Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

-and?  I'd just ask the same thing again, because you didn't answer the question at all, and apparently we're still talking about the same thing, so the question remains.

Mind is seeing things, and thinking and stuff.

Correction, having physical eyes that detect a specific wavelength of light due to their chemical and structural composition...is seeing things.  Is it just me, or is our material explanation of what it means for something to be "mental" just a tad bit more descriptive and demonstrable than what you've offered?  Regardless, you still don't seem to have been able to answer the question asked.

What's to explain?  We have experiences.  Some of them seem to be common enough to categorize, and consistent enough to experiment with, and these we therefore take as having an objective reality.  But we are still just talking about experiences, after all.

We've gone a bit further than that, into things that -are not- experiences, things that we, as creatures of a particular scale and arrangement, -are not equipped- to experience, you've encountered that problem, in this thread, yourself...demanding a human visual analog of an electron, for example.  These things, as you've noticed, seem consistent.  If we have common experiences, and we're the only group discussing or considering those common experiences....this is the very essence of what "objective reality" is taken to mean...wtf are you quibbling over? Their consistence and commonality is precisely -why- we consider them to be part of an objective reality as opposed to the things I see when I'm on shrooms.

Not really, because for the most part, I live in the same world that you do, and share many of the same cultural symbols.

Do you live in the same world that I do, do we have the same cultural symbols?  Even if we didn't..you'd still expect some commonality from me, eh...shared biology.  

Because most of the ideas are not of the self.

....and -why- should that, then, make them unknowable, in an idealists world?  This is an incredibly important question that never seems to have occurred to you....and if I had to guess, it's because you lazily chose the "subsumes" route....and so an idealists world is, to you, identical to this one regardless of how ridiculous that proposition actually is - and so subject to the same philosophical issues. Why, though, would a world so very different from the one in which we appear to live be subject to issues which only present themselves as consequences of the circumstances of this world in which we live? The reason that I can't know, from inside of a material black box...what's outside of the box (or VV) is a thoroughly material description of the structure and composition of the box, relative to my own material structure and composition.  If it were not made of that stuff, in that arrangement (or if I weren't)..then perhaps I could see outside (or inside) - and that's certainly true even of other animals with a different sensory package, some of which perfectly able to detect what is inside or outside of said box.  Similarly, my black box of self is a black box because it is local, and apparently dependent upon my material structure and composition. So, the black box, even as metaphor, works for me, and it works, plainly, because of stuffs relationship to stuff...but I don;t think it works for you.

A black box made of cellophane isn't much of a black box, how much of a black box, I wonder, is a black box made of ideas?  Now, if we run with the notion that all of this material stuff isn't actually what we think it is...then the reasons I can't see through the box go out the window as well.   Are ideas somehow impenetrable to me, in the way that steel is..rather than transparent, the way that cellophane is?  Can you explain why that might be..why would the restrictions of the material continue to apply in absence of the material? There are certainly things you(we) do not know, and perhaps cannot know. We could make a list of those things with some pretty mundane explanations as to why you can't know them, and they will continue to return to our physical limitations. But why, in the absence of these, would anything be unknowable? What, without an invocation of the material, prevents an idea from accessing an idea, any idea? You need to make your arguments -from- the idealist position...or at the very least, you need to arrange for criticism of the materialist position which does -not- require you to assume it's truth, or the truth of it's limitations and circumstances. All material bets are off, I'm trying to engage you. Why, in an idealists world, does the unknowable exist in the first place? How does something come to be unknowable, in an idealists world..and finally, since you seem so fond of solipsism (I know, I know, you don't seem to think you are)..can -you- demonstrate that "most of the ideas are not of the self".......?

A black box is a computer science convention.  It means that you have input and output, but don't (actually, must not for legal reasons) know what happens inside.  We are kind of on the flip side of that: we have input coming in, and we output, but we know neither where the input comes from nor where the output, ultimately, goes.

