Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[bennyboy]

The difference is that I have direct access to the experience of ideas, and therefore choose idealism as the most sensible default position.  You do not have direct access to the material monism about which you have ideas, unless you pretend that the subjective experience of mind and the objective "reality" of the objects contemplated by mind are identical.

Your direct access might inform you about yourself, but how could it inform you about the universe?   The comments you've made don't lead to or imply idealism as a stance on the fundamental nature of our universe.  If they were more thoroughly argued, more adequately explained, and absolutely true....they only have the power to generate conclusions regarding yourself.

They only have the power to generate inferences regarding my experiences. . . which may or may not be of the self, and which may or may not be representative of any fundamental truth.

Yet your experience of what we have labeled "material" is not compelling enough?  That things really do seem to behave in the manner described isn't compelling enough?

No, it's not.  Accepting that something exists, and asserting that it exists as you think it exists, are an order of magnitude apart.  I know particles exist, because I've learned about them in books; they exist at least as ideas that can be read about in books, and I suspect that if I went to a lab, I could find ways to infer that they existed in other ways.  However, I do not know that underlying those particles is a reality which is material at its foundation.  I do not know that they are not Matrix particles, or Mind of God particles, or BIJ particles, or expressions of immaterial mathematical principles.

Are you fine with being an agnostic idealist whose reached that position..and who advocates -for- that position, with a composition fallacy?  Doesn't the position deserve better support?  Surely there's some other way......some other reason you find idealism compelling?  If it turned out that you were made of cheese....you'd think the universe was made of cheese

No, because for me to be able consider this fact, I'd at least be cheese with a mind.  And the mind would probably wonder in what way, exactly, the cheese could be known for sure to exist as it seemed to-- and conclude that it couldn't.

[The Grand Nudger]

[quote=The only have the power to generate conclusions regarding my experiences. . . which may or may not be of the self.

You have no way of knowing that there -is- anything other than self to be of.  I'm going to hold you to the statements you've made until you see how poorly they fit together. 

No, it's not.  Accepting that something exists, and excepting that it exists as you think it exists, are an order of magnitude apart.  I know particles exist, because I've learned about them in books.  However, I do not know that underlying those particles is a reality which is material at its foundation.  I do not know that they are not Matrix particles, or Mind of God particles, or BIJ particles, or expressions of immaterial mathematical principles.

Yet you think your ideas exist as you think they do.  You don't know whether or not particles -exist-.  Black box.  You don't know that there -is- an underlying reality.  Black Box.

No, because for me to be able consider this fact, I'd at least be cheese with a mind.  And the mind would probably wonder in what way, exactly, the cheese could be known to exist as it seemed to-- and conclude that it couldn't.

You are a mind -made of cheese- in the conjecture..and I'm starting to wonder whether this holds true irl as well.  If you cant sign on board with the cheese claim you shouldn't sign on board with your own idealism claim.  They are functionally identical.  Can you confirm for me that you understand why a composition fallacy doesn't work, after having heard the cheese example?  It isn't wrong for any high minded reason that requires  consideration (as you so atrociously dove into above).  It's wrong because you can plug in a true premise, true propositions, and still get a false answer.  You have been consistently wrong, throughout this thread...not because the universe -really is- material or immaterial, not for the truth of any particular premise or conjecture - but because the manner in which you've strung them together can't be expected to yield truth as output -even- if it's supplied with true input.  -If- your facts are straight..............you still need a valid form of inference, which you've failed to present.

[bennyboy]

[quote=The only have the power to generate conclusions regarding my experiences. . . which may or may not be of the self.

You have no way of knowing that there -is- anything other than self to be of.  

That's right, and that's what "may or may not" means.

Yet you think your ideas exist as you think they do.  You don't know whether or not particles -exist-.  Black box.  You don't know that there -is- an underlying reality.  Black Box.

My ideas are self-evident, because I don't need to attribute them to a particular source. I don't need to know whether there is an underlying reality or not. Black box is fine, so long as you are content with what's inside it.

You are a mind -made of cheese- in the conjecture..and I'm starting to wonder whether this holds true irl as well.

Maybe in your cheese-universe, you can as the God of Cheese stipulate that mind is cheese. But as a cheese denizen, I wouldn't know this. It would be exactly as the current universe.

