Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Given that I gave my reasons and demonstrations of invalid logic after my statement that your argument was invalid you would appear to be creating a claim of sweeping and unreasonable denial where none occured.

no... you didn't. you gave reasons why the conclusion should be dismissed on principle of it being a metaphysical claim... not reasons why the premises are false or the logic is invalid... you would have to present a faulty logic step to show it's invalid. you didn't do this.

I don't know why you have chosen to do that as I was rather polite and reasonable in how I addressed you but you have and I think thats rather disingenuous, very rude and slightly insulting.

I didn't think I was being rude or insulting. I was merely expressing my impression of what you said... I didn't express any contempt toward you personally. also some of what you've said I've addressed before on this thread, but then again some of it is new. though I apologize if I came off as rude or insulting.

Such distinguished company as yourself obviously could of gotten away with a nibble. I am truly humbled to be conversing with you. Moving on.

I don't think i'm that big a deal to be known as 'distinguished company' though i'm honored that you think so.

you're operating under the definition of metaphysical hats exactly what it means. Part of the very definition of metaphysical means its beyond our senses and beyond our comprehension.

I don't think that's what the real definition of 'metaphysical' is... it simply means what's 'beyond physics' and it refers to the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. I don't see anything in the definition that says it's beyond comprehension... if it was, then there wouldn't be a whole field of study dedicated to it.

Things that are demonstrably, physically true can not be argued away.

of course... but you must pay mind to what is being demonstrated. you can look at nature and say 'these physical systems act this way' but it would be a huge leap to then say 'everything is fundamentally physical and nothing is apart from the physical.' the former is a physical claim, the later is a metaphysical claim. you can talk about physical interactions all you want in the field of science; but when you start saying that's all there is, you've just stepped into the field of metaphysics.

I would like to point out that you have yet to establish there is a metaphysical nature to conscious experience and that I myself never made any metaphysical claims on the nature of the mind. I merely stated that you cannot throw concepts you can comprehend, mind included, under that umbrella.

in light of the correction in your definition, it wouldn't be throwing understood concepts under the umbrella of what can't be understood. also, i'm not the one who came up with these concepts. they've been around since the birth of epistemology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

I can prove the mind is the result of physical interactions through physical evidence.

no... you can prove brain has a correlation to mind through the physical interactions. to then say these physical interactions produce mind would be going into metaphysics again... that's a question of materialism vs dualism vs idealism.

Can you give me something of equal strength for your metaphysical claims or is it based entirely on an assumption?

your conclusion is based on an assumption. the correlation doesn't prove causation. you're assuming the physical components are the only components.

I made no claims on the existence of the metaphysical.

you're dodging... as I said, denying the metaphysical is still a metaphysical claim. you cannot reasonably deny what you have no knowledge of. it doesn't matter that you didn't claim its existence... denying its existence is still making a claim about 'it' isn't it?

If you do decide to put in more blatant rudeness with your points I would ask you to take into account three things. 

1. It makes you look like you're putting in filler instead of points. 
2. I've been polite up until now. 
3. I have a vast and varied experience of intense sarcasm and am far, far better at it than you will ever be.

again, I didn't mean to convey rudeness in my comment so I apologize if I came off that way. yes, I use sarcasm in some of my posts... but it's not meant to convey contempt. it's mostly a humorous way to deal with rehashed points. some of it is to show I don't take the said objection seriously. I may be a little calloused, but I don't mean to be insulting.

and one piece of advice for you... learn how the quoting system works. I've seen mods and admins give people warnings for not using the quoting format correctly. not being insulting, just giving advice.

[emjay]

Thanks, I'll make note of the author and look it up. Usually the only way I can be convinced, or convince myself of an argument is from the ground up.

I don't think he's an author. but he's on youtube under that name.

If I was ever to become a Christian again it would not be because of anything said in the Bible. I'm afraid to say that door is forever closed to me... and locked. I just thought it would be very ironic if I became a theist again because of quantum physics

well, irony always has its way of working into our lives. no one can say for sure what the future holds. I'm pretty knowledgeable in apologetics if you ever have questions you can PM me.

