Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

Between the brain of a dead person and the brain of a living person, mind those goalposts sweetheart.

there is no difference in what I'm questioning.

They are no longer present at the required levels, the composition has changed. If they were, the brain would continue to function.

what does brain function have to do with consciousness? you said consciousness "is" the machine, not the function or process of it.

Now you're assuming self localization

self localization means we, our "selves," are localized in space in regards to our perception. we both agree we are self localized in brains... unless you still think this is presumptuous...

a simpler explanation is that brain is self, so affecting brain affects self. Fewer assumptions, see?

does a dead person have consciousness? does he have a sense of self?

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.

so you don't think your consciousness can be disrupted, temporarily or permanently? you don't ever appear to 'lose' consciousness?

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.

it retains some properties of corn, which one form of control is the ability to determine properties. stuff made from corn will have corn-like properties. though the whiskey isn't just corn, which is what I was getting at. so it doesn't solely have corn properties.

Matter doesn't control. It simply interacts.

the type of interaction is what determines the result. determine IE control the result.

I actually think you're bullshitting me

you caught me... yeah... if my logic is 'faulty' it can't be corrected by some change in where the premises derive from.

1.
the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events.

exactly. matter has the power to influence or direct the behavior of other materials in a period of time. now of course I subbed people with materials, but you can't make a distinction between the 2 anyway since you said yourself 'the brain is self... mental constructs are the machine.'

Your if is showing.

yes... I use the word 'if' when I explore implications of hypotheticals. because if I asserted it, you would deny it and we would get nowhere.

Goodness gracious no, that would only be true if your consciousness was the -only- fundamental thing. Undeclared baggage, sir.

first, I've said many times on this thread idealism is a 'monist' belief. this baggage was claimed before you even caught sight of it. second, even if there was a fundamental substance outside consciousness; it couldn't interact because it would need to do so via a shared property. 2 fundamental substances can't share a property... otherwise they wouldn't be fundamental. this is the interaction problem I referenced in the OP that debunks dualism.

Strange, I do have control over some of my thoughts, does that mean that some of this world is a metaphysical solipsist world?

it was a redundant point. this is true in any view that includes free will.

That something is a derivative does not imply or establish that what it was derived from has control over it.

given the nature of a solipsist world, thoughts are the cause that shaped the world. given the thoughts are controlled by the one consciousness (which you did not raise objection to) the thoughts therefore did not 'have' to create the subjective world but were controlled to do so by the consciousness. which gives that control to the consciousness again brining us at premise 2.

Further, one is perfectly capable of controlling things which are not derived from themselves.

not directly with thoughts.

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.

the kind of control i'm speaking of is the control you have in your imagination. you have no limits in your imaginary world. why should a solipsist world be different from this?

The key term in that phrase is "can" — if you haven't shown that reality is possible under idealism, you haven't satisfied the razor.

Until then, this is all just semantics and speculation.

do you even know what you're talking about? my goal isn't to show reality is possible under idealism... this should be evident already. and Occam's Razor isn't for that. what I am saying is all we perceive, all we observe, is conscious perception. since consciousness is the most fundamental part of our experience, it would not be parsimonious and it would be impossible to verify our consciousness comes from un-consciousness. so by Occam's Razor, it is more reasonable to presume our consciousness is fundamental.