Input coming in...sounds to me like you assume the objective reality you leveraged your initial comment -against-.  Here again we see the stolen concept, or is this just another metaphor?  Those are function descriptives.  They imply location, and relationship.  You're criticizing others for holding the same positions as you yourself very clearly hold, while stealing the concepts of those whom you disagree with, and providing no explanations of your own. Are you -trying- to tank your own position?

[bennyboy]

Mind is seeing things, and thinking and stuff.

Correction, having physical eyes that detect a specific wavelength of light due to their chemical and structural composition...is seeing things.  Is it just me, or is our material explanation of what it means for something to be "mental" just a tad bit more descriptive and demonstrable than what you've offered?  Regardless, you still don't seem to have been able to answer the question asked.  

Nobody is denying the existence of light or wavelengths as things we experience.  It is their ultimate nature that is up for debate.

We've gone a bit further than that, into things that -are not- experiences, things that we, as creatures of a particular scale and arrangement, -are not equipped- to experience, you've encountered that problem, in this thread, yourself...demanding a human visual analog of an electron, for example.  These things, as you've noticed, seem consistent.  If we have common experiences, and we're the only group discussing or considering those common experiences....this is the very essence of what "objective reality" is taken to mean...wtf are you quibbling over?  Their consistence and commonality is precisely -why- we consider them to be part of an objective reality as opposed to the things I see when I'm on shrooms.  

Here's the thing.  You can have objects in idealism, too.  There are still electrons and billiard balls, quarks and black holes. . . and, for us, all these things are things to discover and interact with through the agency of mind.  It doesn't matter if they are material, or a simulation in the Matrix, or the expression of abstract principles.  But your thesis is that the "buck stops here," that matter is fundamental to all that does or can exist, and I find this view much less compelling than the idea that matter is the expression of immaterial principles.

Or I can just keeping chanting "Qualia, qualia, qualia."  Because you have nothing for it.

....and -why- should that, then, make them unknowable, in an idealists world?  This is an incredibly important question that never seems to have occurred to you

That's strange to say, since we've already talked about it in many past posts.  But if you want to go on about brute facts, then why is there gravity?  Why are things arranged in space and time?  Why aren't photons little billiard balls after all?  You can chase the answers down a couple more levels, maybe.  But in the end the answer is always the same: just because.

....and if I had to guess, it's because you lazily chose the "subsumes" route....and so an idealists world is, to you, identical to this one regardless of how ridiculous that proposition actually is

Your world view doesn't include any sensible description or explanation for mind.  My view includes both mind and the things the mind contemplates, including the world you and I both share.  My view is that our shared experiences represent a CATEGORY of idea.  There's nothing about this that makes reality insofar as we can know it different than it is.

- and so subject to the same philosophical issues.  Why, though, would a world so very different from the one in which we appear to live be subject to issues which only present themselves as consequences of the circumstances of this world in which we live?  The reason that I can't know, from inside of a material black box...what's outside of the box (or VV) is a thoroughly material description of the structure and composition of the box, relative to my own material structure and composition.  If it were not made of that stuff, in that arrangement (or if I weren't)..then perhaps I could see outside (or inside) - and that's certainly true even of other animals with a different sensory package, some of which perfectly able to detect what is inside or outside of said box.  Similarly, my black box of self is a black box because it is local, and apparently dependent upon my material structure and composition.  So, the black box, even as metaphor, works for me, and it works, plainly, because of stuffs relationship to stuff...but I don;t think it works for you.

Believe it or not, I have experience with boxes, too.  I'm not sure why you think this is proof that reality is fundamentally material. In the end, we should both be honest and accept that in the statment, "I have experience with boxes," I'm focusing on the experience, and you're focusing on the boxes. But since my reality is made up exclusively of experiences, and not too much of boxes, I prefer my view.

