Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Reforged]

At no point did I say it should be dismissed on principle. It should be dismissed by definition. Either you used the wrong word or made a mistake in your argument. Both would be things that require addressing.

well, I addressed the definition problem. I'll take a gander at your response. but even still, you're relying on a conflict in the implications of the conclusion and stating that therefore it must be invalid. though that would imply either the argument is invalid or there is a false premise, without you providing an argument for either you wouldn't be able to infer either. nonetheless, you have made a claim the conclusion is false so I'll see how you addressed my answer.

You cannot comprehend something that has no physical properties or effects.

sure you can. they're called abstract concepts. we think of them all the time. mathematics are such a concept for example.

Something which is beyond reality cannot be comprehended.

'beyond reality' is incoherent... but this is not what is in question. the question is, is there anything beyond the physical. but if there is something beyond the physical, it wouldn't be 'beyond reality...' it would be part of reality.

The mind has demonstrable physical counterparts with demonstrable physical effects.

agreed.

You can comprehend it because of these.

no... people understood how mind worked in terms of how we think long before we knew the function of the brain. epistemology is older than neurology after all... and people had the same theories before neurology as they have after. the only difference is now materialism has gained popularity due to scientific findings. though that doesn't make them necessarily right.

The flat earth theory also has alot of study devoted to it, that alone does not validate it.

please... you're comparing a respected field of philosophy to pseudoscience? loons to scholars? come on now...

I never made that claim. It does not need to be addressed. I only ever challenged your claim that there is a metaphysical aspect to the mind.

you did say yourself "It is not just a "possibility" that mind is something formed by biological components interacting within our brains. It is a tangible, physical fact we can demonstrate and experiment with."
so you say it's not a mere possibility mind is produced by brain... but a fact. that would be a metaphysical claim.

I stand by my point. If you can comprehend it its because you can associate something physical with it.

and I stand by mine, that we understand abstract concepts which are not tied to something physical by definition.

Even emotions have physical causes and effects that you can associate it with.

but you don't have to associate the physical causes and effects when you conceptualize the emotions now do you? you can think of sadness without picturing the chemical associated with it, or the neurological pattern. just because there is a physical cause we can associate, doesn't mean it's necessarily associated to the conception.

You are a physical being living in a physical world. You have no reference point for something metaphysical and you cannot give me an example of something demonstrably metaphysical.

I thought you said you weren't going to make metaphysical claims because 'it does not need to be addressed'? change your mind already? can't resist claiming materialism is true, and we're merely physical beings?

And theres only physical evidence associated with oxygen, fuel and heat to prove a connection between fire and burning but you're not debating me on the metaphysical implications there are you.

because all of those are physical claims associated with observed behavior of the physical world. there is no metaphysical claim associated with any of those. when it comes to the nature of mind, however, there are metaphysical claims associated.

Suddenly the physical components aren't quite good enough and something extra, something invisible and something which you will never need any proof for is required.

suddenly? why suddenly? idealism isn't a new concept.
and no... the argument was provided 'as' proof. you may skew the meaning of evidence, but you will not skew the meaning of proof. proof is not necessarily tied to physical systems, but refers primarily to logic.

If you are that confident then perhaps you should have the courage of your convictions and experiment on yourself. Prove theres more and baffle the scientists. Be the first person to have 3/4 of your brain removed but still be awesome at playing the clarinet.

that's not what I said... the correlation is there. that doesn't prove causation. I know brain damage affects mental integrity... but affects is not the same as produces.

At no point did I deny the metaphysical.

you denied it when you said mind "is the result of biological components interacting." the nature of mind-brain interaction is a metaphysical claim. mind derived from brain is materialism. mind and brain being of 2 different substances is dualism. brain being derived from mind is idealism.

It is perfectly reasonable to think it possible something beyond what we can see and touch or even comprehend may exist. For now it cannot be proven either way and until it can I have no place making any claims on the possibility either way.

that's what the argument is for... the one I started this thread for...

I however doubt your claim that the mind has a metaphysical aspect to it and I demand you to tell me why you think it has and what you have to offer me to confirm this hypothesis

well lets see... it's certainly possible, meaning the concept does not contradict with how we experience. that being said, that means there is a possible world where mind exists (solipsist/idealist world) but matter does not (by definition). there's no difference between mind in a possible world and mind in the actual world (by Leibniz Law), thus mind is not reducible to matter. given substance dualism has been falsified by the interaction problem... that means monistic idealism entails. that's why...

