Berkeley's syllogism

[Q-Source]

1. Physical things are things perceived by sense
2. Things perceived by sense are ideas

Therefore physical things are ideas.


What do you think of Berkeley's syllogism?

Can you refute it?

[Skeptical Greg]

Well, No. 2 is begging the question, so I think it falls apart pretty fast..

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Well, No. 2 is begging the question, so I think it falls apart pretty fast..

why?

how do you perceive the existence things if it is not by your senses? :confused:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Q-Source


why?

how do you perceive the existence things if it is not by your senses? :confused:


Of course I perceive things with my senses.. But..

2. Things perceived by sense are ideas ..

Is not the same as : " 2. ' ALL ' Things perceived by sense are ideas ..

Which is what would have to be true for.. " Therefore physical things are ideas. "

To be true ...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This syllogism is just the same as saying..

Since Crows eat corn, anything that eat's corn must be a Crow...

It's absurd...


P.S..

Just realized this is just another twist on:

" If a tree falls and no one hears it.. etc.. "


Of course, anything we sense becomes an ' idea ', but now it has two states.. One as a physical thing, and two, as an idea ..
Of course the same ' one ' thing, can exist as an infinite number of ' ideas '.. Do we now have more than one ' thing '.. Does this alter the amount of matter in the perceived universe.. It would not seem so..

[LW]

Originally posted by Q-Source




how do you perceive the existence things if it is not by your senses? :confused:

Syntactically it is a valid syllogism. However, I for one don't know what the proposition 2 is supposed to say. What is an "idea" in this context?

I could present here another syllogism that is valid in the same sense as the Berkeley's is:

1. Physical things are things perceived by sense.
2. Things perceived by physical sense are floarghbzzzs.

Therefore, physical things are floarghbzzzs.

[arcticpenguin]

It falls apart because of the false equation of the idea of the sensed physical object with the object itself.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Is not the same as : " 2. ' ALL ' Things perceived by sense are ideas ..



It would be redundant to include "ALL" in the syllogism. Tell me one thing that exists that you cannot perceive by sense.

Q-S

[LW]

Originally posted by Diogenes





2. Things perceived by sense are ideas .

Is not the same as : " 2. ' ALL ' Things perceived by sense are ideas ..

I'd say that in this case 'all' is the implied quantifier. While on the second reading also the first statement seems to have ambiguous wording, it can be read so that syllogism becomes valid. In mathematical notation:

1) for all x (physical(x) -> perceived_by_sense(x) ).
2) for all x (perceived_by_sense(x) -> idea(x) ).

From these it follows that for all x (physical(x) -> idea(x)).

But of course, to give some meaning to 2) we would need to have a definition for an 'idea'.

[LW]

Originally posted by Q-Source


It would be redundant to include "ALL" in the syllogism.

No it wouldn't, since there are also forms of syllogisms with the "exists" quantifier. For example:

1) All Swedes are Europeans.
2) Some persons are Swedes.

Therefore, some persons are European.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by LW


Syntactically it is a valid syllogism. However, I for one don't know what the proposition 2 is supposed to say. What is an "idea" in this context?



Everything that humans know is because they have perceived it through their senses, they make a mental representation of it, we call them ideas.

You see a physical thing, let's say a chair, you can see directly or indirectly and touch it, you have the idea of what a chair is. If you cannot perceive it then it doesn't exist. But this syllogism means that physical things only exist because we make a mental representation of them (they are ideas).

[metacristi]

The syllogism is valid but,I'm afraid,it's not sound because of the premise #2.Basically there is no way to establish that this premise is true from 'inside' our reality.Of course this does not mean that Berkeley's idealism is false,in fact it is a viable alternative to materialism,anyway the hard fact remain:the above syllogism is not sound.Consequently there is also no necessity to believe the conclusion.Of course this does not mean we are compelled to not prefer it...

