Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

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

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.
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.

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.

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.

[Kingpin]

While I understand the logic behind this, the conclusions don't follow because the assumptions are not verifiable. This isn't a reasoned argument as it's based on something that is impossible to test. It's the same thing we as theists get blamed for when we bring up logical arguments for God. Something that is not empirically verifiable.

IMO, the argument stops after point #1. I cannot prove a negative, so I cannot logically then assume the premise to be true which is what is necessary for the remaining arguments to follow.

If there is no matter, let me chuck this encyclopedia at your head and see if you duck. If matter doesn't exist, you shouldn't be concerned with it hitting you in the face, right? Assuming you don't mind?

[Rational AKD]

While I understand the logic behind this, the conclusions don't follow because the assumptions are not verifiable.  This isn't a reasoned argument as it's based on something that is impossible to test.  It's the same thing we as theists get blamed for when we bring up logical arguments for God.  Something that is not empirically verifiable. 

empirical evidence isn't the only type of evidence. the argument's premises are substantiated by the introspective evaluation of your own conscious experience, and certain laws of logic such as Leibniz Law of Indiscernibility of Identicals.

IMO, the argument stops after point #1. I cannot prove a negative

sure you can. if not possible A, then A is proven false. in any case, you do realize I was disproving a negative, right? I was eliminating the proposition of 'solipsism is impossible' as a reasonable escape. if it's impossible to prove a negative, then you already agree it's reasonable to accept solipsism is possible.

[Rational AKD]

If there is no matter, let me chuck this encyclopedia at your head and see if you duck.  If matter doesn't exist, you shouldn't be concerned with it hitting you in the face, right?  Assuming you don't mind?

...under monistic idealism the world we experience is a simulation. so the appearance of matter, the feeling of pain etc. are also simulated. just think of that line in the matrix 'I thought it wasn't real.' 'your mind makes it real.'

[Kingpin]

If there is no matter, let me chuck this encyclopedia at your head and see if you duck.  If matter doesn't exist, you shouldn't be concerned with it hitting you in the face, right?  Assuming you don't mind?

...under monistic idealism the world we experience is a simulation. so the appearance of matter, the feeling of pain etc. are also simulated. just think of that line in the matrix 'I thought it wasn't real.' 'your mind makes it real.'

But if you truly believe this, you don't live that way.  Do you look both ways before you cross the street?

[Rational AKD]

But if you truly believe this, you don't live that way.  Do you look both ways before you cross the street?

of course... death is real in the matrix too...

[Kingpin]

But how do you die if the matter causing you to die does not exist? How can something that does not exist cause your mind to cease existing? Or since it is your mind making it real, would this be mental suicide? In the Matrix, there still existed the physical world, just that they were acting in an alternate reality as a byproduct of their mind. Outside the Matrix they were very material.

Red pill or blue pill?

[Rational AKD]

But how do you die if the matter causing you to die does not exist?  How can something that does not exist cause your mind to cease existing?  Or since it is your mind making it real, would this be mental suicide?  In the Matrix, there still existed the physical world, just that they were acting in an alternate reality as a byproduct of their mind.  Outside the Matrix they were very material. 

ok, i'll grant you that. dying in an idealist world would be more comparable to dying in a video game. your physical body (or at least the simulated parts of it) dies but your mind is still in tact. this also provides a reasonable explanation how we can have an afterlife.

[TheRealJoeFish]

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.
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.

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.

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.

Your premise 3 contains a fallacy.

Premise 3: "The mind" has property x, while "matter" does not have property x.
Property x is: "If the world is solipsistic, this thing can still exist."
There are two options:
1: The world is solipsistic. Then, "the mind" exists and "matter" does not.
2: The world is not solipsistic.  Then, because the property you proposed contains a falsity as its premise, it conveys no information.  Thus, property x is not a real distinction between "the mind" and "matter."
That is to say, if the world is solipsistic, then clearly the mind and matter are different; if the world is not solipsistic, then the difference between "the mind" and "matter" - which is subtly premised on the assumption of a solipsistic world - no longer exists.

I believe this refutes the argument.

[Rational AKD]

Your premise 3 contains a fallacy.

Premise 3: "The mind" has property x, while "matter" does not have property x.
Property x is: "If the world is solipsistic, this thing can still exist."
There are two options:
1: The world is solipsistic. Then, "the mind" exists and "matter" does not.
2: The world is not solipsistic.  Then, because the property you proposed contains a falsity as its premise, it conveys no information.  Thus, property x is not a real distinction between "the mind" and "matter."
That is to say, if the world is solipsistic, then clearly the mind and matter are different; if the world is not solipsistic, then the difference between "the mind" and "matter" - which is subtly premised on the assumption of a solipsistic world - no longer exists.

I believe this refutes the argument.

premise 3 is derived from Leibniz Law of Indiscernibility of Identicals. given A and B; A is identical to B if and only if for all things true of A, B. so if anything is true of A but not of B, then A and B are not identical. so, given it is possible for mind to exist in a solipsist (immaterial) world, but it is not possible for matter... then there is something true of mind that is not true of matter. and yes, Leibniz Law covers modal truths as well.