Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

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.

well, I addressed the definition problem. I'll take a gander at your response. but even still, you're relying on a conflict in the implications of the conclusion and stating that therefore it must be invalid. though that would imply either the argument is invalid or there is a false premise, without you providing an argument for either you wouldn't be able to infer either. nonetheless, you have made a claim the conclusion is false so I'll see how you addressed my answer.

You cannot comprehend something that has no physical properties or effects.

sure you can. they're called abstract concepts. we think of them all the time. mathematics are such a concept for example.

Something which is beyond reality cannot be comprehended.

'beyond reality' is incoherent... but this is not what is in question. the question is, is there anything beyond the physical. but if there is something beyond the physical, it wouldn't be 'beyond reality...' it would be part of reality.

The mind has demonstrable physical counterparts with demonstrable physical effects.

agreed.

You can comprehend it because of these.

no... people understood how mind worked in terms of how we think long before we knew the function of the brain. epistemology is older than neurology after all... and people had the same theories before neurology as they have after. the only difference is now materialism has gained popularity due to scientific findings. though that doesn't make them necessarily right.

The flat earth theory also has alot of study devoted to it, that alone does not validate it.

please... you're comparing a respected field of philosophy to pseudoscience? loons to scholars? come on now...

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.

you did say yourself "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."
so you say it's not a mere possibility mind is produced by brain... but a fact. that would be a metaphysical claim.

I stand by my point. If you can comprehend it its because you can associate something physical with it.

and I stand by mine, that we understand abstract concepts which are not tied to something physical by definition.

Even emotions have physical causes and effects that you can associate it with.

but you don't have to associate the physical causes and effects when you conceptualize the emotions now do you? you can think of sadness without picturing the chemical associated with it, or the neurological pattern. just because there is a physical cause we can associate, doesn't mean it's necessarily associated to the conception.

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.

I thought you said you weren't going to make metaphysical claims because 'it does not need to be addressed'? change your mind already? can't resist claiming materialism is true, and we're merely physical beings?

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.

because all of those are physical claims associated with observed behavior of the physical world. there is no metaphysical claim associated with any of those. when it comes to the nature of mind, however, there are metaphysical claims associated.

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.

suddenly? why suddenly? idealism isn't a new concept.
and no... the argument was provided 'as' proof. you may skew the meaning of evidence, but you will not skew the meaning of proof. proof is not necessarily tied to physical systems, but refers primarily to logic.

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.

that's not what I said... the correlation is there. that doesn't prove causation. I know brain damage affects mental integrity... but affects is not the same as produces.

At no point did I deny the metaphysical.

you denied it when you said mind "is the result of biological components interacting." the nature of mind-brain interaction is a metaphysical claim. mind derived from brain is materialism. mind and brain being of 2 different substances is dualism. brain being derived from mind is idealism.

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.

that's what the argument is for... the one I started this thread for...

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

well lets see... it's certainly possible, meaning the concept does not contradict with how we experience. that being said, that means there is a possible world where mind exists (solipsist/idealist world) but matter does not (by definition). there's no difference between mind in a possible world and mind in the actual world (by Leibniz Law), thus mind is not reducible to matter. given substance dualism has been falsified by the interaction problem... that means monistic idealism entails. that's why...

Been away for three years. Forgot how.

seems you've figured it out just fine. and I know they've also changed the format a little bit. still works about the same though.