Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Must they?  It's not my business to establish how they interact to you

tangible interaction was given in the example... thus that is the interaction established in the example.

Tangible interaction of substances certainly implies that -some- of those involved substances be tangible (at least insomuch as you appear to be using the term as a stand in for what is detectable), but you've yet to demonstrate that it requires both (or all- maybe there are 30..who would know?)

it's demonstrated by the definitional terms... tell me, can an intangible object tangibly do anything? look carefully now...

The only thing that's true -by definition- in your claim, is that a tangible -interaction- must be tangible, the interaction

right. so how can an intangible object have a tangible interaction? how can an intangible object perform any tangible function at all?

interaction- must be tangible, the interaction.....not all involved parties to it.

I guess you don't know the definition of interaction- "mutual or reciprocal action or influence." how can you have something mutual without both parties involved? how can you have a substance that influences without the other substance being influenced? to have interaction, both substances must be involved with the interaction. that's like saying you can have communication without a listener, or without a common language between two people.

[Captain Scarlet]

a virtual reality world would likewise have simulative objects that function like real objects, but are not real objects. 'is the matrix real or not?' Quote Morpheus
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-MkPd0

...Objectively is an and adverb... it is describing the verb of the sentence 'is.' this by virtue adds to the description of the noun 'it' which is being described also by the adjective 'real.' fail.

it really doesn't matter whether you consider it real or not. the point is it functions like a real world, thus you would interact in it with the same functional purposes as a real world.

Are you really asking me if the matrix was real?

You may have used it is an adverb to is. But what is the difference between reality is functionally real (adv) or there is a functional reality (adj), my intended use. Either way you fail to address the issue...then write the word "fail" claiming a victory for yourself. Which is indicative of the strength of your argument because you have nothing but an evasive word salad to offer back. Address the argument! Reality is real and objectively so and any counter claim is self refuting.

Dress it up how you want. No amount of dancing around the word "functional" helps. If you believe the world is not real (and by that I mean objectively so) you are claiming that you live in a fantasy world of make believe. Believe that if you want, but don't try and ignore that it is what you believe and it is secretly OK to beleive it by inserting the word "functional".

[Rational AKD]

Except where I went on to state what I meant by "shitty."

you didn't tell me what you meant... but you did tell me that you didn't mean my definition was invalid. "I didn't say the definition was "invalid," really. I think the exact word I used was "shitty."" thus you aren't invalidating its use with your petty insults.

Let's say I lived in a world that appeared to be filled with evidence that the Universe is natural and material and that it exists because of phenomenon that have physical explanations, and in which there is no evidence of anything supernatural or metaphysical, ok? Let's say I live in such a world, and all the evidence points to things in that world existing because of natural phenomenon that have been ongoing for billions of years, and I then assert that all of that is happening because a metaphysical super-mind is dreaming it all up, and that this metaphysical super-mind is the only thing that actually exists at all because the rest of reality is a pile of dream objects that have no true, physical substance. The "metaphysical super-mind" and the dream world it generates would be classified as "unnecessary explanations," right? Right?

except the 'appearance' of a physical world doesn't establish that this world has actual physical substance... that would be an assumption. the way you depicted it, both have the same amount of assumptions. both positions acknowledge a world we experience, and its apparent physical objectivity. the difference is that one assumes real physical substance is behind this experience, while the other assumes a mind is. they both have 1 assumption in their differences. though I could point out more assumptions for the materialist perspective if I reworded it.

More like you're trying to use reason to demonstrate things that have to be addressed with empiricism.

you do realize you just used Occam's razor... a principle of reason, not demonstration.

You cannot use reason to prove things about physical reality unless you're using premises that are based on physically observable facts.

but can you prove that is true of reality? can you use physically observable facts to prove you can't "prove things about physical reality unless you're using premises that are based on physically observable facts"? if not, then why should I accept that's the case?

