Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Captain Scarlet]

But I think this can be delivered back to the door of Idealism with interest:

- the often repeated mantra on this thread is "we can doubt matter, but we cannot doubt mind".  This simply begs the question by assuming that the mind is not matter from the outset. 

No, those competing ideas are not peers, like opposite sides of a coin.  The knowledge of mind supercedes all other knowledge-- I think therefore I am, and all that.  So I know for sure there IS mind-- I just don't know exactly what it is or where it comes from.  No assumptions about substance or source are required at all.

- there is a epistemic and ontological confusion.  To state: "I am certain I have a mind, but not certain of existents outside of my mind" is an epistemic problem not an ontoligical one, ie it does nothing to say I know what my mind is made of because I cannot be certain object x exists.  It is perfectly consistent to say "I am certain I have a mind, but not certain of existents outside of my mind, but my mind is an emergent property of brain structures".  

You had me until that last sentence, which is clearly a non sequitur.  At best you can say, in my experience, it seems that my mind is an emergent property of brain structures, with emphasis on "seems."

I think both of these problems too often confuse the issue, as the next step is to then leap to mind is fundamental and matter is not.

No, those first steps aren't fait accompli, and you don't get to proceed to the next steps.

Using the same faulty reasoning we could argue (and we do not) thus:

1. If god exists then he is fundamental
2. I can doubt the existence of god
3. If I can doubt the existence of god, then he cannot be fundamental
C. God does not exist.

I haven't made this reasoning about mind, nor asserted the things you are asserting.  Are you responding to the OP maybe?

Idealist mantras (and that was my point) do beg the question when the seek to conclude mind as fundamental, by starting with assertions about mind and matter being different. We can say there is something true about mind but not about the rest of reality if we like. But that says nothing about whether mind is matter.  

With skepticism a your starting point, I am interested to know how you get to being unable to doubt the existence of mind (your own mind). Consciousness I can get, because you cannot doubt your existence or awareness. But how do you get from consciousness to structures enabling thought and mind. Surely you can doubt thinking as well. What if a being was running his thought software on your consciousness operating system?, What if a being was merely projecting their thoughts onto your consciousness? In other words why stop at mind?

I said "consistent to say" not "therefore I can conclude". Therefore I do not not think there that statement was a non sequitur.

Granted I know you haven't made such an assertion. Apologies if I made it appear as if you had. Just a general moan against Idealist thought.

[bennyboy]

Idealist mantras (and that was my point) do beg the question when the seek to conclude mind as fundamental, by starting with assertions about mind and matter being different. We can say there is something true about mind but not about the rest of reality if we like. But that says nothing about whether mind is matter.  

To me, saying mind is matter is kind of like saying red is an apple. Ideas are not subject to gravity, AFAIK. But that's not to say that mind is a magical disembodied thing, either.

With skepticism a your starting point, I am interested to know how you get to being unable to doubt the existence of mind (your own mind). Consciousness I can get, because you cannot doubt your existence or awareness.

Well, I think and have experiences, and "mind" is the word for that.

But how do you get from consciousness to structures enabling thought and mind. Surely you can doubt thinking as well. What if a being was running his thought software on your consciousness operating system?, What if a being was merely projecting their thoughts onto your consciousness? In other words why stop at mind?

You aren't questioning the existence of mind, but the nature of agency-- whose mind is it? But that doesn't matter-- mind, whatever it it, supercedes any other knowledge you might have.

To carry your speculation further-- what if we are in the Matrix, or a software simulation, or the Mind of God? What if I'm dreaming, or I'm a brain in a jar? It may be that under ALL these conditions, there will be enough consistency of experience to make one believe in an objective reality that doesn't actually exist except as a collection of ideas.

I said "consistent to say" not "therefore I can conclude". Therefore I do not not think there that statement was a non sequitur.

Okay. Why do you feel it's consistent?

[Captain Scarlet]

Idealist mantras (and that was my point) do beg the question when the seek to conclude mind as fundamental, by starting with assertions about mind and matter being different. We can say there is something true about mind but not about the rest of reality if we like. But that says nothing about whether mind is matter.  

To me, saying mind is matter is kind of like saying red is an apple.  Ideas are not subject to gravity, AFAIK.  But that's not to say that mind is a magical disembodied thing, either.

With skepticism a your starting point, I am interested to know how you get to being unable to doubt the existence of mind (your own mind). Consciousness I can get, because you cannot doubt your existence or awareness.

Well, I think and have experiences, and "mind" is the word for that.

But how do you get from consciousness to structures enabling thought and mind. Surely you can doubt thinking as well. What if a being was running his thought software on your consciousness operating system?, What if a being was merely projecting their thoughts onto your consciousness? In other words why stop at mind?