Been away for three years. Forgot how.

seems you've figured it out just fine. and I know they've also changed the format a little bit. still works about the same though.

- Abstract concepts will always have physical counterparts and physical effects. Mathematics especially requires a baring in a physical world to make any sense because it is the language of matter. When used correctly you can calculate matter exactly and even predict its behavior. It was conceived by physical beings, it is used by physical beings and it effects physical beings. It is a mental tool, one which we could measure the moment someone summons it within their brain. Even thoughts are measurable, physical phenomena and to deny it as simply correlation is like denying my bones hold me up or my saliva digests food. If you challenge that you have to challenge those too.

- "Beyond reality" is in the definition of metaphysical wherever you look. You just made a metaphysical claim, one that discounts part of its very meaning as "incoherent".

- Epistemology figured out the very basics which philosophy is good at doing. It also made a tremendous amount of mistakes before it even touched upon the basics which philosophy is also good at doing and even when it did there was no indication to outright demonstrate which was right and which was wrong. You are engaging in confirmation bias. You are ignoring all of the misses.
The thing which is different now is that we have syatems which work infinitely better. When you clicked the mouse did it explode and maim you? Did the fibre optics randomly transform in a snake? Did anything other than what you predicted would happen occur? No? *Science* accepts your thanks.
Whatever your metaphysical leanings they may have entertained you for hours but they have not served you practically in any way or proven anything true or false "Materialism" has and you have no problem with it usually, do you.

- The comparison is apt. They both have as much proof or use in the real world. And excuse me? Loons? How do you know they're not correct in some metaphysical way we can't demonstrate? The blade cuts both ways, you can't use the reasoning for your views and deny it to anyone elses.

- No. It wouldn't. The firing between synapses at the same time as thoughts and actions occurring is sufficient physical evidence. Evidence we have acted upon and successfully treated patients with. Thats a demonstration  of physical causes and physical effects.
This is what the entire debate is about. You claim the mind is partially metaphysical. You have yet to demonstrate this. Would you please do so.

- Alot of people don't visualize their leg muscles when they walk. Should I assume theres something metaphysical at work there too?

- I am not making a claim on the metaphysical. I am making a claim on you and your limited capacity as a physical being. If I am wrong about you then tell me about all the metaphysical things you've experienced that have no physical counterparts.

- Your point is circular. There is no metaphysical claims on it therefore I will make no metaphysical claims on it. The mind has demonstrably physical counterparts that correlate with each other just like the flame example does. The difference is that you've decided you don't like one of these being solely physical and have decided to challenge the premise. However this challenge could be raised for anything and everything. Why solely the mind?

- By definition proof is tied to both physical components and logic. If you don't like that then lend me some metaphysical proofs we can work with. 
And yes "suddenly". I would wager you did not spend an hour wondering if the enter key will do exactly the same thing it did last time or launch a death trap before you sent this. You didn't because you have physical evidence to suggest that wouldn't happen and it was good enough for you. At no point did you ponder whther the metaphysical had changed its function.

- Effects is not the same as produces? Would the brain damage be there five minutes before you cut out 3/4 of your brain? No? Would it occur five minutes after? No? Then in what sense is it "effecting" it? It would have to already be present to "effect" it.

- That is not denying it. That is stating what has been proven by physical evidence. If you have counter-proof or even a vague reason to suspect where this might not be the case please offer it. You have yet to prove the mind-brain connection has a metaphysical aspect. I have merely offered my knowledge of the physical side of it and waited patiently for you to offer your knowledge of the metaphysical side.

- No, what you started this argument for was to make claims on what is or isn't metaphysical. In this case the mind. These claims need to be defended as they so far have no strength to them.

- Unless you mean "possible world" with the implication we occupy a multiverse then this is not even remotely proving anything even if I were willing to take solely your words as evidence. "Possible world" is not an "actual world" and unless you are referring to two actual places with two alternate yous then that law has no place here. That term was never made to outright prove something exists but to ponder the consequences if something did exist as with most philosophy. 
Is it less than ideal that we have solely physical evidence to go on? Alright, yes, fine? I mean Neither you or I have any concept of what something entirely non-physical would resemble but I'll go with that. Does that mean you can then proceed to ponder things and then assume they're true on the basis you can think of them? No. Absolutely not.

- I got irritated by the quoting system and given the sheer volume this is easier.