Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Lucanus]

To be fair, I wipe my arse with unfalsifiable premises. Cheaper than toilet paper, I'll give you that.

They're a waste of time to debate and, more often than not, explain nothing more than what we already know. Which makes them an even worse waste of time. Welp, I'll go back to studying biochemistry now, at least that'll add to my knowledge

[robvalue]

Oh I agree, they are a waste of time. I only bring them up because this debate is actually trying to come to solid, defensible conclusions regarding solipsism. My point is that you can't even begin to demonstrate anything until you've made assumptions regarding the nature of reality. The results are dependent on those assumptions, and those assumptions can never be shown to be true.

I fundamentally disagree that we can ever come to hard conclusions about the nature of reality, we can only model it. Science begins at this point.

[bennyboy]

Aren't you also now assuming that there's a theoretical state in which a full explanation of mind can or will be known?  Are you assuming that science, which has demonstrated very little facility in addressing philosophical issues of cosmogony or psychogony, just hasn't got there "yet"?

It seems to me that mind is a special case, and that the belief that it can or will be fully explained is at this point little more than a statement of faith.

Why? What is the evidence that points in that direction? I find it silly that in an universe so big, that is made out of matter/energy as far as anything can "see", the mind, which is such an insignificant phenomenon compared to the scale of the universe, must be of such utter importance to the workings of the universe itself.

Many feel that way. However, there is literally nothing that you know about, or CAN know about, that you didn't acquire through the use of mind. In your view of the world (which is itself an idea), you hold that maybe .00000001% of space (or whatever) has mind. In my world view, 100% of everything I know about is known through the contemplation of experience by a mind. Your view, I'd say is more intuitive, but it requires an additional assumption-- that what you perceive (with the mind, remember) represents an objective reality which is basically as you perceive it.

Moreover, depending on your definition of mind, the evidence we have implies that the universe has existed for several billion years without any minds in it. So how is it then? Did the universe just spontaneously come to exist when the first cell became "aware" of the stimuli that surrounded it? If so, how did the cell begin to exist in the first place? (Jeesh)

We have no good history of mind, no plausible explanation of its mechanism. In fact, we entirely lack the ability to determine whether a given physical system HAS a mind, unless you want to redefine mind in purely physicalist terms and ignore the philosophical problem of qualia.

Saying that the mind is a special case that won't ever be explained by science is a position that is completely unsupported by evidence, and is one of that kind of arguments that try to hold back the most fundamental human longing for the unknown.

Nobody's trying to hold back anything. If science DOES come up with even a plausible mechanism for subjective experience, then great. So far, there's no evidence that science is the right tool for this job. The reason for this should be pretty obvious. Science is a process of observation and experimentation. You cannot observe a mind-- cannot measure it, quantify it, or even know whether it's there.

What you CAN do is measure physical correlates of mind, like brain function. But this requires you already to have made philosophical assumptions that serve to beg the question.

And you know what? I think it's reasonable to make "statements of faith" and to trust that science will get there eventually. History pretty much shows us that doing so is like betting on a horse that always wins.

The questions that haven't been answered by science are infinitely more numerous than those that have. Science has proven (obviously) to be highly useful in understanding and manipulating our environment. It has not proven that it can offer plausible answers to philosophical questions of cosmogony or psychogony. So no, I do not accept your statement that faith in science is reasonable, when we can pretty easily see how different, philosophically speaking, the study of mind and the study of other things are.

[Captain Scarlet]

Premise 1 and 2 is flawed to me.  Solipsism would produce a consciousness conscious only of itself and thus a metaphysical contradiction.  

so you never heard of self awareness or introspection? this is where the phrase 'I think therefore I am' comes from. everything else you say builds on that one point so i'll leave it at that.

Only if you subscribe to this Cartesian view.  Self awareness does not bootstrap everything else.  We can be certain we are conscious, and we can be certain that we are conscious of something.  This means there is an external reality.  Self awarenes is a feature of our conciousness.  Introspection is useful but it is demonstrabley not the optimal way of uncovering truths. What truths have been uncovered through Introspection?  Truth requires extrospection and perception through our senses.  To hold solipsism and idealism as a real possibility is to deny the very things you need to affirm idealism and solipsism.  A blind man cannot form the concept of colour, someone who promotes idealism cuts off their own head, in order to state "look I have no head".

