Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Except where I went on to state what I meant by "shitty."

you didn't tell me what you meant... but you did tell me that you didn't mean my definition was invalid. "I didn't say the definition was "invalid," really. I think the exact word I used was "shitty."" thus you aren't invalidating its use with your petty insults.

Let's say I lived in a world that appeared to be filled with evidence that the Universe is natural and material and that it exists because of phenomenon that have physical explanations, and in which there is no evidence of anything supernatural or metaphysical, ok? Let's say I live in such a world, and all the evidence points to things in that world existing because of natural phenomenon that have been ongoing for billions of years, and I then assert that all of that is happening because a metaphysical super-mind is dreaming it all up, and that this metaphysical super-mind is the only thing that actually exists at all because the rest of reality is a pile of dream objects that have no true, physical substance. The "metaphysical super-mind" and the dream world it generates would be classified as "unnecessary explanations," right? Right?

except the 'appearance' of a physical world doesn't establish that this world has actual physical substance... that would be an assumption. the way you depicted it, both have the same amount of assumptions. both positions acknowledge a world we experience, and its apparent physical objectivity. the difference is that one assumes real physical substance is behind this experience, while the other assumes a mind is. they both have 1 assumption in their differences. though I could point out more assumptions for the materialist perspective if I reworded it.

More like you're trying to use reason to demonstrate things that have to be addressed with empiricism.

you do realize you just used Occam's razor... a principle of reason, not demonstration.

You cannot use reason to prove things about physical reality unless you're using premises that are based on physically observable facts.

but can you prove that is true of reality? can you use physically observable facts to prove you can't "prove things about physical reality unless you're using premises that are based on physically observable facts"? if not, then why should I accept that's the case?

Reason alone is not evidence, and it especially isn't proof.

well, I would say reason is proof if it is based on premises accepted to be true. you can use reason alone, for example, when you're constructing an inside argument to debunk someone's beliefs. you just work from some of their beliefs, and reason out an implication that shows inconsistency or an implication of a belief they do not like. remember, 'proof' only means you have to establish 'If A then B.' you don't need to prove A to have a proof 'If A then B.'

Even if there's a metaphysical super-mind generating a dream and that's what we live in, the evidence in that dream world indicates that our dream brains generate our dream minds by using our dream senses to interact with our dream world.

interesting answer. that would be material realism (relative to us) in a monistic idealistic world. however I see many problems, most of which I will address in a later statement you made. one i'll present briefly is the fact that mind is fundamental to our experience, so it doesn't seem parsimonious to suggest matter is generating our minds which are the most obviously real part of our experience. matter can be doubted, but mind can't. so why suggest it's a process of substances apart from our experience which we observe in the form of mental constructs which are at best interpretations of the substance?

"Correlation does not indicate Causation" does not bend that far, my friend. Reactivity does indicate causation, and with nervous response you don't just have correlation, but also reactivity. We can observe the stimuli contacting the senses. We can watch the neurons fire from the nerves into the brain. We can watch the neurons bounce around inside the brain. We can watch them travel back out to the body to activate a response, and we can see the body's other systems act according to those impulses. That is a direct chain of causation.

first, you claim the mind-brain relationship is the mind reacting to brain activity... but then give examples of the body reacting to brain activity. second, the body doesn't just react to stimuli induced in the brain. the brain also reacts to stimuli induced in the body. so if reactivity indicates causation, which is causes which?
obviously a stimulation can cause a reaction without dictating the initial cause of both bodies. reactivity only indicates causation of a particular event, such as a stimuli of the brain inducing a bodily reaction or the stimuli of the body inducing a brain reaction. but it doesn't establish primacy of one over the other or both would be prime over each other... which is absurd.

Ok, you're going to have to define what you mean when you use the word "why."

I say "you should know why" and follow it up with "because..." and you don't know what I mean by why?

We can answer so many different versions of that question that I don't even know where to start. Observable evidence from the physical Universe suggests that we "experience" because we are alive and we possess bodies that can gain environmental input and respond to it.

not really... all it suggests is we are able to 'experience' because we are conscious and are fed information that we are able to interpret. but you're presuming this information comes from a physical universe.

Even though we have to "experience" that evidence to know anything about it, we can still draw conclusions from the evidence.

right... but those conclusions have to say in the context of what we experience... I mean think about it. if you start with a premise 'we experience' that premise concerns the contents of our experience. so using only that premise, can you conclude what's beyond the scope of the premise?

Ok, according to you, how much would we need to know about a subject before we get to the "nature of its existence?"

it's not about the amount of evidence, it's the kind of evidence. if you're only using evidence from experience, you can only draw conclusions concerning the contents of that experience. you can't prove a substantial physical substance exists only using your experience... because that's a claim outside the scope of your experience.

We don't just understand how matter behaves, we also understand what it's made of, what that stuff is made of, what that stuff is made of, and we're getting damn close to observing the fundamental particle that everything is made of.

all of this is still concerning the contents of our experience... you can say 'we observe' all you want, but you can't remove such a claim from the context of observation to arrive at a conclusion not concerning observation. if you take observed evidence and remove the observation aspect, then you're left with nothing.

What question are you trying to answer?

it's not what i'm trying to ask, it's what you're trying to answer. empirical evidence is not evidence for materialism. no ifs, ands, or buts. period. end of story.

Do you want to know what the meaning of life is? It's 42. I thought we knew this already.

haha... you're so funny...

More word salad.

Translation: 'I don't understand what you're saying, so i'm just gonna claim it's meaningless.'

Evidence indicates that objective stimuli and our perceptions of and reactions to those stimuli are "what's behind our conscious experience."

no... at best you can claim the stimuli and our perceptions give us an information feed... not that it's 'what's behind our conscious experience.'

What do you mean by that phrase, exactly? You seem to be working from the presupposition that reality is just a curtain behind which is "what's really going on."

it's what we consciously experience... and yes, there is a figurative 'curtain' that prevents us from knowing 'what's really going on.' you bring forth all this 'evidence' for materialism, yet all none of your evidence indicates idealism is less plausible than materialism. every piece of evidence can be explained with idealism just as easily as with materialism.