Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Redbeard The Pink]

So...what, are you saying that we're all figments of your imagination? Are you saying that we're all just part of the same mind and that we're collectively imagining reality? What is your model for why we experience consensual, physical reality? What do you think is happening there?

[Rational AKD]

So...what, are you saying that we're all figments of your imagination? Are you saying that we're all just part of the same mind and that we're collectively imagining reality? What is your model for why we experience consensual, physical reality? What do you think is happening there?

my model is monistic idealism, so the answer to your first question is no. your second question, close. my model is that there is one mind that is simulating all of reality. but this mind has created (from thoughts) other minds (us). he has also created the world we experience as a simulation. it exists as part of our experience but has no existence apart from that. think of it like a video game like skyrim. your character is on a huge map, but the environment is loaded as you change your position and view point. it has a consistent layout, but only manifests itself on your screen when it's in your viewing perspective. this is how the world would also work.

as for this greater mind, since nothing exists apart from him and his thoughts, he would have all knowledge and full control over everything. in other words, he would be omniscient and omnipotent. this greater mind could thus adequately be called God. we are all mental constructs of God's mind experiencing a reality simulated also by God's mind.

[Redbeard The Pink]

my model is monistic idealism, so the answer to your first question is no. your second question, close. my model is that there is one mind that is simulating all of reality. but this mind has created (from thoughts) other minds (us). he has also created the world we experience as a simulation. it exists as part of our experience but has no existence apart from that. think of it like a video game like skyrim. your character is on a huge map, but the environment is loaded as you change your position and view point. it has a consistent layout, but only manifests itself on your screen when it's in your viewing perspective. this is how the world would also work.

as for this greater mind, since nothing exists apart from him and his thoughts, he would have all knowledge and full control over everything. in other words, he would be omniscient and omnipotent. this greater mind could thus adequately be called God. we are all mental constructs of God's mind experiencing a reality simulated also by God's mind.

Oooh you're on of the "simulation" people.


This is already starting to sound like that other guy's thread about the Magic Consciousness that permeates everything. Better get my salad dressing handy...


Ok, so there are several problems with this premise that make me seriously doubt whether it should even be seriously considered. My first red flag is that you have chosen to lead with an argument rather than with a piece of evidence. This leads me to question whether there is any evidence of your claims.


The next thing that perks my skepticism is the fact that your premise is apparently designed to avoid being testable or falsifiable in any fashion. I can only assume this is because you intend to reserve the right to shout "You can't prove this false!" any time somebody tries to explain to you the holes in the logic you have crafted, or why it's not up to anyone to prove your claims false before they're accepted as truth.


And now we move to the meat of your actual statements. I gotta say, #1 is already looking like a cleverly worded attempt to assert the existence of something and then demand that its nonexistence be proven before it is dismissed. You didn't wanna get called out on it, so you didn't say, "I believe that there is a God-Mind dreaming up everything, and you can't prove that such a thing does not exist," so that's not technically what you said, but that is what you're saying with your argument.


Now, there's no proof whatsoever that mind is a substance, fundamental or otherwise. No mind has ever been observed to exist outside of a brain, so at this time there's no reason to believe a mind could exist in the absence of one. All evidence available points to the assertion that the "mind" is nothing more than the direct result of a series of chemical and electrical processes in an animal's body, mostly in the brain. That of course doesn't mean that such a thing is proven to absolutely not exist, unless you're one of those people who believes that consciousness without matter is an impossible object (like a square circle) rather than a possible object (like a horse with a horn on its head).


The other problem with the simulation thing is that (like most god claims) it fails to actually explain anything while raising whole new questions of its own. If reality is a simulation, what is the point? Why is the simulated Universe so huge, and why are sentient beings apparently such a small part of it? If the simulated Universe only looks that huge, why think up all those shapes in the sky and make it look like they're so distant and numerous? Was this done just to keep us occupied so we wouldn't think we were in a simulation? If so, then wouldn't you technically be a glitch of some kind?


What is reality "simulating," for that matter? "Simulation" implies that there's something to be simulated...something for the simulation to be like. That's part of what "simulation" means. God's dream can't be the only reality and be a simulation. It'd be the exact same thing as having a creator god who merely speaks things into existence, except it would merely "think" things into existence instead. You haven't raised a new premise at all, you're just trying to put science fiction paint on the same crock of dodges and baseless assertions that all the other theists are using.

