Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Ultimately your entire argument falls down because you invoke the metaphysical which by definition is beyond the mind or the senses.

yet again someone stating the argument is invalid on principle rather than by false premises or invalid logic... ok. i'll bite.

Therefore a concept you can comprehend by definition cannot be branded a metaphysical concept.

is that metaphysically true? if it is, then how do you know it? if it's not, then how can you say it?
just because it's beyond our senses, doesn't mean we can't use reason and deduction to infer something of it. it just means we can't use what we experience to infer something of it... because the contents of experience can only infer the contents of experience... not the nature of how and why we experience.

The mind is something you can comprehend. You even conceded "you can think of it as a product of material interactions or its own substance". Thats entirely accurate.

of course I gave that as a possibility in the definition... if I didn't then I would be question begging. the point of the argument was to deduce that possibility as false through introspection. just saying 'it's false by definition isn't a valid argument because definitions are arbitrary.

[quote-RaphielDrake] Infact neuroscience outright proves this. It is the result of biological components interacting.[/quote]
but you just said 'you can comprehend by definition cannot be branded a metaphysical concept...' yet you're using knowledge we gather from conscious experience to infer the metaphysical nature of conscious experience... IE, that it's purely physical... and second, biological components interacting only shows how materials interact... not mind... try not to refute yourself next time.

You are creating a mystery where none exists because you want to perceive it as something more and you can't without attempting to invoke the metaphysical which as stated is an oxymoron.

you do realize that denying the metaphysical is still a metaphysical claim... right? you can't deny something without inferring something about that something... if you're denying X, you're still talking about X.