Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[bennyboy]

I am not quite as ignorant on your main argument as you may think. I know you think it is circular. I do not because for me it is axiomatic that external reality exists and that an emergent quality of that same reality, in us, is our consciousness. Using sense perception through consciousness we can grasp that reality. 

Not only can you not prove this, the science of the day shows us that we cannot in fact grasp that "reality" through our sense perceptions.

 So yes to me it is also axiomatic that our senses are valid.  To me to deny reality and our ability to perceive it leads to absurdities and the whim wishing of the primacy of conscioussness.

People said the same thing about the "reality" of God. First, you have to be able to prove that what you call reality is in fact real.

 If your starting assumption is that your mind isn't part of that same external reality and you conclude that the only thing you can validate is your mind, then unsurprisingly you validate the conclusion that external reality may not exist. So we just differ on who begs what.

The difference is that you are making an extra assertion. We both start with mind. I assume that unless I can prove otherwise, nothing else exists. You take the objects of the mind, imbue them with properties you can't actually demonstrate, and then establish your inferences as "reality." Extra steps, if unprovable, are generally a bad policy.

I think if you have such global level of skepticism, all I am asking is why are you not consistent and question whether your mind exists. We can both agree you are at least conscious. How do you know you are more than just consciousness, ie not just aware but with ability to think and have experiences (somone/something/whatever isn't just projecting all of it on your consciousness).

I think we're nearly done here, because I've addressed this already. I do not know, nor have I claimed to know, this, so stop asking me how I know it. I've said that the use of the word "I" is a linguistic convention, not a fundamental truth. So when I say "I think therefore I am," I'm perfectly fine with the idea that the "I" doesn't have any agency unique to the universe.

  You have steadfastly refused to answer directly 3 times. Your latest query is on my use of 'structure'.  To be honest I don't care what you want to call it. The word structure is a placeholder for my ignorance of immateriality and what in an immaterial skeptical world would allow you to build from "I am conscious" to "I had that experience/thought and I know I did". If you have a better word for it than 'structure', please use it. If you can define what you mean by an immaterial mind, be my guest. I am asking for how do you know you have a mind? And I have yet to see a response.

I walk up and have thoughts. The linguistic convention is to talk about your own thoughts as "I," probably because we define ourselves by our ideas more than by anything else. I'm not claiming self-creation, so it's not only possible but necessary that those ideas came from somewhere else.

Is it possible that you are still hearing "solipsism" when I say "idealism"?