Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

That's right, it isn't there -- as you perceive it-- even when you're observing it.

A point upon which we agree, that I can offer an explanation for...that you, apparently, cannot.  You know my line on this...I don't know which of those two wordviews (if either) is true...I only know which offers better explanations.  

You use that word evidence like it means something, but I think the idea of evidence in this sense pretty much begs the question (I mean that as a description of the logic as I see it, not as an insult to you or your thinking process).

What question does it beg, and is that -at all- relevant?  I'm not attempting to prove anything, and didn't lay claim to any proof of anything...and frankly, I don't know how a person would go about proving materialism -or - idealism.  So, if we're talking logic...you've just gone the route of informal fallacy.  Gratz. The moment, however, that you have to argue that evidence doesn't mean -anything- is the moment you lose all credibility with me, even "pure reason" needs evidence with which to determine true conclusions......hell, it's a system -built- on evidence (as is the system of "numbers" case-in-point).

 Show me that numbers exist in the universe, outside our idea of them.  Sure, you can point to the brain and talk about neural networks, etc. but at best you'll find a representation of "two-ness," not a physical thing which is equivalent to two.  And yes, you can point to the brain, and say, "when physicist X talks about QM particles, this set of neurons lights up" (or at least in theory, you could).  But what you haven't done is shown that a QM particle, or the numbers that describe it, are more than ideas.

I don't need to talk about any of that.  I can just type "4".  There she is, existing, in the universe, in both of our experience, undeniably and in-arguably.  I get that you want there to be "more" there....but there may not be.  In any case, there's no need to show that "numbers are more than ideas" because...as before, it wouldn't matter if they weren't...unless you quietly presuppose that ideas are not physical things. From another angle, the idea that the number four is an abstract notion is a bit like the elephant in our minds. That the elephant in our minds is not actually the elephant doesn't mean that the abstract "elephant of mind" isn't stuff.....it just means that it's not the -same- stuff as the elephant "out there" - if there is an "out there", of course. We already knew that, though..didn't we....we couldn't fit all the elephant stuff in our skulls.....while there is ample room for brain stuff - which, conveniently, is what I think ideas are made of - and I think this, of course..because I can at least explain how ideas can be made of stuff. Good luck explaining the reverse.

And here's where your vision doesn't work for me: since the brain is made up of QM particles, and since these are better represented as ideas than as things, then evidence supports the position that the brain, however solid-seeming, is nonetheless supervenient on ideas and nothing else.  So even your "two-in-the-brain-somewhere" is a manifestation of idea, rather than of a substance independent of idea.

That they are "better represented as ideas" is, firstly...not a statement of their nature...but also a non-statement in every sense of the word.  All things human beings experience are "represented by ideas".  It's inescapable in our circumstances as we understand them, and this is why solipsism, for example, is inescapable.  Nevertheless, we find the notion that these ideas are referent to have explanatory power....as we find the notion that these ideas are referent to matter to have explanatory power.....and while I've been giving you answers to these questions you've asked me...as best I can, you've not yet begun to attempt an answer to the only question I asked of you.  Not that this omission should be taken as any proof that my worldview is correct and yours is not - of course...but as above...I'm not sure that we're discussing something that -can be- proven unless our circumstances change. Until we can articulate how to go about proving either..I go with the one that explains.