Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Ok, so there are several problems with this premise that make me seriously doubt whether it should even be seriously considered. My first red flag is that you have chosen to lead with an argument rather than with a piece of evidence. This leads me to question whether there is any evidence of your claims.

evidence and argument aren't mutually exclusive. an argument can be presented as evidence. the defense for the evidence would be defending the premises and the validity of the logic.

The next thing that perks my skepticism is the fact that your premise is apparently designed to avoid being testable or falsifiable in any fashion.

the argument uses a priori information and introspection, thus bypassing skepticism by means of a posteriori information. empirical evidence isn't the only type of information we can gather and consider true and valid.

 can only assume this is because you intend to reserve the right to shout "You can't prove this false!" any time somebody tries to explain to you the holes in the logic you have crafted

no, that would be valid refutation. what wouldn't be valid refutation is saying mindless things like 'that's abuse of logic.'

Now, there's no proof whatsoever that mind is a substance, fundamental or otherwise.

premises 1-4 are the proof for this... now I thought you said you were gonna try to explain holes in my logic... not make general disclaims about my conclusion...

If reality is a simulation, what is the point? Why is the simulated Universe so huge, and why are sentient beings apparently such a small part of it?

so because this model doesn't answer all irrelevant questions you have, it's invalid? Monistic Idealism isn't the answer to end all questions... but that doesn't make it false or invalid.

If so, then wouldn't you technically be a glitch of some kind?

first, having a glitch requires the programmer to make a mistake. second, finding a glitch involves finding something that doesn't behave as it's supposed to... how are we supposed to have that outside information of how the universe is 'supposed' to behave? for all we know black holes could be a glitch but we can only recognize them as natural phenomenon (hypothetically of course).

What is reality "simulating," for that matter?

by the conclusion of the argument, it would have to be a mind. a fundamental and necessary mind.

God's dream can't be the only reality and be a simulation.

you don't need to have an 'existing' model for inspiration to create a simulation... all you have to do is map out a world to resemble something else, and put conscious agents in it. in this case, you have a world that appears physical but is actually a mental construct. now before you say it's not possible to have mental constructs that have physical likeness, why don't you sleep on it

It'd be the exact same thing as having a creator god who merely speaks things into existence, except it would merely "think" things into existence instead.

except this actually makes sense... because what he's 'thinking' into existence only exists mentally.

*sigh* I was really looking forward to exchange with how my premises are false or my logic is invalid... but all i got from you is 'I don't like your conclusion.' criticize the conclusion all you want but it follows from the premises and is thus inescapable. if you want to disprove me, then criticize the premises or logic.