Well basically I only have a basic grasp of logic so I can't pick apart a logical argument, premise by premise, like others can on this site - so I'll just wait to see who wins in this thread But it is interesting and I can't 'unsee' it so rest assured I will be thinking about it, and even more if it stands up to all scrutiny.

well, it's something to look at if you choose to do so or not. and I don't think anyone really wins on these threads... people just get mad, or just disagree and give up. once in a blue moon people who are strongly biased against each other find an agreement where one was swayed to the other side... but that's very rare.

Thanks, I'll look him up. And thanks for the PM offer, I'll bear it in mind, but it's unlikely because it's not really the apologetics I'm interested in but rather just these type of theories. Okay, well I will look into it regardless of how the thread goes, and I'll probably be reading your other threads as well. Anyway it was very nice to meet you and see you round on the site 

[Reforged]

no... you didn't. you gave reasons why the conclusion should be dismissed on principle of it being a metaphysical claim... not reasons why the premises are false or the logic is invalid... you would have to present a faulty logic step to show it's invalid. you didn't do this.

At no point did I say it should be dismissed on principle. It should be dismissed by definition. Either you used the wrong word or made a mistake in your argument. Both would be things that require addressing.

I didn't think I was being rude or insulting. I was merely expressing my impression of what you said... I didn't express any contempt toward you personally. also some of what you've said I've addressed before on this thread, but then again some of it is new. though I apologize if I came off as rude or insulting.

Accepted.

I don't think that's what the real definition of 'metaphysical' is... it simply means what's 'beyond physics' and it refers to the fundamental nature of being and the world that encompasses it. I don't see anything in the definition that says it's beyond comprehension... if it was, then there wouldn't be a whole field of study dedicated to it.

You cannot comprehend something that has no physical properties or effects. Even something that is very small or practically invisible can be comprehended because it has a basis in reality. Something which is beyond reality cannot be comprehended. The mind has demonstrable physical counterparts with demonstrable physical effects. You can comprehend it because of these. The flat earth theory also has alot of study devoted to it, that alone does not validate it.

of course... but you must pay mind to what is being demonstrated. you can look at nature and say 'these physical systems act this way' but it would be a huge leap to then say 'everything is fundamentally physical and nothing is apart from the physical.' the former is a physical claim, the later is a metaphysical claim. you can talk about physical interactions all you want in the field of science; but when you start saying that's all there is, you've just stepped into the field of metaphysics.

I never made that claim. It does not need to be addressed. I only ever challenged your claim that there is a metaphysical aspect to the mind.

in light of the correction in your definition, it wouldn't be throwing understood concepts under the umbrella of what can't be understood. also, i'm not the one who came up with these concepts. they've been around since the birth of epistemology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

I stand by my point. If you can comprehend it its because you can associate something physical with it. Even emotions have physical causes and effects that you can associate it with. You are a physical being living in a physical world. You have no reference point for something metaphysical and you cannot give me an example of something demonstrably metaphysical.

no... you can prove brain has a correlation to mind through the physical interactions. to then say these physical interactions produce mind would be going into metaphysics again... that's a question of materialism vs dualism vs idealism.

And theres only physical evidence associated with oxygen, fuel and heat to prove a connection between fire and burning but you're not debating me on the metaphysical implications there are you. You would be more than happy to accept that the physical components of most things in everyday life are the only components at work without a second thought but when it comes to the mind its a different story. Suddenly the physical components aren't quite good enough and something extra, something invisible and something which you will never need any proof for is required.

your conclusion is based on an assumption. the correlation doesn't prove causation. you're assuming the physical components are the only components.

If you are that confident then perhaps you should have the courage of your convictions and experiment on yourself. Prove theres more and baffle the scientists. Be the first person to have 3/4 of your brain removed but still be awesome at playing the clarinet.

you're dodging... as I said, denying the metaphysical is still a metaphysical claim. you cannot reasonably deny what you have no knowledge of. it doesn't matter that you didn't claim its existence... denying its existence is still making a claim about 'it' isn't it?

