Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Ben Davis]

I haven't read through the 6 other pages so I apologise in advance if I'm jumping on anyone else's refutation, repeating subject matter or interrupting discussion.

This kind of argument is different from my usual because I tend to be weary of using the term proof. but this argument has my full confidence so I'm going ahead and presenting it as a proof. by proof, I mean that it cannot be reasonably refuted or bypassed.

This is wrong. You immediately start off on the wrong foot. An argument is not proof, only facts are proof. Arguments can be used as part of a body of support for a hypothesis (which must include verifiable & falsifiable evidence if it's to be taken seriously) but by themselves they are nothing more than mental exercise. So my first question is what is the hypothesis which your argument is trying to support?

This is not an argument of my own, but it is a reiteration of the Introspective Argument created by Johanan Raatz.

Ah. This. Well, at least this won't take long to refute. The 'hypothesis' (which it isn't, it's barely even a coherent sentence) which Raatz is trying to support with this argument is (and I quote) "If God exists, His existence should be so fundamental to reality that it should be obvious and understandable on basic principles alone.". Instead of providing robust definitions of what he means by 'god', 'existence', 'reality', 'obvious', 'understandable' and 'basic principles' or looking for actual evidence for his hypothesis, he created his 'argument'. I'll deal with your version rather than his but I note that yours does deviate a little from the original (so much for the idea that coherent arguments must be consistent...).

Definitions:
Mind- simply that which produces consciousness. you can think of it as a product of material interactions or its own substance, but either way it cannot be denied mind exists.

No. I won't let you redefine 'mind' in this way. Mind is an emergent property of brain function and an alternative term for 'consciousness'. 'Mind' doesn't produce consciousness, the brain produces consciousness, the quale of which is sometimes referred to as 'mind'. There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

Metaphysical Solipsism- belief that a mind (presumably the believer's mind) is the only thing that exists.
Substance Dualism- belief there exist two fundamental substances, mind and matter.
Monistic idealism- belief that mind is a fundamental substance, and the only one that exists.

These definitions are okay.

Argument:
1. a metaphysically solipsist world (a world where only a mind exists) cannot be proven false due to epistemic limitations.

Your first premise is that you can't disprove that something isn't real? Really?! This is a shifting of the burden of proof. You must first demonstrate that you can show that a metaphysically solipsitic world is existent. Argument alone is insufficient for this end, you must produce evidence. It's not our place to disprove your assertions, it's your place to show them.

2. it is unreasonable to presume solipsism is impossible given 1, therefore it must be reasonably granted solipsism is possible.

No. It doesn't automatically follow that because people can't disprove that something doesn't exist that it must be possible. There are other criteria for 'possibility', not least that the concept is coherent and non-contradictory. Since you claim that mind is the producer of the thing that it is, your base claim is contradictory and consequently impossible.

---

3. given 2, it is possible for mind to exist in a solipsist (immaterial) world while it is not for matter.
4. there is therefore something that it true of mind but not of matter. this means they cannot be the same thing and mind is not reducible to matter.
5. substance dualism has been proven false due to the interaction problem (substances can only interact via shared properties and substances cannot be fundamental and share properties).
6. therefore, all is mind and monistic idealism entails.

Overview:
basically, I put together this argument to answer criticisms from the ground up rather than trying to explain separate from the argument. it uses external world skepticism to substantiate P1, thus already answering criticism of those who think I'm merely asserting solipsism is possible. from there, it goes on to debunk materialism and dualism leaving only monistic idealism.

Objections:
1. the argument doesn't debunk property dualism. it's possible mind is a property or process of matter and thus doesn't reduce to matter yet is still derived from material interaction-- it doesn't directly debunk it, but it can easily be shown false deriving from P2. if metaphysical solipsism is possible, mind cannot be a property or a process because you cannot have a world with properties or processes without anything to attribute them to. you can't have a world with only a run or a feed, therefore mind must be an entity rather than a property or process.

I'll also be willing to address any questions concerning monistic idealism as presented. my last thread was also an argument for idealism, but a much weaker one. feel free to critique, but either by challenging the premises or invalidating the logic. I listen to reasons, not emotional outbursts.

---

The rest is word salad. I'll address it if you can first word your premises in a way that doesn't shift the burden of proof and then produce evidence that support them.