Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

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.

the statement can't be proven false because the existence of our own mind is evident. but that doesn't make the statement itself invalid, you can use evident claims in premises. and just because the truth of the premise is evident doesn't mean it's shifting burden of proof.

Really, though, the possibility of your statement depends on how you define the term "mind."

which is why I defined it in the OP.

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.

except you have the presumption built in your definition that the mind is material, which is the only reason you come to that conclusion thus you're question begging. this is why I specifically choose a definition of mind that doesn't presume it's material or immaterial.

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

so why can't the first premise be accepted as fact exactly?

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.

tell me, what premise was that?

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.

right. the only reason I call it a simulation is because it is a world that acts physical but is truly not. it's merely a distinctive word because if I merely said he 'produces a material world' people would get confused. it is a simulation by function, meaning the world doesn't have it's own objective existence. it only exists as part of our subjective experience.

Ok, so now you're using the word "likeness," which is just another synonym for "simulation" and "resemblance."

except you don't need to have something to make a likeness to it. you just have to picture it.

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

lets see... you say you're skeptical I lead with an argument. that my 'premise is designed to avoid being testable or verifiable whatever that means. there's no proof for mind substance. the simulation doesn't explain irrelevant questions. and finally, what is it simulating. other than quibbles of words used, which of these actually address the premises?

Your premise cannot be proven false by virtue of its structure rather than its merit

tell me, how exactly can words be put together in premises that makes them impossible to prove false but are false nonetheless? what exactly does the structure of an argument do to make it impossible to invalidate even though it's not valid?

that is, unless one considers a mind without matter to be an impossible object

and this objection was addressed by the first and second premises. I did make clear what I meant by proof in the OP, right?