Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Redbeard The Pink]

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.

You're conflating "evident" with "immediately evident." For something to be "evident," there just has to be evidence of it. It doesn't actually matter how that evidence turns up, so long as it is repeatable and/or observable.

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.

And I'm saying that's completely irrelevant and non-meritorious because it can be applied to any damn thing someone could make up, so long as they pick something that is not testable.


It is impossible to falsify the existence of Santa Claus and his workshop at the North Pole.


It is impossible to falsify the existence of an ancient teapot orbiting the sun amidst the asteroid field that is too small for our current technology to detect.


It is impossible to falsify the existence of a metaphysically solipsistic world.


Ok, maybe it is, but that's not an "epistemic limitation" so much as a logical irrelevance. It's simply not how problems are solved. It adds nothing to the discussion, brings us no closer to truth, and provides you with a way to dodge around other people's arguments and evidence like a gazelle trying to navigate a briar patch.


When the question of something's existence is raised (especially in the case of an extraordinary claim like this matrix world you speak of), there is always falsifiable hypothesis and a non-falsifiable hypothesis.


The non-falsifiable hypothesis is "X exists"; we're going to call that h1. Because h1 is non-falsifiable, it cannot be tested and therefore cannot be questioned, but it also can't be proven without at least one piece of observable evidence. All the arguing in the world cannot prove the existence of something. If a thing exists and you want us to believe it exists, you have to show it with evidence.


The falsifiable hypothesis is "X does not exist"; we'll call that h0. Because h0 is the falsifiable hypothesis, it is always the one that is tested, and it is always the default assumption until it is proven false. Until there is evidence that something exists, there is no reason to believe that it does. It would take only one piece of evidence to falsify h0 in most cases because in most cases you only need one piece of evidence to show that something exists (even if it isn't entirely explained by that one piece of evidence).


Looking at your conclusion, what you're basically doing is circling around to applying premise #1 to Monistic Idealism. "If Monistic Idealism can't be disproven, then Monistic Idealism must be a thing." That is not how it works. We do not accept things as true simply because they can't be disproven; to be accepted as truth, the truth must be proven. Your circular, nonsensical arguments fail to do that. The reason I haven't touched premises 2-5 is that they follow from premise 1 (problematic for the aforementioned reasons), and 5 is basically a bunch of word salad. Nothing in that list leads to the definite conclusion presented in 6.

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

I didn't say the definition was "invalid," really. I think the exact word I used was "shitty." You've given a deliberately vague, colloquial definition of the word "mind" because that makes it easier to play with for your argument and lump on whatever personal definitions you want. The problem with that is that we understand minds far beyond the extent of "that which produces consciousness." That is a laymen's definition, and you chose it so you can play semantic volleyball with it.


A mind is more accurately defined as the electrical and chemical processes which give rise to thoughts and instincts within brains, and the reason that is a more accurate definition is that it's borne out by evidence we observe in the physical Universe (most specifically, inside of animal brains).


Furthermore, I have been attacking your arguments entirely. Even my unusually sparse profanity has been directed at your claims and not you. Ad hominem would be if I said something like, "You're obviously not an expert in what you're talking about, so nothing you say should be taken seriously," or "You're just an idiot, so why would we listen to you," or "Sources say you donated $0 to anti-child-porn campaigns last year; obviously, you're for child porn, and therefore can't be trusted."


Calling your definition shitty is not ad hominem. Stop being butt-hurt.

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.

Yes, you've done a clever job of constructing a scenario in which you can ignore everyone's evidence as being merely a part of Simulation Land and you don't have to present any evidence yourself because...just look around you! It's ALL evidence! Gee, where have I heard that line of reasoning before? *glares at creationists*

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.

Premise #1 reads as follows:


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


If our reality is a metaphysically solipsistic world, then everything in the reality we witness would have to be dreamed up by the mind that is the only thing that truly exists and therefore encompasses all of reality. So yeah, you state that such a world can't be proven false and go on to conclude that such a world must, in fact, be true. Premise #1 implies that reality is all dreamed up by a mind-thing, and #6 outright states it.

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.

The ghost particle is not a simulation of a ghost, though. It's named that to get an idea across about it's nature. Furthermore, a ghost isn't physical reality. Physical reality, by definition, has to physically exist. To simulate physical reality, there has to be at least one example of physical reality to simulate, and that example by definition has to physically exist. If the reality we experience is nothing more than a dream, then our reality is conceptual, not physical. If there is no physical world upon which it is based, then it is not a simulation of a physical world. It is merely a conceptual world, populated with objects and rules conceptualized by the Conceiver.

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.

Explaining that your very first premise is a logically fallacious non-argument, that it raises questions and answers none, and that it is completely untestable and therefore worthless is a pretty thorough redress of your premise, bro.

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.

Doesn't matter. Already explained why.

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.

All evidence indicates that our Universe is natural and material, and yes, some of the evidence from that Universe helps us understand how our brains and senses work, which gives us an idea of "why" we experience and perceive things the way we do and what minds actually are.

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.

Aaand that doesn't matter because it's also impossible to prove that it's true, and until you do there is no reason to believe that it is. Again, premise 1 is a non-argument, and everything that follows from it is based in fallacy. Your argument does not prove anything. It merely speculates about things that are impossible to falsify or verify. It's completely useless. Besides, even if it were true, knowing it would not affect our lives at all.