Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[bennyboy]

Nobody is denying the existence of light or wavelengths as things we experience.  It is their ultimate nature that is up for debate.

What is a wavelength........divorced from methodological materialism?  Can you answer this?  

Are you talking past me?  I've said that all the things we experience in common, aka materialism, hold true for idealism as well, because they are subsumed by idealism.  A wavelength is the length of a wave, the same for me as it is for you.  However, ultimately I see the light, and the wave, as an expression of underlying principles, rather than vice versa.

My position is that matter appears to be fundamental to all we have observed.  "The Buck" that stops is our observation.  I don;t think you find immaterial principles that compelling at all...you keep using material metaphor to explain yourself.  

Numbers are immaterial, and matter is better seen as an expression of formulae, than formulae are seen as an expression of (magical) properties that matter "just has."

Gravitons?

As I said, you can go a couple levels down, but in the end, you do not know why gravity exists rather than not existing.  Gravitons?  Fine.  Why gravitons?

Where else would they be arranged...is there another option........?

Yes.  Non-existence.

Can you answer these questions from an idealists framework?  

Of course not.  But my view isn't predicated on pretending it explains things which are not, and probably cannot, be explained.

Of course it includes sensible descriptions and explanations for mind...what it does not include, apparently, are satisfactory descriptions or explanations....to you.

No, it doesn't explain why there is mind rather than a lack of mind in any physical system.  What you have is an evolutionary narrative and circular argument.  If I'm wrong, then go ahead and explain why qualia exist in a material universe.

I've long since stopped trying to argue the position with you...it's useless.  I;m trying to show you holes in your process of reasoning, Benny...not demonstrate the nature of the universe. 

By asserting a materialist position, you are doing EXACTLY that. . . you are saying that not only do we have experiences, but that they come to us through a particular mechanism, which (you also claim, do you not?) is fundamental to all reality.

But that's not a criticism of materialism..Benny.... it's just one word you like to say.  I'm sorry...did you just claim that there is no theory of development for mind.....?  That's an absurd statement.  Of course there are theories...........

No there aren't.  There are speculations with no grounds in science, the procedural arm of the world view you ascribe to.

Is that why you don't know how many fingers I'm holding up  -right here-...because you're "part of a greater whole", or might there be a more mundane explanation?  Thing is, why should this matter?  If materialism couldn;t explain qualia...and qualia were currently unexplained....then...what?  Idealism doesn;t explain qualia either, or else it wouldn't be "unexplained".   Whats all this bullshit about yet and someday..this is today, that's the status right now, or so you seem to be claiming.  Qualia is unexplained, how is this a criticism of materialism and -not- a criticism of idealism?

Because we experience ideas for sure, and matter maybe.  I'll take the for sure over the maybe.

You still don't understand the stolen concept.  It isn't a stolen concept because you use it in explanation...it;s a stolen concept because you use the truth of premises within it as an argument against the position itself.  If the position is untrue....so are all of those premises built upon it.  Understand?

You keep saying this, and I keep telling you that the category of experiences you call objective reality are subsumed by idealism.  I'm not stealing anything, because I'm not arguing against any of the details of your world view.  I'm arguing only that this view is not foundational-- that there can be, and probably is, something deeper than the material reality you take as the end of the road.

 The only view I've been discussing, in all of this...is my view of the criticisms and arguments offered.   I don't know what the foundation of reality is.  None of us do.  Matter does, however, appear to be. . .  

"Appear" means "is experienced by us."  But we do not really know the source of our experiences-- a BIJ, a simulation, the Mind of God, the Matrix, whatever.  So to make your view, you have to beg the question, and in a particularly circular way to boot.