Proof Mind is Fundamental and Matter Doesn't Exist

[Rational AKD]

Your analysis is just false.  I have already shown you an interpretation of QM that is consistent with QM, realism and determinism, ie Bohmian mechanics.  The inequalities and Kochen-Specker Theorem you think debunk Bohmian mechanics either do not debunk it or can be argued to support it.

that is not what i said... you even quoted my specific statement and still didn't address it. i didn't say anything about the Kochen-Specker theorem debunking Bohmian mechanics... i said violations of the Leggett inequality debunked the idea of non-local hidden variables... which are the last refuge of a deterministic/realist model for reality since local hidden variables were already falsified. the unique role of the observer cannot be denied in QM anymore.

The articles are interesting, and of course there is some poetic license to grab attention.

of course they have some poetic license... but that doesn't take away from the fact that Leggett's inequality was violated, and thus non-local hidden variables have been falsified.

The theoretical physicists who gave their name to those inequalities, back that up as well.  The point stands that you are over-interpreting QM.

yes... the inequality was made to back up the theory of non-local hidden variables... but you apparently missed that it was shown the inequality was violated in 2007. it was shown to be violated by Anton Zeilinger and his team. and if you want to throw quote out, why not look at one by Zeilinger who proved the inequality was violated.
[quote-Anton Zeilinger] So we know that we cannot assume - to put it precisely, we know that it is wrong to assume that the features of a system, which we observe in an experiment exist prior to the measurement... so in a sense, what we perceive as reality now depends on our earlier decision what to measure.[/quote]
keep in mind, i'm showing the violations of the inequalities as evidence against realist interpretations of QM... not the inequalities themselves.

Lets start by defining terms.  What is the immaterial to you?  Because I read what you are saying (rightly or wrongly) as only the immaterial really exists.

a collection of information in the form of thoughts, which make up a sense of reason and self awareness. those would be bare minimum qualities of mind.

Internal awareness is an option, but not by itself.  To know you are conscious you have to be aware of something outside of yourself, existence if you like so you can know you are conscious and the changes in your state of consciousness are possible and anchored to something in reality.

i don't see how internal awareness entails external awareness. to know you are conscious, all you need is the ability to think... i don't see how external awareness is required for thought.

What can you say or know or learn if you are only self aware?

you don't need to learn to think. and if you are self aware, why wouldn't you be conscious?

If I have never seen anything does the concept of brown have any meaning?

are you suggesting concept of color is required for consciousness? so what about blind people then? just because you don't have a concept of brown doesn't mean you're not conscious...

Are any other animals self aware and do they only exist as minds?

I'm not really in a position to speak for the consciousness of animals. I can really only know that I'm conscious. and I think it's reasonable to presume humans are conscious. but i can't determine such for animals.

But apparently it is at the whim of a ‘master-mind’. Call it mind A.   What is the difference between whim-wishing of mind A and the inability of whim-wishing of the whole set of minds excluding mind A.

the difference is the structure of the world is not determined by subjectivity of every mind, thus different for everyone. it has a consistent structure determined by this one 'mind A' and thus 'is' whatever mind A determines it to be. so if he determines the universe to appear a certain way, it is not a deception... it's a construction. that's like saying creating a video game world is a deception...

You seem to be making a case that a god would want not to observe QM systems.  Quite how you know that is excluded from your explanation.

a defense is not something you necessarily know or can prove... it's a plausible explanation that defends a proposition from criticism. can you show my defense is not plausible?

Thats not the point, I am using the theists own definitions here.  The point is it can and does observe everything including quantum physics.

why do you get to determine that? I don't see why this mind has to observe every particle phenomenon... why have you made that determination?