Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[robvalue]

Objects in a dream can affect my wellbeing within the dream. And if we're assuming that whatever perceived reality this is will be the subject of discussion, it may only be a dream world.

Also, what happens in the dream can affect the physical body of the person having the dream as well.

We need to figure out whose dream this is and wake them up!

[Ben Davis]

@Rational AKD, do I get a response?

[Kingpin]

Same principle I tried to point out in my first response to him with me throwing a dictionary at his face.  The point I was trying to make is that if he honestly believes monistic idealism, he lives contrary to that belief.  If matter does not exist and this is all part of a greater mindset, why look both ways when you cross the street?  That bus coming is not real matter and though it may "destroy" you perceived physical body, the greater mind should be unaffected.

the exact same thing could be said for anyone who simply believes in an afterlife. since you put Christian as your religious views, i'm assuming that is your belief. so why are you worried about your physical body if you have an immortal soul? your body may die, but your mind and soul lives on so what's the worry when crossing the street? you seem to not live up to your beliefs...

Not at all.  I believe this life has purpose so I live to protect my life.  In the monistic Idealism, you believe this "life" is not the "real" life but more of a dream within the larger reality.  Christianity is not the same.  I will say I'm not afraid to die because of the belief system I hold and that there is an afterlife and I do have an immortal soul, but I don't think this bodily life is meaningless.

[bennyboy]

Not at all.  I believe this life has purpose so I live to protect my life.  In the monistic Idealism, you believe this "life" is not the "real" life but more of a dream within the larger reality.  Christianity is not the same.  I will say I'm not afraid to die because of the belief system I hold and that there is an afterlife and I do have an immortal soul, but I don't think this bodily life is meaningless.

I must have missed something. Why would life in an Idealism be less meaningful? Meaning, after all, is an idea. All the nesses (Mother-ness, happy-ness, etc.) are ideas, and those are the things which give parts of our life its meaning.

[Kingpin]

Because Idealism would be a manifestation of the state of the greater mind as outlined by AKD. So no matter what happens, it has no bearing on the real mind as all we are experiencing is just a manifestation of that mind (if I understand it correct). Therefore whether in this "reality" you live to be a world leader or a serial rapist, is meaningless to the "real mind".

[Redbeard The Pink]

the material processes are not evident, they had to be studied and observed. any information you need to learn from studying the world is not evident... plus you're again using information from experience to explain what causes experience which is question begging. the evidence used in the argument is evidence of introspection, thus it is not question begging.

You're conflating "evident" with "immediately evident." For something to be "evident," there just has to be evidence of it. It doesn't actually matter how that evidence turns up, so long as it is repeatable and/or observable.

that's not at all what i'm doing... i'm providing reason (our epistemic limitations) that it is impossible to prove solipsism is false. then concluding it's unreasonable to claim it's impossible given that.

And I'm saying that's completely irrelevant and non-meritorious because it can be applied to any damn thing someone could make up, so long as they pick something that is not testable.


It is impossible to falsify the existence of Santa Claus and his workshop at the North Pole.


It is impossible to falsify the existence of an ancient teapot orbiting the sun amidst the asteroid field that is too small for our current technology to detect.


It is impossible to falsify the existence of a metaphysically solipsistic world.


Ok, maybe it is, but that's not an "epistemic limitation" so much as a logical irrelevance. It's simply not how problems are solved. It adds nothing to the discussion, brings us no closer to truth, and provides you with a way to dodge around other people's arguments and evidence like a gazelle trying to navigate a briar patch.


When the question of something's existence is raised (especially in the case of an extraordinary claim like this matrix world you speak of), there is always falsifiable hypothesis and a non-falsifiable hypothesis.


The non-falsifiable hypothesis is "X exists"; we're going to call that h1. Because h1 is non-falsifiable, it cannot be tested and therefore cannot be questioned, but it also can't be proven without at least one piece of observable evidence. All the arguing in the world cannot prove the existence of something. If a thing exists and you want us to believe it exists, you have to show it with evidence.