[bennyboy]

Introspection is useful but it is demonstrabley not the optimal way of uncovering truths. What truths have been uncovered through Introspection?  Truth requires extrospection and perception through our senses.  To hold solipsism and idealism as a real possibility is to deny the very things you need to affirm idealism and solipsism.  A blind man cannot form the concept of colour, someone who promotes idealism cuts off their own head, in order to state "look I have no head".

What demonstrable truths have been uncovered through any method, which do not require the acceptance of assumptions which would beg the question?  I can't think of any. . . can you?

[Captain Scarlet]

Introspection is useful but it is demonstrabley not the optimal way of uncovering truths. What truths have been uncovered through Introspection?  Truth requires extrospection and perception through our senses.  To hold solipsism and idealism as a real possibility is to deny the very things you need to affirm idealism and solipsism.  A blind man cannot form the concept of colour, someone who promotes idealism cuts off their own head, in order to state "look I have no head".

What demonstrable truths have been uncovered through any method, which do not require the acceptance of assumptions which would beg the question?  I can't think of any. . . can you?

It is absolutely true that I am not omniscient for example.

[brewer]

More questions.

Are you arguing god into existence? I would think that a god that simulated all of these minds would not need an argument. That would be one of the basic laws/givens of the mind simulation.

Or, are you arguing your belief system into existence and giving us your supporting argument? If you are, thanks, you're welcome to it, hope it works for you. I'll go my own way.

Tell me if I'm wrong but I hear you state that the mind is the only reality and is based on the minds ability to perceive, that matter does not exist except through the minds perception. Direct answer, yes, no, or correction.

Hypothetical: You come into the ER, the staff draws blood and tells you that you are having a hypoglycemic crisis and shows you the result of the lab test. They then tell you that if the condition is not corrected you'll die. The staff tells you that an IV drip of 50% glucose will correct your condition. They hook up the IV and leave. Because the contents/chemical make up of the IV depends on your minds perception (and this can only based on what you were told), do you recover no matter what is in the IV?

i'm presenting an argument for idealism, but I could easily build on that for an argument for God. as for your follow up, I think it's rather presumptuous to state how God should have made the world. maybe he has reasons for not making his existence evident enough to not be questioned.

no, i'm not arguing my belief into existence. i'm providing reason via a sound argument that my belief is correct. my argument builds from the ground up, not from top to bottom.

do I think matter only exists in our perception? yes, that is correct. a good analogy I like to use is a sandbox game. in the game, you have a world to experience. the map you play on is consistent, but at the same time it's not all there at the same time. the game only loads a certain amount of the map at a time dependent on what you're viewing. sometimes you can even see parts of the map loading on your screen (of course you can't see that in reality). much is the same in an idealist world.

as for your hypothetical, it's an interesting scenario. it brings up a topic that I haven't discussed here yet. concerning contents of the world that are not observed, they are not there when you are not observing them. but their processes are still governed by determined probabilities. in the example, a hooked IV has a near 100% chance of performing its intended function given it was hooked up properly, thus when it is observed it will most likely be found performing as expected. this probability view comes mainly from evidence of quantum theory with many of it's principles and experiment findings. but it would go off topic to discuss those so I will not do so here.

So if your mind is a sim made from a god/other mind that is a sim, who made the god/other mind sim?

I didn't talk about the IV functioning properly (thanks for the tangent/it is functioning and the fluid is entering your vein. Your circulatory system is functioning and the fluid is being dispersed through your body). Please answer the question directly. "Because the contents/chemical make up of the IV depends on your minds perception (and this can only based on what you were told), do you recover no matter what is in the IV?"

[Ben Davis]

I haven't read through the 6 other pages so I apologise in advance if I'm jumping on anyone else's refutation, repeating subject matter or interrupting discussion.

