Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

 I can say any damn thing I want about your premises, your definitions, and your whole argument without it being ad hominem. I can call them shitty. I can call them puerile. I can call their mother a two-bit whore. None of that is ad hominem. Regardless of what I actually say to you, it doesn't become ad hominem until I attack you and/or your credibility directly and then try to use that as rhetorical leverage against your argument, per the definition:

ok, perhaps I made interpretations of the fallacy that were not exactly accurate. nonetheless, calling my definition 'shitty' isn't any sort of disproof or invalidation thus not by any means a meaningful criticism as it's only an assertion on your part.

Occam's Razor, my friend. Solipsism/Monistic Idealism is neither the simplest nor the most easily testable explanation for how and why we experience the apparent existence of material reality, and until you rule out all simpler explanations and/or come up with a really good piece of observable evidence to prove your claim, Occam's Razor is going to keep cutting your infantile speculating to pieces.

first, this 'Occam's Razor' claim has nothing to do with the claim you made that the argument is more likely to be invalid than provide insight... second, Occam's razor doesn't cut out more complicated explanations... it cuts out unnecessary assumptions made in an explanation. for example, if I were to postulate we are in a world created by God, created by God's god, created by God's God's god... none of those intermediate gods add any further explanation and thus are unnecessary assertions to be cut out by Occam's Razor. it has nothing to do with the content being 'testable' which I still think you abuse. if 'testable' means can be shown by reason thus also invalidated or proven false by reason, then it is testable. if you mean 'can be shown by empirical demonstration' then you're presuming empiricism in a discussion about reason... you can't say Occam's Razor cuts out what can't be empirically demonstrated as that's certainly not what it means.

Evidence isn't what I arbitrarily claim it is, but it isn't what you arbitrarily claim it is either. Evidence is repeatable and observable. Simply put: if you can't show it, you can't claim to know it.

just as I thought... you are advocating empiricism in a discussion about reason. if that's your definition of reason, can you provide me with evidence that only things repeatable and observable count as evidence? can you show me how you know only things that can be shown can be known? there are more ways to show something is true than from what's repeatable and observable. to say otherwise is contradicting yourself.

It's not my fault you won't accept observable evidence from reality.

as I said, you can't use experience to explain why you experience. you can establish functional realism from experience, but not objective realism... so your evidence doesn't show brains produce minds...

The fact is that if you hook people's heads up to electrical nodes and use stimuli to elicit various emotional and intellectual responses, all different parts of their brains light up depending on what they're thinking and/or experiencing. Because the timing of these events is stimuli, then nerve impulses, then response, it's reasonable to draw a causative chain between these events, suggesting that stimuli from the objective world grants information to the senses, that information is relayed to the brain via nerve impulses, and the brain's nervous response is what we generally experience as thoughts, feelings, and "mind."

at best, you can conclude all those studies conclude brain affects the mind and thus there is a correlation... it's a leap so say ""mind" is a process, not a substance, and that this process is carried out by brains."

Why the fuck not? Because you say so?

I thought 30 times was enough for you to know why... because that would be question begging. you can't use experience to explain why we experience. the only part of what you said I agreed with was when you said we can learn things about how our bodies and minds behave by studying the world. we can certainly observe how our mind behaves, but that's not the same as observing the nature of what mind is. how mind behaves is observable, that which is behind our mental processes is not.

 No, I'm saying we can draw accurate conclusions about the material world because it behaves in measurably consistent ways. I am not conflating accuracy with consistence; I am stating that the possibility of accuracy is sourced by Universal constants.

the problem with this, however, is you're starting from the premise that the material world behaves in consistent ways. from this you can draw accurate conclusions only about the behavior of matter, not the nature of its existence. remember your premise is only concerning the behavior matter, thus you can only make conclusions from that premise concerning the behavior of matter. you need a different premise to draw a conclusion concerning the nature of matter's existence.

Ok, well...scientists of science acknowledge that natural phenomenon can be understood through material evidence, and that minds are a natural phenomenon.

they can understand how matter behaves... the philosophical model they take, be it realism or idealism, is apart from the evidence they find. you can acknowledge the behavior matter regardless of your metaphysical position on matter and mind. so i'm not saying their studies are useless, i'm saying their studies can't prove what's behind our conscious experience.