Justification for Foundational Belief

[Angrboda]

First, if your objection is true, then.... nothing. Since there is the opposite of nothing... I'm correct.

The opposite of nothing, at minimum isn't something. That's like saying that the opposite of zero is infinity. Negation is always negation of some-thing. Even if the negation of nothing actually had a meaningful answer, it's far from clear that your answer is it. I could just as easily assert that the opposite of nothing is negative nothing, just as nonsensically and just as unjustifiably.

Secondly, I continue to find it amusing that you assert statements as being true or false, or even logical, based on a preconceived notion of understanding - namely that evidence verifies the truth value of claims. Objectively, the only things which can be asserted as being fundamentally true - without any form of assumption - are the facts that a conscious thought exists (the one which is occurring right now), and that the property of existence exists.

Handled below. And you completely ignore my point about the dependence of inferences about existence being drawn from beliefs about existence which in turn form the basis for those very beliefs and inferences. That's begging the question, petitio principi proper, and unless you handle the objection, I'm just going to ignore you.

You can specify which aspects of the concepts may hold further truth values, but the concepts themselves are fundamental and objective. If the thought exists independently of anything else, or is the only thing which does exist then that's fine - it still exists in the truest sense of the concept.

I already noted this is equivocation. That you would assert it nonetheless, knowing it to be fallacious, well, it astounds me.

In order for the thought to exist, which it does because it is right now, then the property of existence must necessarily exist as well.

Again, you're simply ignoring my points and blathering on with your own, completely heedless of what I have said. It is as if you believe that repeating the same claims, perhaps in all caps with multiple exclamation points, will persuade me of the truth when simple statement will not.

I know of no result that clearly shows that a conscious thought occurs and is right now. From Joseph LeDoux's work to Dennett's arguments and work referenced in Consciousness Explained, his responses to LeDoux and the similar, it's highly unclear that there is any "now" for consciousness, other than that which it manufactures for itself. Again, it depends on your meaning, as noted — which I took great pains to point out to you, but which you chose to ignore, only to assert something which seems contraindicated by the neuroscience. Where are you getting the evidence for your views on consciousness from and what exactly are they? (Aside from the belief that consciousness has a "now" that is right now. I wish I could put that 'is' in bold, cycling rainbow colors, flashing on and off, as that verb appears to be attempting to carry the entire weight of your argument.)

Past these two claims, all things are basic assumptions or are derived from basic assumptions.

Well, that pretty much covers the field, don't it. "It's either this thing, or it's not this thing." Duh.

Beyond the fact that you haven't demonstrated these two things, even if you were to somehow demonstrate the two, existence exists and conscious thought exists, as axioms or basic beliefs, they don't lead to any useful results as the two combined are simply not powerful enough to cover the set of truths which any decent foundationalism will be called upon to cover. Now, if you actually have additional basic concepts you believe you can adequately defend, I suggest you reveal them so that we can inspect them, else your version of foundationalism is dead in the water, impotent in its fury.

Edit: By the way, this is what i'm talking about when referring to your assertions of knowledge:

However, we know from experiments concerning Bell's inequalities, that this view is likely false.

Could you explain to me, on which fundamental beliefs you are asserting this as knowledge, and perhaps more importantly, truth? If you are going to discount my points as false on the grounds of being critically non-true (false), then please provide a proper explanation as to why your evidence can withstand the same tests to which you are holding my objective statements.

What part of Bell's inequalities do you not understand? The experiments take the common assumptions about physics, and specifically a small subset of assumptions which differ between two sets of theories, and determines what the expected observation based on those assumptions in either case would be, and then observes. The result being that one set of assumptions yields an inconsistency which that set of assumptions implies should not exist. Again, this is basically reductio ad absurdum in practice. What exactly is your question here? You again are attempting to sustain a charge of the fallacy of the stolen concept completely disregarding my explaining to you how such a charge itself was fallacious.