The falsifiable hypothesis is "X does not exist"; we'll call that h0. Because h0 is the falsifiable hypothesis, it is always the one that is tested, and it is always the default assumption until it is proven false. Until there is evidence that something exists, there is no reason to believe that it does. It would take only one piece of evidence to falsify h0 in most cases because in most cases you only need one piece of evidence to show that something exists (even if it isn't entirely explained by that one piece of evidence).


Looking at your conclusion, what you're basically doing is circling around to applying premise #1 to Monistic Idealism. "If Monistic Idealism can't be disproven, then Monistic Idealism must be a thing." That is not how it works. We do not accept things as true simply because they can't be disproven; to be accepted as truth, the truth must be proven. Your circular, nonsensical arguments fail to do that. The reason I haven't touched premises 2-5 is that they follow from premise 1 (problematic for the aforementioned reasons), and 5 is basically a bunch of word salad. Nothing in that list leads to the definite conclusion presented in 6.

so are you going to give a reason why the definition is invalid? or are you just going to give me ad hominem?

I didn't say the definition was "invalid," really. I think the exact word I used was "shitty." You've given a deliberately vague, colloquial definition of the word "mind" because that makes it easier to play with for your argument and lump on whatever personal definitions you want. The problem with that is that we understand minds far beyond the extent of "that which produces consciousness." That is a laymen's definition, and you chose it so you can play semantic volleyball with it.


A mind is more accurately defined as the electrical and chemical processes which give rise to thoughts and instincts within brains, and the reason that is a more accurate definition is that it's borne out by evidence we observe in the physical Universe (most specifically, inside of animal brains).


Furthermore, I have been attacking your arguments entirely. Even my unusually sparse profanity has been directed at your claims and not you. Ad hominem would be if I said something like, "You're obviously not an expert in what you're talking about, so nothing you say should be taken seriously," or "You're just an idiot, so why would we listen to you," or "Sources say you donated $0 to anti-child-porn campaigns last year; obviously, you're for child porn, and therefore can't be trusted."


Calling your definition shitty is not ad hominem. Stop being butt-hurt.

you missed the point... the reason for your conclusion is what's gathered by scientific research... but the scientific research is gathered from our experience and we cannot use our experience as an explanation for why and how we experience because that would be question begging. you're presenting fallacious reasoning and calling it evidence.

Yes, you've done a clever job of constructing a scenario in which you can ignore everyone's evidence as being merely a part of Simulation Land and you don't have to present any evidence yourself because...just look around you! It's ALL evidence! Gee, where have I heard that line of reasoning before? *glares at creationists*

that's funny... because I don't recall 'all of reality is dreamed by an all encompassing mind' being in that premise... I didn't say that in any of my premises.

Premise #1 reads as follows:


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


If our reality is a metaphysically solipsistic world, then everything in the reality we witness would have to be dreamed up by the mind that is the only thing that truly exists and therefore encompasses all of reality. So yeah, you state that such a world can't be proven false and go on to conclude that such a world must, in fact, be true. Premise #1 implies that reality is all dreamed up by a mind-thing, and #6 outright states it.

oh stop... that's like objecting to the neutrino being called the 'ghost particle' because in order for it to act 'ghost like' there have to be actual ghosts for it to act like... something can have likeness to an idea without the requirement of its existence.

The ghost particle is not a simulation of a ghost, though. It's named that to get an idea across about it's nature. Furthermore, a ghost isn't physical reality. Physical reality, by definition, has to physically exist. To simulate physical reality, there has to be at least one example of physical reality to simulate, and that example by definition has to physically exist. If the reality we experience is nothing more than a dream, then our reality is conceptual, not physical. If there is no physical world upon which it is based, then it is not a simulation of a physical world. It is merely a conceptual world, populated with objects and rules conceptualized by the Conceiver.

objecting to my using an argument isn't addressing the premises of the argument... raising questions and objecting the conclusion doesn't answer them isn't addressing the premises... objecting a mind needs a model to be simulating isn't addressing the premises... that leaves one of those at best that addressed premise one... that's far from all of them.

