Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[The Grand Nudger]

obviously saying "nuh uh" doesn't gain any ground between us. what components are missing between a functioning brain, and a non-functioning in-tact brain?

Between the brain of a dead person and the brain of a living person, mind those goalposts sweetheart. For starters - all substances carried by the blood and required for function.

the body can no longer replenish nutrients of the brain, but that doesn't mean these are missing from the brain upon a person's death.

They are no longer present at the required levels, the composition has changed. If they were, the brain would continue to function.

as I said, the brain end up being the self localization of mind within space in an idealist view. obviously this self localization is dependent upon a functioning brain.

Now you're assuming self localization...but in that assumption also all other possible places that self could reside but doesn't - because brain. Jesus these assumptions are getting bigger and bigger.

so anything that can affect the brain's function also effects mind's self localization.

a simpler explanation is that brain is self, so affecting brain affects self. Fewer assumptions, see?

and the material that comprises the brain is not itself contingently related to the consciousness it is localizing. so it doesn't 'disappear' just because this localization is disrupted.

Is the localization interrupted? I think you'll have to demonstrate yet another massive assumption before "the brains has been physically disrupted" loses the crown on that count.

this is a false analogy because even though we can use corn to get whiskey, this doesn't mean all corn comprises all whiskey.

Irrelevant, it was your shitty logic, and I have no patience to see you attempt to salvage it with yet shittier logic. Own up to it, come up with a better argument. The whiskey is not controlled by the corn -that was- used to make the whiskey, regardless of whether or not there is other corn or other whiskey in the world.

here's a better analogy that i'm sure you can be familiar with.
rocks are made of matter/energy. matter/energy has certain properties and behaves accordingly with predictable laws. therefore rocks are controlled by matter and behave accordingly with predictable laws just like matter. likewise you can say the same about consciousness... unless you want to claim rocks don't behave accordingly with the same predictable laws matter behaves by.

Matter doesn't control. It simply interacts.

that was actually a labeling mistake on my part. 2 isn't derived from 1, rather it should be considered an independent premise.

No worries, happens.
(I actually think you're bullshitting me, btw, rather than admit to a shitty piece of logic, you don't say "given 1" when it was a labeling mistake......you stated it then referenced it, and now you're trying to form some other statement that will lead you to the same conclusion - which isn't exactly how this works)

premise 2 is actually derived from the definition of control, which is the ability to directly influence something.

Hmn.........

con·trol
kənˈtrōl/Submit
noun

1.
the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.
2.
a group or individual used as a standard of comparison for checking the results of a survey or experiment.
3.
a member of an intelligence organization who personally directs the activities of a spy.
1.
determine the behavior or supervise the running of.
2.
take into account (an extraneous factor that might affect results) when performing an experiment.

from wiki, of course, because before you have a mind boggling point...you must be able to defeat the wikisaur!

Seems to me you might be attempting to create a friendly definition....assertion upon assertion. Unfortunately...I can directly influence my heart rate..and yet I cannot control it

-go ahead, tell me that was a labeling error too.....

if your consciousness is fundamental,

Your if is showing.

then there is nothing outside your consciousness to influence your thoughts.

Goodness gracious no, that would only be true if your consciousness was the -only- fundamental thing. Undeclared baggage, sir.

therefore only you can have control over your thoughts in a metaphysical solipsist world.

Strange, I do have control over some of my thoughts, does that mean that some of this world is a metaphysical solipsist world?

since in such a world everything is derived from your thoughts, it would then follow that everything is controlled by your thoughts. which brings us to premise 2.

You just tried to smuggle in a reassertion of the same silly statement that is wrong this time for the same reason that it was wrong last time.

That something is a derivative does not imply or establish that what it was derived from has control over it. Further, one is perfectly capable of controlling things which are not derived from themselves. The list of things we can and can't control doesn't seem to have anything to do with derivatives no matter which way we go with it.

Unless...hey, unless you want to talk about my kids. They can sure as shit control me...-and- they're derived from me.....no, wait, that's not going to work for you, scratch that.

[Angrboda]

Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora.
"It is pointless to do with more what can be done with fewer."

• ~ William of Ockham

The key term in that phrase is "can" — if you haven't shown that reality is possible under idealism, you haven't satisfied the razor.

Until then, this is all just semantics and speculation.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora.
"It is pointless to do with more what can be done with fewer."

• ~ William of Ockham

The key term in that phrase is "can" — if you haven't shown that reality is possible under idealism, you haven't satisfied the razor.

Until then, this is all just semantics and speculation.

I don't know about that. Idealism seems to be the most parsimonious of all theories, having dispensed with matter altogether. I think the question is whether it leaves out too much.

[Rational AKD]

Between the brain of a dead person and the brain of a living person, mind those goalposts sweetheart.

there is no difference in what I'm questioning.

They are no longer present at the required levels, the composition has changed. If they were, the brain would continue to function.

what does brain function have to do with consciousness? you said consciousness "is" the machine, not the function or process of it.

Now you're assuming self localization

self localization means we, our "selves," are localized in space in regards to our perception. we both agree we are self localized in brains... unless you still think this is presumptuous...

a simpler explanation is that brain is self, so affecting brain affects self. Fewer assumptions, see?

does a dead person have consciousness? does he have a sense of self?

Is the localization interrupted? I think you'll have to demonstrate yet another massive assumption before "the brains has been physically disrupted" loses the crown on that count.

so you don't think your consciousness can be disrupted, temporarily or permanently? you don't ever appear to 'lose' consciousness?

The whiskey is not controlled by the corn -that was- used to make the whiskey, regardless of whether or not there is other corn or other whiskey in the world.

it retains some properties of corn, which one form of control is the ability to determine properties. stuff made from corn will have corn-like properties. though the whiskey isn't just corn, which is what I was getting at. so it doesn't solely have corn properties.

