Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

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.

no... you didn't. you gave reasons why the conclusion should be dismissed on principle of it being a metaphysical claim... not reasons why the premises are false or the logic is invalid... you would have to present a faulty logic step to show it's invalid. you didn't do this.

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.

I didn't think I was being rude or insulting. I was merely expressing my impression of what you said... I didn't express any contempt toward you personally. also some of what you've said I've addressed before on this thread, but then again some of it is new. though I apologize if I came off as rude or insulting.

Such distinguished company as yourself obviously could of gotten away with a nibble. I am truly humbled to be conversing with you. Moving on.

I don't think i'm that big a deal to be known as 'distinguished company' though i'm honored that you think so.

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.

I don't think that's what the real definition of 'metaphysical' is... it simply means what's 'beyond physics' and it refers to the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. I don't see anything in the definition that says it's beyond comprehension... if it was, then there wouldn't be a whole field of study dedicated to it.

Things that are demonstrably, physically true can not be argued away.

of course... but you must pay mind to what is being demonstrated. you can look at nature and say 'these physical systems act this way' but it would be a huge leap to then say 'everything is fundamentally physical and nothing is apart from the physical.' the former is a physical claim, the later is a metaphysical claim. you can talk about physical interactions all you want in the field of science; but when you start saying that's all there is, you've just stepped into the field of metaphysics.

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.

in light of the correction in your definition, it wouldn't be throwing understood concepts under the umbrella of what can't be understood. also, i'm not the one who came up with these concepts. they've been around since the birth of epistemology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

I can prove the mind is the result of physical interactions through physical evidence.

no... you can prove brain has a correlation to mind through the physical interactions. to then say these physical interactions produce mind would be going into metaphysics again... that's a question of materialism vs dualism vs idealism.

Can you give me something of equal strength for your metaphysical claims or is it based entirely on an assumption?

your conclusion is based on an assumption. the correlation doesn't prove causation. you're assuming the physical components are the only components.

I made no claims on the existence of the metaphysical.

you're dodging... as I said, denying the metaphysical is still a metaphysical claim. you cannot reasonably deny what you have no knowledge of. it doesn't matter that you didn't claim its existence... denying its existence is still making a claim about 'it' isn't it?

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.

again, I didn't mean to convey rudeness in my comment so I apologize if I came off that way. yes, I use sarcasm in some of my posts... but it's not meant to convey contempt. it's mostly a humorous way to deal with rehashed points. some of it is to show I don't take the said objection seriously. I may be a little calloused, but I don't mean to be insulting.

and one piece of advice for you... learn how the quoting system works. I've seen mods and admins give people warnings for not using the quoting format correctly. not being insulting, just giving advice.