. . .the manner in which you've strung them together can't be expected to yield truth as output -even- if it's supplied with true input.  -If- your facts are straight..............you still need a valid form of inference, which you've failed to present.

I don't know the truth. I only know that given my experiences, I see no compelling reason to make the extra assertion or circular assumptions that a material monist world view makes.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's right, and that's what "may or may not" means.

You trolling me right now?

My ideas are self-evident, because I don't need to attribute them to a particular source.  I don't need to know whether there is an underlying reality or not.  Black box is fine, so long as you are content with what's inside it.

You just got finished telling me how something's existence and somethings nature are separate props a few posts back, that the existence of a rock may be self evident, but that it's nature or composition isn't.  That the claim "rocksa are self evident", for example, could not be support for or imply materialism.  Take your own advice.  That you have ideas may be self evident, what thy are comprised of is not.  Even within your black box, you still can't rescue your poor reasoning by calling something self evident.  Speaking of which, how many pages of the creationists playbook will you be tearing out and waiving around like a badge of pride?

Maybe in your cheese-universe, you can as the God of Cheese stipulate that mind is cheese.  But as a cheese denizen, I wouldn't know this.  It would be exactly as the current universe.

Did you -really- not understand the cheese example?  It was an example of -why- the form you've used is invalid, -why- comp fallacies are useless, not an explanation of the fundamental nature of the universe.  Did you get that, twice now I've asked for confirmation?

I don't know the truth.  I only know that given my experiences, I see no compelling reason to make the extra assertion or circular assumptions that a material monist world view makes.

-You've made the same  assumptions.  It doesn't matter much to me whether you -do- know the truth, so much as I would like to help you realize that you -can't- know the truth using the lines of reasoning you've employed.  That you don't know, in this particular, is not -because- you couldn't, but because your comments can't be relied upon to generate knowledge even if they were true.  Do you understand why this is important?  Regarding the above, as I've already mentioned, this is not how parsimony works.  Before you or I could ever have a meaningful discussion about the truth values of either of our positions, you must first hammer out some valid inferences for me to consider.  We haven't been discussing the truth value of either proposition for some time.....si it's no big deal that you don't know the truth either way(ultimately, you and I both are agnostic -ists-, IIRC).   The problem is that we can't, until your proposition is a logical one I cannot use logic to assign a truth value.  I suppose I don't have to use reason, I could just blurt things out and then claim that they were self evident.................for example, I suppose I don't have to elaborate, again, on our shared assumptions.  In fact, I don't think I will until we get at least some resolution on -any- of these comments I've been making regarding the truth value of your statements -not the truth value of either of our propositions.  

Do you understand -why- the following statement is wrong:
"Evolution doesn't explain "x", therefore "y""

Do you understand -why- the following statement is wrong:

"I am made of "x", therefore the universe is made of "x"" 

Now, what extra assumption do you think materialism makes, again, and why do you think it would matter if it did?  Parsimony won't actually help you decide between two positions on the basis that 1 of them has 2 assumptions, and the other 200.  There's another condition to satisfy before we assign trust to parsimony.  They must both provide equal explanation, something that the idealists among us have flatly refused to offer.

As an example, if the question is asked "Why does gravity exist".  I could give you an explanation that assumes a great many things regarding gravitons, or I could simply say "waffles".  Do you lean towards waffles as an explanation for gravity on the grounds that it makes fewer assumptions?

[bennyboy]

That's right, and that's what "may or may not" means.

You trolling me right now?

My ideas are self-evident, because I don't need to attribute them to a particular source.  I don't need to know whether there is an underlying reality or not.  Black box is fine, so long as you are content with what's inside it.

You just got finished telling me how something's existence and somethings nature are separate props a few posts back, that the existence of a rock may be self evident, but that it's nature or composition isn't.  That the claim "rocksa are self evident", for example, could not be support for or imply materialism.  Take your own advice.  That you have ideas may be self evident, what thy are comprised of is not.

That's right.

 Even within your black box, you still can't rescue your poor reasoning by calling something self evident.  Speaking of which, how many pages of the creationists playbook will you be tearing out and waiving around like a badge of pride?

