Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[The Grand Nudger]

 

if something for all we know and all we could know is possible or could be true, is that reasonable evidence that it is in fact possible or in fact could be true?

Ask yourself this, is it reasonable to accept that I have ( or could have) a Harrier parked in my cornfield?  

[Angrboda]

Step 2 is a fallacy, the same that is used by God/Ghost/Bigfoot/UFO believers all the time. Saying something cannot be shown to be imposible doesn't demonstrate that it is possible.

E.g. I claim that inside a box that you cannot examine lives a leprechaun.

You not being able to prove it doesn't exist does not constitute evidence that it could exist.

i'm not saying it 'can't be shown' to be impossible. i'm saying it is epistemically impossible to to disprove solipsism. that means, for all we know and all we could know solipsism is possible or could be true. and given that is the case, I think it is reasonable to conclude it is actually possible since the only alternative is nihilism which is self defeating. the substantiation of premise 2 is that the prospect of solipsism being possible is the only reasonable conclusion given our epistemic knowledge; which is that for all we know and could know solipsism could be true. I think the wording of the premise made it clear it's not reasonable to conclude solipsism is impossible and you can't reasonably be agnostic on this issue because that would mean you don't think the only current and possible knowledge we have is sufficient to establish what's true of reality which is nihilism.

This is an appeal to consequences. It is impossible to prove idealism false. It's also impossible to prove idealism is true. The evidence for and against is equal. Agnosticism is the currently reasonable view.

[Rational AKD]

"If everything we think we know is false, then some other thing might be true"

I didn't say that... if you're going to make a parody of what I say, you should at least put up the quote you're parodying off of.

You realize that you don't -actually- have to appeal to solipsism in order to make the statement "everything is mind", right?

right, which is why I called this an argument for monistic idealism.

You can make that statement from the position of reductive physicalism just as easily.  You can argue for "the sim" from that position as well, and much, much more competently, I'd wager.

I don't see how you can say matter exists given everything is mind except as a mental construct. could you elaborate?

Particularly in that there's no need to beg from the ledge of possibilities accepted for sake of argument. You can simply provide demonstrations and schematics. "Sims" - as you know them, as you experience them -are- physical things. Little pieces of machinery-in-state.

but 'sims' as you say I call them, don't exist apart from our conscious perception of them in the idealistic model.

Prove for me, right now, that substance dualism is false.....as you so casually claimed had already been proven

it's an acknowledged philosophical problem called the interaction problem. for a substance to be fundamental, it needs to have its own distinct properties and it can't be broken down into smaller parts. substance dualism is the belief mind and matter are two fundamental substances. in order for two substances to interact, they need to share a property. an intangible substance, for example, can't tangibly interact with matter. it needs to share a tangible property to tangibly interact. so if you have two fundamental substances, they couldn't possibly interact. if they share a property, then it must be more fundamental which means one of them is not truly fundamental. if they don't share a property, then they can't interact which means the world we experiences can't come from both substances.
I didn't go in detail on this because typically atheists don't agree with substance dualism anyways. I stress that point when talking to theists, and I stress the refutation of materialism when talking to atheists.

[Rational AKD]

 Ask yourself this, is it reasonable to accept that I have ( or could have) a Harrier parked in my cornfield?  

I certainly can't deny the possibility without confirmation. but I have no reason to accept it to be the case. though you notice I said possible or could be true (which is redundant reiteration of possible) while you said 'I have (or could have).'

[Rational AKD]

This is an appeal to consequences.  It is impossible to prove idealism false.  It's also impossible to prove idealism is true.  The evidence for and against is equal.  Agnosticism is the currently reasonable view.

no it's not... I didn't say solipsism is definitely possible because the alternatives are unreasonable... I said the possibility of solipsism is the most reasonable answer because the alternatives are unreasonable. and as I said, agnosticism on this view implies nihilism which is self refuting thus unreasonable.

[Rational AKD]

accidental repost. my bad.

[The Grand Nudger]

I didn't say that... if you're going to make a parody of what I say, you should at least put up the quote you're parodying off of.

LOL, you very much did.  I didn't feel the need to quote, as I was paraphrasing your entire OP.  Perhaps you don't see it that way..that's okay..on this point, there will be no debate or agreement between us.  

right, which is why I called this an argument for monistic idealism.

-and as an argument for monistic idealism, it fails, while invoking that which it has no need of invoking to begin with.  Perhaps you should try a different route?  

I don't see how you can say matter exists given everything is mind except as a mental construct. could you elaborate?