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by LW


No it wouldn't, since there are also forms of syllogisms with the "exists" quantifier. For example:

1) All Swedes are Europeans.
2) Some persons are Swedes.

Therefore, some persons are European.

Why don't you answer the question I made to Diogenes?. Tell me one thing that exists that you cannot perceive by sense.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Q-Source


It would be redundant to include "ALL" in the syllogism. Tell me one thing that exists that you cannot perceive by sense.

Q-S

All things at the ' micro ' level... When unaided by ' things' ( instruments ) that we have created..


The suggestion here, is that things are ' only ' ideas..

We have no reason to believe that is so.. See my " P. S. ", above..

[LW]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Why don't you answer the question I made to Diogenes?. Tell me one thing that exists that you cannot perceive by sense.

I'm not into metaphysics. I'm into logic.

But if you insist, I can't perceive an atom with my senses even though there exists quite strong evidence for their existence. [Before anyone comments about electron microscopy in general I'd like to emphasize that in those pictures you see representations of the atoms, not the atoms themselves.]

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Diogenes

Of course the same ' one ' thing, can exist as an infinite number of ' ideas '.. Do we now have more than one ' thing '.. Does this alter the amount of matter in the perceived universe.. It would not seem so..

Berkeley was not saying that ideas create physical things. :rolleyes:

What matters is the idea, we can have different interpretations of what a horse look like but the idea is the same.

[LW]

Originally posted by Q-Source




But this syllogism means that physical things only exist because we make a mental representation of them (they are ideas).

To be more precise, it means that if the two propositions are true, then the conclusion follows. In my opinion, both of them are suspect.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Berkeley was not saying that ideas create physical things. :rolleyes:

What matters is the idea, we can have different interpretations of what a horse look like but the idea is the same.

Sounds like you're back peddling to me..

You/Berkley are suggesting

..... that there are no ' things ', only ideas.. i.e.. Once we sense something it comes into existance.. If we don't sense it, it doesn't exist..


Explain to me if you are saying something else..:rolleyes:

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by LW


I'm not into metaphysics. I'm into logic.

The syllogism is logical. When you say "horses have four legs" you don't need to specify "All horses have four legs". :rolleyes:


But if you insist, I can't perceive an atom with my senses even though there exists quite strong evidence for their existence.

Following your reasoning...

what is the difference between believing in the existence of an atom (which according to you) you cannot perceive and believing in consciousness that you cannot either perceive?

[whitefork]

I think Hume takes that idea to its logical conclusion, denying the existence of the mind as well.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Mind/MindPres.htm

[LW]

Originally posted by Q-Source


The syllogism is logical. When you say "horses have four legs" you don't need to specify "All horses have four legs". :rolleyes:

As I wrote earlier, there are two quantifiers in classical logic: "for all" and "there exists" (or "some" as is more commonly used in syllogisms). They are not interchangable and it should be made clear which one is used. For example, your "horses have four legs" is false if it is used with "all" (a lame horse may have less than four legs) but with the existential quantifier we get: "there exists a horse that has four legs" that is true. The classical logic has the problem that it is very difficult to precisely formalize the statement: "usually, a horse has four legs". Because of this, a number of different semantics for capturing default reasoning have been developed during the last 25 years.



what is the difference between believing in the existence of an atom (which according to you) you cannot perceive and believing in consciousness that you cannot either perceive?

There is much scientific evidence for atoms having independent existence (most of the physics since 1900 and chemistry since Dalton, whenever he lived (18th century?)). The evidence for independent existence of conscicousness is on much weaker basis and it consists almost solely on personal anecdotes.

[Quasi]

I read your FAQ Q-Source,

I find this interesting in regards to your previous posts. Basically, our conciousness is shaped by our beliefs, which in turn arise from our experiences. So in that sense, we do not know anything beyond our experiences, and in some way Berkley's position appears true, given a certain interpretation. In light of this, and in relation to your belief that falsifiability is only applicable in certain situations, what possible value could a concept such as God really have if there are no sensatory phenomena at all, just some other persons word that it is there?