Actually I'm focusing on your claim and not getting bogged down in anything else which is what I should be doing. At no point did I deny the metaphysical. I merely challenge your claim that the mind has a metaphysical aspect to it and am waiting for you to answer that challenge. It is perfectly reasonable to think it possible something beyond what we can see and touch or even comprehend may exist. For now it cannot be proven either way and until it can I have no place making any claims on the possibility either way. I however doubt your claim that the mind has a metaphysical aspect to it and I demand you to tell me why you think it has and what you have to offer me to confirm this hypothesis,

As for the last parts; fair enough and done. Been away for three years. Forgot how.

[bennyboy]

Given the nature of the OP, I don't think this comment really gets to the salient issues.  You have to get a lot deeper to get to the philosophical arguments here.

Why stop there? There are so many subjects we need to go deep into and reach the philosophical truths of. 
I mean, we assume cars travel through locomotion caused by a combustion engine but maybe theres a metaphysical aspect to that too. Something we can't comprehend in the background that helps make it move.
Why these metaphysical questions are only directed towards god and the mind is an utter mystery to me. I'm sure it has nothing to do with ego or a fear of death.

You are still making way too many assumptions in my opinion, about what people are thinking and why.

You are right, though.  All those aspects of the framework we live in, whatever it is, are essentially mysterious at the source.  Just ask why any force exists, and you're hooped already, because the answer is always "just because" or "who knows?"

[The Grand Nudger]

I think that people direct those lines of inquiry towards whatever interests them most.  No one has the time - literally- even if they had the desire (which no one does), to ask the "metaphysical question" with regards to every single thing.  A particularly nerdy automotive mechanic might wonder about the metaphysics of combustion engines and never once consider the metaphysics of mind. Mind is a subject that might interest Benny more than combustion engines. I couldn't say this for certain...but I suspect this to be the case very strongly, lol. Ego, fear of death.....I don't know that these two things are really all that influencial here, even if they did have -some- sway..I'd still suspect that subjects of interest could apply a much greater force if only for the practical concern of time available to daydream.

Why such a force..one might ask..........just because.

[Rational AKD]

At no point did I say it should be dismissed on principle. It should be dismissed by definition. Either you used the wrong word or made a mistake in your argument. Both would be things that require addressing.

well, I addressed the definition problem. I'll take a gander at your response. but even still, you're relying on a conflict in the implications of the conclusion and stating that therefore it must be invalid. though that would imply either the argument is invalid or there is a false premise, without you providing an argument for either you wouldn't be able to infer either. nonetheless, you have made a claim the conclusion is false so I'll see how you addressed my answer.

You cannot comprehend something that has no physical properties or effects.

sure you can. they're called abstract concepts. we think of them all the time. mathematics are such a concept for example.

Something which is beyond reality cannot be comprehended.

'beyond reality' is incoherent... but this is not what is in question. the question is, is there anything beyond the physical. but if there is something beyond the physical, it wouldn't be 'beyond reality...' it would be part of reality.

The mind has demonstrable physical counterparts with demonstrable physical effects.

agreed.

You can comprehend it because of these.

no... people understood how mind worked in terms of how we think long before we knew the function of the brain. epistemology is older than neurology after all... and people had the same theories before neurology as they have after. the only difference is now materialism has gained popularity due to scientific findings. though that doesn't make them necessarily right.

The flat earth theory also has alot of study devoted to it, that alone does not validate it.

please... you're comparing a respected field of philosophy to pseudoscience? loons to scholars? come on now...

I never made that claim. It does not need to be addressed. I only ever challenged your claim that there is a metaphysical aspect to the mind.

you did say yourself "It is not just a "possibility" that mind is something formed by biological components interacting within our brains. It is a tangible, physical fact we can demonstrate and experiment with."
so you say it's not a mere possibility mind is produced by brain... but a fact. that would be a metaphysical claim.

I stand by my point. If you can comprehend it its because you can associate something physical with it.

and I stand by mine, that we understand abstract concepts which are not tied to something physical by definition.

Even emotions have physical causes and effects that you can associate it with.

but you don't have to associate the physical causes and effects when you conceptualize the emotions now do you? you can think of sadness without picturing the chemical associated with it, or the neurological pattern. just because there is a physical cause we can associate, doesn't mean it's necessarily associated to the conception.