I only call that self evident which is actually self evident-- the existence of mind, and my experiences. As for waiving. . . I've never waived anything except my right to an attorney.

Did you -really- not understand the cheese example?  It was an example of -why- the form you've used is invalid, -why- comp fallacies are useless, not an explanation of the fundamental nature of the universe.  Did you get that, twice now I've asked for confirmation?

The cheese example was a bad example. Try another one.

-You've made the same  assumptions.  It doesn't matter much to me whether you -do- know the truth, so much as I would like to help you realize that you -can't- know the truth using the lines of reasoning you've employed.

If I ever claim to know the truth, then please remind me of this.

Do you understand -why- the following statement is wrong:
"Evolution doesn't explain "x", therefore "y""

I haven't made an argument in this form.

Do you understand -why- the following statement is wrong:

"I am made of "x", therefore the universe is made of "x"" 

Do you?

Now, what extra assumption do you think materialism makes, again, and why do you think it would matter if it did?

You make the assumption that not only do things exist, they exist in a particular fashion-- and not only this, but that their existence as you see it is fundamental to reality. It's quite the impressive chain of assumptions, actually, since you have no direct interaction with anything but your own mind.

As an example, if the question is asked "Why does gravity exist".  I could give you an explanation that assumes a great many things regarding gravitons, or I could simply say "waffles".  Do you lean towards waffles as an explanation for gravity on the grounds that it makes fewer assumptions?

No, I lean toward the idea that gravity, and all other forces, are the expression of immaterial principles, as are QM particles and the objects which supervene on them.

But if I have to choose only between waffles and gravitons, I'd probably choose waffles, because if we are making stuff up, it might as well be delicious stuff.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's right.

Then your -explanation- as to why you've defaulted to idealism is plainly wrong, the explanation, mind you, not idealism.  We agree?

I only call that self evident which is actually self evident-- the existence of mind, and my experiences.  As for waiving. . . I've never waived anything except my right to an attorney.

Fine, who cares?  Materialism and idealism are not positions regarding the existence of those experiences, they are positions regarding their natures.  We agreed, above, that you could not reach a conclusion about the universe by reference to yourself -even if that reference were factual.  Did we not?  

The cheese example was a bad example.  Try another one.

I disagree, but I think any example I offer you could be called a bad example..firstly, because they are -meant- to be bad examples...and secondly because you have developed a pattern of deflection when your questions are answered, when you are corrected.  

If I ever claim to know the truth, then please remind me of this.

Like, when you claim that materialism -cannot- be true?  

Do you understand -why- the following statement is wrong:
"Evolution doesn't explain "x", therefore "y""

I haven't made an argument in this form.

Yes, you have, many times.....you're doubling down on it this very moment.  Perhaps I should quote you, and you can make modifications and retractions........perhaps you didn't mean to....that's kind of been my operating assumption this entire time,  the sole reason for and subject of my involvement in the thread.

Do you understand -why- the following statement is wrong:

"I am made of "x", therefore the universe is made of "x"" 

Do you?

I will explain to you again.  It is wrong because we can plug in true propositions and still yield a false outcome.  It is wrong because it violates the stated function of logic.  That is why a fallacy is a fallacy, no other reason in specific.

You make the assumption that not only do things exist, they exist in a particular fashion-- and not only this, but that their existence as you see it is fundamental to reality.  It's quite the impressive chain of assumptions, actually, since you have no direct interaction with anything but your own mind.

Materialists make no such assumption.  That they exist in a particular fashion is a statement regarding our observations of the material.  We didn't assume that atoms existed, or that subatomic particles existed - we observed them.  

You keep talking about access as though our level of access differed.....we can only work with what we've got.  Are you under the impression that more is required?

As an example, if the question is asked "Why does gravity exist".  I could give you an explanation that assumes a great many things regarding gravitons, or I could simply say "waffles".  Do you lean towards waffles as an explanation for gravity on the grounds that it makes fewer assumptions?

No, I lean toward the idea that gravity, and all other forces, are the expression of immaterial principles, as are QM particles and the objects which supervene on them.

But if I have to choose only between waffles and gravitons, I'd probably choose waffles, because if we are making stuff up, it might as well be delicious stuff.

