Contra Metaphysical Idealism

[bennyboy]

You state this as a fact, but cannot actually know it to be a fact.

I state that because that is what the evidence tells us.

As I've said, evidence is just another word for "experiences that support my ideas." That's sure a lot of mental stuff going on to prove that the universe isn't fundamentally mental.

Don't believe me? What is a mind if you take away experiences and ideas? Is it still a mind?

Yes, I don't believe you. I don't understand your point. You continue to conflate input with output.

Nope. You continue to conflate "apparent" with "must be real."

I am making no assertion about what science can or can't do, you are. You claim that part or all of the mind is not a proper subject for science, but you have yet to provide any evidence for that. Just your incredulity.

No. I'm not. I'm making assertions about IDEAS about science, and the existence or lack of evidence for those IDEAS.

The IDEA that science can explain either qualia or cosmogony is not actually founded on evidence-- it is a matter of faith: "Science has solved and explained many other things, so science can solve these things." This is a non-sequitur argument, since qualia and cosmogony are not in any way like the other things which science is knowably able to solve.

Anywya, stop trying to make this idealism vs. science. That's a strawman argument, and I've already explained several times WHY it's a strawman. The scientific process is perfectly capable of coming to the conclusion that what is apparent and what is real are not the same-- including our definition of what things are, and potentially whether they "exist" in a way that makes them worth referring to as things at all.