Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Redbeard The Pink]

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.

Minds are evident, but so are the processes that cause them (electricity and chemistry existing within the brain and/or nervous system, depending on how broad you want to be with which nerve impulses factor into the mind). There is no evidence, on the other hand, that a mind can exist without some kind of material component.


I'm not saying you're shifting the burden of proof because the "truth of the premise is evident." You're shifting the burden of proof because your'e demanding proof that something doesn't exist and then pretending it's proof of your claim when this doesn't happen.

which is why I defined it in the OP.

Yeah, but your definition is shitty, and it includes the caveat that I'm allowed to think of minds as the product of matter, which I do think because that's what they are according to every shred of evidence we have on them.

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.

I never really said the mind was material; the mind is a product of material objects, but the mind itself is just a series of nerve impulses mostly when you get down to the science. At any rate, the "presumption" that minds depend on the existence of brains is at least borne out by the available evidence, whereas you're not even pretending to offer evidence of anything you say.

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

Because a mind without matter could be an impossible object (you have failed to prove otherwise), and even if it isn't the statement is logically irrelevant because it misplaces the burden of proof concerning a "metaphysically solipsistic world." It's either not true, or it's a non-argument; there is no discussion arena where your first premise matters in the least.

tell me, what premise was that?

Premise #1. It's the one we've been talking about pretty much this whole time.

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.

For something to "act physical"  there has to be a "physical" for it to act like. Otherwise there is no basis for this likeness. If physical reality does not materially exist, then nothing can act like it or simulate it.

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?

All of them. Your premise is false at worst and non-explanatory at best. There is no rhetorically gainful reason to assert that the non-existence of a thing cannot be proven, and anything that follows from that premise is problematic from the get-go.

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?

It's not so much that your words are definitely false so much as there's no reason to believe what you say due to lack of evidence. Even if the premises you present were correct, they still would only indicate that your conclusion is possible, not that it's true. Sure, the world could be all dreamed up in the mind of a god-thing somewhere, but there's zero evidence for that and a whole boatload of evidence that the universe behaves in physically consistent ways that appear to function without anyone tending to them.