Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

I know that you keep saying that, but repeating it doesn't make it true.  Materialism -does work-, you've yet to -begin- to explain how idealism -could do work-...and again, if you would make that attempt you might see the problem more clearly.  The things that "work" in materialism work -because- of those characteristics and attributes defined both by and -as- the material...or they work -as if- those things both defined by and as the material are true.

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.

I don't see them as mutually exclusive, I'm trying to explain an informal fallacy to you and you're attempting to respond to anything -other- than that.  Those rules...guess what...built upon our observation of what we see as a material world, how it seems to behave.  Why does it behave the way that it does....again we reference materialism.  Ideas which, again.....seem to be made of material stuff, material interactions.    

Yes, I googled it, and my last post was a response to it.

Couldn't tell...because you did it again -in- that response and this one.  You just don't get to claim any of the things you've claimed while arguing against their truth - not even indirectly. Not as proof, not as evidence.

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."

I would find it strange and far -less- compelling if it hadn't adapted to new information.  That may be your position, but it's not QM or QFT's position.  Our best observations still indicate a material world of predictable interactions, and those observations themselves are meaningless -without- that foundation to begin with. What we'd need to do for idealism, to claim level ground with materialism, is explain things from the top down or bottom up -all over again-....without stolen concepts. We can use the same data (though perhaps even this might be tenuous) - but we'll need new explanations -of- that data.