It doesn't really matter whether or not matter exists, everything you experience (which is everything- insofar as you could ever know it) is mind regardless. You clearly understand this well enough, -given- your response. The elephant that you perceive is not actually the elephant, it's your minds representation of it. Convenient.....since there's only so much room in our skulls.....and not alot of extra space for elephants.

but 'sims' as you say I call them, don't exist apart from our conscious perception of them in the idealistic model.

Then there's a problem with your model.  I can show you a sim, I can point to mario on a circuit board -all- day long.  Whether you see or percieve it or not, essentially, whether you have the nintendo plugged in or not, so long as the circuit has power..... the sim is running and exists.  It isn't dependent upon your perception of it as a sim..it's dependent upon quality manufacturing and shrewd programming.

it's an acknowledged philosophical problem called the interaction problem. for a substance to be fundamental, it needs to have its own distinct properties and it can't be broken down into smaller parts. substance dualism is the belief mind and matter are two fundamental substances. in order for two substances to interact, they need to share a property. an intangible substance, for example, can't tangibly interact with matter. it needs to share a tangible property to tangibly interact. so if you have two fundamental substances, they couldn't possibly interact. if they share a property, then it must be more fundamental which means one of them is not truly fundamental. if they don't share a property, then they can't interact which means the world we experiences can't come from both substances.
I didn't go in detail on this because typically atheists don't agree with substance dualism anyways. I stress that point when talking to theists, and I stress the refutation of materialism when talking to atheists.

That's a long winded way to avoid acknowledging that you cannot actually disprove substance dualism...........eh?  I don't, personally, have much patience for it myself, but at least I don't claim it's been disproven as part of my argument for some other thing based upon the first line acceptance of a possibility for sake of argument.......

-To be very friendly to your position, I can easily see why a creature that lives in ideas might think that those constructs are some fundamental unit of the cosmos. In a very palpable way, they are, to us..anyway.

(a solipsist, btw, might lose the right to use reason, ever consider that? If all that exists is mind, all of these "exterior" this and that's we've used to cobble together our "laws of logic" over the past thousands of years don't mean much...eh? As I lay dreaming, I can fly like a bird..so, clearly, if it's all mind - then the rules aren't really rules at all. We shouldn't expect much from them, certainly not "truth". So, I suppose one would be self defeating, and the other would be entirely a-rational. Awesome..these are the foundations of your argument for monistic idealism..........? )

[Rational AKD]

LOL, you very much did.  I didn't feel the need to quote, as I was paraphrasing your entire OP.  Perhaps you don't see it that way..that's okay..on this point, there will be no debate or agreement between us.  

I don't see it as a good representation of the OP... so no, I didn't make the connection.

and as an argument for monistic idealism, it fails, while invoking that which it has no need of invoking to begin with.  Perhaps you should try a different route?

I don't see how this incredibly vague criticism is supposed to help me... perhaps you should be specific and maybe add a direction of correction or at least a focus to the criticism?

It doesn't really matter whether or not matter exists, everything you experience (which is everything- insofar as you could ever know it) is mind regardless.

and what's your point?

Who told you that?  I can show you a sim, I can point to mario on a circuit board -all- day long.  Whether you see or percieve it or not, essentially, whether you have the nintendo plugged in or not, so long as the circuit has power..... the sim is running and exists.  The sim -is- those little parts, and is -not- dependent on your individual (or our collective) perception of it. If your model can't incorporate that fact, your model has a problem.

the circuit board is not the sim... it's what runs the sim. the sim is what you perceive on the TV screen, and the parts of the sim that are loaded are the parts that are in your load area. some games have individual maps loaded at one time. others, like skyrim and fallout for example, have one huge map and load things based on proximity and screen reference. sometimes when the loading is slow, you can see details of the map being loaded on your screen. obviously there's not enough 'lag' to see that in the real world.

That's a long winded way to avoid acknowledging that you cannot actually disprove substance dualism...........eh?  I don't, personally, have much patience for it myself, but at least I don't claim it's been disproven as part of my argument for some other thing based upon the first line acceptance of a possibility for sake of argument.......

just because you aren't willing to consider the argument doesn't mean it's an avoidance tactic... as I said, it has been acknowledge by philosophers substance dualism has this problem. if you're going to criticize, at least try to substantiate your criticisms. it saves time by avoiding me the trouble of asking why if you provide that answer first.

[The Grand Nudger]

I don't see how this incredibly vague criticism is supposed to help me... perhaps you should be specific and maybe add a direction of correction or at least a focus to the criticism?

Already been offered, in my first response.  No sense going over it again, and of course other members have done it to death.  Just for starters, make your argument follow, or stop using the word "therefor" - as has already been mentioned by myself and others.  I'm sure there's more, that you've thought more through..it just didn't make it to the page.  Perhaps seeing that would fill in those gaps.  IDK.

and what's your point?