Explaining that your very first premise is a logically fallacious non-argument, that it raises questions and answers none, and that it is completely untestable and therefore worthless is a pretty thorough redress of your premise, bro.

triple negative! but it seems you fail to grasp the reason behind my asserting solipsism cannot be proven false. it's simply to show in the argument the evident fact that for all we know and all we can possibly know solipsism is possible. the phrasing there is equivalent to making a claim of epistemic knowledge and yet it is also evidently true; and that is what the argument is based off of.

Doesn't matter. Already explained why.

so do you deny that we can't use information from our experience to explain how and why we are able to experience? that is like using the contents of the bible to explain why the bible is the word of God. Or perhaps you think there is reason we can use besides experience to disprove solipsism. but you haven't claimed you have any such reason.

All evidence indicates that our Universe is natural and material, and yes, some of the evidence from that Universe helps us understand how our brains and senses work, which gives us an idea of "why" we experience and perceive things the way we do and what minds actually are.

well, that's really the only options you have. if experience can't be used to disprove solipsism (because that's begging the question) and there is no reason outside experience, then the first premise is true. it is impossible to prove solipsism is false.

Aaand that doesn't matter because it's also impossible to prove that it's true, and until you do there is no reason to believe that it is. Again, premise 1 is a non-argument, and everything that follows from it is based in fallacy. Your argument does not prove anything. It merely speculates about things that are impossible to falsify or verify. It's completely useless. Besides, even if it were true, knowing it would not affect our lives at all.

[Captain Scarlet]

Since all reasoning, including the process of proving a conclusion, is conscious activity, and consciousness is consciousness of something, the primacy of existence is a necessary precondition of proof. One does not need to prove the primacy of existence since it is validated in every instance of consciousness. Thus the primacy of consciousness is false and existence, exists independently of consciousness. Wishing it so, does not make it so. Dreams do not alter reality. Minds cannot control reality nor project a different reality.

Take this thread and the processes leading to its creation. To consider idealism you have had to listen to and|or read information pertaining to the subject. You have had to then consider thoughts of others using information from their sensory perceptions. You have then assumed the physical world is real and that we can understand and see your posts through physical media. You have posted using touch to validate keyboard entry. If you spoke instead of posted and said: "idealism is true and empiricism is false". You would have to assume that you could hear yourself correctly to ensure you said what you said and not something contradictory.

To deny the validity of the physical world and sensory perception (including sight, hearing or touch) is to doubt you can comprehend, express or understand anything at all - including idealism. As an enterprise it seems to defeat itself ultimately.

It amazes me that a person chooses to live their life as if there is an independent physical reality in which their senses are valid and can perceive it. Then turns round and denies it to assert consciousness is primary and make-believe is possibly true. However, whilst my incredulity does not present an argument I am genuinely interested in how someone subscribing to idealism views their 'holographic' life. Would shooting yourself in the head be detrimental? Would driving your car into others be immoral? If you're an idealist and a Xtian, does that not deny the importance of bodily death and resurrection thus invalidating Xtian theology etc.?

[Rational AKD]

Objects in a dream can affect my wellbeing within the dream. And if we're assuming that whatever perceived reality this is will be the subject of discussion, it may only be a dream world.

Also, what happens in the dream can affect the physical body of the person having the dream as well.

We need to figure out whose dream this is and wake them up!

whether you call it a dream world or not is semantics. the point is since hypothetically all the senses give us the same sensations in an idealistic world as in a material world, both worlds can be described as a 'real world' (still speaking hypothetically). both worlds have the same material consequences, the only difference is the prospect of afterlife in an idealist world and absolute death of self in a materialist world.

[Rational AKD]

@Rational AKD, do I get a response?

sorry, I missed you. i'll get right on that.

