Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

I think J.P. Sartre would disagree that Descartes proved that.

he proved that you cannot doubt the existence of your own conscious experience. consciousness is essential to conscious experience, therefore he proved that the existence of consciousness cannot be doubted. do you doubt consciousness? because that means you are conscious.

I don't think your simple application of these cartesian ideas is compatible with Occam's razor.

Cartesian skepticism is an application of logic, just the same as Occam's Razor. how is logic incompatible with logic?

(Apart from the fact that with your approach you essentially end up with solipsism)

the only thing Cartesian Skepticism implies with the use Occam's Razor is idealism. you may say it is unnecessary to postulate the existence of many minds when you only need to postulate the existence of your own mind, but that's where I use evidence arguments against solipsism which I didn't feel the need to post here since both positions imply theism.

you think postulating the material is an unnecessary complication.

if it is necessary then you have a firm defeater for hard solipsism. do you have this defeater? because you could revolutionize philosophy if you did.

In the end, though, your mind, or the universal mind you propose, contains all the structures which we identify as the material world - including the human brains, which are known to contain much of the machinery necessary to produce the processes of the mind. You can even test this hypothesis by manipulating your brain with stimuli and observing the effects on your consciousness and mind.

and as I've said this only proves a correlation between mind and brain, not that brain produces mind. brain can affect mind without causing it.

Now, in your picture of idealism, it is wholly unnecessary to have structures in this mind world which correspond to biological machines which process memories, thoughts, sensations...

you confuse what is necessary for the explanation and what is necessary for the process. of course it's not necessary for mind to create an apparently independent physical world... but that doesn't mean it can't. Occam's Razor only sheds unnecessary postulations to fit what we experience. it doesn't shed postulations because the don't necessarily produce the results we experience. you equivocate what is necessary to postulate and what is necessary of the postulation. there don't need to be these structures and mechanisms given idealism... but that is what we experience so we cannot deny that we experience them. we only need to postulate why they exist. and given what I've said, monistic idealism is more reasonable for explaining this than materialism.

looking and behaving exactly as if the mind were produced by material means.

you are begging the question here. you assume you know what material looks like and how it behaves even though you only experience mental projections of this material. according to materialism; color, taste, sound, etc. don't actually exist in the material world. those are just in our heads and what exists outside is a world of material governed by consistent laws and mathematics. it is you who postulate the world is not what we perceive it to be, full of color, sounds, and tastes.

Since these structures are obviously there and impact the mind exactly as would be expected from a mind which arises from this material brain, it violates Occam's razor to postulate that the mind is not a product of the material brain.

if these materials are actually mental projections, it makes perfect sense given our experience that these mental projections impact our mental states. in idealism, all that is material is actually mental. it makes sense that mental structures affect mind. with this consistency it seems unnecessary to postulate physical substances that we do not observe and in fact are impossible to observe since we cannot observe what is outside our conscious states.