-If- what you are interested in is establishing the truth of the statement -all is mind-, or a that this life is a sim, physical reductivism gives you a better point from which to argue that (though it's equally true from a multitude of other POVs).  A point from which you can provide demonstrations and evidence, rather than asking someone to accept something as a given for sake of argument.  That's all.  

the circuit board is not the sim... it's what runs the sim. the sim is what you perceive on the TV screen, and the parts of the sim that are loaded are the parts that are the parts in your load area. some games have individual maps loaded at one time. others, like skyrim and fallout for example, have one huge map and load things based on proximity and screen reference. sometimes when the loading is slow, you can see details of the map being loaded on your screen. obviously there's not enough 'lag' to see that in the real world.

Sorry, the board -is- the sim, I'm not arguing it..just informing you.  If you absolutely -insist- on creating divisions for sake of argument or convenience when there are none in reality do it with someone else.   Let wonder lead you to knowledge.

I'm running KSP and Orbiter on my PC right now..and you can't perceive it.  I have em tabbed out,  so -I- can't perceive them either....and yet they run, they exist.  I could check my logs later to see whether or not they're running when I'm not looking..but that would be pointless......because I already know that they are. All they do, everything they're built for, the only purpose they serve, is to simulate orbital mechanics regardless of whether or not I'm looking so that, when I do deign to look, I can enjoy some fiery explosions on exotic moons. Yet here you are, arguing that they are not sims.....ostensibly, because no one can perceive them, think about how silly that is, really mull it over - It's trees falling in the woods lvl silliness. If people had to sit there and "perceive" every sim we ran we'd be in a damned sorry state...some of them take months (even years) to run - and most of them don;t even have an interactive component that we can watch or perceive..there's no need. I've been tabbed out for nearly 10 hours on my way to Duna in KSP....don;t even get me started on my Voyager in Orbiter. I'd gouge out my eyes if my perception were required for a sim to do it's business, you would too. That neither of us (and no one) is busily percieving either of the two sims I;m running has absolutely -no- bearing on whether or not they are running, whether or not they exist, or whether or not they are sims. They are running, they do exist, and they are sims - regardless of anyone perceiving them. End of.

Personally, I'd call what we perceive a sim just as readily, but it's a sim of a sim , in this instance, being run by a different "board", and in fact -being- a different board.  Ironically, that doesn't actually prove or even advance that it's -all- a sim (in the way you would take that to mean)....but I'm more careful with how far I extend my conclusions than you are, apparently.  Proving, for example, that everything we humans experience is a sim running on a biological computer would -not- prove that -everything, everywhere- is a sim, anymore than proving that KSP or Orbiter is a sim would prove that the Apollo missions were really just sims.

just because you aren't willing to consider the argument doesn't mean it's an avoidance tactic... as I said, it has been acknowledge by philosophers substance dualism has this problem. if you're going to criticize, at least try to substantiate your criticisms. it saves time by avoiding me the trouble of asking why if you provide that answer first.

dualism has -many- problems.....but has, nevertheless, not been disproven (and certainly not by you in this thread) which is a claim you made as a part of your OP "argument". Eliminating this possibility by simply -saying- it had been disproven.  You didn't even try. It makes little sense for a person arguing for idealism to complain about a lack of substance..btw.

Let's try a simpler tactic..shall we? Bullshitters love long form claim arguments. You;re not a bullshitter, though...so, try to rephrase OP in a short form argument, valid means of deduction...so you can legitimately say you've proven something, and so it's out there for anyone to see, plain as day. Try that, if you want some in depth, quality criticism (presuming for the lulz you haven't already received pages of it), then put in the work yourself. Anyone can make a bullet list of claims and drop the word "therefore" from time to time, and it takes a long time to sift through all the nestled claims in a long form - usually for little to no return. I'm game, I -mostly- agree with you, it could be fun. If I see a premise involving solipsism (for example)...I'd better see a conclusion regarding solipsism.....not something else, otherwise...right off the bat...I know you've fucked it up, and it shouldn't take me telling you why for you to understand why that is. I would truly love to see more proof..as claimed in the OP title, as teased at in the OP..and less posturing, less bitching about the substance of the posts of others when...so far as I can tell.......you've delivered -nothing- you laid claim to.

[Captain Scarlet]

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.

So if mind (your mind or a gods mind etc) has been and will be here for eternity (because it is immaterial whatever that means). How has it transcended an infinite series of mental events to be present today or an eternity into the future? It is impossible.