You are a physical being living in a physical world. You have no reference point for something metaphysical and you cannot give me an example of something demonstrably metaphysical.

I thought you said you weren't going to make metaphysical claims because 'it does not need to be addressed'? change your mind already? can't resist claiming materialism is true, and we're merely physical beings?

And theres only physical evidence associated with oxygen, fuel and heat to prove a connection between fire and burning but you're not debating me on the metaphysical implications there are you.

because all of those are physical claims associated with observed behavior of the physical world. there is no metaphysical claim associated with any of those. when it comes to the nature of mind, however, there are metaphysical claims associated.

Suddenly the physical components aren't quite good enough and something extra, something invisible and something which you will never need any proof for is required.

suddenly? why suddenly? idealism isn't a new concept.
and no... the argument was provided 'as' proof. you may skew the meaning of evidence, but you will not skew the meaning of proof. proof is not necessarily tied to physical systems, but refers primarily to logic.

If you are that confident then perhaps you should have the courage of your convictions and experiment on yourself. Prove theres more and baffle the scientists. Be the first person to have 3/4 of your brain removed but still be awesome at playing the clarinet.

that's not what I said... the correlation is there. that doesn't prove causation. I know brain damage affects mental integrity... but affects is not the same as produces.

At no point did I deny the metaphysical.

you denied it when you said mind "is the result of biological components interacting." the nature of mind-brain interaction is a metaphysical claim. mind derived from brain is materialism. mind and brain being of 2 different substances is dualism. brain being derived from mind is idealism.

It is perfectly reasonable to think it possible something beyond what we can see and touch or even comprehend may exist. For now it cannot be proven either way and until it can I have no place making any claims on the possibility either way.

that's what the argument is for... the one I started this thread for...

I however doubt your claim that the mind has a metaphysical aspect to it and I demand you to tell me why you think it has and what you have to offer me to confirm this hypothesis

well lets see... it's certainly possible, meaning the concept does not contradict with how we experience. that being said, that means there is a possible world where mind exists (solipsist/idealist world) but matter does not (by definition). there's no difference between mind in a possible world and mind in the actual world (by Leibniz Law), thus mind is not reducible to matter. given substance dualism has been falsified by the interaction problem... that means monistic idealism entails. that's why...

Been away for three years. Forgot how.

seems you've figured it out just fine. and I know they've also changed the format a little bit. still works about the same though.

[Reforged]

At no point did I say it should be dismissed on principle. It should be dismissed by definition. Either you used the wrong word or made a mistake in your argument. Both would be things that require addressing.

well, I addressed the definition problem. I'll take a gander at your response. but even still, you're relying on a conflict in the implications of the conclusion and stating that therefore it must be invalid. though that would imply either the argument is invalid or there is a false premise, without you providing an argument for either you wouldn't be able to infer either. nonetheless, you have made a claim the conclusion is false so I'll see how you addressed my answer.

You cannot comprehend something that has no physical properties or effects.

sure you can. they're called abstract concepts. we think of them all the time. mathematics are such a concept for example.

Something which is beyond reality cannot be comprehended.

'beyond reality' is incoherent... but this is not what is in question. the question is, is there anything beyond the physical. but if there is something beyond the physical, it wouldn't be 'beyond reality...' it would be part of reality.

The mind has demonstrable physical counterparts with demonstrable physical effects.

agreed.

You can comprehend it because of these.

no... people understood how mind worked in terms of how we think long before we knew the function of the brain. epistemology is older than neurology after all... and people had the same theories before neurology as they have after. the only difference is now materialism has gained popularity due to scientific findings. though that doesn't make them necessarily right.

The flat earth theory also has alot of study devoted to it, that alone does not validate it.

please... you're comparing a respected field of philosophy to pseudoscience? loons to scholars? come on now...

I never made that claim. It does not need to be addressed. I only ever challenged your claim that there is a metaphysical aspect to the mind.

you did say yourself "It is not just a "possibility" that mind is something formed by biological components interacting within our brains. It is a tangible, physical fact we can demonstrate and experiment with."
so you say it's not a mere possibility mind is produced by brain... but a fact. that would be a metaphysical claim.

