Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[bennyboy]

Because it doesn't "add nothing"..as you so eloquently described in your last post, Benny.  It's added a great deal, you owe every facet of your modern life to the notion (both the notions of an exterior world and the notion that this world is material), and the foundations upon which that notion is built.

We're not talking about the systematic organization of observations and ideas into a coherent scientific body. That adds a lot. However, as a philosophical world view, there's nothing about a physicalist monism that doesn't still work just fine in an idealistic monism. It doesn't matter whether we are inj a physical monist universe, or the Matrix, or the Mind of God-- you can equally well observe the effects of gravity, or of a falling apple, or of double-slit experiments, in any of those hypothetical realities. What you can't do, however, is observe them without the use of mind; that is, in essence, why I think an idealism is the more sensible default position.

-and no, again, you don't get any evidence -from- materialism when arguing -against- materialism, its fallacious reasoning cut and dry.

Again, materialism is an idea, and it applies to a certain range of our experiences and ideas. You see materialism and idealism as mutually exclusive world views, but I see materialism as a subset of ideas-- about those experiences which are common enough to make them worth categorizing and inferring rules about. Rules which are, by the way, more ideas.

 Did you use your google or no?  If you would use -as true- what you would argue to be false, to demonstrate the truth of your proposition, to provide evidence of the truth of your proposition...you are not using logic.  Stolen concept, or "indirectly self refuting idea".  It's a thing, I'm not just giving you shit or trying to be difficult, lol.

Yes, I googled it, and my last post was meant to answer it. I guess it didn't.

I'll restate....neither QM nor QFT strain materialism, they are -built- from that position, entirely steeped in that position, and in no way arguing -against- that position....our "best observations" -as you've just called them-..are it's crowning achievement.....this is why I've always been so confused by your position and means of argumentation.

Your view is that materialism has adapted with the new information, i.e. that it has evolved. My view is that all the terms and concepts associate with materialism (billiard balls + an understanding of force and energy = predictability) have been strained to breaking point, and that it is only academic tradition that makes some think that there is anything but a paradoxical empty potentiality under the hood. I do not accept undefined wave functions as "stuff," and I don't accept a materialistic world view in which "stuff" doesn't exist objectively and unambiguously in a 3D space.