Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Solipsism could be impossible, but not demonstrably so. To announce it is possible because it can't be proved impossible is, as Jorg says, the classic argument from ignorance.

Going back to what I said, you may currently be dreaming and you think you've proved something to various figments of your imagination during the dream that "minds cannot exist in this dream". That is your best case scenario, and it doesn't preclude you waking up and realising this dream makes no sense to anything. You also have some figments well trained in dream logic opposing you, so I guess you should be proud of your ability to counter your own arguments

It also raises the problem of what "exist" actually means. This isn't trivial. Does anything in a dream world exist, or not?

well perhaps I should have worded it differently for clarity. solipsism can't be proven true or false by use of our external world experience alone. this isn't to say it can't be proven false at all, just a logical inconsistency must be demonstrated to do so. however, it would be irrational to believe it is logically inconsistent without demonstrating it first.

as for your 'dream' example, I remind you i'm not arguing for solipsism. I just used it in my premises but i'm arguing for monistic idealism.

well if all is mind, then the word 'exists' can only be used for minds and the illusionary experiences they have as that's all there is. however, you can distinguish the nature of their existence by elaborating details.

[Rational AKD]

Defining "mind' and "consciousness" is a big problem, really.

It's conceivable that this whole reality is in fact a manifestation of another mind, representing an emergent property within it. Another unfalsifiable premise, but one which shows you can't come to definite conclusions about the nature of reality.

Bottom line is everything goes through at least one filter, and the integrity of that filter can never be fully tested. We don't ever actually experience "reality", we receive images and feelings generated by our brains.

I didn't define mind as consciousness. I defined mind as 'that which produces consciousness.' you can also think of mind as the ontological equivalent to what you call 'self.' now the nature of that existence is debated, you can refer to that as a 'theory of mind.' if you think your mind is your body or the processes of it, then you are a materialist. if you think mind is an entity apart from your body and its processes, then you are either a dualist or an idealist. the argument aspires to refute both materialism and dualism leaving only monistic idealism.

however, it is important that the intent of the definition of mind is that it is compatible with any metaphysical view you have of mind, be it materialism, dualism, or idealism. thus it doesn't beg the question by siding with one of those from the start since it's trying to conclude one of those is true.

[robvalue]

So if a mind is imagining matter, does that matter exist?

I'd say "existence" is one of the hardest words to meaningfully define. In a dream world for example, either everything in it "exists" or nothing does, I should think.

If you are indeed dreaming about me, you have my sincerest apologies.

[Rational AKD]

Only if you subscribe to this Cartesian view. 

do you consider the view incoherent? or do you not subscribe to it because you don't personally favor it? in which case you're basing an objection of a personal preference rather than sound reason.

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.

I would agree that is true, but it is not necessarily true. by what we experience, I would say there is an external reality. however, I believe this external reality is a simulation created by another mind. this other mind contains all reality and has nothing external to it, but when it comes to our minds there are things external to them.

Introspection is useful but it is demonstrabley not the optimal way of uncovering truths. What truths have been uncovered through Introspection?

besides the proof of self existence René Descartes came up with when he founded epistemology?

Truth requires extrospection and perception through our senses.

I don't often agree with David Hume, but one thing I did agree with is anything a posteriori (gather through the senses) only tells you what's possible but not necessarily what's true. anything a priori (such as things tautologically known) are known to be true.

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".

I somewhat agree... however in my idealistic view i would say concepts are introduced to us by experiences formed by a mind external to my own mind. thus this problem doesn't occur in my view.

[Rational AKD]

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?"

I would say the mind that's simulating us and the world would be a necessary mind. the most fundamental aspect of reality.

I tried to be clear when I answered your scenario. like I said, material objects don't exist if they are not being observed by a conscious observer. but that doesn't mean when you find them you won't find they were performing certain functions. basically when you find objects, they appear a certain way and upload a back history as if they were performing a function or staying the same the entire time you were away. with the IV, it technically won't be functioning when no one is observing it. but when someone goes to observe it, it will appear as though it had been functioning properly the entire time even though it really wasn't. when it comes to macro functions, you pretty much have certainty in the predictability of how they will function. when you go to the quantum level, you can only predict the probabilities of the outcomes.

[Rational AKD]

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'.

exactly right. idealism doesn't change how you can interact with reality. but it will change your metaphysical and possibly your religious beliefs about reality. I would argue idealism implies theism just as much as materialism implies atheism.

[Rational AKD]

So if a mind is imagining matter, does that matter exist?

I'd say "existence" is one of the hardest words to meaningfully define. In a dream world for example, either everything in it "exists" or nothing does, I should think.

If you are indeed dreaming about me, you have my sincerest apologies.

in a dream, you are correct. it doesn't make sense to say your dream objects exist. but the difference between an idealist world and a dream is the contents aren't solely derived from your mind. they can still affect your well being as well as others. that's what makes it meaningful to say they exist.

[brewer]

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?"

I would say the mind that's simulating us and the world would be a necessary mind. the most fundamental aspect of reality.

I tried to be clear when I answered your scenario. like I said, material objects don't exist if they are not being observed by a conscious observer. but that doesn't mean when you find them you won't find they were performing certain functions. basically when you find objects, they appear a certain way and upload a back history as if they were performing a function or staying the same the entire time you were away. with the IV, it technically won't be functioning when no one is observing it. but when someone goes to observe it, it will appear as though it had been functioning properly the entire time even though it really wasn't. when it comes to macro functions, you pretty much have certainty in the predictability of how they will function. when you go to the quantum level, you can only predict the probabilities of the outcomes.

Nice non answer to who/what made the god/other simulation/mind. Where did the "necessary mind" come from? How did it come into being?

No direct answer again to the hypothetical, off on another tangent. Now your stating that it's not being observed so it doesn't exist. I think your last tangent was IV not functioning.

Lets try one last time. Add the following to the past hypothetical description: You are in the room, you are conscious and can see the IV. You are observing the IV fluid drip and can see it flow into your vein. You can feel your heart beating and know that your circulatory system is functioning and the fluid is being dispersed through your body. The question again, "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?"

[Rational AKD]

Nice non answer to who/what made the god/other simulation/mind. Where did the "necessary mind" come from? How did it come into being?

No direct answer again to the hypothetical, off on another tangent. Now your stating that it's not being observed so it doesn't exist. I think your last tangent was IV not functioning.

Lets try one last time. Add the following to the past hypothetical description: You are in the room, you are conscious and can see the IV. You are observing the IV fluid drip and can see it flow into your vein. You can feel your heart beating and know that your circulatory system is functioning and the fluid is being dispersed through your body. The question again, "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?"

by necessary I mean there was never a point where it did not exist. it didn't 'come' from anywhere, it's always been.

I really don't know how you think i'm being indirect with the IV hypothetical... I told you exactly what is going on with the IV when you're not observing it. is that not what you asked?

no, you don't recover no matter what's in the IV. physical interactions still have a consistent behavior, the contents of materials doesn't change because the person observing it is unaware what those contents are. so if someone puts the wrong stuff in the IV and leaves you in the room, it will still have the predictable effects of putting that substance into the patients system with an IV. the contents don't depend on your perception, rather their materialistic behavior depends on your perception. and that's only to the extent of whether the matter is being observed or not.

[Whateverist]

All of this is too much in your head, RationalMan. Care to take it outside?




Wait, no. The existence of that is what you're calling into question. Well, I'll be going outside. You enjoy your head.