Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Reforged]

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.

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.
[/quote]

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

Given that I gave my reasons and demonstrations of invalid logic after my statement that your argument was invalid you would appear to be creating a claim of sweeping and unreasonable denial where none occured. I don't know why you have chosen to do that as I was rather polite and reasonable in how I addressed you but you have and I think thats rather disingenuous, very rude and slightly insulting. However, I am truly honored that you are even bothering to "bite". Such distinguished company as yourself obviously could of gotten away with a nibble. I am truly humbled to be conversing with you. Moving on.


"just because it's beyond our senses, doesn't mean we can't use reason and deduction to infer something of it."

If you're operating under the definition of metaphysical hats exactly what it means. Part of the very definition of metaphysical means its beyond our senses and beyond our comprehension. If the metaphysical were indeed a thing that existed it would not only mean that your deduction and reasoning skills would be grossly inadequate but it would also mean you can't throw random concepts that you clearly do have a grasp of under its umbrella. The metaphysical is something you can debate the existance of but it is not something you can label things with otherwise it is by definition not metaphysical. 
You can not have it both ways.


"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."

Definitions are how human beings communicate concisely and effectively, without them civilization cannot function. If the word you are using does not fit what you are describing then its important that is addressed so we can find the right word for what you are describing. Otherwise we are forever lost in translation.
Things that are demonstrably, physically true can not be argued away. It is not just a "possibility" that mind is something formed by biological components interacting within our brains. It is a tangible, physical fact we can demonstrate and experiment with. If you do not think those are important I encourage you to try and live without food for a week. Philosophy is a good tool to use for subjects we have no material evidence to go on. However "If a tree falls down in the forest-" etc etc is only an interesting question so far as I don't have a tape recorder to leave in that forest. If I do it becomes rather pointless.


"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."

I would like to point out that you have yet to establish there is a metaphysical nature to conscious experience and that I myself never made any metaphysical claims on the nature of the mind. I merely stated that you cannot throw concepts you can comprehend, mind included, under that umbrella.  I can prove the mind is the result of physical interactions through physical evidence. Can you give me something of equal strength for your metaphysical claims or is it based entirely on an assumption? 
You don't seem to have found space in your retort to do that although you did seem to find time to insert more rudeness in place of actual points.


"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."

I made no claims on the existence of the metaphysical. I denied your right to put whatever you please under its umbrella. By its definition you have no such right.

If you do decide to put in more blatant rudeness with your points I would ask you to take into account three things. 
1. It makes you look like you're putting in filler instead of points. 
2. I've been polite up until now. 
3. I have a vast and varied experience of intense sarcasm and am far, far better at it than you will ever be.