You aren't questioning the existence of mind, but the nature of agency-- whose mind is it?  But that doesn't matter-- mind, whatever it it, supercedes any other knowledge you might have.

To carry your speculation further-- what if we are in the Matrix, or a software simulation, or the Mind of God?  What if I'm dreaming, or I'm a brain in a jar?  It may be that under ALL these conditions, there will be enough consistency of experience to make one believe in an objective reality that doesn't actually exist except as a collection of ideas.

I said "consistent to say" not "therefore I can conclude". Therefore I do not not think there that statement was a non sequitur.

Okay.  Why do you feel it's consistent?

It maybe that to you it is like saying "red is an apple".  "Ideas are not subject to gravity", is like saying pain is not subject to gravity.  You are severing the link between Ideas (as concepts) and their natural foundation (in brain structures). This is a floating abstraction, you have built a castle in the air.  I am not claiming that mind is definitively matter, I do not have enough knowledge on either the nature of the mind or matter to be definitive. But it does seem most likely to me that mind and mental states are built on brain and brain states.  It is Idealism that asserts that mind is not matter and begs the question as well as confuses epistemic and ontological issues

No I am not questioning agency, but you and your mind.  If you think a retreat to 'mind' is a proper response to the point I raised then you should not have identified "I think, therefore I am".  You are clearly identifying yourself as having a mind, if the word "I" carries any meaning at all in that sentence.  So I return to the question.  Given your skeptical approach I see no reason why you can make the claim that YOUR mind exists.  You have offered no reasoning as to why someone isn't merely projecting their experiences on to your consciousness, or running their experience and thought software on your conscious operating systems.  

Because it is not inconsistent to say it.

[bennyboy]

It maybe that to you it is like saying "red is an apple".  "Ideas are not subject to gravity", is like saying pain is not subject to gravity.  You are severing the link between Ideas (as concepts) and their natural foundation (in brain structures).

This "natural foundation" of which you speak begs the question, because this thread is exactly about whether what you call nature is fundamental. But even if we accept that mind is purely brain function, you are still equivocating a structure with properties that supervene on it.

  I am not claiming that mind is definitively matter, I do not have enough knowledge on either the nature of the mind or matter to be definitive. But it does seem most likely to me that mind and mental states are built on brain and brain states.  It is Idealism that asserts that mind is not matter and begs the question as well as confuses epistemic and ontological issues

I can't speak for Idealism, only for my ideas about the best default position for a world view. Let me say this: some circles are particularly alluring. If I told you that the Bible is the word of God, and that we know it's true because God never lies, you'd point me out right away. However, you are talking about brains and their states, which are known only through the agency of mind, and then using that agency to establish the "truth" of brains and their states. Circles are circles, no matter how intuitively right they feel.

No I am not questioning agency, but you and your mind.  If you think a retreat to 'mind' is a proper response to the point I raised then you should not have identified "I think, therefore I am".  You are clearly identifying yourself as having a mind, if the word "I" carries any meaning at all in that sentence.  So I return to the question.  Given your skeptical approach I see no reason why you can make the claim that YOUR mind exists.  You have offered no reasoning as to why someone isn't merely projecting their experiences on to your consciousness, or running their experience and thought software on your conscious operating systems.  

You are equivocating between definitions and labels. Wherever the thoughts I have come from, the linguistic convention for talking about those ideas to which I have direct access is to use the word "I." If those ideas come from elsewhere, then "I" am a collection of ideas that come from elsewhere. The agency issue has nothing to do with choosing between idealism and materialism, at least so far as I can see.

[ApeNotKillApe]

It maybe that to you it is like saying "red is an apple".  "Ideas are not subject to gravity", is like saying pain is not subject to gravity.  You are severing the link between Ideas (as concepts) and their natural foundation (in brain structures). This is a floating abstraction, you have built a castle in the air.  I am not claiming that mind is definitively matter, I do not have enough knowledge on either the nature of the mind or matter to be definitive. But it does seem most likely to me that mind and mental states are built on brain and brain states.  It is Idealism that asserts that mind is not matter and begs the question as well as confuses epistemic and ontological issues

No I am not questioning agency, but you and your mind.  If you think a retreat to 'mind' is a proper response to the point I raised then you should not have identified "I think, therefore I am".  You are clearly identifying yourself as having a mind, if the word "I" carries any meaning at all in that sentence.  So I return to the question.  Given your skeptical approach I see no reason why you can make the claim that YOUR mind exists.  You have offered no reasoning as to why someone isn't merely projecting their experiences on to your consciousness, or running their experience and thought software on your conscious operating systems.  

Because it is not inconsistent to say it.

