Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Mudhammam]

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.

Instead you've demonstrated the opposite, that you must conceive mind as a substance which has no relation to the real world, and in turn is a far more elaborate assumption, namely that mind is not fundamentally tied to material brains, of which the only evidence we have contradicts your question begging. Hence, you've failed.

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?

It makes no difference. That's merely semantics.

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

LOL. A correlation you have no reason to give precedence on your worldview. The rotation of the sun might as well be correlated to mind too (oh yeah... THAT IS WHAT YOU SAY. LOLOL) .

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.

Now why on earth would you have to repeat this meaningless word salad a dozen times? Non-local mind has absolutely no meaning---that's on top of your complete lack of reference to anything in existence that you can actually point to as an example.

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?

Information always refers to matter or material processes. There's literally no distinction, no ghost in the machine, as you desperately want there to be. You say, "I'm thinking of X. X is not non-material," and I say, "Your statement is just another description for the material processes Y and Z," to which you reply, "Yes, they correlate! But that's it!" Of course, you think mind correlates to literally EVERYTHING, so the fact that mind is especially altered in relation to neuron cells and not the feeding habits of seahorses, you can only rely on those working on the assumption of realism and physicalism to find out for you.

so postulating something existing outside brain is not parsimonious? why don't you try not to do that then...
[quote='Rational AKD' pid='868422' dateline='1423390235']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.

Lol. You haven't addressed anything. And materialists have addressed the so-called hard problem. That you're unaware or disagree doesn't justify your statement here.

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?

irrelevant due to aforementioned mind-brain correlation.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

In all of these fiat assertions, evasions, red herrings, and non-sequiturs, was there a point you wanted to make for your argument? I don't have time to argue in circles about whatever new excuses you can come up with to not put away your Jesus toys.