Reason alone is not evidence, and it especially isn't proof.

well, I would say reason is proof if it is based on premises accepted to be true. you can use reason alone, for example, when you're constructing an inside argument to debunk someone's beliefs. you just work from some of their beliefs, and reason out an implication that shows inconsistency or an implication of a belief they do not like. remember, 'proof' only means you have to establish 'If A then B.' you don't need to prove A to have a proof 'If A then B.'

Even if there's a metaphysical super-mind generating a dream and that's what we live in, the evidence in that dream world indicates that our dream brains generate our dream minds by using our dream senses to interact with our dream world.

interesting answer. that would be material realism (relative to us) in a monistic idealistic world. however I see many problems, most of which I will address in a later statement you made. one i'll present briefly is the fact that mind is fundamental to our experience, so it doesn't seem parsimonious to suggest matter is generating our minds which are the most obviously real part of our experience. matter can be doubted, but mind can't. so why suggest it's a process of substances apart from our experience which we observe in the form of mental constructs which are at best interpretations of the substance?

"Correlation does not indicate Causation" does not bend that far, my friend. Reactivity does indicate causation, and with nervous response you don't just have correlation, but also reactivity. We can observe the stimuli contacting the senses. We can watch the neurons fire from the nerves into the brain. We can watch the neurons bounce around inside the brain. We can watch them travel back out to the body to activate a response, and we can see the body's other systems act according to those impulses. That is a direct chain of causation.

first, you claim the mind-brain relationship is the mind reacting to brain activity... but then give examples of the body reacting to brain activity. second, the body doesn't just react to stimuli induced in the brain. the brain also reacts to stimuli induced in the body. so if reactivity indicates causation, which is causes which?
obviously a stimulation can cause a reaction without dictating the initial cause of both bodies. reactivity only indicates causation of a particular event, such as a stimuli of the brain inducing a bodily reaction or the stimuli of the body inducing a brain reaction. but it doesn't establish primacy of one over the other or both would be prime over each other... which is absurd.

Ok, you're going to have to define what you mean when you use the word "why."

I say "you should know why" and follow it up with "because..." and you don't know what I mean by why?

We can answer so many different versions of that question that I don't even know where to start. Observable evidence from the physical Universe suggests that we "experience" because we are alive and we possess bodies that can gain environmental input and respond to it.

not really... all it suggests is we are able to 'experience' because we are conscious and are fed information that we are able to interpret. but you're presuming this information comes from a physical universe.

Even though we have to "experience" that evidence to know anything about it, we can still draw conclusions from the evidence.

right... but those conclusions have to say in the context of what we experience... I mean think about it. if you start with a premise 'we experience' that premise concerns the contents of our experience. so using only that premise, can you conclude what's beyond the scope of the premise?

Ok, according to you, how much would we need to know about a subject before we get to the "nature of its existence?"

it's not about the amount of evidence, it's the kind of evidence. if you're only using evidence from experience, you can only draw conclusions concerning the contents of that experience. you can't prove a substantial physical substance exists only using your experience... because that's a claim outside the scope of your experience.

We don't just understand how matter behaves, we also understand what it's made of, what that stuff is made of, what that stuff is made of, and we're getting damn close to observing the fundamental particle that everything is made of.

all of this is still concerning the contents of our experience... you can say 'we observe' all you want, but you can't remove such a claim from the context of observation to arrive at a conclusion not concerning observation. if you take observed evidence and remove the observation aspect, then you're left with nothing.

What question are you trying to answer?

it's not what i'm trying to ask, it's what you're trying to answer. empirical evidence is not evidence for materialism. no ifs, ands, or buts. period. end of story.

Do you want to know what the meaning of life is? It's 42. I thought we knew this already.

haha... you're so funny...

More word salad.

Translation: 'I don't understand what you're saying, so i'm just gonna claim it's meaningless.'