I stand by my point. If you can comprehend it its because you can associate something physical with it.

and I stand by mine, that we understand abstract concepts which are not tied to something physical by definition.

Even emotions have physical causes and effects that you can associate it with.

but you don't have to associate the physical causes and effects when you conceptualize the emotions now do you? you can think of sadness without picturing the chemical associated with it, or the neurological pattern. just because there is a physical cause we can associate, doesn't mean it's necessarily associated to the conception.

You are a physical being living in a physical world. You have no reference point for something metaphysical and you cannot give me an example of something demonstrably metaphysical.

I thought you said you weren't going to make metaphysical claims because 'it does not need to be addressed'? change your mind already? can't resist claiming materialism is true, and we're merely physical beings?

And theres only physical evidence associated with oxygen, fuel and heat to prove a connection between fire and burning but you're not debating me on the metaphysical implications there are you.

because all of those are physical claims associated with observed behavior of the physical world. there is no metaphysical claim associated with any of those. when it comes to the nature of mind, however, there are metaphysical claims associated.

Suddenly the physical components aren't quite good enough and something extra, something invisible and something which you will never need any proof for is required.

suddenly? why suddenly? idealism isn't a new concept.
and no... the argument was provided 'as' proof. you may skew the meaning of evidence, but you will not skew the meaning of proof. proof is not necessarily tied to physical systems, but refers primarily to logic.

If you are that confident then perhaps you should have the courage of your convictions and experiment on yourself. Prove theres more and baffle the scientists. Be the first person to have 3/4 of your brain removed but still be awesome at playing the clarinet.

that's not what I said... the correlation is there. that doesn't prove causation. I know brain damage affects mental integrity... but affects is not the same as produces.

At no point did I deny the metaphysical.

you denied it when you said mind "is the result of biological components interacting." the nature of mind-brain interaction is a metaphysical claim. mind derived from brain is materialism. mind and brain being of 2 different substances is dualism. brain being derived from mind is idealism.

It is perfectly reasonable to think it possible something beyond what we can see and touch or even comprehend may exist. For now it cannot be proven either way and until it can I have no place making any claims on the possibility either way.

that's what the argument is for... the one I started this thread for...

I however doubt your claim that the mind has a metaphysical aspect to it and I demand you to tell me why you think it has and what you have to offer me to confirm this hypothesis

well lets see... it's certainly possible, meaning the concept does not contradict with how we experience. that being said, that means there is a possible world where mind exists (solipsist/idealist world) but matter does not (by definition). there's no difference between mind in a possible world and mind in the actual world (by Leibniz Law), thus mind is not reducible to matter. given substance dualism has been falsified by the interaction problem... that means monistic idealism entails. that's why...

Been away for three years. Forgot how.

seems you've figured it out just fine. and I know they've also changed the format a little bit. still works about the same though.

- Abstract concepts will always have physical counterparts and physical effects. Mathematics especially requires a baring in a physical world to make any sense because it is the language of matter. When used correctly you can calculate matter exactly and even predict its behavior. It was conceived by physical beings, it is used by physical beings and it effects physical beings. It is a mental tool, one which we could measure the moment someone summons it within their brain. Even thoughts are measurable, physical phenomena and to deny it as simply correlation is like denying my bones hold me up or my saliva digests food. If you challenge that you have to challenge those too.

- "Beyond reality" is in the definition of metaphysical wherever you look. You just made a metaphysical claim, one that discounts part of its very meaning as "incoherent".

- Epistemology figured out the very basics which philosophy is good at doing. It also made a tremendous amount of mistakes before it even touched upon the basics which philosophy is also good at doing and even when it did there was no indication to outright demonstrate which was right and which was wrong. You are engaging in confirmation bias. You are ignoring all of the misses.
The thing which is different now is that we have syatems which work infinitely better. When you clicked the mouse did it explode and maim you? Did the fibre optics randomly transform in a snake? Did anything other than what you predicted would happen occur? No? *Science* accepts your thanks.
Whatever your metaphysical leanings they may have entertained you for hours but they have not served you practically in any way or proven anything true or false "Materialism" has and you have no problem with it usually, do you.

