Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

it's demonstrated by the definitional terms... tell me, can an intangible object tangibly do anything? look carefully now...

Still puttering about with the same bait and switch, eh? As mentioned before, all that is given, and all that is definitionaly true, is that the interaction is tangible..that it's a "tangible interaction".  This would certainly imply that at least one involved substance itself is tangible....or else what would be tangible about any of it?  But it doesn't require that all -substances- be tangible.  You can ask me variations of this question all day long...and I'll keep reminding you that I'm under no obligation to explain the how to you at all.  Do work.  

how can an intangible object have a tangible interaction? how can an intangible object perform any tangible function at all?

Not my baby, as repeatedly stated - the failures of your own imagination do not have the power to prove anything.  Do work?

I guess you don't know the definition of interaction- "mutual or reciprocal action or influence." how can you have something mutual without both parties involved? how can you have a substance that influences without the other substance being influenced? to have interaction, both substances must be involved with the interaction. that's like saying you can have communication without a listener, or without a common language between two people.

Nothing to do with any comment I've made, so we find ourselves pitching straw, don't we?  Do what you claimed could be and had already been done, what you need as a given.....and stop begging others to assume your burden, my patience isn't limitless.  Do...work.......


Wonderful, a much more manageable form of your argument.  Let's have a look.

 if solipsism is possible, then mind is not reducable to matter. given that and substance dualism is false, then mind is fundamental and everything is derived from mind; thus Monistic Idealism entails.

If you want to use the premise of solipsism (as -either- a possibility or actuality), then you might want to stick with it, rather than quietly arguing against your own premise by proceeding to make some comment about the nature of the universe which, of course, according to what you've decided to call a "premise" (in truth, yet another non-seq) either doesn't exist...or can't be proven to exist.   May as well drop it entirely and just begin with "If mind is not reducible to matter"..to avoid reductions to the absurd or incoherence...though I guess you'd just end up with variations on the theme of assuming your conclusion. Like I said, tight little knot....a reasonable person might begin to suspect that this indicates some problem with their propositions and/or structure......

The bar for validity is still waiting to be crossed, and for the same reasons already stated.

I've noticed, btw, that your argument might be a record of your own development into idealism.  You've used Leibniz, an argument generally employed for dualism and then followed it up immediately with a renouncement of dualism.  Were you a dualist before becoming a monistic idealist?