Evidence indicates that objective stimuli and our perceptions of and reactions to those stimuli are "what's behind our conscious experience."

no... at best you can claim the stimuli and our perceptions give us an information feed... not that it's 'what's behind our conscious experience.'

What do you mean by that phrase, exactly? You seem to be working from the presupposition that reality is just a curtain behind which is "what's really going on."

it's what we consciously experience... and yes, there is a figurative 'curtain' that prevents us from knowing 'what's really going on.' you bring forth all this 'evidence' for materialism, yet all none of your evidence indicates idealism is less plausible than materialism. every piece of evidence can be explained with idealism just as easily as with materialism.

[Rational AKD]

Are you really asking me if the matrix was real?

...it's an analogic parody.

You may have used it is an adverb to is.

it has nothing to do with how I used it... it's how it is. words that have an added 'ly' are forms of the word that are most likely an adverb... such is true in this case with the word 'objectively.' if you don't believe me, look up objective in the dictionary and look where it has alternate forms and see what it classifies 'objectively' as. English 101...

But what is the difference between reality is functionally real (adv) or there is a functional reality (adj), my intended use.

I think we were talking about my use of the word... not yours...

way you fail to address the issue...then write the word "fail" claiming a victory for yourself.

I wrote the word 'fail' because you made an epic grammar fail by falsely correcting my grammar, and claiming 'objectively' is an adjective when it in no circumstances is an adjective. an adjective form of the word would be 'objectivity' because you can correctly describe a noun with that word. you seem to know the adjective form of 'function' though.

Which is indicative of the strength of your argument because you have nothing but an evasive word salad to offer back.

what is with you people with your accusations of 'word salad' whenever you don't understand something? I think I answered you quite clearly. your only "argument!" you had in that post besides your epic grammar correction fail, was a claim "To say you do not live in an objectively real world, is to say you live in a fantasy world, whether you created or someone else did."
I addressed this clearly and directly saying "it really doesn't matter whether you consider it real or not. the point is it functions like a real world, thus you would interact in it with the same functional purposes as a real world."
so i'm not being evasive in any sense of the word... my direct response was if it functions like a real world, you interact with it like a real world. thus there's no reason to 'separate your body from your neck' just because the world is not actually real...

[The Grand Nudger]

it's demonstrated by the definitional terms... tell me, can an intangible object tangibly do anything? look carefully now...

Still puttering about with the same bait and switch, eh? As mentioned before, all that is given, and all that is definitionaly true, is that the interaction is tangible..that it's a "tangible interaction".  This would certainly imply that at least one involved substance itself is tangible....or else what would be tangible about any of it?  But it doesn't require that all -substances- be tangible.  You can ask me variations of this question all day long...and I'll keep reminding you that I'm under no obligation to explain the how to you at all.  Do work.  

how can an intangible object have a tangible interaction? how can an intangible object perform any tangible function at all?

Not my baby, as repeatedly stated - the failures of your own imagination do not have the power to prove anything.  Do work?

I guess you don't know the definition of interaction- "mutual or reciprocal action or influence." how can you have something mutual without both parties involved? how can you have a substance that influences without the other substance being influenced? to have interaction, both substances must be involved with the interaction. that's like saying you can have communication without a listener, or without a common language between two people.

Nothing to do with any comment I've made, so we find ourselves pitching straw, don't we?  Do what you claimed could be and had already been done, what you need as a given.....and stop begging others to assume your burden, my patience isn't limitless.  Do...work.......


Wonderful, a much more manageable form of your argument.  Let's have a look.

 if solipsism is possible, then mind is not reducable to matter. given that and substance dualism is false, then mind is fundamental and everything is derived from mind; thus Monistic Idealism entails.

