Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

-and?  I'd just ask the same thing again, because you didn't answer the question at all, and apparently we're still talking about the same thing, so the question remains.

Mind is seeing things, and thinking and stuff.

Correction, having physical eyes that detect a specific wavelength of light due to their chemical and structural composition...is seeing things.  Is it just me, or is our material explanation of what it means for something to be "mental" just a tad bit more descriptive and demonstrable than what you've offered?  Regardless, you still don't seem to have been able to answer the question asked.

What's to explain?  We have experiences.  Some of them seem to be common enough to categorize, and consistent enough to experiment with, and these we therefore take as having an objective reality.  But we are still just talking about experiences, after all.

We've gone a bit further than that, into things that -are not- experiences, things that we, as creatures of a particular scale and arrangement, -are not equipped- to experience, you've encountered that problem, in this thread, yourself...demanding a human visual analog of an electron, for example.  These things, as you've noticed, seem consistent.  If we have common experiences, and we're the only group discussing or considering those common experiences....this is the very essence of what "objective reality" is taken to mean...wtf are you quibbling over? Their consistence and commonality is precisely -why- we consider them to be part of an objective reality as opposed to the things I see when I'm on shrooms.

Not really, because for the most part, I live in the same world that you do, and share many of the same cultural symbols.

Do you live in the same world that I do, do we have the same cultural symbols?  Even if we didn't..you'd still expect some commonality from me, eh...shared biology.  

Because most of the ideas are not of the self.

....and -why- should that, then, make them unknowable, in an idealists world?  This is an incredibly important question that never seems to have occurred to you....and if I had to guess, it's because you lazily chose the "subsumes" route....and so an idealists world is, to you, identical to this one regardless of how ridiculous that proposition actually is - and so subject to the same philosophical issues. Why, though, would a world so very different from the one in which we appear to live be subject to issues which only present themselves as consequences of the circumstances of this world in which we live? The reason that I can't know, from inside of a material black box...what's outside of the box (or VV) is a thoroughly material description of the structure and composition of the box, relative to my own material structure and composition.  If it were not made of that stuff, in that arrangement (or if I weren't)..then perhaps I could see outside (or inside) - and that's certainly true even of other animals with a different sensory package, some of which perfectly able to detect what is inside or outside of said box.  Similarly, my black box of self is a black box because it is local, and apparently dependent upon my material structure and composition. So, the black box, even as metaphor, works for me, and it works, plainly, because of stuffs relationship to stuff...but I don;t think it works for you.

A black box made of cellophane isn't much of a black box, how much of a black box, I wonder, is a black box made of ideas?  Now, if we run with the notion that all of this material stuff isn't actually what we think it is...then the reasons I can't see through the box go out the window as well.   Are ideas somehow impenetrable to me, in the way that steel is..rather than transparent, the way that cellophane is?  Can you explain why that might be..why would the restrictions of the material continue to apply in absence of the material? There are certainly things you(we) do not know, and perhaps cannot know. We could make a list of those things with some pretty mundane explanations as to why you can't know them, and they will continue to return to our physical limitations. But why, in the absence of these, would anything be unknowable? What, without an invocation of the material, prevents an idea from accessing an idea, any idea? You need to make your arguments -from- the idealist position...or at the very least, you need to arrange for criticism of the materialist position which does -not- require you to assume it's truth, or the truth of it's limitations and circumstances. All material bets are off, I'm trying to engage you. Why, in an idealists world, does the unknowable exist in the first place? How does something come to be unknowable, in an idealists world..and finally, since you seem so fond of solipsism (I know, I know, you don't seem to think you are)..can -you- demonstrate that "most of the ideas are not of the self".......?

A black box is a computer science convention.  It means that you have input and output, but don't (actually, must not for legal reasons) know what happens inside.  We are kind of on the flip side of that: we have input coming in, and we output, but we know neither where the input comes from nor where the output, ultimately, goes.

Input coming in...sounds to me like you assume the objective reality you leveraged your initial comment -against-.  Here again we see the stolen concept, or is this just another metaphor?  Those are function descriptives.  They imply location, and relationship.  You're criticizing others for holding the same positions as you yourself very clearly hold, while stealing the concepts of those whom you disagree with, and providing no explanations of your own. Are you -trying- to tank your own position?