Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

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.  

then go ahead and invalidate the logic. the only criticism you have of the argument seems to be the wording of some of the claims, the boldness of the conclusion, and premise 5. you haven't tried to invalidate the logic, rather express your opinion on minor corrections and say premise 5 is false.

In this context, that "mind" -is- matter.  There's nothing contrary to that statement in context.

I disagree. if 'all is mind' then matter is conceptual but not the ontological equivalence of mind. I don't know of any context where mind and matter are indistinguishable... they do have different meanings. in materialism mind is emergent from matter but in idealism matter is emergent from mind.

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.

to say all is mind is not to say all is identical to mind... it's to say all is either identical to mind or derived from it. but you can still distinguish mental constructs from mind itself.

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.

as I said, it doesn't matter if the circuit board 'produces' the simulation, that doesn't make it the simulation itself. what is with you and equivocating the product from what it's derived from? is electricity equivalent to power plants?

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,

even so, it doesn't exist as the appearance of a 'mountain' as you see on your screen. this is most apparent when you see parts of it loaded on your screen. to say 'well it still exists in the memory' is irrelevant because it's not manifested as a mountain thus is not really a mountain in that state... it's just arbitrary code that are supposed to represent a mountain.

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.

well nothing we know first hand is in terms of material anyways, so I don't see how your position is easier. if anything it's harder. every thought we have is in terms of information, and at best are descriptions of material though even if we believe they are descriptions we can't be sure how accurate of descriptions they are. so it seems easier to me to argue the most fundamental things that exist are in mental terms rather than some material that is separate from this. why postulate a substance we at best can at best come up with a description for that somewhat resembles it when you can explain everything with the concept of mind you are certainly familiar with?

What is there to address?

ok... let me try to break this down Barney style for you.
fundamental means most basic form possible. do you disagree?
2 different substances not identical have to be different somehow. do you disagree?
for 2 substances to interact, there must be similar properties for which they can interact. do you disagree?
2 substances can't share properties while being entirely separate substances. do you disagree?
if you did not disagree with the above, then it follows there cannot be 2 fundamental and separate substances that interact which falsifies dualism. if mind and matter interact, then either mind shares a physical property with matter, or matter shares a mental property with mind. I see no way around this, so now you most certainly have something to address.