obviously couched to beg the question that there's little more to be said about it.  What structures do you mean?  And if you mean brain, then you'd better go on to define thoughts in your terms as well.

I am not quite as ignorant on your main argument as you may think. I know you think it is circular. I do not because for me it is axiomatic that external reality exists and that an emergent quality of that same reality, in us, is our consciousness. Using sense perception through consciousness we can grasp that reality.  So yes to me it is also axiomatic that our senses are valid.  To me to deny reality and our ability to perceive it leads to absurdities and the whim wishing of the primacy of conscioussness.  If your starting assumption is that your mind isn't part of that same external reality and you conclude that the only thing you can validate is your mind, then unsurprisingly you validate the conclusion that external reality may not exist. So we just differ on who begs what.

I think if you have such global level of skepticism, all I am asking is why are you not consistent and question whether your mind exists. We can both agree you are at least conscious. How do you know you are more than just consciousness, ie not just aware but with ability to think and have experiences (somone/something/whatever isn't just projecting all of it on your consciousness).  You have steadfastly refused to answer directly 3 times. Your latest query is on my use of 'structure'.  To be honest I don't care what you want to call it. The word structure is a placeholder for my ignorance of immateriality and what in an immaterial skeptical world would allow you to build from "I am conscious" to "I had that experience/thought and I know I did". If you have a better word for it than 'structure', please use it. If you can define what you mean by an immaterial mind, be my guest. I am asking for how do you know you have a mind? And I have yet to see a response.

[bennyboy]

I am not quite as ignorant on your main argument as you may think. I know you think it is circular. I do not because for me it is axiomatic that external reality exists and that an emergent quality of that same reality, in us, is our consciousness. Using sense perception through consciousness we can grasp that reality. 

Not only can you not prove this, the science of the day shows us that we cannot in fact grasp that "reality" through our sense perceptions.

 So yes to me it is also axiomatic that our senses are valid.  To me to deny reality and our ability to perceive it leads to absurdities and the whim wishing of the primacy of conscioussness.

People said the same thing about the "reality" of God. First, you have to be able to prove that what you call reality is in fact real.

 If your starting assumption is that your mind isn't part of that same external reality and you conclude that the only thing you can validate is your mind, then unsurprisingly you validate the conclusion that external reality may not exist. So we just differ on who begs what.

The difference is that you are making an extra assertion. We both start with mind. I assume that unless I can prove otherwise, nothing else exists. You take the objects of the mind, imbue them with properties you can't actually demonstrate, and then establish your inferences as "reality." Extra steps, if unprovable, are generally a bad policy.

I think if you have such global level of skepticism, all I am asking is why are you not consistent and question whether your mind exists. We can both agree you are at least conscious. How do you know you are more than just consciousness, ie not just aware but with ability to think and have experiences (somone/something/whatever isn't just projecting all of it on your consciousness).

I think we're nearly done here, because I've addressed this already. I do not know, nor have I claimed to know, this, so stop asking me how I know it. I've said that the use of the word "I" is a linguistic convention, not a fundamental truth. So when I say "I think therefore I am," I'm perfectly fine with the idea that the "I" doesn't have any agency unique to the universe.

  You have steadfastly refused to answer directly 3 times. Your latest query is on my use of 'structure'.  To be honest I don't care what you want to call it. The word structure is a placeholder for my ignorance of immateriality and what in an immaterial skeptical world would allow you to build from "I am conscious" to "I had that experience/thought and I know I did". If you have a better word for it than 'structure', please use it. If you can define what you mean by an immaterial mind, be my guest. I am asking for how do you know you have a mind? And I have yet to see a response.

I walk up and have thoughts. The linguistic convention is to talk about your own thoughts as "I," probably because we define ourselves by our ideas more than by anything else. I'm not claiming self-creation, so it's not only possible but necessary that those ideas came from somewhere else.

Is it possible that you are still hearing "solipsism" when I say "idealism"?

[ApeNotKillApe]

[Captain Scarlet]

Benny I think you are getting confused between how perfect our senses are and the validity of the senses.  Senses do not have to be perfect to grasp reality.  Because we cannot see a quantum event doesn't mean our senses are invalid or that the event did not take place. Because we see a pencil apparently bend in water, doesn't mean  anything other than we are seeing the real effect of water on the transmission of light. 

