Mind/matter duality

[bennyboy]

This is a common assumption. It's a very sensible assumption. But you can't use this particular assumption to make the claim you're making, because it begs the question.

If I were saying that because there is no idea or mind without a body, then there is no mind, I would agree that I am begging the question. But I'm not. I'm saying that since there is no idea/mind without a body, then idea/mind becomes an increasingly unnecessary entity to explain experience. Which leads me to the conclusion that there is no mind, only body.

It's hard to argue against someone who doesn't believe the mind exists, since the ability to form ideas and to argue about them is one of the primary tasks of the mind. To me, I take the mind as brute force, since it is by definition the thing with which I learn through experience. The only way I could even have learned about the existence of the brain is through mental activity. You will insist this is synonymous with brain activity, and I again I will say you are accepting a very convincing and pragmatic assumption-- and again I will say that you are not allowed to use that assumption to prove your conclusion.

Whether it is a common or sensible assumption that a mind cannot exist without a body is inconsequential. It is a well-proven assumption. Feel free to offer proof to the contrary.

I cannot process the word "well-proven assumption." If it's proven, it's not an assumption. That being said, in order to prove your particular assumption (and thereby move it into the realm of absolute knowledge), you're going to have to show how you can use the mind to verify its own nature.

The universe isn't ambiguous, IMO, we are. Any perception is produced by the limitations of sense data which results in uncertainty. How do you go about selecting a perspective? How are you aware of the variety of the perspectives to choose from?

My perspective is a product of my experiences.

To answer your challenge, tell me what it is I could possibly say to you that would lead you to admit you are wrong. That would give me a ball park as to how you determine what is proof or define "true".

The challenge is simple. Explain how, given the experiences you (or a hypothetical thought-experiment equivalent) are able to have, you can arrive at a conclusion about the SOURCE of those experiences with the level of confidence which you have shown. If you are watching a movie, or listening to a radio show, can you know for sure where those sights and sounds are coming from?

In short, prove to me that you've ever had an experience which can confirm that physical monism, and that model ONLY, can represent our experience of truth.