Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

i'm saying your criticism or whatever is was there wasn't adding anything to the conversation. the argument does follow. most people criticize premise 1, not the logic.

Yes, yes, I know, when we're wedded to our arguments they always seem to follow, even when we make 90degree turns at full throttle.  But it doesn't matter much at this point.  We can go back and forth or you can rephrase.  Up to you.  You've made a grand claim which you only seem interested in defending by saying "no..no..it follows, I'm telling you it follows" - we disagree.  No amount of restating your position, that it follows, will change mine.  I don't, personally, know whether or not the right answer is monistic idealism (or any other position) - but what I do know is that you've failed to mount an argument.  Presumably, if the contention is true, an argument can be mounted any number of ways - pick another, try again.

I didn't have an issue with accepting premise 1 at all....why would I, it just doesn't matter that I accepted it...it didn't help to take us where you want to go.  

I think you'll have to define physical reductivism a little better. the only close reference is to physical reductionism, but that's the belief cognition can be reduced to the underlying biological mechanisms of the brain... which would be contrary to the statement 'all is mind.'

In this context, that "mind" -is- matter.  There's nothing contrary to that statement in context.  We understand, as I've already explained, that the elephant we perceive is not, actually..an elephant inside of our skulls.  We have mental constructs, our entire world..everything we experience, all that is, so far as we can experience anything, is such a construct.  All, so far as we can tell, is mind, regardless. So, whether you feel that mind is fundamental, or that matter is fundamental, the perceived effect - and so the evidence, and so the available means of inference..-are precisely equal- between just those two points of view in a vacuum...and there are plenty more.

a simulation is as "the imitative representation of the functioning of one system or process by means of the functioning of another." that means the game is the simulation, not the circuit boards...

The game is -also- the board.  Just how do you think that happens?  Magic?  No, machine states.  As I said, not arguing, informing.  Guess what the programming is?  An interface to machine language that arranges, wait for it.......the board.

yes, the processes are still running. but the objects of the simulation aren't there when it's not on the screen. the program that runs and loads the map from a data base may exist and run regardless of what we're viewing on the game. but a certain mountain for example, wouldn't exist when it's not loaded and being run by the game. it's the difference between the process that loads the game, and the objects that are loaded by the game. the rest of your paragraph is based on this misunderstanding.

The objects aren't actually "there" at all, unless by "there" you mean....on the board......the "mountain" continues to exist even when you exit, as physical pieces of machinery we call "memory" in state, nevertheless there is no requirement for an interactive display on a simulation.  Most don't have them.  As above, not arguing, informing.  

my position is reality is being simulated by an immaterial mind. that would make everything that is material a simulation. only minds actually exist.

A very difficult position to argue, I don't envy you.  I hold an easier to argue position.  That our realities are simulations run by material minds.  Alot of crossover between the two.  It's made easier in that we know how material objects can create simulations, and can demonstrate their ability to do so.  I'd hate to have to explain how the immaterial does that, and it would be rough to be the guy advancing that position in the absence of that explanation.

the interaction problem shows that the concept of two fundamental substances making up the world we experience is inconsistent, and incoherent. I would say that's just as much proof as any. if you could address this, perhaps we could further the conversation beyond 'nuh uh.' and i'm not complain about substance... i'm saying dualism is falsified thus monism entails.

It does neither...there you go claiming what ought to be demonstrated...again.  What is there to address?  I'm not arguing that dualism doesn't have problems (or that interaction isn't a huge one, I harangue our resident dualists on that point -every time-),but -all- positions on this periphery have problems.  I'm stating, at this point, that you flat out bullshitted us in the op..and have since wasted alot of words avoiding owning up to that.  That a position has problems doesn't count as disproving that position - I'm sure you wouldn't hold to that contention if I pointed out the glaring problems with immaterial -anythings-......which you seem to believe you've offer proof for - in spite of those problems and having erased nary a single one.  The problem that you've created (which isn't -exactly- the party line when it comes to the interaction problem) is a difficulty in establishing the truth of the position.  It is not a sound refutation of the position as a possibility, which is, apparently..important to you.  You've decided that interaction requires some third "substance"...and further, that this then must then be the fundamental substance......and this ignores a whole host of -possible-, though perhaps not plausible or satisfactory explanations.  There are reasons to conclude that substance dualism isn't true, perhaps couldn't be true, sure.....but no demonstrable proof thereof- which might explain why you've failed to present it.  I'll say this, in favor of dualism as opposed to monistic idealism.....with dualism, at least half the claim is in evidence.....lol.  In any event, you are -claiming- dualism is falsified, but I haven't seen that...and you have every reason to offer it up.


I wonder if you could even begin to argue for monistic idealism without stealing concepts -dependent- on other, contradictory, positions left right and center?  If I simply granted immaterial minds running sims....-no argument required-......tell me, how does immaterial mind do mind to the mind when it minds?  
(Talk about inconsistent, talk about incoherent......  )