You need to make your arguments -from- the idealist position...or at the very least, you need to arrange for criticism of the materialist position which does -not- require you to assume it's truth, or the truth of it's limitations and circumstances.  All material bets are off, I'm trying to engage you.  Why, in an idealists world, does the unknowable exist in the first place?  How does something come to be unknowable, in an idealists world..and finally, since you seem so fond of solipsism (I know, I know, you don't seem to think you are)..can -you- demonstrate that "most of the ideas are not of the self".......?

You already know that my criticism of the materialist position is summarizable in one word: qualia.  When it comes to psychogony, you've got zero.

As for things being unknowble. . . I don't understand why you think this is a slam dunk.  I don't know things because I seem to be a part of a greater whole, and that's how things are.  But I can do the same thing to you: since you are so confident about the materialist position, then tell me. . . why is there gravity, rather than a lack of it? You could qualify your ignorance with the famous physicalist claim that you don't know "yet," but in the end you're going to have a hard time arguing it's turtles all the way down.

Input coming in...sounds to me like you assume the objective reality you leveraged your initial comment -against-.  Here again we see the stolen concept, or is this just another metaphor?  Those are function descriptives.  They imply location, and relationship.  You're criticizing others for holding the same positions as you yourself very clearly hold, while stealing the concepts of those whom you disagree with, and providing no explanations of your own.  Are you -trying- to tank your own position?

Did I say that the physical world view is foreign to me?  No.  I said it represents a category of experiences-- those which seem to be sharable with others.  My experience of boxes, and of space and time, is similar to yours.  I don't need to borrow or steal anything, because this category of experience is part of my reality as much as it is yours.

You want to set this up as a black vs. white argument, but I've never done so.  I don't have to reject your understanding of how things in the world work.  I reject only that your view represents the foundation of all reality-- in fact it cannot. So between idealism and material objectivism, idealism is the better position.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nobody is denying the existence of light or wavelengths as things we experience.  It is their ultimate nature that is up for debate.

What is a wavelength........divorced from methodological materialism?  Can you answer this?  

Here's the thing.  You can have objects in idealism, too.

Not material objects, so no, you're equivocating.  

There are still electrons and billiard balls, quarks and black holes. . . and, for us, all these things are things to discover and interact with through the agency of mind.  It doesn't matter if they are material, or a simulation in the Matrix, or the expression of abstract principles.  But your thesis is that the "buck stops here," that matter is fundamental to all that does or can exist, and I find this view much less compelling than the idea that matter is the expression of immaterial principles.

My position is that matter appears to be fundamental to all we have observed.  "The Buck" that stops is our observation.  I don;t think you find immaterial principles that compelling at all...you keep using material metaphor to explain yourself.  

Or I can just keeping chanting "Qualia, qualia, qualia."  Because you have nothing for it.

Yet another oft repeated claim for which no truth value can be assigned.  

That's strange to say, since we've already talked about it in many past posts.  But if you want to go on about brute facts, then why is there gravity?

Gravitons?

Why are things arranged in space and time?

Where else would they be arranged...is there another option........?

Why aren't photons little billiard balls after all?

Because then....they'd be little billiard balls, not photons...wtf?

You can chase the answers down a couple more levels, maybe.  But in the end the answer is always the same: just because.

Can you answer these questions from an idealists framework?  

Your world view doesn't include any sensible description or explanation for mind.  My view includes both mind and the things the mind contemplates, including the world you and I both share.  My view is that our shared experiences represent a CATEGORY of idea.  There's nothing about this that makes reality insofar as we can know it different than it is.

Of course it includes sensible descriptions and explanations for mind...what it does not include, apparently, are satisfactory descriptions or explanations....to you.

Believe it or not, I have experience with boxes, too.  I'm not sure why you think this is proof that reality is fundamentally material.  In the end, we should both be honest and accept that in the statment, "I have experience with boxes," I'm focusing on the experience, and you're focusing on the boxes.  But since my reality is made up exclusively of experiences, and not too much of boxes, I prefer my view.

