Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[The Grand Nudger]

exactly which one of those are merely asserted and not proven?

-all...of...them........I thought I was pretty clear.

1. you are conscious and you cannot doubt this because doubting requires consciousness.

Am "I"? Does "doubting"? What is "consciousness"? I know, I know, you've swallowed the cogito....unfortunately it's not a strictly rational statement - though many do find it to b compelling, of course.

this is Cartesian Skepticism as proven by René Descartes. this is not disputed among philosophers.

Unsurprising, since it's their business to think. Police don't doubt the existence of crime, firefighters don't doubt the existence of fire. While it is difficult to conceptualize some situation in which I think, but am not, or that there is no I, but there is thinking from a point of igorance of that process, even if one accepts the cogito that still leaves open the question "what am I" - which is the question that would need to be answered in the context of a conversaion between materialism and idealism. So it gets you - specifically- no purchase...regardless of whether or not one accepts it.

2. it is possible for you to exist a world where everything is mental (like your dreams)it is not disputed that your dreams do not have material objects yet appear to be material. what's your objection with this?

Flat out assertion. I say your dreams are descriptions of the states of a physical machine. So yeah, that's disputed....by the very position you are arguing against. Stop asserting that the other side is wrong, pretending that the position does not exist, and make an argument to that effect, eh?

3. it is not possible for you to exist in a world without consciousness (as you are conscious).
you are a conscious being. it should be evident that you cannot exist in a would without consciousness.

All hinges on what you think consciousness is. I'm not the kind of guy that lets shit get smuggled into an argument. If you think that consciousness is, essentially, ghosts...then yeah - it's "possible" for me to live in a world where consciousness, as you...the arguer - perceive it - but yet doesn't exist.

4. therefore it is not necessary to postulate physical substances to explain our experience
follows from the premises. what exactly is not proven here?

That -is- precisely what is not proven. That those physical substances are not postulated...but observed (and you wouldn;t want to go doubting that experience...now would you?) probably should have tipped you off to the possibility that you went off the rails somewhere.

Consciousness, btw, may not "enable experience" at all - again, you keep asserting what can or cannot be doubted..asserting that no one can disagree with you in what you yourself have decided to call an "important discussion" - this is fucking ridiculous.....