Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see how this incredibly vague criticism is supposed to help me... perhaps you should be specific and maybe add a direction of correction or at least a focus to the criticism?

Already been offered, in my first response.  No sense going over it again, and of course other members have done it to death.  Just for starters, make your argument follow, or stop using the word "therefor" - as has already been mentioned by myself and others.  I'm sure there's more, that you've thought more through..it just didn't make it to the page.  Perhaps seeing that would fill in those gaps.  IDK.

and what's your point?

-If- what you are interested in is establishing the truth of the statement -all is mind-, or a that this life is a sim, physical reductivism gives you a better point from which to argue that (though it's equally true from a multitude of other POVs).  A point from which you can provide demonstrations and evidence, rather than asking someone to accept something as a given for sake of argument.  That's all.  

the circuit board is not the sim... it's what runs the sim. the sim is what you perceive on the TV screen, and the parts of the sim that are loaded are the parts that are the parts in your load area. some games have individual maps loaded at one time. others, like skyrim and fallout for example, have one huge map and load things based on proximity and screen reference. sometimes when the loading is slow, you can see details of the map being loaded on your screen. obviously there's not enough 'lag' to see that in the real world.

Sorry, the board -is- the sim, I'm not arguing it..just informing you.  If you absolutely -insist- on creating divisions for sake of argument or convenience when there are none in reality do it with someone else.   Let wonder lead you to knowledge.

I'm running KSP and Orbiter on my PC right now..and you can't perceive it.  I have em tabbed out,  so -I- can't perceive them either....and yet they run, they exist.  I could check my logs later to see whether or not they're running when I'm not looking..but that would be pointless......because I already know that they are. All they do, everything they're built for, the only purpose they serve, is to simulate orbital mechanics regardless of whether or not I'm looking so that, when I do deign to look, I can enjoy some fiery explosions on exotic moons. Yet here you are, arguing that they are not sims.....ostensibly, because no one can perceive them, think about how silly that is, really mull it over - It's trees falling in the woods lvl silliness. If people had to sit there and "perceive" every sim we ran we'd be in a damned sorry state...some of them take months (even years) to run - and most of them don;t even have an interactive component that we can watch or perceive..there's no need. I've been tabbed out for nearly 10 hours on my way to Duna in KSP....don;t even get me started on my Voyager in Orbiter. I'd gouge out my eyes if my perception were required for a sim to do it's business, you would too. That neither of us (and no one) is busily percieving either of the two sims I;m running has absolutely -no- bearing on whether or not they are running, whether or not they exist, or whether or not they are sims. They are running, they do exist, and they are sims - regardless of anyone perceiving them. End of.

Personally, I'd call what we perceive a sim just as readily, but it's a sim of a sim , in this instance, being run by a different "board", and in fact -being- a different board.  Ironically, that doesn't actually prove or even advance that it's -all- a sim (in the way you would take that to mean)....but I'm more careful with how far I extend my conclusions than you are, apparently.  Proving, for example, that everything we humans experience is a sim running on a biological computer would -not- prove that -everything, everywhere- is a sim, anymore than proving that KSP or Orbiter is a sim would prove that the Apollo missions were really just sims.

just because you aren't willing to consider the argument doesn't mean it's an avoidance tactic... as I said, it has been acknowledge by philosophers substance dualism has this problem. if you're going to criticize, at least try to substantiate your criticisms. it saves time by avoiding me the trouble of asking why if you provide that answer first.

dualism has -many- problems.....but has, nevertheless, not been disproven (and certainly not by you in this thread) which is a claim you made as a part of your OP "argument". Eliminating this possibility by simply -saying- it had been disproven.  You didn't even try. It makes little sense for a person arguing for idealism to complain about a lack of substance..btw.

Let's try a simpler tactic..shall we? Bullshitters love long form claim arguments. You;re not a bullshitter, though...so, try to rephrase OP in a short form argument, valid means of deduction...so you can legitimately say you've proven something, and so it's out there for anyone to see, plain as day. Try that, if you want some in depth, quality criticism (presuming for the lulz you haven't already received pages of it), then put in the work yourself. Anyone can make a bullet list of claims and drop the word "therefore" from time to time, and it takes a long time to sift through all the nestled claims in a long form - usually for little to no return. I'm game, I -mostly- agree with you, it could be fun. If I see a premise involving solipsism (for example)...I'd better see a conclusion regarding solipsism.....not something else, otherwise...right off the bat...I know you've fucked it up, and it shouldn't take me telling you why for you to understand why that is. I would truly love to see more proof..as claimed in the OP title, as teased at in the OP..and less posturing, less bitching about the substance of the posts of others when...so far as I can tell.......you've delivered -nothing- you laid claim to.