This kind of argument is different from my usual because I tend to be weary of using the term proof. but this argument has my full confidence so I'm going ahead and presenting it as a proof. by proof, I mean that it cannot be reasonably refuted or bypassed.

This is wrong. You immediately start off on the wrong foot. An argument is not proof, only facts are proof. Arguments can be used as part of a body of support for a hypothesis (which must include verifiable & falsifiable evidence if it's to be taken seriously) but by themselves they are nothing more than mental exercise. So my first question is what is the hypothesis which your argument is trying to support?

This is not an argument of my own, but it is a reiteration of the Introspective Argument created by Johanan Raatz.

Ah. This. Well, at least this won't take long to refute. The 'hypothesis' (which it isn't, it's barely even a coherent sentence) which Raatz is trying to support with this argument is (and I quote) "If God exists, His existence should be so fundamental to reality that it should be obvious and understandable on basic principles alone.". Instead of providing robust definitions of what he means by 'god', 'existence', 'reality', 'obvious', 'understandable' and 'basic principles' or looking for actual evidence for his hypothesis, he created his 'argument'. I'll deal with your version rather than his but I note that yours does deviate a little from the original (so much for the idea that coherent arguments must be consistent...).

Definitions:
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.

No. I won't let you redefine 'mind' in this way. Mind is an emergent property of brain function and an alternative term for 'consciousness'. 'Mind' doesn't produce consciousness, the brain produces consciousness, the quale of which is sometimes referred to as 'mind'. There is zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

Metaphysical Solipsism- belief that a mind (presumably the believer's mind) is the only thing that exists.
Substance Dualism- belief there exist two fundamental substances, mind and matter.
Monistic idealism- belief that mind is a fundamental substance, and the only one that exists.

These definitions are okay.

Argument:
1. a metaphysically solipsist world (a world where only a mind exists) cannot be proven false due to epistemic limitations.

Your first premise is that you can't disprove that something isn't real? Really?! This is a shifting of the burden of proof. You must first demonstrate that you can show that a metaphysically solipsitic world is existent. Argument alone is insufficient for this end, you must produce evidence. It's not our place to disprove your assertions, it's your place to show them.

2. it is unreasonable to presume solipsism is impossible given 1, therefore it must be reasonably granted solipsism is possible.

No. It doesn't automatically follow that because people can't disprove that something doesn't exist that it must be possible. There are other criteria for 'possibility', not least that the concept is coherent and non-contradictory. Since you claim that mind is the producer of the thing that it is, your base claim is contradictory and consequently impossible.

---

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.

Overview:
basically, I put together this argument to answer criticisms from the ground up rather than trying to explain separate from the argument. it uses external world skepticism to substantiate P1, thus already answering criticism of those who think I'm merely asserting solipsism is possible. from there, it goes on to debunk materialism and dualism leaving only monistic idealism.

Objections:
1. the argument doesn't debunk property dualism. it's possible mind is a property or process of matter and thus doesn't reduce to matter yet is still derived from material interaction-- it doesn't directly debunk it, but it can easily be shown false deriving from P2. if metaphysical solipsism is possible, mind cannot be a property or a process because you cannot have a world with properties or processes without anything to attribute them to. you can't have a world with only a run or a feed, therefore mind must be an entity rather than a property or process.

I'll also be willing to address any questions concerning monistic idealism as presented. my last thread was also an argument for idealism, but a much weaker one. feel free to critique, but either by challenging the premises or invalidating the logic. I listen to reasons, not emotional outbursts.

---

The rest is word salad. I'll address it if you can first word your premises in a way that doesn't shift the burden of proof and then produce evidence that support them.

[Cato]

As entertaining as these types of conversations might be, it is the sort that gives philosophy a bad reputation. It's a circle jerk. Even if all of existence was simply mind, we would still have to navigate existence as if we were surrounded by material and energy obeying physical laws compounded by the fact that some other collections of matter similar to ourselves have 'other minds'.

[robvalue]

Has the word "exist" even been defined in this argument?