Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

but they aren't the same statements.

They are all contained -within- premise 1.  In a solipsistic world, all implications and constraints by definition would be true.  As I've already said, if you need, as your premise, to have a metaphysical solipsism granted - then you have no need of an argument, your premise -is- your conclusion.

as I said, premise 3 is key to establishing this premise. given it is possible for mind to exist in a solipsist (immaterial) world but impossible for matter (by definition), then there is something that is true of mind but not matter. 

No need to argue, and you certainly aren't establishing anything.  In a metaphysical solipsist world there -is- no matter.  No argument required, nothing to establish.  

so I guess your only problems then are with 4 and 5 since your only complaint about 6 is that there are problems with 4 and 5. at least now I have a good idea on what your objections are.

My objection is that you didn't use any logic in your argument - as I said from the very beginning.  You strung claims together, many repetitive, none useful or informative, while failing to leverage any valid means of inference or deduction.  Not really -my- problem......now is it?

you may be using an alternate definition of matter, which you will have to define if that's the case. however, I wouldn't consider the apparent material constructs in our experience equivalent to mind. they are mental constructs. just because they aren't produced by your mind doesn't mean they aren't produced by any mind. my personal position is that they are produced by God's mind, though that is not the aim of the argument i'm presenting here.

Nope, just the usual matter we're all used to.  You may not, but reductivism does.

you are not your imagination? you can come up with concepts in your mind, and those concepts are distinguishable from your own identity and mind. I mean, this is tautological stuff here...

You think my imagination, and the concepts I can come up with are distinguishable from my identity, distinguishable from my mind?  I'd say that my mind -is- one of those concepts.  But, regardless, again, how might you determine that?  What means do you have..or is this another one of those things you'll simply claim ad naus?

then prove you're right and explain how my power plant analogy fails.

LOL?  There's no need to explain how your analogy fails after having repeatedly explained to you how the thing we are -actually- discussing works.  

you can assess information without simulating a mountain... and those aren't the kinds of simulations i'm talking about. i'm talking about a simulation for an observer to experience. not an assessment program.

Oh, so now we're past manifestations and your're on to your next dodge?  "Oh...well..that's not the kind of simulation I was talking about, I was talking about another kind".  Guess what.......they -all- work the same way.  That simulation -is- the same kind....the difference you think is salient is the addition of a screen (which, frankly, has nothing to do with simulation- that's interface)...and whether or not I plug the screen in when I play Ark, my comp is still running that sim and those mountains are still there, on the board.......machines.....in........state.

if it doesn't exhibit any qualities of a mountain, it isn't a mountain. I don't care if the code in the memory database means mountain, it's just an arbitrary code that is no more a mountain than the word itself I'm typing here.

-and again...a simulated mountain doesn't actually have to be a mountain, or have the qualities of a mountain.  If it had the qualities of a mountain..it would be a mountain..plain and simple...not a simulated mountain.  

no... that would be the 'simulator...' not the simulation... the circuit board would be the simulator while the game is the simulation.

Just where do you think the game is? Wait for it..............on the board....machines...in..state.

all languages and codes are arbitrary... whether you're using binary, hex, or C++ it's all arbitrary.

Go punch some arbitrary code into your machine and see if it does anything.  It won't..because it isn't arbitrary.  Again, programming, "code", is a high level interface tool (for us) to machine language....you know.......machines....in...state.  

at least the problem is isolated now... answer me this, do substances need to be tangible to tangibly interact? or do they not need to share that property?

Not sure you understood the phrase, I wasn't disagreeing with you here...but yeah, sure for a tangible interaction at least -one- of the two substances must be tangible.  Do they both need to be tangible...no, there doesn't seem to be any requirement there.  

Separate substances with a single shared property would seem to overcome your objection handily.

if they have a shared property, then there is a common substance between them. 

no...there is a common -property-, as plainly stated.  

if they are fundamental, they cannot be broken down. if they are different, they have unique properties that make them different. if 2 substances share a property, that property is distinguished and taken from at least one of the substances. if they are both fundamental with fundamental properties, you wouldn't be able to take part of the substance's fundamental properties and distinguish it from that substance... or it wouldn't be its fundamental property now wouldn't it? it's like trying to distinguish materiality from matter. or mentality from mind. you simply can't because they're fundamental to it.

You can't seem to stay consistent with fundamental [substances] which share [properties].  Flipping back and forth interchanging the bracketed terms.  Perhaps this explains your misapprehension? Maybe, what you really take issue with is property dualism..and not substance dualism? Perhaps it's property dualism that you believe has been disproven......and you were just confused? In any event, if you can;t manage to produce a consistent and coherent response to my actual statements..what is there for us to discuss? Rules of inference you don't seem to be interested in using.....claims which you can't back up? Haven't we done that enough already?

Why don't you just rephrase your argument.......it shouldn't be that difficult. I'll be responding in larger blocks going forward.