Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Alex K]

Really? Reminds me of the Nessie believer in that movie, who tells the skeptics "I say: show me the non-evidence!"

quantum entanglement "seems" to be a violation of special relativity. that must mean special relativity is actually wrong. have you abandoned special relativity yet? if not, good... you see what I'm saying. by your logic we don't need any further evidence to show relativity was violated.

If you take the imposition of Lorentz covariance on all equations of motion as the definition of special relativity, it doesn't violate it at any level because quantum field theory is completely covariant.
While the mathematical formalism of quantum theory seems to violate the causal structure of minkowski space, upon closer inspection one finds that observables do not because the particle and antiparticle contributions of correlation functions cancel outside the light cone, so all is well and the violation is only in the intermediate formalism. The conservation of Lorentz invariance however was never in doubt there.

I have no idea how this is supposed to be an analogy to the things we are discussing here.

The sensation you identify with the word consciousness is gone when you are unconscious.

then you don't have any sensation when you are asleep AKA unconscious... are dreams sensations? if yes then you just proved yourself wrong...

No I haven't. Why do you think I have??? Sure you can have something like a conscious state while sleeping, but it's obviously the exception. It certainly is when you are in a coma

You want to special plead "consciousness" into existence by default by extending the meaning of the word as you need it, at the same time shifting the burden of proof in an absolutely ridiculous fashion.

the words are descriptive of what we observe and we can't observe someone else's mental states. that is not redefining, extending, or anything it is fact. prove me wrong. can we observe someone else's mental states?

Not observe directly, it seems. Not yet at least. I'm not sure how that relates to my criticism in the paragraph you've quoted

If you claim to have an invisible dragon in your garage, you have to give evidence, not the other way around.

the difference is the existence of mind is self substantiating. invisible dragons aren't...

Self substantiating? Must be some magical property that makes evidence unnecessary. What is it?