I've long since stopped trying to argue the position with you...it's useless.  I;m trying to show you holes in your process of reasoning, Benny...not demonstrate the nature of the universe. 

You already know that my criticism of the materialist position is summarizable in one word: qualia.  When it comes to psychogony, you've got zero.

But that's not a criticism of materialism..Benny.... it's just one word you like to say.  I'm sorry...did you just claim that there is no theory of development for mind.....?  That's an absurd statement.  Of course there are theories...........

As for things being unknowble. . . I don't understand why you think this is a slam dunk.  I don't know things because I seem to be a part of a greater whole, and that's how things are.  But I can do the same thing to you: since you are so confident about the materialist position, then tell me. . . why is there gravity, rather than a lack of it?   You could qualify your ignorance with the famous physicalist claim that you don't know "yet," but in the end you're going to have a hard time arguing it's turtles all the way down.

Is that why you don't know how many fingers I'm holding up  -right here-...because you're "part of a greater whole", or might there be a more mundane explanation?  Thing is, why should this matter?  If materialism couldn;t explain qualia...and qualia were currently unexplained....then...what?  Idealism doesn;t explain qualia either, or else it wouldn't be "unexplained".   Whats all this bullshit about yet and someday..this is today, that's the status right now, or so you seem to be claiming.  Qualia is unexplained, how is this a criticism of materialism and -not- a criticism of idealism?  

Did I say that the physical world view is foreign to me?  No.  I said it represents a category of experiences-- those which seem to be sharable with others.  My experience of boxes, and of space and time, is similar to yours.  I don't need to borrow or steal anything, because this category of experience is part of my reality as much as it is yours.

You want to set this up as a black vs. white argument, but I've never done so.  I don't have to reject your understanding of how things in the world work.  I reject only that your view represents the foundation of all reality-- in fact it cannot.  So between idealism and material objectivism, idealism is the better position.

You still don't understand the stolen concept.  It isn't a stolen concept because you use it in explanation...it;s a stolen concept because you use the truth of premises within it as an argument against the position itself.  If the position is untrue....so are all of those premises built upon it.  Understand?  The only view I've been discussing, in all of this...is my view of the criticisms and arguments offered.   I don't know what the foundation of reality is.  None of us do.  Matter does, however, appear to be the foundation of all that we've observed, and yes, that includes qualia, regardless of whether or not you find it satisfying.  If the conjecture is that materialism cannot explain something, the conclusion that idealism is thusly better is a massive non-sequitur, congratulations, you've lost your shit entirely.

"Evolution can't explain "x"......so, creationism is a better position."

I think that all I can say here, is what I say to them. If some opposing position were wrong, that doesn't actually increase the standing of ones own position.

[bennyboy]

Nobody is denying the existence of light or wavelengths as things we experience.  It is their ultimate nature that is up for debate.

What is a wavelength........divorced from methodological materialism?  Can you answer this?  

Are you talking past me?  I've said that all the things we experience in common, aka materialism, hold true for idealism as well, because they are subsumed by idealism.  A wavelength is the length of a wave, the same for me as it is for you.  However, ultimately I see the light, and the wave, as an expression of underlying principles, rather than vice versa.

My position is that matter appears to be fundamental to all we have observed.  "The Buck" that stops is our observation.  I don;t think you find immaterial principles that compelling at all...you keep using material metaphor to explain yourself.  

Numbers are immaterial, and matter is better seen as an expression of formulae, than formulae are seen as an expression of (magical) properties that matter "just has."

Gravitons?

As I said, you can go a couple levels down, but in the end, you do not know why gravity exists rather than not existing.  Gravitons?  Fine.  Why gravitons?

Where else would they be arranged...is there another option........?

Yes.  Non-existence.

Can you answer these questions from an idealists framework?  

Of course not.  But my view isn't predicated on pretending it explains things which are not, and probably cannot, be explained.

Of course it includes sensible descriptions and explanations for mind...what it does not include, apparently, are satisfactory descriptions or explanations....to you.

