Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

That's right.

Then your -explanation- as to why you've defaulted to idealism is plainly wrong, the explanation, mind you, not idealism.  We agree?

I only call that self evident which is actually self evident-- the existence of mind, and my experiences.  As for waiving. . . I've never waived anything except my right to an attorney.

Fine, who cares?  Materialism and idealism are not positions regarding the existence of those experiences, they are positions regarding their natures.  We agreed, above, that you could not reach a conclusion about the universe by reference to yourself -even if that reference were factual.  Did we not?  

The cheese example was a bad example.  Try another one.

I disagree, but I think any example I offer you could be called a bad example..firstly, because they are -meant- to be bad examples...and secondly because you have developed a pattern of deflection when your questions are answered, when you are corrected.  

If I ever claim to know the truth, then please remind me of this.

Like, when you claim that materialism -cannot- be true?  

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

I haven't made an argument in this form.

Yes, you have, many times.....you're doubling down on it this very moment.  Perhaps I should quote you, and you can make modifications and retractions........perhaps you didn't mean to....that's kind of been my operating assumption this entire time,  the sole reason for and subject of my involvement in the thread.

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

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

Do you?

I will explain to you again.  It is wrong because we can plug in true propositions and still yield a false outcome.  It is wrong because it violates the stated function of logic.  That is why a fallacy is a fallacy, no other reason in specific.

You make the assumption that not only do things exist, they exist in a particular fashion-- and not only this, but that their existence as you see it is fundamental to reality.  It's quite the impressive chain of assumptions, actually, since you have no direct interaction with anything but your own mind.

Materialists make no such assumption.  That they exist in a particular fashion is a statement regarding our observations of the material.  We didn't assume that atoms existed, or that subatomic particles existed - we observed them.  

You keep talking about access as though our level of access differed.....we can only work with what we've got.  Are you under the impression that more is required?

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?

No, I lean toward the idea that gravity, and all other forces, are the expression of immaterial principles, as are QM particles and the objects which supervene on them.

But if I have to choose only between waffles and gravitons, I'd probably choose waffles, because if we are making stuff up, it might as well be delicious stuff.

I doubt that you've managed to miss the point on accident so consistently.