- The comparison is apt. They both have as much proof or use in the real world. And excuse me? Loons? How do you know they're not correct in some metaphysical way we can't demonstrate? The blade cuts both ways, you can't use the reasoning for your views and deny it to anyone elses.

- No. It wouldn't. The firing between synapses at the same time as thoughts and actions occurring is sufficient physical evidence. Evidence we have acted upon and successfully treated patients with. Thats a demonstration  of physical causes and physical effects.
This is what the entire debate is about. You claim the mind is partially metaphysical. You have yet to demonstrate this. Would you please do so.

- Alot of people don't visualize their leg muscles when they walk. Should I assume theres something metaphysical at work there too?

- I am not making a claim on the metaphysical. I am making a claim on you and your limited capacity as a physical being. If I am wrong about you then tell me about all the metaphysical things you've experienced that have no physical counterparts.

- Your point is circular. There is no metaphysical claims on it therefore I will make no metaphysical claims on it. The mind has demonstrably physical counterparts that correlate with each other just like the flame example does. The difference is that you've decided you don't like one of these being solely physical and have decided to challenge the premise. However this challenge could be raised for anything and everything. Why solely the mind?

- By definition proof is tied to both physical components and logic. If you don't like that then lend me some metaphysical proofs we can work with. 
And yes "suddenly". I would wager you did not spend an hour wondering if the enter key will do exactly the same thing it did last time or launch a death trap before you sent this. You didn't because you have physical evidence to suggest that wouldn't happen and it was good enough for you. At no point did you ponder whther the metaphysical had changed its function.

- Effects is not the same as produces? Would the brain damage be there five minutes before you cut out 3/4 of your brain? No? Would it occur five minutes after? No? Then in what sense is it "effecting" it? It would have to already be present to "effect" it.

- That is not denying it. That is stating what has been proven by physical evidence. If you have counter-proof or even a vague reason to suspect where this might not be the case please offer it. You have yet to prove the mind-brain connection has a metaphysical aspect. I have merely offered my knowledge of the physical side of it and waited patiently for you to offer your knowledge of the metaphysical side.

- No, what you started this argument for was to make claims on what is or isn't metaphysical. In this case the mind. These claims need to be defended as they so far have no strength to them.

- Unless you mean "possible world" with the implication we occupy a multiverse then this is not even remotely proving anything even if I were willing to take solely your words as evidence. "Possible world" is not an "actual world" and unless you are referring to two actual places with two alternate yous then that law has no place here. That term was never made to outright prove something exists but to ponder the consequences if something did exist as with most philosophy. 
Is it less than ideal that we have solely physical evidence to go on? Alright, yes, fine? I mean Neither you or I have any concept of what something entirely non-physical would resemble but I'll go with that. Does that mean you can then proceed to ponder things and then assume they're true on the basis you can think of them? No. Absolutely not.

- I got irritated by the quoting system and given the sheer volume this is easier.

[Captain Scarlet]

[quote]Rational AKD
I don't know about bennyboy here, but when I talk about idealistic implications of QM, I don't refer to it's 'spookiness' or our lack of knowledge on the subject. I refer to actual evidence from what we know about QM.[quote]


Which you over-interpret.  As I understand it your claim is:

1. Certain inequalities (you mention Leggatt-Garg but you might as well add Bell inequalities in as well) reject the implications of realism but are compatible with idealism
   
2. Kochen-specker theorem has the same implications as 1.
   
3. Macroscopic world exists as a wavefunction which is collapsed by the observation of conscious observers
   
4. We are in a simulation, underneath it minds exist, matter does not
   
5. We could stop here, but you would also presumably argue that this has implications for theism.
   

I hope not to have strawmanned your position.  I would submit 1. - 3. are just false. 4. is identical to denying your own existence. 5. simply does not follow and would counter the arguments in 1. to 3. above.

