Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Reforged]

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.

At no point did I say it should be dismissed on principle. It should be dismissed by definition. Either you used the wrong word or made a mistake in your argument. Both would be things that require addressing.

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.

Accepted.

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.

You cannot comprehend something that has no physical properties or effects. Even something that is very small or practically invisible can be comprehended because it has a basis in reality. Something which is beyond reality cannot be comprehended. The mind has demonstrable physical counterparts with demonstrable physical effects. You can comprehend it because of these. The flat earth theory also has alot of study devoted to it, that alone does not validate it.

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 never made that claim. It does not need to be addressed. I only ever challenged your claim that there is a metaphysical aspect to the mind.

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 stand by my point. If you can comprehend it its because you can associate something physical with it. Even emotions have physical causes and effects that you can associate it with. You are a physical being living in a physical world. You have no reference point for something metaphysical and you cannot give me an example of something demonstrably metaphysical.

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.

And theres only physical evidence associated with oxygen, fuel and heat to prove a connection between fire and burning but you're not debating me on the metaphysical implications there are you. You would be more than happy to accept that the physical components of most things in everyday life are the only components at work without a second thought but when it comes to the mind its a different story. Suddenly the physical components aren't quite good enough and something extra, something invisible and something which you will never need any proof for is required.

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

If you are that confident then perhaps you should have the courage of your convictions and experiment on yourself. Prove theres more and baffle the scientists. Be the first person to have 3/4 of your brain removed but still be awesome at playing the clarinet.

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?

Actually I'm focusing on your claim and not getting bogged down in anything else which is what I should be doing. At no point did I deny the metaphysical. I merely challenge your claim that the mind has a metaphysical aspect to it and am waiting for you to answer that challenge. It is perfectly reasonable to think it possible something beyond what we can see and touch or even comprehend may exist. For now it cannot be proven either way and until it can I have no place making any claims on the possibility either way. I however doubt your claim that the mind has a metaphysical aspect to it and I demand you to tell me why you think it has and what you have to offer me to confirm this hypothesis,

As for the last parts; fair enough and done. Been away for three years. Forgot how.