Comment: Yes, one is true.

(See in situ)

Yes, one is true.

"Because material has no inherent priority over mind"

How did you come to that conclusion?

You state this as an objective truth, but yet you call it a "cheap card trick" when Rothbard and Harris do it and then have "the audacity to assume his subjective view was objective, which is the kind of turn of mind that makes one have very low regard intellectually for someone. It makes you feel like that person must have been so oblivious and had such little self awareness to believe what they were saying uncritically."
I'm sure you recognize those words. Do they not apply here? I'm not trying to be the "formal semantics" police, I need clarification. Is this a personal axiom or should it have been stated another way?

Mind is a word representing a collection of properties that attempts to explain what it is to be human, it's not a material. Much the same way a photon is a word representing a collection of properties that attempts to explain energy, it's not a material.

What part of mind (consciousness, perception, thinking, judgment, memory, emotion) brings you to the conclusion that it has the same inherent priority as energy? Any more then that I feel would be treading into the waters of Phrenology, but feel free to add to the list.
Which ever you decide on, how does it have the same inherent priority as energy? Assuming you believe energy cannot be destroyed.

My intention is not to be a pest, I'm genuinely interested in this conversation. I have found some of your other responses in other threads insightful and I love to learn. I will let my "tombstone be my diploma". Eartha Kitt said that, what insight.

Thank you Ron for waking me up.