No, it doesn't explain why there is mind rather than a lack of mind in any physical system.  What you have is an evolutionary narrative and circular argument.  If I'm wrong, then go ahead and explain why qualia exist in a material universe.

I've long since stopped trying to argue the position with you...it's useless.  I;m trying to show you holes in your process of reasoning, Benny...not demonstrate the nature of the universe. 

By asserting a materialist position, you are doing EXACTLY that. . . you are saying that not only do we have experiences, but that they come to us through a particular mechanism, which (you also claim, do you not?) is fundamental to all reality.

But that's not a criticism of materialism..Benny.... it's just one word you like to say.  I'm sorry...did you just claim that there is no theory of development for mind.....?  That's an absurd statement.  Of course there are theories...........

No there aren't.  There are speculations with no grounds in science, the procedural arm of the world view you ascribe to.

Is that why you don't know how many fingers I'm holding up  -right here-...because you're "part of a greater whole", or might there be a more mundane explanation?  Thing is, why should this matter?  If materialism couldn;t explain qualia...and qualia were currently unexplained....then...what?  Idealism doesn;t explain qualia either, or else it wouldn't be "unexplained".   Whats all this bullshit about yet and someday..this is today, that's the status right now, or so you seem to be claiming.  Qualia is unexplained, how is this a criticism of materialism and -not- a criticism of idealism?

Because we experience ideas for sure, and matter maybe.  I'll take the for sure over the maybe.

You still don't understand the stolen concept.  It isn't a stolen concept because you use it in explanation...it;s a stolen concept because you use the truth of premises within it as an argument against the position itself.  If the position is untrue....so are all of those premises built upon it.  Understand?

You keep saying this, and I keep telling you that the category of experiences you call objective reality are subsumed by idealism.  I'm not stealing anything, because I'm not arguing against any of the details of your world view.  I'm arguing only that this view is not foundational-- that there can be, and probably is, something deeper than the material reality you take as the end of the road.

 The only view I've been discussing, in all of this...is my view of the criticisms and arguments offered.   I don't know what the foundation of reality is.  None of us do.  Matter does, however, appear to be. . .  

"Appear" means "is experienced by us."  But we do not really know the source of our experiences-- a BIJ, a simulation, the Mind of God, the Matrix, whatever.  So to make your view, you have to beg the question, and in a particularly circular way to boot.

[The Grand Nudger]

Are you talking past me?  I've said that all the things we experience in common, aka materialism, hold true for idealism as well, because they are subsumed by idealism.  A wavelength is the length of a wave, the same for me as it is for you.  However, ultimately I see the light, and the wave, as an expression of underlying principles, rather than vice versa.

A fantastic claim I've asked you to flesh out many times.  I don't think that idealism subsumes anything, and you've given me no reason to think that it does.  

My position is that matter appears to be fundamental to all we have observed.  "The Buck" that stops is our observation.  I don;t think you find immaterial principles that compelling at all...you keep using material metaphor to explain yourself.  

Numbers are immaterial, and matter is better seen as an expression of formulae, than formulae are seen as an expression of (magical) properties that matter "just has."

Are they, in either case?  Again, fantastic claims.

As I said, you can go a couple levels down, but in the end, you do not know why gravity exists rather than not existing.  Gravitons?  Fine.  Why gravitons?

Does it matter, will this congeal into a coherent thought at some point, or will you be offering me the idealists answer?  No to both.

Yes.  Non-existence.

-then they wouldn't be arranged at all................you feeling alright?

Of course not.  But my view isn't predicated on pretending it explains things which are not, and probably cannot, be explained.

Oh, I see.......and despite the fact that explanations can be and have been offered....we're going to bitch about people pretending....really?

No, it doesn't explain why there is mind rather than a lack of mind in any physical system.  What you have is an evolutionary narrative and circular argument.  If I'm wrong, then go ahead and explain why qualia exist in a material universe.

