Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

LOL, yeah, thats it, it's not like I could parse an easy handful of hidden assumptions in the way that you've expressed this (and this is still apparent after a very obvious attempt to state it as succinctly as possible on your part)

i'm afraid accusations aren't enough to show you're right. do tell what 'hidden assumptions' I have within that one assumption.

but it doesn't matter, because you make as few assumptions as possible, you don't get rid of what is in evidence or hide the fullest extent of your statement -just- so that you don't have to declare it

again... just accusations on your part and no evidence.

If you've concluded , through reason, that solipsism is incorrect - then any problem presented by solipsism is not an issue which requires a solution.

I don't use 'problems presented by solipsism' to substantiate idealism. I use Cartesian skepticism to show the external world can be doubted but consciousness can't. then I go through possible explanations for consciousness and show what has the least unnecessary assumptions and full explanatory power and by Occam's Razor that would be the most reasonable.
since the rest of your rant is based on your asserted accusations and still have no substantiation I noticed in an earlier post of yours I glossed over something I should address.

it doesn't assume anything. "I doubt" requires an I. you cannot doubt without being.

It assumes that there is an I....and then concludes that I exist. Again, nothing to do with any problem regarding materialism or idealism. Put another way, this "I" could be some free floating concept, or this "I" could be a set material thing. There's nothing in cogito that speaks to either.

yes, there is nothing about Cartesian skepticism that states the nature of your existence, merely you exist and you are conscious. I never stated it said anything different. you are the one who stated it's possible to conceptualize 'I think but I am not' which is blatantly false.

by doubting you are already assuming you are aware.

By assuming that there is an I thinking, you are already assuming that there is an existent "I".

exactly. to doubt is to think and to think is to be. the ability to doubt your consciousness implies you are consciousness making your doubt incoherent.

it's not that proving your consciousness assumes the conclusion. it's that doubting your consciousness assumes you are conscious. see the difference?

Nope...because there ain't one. All this tells us is that we are incapable of making such a statement sensibly. I would refer you to the necessity of assumption in computational systems, regardless of the accuracy of that assumption.

you do realize that if you don't consider incoherence proof of inaccuracy you are doubting the reliability of your cognitive faculties which implies epistemological nihilism. you cannot draw conclusions except by your cognitive faculties so to doubt them is to commit intellectual suicide.
to doubt your consciousness implies you are conscious. you cannot coherently doubt you are conscious while assuming you are. therefore you must be conscious. to deny this is to deny reason. to deny reason is intellectual suicide.

The goal is to get work done, whether or not that work is accurate is a bonus - and in no way a guarantee.

by denying our ability to reason accurately, you cannot claim this statement is accurate. so I have no reason to be convinced it is true.

Instead you've demonstrated the opposite, that you must conceive mind as a substance which has no relation to the real world

I never said that. I said the mind is the cause of the world we experience. this is not a disconnect.

namely that mind is not fundamentally tied to material brains, of which the only evidence we have contradicts your question begging.

this is not my assumption... you are straw manning... again. I've said that mind's and brains are fundamentally tied, being that brains are part of minds. their self localization in space.

It makes no difference. That's merely semantics.

material being emergent from information is semantics? because that is not materialism.

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

*Yawn* mocking is one of the signs that you have no rebuttal. is this your last ditch?

Non-local mind has absolutely no meaning

so mind necessitates locality? can you please show why this is instead of just asserting it.

Information always refers to matter or material processes.

is red a material? is the number 5 a material? they aren't a series of actions so they can't be a process...

There's literally no distinction, no ghost in the machine, as you desperately want there to be.

I actually agree there is no distinction between the ghost and the machine... not because there is no ghost, but because there is no machine. we're both monists remember.

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.

everything is derived from mind, but not particularly your mind. your brain has a correlation to your mental states, but not feeding habitats of sea horses... they are only part of your perception.

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.

they haven't been able to adequately explain how our mental states reduce to physical objects and processes. we conceptualize qualia, which is not material in nature and can be completely disassociated with material. the fact that you're unaware of the problem, or the severity it poses which has not been resolved by materialists doesn't mean it's not there.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness/

irrelevant due to aforementioned mind-brain correlation.

that doesn't answer the problem of your analogy not being analogous.

In all of these fiat assertions, evasions, red herrings, and non-sequiturs, was there a point you wanted to make for your argument?

if you're gonna be so lazy as to say 'YOU'RE WRONG!' without any kind of substantiation or even clarification I don't see a point in addressing it... believe what you want, but you haven't proved a thing.

In your defense against solipsism, you said that if consciousness were truly fundamental (to all), that it would be in control of everything. My point is that we have conscious states that we aren't fully in control of. It would seem by your logic that this means consciousness isn't fundamental; there is something 'underneath' that at times is in control of our conscious states.

no, this only shows that 'our' consciousness is not fundamental. it doesn't eliminate the possibility *some of our conscious states are controlled by a greater consciousness.

If I were a physicalist, I'd say that something is hormones. Injecting alcohol induces drunkness; injecting lactic acid induces panic. It would seem from this that the physical body is primary.

you don't need to be a materialist to believe that. I believe that too, but I also think those material influences have predetermined properties due to their conscious source origin. but of course this conscious source is not our consciousness.