Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

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.

the material processes are not evident, they had to be studied and observed. any information you need to learn from studying the world is not evident... plus you're again using information from experience to explain what causes experience which is question begging. the evidence used in the argument is evidence of introspection, thus it is not question begging.

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.

that's not at all what i'm doing... i'm providing reason (our epistemic limitations) that it is impossible to prove solipsism is false. then concluding it's unreasonable to claim it's impossible given that.

Yeah, but your definition is shitty, and it includes the caveat that I'm allowed to think of minds as the product of matter...

so are you going to give a reason why the definition is invalid? or are you just going to give me ad hominem?

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.

you missed the point... the reason for your conclusion is what's gathered by scientific research... but the scientific research is gathered from our experience and we cannot use our experience as an explanation for why and how we experience because that would be question begging. you're presenting fallacious reasoning and calling it evidence.

Because a mind without matter could be an impossible object (you have failed to prove otherwise)

now that is shifting the burden of proof. X is true because you haven't proved not X (X being the prospect that immaterial mind is impossible).

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

that's funny... because I don't recall 'all of reality is dreamed by an all encompassing mind' being in that premise... I didn't say that in any of my premises.

For something to "act physical"  there has to be a "physical" for it to act like. Otherwise there is no basis for this likeness.

oh stop... that's like objecting to the neutrino being called the 'ghost particle' because in order for it to act 'ghost like' there have to be actual ghosts for it to act like... something can have likeness to an idea without the requirement of its existence.

All of them.

objecting to my using an argument isn't addressing the premises of the argument... raising questions and objecting the conclusion doesn't answer them isn't addressing the premises... objecting a mind needs a model to be simulating isn't addressing the premises... that leaves one of those at best that addressed premise one... that's far from all of them.

There is no rhetorically gainful reason to assert that the non-existence of a thing cannot be proven

triple negative! but it seems you fail to grasp the reason behind my asserting solipsism cannot be proven false. it's simply to show in the argument the evident fact that for all we know and all we can possibly know solipsism is possible. the phrasing there is equivalent to making a claim of epistemic knowledge and yet it is also evidently true; and that is what the argument is based off of.

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.

so do you deny that we can't use information from our experience to explain how and why we are able to experience? that is like using the contents of the bible to explain why the bible is the word of God.
or perhaps you think there is reason we can use besides experience to disprove solipsism. but you haven't claimed you have any such reason.
well, that's really the only options you have. if experience can't be used to disprove solipsism (because that's begging the question) and there is no reason outside experience, then the first premise is true. it is impossible to prove solipsism is false.