[Alex K]

You are begging the question by deriving your definition of mind from the concept of solipsism, somewhere between 3. and 4...

[robvalue]

It does make sense to me that all conscious "experiences" are either (in some way) illusionary, or else all part of one single "viewing", which gets split into all possible perspectives, none of which are aware of each other.

Actually, it still doesn't make sense. But it makes more sense than any alternatives I've come up.

Solipsism is the last boss with an infinite health bar. We can never defeat it. We can't deduce anything for certain, because it's always dependent on some sort of assumption that puts us inside or outside solipsism; either way we have no hard data or independent observers to consult.

[downbeatplumb]

You are all picking it apart better than I would.
I just looked at it and though it seemed like bollocks.
Sometimes you just go with your gut.

[Whateverist]

And if you asked for the underlying conditions which support such bollocks, I would have to say it still more bollock. Yep, bollocks all the way down.

[bennyboy]

Here's the thing with the ol' mind vs. matter

There is really no good model, explanation or mechanism for mind in a physical view except to wave a magic wand, say, "Look, it's in the brain," and try to get the philosophers not to look behind the curtain in the corner.

On the other hand, not only are all the physical realities we hold as so obviously true perfectly workable as nothing more than ideas, it cannot be demonstrated that they ARE more than ideas. After all, a bridge will stand as well in a physical universe, in the Matrix, or in the mind of God.

[Rational AKD]

Ok, so there are several problems with this premise that make me seriously doubt whether it should even be seriously considered. My first red flag is that you have chosen to lead with an argument rather than with a piece of evidence. This leads me to question whether there is any evidence of your claims.

evidence and argument aren't mutually exclusive. an argument can be presented as evidence. the defense for the evidence would be defending the premises and the validity of the logic.

The next thing that perks my skepticism is the fact that your premise is apparently designed to avoid being testable or falsifiable in any fashion.

the argument uses a priori information and introspection, thus bypassing skepticism by means of a posteriori information. empirical evidence isn't the only type of information we can gather and consider true and valid.

 can only assume this is because you intend to reserve the right to shout "You can't prove this false!" any time somebody tries to explain to you the holes in the logic you have crafted

no, that would be valid refutation. what wouldn't be valid refutation is saying mindless things like 'that's abuse of logic.'

Now, there's no proof whatsoever that mind is a substance, fundamental or otherwise.

premises 1-4 are the proof for this... now I thought you said you were gonna try to explain holes in my logic... not make general disclaims about my conclusion...

If reality is a simulation, what is the point? Why is the simulated Universe so huge, and why are sentient beings apparently such a small part of it?

so because this model doesn't answer all irrelevant questions you have, it's invalid? Monistic Idealism isn't the answer to end all questions... but that doesn't make it false or invalid.

If so, then wouldn't you technically be a glitch of some kind?

first, having a glitch requires the programmer to make a mistake. second, finding a glitch involves finding something that doesn't behave as it's supposed to... how are we supposed to have that outside information of how the universe is 'supposed' to behave? for all we know black holes could be a glitch but we can only recognize them as natural phenomenon (hypothetically of course).

What is reality "simulating," for that matter?

by the conclusion of the argument, it would have to be a mind. a fundamental and necessary mind.

God's dream can't be the only reality and be a simulation.

you don't need to have an 'existing' model for inspiration to create a simulation... all you have to do is map out a world to resemble something else, and put conscious agents in it. in this case, you have a world that appears physical but is actually a mental construct. now before you say it's not possible to have mental constructs that have physical likeness, why don't you sleep on it

It'd be the exact same thing as having a creator god who merely speaks things into existence, except it would merely "think" things into existence instead.

except this actually makes sense... because what he's 'thinking' into existence only exists mentally.

*sigh* I was really looking forward to exchange with how my premises are false or my logic is invalid... but all i got from you is 'I don't like your conclusion.' criticize the conclusion all you want but it follows from the premises and is thus inescapable. if you want to disprove me, then criticize the premises or logic.

[Rational AKD]

You are begging the question by deriving your definition of mind from the concept of solipsism, somewhere between 3. and 4...

I defined mind in the definitions section...

Mind- simply that which produces consciousness. you can think of it as a product of material interactions or its own substance, but either way it cannot be denied mind exists.

now if you're accusing me of equivocation, then I'll have to ask exactly where I'm equivocating and how I'm equivocating (how my definitions or use of the terms are different).