Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

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.

thank you for reaffirming premise 1 of the argument... now, what premises or use of logic are you disagreeing with?

[Kingpin]

Rational, to me you are asserting knowledge of something outside our limitation of knowledge (based on Premise #1's "epistemic limitations").  You premise #1 can equally be stated as: "a metaphysically solipsist world (a world where only a mind exists) cannot be proven true due to epistemic limitations."

If you put that statement as Premise #1 (equally as true as YOUR Premise #1), then the rest of the assumptions do not follow.

[robvalue]

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.

thank you for reaffirming premise 1 of the argument... now, what premises or use of logic are you disagreeing with?

All of it. If we're talking about the very fabric of our perceived reality, we can do nothing more than speculate. We can reach no conclusions.

For one thing, this could all be dream in which your logic seems sound to you but is in fact bat shit crazy. So we would only actually be discussing the dream world, and not "reality". Whatever that means.

Your logic could show there are no minds in the dream world, yet there could be minds in the "real" world.

[Whateverist]

Matter doesn't matter? Says who?

[Redbeard The Pink]

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.

On a general basis, no, an argument is not evidence of a claim about material reality (or natural reality, or whatever you want to call your made-up "simulation" land). As for the premises, your first one fails due to fallacious logic (specifically misplacing the burden of proof).

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.

Translation: the argument depends on presuppositions that it hopes to pass off as facts without anyone noticing. Guess what? We noticed.

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

No, when told that there is no reason to believe something exists, it is not a valid refutation to claim that there is no proof that it does not exist. The only valid refutation to such a claim would be to produce a reason to believe said thing exists (like, say, some evidence).

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...

Premise 1 is broken for aforementioned reasons. You have to fix it before any of those others can follow it. I have already explained a hole in your logic, and it starts with your first premise (which, I repeat, is a misplacement of the burden of proof).

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.

No, it's invalid because it's based on false logic, it's unfalsifiable and unverifiable, and it fails to answer any questions whatsoever. It does not explain why we're here or how anything works. It's mere speculation, unsupported by evidence, and unworthy of serious consideration outside the pages of fiction.

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

So the only thing that exists is a mind and the thoughts it produces, and it's producing a simulation of a mind and the thoughts it produces...and now you're going in circles.

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

To "map out a world to resemble something else," you need an existing model (a "something else") for it to resemble. For something to "appear physical" means that it "looks like it is physical." For something to look like it is physical, there has to be a physical reality for it to look like. Your'e not getting away from your problem at all: something cannot be the only thing and still resemble something else because there can't be something else for it to resemble if it's the only real thing.

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

It only makes sense in your fantasy world where logical fallacy amounts to irrefutable proof of concept.

*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.

*sigh* I was really looking forward to meeting an online theist who doesn't devolve into a condescending little prick when his butt gets hurt over how bad his reasoning is. Regardless of whether your conclusion follows from your premises, your premises are flawed from the start and therefore are not valid. It is not logically sound to produce an unfalsifiable assertion and then demand that it be falsified before it is discarded as nonsense. It doesn't work that way.

[Captain Scarlet]

Argument:
1. a metaphysically solipsist world (a world where only a mind exists) cannot be proven false due to epistemic limitations.
2. it is unreasonable to presume solipsism is impossible given 1, therefore it must be reasonably granted solipsism is possible.
3. given 2, it is possible for mind to exist in a solipsist (immaterial) world while it is not for matter.
4. there is therefore something that it true of mind but not of matter. this means they cannot be the same thing and mind is not reducible to matter.
5. substance dualism has been proven false due to the interaction problem (substances can only interact via shared properties and substances cannot be fundamental and share properties).
6. therefore, all is mind and monistic idealism entails.

Premise 1 and 2 is flawed to me.  Solipsism would produce a consciousness conscious only of itself and thus a metaphysical contradiction.  To be conscious is to be conscious of something, meaning there has to be an external reality. For this to be valid you would also have to deny the primacy of existence and assert the primacy of conciousness, which leads to contradictions.  The mind is an apparent emergent property of physical substrates (higher functioning brains). We know of no counter examples, meaning there is strong empirical support for this notion. Of course this is not proof, but we are fully justified in believing our senses are valid and that we can perceive external reality. It seems to me that you have to deny this to validate idealism, and thus (again to me) you end up cutting your own head off, to prove you have no head.

[Angrboda]

Argument:
1. a metaphysically solipsist world (a world where only a mind exists) cannot be proven false due to epistemic limitations.
2. it is unreasonable to presume solipsism is impossible given 1, therefore it must be reasonably granted solipsism is possible.
3. given 2, it is possible for mind to exist in a solipsist (immaterial) world while it is not for matter.
4. there is therefore something that it true of mind but not of matter. this means they cannot be the same thing and mind is not reducible to matter.
5. substance dualism has been proven false due to the interaction problem (substances can only interact via shared properties and substances cannot be fundamental and share properties).
6. therefore, all is mind and monistic idealism entails.

It doesn't follow that because the existence of a solipsistic world can't be proven false that it is therefore possible. There can be reasons why it can't be proven false in spite of it actually being a false proposition. Just as in math, that there are propositions which can't be proven to be true doesn't imply that they are false. Inability to disprove solipsism doesn't imply that it is possible. The two properties, provability and possibility, are not directly related. Just as material mind must be directly evidenced, so solipsism requires direct argument for its possibility.

Moreover, you're assuming that a full explanation of mind won't show how matter is essential to mind. That's an argument from ignorance.

[Whateverist]

Inability to disprove solipsism doesn't imply that it is possible.  The two properties, provability and possibility, are not directly related.  Just as material mind must be directly evidenced, so solipsism requires direct argument for its possibility.

Moreover, you're assuming that a full explanation of mind won't show how matter is essential to mind.  That's an argument from ignorance.

Yep. Furthermore, while I can imagine a physical world which gives rise to organics which can perceive and cogitate about what is around them. I cannot imagine nothing but disembodied mind creating a pseudo world which is based on nothing at all except fancy. Can't join those on the other side of that looking glass.

[Rational AKD]

All of it. If we're talking about the very fabric of our perceived reality, we can do nothing more than speculate. We can reach no conclusions.

i'm sorry, but you'll have to specify your objections and give reasons for them. you can't just blandly call it all 'speculation' you'll have to point out what's speculative and explain why... do you know how criticism works?

For one thing, this could all be dream in which your logic seems sound to you but is in fact bat shit crazy.

if the logic is sound, then the conclusion is true. who cares how 'crazy' you think it is.

So we would only actually be discussing the dream world, and not "reality". Whatever that means.

given monistic idealism is true, this 'dream world' would be reality. the only things that exist would be mind and subjective experience of mind.

Your logic could show there are no minds in the dream world, yet there could be minds in the "real" world.

you'll have to explain that one. what exactly is this distinction between dream world and real world? idealism and materialism can't both be true.

[Rational AKD]

Rational, to me you are asserting knowledge of something outside our limitation of knowledge (based on Premise #1's "epistemic limitations").  You premise #1 can equally be stated as: "a metaphysically solipsist world (a world where only a mind exists) cannot be proven true due to epistemic limitations."

If you put that statement as Premise #1 (equally as true as YOUR Premise #1), then the rest of the assumptions do not follow.

for your parody, I would change one thing. I would say 'a metaphysically solipsist world cannot be proven true by experience alone due to epistemic limitations.' the argument, however, uses introspection and logic rather than external experience. and all premises 1 and 2 do is establish good reason that solipsism is possible. do you think solipsism is impossible? if not, then I could start at premise 3 to get to the conclusion.