Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Rational AKD]

Ok, for now. But my question was: what means "A is more fundamental than B

if physical is more fundamental than mental, then we have matter, energy, space, and time. from these things come all things. the universe is independent and objectively real. we are constructs of these physical processes concerning the fundamental objects described.
if mental is more fundamental than physical, information comprises everything. space-time is emergent from information mentally constructed. matter is only there if you perceive it. otherwise it's only a potentiality of what it could be based on pre-established probabilistic formulas. in materialism, everything is in a state even when not observed. in idealism, observation is what creates physical reality. and how we observe can change how reality behaves. the universe is a structure in idealism, but it is a structure of probabilities that aren't made definite until directly observed by a conscious observer. if mind is fundamental, then the apparent physical universe is not all there is. mind is not contingent upon matter. matter is contingent upon mind. there is nothing without consciousness. consciousness is everything. consciousness controls everything. a materialist world doesn't necessitate consciousness but an idealist world does. get it?

And here you start making stuff up without justification.

ok question time.
1. are you a materialist?
2. if yes, do brains produce mind?
3. can mind exist without brains to produce them?
4. if yes, then what produces them besides brains?
materialists tend to think minds are processes of brains and therefore necessitate them. if your belief differs please explain.

This is exactly what I mean. It is apparently lost, and in order to keep up your idea of the primacy of consciousness over matter, you have to start making excuses and hedging that go counter the observation.

there is a difference between something that is apparently gone and actually gone. I am saying it merely appears their consciousness is gone, but it is not. it is fallacious to say "it appears gone therefore it is." this is the problem with using information that is a posteriori. you cannot prove something is necessarily true of mind from what you observe in reality. but you can prove something is necessarily true of mind from what you observe in your own conscious states.

Consciousness as we know it is lost when you are unconscious.

"for all we know it's gone therefore it's gone..." do you hear yourself?

Spoken like a true follower of Occam. Not.

way to address what I say... the point is there are clear examples of what appears gone to us that we know aren't. how do you know if it's really gone? you can't. all you have are your senses which can't tell you anything about someone else's mental states.