Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

See, you keep deifying individual perception, but then when someone asks the next obvious questions, such as, "Did the Egyptians build the pyramids before your perception of them came into being?" or "Is the earth the same age as your mind?", to avoid looking like you belong in a nut house, you instead just opt to appear silly: ad hoc asserting that mind is really a substance that is MUCH MUCH BIGGER than YOUR mind, though you have no evidence that such a universal mind exists...

you have spent several posts complaining about evidence while providing none of your own. as I said, I'm not trying to prove idealism on this thread... I'm just showing it makes fewer assumptions and thus is more reasonable.

nor what it even means for a mind to exist independent of a material brain.

it means that information is fundamental and everything emerges from it... do you need to think of matter to think of information? or is it the other way around?

That's not parsimonious. Furthermore, you can change your perceptions by influencing your material brain by injecting material chemicals.

which only necessitates a correlation... not a brain mind causality.

Strange, since, you know, you claim mind is non-material and more fundamental.

not strange at all since I literally explained this dozens of times on this thread. brain is the mind's self localization in space... and since it is truly mental... it makes perfect sense for a mental substance to affect mind. particularly since the self localization is what's being affected.

The fewest assumptions demands that the "assembled information" is the atomic "materials" that we can identify entering our sense organs and affecting our brain states.

but I don't see why you need to postulate material substance to explain information. why does information require matter? we don't need to think of information in terms of matter and often times don't. isn't this a good indicator information is not necessarily derived from matter? how can something from matter ever not be in terms of matter?

Nowhere does fewest assumptions = cosmic mind that exists outside of a brain

so postulating something existing outside brain is not parsimonious? why don't you try not to do that then...

and does everything, but nothing more, than the physical world can be understood to do.

obviously the last part isn't true because the hard problem of consciousness is still there... but just for materialists. the hard problem of consciousness is non-existent to idealists.

Because the universe is not so simple that every configuration of matter results in the same properties, which consciousness is. It's like asking, "Why think in terms of liquid when things can be explained as solid?"

except that's not true at all. things we observe can be non-solid. things we observe can't be non-consciousness. see the difference?

Different productions require distinct terms and concepts, which is why we talk of mental experience in connection to brain states and not to rocks or ghosts that watch over the world.

irrelevant due to aforementioned mind-brain correlation.

Which you have zero evidence for, and is only necessary to avoid the ridiculous conclusions I mentioned above...

and this is supposed to be an argument against? the evidence is that it is the only coherent way to explain idealism. I don't see how necessary implications of a proposition prove the proposition wrong... unless you prove the implications wrong... but you didn't. you just said they're "only necessary to avoid ridiculous conclusions" in which case so what?

Note that your not using "mind of God" in a metaphorical sense for something like "principle of order." By mind you explicitly mean a person with feelings and intentions.

that's because a principle can't 'do' anything. we need an explanation for the existence of consciousness and the apparent physical world we experience. for that we need something that can 'act.' a principle can't act, but a mind can.

And then came science, and we discovered that the "information" is not at all like we thought

only concerning the physical world. which under idealism you have 'structural realism' which states the physical world has a defined structure, but is still derived from consciousness. nothing in science has proved idealism wrong.

that the only evidence of minds to have been in existence (at least on our planet) is negligible in comparison to the age of matter

only assuming realism or materialism... which is question begging.

As you also must do, since we have nothing else but perception upon which to do metaphysics.

the difference is the perception you are using is a posteriori. the perception I am using is introspection. we can't be wrong in terms of our own knowledge, because this would be a contradiction of terms. and the nature of our own knowledge tell us everything we experience are in these terms. it is not assuming anything to arrive at this conclusion.

So your parents weren't physically defined until you were born? Remember, you don't mean from your individual perspective, you mean in a metaphysical sense. Their ontology depends on you.

which would only be true of a solipsist... I am not a solipsist.

Strange that we wouldn't be able to tell the difference and yet still be able to identify the phenomenon of illusions?

yes... some illusions are easy to point out. but not by external perception. rather by coherence. coherence can always show what's false, but nothing is incoherent about idealism.

I don't know. But I have every reason to believe that to be the case, and only solipsistic skepticism to think otherwise.

typo? i'm guessing you meant to say "every reason not to believe..." and the skepticism is the very thing that I bring forth to show materialism is not necessarily true. I mean really? 'only positions that aren't mine are possible alternatives..." well duh.

When I write something in stone, why should I think the stone with its inscription disappears when I turn my head, and then re-appears exactly as it was before I looked away, never reverting back its original condition, prior to my tampering, even when I try to change my mind about it? When a child is born, I know that child may think it brought me into existence, just as your thinking you brought the world into existence (But wait, you have your ad hoc deity to solve that), but my experience (and everyone else's) testifies that the child is wrong, just as it testifies you are wrong.

most of this is irrelevant due to straw manning my position into solipsism. since you have demonstrated knowledge that I am not a solipsist, I can only presume that you are maliciously straw manning my position. do you even care for intelligent exchange? or do you have to be dishonest?

Do you control whether you feel sleepy?
Do you control whether you feel hungry?
Do you control whether you feel frightened?
Do you control whether you feel angry?
Do you control whether you feel sad?
Do you control whether you feel lonely?

obviously there are bodily functions you don't control... and there are some you do. I really don't see your point in pointing this out other than to childishly say 'gotcha.' do you have a point?