If you want to use the premise of solipsism (as -either- a possibility or actuality), then you might want to stick with it, rather than quietly arguing against your own premise by proceeding to make some comment about the nature of the universe which, of course, according to what you've decided to call a "premise" (in truth, yet another non-seq) either doesn't exist...or can't be proven to exist.   May as well drop it entirely and just begin with "If mind is not reducible to matter"..to avoid reductions to the absurd or incoherence...though I guess you'd just end up with variations on the theme of assuming your conclusion. Like I said, tight little knot....a reasonable person might begin to suspect that this indicates some problem with their propositions and/or structure......

The bar for validity is still waiting to be crossed, and for the same reasons already stated.

I've noticed, btw, that your argument might be a record of your own development into idealism.  You've used Leibniz, an argument generally employed for dualism and then followed it up immediately with a renouncement of dualism.  Were you a dualist before becoming a monistic idealist?

[bennyboy]

I'm not with Rhythm on his view, but pretty insightful breakdown of the thread IMO.

[Rational AKD]

Nothing to do with any comment I've made, so we find ourselves pitching straw, don't we?  Do what you claimed could be and had already been done, what you need as a given.....and stop begging others to assume your burden, my patience isn't limitless.  Do...work.......

nothing to do with any comment you've made? you clearly said, multiple times, that at least one of the substances need to be tangible for tangible interaction to occur. but in order for interaction to occur by definition there needs to be influence. which means, both substances are tangibly affected. one substance must be tangibly influencing, and one must be tangibly influenced. a substance can't tangibly influence without being tangible. nor can a substance be tangibly influenced without having tangible properties to tangibly influence. it is by definition mutual, so both substances must be tangible for tangible interaction to occur.
just because you're too thick to see what i'm saying doesn't mean i'm shifting the burden of proof...

Wonderful, a much more manageable form of your argument.  Let's have a look.

not like I changed the argument... premise 4 in the OP always said "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." you're the one who assumed that was only stating what is true in the possible solipsistic world...

If you want to use the premise of solipsism (as -either- a possibility or actuality), then you might want to stick with it, rather than quietly arguing against your own premise by proceeding to make some comment about the nature of the universe which, of course, according to what you've decided to call a "premise" (in truth, yet another non-seq) either doesn't exist...or can't be proven to exist.   May as well drop it entirely and just begin with "If mind is not reducible to matter"..to avoid reductions to the absurd or incoherence

perhaps you'll like Raatz original form of the argument then. it's as follows:
1. mind exists.
2. there are properties of mind matter cannot have.
3. therefore mind is not reducable to matter.
4. substance dualism is false.
5. therefore all is mind and monistic idealism entails.
I reworded the argument because most people object to premise 2, so I gave substantiation for it by showing a modal difference between mind and matter with the possibility of a solipsist world. I suspect if I hadn't done that, nearly everyone would be saying 2 is an assumption... because the criticism I get now is that i'm assuming solipsism is possible.

The bar for validity is still waiting to be crossed, and for the same reasons already stated.

so I assume you don't have a problem with the 'mind is not reducible to matter' premise now that you have new understanding of it? which would only leave your criticism of the premise 'substance dualism is false.'

I've noticed, btw, that your argument might be a record of your own development into idealism.  You've used Leibniz, an argument generally employed for dualism and then followed it up immediately with a renouncement of dualism.  Were you a dualist before becoming a monistic idealist?

I was a dualist before. but as I dove into philosophy I've changed many of my views. I watched some videos about implications of quantum mechanics and how they debunk materialism and naïve realism. but what convinced me to be an idealist was this argument. perhaps you can better understand it in a video format.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l1lQMCOguw

[Captain Scarlet]

...it's an analogic parody. ..

what is with you people with your accusations of 'word salad' whenever you don't understand something? I think I answered you quite clearly. your only "argument!" you had in that post besides your epic grammar correction fail, was a claim "To say you do not live in an objectively real world, is to say you live in a fantasy world, whether you created or someone else did."
I addressed this clearly and directly saying "it really doesn't matter whether you consider it real or not. the point is it functions like a real world, thus you would interact in it with the same functional purposes as a real world."


so i'm not being evasive in any sense of the word... my direct response was if it functions like a real world, you interact with it like a real world. thus there's no reason to 'separate your body from your neck' just because the world is not actually real

Let me help you out then, the matrix is NOT real.