But to deny your senses you need to know they are valid.  If you say "my senses are invalid" you rely on auditory input to recognise what you said (and that it was what you intended to say). If you write "my senses are not valid" you rely on sight and touch in the same way. We are justified in relying on sense perception axiomatically.


I seem unable to get you to answer that question, don't I?

[Edwardo Piet]

By default the senses are valid but there are some things beyond their scope, and then there's stuff like illusions of course.

[bennyboy]

Benny I think you are getting confused between how perfect our senses are and the validity of the senses.  Senses do not have to be perfect to grasp reality.  Because we cannot see a quantum event doesn't mean our senses are invalid or that the event did not take place. Because we see a pencil apparently bend in water, doesn't mean  anything other than we are seeing the real effect of water on the transmission of light. 

Your definition of "real" begs the question. We aren't talking about the mundane reality of opening a hand and knowing a marble will drop downward due to gravity. We are talking about the knowledge of what underlies ALL experiences, which is not knowable. All that is really knowable are the existence experiences and their specific properties.

But to deny your senses you need to know they are valid.  If you say "my senses are invalid" you rely on auditory input to recognise what you said (and that it was what you intended to say). If you write "my senses are not valid" you rely on sight and touch in the same way. We are justified in relying on sense perception axiomatically.

Same thing, again. If I want to build a bridge, then in that context, concrete and metal are real, as is the bridge once I stand on it. But this doesn't validate assumptions you've made about the ultimate nature of reality.

Your position is that you are inferring from your standing-on-bridge experiences that the bridge is a real object, part of a real objective reality. My position is that you can't arrive at your position without an unprovable assumption, because all your experiences are mental, and you do not in fact know their ultimate source. You do cannot know that your experiences of objects represent objects which exist as more than ideas, because you have no way out of the black box of the self.

I seem unable to get you to answer that question, don't I?

I've already addressed your question, so I assume that you are hoping for a particular kind of answer, and cannot consider the question answered until I set up a nice juicy T-ball for you. Why don't you tell me what you expect me to say about the nature of self and mind, and why you think it matters to this philosophical argument? Alternatively, you can ask the question in terms that don't beg the question, and I'll give a nice, clear answer for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

My position is that you can't arrive at your position without an unprovable assumption,

None of us can arrive at -any- position without unproven assumptions...however

 because all your experiences are mental,

-this, isn't why. (are they all mental, and what does it mean for them to be mental, btw?)

 and you do not in fact know their ultimate source. 

-nor is this. (a requirement of complete knowledge is -entirely- unreasonable)

You do cannot know that your experiences of objects represent objects which exist as more than ideas, because you have no way out of the black box of the self.

Wait..what....?  What black box......what outside?   Those are boundary conditions, and even a reference to a relative location.....stolen concepts. We have some notion as to why that might be difficult (escaping the box) in a material world, /w a material mind - as you've just referenced, as you've just assumed the truth of a material limitation......

Now...for shits and giggles...can you tell me why an idea self made of idea stuff can't get out of an idea box? What's preventing that?

[bennyboy]

-this, isn't why. (are they all mental, and what does it mean for them to be mental, btw?)

It means they are experiences. It means they are qualia.

-nor is this. (a requirement of complete knowledge is -entirely- unreasonable)

Maybe not, but when of two competing positions, one requires no assertions about the nature of mind, and the other does, then the latter needs to sufficiently prove the necessity of fighting with Occam's Razor. Your view adds nothing to my world view that can't be subsumed by an idealistic world view, but it adds one more thing we have to pretend we know about in arriving at conclusions about reality.

Wait..what....?  What black box......what outside?   Those are boundary conditions, and even a reference to a relative location.....stolen concepts.   We have some notion as to why that might be difficult (escaping the box) in a material world, /w a material mind - as you've just referenced, as you've just assumed the truth of a material limitation......

"Black box" is just a metaphor for the unknowable. Don't get to excited by its literal meaning-- though what do I expect from a staunch materialist?

Now...for shits and giggles...can you tell me why an idea self made of idea stuff can't get out of an idea box?  What's preventing that?

