Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Been done to death...and I -did- already give you my thoughts...but, since you insist.

1. -useless, for your argument, but as I've said, I see nothing objectionable in the statement

2. -useless, for your argument, but as I've said, I see nothing objectionable in the statement

3. -I see no need for 2 or 3, since both are restatements of premise 1.  I would rephrase 1 through 3 as "If premise one were true, then premise one would be true".  In a metaphysically solipsist world, your premise 1, no argument need be given as all up to this point is contained within the parenthesis -in- that premise

4. -non sequitur, you -could- rephrase to make this statement follow, as I suggested, but since you haven't, tough shit.  Nothing in premise 1, restated however many times you like, makes any comment or implication regarding what either mind or matter are made of, specifically whether or not they are the "same stuff".  Good ole bait and switch.  


5. -You've been floundering on this count, and continue to do so in this post...so I'll address that later, specifically.

6. -So, three repetitions of premise 1, a non seq leading into a switch mid argument, and a bare assertion are what leads us to truth nowadays, eh?  Crackerjack logic.  Non seq, of course...for all of the reasons stated above.

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.

Mind and matter are indistinguishable in the context of physical reductivism.  All of your thoughts, all mind, -is- matter..not arising from matter, or emerging from matter. The subject of mind, particularly, is beset upon all sides by words whose meanings were decided when we considered mind magic. I wouldn't lean too heavily on that, it probably doesn't -mean- what you think it does. In that context (and others) the distinction between mind and matter is one of conversational shorthand, it's not a statement regarding the nature of either.

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.

Can you...go ahead, distinguish some for me then?  I'm eager to see what means you have available with which to do so.  

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?

Your poor understanding of the actual means by which a simulation is achieved is none of my concern at this point.  As I said, let wonder lead you to knowledge.  Every time you create a division...it will come right back down to the board. To machines 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.

As I've mentioned twice already, it doesn't matter whether you see a mountain on the screen or not.  A mountain can be (and often is) simulated with no need of a visual representation.   Programs that assess mudslide and avalanche risks do this all day every day.  When you find yourself proven demonstrable wrong..you have a tendency to fly off to some other contention rather than reassess.  Now it's "manifestation" is it?  It's not really a mountain in -any- state...it's just a tiny little machine that exists, and persists.....on the board.   But why should that matter, when discussing sims...sims aren't required to actually -be- the thing they're simulating...otherwise I'd be an accomplished astronaut.......and they wouldn't be sims...they'd just be mountains.

The code...btw, not "just arbitrary code" - also little machines that exist and persist in-state.  There's nothing arbitrary about -any- of it.  

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?

-all is mind...glad to see you coming around. Ignoring the formal logical fallacy you've erected a shrine to in this comment, you seem to be confusing the nature of your perception with the nature of the cosmos...which is almost inexplicable...since you clearly understand, as stated in this very same comment...that the accuracy of our descriptions based upon those perceptions are perpetually suspect. In any case, my position is easier for the simple reason that you and I are likely to agree on every single item of our positions with the exception of the one bit. You likely think of your immaterial sim in terms of information theory, trouble is...you won't be able to explain how, and you certainly cant demonstrate the immaterial.....whereas I can not only explain how physical things "do information", I can arrange for a compelling demonstration.

ok... let me try to break this down Barney style for you.

I have a feeling you;re going to let me down as fantastically in this as you did in the OP "argument"..............

fundamental means most basic form possible. do you disagree?

-agreed.

2 different substances not identical have to be different somehow. do you disagree?

-agreed.

for 2 substances to interact, there must be similar properties for which they can interact. do you disagree?

-agreed.

2 substances can't share properties while being entirely separate substances. do you disagree?

Separate substances with a single shared property would seem to overcome your objection handily.  In fact, that is -the- response to this criticism of dualism, and always has been.  Ask a dualist this question..and they'll tell you theres a hook, none of them can explain what that hook is...but you can't deny it as a possibility - and remember that premise 1 of yours up above.......? Why is it that you believe this to be true anyway, that separate substances cannot share even a single property?

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.

Still wasting quite a bit of time not disproving dualism, aren't you?  I've addressed that final number 5 from up above..in the same manner as I've been addressing it from the start; simply asking you to disprove what you claim can be or has been disproven.  Doing so won't salvage your argument.....but at least you'll have proven something. Besides, I'd love to be able to whip it out the next time I find myself in conversation with a dualist. They irritate me like you wouldn't believe.


Now...this one wasn;t addressed at me...but..

tell me how I can demonstrate to you with empirical evidence you can only observe with your senses, what is behind those senses? we can only perceive the world through the lens of our senses, thus we cannot demonstrate using evidence from the world what is behind those senses. so what exactly is this 'simple demonstration' you're referring to?

You misunderstand question begging and circularity. We can demonstrate with empirical evidence what is behind our senses with workmanlike regularity. It's how we figured out how to make eyeglasses, hearing aids, clever chemical confections that taste just like "real food", local anesthetics, synthetic perfumes, and a whole host of other things you use day in and day out (don't even get me started on mind altering drugs - hijacked the whole sense system on that count, wewt).