Right and you failed to respond to it, instead prefering to think you won an argument on a point of English. The fact you ramble on about it instead of explaining your fantasy world is telling.  This is because your position requires you to say reality is not real, or existence does not exist. Both these positions are self refuting so you choose instead to try and use terms like "functional" to make your position sound reasonable instead of absurd. 

Maybe, just maybe if others think you are not being clear and think you are choosing to serve up a word salad the fault isn't only with others. To say "I live in a world that is 'functionally real' but not 'objectively real'.." and to defend it by saying it functions like the matrix or is some video game projected from the mind of god or some similar nonsense is I'm afraid as cohrent, to me, as saying "I am distimming a gobschmeck".  

In other words it is far more likely that you are projecting your own fantasies onto the real world, then turn round and deny the real world because you prefer your fantasies, and blame others for not grasping the deep truth of your idealism. OK believe what you like, don't expect it to be compelling though.

PS it is the convention to capitalise the first letter after a full stop! Can we get on with the points now?

[Rational AKD]

Let me help you out then, the matrix is NOT real.

as I said... analogic parody. it was a rhetorical question to make you think. the video was to help you think.

Right and you failed to respond to it, instead prefering to think you won an argument on a point of English.

excuse me... you're that one that tried point out I was using improper English by describing real with an adjective... and that discussion was in addition to my answer to your argument, not in lieu of...

Both these positions are self refuting so you choose instead to try and use terms like "functional" to make your position sound reasonable instead of absurd.

so what position do I have that's self refuting? the position that I don't rip my head off because the world doesn't have substantial material? provide me a reason why one of those conditions entail the other... prove it's self refuting.

Maybe, just maybe if others think you are not being clear and think you are choosing to serve up a word salad the fault isn't only with others.

so if a lot of people don't understand me, it's more likely my words don't have meaning? or maybe... i'm discussing a topic that is difficult to understand. you know... that could be it...

To say "I live in a world that is 'functionally real' but not 'objectively real'.." and to defend it by saying its functions like the matrix or is some video game projected from the mind of god or some similar nonsense is I'm afraid as coherent

as you said... the matrix is not real. but it still functioned like a real world (excluding the loopholes and bent rules in the programming). mental concepts can serve real functions without being real.
if you still think that's 'incoherent' then you'll have to tell me how function entails objectivity. I certainly do see that necessity.

In other words it is far more likely that you are projecting your own fantasies onto the real world,

why? because you don't understand what i'm saying? personal incredulity fallacy.

then turn round and deny the real world because you prefer your fantasies,

just because I deny the world's objectivity doesn't mean i think it's all my fantasy...

and blame others for not grasping the deep truth of your idealism.

i don't blame you for not grasping it... i blame you for throwing accusations at me in response to your failure to grasp it instead of trying to understand or just deciding not to respond. i don't like it when people go 'i don't get it... you must be saying this...' if you don't get it, ask.. don't accuse.

[bennyboy]

Maybe, just maybe if others think you are not being clear and think you are choosing to serve up a word salad the fault isn't only with others. To say "I live in a world that is 'functionally real' but not 'objectively real'.." and to defend it by saying it functions like the matrix or is some video game projected from the mind of god or some similar nonsense is I'm afraid as cohrent, to me, as saying "I am distimming a gobschmeck".  

I think it's you, Captain, because it makes sense to me. The world we live in is one of sense experiences and observations about them. You can experience seeing and walking on a bridge, and it's therefore functionally real. But the bridge doesn't exist as you experience it, because QM. And idealism goes even further than that. . . the QM particles themselves may not be objectively real, either. In fact, there's pretty solid evidence that they are not, unless you totally abuse the words "objective" and "real."

Am I reading you right, AKD?