Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

A fantastic claim I've asked you to flesh out many times.  I don't think that idealism subsumes anything, and you've given me no reason to think that it does.  

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."

Are they, in either case?  Again, fantastic claims.

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?

Does it matter, will this congeal into a coherent thought at some point, or will you be offering me the idealists answer?  No to both.

Yes.  Non-existence.

-then they wouldn't be arranged at all................you feeling alright?

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

Oh, I see.......and despite the fact that explanations can be and have been offered....we're going to bitch about people pretending....really?

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.

You've lost your shit again, pulling pages from a creationists textbook.  I don't have to explain why qualia exists...to show you that there are theories on offer.  Is this your new mo, offer nothing and make demands?

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.

That's our observation....but if there's some other level beneath that - I'm all ears.  Trouble is, your mouth gets strangely silent on that count.....

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

[
There's a whole godamned field devoted to it........

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

Question begging.  

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.

Jesus christ man...the term is just a name for the fallacy.  A stolen concept is a logical fallacy, it doesn't have anything to do with actual theft or what subsumes what.  I;ve told you time and time again why it doesn't work, I've explained time and time again with different examples supplied by you how you commit it.  There's nothing more to say on the subject.  You can't rescue a statement from fallacy by claiming that x subsumes y....it doesn't work like that.  

Perhaps it isn't foundational, that's always a possibility, but you've given me no reason to believe that there is anything underneath.  

"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.

-and as before...when you made the same claim......a requirement of complete knowledge is entirely unreasonable.  No matter what source I point to you can always say "ah, but whats underneath?"...however, just because you can say it....that doesn't mean that there's actually an underneath.