Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

I had never heard of idealism, solipsism or monism.

I'm sure you heard of monism. it's simply the belief that there is only 1 fundamental substance. materialism is a form of monism. idealism is the other.

Where do animals fit into this? Are they also individual minds under the super-consciousnesses?

I honestly don't know. it's possible some of them do, though many of them seem to primitive to have consciousness. it's hard to tell outside yourself what is truly conscious and what is just bio machines with programmed instinct. I think it's fair to say humans are conscious, but it's hard to tell without communication if other animals are.

why the existence of simple brains like that found in a worm?

brains are still capable of many things even without mind. of course worms don't show anything resembling sentience. but of course everything within this apparent physical world requires physical mechanics including the physical mechanics that allow us control over our bodies. so worms have brains so they can fulfil their intended role and have complete defined physical mechanisms.

I understand that under idealism, the worm and everything else is just a projection but why project such a thing?

it has a physical role in the physical world we observe. to put it plainly, God wasn't lazy as to put us in a 64 bit simulation. the world is very detailed.

The human brain has been described as a "kludge", basically a tangle of complex machinery layered on top of much simpler machinery. It makes sense assuming an evolved brain but none at all for a brain designed from scratch. Why would such a brain be projected?

as to give the simulated physical world whole physical descriptions and governing mechanisms. a simulation is supposed to be detailed, or it's not a good simulation after all.

Unless you are advocating Solipsism or mass hallucination

solipsism, no. mass hallucination, sort of. more like we're all in a simulated reality.

then my observations are confirmed by others' observations of the same and similar matter.

which would be consistent with the proposition we are all in a simulated reality. and this eliminates the need for a foreign non-conscious substance that we can't observe.

That matter exists is the more parsimonious and coherent explanation.

except you already gave alternatives that were more parsimonious and coherent which you detracted because you didn't like them.

Lol what? Yeah, I'm afraid all indication says it does.

indications from what exactly? your perception of the outside world? news flash, you can't use your perception to justify what you think your perception is. to justify a source you must use a different source. the only thing we have besides perception of the world is introspection. and this shows ideas, thoughts, and information is what's most fundamental in all of our mental processes. so why postulate something more fundamental when mind is all we need to explain experience?

Perhaps you know that for metaphysics to have any weight it must be informed by the evidence of the physical world, otherwise it's just pulling shit out of one's ass?

except you can't get evidence from the physical world. all you can get is evidence derived from assembled information that resembles a physical world, which makes up your perception. you can't use what you perceive as evidence for statements about your perception. like I said, this evidence was either gathered from a foreign substance compiled into information in terms of mind, or it just comes from mind.
which makes fewer assumptions?

Who's doing that? I didn't posit any unnecessary substances

except matter... you don't think in terms of matter, you think in terms of consciousness. why postulate anything else?

like a Super Duper Conscious Disconnected From Any Material Entity And That Presumably Floats In A Vacuum.

not disconnected from material... he is the source of material. material is projected information within the mind of God. what do we presume here? the existence of mind (already known), the existence of information (known), and the existence of a conscious source of it. so really idealism only makes one postulation you don't already accept. but it seems more parsimonious to accept a conscious source than non-conscious material we can only perceive with abstract descriptions (which should bare no meaning if non-existent).

The part that says all evidence of physics demands that a lot of material objects are, oh, just some billions years older than my mind.

again, you're trying to use perception to justify perception. you know science operates necessarily on assumptions like "the world wasn't created recently with an appearance of age." if consciousness is fundamental, then objects are only there when we look at them. they are the sum of the possibilities governed by defined probabilities that aren't actualized until observed, and only give basic information for the observer's perspective. so when something is observed, it becomes definite as one of the possibilities and loads a back history to simulate past behavior as if it was always physically defined, even though it wasn't. a simulation of physical worlds has defined physical laws. and of course, the simulated world would always appear older than the person perceiving the simulation. like when you play a game and it loads the resolution as you perceive different areas. they weren't there until you looked at them then they loaded.

No idea what you're babbling about here.

that we already know mind can create illusions that make us think to be real... indicating we can't tell the difference between mental projection from our senses or just mind.

The same way I would know that my parents were born before I was. Is this hard for you or something?

which only attests to your consciousness. I'm talking about consciousness as a whole. how do you know consciousness isn't the source of everything?

I'm sure it doesn't take a lot to impress a Jesus nut.

and obviously you don't get sarcasm that is made painfully obvious. and you don't even defend yourself that you are question begging.

Am I in control of my body, or is this something else in control of my body?

you control your body... but your body isn't everything.