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.

[Alex K]

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.

Ok you can stop there. The notion of one thing coming from something else is derived from our concept of causality, which is a (statistical) phenomenon resulting from the laws of physics we observe. In the context in which you attempt to use it here, it is meaningless.

[Aoi Magi]

Sorry but I have no knowledge whatsoever in philosophy, but this discussion seems very interesting. I would like to understand something, you said the brain is just a manifestation of the consciousness, and analogous to a whirlpool in water. Now the water is something which formed the whirlpool, and just as the whirlpool affects the surrounding water, so can the water effect the whirlpool. Can consciousness effect the brain similarly? Can it form a sustainable brain without the physical shell of a body? If the body is a requirement for the brain, then where does it fit into your view?

[robvalue]

I guess I just got souled out. Back to beating myself endlessly with household objects, I'll be back in a bit.

[Alex K]

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.

Yes, I'd say I am

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.

You claim that it is not gone, contrary to observation, without evidence.

it is fallacious to say "it appears gone therefore it is."

I'm not drawing a hard conclusion here. We are talking about Occam's razor, and if you try to advocate that consciousness is still there even when it apparently isn't, you better have evidence for that very strong claim that makes it survive the razor.

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.

Again, I didn't try to prove anything

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?

It is lost by definition when you are unconscious. You can then invent a definition of consciousness which is still present when you are unconscious, but then it is you who is begging the question.

[Rational AKD]

ADK:

So what makes you think such a thing exists? If you subtract the physical what is left? The term "abstract" refers to concepts, which manifest as physical brain configurations.

Why should I believe in any of this? It's an extremely vague description of something. Just because you describe it, doesn't mean it's real.

---

It's like me saying to you a car has a soul, it's the part of the car that makes it the car, the part that isn't just the physical things the car is made from. The essence of the car.

You'd say I was trying to define things into existence, presumably. Or do cars have souls too?

your question assumes materialism. let me ask you a question. is it possible for you to exist in a world projected by your mind? I suspect you will say yes since every time we dream we are in a mentally constructed world. second, is it possible to perceive beyond your mental perception? since this possibly is incoherent, you should say no. third, what then is wrong with the postulation that the world we think is real is also mentally constructed? given the last 2, there should be nothing wrong or incoherent about this postulation. fourth, can we perceive a world without mind? the answer is no because there is no perception without mind. fifth, if we are either in a world that has mind or a world that has mind and matter, which world makes fewer assumptions? a world with only mind, or one with mind and matter? take your time...

[robvalue]

[Rational AKD]

[robvalue]

Mind? I was asking what a soul is. Is our mind our soul?

Saying it's impossible to exist without a mind is an unsupported assertion. What does "exist" mean? Do rocks not exist?

These kind of debates are really troubled by definitions.

[Rational AKD]

Mind? I was asking what a soul is. Is our mind our soul?

Saying it's impossible to exist without a mind is an unsupported assertion. What does "exist" mean? Do rocks not exist?

These kind of debates are really troubled by definitions.

soul and mind are equivocal.
I said for "Us" to exist. can we exist as rocks? yes... but you wouldn't be conscious. in order to have thoughts, senses, and awareness; you must be conscious. i'm also using consciousness and mind equivocally to avoid further confusion.

as I said in the OP, you cannot doubt consciousness as doubting requires consciousness. you can doubt matter as your mind can produce an apparent material world without actual matter. you cannot observe a world without consciousness (that you exist in) because you need to be conscious to observe anything. you cannot verify what is behind your mental states as you use your mind to verify things. therefore it is unnecessary to postulate our mental states show us an actual physical world when all we need are mental states and we do not need a physical world to explain anything.