You've lost your shit again, pulling pages from a creationists textbook.  I don't have to explain why qualia exists...to show you that there are theories on offer.  Is this your new mo, offer nothing and make demands?

By asserting a materialist position, you are doing EXACTLY that. . . you are saying that not only do we have experiences, but that they come to us through a particular mechanism, which (you also claim, do you not?) is fundamental to all reality.

That's our observation....but if there's some other level beneath that - I'm all ears.  Trouble is, your mouth gets strangely silent on that count.....

No there aren't.  There are speculations with no grounds in science, the procedural arm of the world view you ascribe to.

[
There's a whole godamned field devoted to it........

Because we experience ideas for sure, and matter maybe.  I'll take the for sure over the maybe.

Question begging.  

You keep saying this, and I keep telling you that the category of experiences you call objective reality are subsumed by idealism.  I'm not stealing anything, because I'm not arguing against any of the details of your world view.  I'm arguing only that this view is not foundational-- that there can be, and probably is, something deeper than the material reality you take as the end of the road.

Jesus christ man...the term is just a name for the fallacy.  A stolen concept is a logical fallacy, it doesn't have anything to do with actual theft or what subsumes what.  I;ve told you time and time again why it doesn't work, I've explained time and time again with different examples supplied by you how you commit it.  There's nothing more to say on the subject.  You can't rescue a statement from fallacy by claiming that x subsumes y....it doesn't work like that.  

Perhaps it isn't foundational, that's always a possibility, but you've given me no reason to believe that there is anything underneath.  

"Appear" means "is experienced by us."  But we do not really know the source of our experiences-- a BIJ, a simulation, the Mind of God, the Matrix, whatever.  So to make your view, you have to beg the question, and in a particularly circular way to boot.

-and as before...when you made the same claim......a requirement of complete knowledge is entirely unreasonable.  No matter what source I point to you can always say "ah, but whats underneath?"...however, just because you can say it....that doesn't mean that there's actually an underneath.

[bennyboy]

Idealism subsumes everything, because everything you know and learn about is an idea. You think your ideas represent something, but the fact is you have no direct access to anything at all, except through experiences and ideas about them.

We can confidently say, therefore, that everything that we know about reality can be understood through idea-- whatever the underlying reality is, we know that. What you do is start listing all the ideas and experiences you have that lead you to think there's something more than that, not really getting that all along, you never WERE talking about anything more than ideas.

[The Grand Nudger]

Idealism subsumes everything, because everything you know and learn about is an idea.

Composition.  If idealism subsumes everything everything I know and learn....then at the most, it subsumes what I know, what I learn.  Even granting you this tortured and meaningless usage of the term "idea", you've overreached.  What I know and learn about the universe and the universe are not the same thing, so no...it doesn't subsume everything, at least not for the reason you gave...if it subsumes anything at all.  This is poor thinking, as it was the last time, as I've already explained.  

You think your ideas represent something, but the fact is you have no direct access to anything at all, except through experiences and ideas about them.

You and I both consider them to be representative.  Meaningless criticism in general, and irrelevant -specifically- to any dispute between idealism or materialism.  More puzzling, I think..is that this would also have to apply to idealism.  If neither of us have direct access, so what?  It's a wash,......and I'm still explaining while you're busy "subsuming". 

We can confidently say, therefore, that everything that we know about reality can be understood through idea-- whatever the underlying reality is, we know that.  What you do is start listing all the ideas and experiences you have that lead you to think there's something more than that, not really getting that all along, you never WERE talking about anything more than ideas.

Regardless of how we best understand something, and assuming that your language is accurate and your proposition true...it just doesn't matter how we best understand....since our understanding of the thing (material or immaterial) is not the thing.  Again, composition.  We are talking about ideas that are referent...there's no sense in denying this now- you've been speaking to me this whole time as though I possess identity, as though the idea of me were referent.