[Rational AKD]

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 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?

lets see.. definitions of proof by Mariam Webster

a :  the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact
b :  the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

I think that's the relevant definition. I went a little further and said when I say proof I mean it cannot be reasonably refuted or bypassed. so my definition is actually more strict than the dictionary's, because it says I only need valid reasoning. I'm saying the validity and the premises cannot be reasonably denied. and there is no reasonable way around the argument.
I must remind you this is a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument. the conclusion it comes to need not be falsifiable by means of experimentation. it needs only to be falsifiable by means of invalidating the logic or falsifying the premises. in this case, the only premise you can falsify is premise 1 because premise 2 follows from premise 1 and the definition of reasonable, premise 3 follows from premise 1 and 2, premise 4 is Leibniz Law, premise 5 is from the interaction problem which shows substance dualism is inconsistent, and the conclusion is from 4 and 5. so really if 1 is true, then all of it is true.

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'.

by obvious, he doesn't mean God's existence cannot be denied, he means it cannot be reasonably denied. he's granting that his argument is sound, and therefore the conclusion is inescapably true. given that, the concept of atheism as he sees it is incoherent, which makes his existence 'obvious and understandable on basic principles alone.' personally, I wouldn't go so for as to say the concept of atheism is incoherent. it is coherent to think of simply a world with no God (i'm pretending the modal ontological argument doesn't exist for this discussion because I don't want to go off topic). but I would say the concept is not compatible with how we think and experience, since an argument such as this can be constructed from epistemic principles alone. the reason people don't think God is so obvious is because people in general don't like thinking in epistemic principles. thinking about how you think can be very exhausting, so you have to have a special interest in epistemology to be able to think hard about concepts such as these.

I'll deal with your version rather than his but I note that yours does deviate a little from the original

really the only difference are the first two premises and he puts 'the mind exists' as a premise which I left out because that's obvious. the original Raatz uses just states there are different properties between mind and matter making mind irreducible to matter, and gives reasons external to the argument to substantiate this premise. I put substantiation into the premises using an evident modal difference between mind and matter (and Raatz has stated that reason to support his premise).

No. I won't let you redefine 'mind' in this way.

redefine? it doesn't differ from the general dictionary definitions of the term.

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.

but you see... that would be question begging. you see, the argument has a conclusion with implications about whether materialism, dualism, or idealism is true. so to avoid question begging, I need to use a definition that doesn't imply any of those are true or I would be question begging. your definition already assumes materialism is true, so it begs the question on this topic. as for your 'zero evidence to suggest otherwise' claim, you're shifting the burden of proof. 'i'm right because you can't prove me wrong.' you need to give a reason other than 'you can't prove me wrong.'

Your first premise is that you can't disprove that something isn't real?

I said false... but semantics I guess. and keep in mind I made a strong claim that not only are you not able to prove it false with current evidence... but that everyone is not able to prove it false with any knowledge we could possibly possess. which is to say to our epistemic knowledge (for all we know and could possibly know) it is possible.

This is a shifting of the burden of proof. You must first demonstrate that you can show that a metaphysically solipsitic world is existent.

but that's not what i'm trying to prove... my conclusion is an idealistic world, not a solipsist one. all i'm trying to prove is there is a difference between mind and matter that makes mind irreducible to matter... and I chose to prove this by using a modal difference between what's possible with mind but not matter. anticipating that people might deny solipsism is possible, I showed that to our epistemic knowledge it is possible and thus it is most reasonable to accept it is really possible.

 It doesn't automatically follow that because people can't disprove that something doesn't exist that it must be possible.

I didn't say it 'must' be possible, I said it's most reasonably possible. for all we know and could possibly know, solipsism could be true. if for all we could know it could be true, then that's good reason to accept it could actually be true... unless you want to believe our knowledge cannot correspond to facts of reality. but that would be a claim of knowledge concerning facts of reality in itself...

There are other criteria for 'possibility', not least that the concept is coherent and non-contradictory.

oh? and what would that criteria be then?

Since you claim that mind is the producer of the thing that it is, your base claim is contradictory and consequently impossible.

i'm not saying 'mind is the producer of the thing that is.' i'm saying mind exists, and reality is merely a mental construct. if you define 'the thing that is' as something that objectively exists, then you should refer to the title of this thread for your answer on my position.

The rest is word salad.

you mean premises and conclusions that follow from the prior...