Use an abstract to refute an abstract for being too abstract for discussion of abstract concepts. Interesting method.

[Captain Scarlet]

It maybe that to you it is like saying "red is an apple".  "Ideas are not subject to gravity", is like saying pain is not subject to gravity.  You are severing the link between Ideas (as concepts) and their natural foundation (in brain structures).

This "natural foundation" of which you speak begs the question, because this thread is exactly about whether what you call nature is fundamental.  But even if we accept that mind is purely brain function, you are still equivocating a structure with properties that supervene on it.

  I am not claiming that mind is definitively matter, I do not have enough knowledge on either the nature of the mind or matter to be definitive. But it does seem most likely to me that mind and mental states are built on brain and brain states.  It is Idealism that asserts that mind is not matter and begs the question as well as confuses epistemic and ontological issues

I can't speak for Idealism, only for my ideas about the best default position for a world view.  Let me say this: some circles are particularly alluring.  If I told you that the Bible is the word of God, and that we know it's true because God never lies, you'd point me out right away.  However, you are talking about brains and their states, which are known only through the agency of mind, and then using that agency to establish the "truth" of brains and their states.  Circles are circles, no matter how intuitively right they feel.

No I am not questioning agency, but you and your mind.  If you think a retreat to 'mind' is a proper response to the point I raised then you should not have identified "I think, therefore I am".  You are clearly identifying yourself as having a mind, if the word "I" carries any meaning at all in that sentence.  So I return to the question.  Given your skeptical approach I see no reason why you can make the claim that YOUR mind exists.  You have offered no reasoning as to why someone isn't merely projecting their experiences on to your consciousness, or running their experience and thought software on your conscious operating systems.  

You are equivocating between definitions and labels.  Wherever the thoughts I have come from, the linguistic convention for talking about those ideas to which I have direct access is to use the word "I."  If those ideas come from elsewhere, then "I" am a collection of ideas that come from elsewhere.  The agency issue has nothing to do with choosing between idealism and materialism, at least so far as I can see.

Benny I am not begging the question. I tend towards that conclusion because there is overwhelming, independent and objective evidence to support that assertion. You have severed the link between an idea or pain and the physiology.  And are claiming that an idea is an existent (of a sort) independent of any other existents.  A castle in the air for which I see no justification.

I would consider it properly basic to argue that existence, exists and consciousness, exists. Denial of these seems to lead to a contradiction to me, thus I can build from there.

I think it is you who are equivocating. If you are going to follow through on scepticism it seems proper to ask some simple questions. Do you have a mind? How do you know? Its properly basic to say you are conscious, but how do you get from Consciousness (basic awareness) to Mind (structures enabling you to think philosophical thoughts).

[ApeNotKillApe]

This is just getting depressing. 

Benny: I can't speak for Idealism, only for my ideas about the best default position for a world view.  

You aren't equipped to argue against it, you have adopted Scarlet's definition of Idealism as if your ignorance is evidence in itself that he knows what he's talking about.

[bennyboy]

Benny I am not begging the question. I tend towards that conclusion because there is overwhelming, independent and objective evidence to support that assertion.

This it the mating call of the materialist. But you are ignoring my main argument: since one hundred percent of "evidence" collected is collected through the agency of mind, there's no such thing as demonstrably objective evidence.

I think it is you who are equivocating. If you are going to follow through on scepticism it seems proper to ask some simple questions. Do you have a mind? How do you know? Its properly basic to say you are conscious, but how do you get from Consciousness (basic awareness) to Mind (structures enabling you to think philosophical thoughts).

What's this stuff about structures enabling thoughts? You'd better tell me where you get this language from, because to me, it is so obviously couched to beg the question that there's little more to be said about it. What structures do you mean? And if you mean brain, then you'd better go on to define thoughts in your terms as well.

[Mudhammam]

Hey Benny... suppose that science is limited to the physical, and that mind involves something beyond what science is currently equipped to wrap its hands around... I think this is an entirely reasonable suggestion... could you not come to the proposition of property dualism without embracing idealism? If so, why not simply stop there, without appealing to the more radical claim, i.e. mind precedes matter?

[bennyboy]

Hey Benny... suppose that science is limited to the physical, and that mind involves something beyond what science is currently equipped to wrap its hands around... I think this is an entirely reasonable suggestion... could you not come to the proposition of property dualism without embracing idealism? If so, why not simply stop there, without appealing to the more radical claim, i.e. mind precedes matter?

If the two substances interact, then it seems to me either they are two faces of the same substance, or the duality is an illusion: because you'd then need a "bridge," which being neither substance I would consider a 3rd substance.  This third substance would also need a bridge, etc. meaning that any pluralistic system is likely to be either infinite in nature or ambiguous: mind/matter.