Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

- Abstract concepts will always have physical counterparts and physical effects. Mathematics especially requires a baring in a physical world to make any sense because it is the language of matter. When used correctly you can calculate matter exactly and even predict its behavior. It was conceived by physical beings, it is used by physical beings and it effects physical beings. It is a mental tool, one which we could measure the moment someone summons it within their brain. Even thoughts are measurable, physical phenomena and to deny it as simply correlation is like denying my bones hold me up or my saliva digests food. If you challenge that you have to challenge those too.

ok... i'm trying not to be rude as you put it... but sometimes I wonder if you try. abstract concepts by definition are not physical... abstract- "existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence." and no... mathematics is not a 'language of matter.' if it was, then you would 'have' to associate a number to an object. but you don't. you can think of a number without thinking of an object it represents. and yes... it's a mental tool. but that's the point isn't it? you said "You cannot comprehend something that has no physical properties or effects." numbers don't have physical properties or effects. they do nothing except help us understand implications by means of calculation. they're really just a certain type of logic. that makes them a counter example that proves you wrong...
and no... you don't get to try and sidestep the issue by saying "but all thoughts correspond to brain activity.' that's irrelevant. your argument is we cannot comprehend anything that has no physical properties or effects. even if I grant you're right, that still doesn't change abstract concepts themselves have no physical properties or effects but are nonetheless understood.

- "Beyond reality" is in the definition of metaphysical wherever you look. You just made a metaphysical claim, one that discounts part of its very meaning as "incoherent".

no it's not. there may be some controversy on who metaphysical is defined... but no one has ever used the words 'beyond reality' to define it. go ahead and try to prove me wrong. here's my source:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaph...rMetConMet

Epistemology figured out the very basics which philosophy is good at doing. It also made a tremendous amount of mistakes before it even touched upon the basics which philosophy is also good at doing and even when it did there was no indication to outright demonstrate which was right and which was wrong. You are engaging in confirmation bias. You are ignoring all of the misses.

first, you haven't pointed out any 'mistakes.' second, even if there were mistakes that's how information develops in science isn't it? theories and hypothesis get disproven all the time... third, epistemology has done more than just make unverifiable claims. I suggest you look into topics before you share your ignorance on the topic.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/

The thing which is different now is that we have syatems which work infinitely better. When you clicked the mouse did it explode and maim you? Did the fibre optics randomly transform in a snake? Did anything other than what you predicted would happen occur? No? *Science* accepts your thanks.

really... science doesn't 'cause' reality to conform to a regulated pattern thus preventing my mouse from randomly exploding... I mean really? look up non sequitur... then don't do that...

Whatever your metaphysical leanings they may have entertained you for hours but they have not served you practically in any way or proven anything true or false "Materialism" has and you have no problem with it usually, do you.

I don't think something needs to be useful to be true. personally I prefer to have true beliefs rather than false ones. if you want to argue against the logic, then do so... stop dodging with these irrelevant sidetracks...

- The comparison is apt. They both have as much proof or use in the real world.

i'm not going to grant you that just because you stated it...

And excuse me? Loons? How do you know they're not correct in some metaphysical way we can't demonstrate?

yes, loons. I would call flat earth theorists loons. I know of no other group more deserving of the name. and the fact that they can't demonstrate it is exactly the point... the flat earth theory is a physical claim anyways. you obviously don't see the difference... a physical claim is about the behavior or appearance of matter. a metaphysical claim is concerning an explanation for the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. see the difference? see why flat earth theory is not a metaphysical claim?

 No. It wouldn't. The firing between synapses at the same time as thoughts and actions occurring is sufficient physical evidence. Evidence we have acted upon and successfully treated patients with. Thats a demonstration  of physical causes and physical effects.

yes... but that's physical causes and effects concerning the physical components alone. the evidence does nothing to establish there is no immaterial component.

This is what the entire debate is about. You claim the mind is partially metaphysical. You have yet to demonstrate this. Would you please do so.

I did present an argument. would you care to address it?

Alot of people don't visualize their leg muscles when they walk. Should I assume theres something metaphysical at work there too?

first, acting and conceptualizing are not the same thing. performing a tedious action many times enables you to perform it without thought. second, you're right in the first half. you don't have to picture leg muscles when thinking about walking. but you do have to picture legs... which are material...

Your point is circular. There is no metaphysical claims on it therefore I will make no metaphysical claims on it. The mind has demonstrably physical counterparts that correlate with each other just like the flame example does.

why are you repeating this? we already established mind has physical counterparts it correlates to... move on.

The difference is that you've decided you don't like one of these being solely physical and have decided to challenge the premise.

lol. I didn't challenge anything based on what I like or don't like... I presented the argument because I think it's sound... not because of what I like...

However this challenge could be raised for anything and everything. Why solely the mind?

you'll have to demonstrate to me how the argument with its given premises with minor alterations can apply to... anything and everything...

By definition proof is tied to both physical components and logic.

do I really have to throw a dictionary for every word you sputter out? proof- "the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning."

If you don't like that then lend me some metaphysical proofs we can work with.

the argument in the OP doesn't work because...

I would wager you did not spend an hour wondering if the enter key will do exactly the same thing it did last time or launch a death trap before you sent this. You didn't because you have physical evidence to suggest that wouldn't happen and it was good enough for you.

this same non sequitur argument again? what is with you and straw manning my position to be 'we don't know anything at all'? and you don't even need physical evidence to reasonably come to that conclusion... it's simply reasonable to presume you repeat the same action... and you get the same results... to think otherwise is quite literally insane.

At no point did you ponder whther the metaphysical had changed its function.

that's not how metaphysical works... non sequitur...

Effects is not the same as produces?

look them up... tell me the difference... i'm tired of looking up definitions for you...

Would the brain damage be there five minutes before you cut out 3/4 of your brain? No? Would it occur five minutes after? No? Then in what sense is it "effecting" it? It would have to already be present to "effect" it.

what does any of this have to do with what I said? all I said was correlations between mind and brain don't establish causation. and you go off on whether brain damage occurs at the time of brain damage or not? do you see a connection? because I don't...

That is not denying it. That is stating what has been proven by physical evidence.

making a statement that contradicts another is the same as denying... unless you're proposing both contradictory statements could be true...

No, what you started this argument for was to make claims on what is or isn't metaphysical. In this case the mind. These claims need to be defended as they so far have no strength to them.

it wasn't just to make claims... it was to prove it. the conclusion is defended by the premises. do you deny the premises? do you deny the validity of the logic?

Unless you mean "possible world" with the implication we occupy a multiverse then this is not even remotely proving anything even if I were willing to take solely your words as evidence.

by possible world, I mean a hypothetical situation that can be conceptualized. and you can't take the first part and say "this doesn't prove anything." of course it doesn't... it's the first premise. you don't get to proof until you get to conclusions...

"Possible world" is not an "actual world"

exactly right. nor was it meant to be conveyed as such.

That term was never made to outright prove something exists but to ponder the consequences if something did exist as with most philosophy.

and that's exactly what premises 1-2 do... did you stop reading after the first sentence of that brief overview of the argument? because you would know what I meant if you saw where I said "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."

Does that mean you can then proceed to ponder things and then assume they're true on the basis you can think of them?

tell me exactly what part of the argument is assumption or bias?

I got irritated by the quoting system and given the sheer volume this is easier.

well it was hard to know which statements were addressing what when they're expressed as bullet points without putting the quote it's responding to. I had to go back and forth several times to see what you were addressing.