Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

Just to get this out of the way - I'm done trying to explain how computers and sims work to you.  If you want to know how they work, rather than how you might try to continue your argument, fucking google it.

Now that we're done with that.  

1. solipsism is possible.
-granted

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.
-"if premise 1 were true, then premise 1 would be true"
3. given 2 and according to Leibniz Law, mind and matter are not identical; given 1 and 2, mind is not reducible to matter.
-"if premise 1 were true, then premise 1 would be true"  In a meta solipsist world (possible or actual).....mind would not be reducible to matter - cheifly, because there would be no matter. Full stop, nothing else need be said...1-3 are -still- contained within premise 1.

4 and 5 would be worded the same as 5 and 6.

...okay, if you insist..

4. substance dualism has been proven false due to the interaction problem (substances can only interact via shared properties and substances cannot be fundamental and share properties).
-you haven't reworded this, so the problem remains.  

5. therefore, all is mind and monistic idealism entails.
-You've failed to make any change to your argument that would remove the same issues already discussed.  I'll condense your entire argument for you.

If the world is meta-solipsist, and substance dualism is false - then monistic idealism is true.
(look at all the words you've wasted when you could simply say this.....gee...I wonder why )

Ultimately, this is -still- a non-seq, and for the same reason that it was before.  You have attempted an argument by means of elimination......but presented a whopping -1- possibility to be eliminated (and you're still simply asking us to accept a nestled argument from assertion in presenting that one possibility).  You're going to need to add the statement "and this is the only other possibility" -somewhere......and until you do, there's no reason for me to discuss whether or not any particular portion is sound....because the structure of the argument has yet to pass the bar of validity. Honestly, there's no reason to even discuss dualism as stated..because in a meta-solipsist world....substance dualism is false by definition. Hmn, further reduction...

If premise 1 were true.......then premise 1 would be true.

This is the -entirety- of your argument, as I said from the very start. Well done! No wonder you find it so compelling, what a tight little knot you've tied yourself into.

Now, on to our meta discussion regarding that argument from assertion -as stated-.

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.

Must they? It's not my business to establish how they interact to you (that would be the business of people who claim to possess proof that dualism is true)..you claimed that it had been disproven, so this is your baby..get to work. The swan song of every armchair "philosopher" everywhere is to demand that another do the work they've assumed upon themselves. Tangible interaction of substances certainly implies that -some- of those involved substances be tangible (at least insomuch as you appear to be using the term as a stand in for what is detectable), but you've yet to demonstrate that it requires both (or all- maybe there are 30..who would know?) of those substances to be tangible - or even that both (or all) substances -aren't- tangible to begin with, plenty of people see the immaterial "other substance" as very, very tangible - and gl to you sir, disproving their claims. Here, as with the premise you are trying to support...you are attempting to argue by assertion and unspoken assumption. The only thing that's true -by definition- in your claim, is that a tangible -interaction- must be tangible, the interaction.....not all involved parties to it. Try again, Mr. bait and switch.

I'm wondering why you thought dualism would actually be that easy to disprove, btw? More than that..I'm wondering why tangibility means anything at all to you, given your position? Tangibility is, essentially, an illusion in your worldview. That something is or isn't tangible, particularly relative to notions of the material vs the immaterial (the general context of substance dualism), has nothing to do with anything in a world composed of immaterial ideas devoid of material -anythings-, the very notion of tangibility, in that framework - is nonsense. Just another stolen concept which doesn't do anything in your framework because you've removed it's foundational propositions.

If you're going to claim that you're a monistic idealist, ffs man...be one. You're arguing against substance dualism, in effect, from a position of materialism - and if you find the arguments from that position compelling..perhaps you ought to include that as possibility number two above (at least then you'd be eliminating more of the available possibilities..which are important to you, or so your statements would lead us to believe), rather than waive it away by invoking, as your starting premise, a meta solipsist world?