No, the box is still just a metaphor for the unknowable. One knows what one experiences, and the rest constitute gradations of belief, or at best contextual knowledge.

[The Grand Nudger]

-this, isn't why. (are they all mental, and what does it mean for them to be mental, btw?)

It means they are experiences.  It means they are qualia.

-and?  I'd just ask the same thing again, because you didn't answer the question at all, and apparently we're still talking about the same thing, so the question remains.

Maybe not, but when of two competing positions, one requires no assertions about the nature of mind, and the other does, then the latter needs to sufficiently prove the necessity of fighting with Occam's Razor.  Your view adds nothing to my world view that can't be subsumed by an idealistic world view, but it adds one more thing we have to pretend we know about in arriving at conclusions about reality.

IOW, you're comfortable with stolen concepts, and that's fine, but it makes for a poor argument.  I've suggested before that this wasn't true.  If your worldview is actually capable of subsuming a materialists...you ought to be able to explain that....and you've been provided with opportunity after opportunity to do so.  If you can't explain it, stop claiming it, is that such a terrible rule of thumb? 

"Black box" is just a metaphor for the unknowable.  Don't get to excited by its literal meaning-- though what do I expect from a staunch materialist?

You mean..we're only metaphorically stuck in a metaphoric box?  That doesn't sound very serious. 

Don't you find it odd that you're -incapable- of describing anything about your position without reaching into my goody bag - even for metaphors?  As metaphor, you will still have to explain why we are stuck in that box.  We're stuck in the materialists box for well established reasons. Why/how would anything be "unknowable"....in an idealists world? What prevents us from achieving knowledge in that world? For example, to me, what's happening on the other side of the galaxy this very minute is an unknowable, and the reason that this is so -seems- to be very material..or at least we're not short of material explanations for why I can't possess that knowledge. If those material limitations are not representative (because materialism is not representative) then what's stopping me? I see no explanation as to why there even -exists- such a thing as "the unknowable" from an idealists camp.

Now...for shits and giggles...can you tell me why an idea self made of idea stuff can't get out of an idea box?  What's preventing that?

No, the box is still just a metaphor for the unknowable.  One knows what one experiences, and the rest constitute gradations of belief, or at best contextual knowledge.

Was that a response to what you quoted?  If you can't explain how this metaphor holds, if you cannot explain why we are trapped in this metaphoric box, then clearly your worldview -cannot- subsume a materialists worldview...despite your constant claims. That's not how this works. How would you respond to me if I claimed that the odinist worldview subsumes the idealist worldview?

[bennyboy]

It means they are experiences.  It means they are qualia.

-and?  I'd just ask the same thing again, because you didn't answer the question at all, and apparently we're still talking about the same thing, so the question remains.

Mind is seeing things, and thinking and stuff.

IOW, you're comfortable with stolen concepts, and that's fine, but it makes for a poor argument.  I've suggested before that this wasn't true.  If your worldview is actually capable of subsuming a materialists...you ought to be able to explain that....and you've been provided with opportunity after opportunity to do so.  If you can't explain it, stop claiming it, is that such a terrible rule of thumb? 

What's to explain? We have experiences. Some of them seem to be common enough to categorize, and consistent enough to experiment with, and these we therefore take as having an objective reality. But we are still just talking about experiences, after all.

Don't you find it odd that you're -incapable- of describing anything about your position without reaching into my goody bag - even for metaphors?

Not really, because for the most part, I live in the same world that you do, and share many of the same cultural symbols.

 As metaphor, you will still have to explain why we are stuck in that box.  We're stuck in the materialists box for well established reasons.   Why/how would anything be "unknowable"....in an idealists world?

Because most of the ideas are not of the self.

Was that a response to what you quoted?  If you can't explain how this metaphor holds, if you cannot explain why we are trapped in this metaphoric box, then clearly your worldview -cannot- subsume a materialists worldview...despite your constant claims.

A black box is a computer science convention. It means that you have input and output, but don't (actually, must not for legal reasons) know what happens inside. We are kind of on the flip side of that: we have input coming in, and we output, but we know neither where the input comes from nor where the output, ultimately, goes.