I doubt that you've managed to miss the point on accident so consistently.

[bennyboy]

Like, when you claim that materialism -cannot- be true?  

I didn't say your view cannot be true. I said it cannot be fundamental to all reality.

I haven't made an argument in this form.

Yes, you have, many times.....you're doubling down on it this very moment.  Perhaps I should quote you, and you can make modifications and retractions........perhaps you didn't mean to....that's kind of been my operating assumption this entire time,  the sole reason for and subject of my involvement in the thread.

Quote away.

I will explain to you again.  It is wrong because we can plug in true propositions and still yield a false outcome.  It is wrong because it violates the stated function of logic.  That is why a fallacy is a fallacy, no other reason in specific.

I haven't made assertions about what is true-- only about what I can experience.

Materialists make no such assumption.  That they exist in a particular fashion is a statement regarding our observations of the material.  We didn't assume that atoms existed, or that subatomic particles existed - we observed them.

You are still confusing the existence of things with their underlying nature. Okay, so we've discovered wave functions vibrating in space-- to me, hardly a bastion of strength for the materialist position but whatever. Now, tell me on what these supervene?

I doubt that you've managed to miss the point on accident so consistently.

I doubt that you are actually going to offer me waffles. Maybe I should have gone with the odds and changed to door "B" while I still had the chance.

[The Grand Nudger]

The difference is that I have direct access to the experience of ideas, and therefore choose idealism as the most sensible default position. 

Ital is mine.  May as well start here.  Why did you make me do that, you knew you'd said it just as well as I did......your "therefore" is a comp fallacy, end of.  Your continued defense of that same comp fallacy by it's constant invocation as both the impetus for your acceptance of idealism and as a criticism of materialism...is inexplicable, and irrational.

Now, If materialism is not true (or cannot be true), then materialism is not fundamental to all reality.  If materialism is not fundamental to all reality (or cannot be fundamental) - then materialism is not true......because materialism is a position regarding what is fundamental to reality........................are you going to need me to quote you on this as well, btw?   Do you actually think I'm going to let you bullshit me, when I can just scroll a few pages back?  Who the fuck am I talking to?

You are still confusing the existence of things with their underlying nature. Okay, so we've discovered wave functions vibrating in space-- to me, hardly a bastion of strength for the materialist position but whatever. Now, tell me on what these supervene?

No, Benny, I'm not confusing anything, and I'm no more beholden now to explain upon what -if anything, wave functions supervene.  No more so than the last time you tried this route.  If I could explain that would not prove you wrong, if I could not it would not prove you right.  You are hoisting a flag of bad logic, right now - all sails...guns run out, why?  The last time you asked a question like this you were supplied with -exactly- the answer you claimed to be looking for...but having been given that answer, you persisted in it's negation.   I think you ask these questions as a way of deflecting with no intention of ever altering your position even if your demands are met.   You either cannot maintain your positions rationally, or you maintain them by some other means not stated herein.  I like to lean towards the latter, but every time you ask one of your "explain that evolutionist" questions........you chip away at the confidence I have in you.  

I cannot trust your statements to lead to true conclusions even if the premise is true and the propositions are sound.  I can't make it any clearer, it cannot -be- clearer.  

[bennyboy]

The difference is that I have direct access to the experience of ideas, and therefore choose idealism as the most sensible default position. 

Ital is mine.  May as well start here.  Why did you make me do that, you knew you'd said it just as well as I did......your "therefore" is a comp fallacy, end of.  Your continued defense of that same comp fallacy by it's constant invocation as both the impetus for your acceptance of idealism and as a criticism of materialism...is inexplicable, and irrational.

Really? We, as humans, have interacted with what % of the universe, according to you? And yet, we have the Big Bang theory, and established rules of physics, and it is your position that ALL OF REALITY is founded on these rules, is it not? You claim it must be turtles, all the way down and in every conceivable direction, do you not? This is because you know of nothing else, and extend what you know into the unknown.