Of course, the deeper problem here, in a discussion between idealism and materialism, is calling something "an idea" as though this made it immaterial by default.  That is, after all, precisely the thing in question.  IDK what to tell ya bud, if you want to talk about solipsism maybe you should make that thread?  If objections from solipsism are compelling to you, then you should understand why a comp fallacy won't work here.  If all you know about are your ideas, and you aren't comfortable considering those ideas to be referent, then even if -you- were made out of ideas, the universe is still made out of "x".  The only way to resolve this, the only way to avoid a comp fallacy and use this premise to reach the desired conclusion....is to propose that -you- are the universe, in toto.

The universe seems to exist, and our ideas seem to be referent, at the very least.  There seems to be an attribute we call identity, and there seem to be numerous individual manifestations of that attribute.  You seem to accept these things as well, after all, you haven;t been denying the existence of the universe (or me) as seperate from yourself.  I don't know why I'm fielding objections from a position neither of us subscribes to, a position which is counter to both idealism and materialism in equal measure for precisely the same reason.  Can you tell me why?  It's not that I don't understand the objection itself, I don't understand why you think it applies to materialism alone?  If we simply can't know these things, if all we're ever discussing are ideas, then any position which makes the claim "the universe is fundamentally comprised of -x-" is wrong by default.......... including the statement, "the universe is fundamentally comprised of ideas".  You might be, but we haven't gotten any closer to determining anything about the universe, we haven't learned anything that could serve as a metric for deciding between idealism and materialism.

If we can't know, we can't know...and I suppose we all have to make our peace with that, however, a person who makes claims as to what  cannot explain the universe (or even the mind), a person who weighs materialism and idealism and chooses one or the other...very clearly assumes that we can know these things.  They're making a statement of knowledge, after all.

[bennyboy]

You and I both consider them to be representative.  Meaningless criticism in general, and irrelevant -specifically- to any dispute between idealism or materialism.  More puzzling, I think..is that this would also have to apply to idealism.  If neither of us have direct access, so what?  It's a wash,......and I'm still explaining while you're busy "subsuming". 

The difference is that I have direct access to the experience of ideas, and therefore choose idealism as the most sensible default position. You do not have direct access to the material monism about which you have ideas, unless you pretend that the subjective experience of mind and the objective "reality" of the objects contemplated by mind are identical.

Of course, the deeper problem here, in a discussion between idealism and materialism, is calling something "an idea" as though this made it immaterial by default.  That is, after all, precisely the thing in question.  IDK what to tell ya bud, if you want to talk about solipsism maybe you should make that thread?  If objections from solipsism are compelling to you, then you should understand why a comp fallacy won't work here.  If all you know about are your ideas, and you aren't comfortable considering those ideas to be referent, then even if -you- were made out of ideas, the universe is still made out of "x".  The only way to resolve this, the only way to avoid a comp fallacy and use this premise to reach the desired conclusion....is to propose that -you- are the universe, in toto.

In essence, you are right. I cannot prove that there is more than MY experiences. However, my experiences of others is compelling enough for me to take that they exist-- somehow. You go this far, and one step further-- declaring that not only do they exist, but they exist in a particular way, in a universe which is founded on material and the principles which arise out of that material (which you must claim since otherwise, matter arises out of immaterial principles, which obviously is antithetical to your position). I don't find it necessary to take that one extra step; I default to the position that things are as they seem-- and they seem to be experiences.

You might be, but we haven't gotten any closer to determining anything about the universe, we haven't learned anything that could serve as a metric for deciding between idealism and materialism.

If we can't know, we can't know...and I suppose we all have to make our peace with that, however, a person who makes claims as to what  cannot explain the universe (or even the mind), a person who weighs materialism and idealism and chooses one or the other...very clearly assumes that we can know these things.  They're making a statement of knowledge, after all.

I'm fine with being an agnostic idealist. It is the gnostic stance of materialists that I find annoying, not so much the idea of materialism itself. As I have said, the material view is of great utility when I want to have a bridge that doesn't collapse or to invent a new superadhesive polymer or something.

