Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't say that... if you're going to make a parody of what I say, you should at least put up the quote you're parodying off of.

LOL, you very much did.  I didn't feel the need to quote, as I was paraphrasing your entire OP.  Perhaps you don't see it that way..that's okay..on this point, there will be no debate or agreement between us.  

right, which is why I called this an argument for monistic idealism.

-and as an argument for monistic idealism, it fails, while invoking that which it has no need of invoking to begin with.  Perhaps you should try a different route?  

I don't see how you can say matter exists given everything is mind except as a mental construct. could you elaborate?

It doesn't really matter whether or not matter exists, everything you experience (which is everything- insofar as you could ever know it) is mind regardless. You clearly understand this well enough, -given- your response. The elephant that you perceive is not actually the elephant, it's your minds representation of it. Convenient.....since there's only so much room in our skulls.....and not alot of extra space for elephants.

but 'sims' as you say I call them, don't exist apart from our conscious perception of them in the idealistic model.

Then there's a problem with your model.  I can show you a sim, I can point to mario on a circuit board -all- day long.  Whether you see or percieve it or not, essentially, whether you have the nintendo plugged in or not, so long as the circuit has power..... the sim is running and exists.  It isn't dependent upon your perception of it as a sim..it's dependent upon quality manufacturing and shrewd programming.

it's an acknowledged philosophical problem called the interaction problem. for a substance to be fundamental, it needs to have its own distinct properties and it can't be broken down into smaller parts. substance dualism is the belief mind and matter are two fundamental substances. in order for two substances to interact, they need to share a property. an intangible substance, for example, can't tangibly interact with matter. it needs to share a tangible property to tangibly interact. so if you have two fundamental substances, they couldn't possibly interact. if they share a property, then it must be more fundamental which means one of them is not truly fundamental. if they don't share a property, then they can't interact which means the world we experiences can't come from both substances.
I didn't go in detail on this because typically atheists don't agree with substance dualism anyways. I stress that point when talking to theists, and I stress the refutation of materialism when talking to atheists.

That's a long winded way to avoid acknowledging that you cannot actually disprove substance dualism...........eh?  I don't, personally, have much patience for it myself, but at least I don't claim it's been disproven as part of my argument for some other thing based upon the first line acceptance of a possibility for sake of argument.......

-To be very friendly to your position, I can easily see why a creature that lives in ideas might think that those constructs are some fundamental unit of the cosmos. In a very palpable way, they are, to us..anyway.

(a solipsist, btw, might lose the right to use reason, ever consider that? If all that exists is mind, all of these "exterior" this and that's we've used to cobble together our "laws of logic" over the past thousands of years don't mean much...eh? As I lay dreaming, I can fly like a bird..so, clearly, if it's all mind - then the rules aren't really rules at all. We shouldn't expect much from them, certainly not "truth". So, I suppose one would be self defeating, and the other would be entirely a-rational. Awesome..these are the foundations of your argument for monistic idealism..........? )