Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

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.

premises 1-3 aren't to 'grant' metaphysical solipsism. you seem to completely miss the point. they are to show that a solipsist world is a possible world. it establishes this starting at 1 by establishing its epistemic possibility first. then premise 2 states that it is most reasonable to grant there is a possible world that is purely solipsistic given its epistemic possibility (the step from epistemic possibility from actual possibility which on this thread is the most objected step of the argument). then 3 states that if there is a possible world that is purely solipsistic, then there is a possible world where mind exists but matter doesn't. this would be a modal difference between the two which makes ground to move onto premise 4. hopefully using these modal terms will help you understand better.

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.

it may be obvious to you, but not everyone can so easily think in modal terms. so even though you think it's redundant, it still has a purpose of providing clarity to those who can't follow the steps so easily.

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?

let me reword the argument then, specifically for you as you don't seem to deny a metaphysically solipsist world is possible. i'll only change the wording up to 4 however.
1. solipsism is possible.
2. given 1, there is a possible world where mind exists and matter doesn't and therefore there is a property (modal property) of mind that matter doesn't have.
3. given 2 and according to Leibniz Law, mind and matter are not identical; given 1 and 2, mind is not reducible to matter.
4 and 5 would be worded the same as 5 and 6.

You think my imagination, and the concepts I can come up with are distinguishable from my identity, distinguishable from my mind?

as I said, mind is that which enables consciousness. thus your mind is equivocal to what you call 'self.'

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?

determined by the definition of mind.. tautology.

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 know... just because you 'think' you communicated something though implication doesn't mean you did...

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.

in order to be a simulation, it needs to be an imitative representation of something else... which means a simulated mountain needs to imitate and represent qualities of an actual mountain in order to be a simulation... if it's just code, then it's no more a simulation of a mountain than the word mountain.

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

in this context, i'll equivocate game with video game since that's the topic of discussion. video game- "a game played by electronically manipulating images produced by a computer program on a monitor or other display." so the game is what's electronically displayed... the hardware is the... wait for it.......... game system. i mean come on, no one calls an Xbox a game. game is always referring to the contents on the disk, cartage, or whatever stores the game. but i'll invoke a minor correction. the simulation would be the video content of the game rather than the game itself. the game would be the purpose and rules set in place, and the video content would be the simulation which serves as the objects of game play the same as in chess the game is the rules established and the objects of game play are the pieces and board.

Go punch some arbitrary code into your machine and see if it does anything.  It won't..because it isn't arbitrary.

arbitrary doesn't mean random... you need to assign values meaning, but the meaning you assign to the values are arbitrarily decided. that's how programming works... you have a memory storage and you can give certain values meaning based on your intentions of what you want to program. for example, when you program a game you can designate certain bits in the memory to represent in game currency. you can make a list of in game items and assign them with identifier values you designate based on the range of values you assigned to be the item list. the values you assign can represent whatever you want them to be... which makes them arbitrary... by definition.

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.

apparently we do disagree here. both substances must be tangible to tangibly interact. I mean, how can a substance that lacks tangibility tangibly interact with anything? tangible interaction of any substance requires tangibility of the substance. this applies to both substances that are tangibly interacting. in intangible substance can't tangibly do anything by definition... let alone tangibly interact even with a tangible substance.

Why don't you just rephrase your argument.......it shouldn't be that difficult.

good idea. i'll start with the questions you agree with. and make new ones following them.

fundamental means most basic form possible.
2 different substances not identical have to be different somehow.
for 2 substances to interact, there must be at least one similar property both possess for which they can interact.
fundamental substances must have fundamental properties.
fundamental properties must be fundamentally tied to a substance.
given the prior, those fundamental properties can't be exhibited without the substance it is fundamentally tied to.
given all this, the fundamental properties of fundamental substances must be fundamental to that substance and thus cannot be exhibited without that substance.