[The Grand Nudger]

The difference is that I have direct access to the experience of ideas, and therefore choose idealism as the most sensible default position.  You do not have direct access to the material monism about which you have ideas, unless you pretend that the subjective experience of mind and the objective "reality" of the objects contemplated by mind are identical.

Your direct access might inform you about yourself, but how could it inform you about the universe?   The comments you've made don't lead to or imply idealism as a stance on the fundamental nature of our universe.  If they were more thoroughly argued, more adequately explained, and absolutely true....they only have the power to generate conclusions regarding yourself.

In essence, you are right.  I cannot prove that there is more than MY experiences.  However, my experiences of others is compelling enough for me to take that they exist-- somehow.  You go this far, and one step further-- declaring that not only do they exist, but they exist in a particular way, in a universe which is founded on material and the principles which arise out of that material (which you must claim since otherwise, matter arises out of immaterial principles, which obviously is antithetical to your position).  I don't find it necessary to take that one extra step; I default to the position that things are as they seem-- and they seem to be experiences.

Yet your experience of what we have labeled "material" is not compelling enough?  That things really do seem to behave in the manner described isn't compelling enough?  That we awarded a nobel prize this year to the gentlemen who established the mass of a nuetrino...isn't compelling to you? Meh, fuck all that anyway, holding to your "black box" metaphor...you cannot extend that conclusion further than yourself.  You've taken a massive step, right off the cliff and down into the chasm.  

I'm fine with being an agnostic idealist.  It is the gnostic stance of materialists that I find annoying, not so much the idea of materialism itself.  As I have said, the material view is of great utility when I want to have a bridge that doesn't collapse or to invent a new superadhesive polymer or something.

Are you fine with being an agnostic idealist whose reached that position..and who advocates -for- that position, with a composition fallacy?  Doesn't the position deserve better support?  Surely there's some other way......some other reason you find idealism compelling?  If it turned out that you were made of cheese....you'd think the universe was made of cheese, or that it was some use of occams razor to conclude that cheese was a likely or justifiable candidate for the fundamental nature of the universe?  

That's not how logic -or- parsimony work........what am I supposed to say to that?

Materialism -does- have that utility, those bridges standing, those polymers bound.   It explains, and it's explanations achieve work.  That's not the fault of the materialist......maybe you should be annoyed at the universe for appearing to behave as though they were correct?

[bennyboy]

The difference is that I have direct access to the experience of ideas, and therefore choose idealism as the most sensible default position.  You do not have direct access to the material monism about which you have ideas, unless you pretend that the subjective experience of mind and the objective "reality" of the objects contemplated by mind are identical.

Your direct access might inform you about yourself, but how could it inform you about the universe?   The comments you've made don't lead to or imply idealism as a stance on the fundamental nature of our universe.  If they were more thoroughly argued, more adequately explained, and absolutely true....they only have the power to generate conclusions regarding yourself.

The only have the power to generate conclusions regarding my experiences. . . which may or may not be of the self.

Yet your experience of what we have labeled "material" is not compelling enough?  That things really do seem to behave in the manner described isn't compelling enough?

No, it's not.  Accepting that something exists, and excepting that it exists as you think it exists, are an order of magnitude apart.  I know particles exist, because I've learned about them in books.  However, I do not know that underlying those particles is a reality which is material at its foundation.  I do not know that they are not Matrix particles, or Mind of God particles, or BIJ particles, or expressions of immaterial mathematical principles.

Are you fine with being an agnostic idealist whose reached that position..and who advocates -for- that position, with a composition fallacy?  Doesn't the position deserve better support?  Surely there's some other way......some other reason you find idealism compelling?  If it turned out that you were made of cheese....you'd think the universe was made of cheese

No, because for me to be able consider this fact, I'd at least be cheese with a mind.  And the mind would probably wonder in what way, exactly, the cheese could be known to exist as it seemed to-- and conclude that it couldn't.