Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

That's right, and that's what "may or may not" means.

You trolling me right now?

My ideas are self-evident, because I don't need to attribute them to a particular source.  I don't need to know whether there is an underlying reality or not.  Black box is fine, so long as you are content with what's inside it.

You just got finished telling me how something's existence and somethings nature are separate props a few posts back, that the existence of a rock may be self evident, but that it's nature or composition isn't.  That the claim "rocksa are self evident", for example, could not be support for or imply materialism.  Take your own advice.  That you have ideas may be self evident, what thy are comprised of is not.  Even within your black box, you still can't rescue your poor reasoning by calling something self evident.  Speaking of which, how many pages of the creationists playbook will you be tearing out and waiving around like a badge of pride?

Maybe in your cheese-universe, you can as the God of Cheese stipulate that mind is cheese.  But as a cheese denizen, I wouldn't know this.  It would be exactly as the current universe.

Did you -really- not understand the cheese example?  It was an example of -why- the form you've used is invalid, -why- comp fallacies are useless, not an explanation of the fundamental nature of the universe.  Did you get that, twice now I've asked for confirmation?

I don't know the truth.  I only know that given my experiences, I see no compelling reason to make the extra assertion or circular assumptions that a material monist world view makes.

-You've made the same  assumptions.  It doesn't matter much to me whether you -do- know the truth, so much as I would like to help you realize that you -can't- know the truth using the lines of reasoning you've employed.  That you don't know, in this particular, is not -because- you couldn't, but because your comments can't be relied upon to generate knowledge even if they were true.  Do you understand why this is important?  Regarding the above, as I've already mentioned, this is not how parsimony works.  Before you or I could ever have a meaningful discussion about the truth values of either of our positions, you must first hammer out some valid inferences for me to consider.  We haven't been discussing the truth value of either proposition for some time.....si it's no big deal that you don't know the truth either way(ultimately, you and I both are agnostic -ists-, IIRC).   The problem is that we can't, until your proposition is a logical one I cannot use logic to assign a truth value.  I suppose I don't have to use reason, I could just blurt things out and then claim that they were self evident.................for example, I suppose I don't have to elaborate, again, on our shared assumptions.  In fact, I don't think I will until we get at least some resolution on -any- of these comments I've been making regarding the truth value of your statements -not the truth value of either of our propositions.  

Do you understand -why- the following statement is wrong:
"Evolution doesn't explain "x", therefore "y""

Do you understand -why- the following statement is wrong:

"I am made of "x", therefore the universe is made of "x"" 

Now, what extra assumption do you think materialism makes, again, and why do you think it would matter if it did?  Parsimony won't actually help you decide between two positions on the basis that 1 of them has 2 assumptions, and the other 200.  There's another condition to satisfy before we assign trust to parsimony.  They must both provide equal explanation, something that the idealists among us have flatly refused to offer.

As an example, if the question is asked "Why does gravity exist".  I could give you an explanation that assumes a great many things regarding gravitons, or I could simply say "waffles".  Do you lean towards waffles as an explanation for gravity on the grounds that it makes fewer assumptions?