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.