[Sundog]

I wish there was a smiley for hand-waving...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Sundog
I wish there was a smiley for hand-waving...


Do you need something more than this.


:w2:

[Bluefire]

Originally posted by Q-Source
1. Physical things are things perceived by sense
2. Things perceived by sense are ideas

Therefore physical things are ideas.


What do you think of Berkeley's syllogism?

Can you refute it?

Number 2 is false. The thing that you perceive is not an idea. Though the _perception_ itself might be called an idea for some meaning of idea, it's not that you can say that the thing itself is an idea

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Q-Source


Everything that humans know is because they have perceived it through their senses, they make a mental representation of it, we call them ideas.

You see a physical thing, let's say a chair, you can see directly or indirectly and touch it, you have the idea of what a chair is. If you cannot perceive it then it doesn't exist. But this syllogism means that physical things only exist because we make a mental representation of them (they are ideas).

Thank You for explaining the wqhole Berkley thing!\

The sylogism is true if we define all mental processes as 'idea'. It is inherent in the nature of perception that it is done by the brain, so if we define all brain events to be 'ideas' then it is true.

However there can be multiple partitions of thought and idea.

And it just is basicaly a statement that says all things human are percieved. To say that the external world is all idea , that is not the same as saying that all perceptions are idea.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Q-Source
1Can you refute it?
Just hand me my trusty baseball bat.

I take issue with no. 1. Physical things are percievable by sense, but not necessarily percieved. Berkely's sentence indicates that things that are not percieved are not physical. He implys that until something is percieved, it is not physical. This is nutz. There is a pebble of no statistical or gravitional influence lying somewhere on the dark side of the moon. It has never been percieved, but it is still physical.

Then no. 2 attempts to mingle the defintion of ideas. While it might be true that ideas also share the the attribute of being sense-percived, the mere fact that ideas and physical things share a single attribute hardly allows you to equate them. Phusical things are ideas with a physical counterpart: imaginary things are ideas without a physical conterpart. But Berkely is counting on you to forget this and just run with the idea.

[Tony]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Tell me one thing that exists that you cannot perceive by sense.

Radio signals, UV rays, X-rays are some that come to mind.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Q-Source
1. Physical things are things perceived by sense
2. Things perceived by sense are ideas

Therefore physical things are ideas.


What do you think of Berkeley's syllogism?

Can you refute it?

There's nothing at all wrong with the syllogism. The problem lies in the assumptions.

Physical things are things perceived by sense - No. Tony gave some excellent examples. And the are of identity is inappropriate here. A better wording would be All physical things can be perceived by the senses, which still is demonstrably false.

Things perceived by sense are ideas - Again, whatever this is meant to mean, the are implying identity is inappropriate here. Without the implication of identity, this is better phrased Things which are perceived by the senses give rise to ideas within the brain. WITH the identity, this can be phrased as "Everything you perceive is just an idea" which is certainly an questionable premise. Ian might accept it but I don't.

In short, it's a linguistic trick.

Without this trick, the syllogism reads:

All physical things can be perceived by the senses
Things which are perceived by the senses give rise to ideas within the brain
Therefore all physical things give rise to ideas within the brain.

Still not true, but not profound any more even if it were.

[Sundog]

Please excuse me if this point has been made before a zillion times, but Berkeley died in 1753. Ben Franklin conducted his kite experiment only one year earlier. Berkeley knew virtually nothing of electromagnetic phenomena!

Would he have come up with this philosophy if he had known about the unseeable yet undeniably real features of nature? After all, the idea of "it all exists in your head" is a little more palatable if you really can sense the entire universe... but we can't.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Sundog
Please excuse me if this point has been made before a zillion times, but Berkeley died in 1753. Ben Franklin conducted his kite experiment only one year earlier. Berkeley knew virtually nothing of electromagnetic phenomena!

