Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Yes, I used a tool of reason (Occam's Razor) to demonstrate why your reasoning is flawed (you haven't ruled out simpler/more likely/more easily testable explanations before moving on to "God-mind did it.").

no you didn't... as I pointed out at best using the exact same wording you used... they make an equal amount of assumptions. but I could point out that on the most fundamental level of our experience... we only experience mental constructs. thus we cannot know of a world where matter exists apart from mind (because we can't know of a world that is void of mind, and subsequently knowledge). so really you're assuming there is a foreign substance that is causing our experience... and our mental constructs are interpretations of an independent physical substance... so you're assumption of realism puts you at least one assumption ahead of idealism, thus by Occam's Razor, you're view is less reasonable.

At no point did I say reason is entirely useless, and since your arguments and claims are devoid of evidence and constructed purely of reason, evidence is not required to refute or even dismiss them.

uhm... no. even if you're right about me not having evidence, you can at best dismiss what i'm saying without evidence... but to refute it requires evidence. but as you only seem to consider empirical observations evidence (which I've already shown was problematic), you can't claim you've refuted my claims by use of Occam's Razor. that is a principle of reason, thus doesn't fit you're skewed definition of evidence.

Your premises are irrelevant, flawed, and/or just wrong, as I and others have already pointed out and thoroughly explained.

you have only pointed out what was wrong with premise 1.. and possibly premise 4 which was quickly addressed (and since it wasn't readdressed i'm going to assume it was also resolved). others put in their 2 cents and left, so i don't think they can reasonably be counted. Rhythm had actual reasons for his objections, which has mostly been resolved. in fact, i think he now only disagrees with premise 5 if that. he had a misunderstanding of premise 4 which was resolved, and he hasn't voiced any objections to his new understanding.

Your conclusion does not follow from your premises; again this has been thoroughly explained to you, and again you seem mystified by it.

only Rhythm gave actual reasons why the logic is invalid, which again... was because he misunderstood premise 4. everyone else just says it doesn't follow... but then don't explain why.

Even if they weren't, though...even if we granted every premise and conclusion without thinking twice about them...this tells us nothing about the contents or rules of our Universe, how it operates, why it operates, why it's here, or what our purpose is in it, and it still leaves us without a way to know if this supposed mind-thing even actually exists, let alone where it comes from, how it operates, why it operates, why it's there, what its purpose is, what it wants us to do, if it wants us to do anything

so why should a philosophical argument in itself answer all scientific and religious questions? we have different fields of study for a reason... right?

there is literally no way to learn anything about this thing except through "introspection"

except realism, determinism, and most likely atheism are falsified by it... but I guess that's just details...

(read: daydreaming and asserting one's imagined musings as facts).

if that's all you think epistemology is... I'm not surprised you don't understand the argument.

There is a reason science ignores claims that cannot be tested, proven, or disproven.

science is a field specialized in empirical observation... it doesn't make philosophical arguments and conclusions... it presumes philosophical principles such as empiricism, and bases their methodology on it. but that also means they can only make observational physical conclusions... not metaphysical conclusions.

At best they give it a "Sure, maybe, but where's your evidence?" to which the near-universal response is "But you can't prove me WRONG!"

it is apparent to me that no matter how many times I correct you on this terrible interpretation of premise 1, nothing will sway you from your straw man interpretation of the argument...

Prove that you're right, and prove it in a way you can demonstrate.

why do I need to adhere to arbitrary standards you set?  if I can prove it... then why do I also need to demonstrate it? I think proving it is sufficient.

When you talk about the fundamental nature of shared reality, everything we observe suggests that it is objective, physical, and self-sufficient.

no... when you observe the fundamental nature of reality... you assume it's all objective, physical, and self sufficient. without that assumption... your 'evidence' doesn't side with either materialism or idealism. there is nothing with the behavior of matter alone that suggests idealism is wrong or materialism is correct.

When you begin trying to explain how and why such a thing exists as it does, you are walking into an arena that is dominated by evidence.

when you're speaking in purely physical terms... yes. but when you talk about the immaterial, especially regarding consciousness, the 'criteria of demonstration' breaks down. you can't demonstrate whether mind is a product of material interaction, or that it is its own substance.

es, reason is often used to draw conclusions from evidence, but attempting to use mere reason on a field where evidence is king is like trying to beat a shield fighter with a shield but no sword.

well, I would say the argument is based off the evidence from the obvious epistemic possibility of solipsism. but your skewed definition of evidence, doesn't include epistemic truths... but that's one reason why I reject your skewed definition.