Matter doesn't control. It simply interacts.

the type of interaction is what determines the result. determine IE control the result.

I actually think you're bullshitting me

you caught me... yeah... if my logic is 'faulty' it can't be corrected by some change in where the premises derive from.

1.
the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

exactly. matter has the power to influence or direct the behavior of other materials in a period of time. now of course I subbed people with materials, but you can't make a distinction between the 2 anyway since you said yourself 'the brain is self... mental constructs are the machine.'

Your if is showing.

yes... I use the word 'if' when I explore implications of hypotheticals. because if I asserted it, you would deny it and we would get nowhere.

Goodness gracious no, that would only be true if your consciousness was the -only- fundamental thing. Undeclared baggage, sir.

first, I've said many times on this thread idealism is a 'monist' belief. this baggage was claimed before you even caught sight of it. second, even if there was a fundamental substance outside consciousness; it couldn't interact because it would need to do so via a shared property. 2 fundamental substances can't share a property... otherwise they wouldn't be fundamental. this is the interaction problem I referenced in the OP that debunks dualism.

Strange, I do have control over some of my thoughts, does that mean that some of this world is a metaphysical solipsist world?

it was a redundant point. this is true in any view that includes free will.

That something is a derivative does not imply or establish that what it was derived from has control over it.

given the nature of a solipsist world, thoughts are the cause that shaped the world. given the thoughts are controlled by the one consciousness (which you did not raise objection to) the thoughts therefore did not 'have' to create the subjective world but were controlled to do so by the consciousness. which gives that control to the consciousness again brining us at premise 2.

Further, one is perfectly capable of controlling things which are not derived from themselves.

not directly with thoughts.

The list of things we can and can't control doesn't seem to have anything to do with derivatives no matter which way we go with it.

the kind of control i'm speaking of is the control you have in your imagination. you have no limits in your imaginary world. why should a solipsist world be different from this?

The key term in that phrase is "can" — if you haven't shown that reality is possible under idealism, you haven't satisfied the razor.

Until then, this is all just semantics and speculation.

do you even know what you're talking about? my goal isn't to show reality is possible under idealism... this should be evident already. and Occam's Razor isn't for that. what I am saying is all we perceive, all we observe, is conscious perception. since consciousness is the most fundamental part of our experience, it would not be parsimonious and it would be impossible to verify our consciousness comes from un-consciousness. so by Occam's Razor, it is more reasonable to presume our consciousness is fundamental.

[Mudhammam]

Consciousness is fundamental to experience. That's it. You're trying to say that consciousness is fundamental to the Universe, as if its existence, and not just your experiential interaction with it, is contingent upon your mind. Not only is this as absurd of egotism as any religion that posits man as the center of creation, it also makes zero sense when you think about what that actually means... for about two seconds... which is, of course, why you are forced, contrary to Occam's razor and in spite of lacking any evidence, to ad hoc posit God à la your Super Duper Conscious.

[Alex K]

---

Frustra fit per plura, quod potest fieri per pauciora.
"It is pointless to do with more what can be done with fewer."

• ~ William of Ockham

The key term in that phrase is "can" — if you haven't shown that reality is possible under idealism, you haven't satisfied the razor.

Until then, this is all just semantics and speculation.

---

I don't know about that. Idealism seems to be the most parsimonious of all theories, having dispensed with matter altogether. I think the question is whether it leaves out too much.

See what I said above. It's not the most parsimonious since this mind world of idealism has to have all the properties and content of the material world. It's at best equally parsimonious, in which case it is simply a renaming.

[Rational AKD]

Consciousness is fundamental to experience. That's it.

why does that have to be it? it seems you just make this blatant statement without feeling the need to justify it.

You're trying to say that consciousness is fundamental to the Universe, as if its existence, and not just your experiential interaction with it, is contingent upon your mind.

not my mind particularly.

Not only is this as absurd of egotism as any religion that posits man as the center of creation, it also makes zero sense when you think about what that actually means

well, not particularly man. just any conscious beings. and why doesn't it make sense? in a video game the player is the center of that world and everything else is contributing to the payable character's experience. if humans can create this kind of simulative world, why can't we be in one? because we're the center of the universe and there are no beings smarter than us? *irony*

which is, of course, why you are forced, contrary to Occam's razor and in spite of lacking any evidence, to ad hoc posit God à la your Super Duper Conscious.

I don't come to this conclusion lacking evidence, I have stated my evidence several times... if solipsism is true, then I should be in full control of my thoughts, and since everything is comprised of my thoughts I should be in control of everything. but I do not experience this control, therefore there must be something outside myself that does. the simplest explanation would be another mind. this is because I am already familiar with the concept of mind, while i'm not familiar with the concept of non-mind since I can only think in terms of mind. this would make non-mind material non-parsimonious and unverifiable.

[Chas]

I don't know about that. Idealism seems to be the most parsimonious of all theories, having dispensed with matter altogether. I think the question is whether it leaves out too much.

It leaves out what matters.

[Rational AKD]

See what I said above. It's not the most parsimonious since this mind world of idealism has to have all the properties and content of the material world. It's at best equally parsimonious, in which case it is simply a renaming.

well, that we observe... but this is what dual aspect idealism is. matter behaves materialistically but is still derived from consciousness. the difference between this view and materialism is this view postulates a mind capable of simulating material, while materialism postulates a material substance and a mind capable of simulating material. take away the material substance and you have idealism. so why do you need to postulate a material substance again?

[FatAndFaithless]

This is veering dangerously close to Depak Chopra territory.