Would he have come up with this philosophy if he had known about the unseeable yet undeniably real features of nature? After all, the idea of "it all exists in your head" is a little more palatable if you really can sense the entire universe... but we can't.

I've been resisting the urge from the begining of this thread, to comment on thoughts about turning around quickly, to see if everthing in the room is still there...:cool:

[Blue Monk]

Berkeley is a comic-book philosopher.

He was devoutly religious and by his own writings admit that he was growing deeply disturbed by the advancement of Newtonian physics and other similar scientific advancements that were increasingly calling into question the existence of God.

Rather than base his philosophy on observation of the world around him he chose to decide on the answer he wanted to obtain first and then rationalize what he saw to fit his predefined answer.

His philosophy is ultimately neither provable nor disprovable, has absolutely no application to solving any real world problems suffered by the human race and despite the rather monumental amount of ink that has been wasted on this juvenile wishful thinking it still boils down to, maybe, maybe not.

Should anyone still feel this silly belief deserves merit I have, in the name of science, devised a method for testing this outlook. It's call '3 Card Monty.'

Just remember that I am not responsible for your perceptions.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Well, No. 2 is begging the question, so I think it falls apart pretty fast..

I agree. An inductive argument demands that the premises are absolutely true in order for the conclusion to be absolutely true (as an induction of the premises that is).

As you have pointed out, premise 2 presumes that "things perceived by sense" are nothing but "ideas". As there is no reason for this assumption it may reasonably be argued that the premise is false-a-rony.

The syllogism is thus rather refuted.

[Loki]

Physical things are things perceived by sense
Sundog beat me to it... I can't even accept the first premise as it is written - it already seems to be assuming the conclusion. The word "sense" here implies "human sense". At best, this needs to be reversed :

1. Physical things are things perceived by sense
becomes :
1. Human senses perceive things that are physical things.

The existence of *any* physical element (certain wavelengths in the audio/visual spectrum for example) that are not directly detectable by human senses seems to invalidate the entire idea.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Q-Source
1. Physical things are things perceived by sense
2. Things perceived by sense are ideas

Therefore physical things are ideas.


What do you think of Berkeley's syllogism?

Can you refute it?

When you perceive something, you really have two things- the thing itself (1) and your idea of the thing which you perceive (2). Berkley's syllogism assumes that a simultaneous existence of the two is actually one, but if you remove the idea or the senses that cause it, the physical thing is still there.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source
1. Physical things are things perceived by sense
2. Things perceived by sense are ideas

Therefore physical things are ideas.


What do you think of Berkeley's syllogism?

Can you refute it?

I don't believe it refutes the notion of a material world. It simply shows that we have no reason to believe in its existence. We are only ever acquainted with our sensory perceptions (ideas), so with what reason do we have to suppose there is something lying "beyond" or "behind" such sensory experiences? Even if there were something, what would it be like? Similar to our sensory perceptions? Berkeley goes into detail about how implausible this is. Different? Huge problems again.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Diogenes
Well, No. 2 is begging the question, so I think it falls apart pretty fast..

No, you would have to dispute 1. It is 1 which begs the question.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LW


Syntactically it is a valid syllogism. However, I for one don't know what the proposition 2 is supposed to say. What is an "idea" in this context?

I could present here another syllogism that is valid in the same sense as the Berkeley's is:

1. Physical things are things perceived by sense.
2. Things perceived by physical sense are floarghbzzzs.

Therefore, physical things are floarghbzzzs.

Well, the things perceived by sense are ideas (sense impressions or qualia), not floarghbzzzs.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LW


It would be redundant to include "ALL" in the syllogism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No it wouldn't, since there are also forms of syllogisms with the "exists" quantifier. For example:

1) All Swedes are Europeans.
2) Some persons are Swedes.

Therefore, some persons are European.