What color pot are you? (hint, it reflects no visible light)

Now, If materialism is not true (or cannot be true), then materialism is not fundamental to all reality.  If materialism is not fundamental to all reality (or cannot be fundamental) - then materialism is not true......because materialism is a position regarding what is fundamental to reality........................are you going to need me to quote you on this as well, btw?   Do you actually think I'm going to let you bullshit me, when I can just scroll a few pages back?  Who the fuck am I talking to?

My view of positions, and of reality, is broader than yours. I think that materialism is a sensible position, but only in a certain context: that of experiences which are both consistent and sharable with other humans. The experience of mind is not sharable, and is not well described by materialism. The world of QM, taken on the basis of individual particles, isn't really consistent, and is therefore not well described as matter-- though for now, you seem to be willing enough to describe mathematical functions as "material" so long as they are roughly positioned in time and space.

So no, I don't demand that all reality be describable by materialism for that position to have value. And that is why I say that idealism subsumes materialism. Of all the ideas we can have, some of them are about experiences which are consistent and sharable.

No, Benny, I'm not confusing anything, and I'm no more beholden now to explain upon what -if anything, wave functions supervene.  No more so than the last time you tried this route.  If I could explain that would not prove you wrong, if I could not it would not prove you right.  You are hoisting a flag of bad logic, right now - all sails...guns run out, why?  The last time you asked a question like this you were supplied with -exactly- the answer you claimed to be looking for...but having been given that answer, you persisted in it's negation.   I think you ask these questions as a way of deflecting with no intention of ever altering your position even if your demands are met.

I sense a disturbance in the force. We are about to move from argument to cat memes, amirite?

[GUBU]

This kind of argument is different from my usual because I tend to be weary of using the term proof. but this argument has my full confidence so I'm going ahead and presenting it as a proof. by proof, I mean that it cannot be reasonably refuted or bypassed. this is not an argument of my own, but it is a reiteration of the Introspective Argument created by Johanan Raatz.

Definitions:
Mind- simply that which produces consciousness. you can think of it as a product of material interactions or its own substance, but either way it cannot be denied mind exists.
Metaphysical Solipsism- belief that a mind (presumably the believer's mind) is the only thing that exists.
Substance Dualism- belief there exist two fundamental substances, mind and matter.
Monistic idealism- belief that mind is a fundamental substance, and the only one that exists.

Argument:
1. a metaphysically solipsist world (a world where only a mind exists) cannot be proven false due to epistemic limitations.
2. it is unreasonable to presume solipsism is impossible given 1, therefore it must be reasonably granted solipsism is possible.
3. given 2, it is possible for mind to exist in a solipsist (immaterial) world while it is not for matter.
4. 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.
5. substance dualism has been proven false due to the interaction problem (substances can only interact via shared properties and substances cannot be fundamental and share properties).
6. therefore, all is mind and monistic idealism entails.

Overview:
basically, I put together this argument to answer criticisms from the ground up rather than trying to explain separate from the argument. it uses external world skepticism to substantiate P1, thus already answering criticism of those who think I'm merely asserting solipsism is possible. from there, it goes on to debunk materialism and dualism leaving only monistic idealism.

Objections:
1. the argument doesn't debunk property dualism. it's possible mind is a property or process of matter and thus doesn't reduce to matter yet is still derived from material interaction-- it doesn't directly debunk it, but it can easily be shown false deriving from P2. if metaphysical solipsism is possible, mind cannot be a property or a process because you cannot have a world with properties or processes without anything to attribute them to. you can't have a world with only a run or a feed, therefore mind must be an entity rather than a property or process.

I'll also be willing to address any questions concerning monistic idealism as presented. my last thread was also an argument for idealism, but a much weaker one. feel free to critique, but either by challenging the premises or invalidating the logic. I listen to reasons, not emotional outbursts.

Umm.... your argument flat out falls apart when you assert that "X" is true in order to lay out your proof for "X". You cannot simply assert that mind-matter exists seperate to everyday matter in a proof you are trying to give to establish mind-matter as a real thing. So by premise one, your argument has fallen apart irrecovarably.

Oh, and the bs you later spout about there being other evidence than empirical evidence, that let me with an expression on my face of, well, dull suprise. Evidence by its very nature has to be empirical, because it has to be independently evaluated by persons or groups other than those offering it. And the only way we can ensure this quality is by demanding empirical standards for what is being presented as evidence.