To deny 1. and 2. I only have to point to other interpretations of QM.  One interpretation is perfectly consistent with experiment results, the maths and QM.  It is fully deterministic and realistic, namely Bohmian Mechanics.  I am not saying that Bohmian mechanics is true, just that it is a valid non-local, hidden variables interpretation (which could be true) and that it denies your assertions in 1. and 2. (in that they do not apply to Bohmian Mechanics because it is a contextual, non-local interpretation).

The general point here is that the physics of the very small and the very big are in a wonderful snarl at the moment.  Those of us who do not understand the maths well enough are just going to have to let it play out and remain agnostic on the nature of reality and origins of the cosmos.  There are other interpretations such as Many Worlds, Information, Qbism etc which have different implications.  Both string theory and Quantum Field Theory deny that there are point particles at all (meaning that mechanics do not apply in the sense we understand them and that viewing only through the lens of QM can only lead to an approximation).  There is no retreat to Idealism in these interpretations or models.

On point 3. QM applies to the very small.  I agree and stated that the macroscopic world emerges from the quantum world.  But to move from the quantum world is inherently uncertain to therefore the macroscopic world (a bridge) is inherently uncertain is a huge leap.  It ignores that quantum effects smooth out as they scale, that we only sense 4-dimensions (and in reality there may be more at quantum scales making it appear uncertain from our perspective), that if emergentism is true scaling in or out will mean that different properties also emerge.

I think there is also a general tendency in your perspective to make the mistake of assuming ‘the observer’ is a conscious agent.  The observer effect referred to in QM experiments is non-conscious electrical equipment and a quantum mechanical system in itself.  What we are measuring is the effect on the time-evolution of one QM system (normally an EM field) when disturbed by another QM system (a different EM field).  Whether that collapses a wave function or not depends on the interpretation of QM.

I am an agnostic on materialism (for reasons stated above).  I think there is a tendency to assume that materialists only see the world as’ little ball bearings’.  Until I can get my head around a better definition of matter, I do not want to restrict myself to materialism.  This does not mean I have to abandon realism nor naturalism.  

On point 4. If you assert that matter does not exist and mind does then you have all your work ahead of you.  You now owe us a coherent sketch of your existence.  All you know is that you are a mind conscious of your own consciousness.  This is inherently absurd as consciousness is, consciousness of something.  It starts by being aware of things outside of itself to recognise that it is conscious in the first place.  You now have to explain how minds exist without a physical substrate?, what is existence without physicality?  What is the immaterial? Do minds exist in time and within the confines of the natural world? If you cannot offer this then what is the difference between your position and the claim that you do not exist?

Apart from these philosophical questions there are additional practical problems.  When did consciousness arise in evolutionary history?  If consciousness arose in evolutionary history then Idealism must be false as there was a real world in which consciousness arose.  If consciousness has always existed, then evolution must be false as consciousness has just created the illusion of a movement from simpler seemingly non-conscious flora to conscious creatures like ourselves.

I would argue that consciousness is an emergent property of higher functioning structures in the brain, which are dependant on micro brain structure, compounds, molecules, atoms….all the way back to the QM systems.  I would also argue that QM can be understood from a realist perspective and that I am perfectly justified in claiming that I really do exist, in a natural physical realm.

On point 5. You are arguing that the mind behind existence has no reasons for wanting to fool you or deceive you.  But under Idealism this is the same mind that has set us up to live in a ‘fantasy world’ rather than in our ‘true state’.  Also that this ‘fantasy’ is so persistent and convincing that we can hold to a realist position.  That seems at least mildly capricious to me.

The other problem is that this mind is a god with the traditionally ascribed properties then it seems to deny point 1. - 3. above.  If this god is conscious, omniscient and omnipresent and if consciousness collapse the wave function. No quantum effects can be observed because all wave functions would be collapsed. But because we can see quantum effects then a god with those properties cannot exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think there is a tendency to assume that materialists only see the world as’ little ball bearings’.

-Which would, in all likelihood, be more akin to atomism, than materialism.  

[bennyboy]

I think there is a tendency to assume that materialists only see the world as’ little ball bearings’.

-Which would, in all likelihood, be more akin to atomism, than materialism.  

You can call it whatever you want, but it must be defined.  If you are going to define ethereal, formless, energetic entities as "matter," then what are we going to call fairies?