"Reality Is Mental" Is A More Rational Proposition Than Its Negation

Sorry for the late response as I am busy with school.Now pro has put forth a lot of interesting claims and assertions, but this is largely a red herring.Even if everything he said was true, he still would have not affirmed the resolution.If your thinking "all this mind stuff is cool", you'd be correct, however pro has offered no mehanism by which any of this is possible void of a brain, which is physical. I accept that "the mental exists". However this is not significant."When you reach out and touch it that sensation is a conscious experience."This statement is extremely misleading and vague. Let's revisit consciousness: ""Consciousness is the quality or state of awareness, or, of being aware of an external object or something within oneself."Now the idea that touch is a conscious, does literally nothing to affirm the resolution, it merely means that you're aware you're touching something.Now, how does one even conceivably non-physically touch anything?In regards to any ordinary usage of the word "touch", by definition it is a physical act.The term physical act and the term conscious act are not mutually exclusive. the quote from Bernardo is merely convulted. This just expresses solipsism in vague terms.Now the idea that we perceive things through are mind does not negate the notion that they are out of the mind.If pro was to die, the universe would still exist. IF what pro says is true, then there is no universe without his mind.Now if it is even possible for their to be more than one mind, we run into even MORE problems:Now, how do minds even interact with eachother?How is one to verify if another existing mind is not just a subconscious extension of one's own mind?It's literally impossible to verify a difference.The claim that one completely perceives through the mind, does not negate that the universe is external to the mind.If it is the case that things perceived through the mind are inside the mind, then by definition they are you.A) You are your mindB) The mind only perceives things inside of itselfC) The things inside of your mind, are part of your mind.D) The things perceived, are you. The next two sections do nothing for the resolution.Pro offers no evidence or explanation for his claims regarding digital physics, so I have to pay no attention to them.So the biggest hole in pro's argument is that he has not and probably can not offer a non-physical mechanism for existence of "the mental".The assertion that: the mental exist by virtue of mental processes in a purely mental universe which synonymous with the existence of the mental is:1) extremely circular2) IncoherentBrain function:the claustrum has been found as the reason for consciousness. Mohamad Koubeissi PhD, whom resides at the George Washington University in Washington DC and other scientist also working on the experiment, describe the mechanism by which they were able to activate and disacrivate a woman's consciousness via stimulation of the claustrum. The subject suffers from epilepsy; consequently the team utilized submerged brain electrodes in order to record signals originating in different brain sectors to work out the origin of her seizures. A single electrode was placed next to the claustrum, an area that had never been stimulated before. "When the team zapped the area with high frequency electrical impulses, the woman lost consciousness. She stopped reading and stared blankly into space, she didn't respond to auditory or visual commands and her breathing slowed. As soon as the stimulation stopped, she immediately regained consciousness with no memory of the event. The same thing happened every time the area was stimulated during two days of experiments (Epilepsy and Behavior, doi.org/tgn)." Sorry that, that was kinda brief, I have to get back to school work.Also pro is providing sources that don't even support his position.Neurobiologist Sam Harris is a noted Atheist and materialist.Beatles member John Lennon does NOT count as a scientific authority.I did not address it, as pro failed to provide evidence, but quantum physics has nothing to do with consciousness and does not prove reality is a virtual simulation(which would still need a physical mechanism). [1]http://web.stanford.edu... [2]http://www.newscientist.com...