Idealism is more Rational than Materialism

[Mudhammam]

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

Your mind is part of the process that amounts to an experience of the world... namely, yours. It's not the cause of the world. THAT is your actual claim here, and just an unsubstantiated one that you keep repeating, in spite of being forced into the desperate position of resorting to a cosmic, non-material mind when people point out the obvious absurdities your argument finds itself in. This is the last time I'll ask you to provide a sufficient basis for that assertion. Remember, I'm not asking you for pure speculation and hokey metaphysics.

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.

You can say anything you like. But that's not how arguments work. You've provided no reason why minds should be fundamentally tied to material brains ON IDEALISM, when it explicitly states that ALL matter is created by minds, nor have you suggested where your cosmic material brain might be discovered.

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

The way you were using it was exactly that. Everything you defined in terms of information was equally reducible to material phenomenon.

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

No, it's rather an indication that your ideas aren't very engaging and I'm quickly losing interest in this thread.

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

Until evidence suggests otherwise, that's what observation would seem to correspond with: minds are private and, as you say, fundamentally tied to the material constituents that compose each individual brain.

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

They are concepts that describe material objects, such as the wavelength of light, the depth or width of objects, etc. Concepts arise as a result of brains processes. Brains are material.

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.

So your idea of theism is actually more like pantheism? You don't believe God is different from the substance that comprises the "physical" world?

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.

Here your argument completely fails. Your entire justification for giving precedence to "mind" up to this point has been "Cartesian skepticism" ... but somehow you allow yourself to believe other objects exist outside of your mind, but only for your religious purposes. I do it, rather, for practical reasons, none of which poison the discussion with superstitious metaphysics. This is where the scientific method comes into the picture.

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/

Maybe you should start with the Churchlands, Dennett, or the excellent symposium Explaining Consciousness: The Hard Problem, edited by Johnathan Shear. Remember, just because there are key questions left unresolved does not mean that your position offers any answers, or even any possibility for answers.