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that Berkeley actually only meant some physical things rather than all physical things. First for everything I suppose.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Diogenes

It would be redundant to include "ALL" in the syllogism. Tell me one thing that exists that you cannot perceive by sense.

Q-S
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



All things at the ' micro ' level... When unaided by ' things' ( instruments ) that we have created..


The suggestion here, is that things are ' only ' ideas..

We have no reason to believe that is so.. See my " P. S. ", above..[/B]

I think it's unjustified to make a distinction between directly and "indirectly" perceiving.

Incidentally Berkeley was quite happy to believe in the microscopic such as corpuscles/atoms. We can perceive them with instruments, so what's the problem? Nor is there any problem in his philosophy about entities which are currently unperceivable. So long as we can in principle perceive them.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LW


I'm not into metaphysics. I'm into logic.

But if you insist, I can't perceive an atom with my senses even though there exists quite strong evidence for their existence. [Before anyone comments about electron microscopy in general I'd like to emphasize that in those pictures you see representations of the atoms, not the atoms themselves.]

Unjustified distinction between the directly perceived and indirectly perceived. Not that Berkeley was familiar with this.

Most Berkeleyian scholars think that Berkeley was an instrumentalist. If you cannot directly perceive it then it doesn't literally exist. He certainly thought that gravitational force didn't literally exist for example.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Sounds like you're back peddling to me..

You/Berkley are suggesting

..... that there are no ' things ', only ideas.. i.e.. Once we sense something it comes into existance.. If we don't sense it, it doesn't exist..


Explain to me if you are saying something else..:rolleyes:

Misunderstanding of idealism. Berkeley never said things pop in and out of existence. Rather their reality is constituted by ones perceptions (and more controversially by God's conceptions).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kullervo
I think Hume takes that idea to its logical conclusion, denying the existence of the mind as well.
http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Mind/MindPres.htm

Berkeley toyed with that idea before Hume, but eventually rejected the notion and hence it never made it into his published writings.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Quasi
I read your FAQ Q-Source,

I find this interesting in regards to your previous posts. Basically, our conciousness is shaped by our beliefs, which in turn arise from our experiences. So in that sense, we do not know anything beyond our experiences, and in some way Berkley's position appears true, given a certain interpretation. In light of this, and in relation to your belief that falsifiability is only applicable in certain situations, what possible value could a concept such as God really have if there are no sensatory phenomena at all, just some other persons word that it is there?

Berkeley maintained we have more evidence for God than the existence of other people. Basically the fact that change in the Universe is governed by physical laws is indicative of a universal consciousness, just as our behaviour is indicative of our consciousnesses.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Bluefire


Number 2 is false. The thing that you perceive is not an idea. Though the _perception_ itself might be called an idea for some meaning of idea, it's not that you can say that the thing itself is an idea

I don't see how 2 can be disputed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Just hand me my trusty baseball bat.



Which is simply accompanied by further Berkeleyian ideas. By the way, you should note that Berkeley also rejected the notion of physical causality meaning a generative power in the world. Ideas, even those of baseballs bats when they whack you on the head, are causally impotent. The only causality that exists is mental causality.



I take issue with no. 1. Physical things are percievable by sense, but not necessarily percieved. Berkely's sentence indicates that things that are not percieved are not physical.



Well they are simply not defined. One interpretation of Berkeley has it that unperceived objects are kept in existence by God. A more plausible interpretation has it that Berkeley thought of the ontological status of unperceived objects in a similar way to objects in a computer game environment which are not currently visible.


Then no. 2 attempts to mingle the defintion of ideas. While it might be true that ideas also share the the attribute of being sense-percived, the mere fact that ideas and physical things share a single attribute hardly allows you to equate them. Phusical things are ideas with a physical counterpart: imaginary things are ideas without a physical conterpart. But Berkely is counting on you to forget this and just run with the idea. [/B]

As I say he fails to refute the notion of a mind independent reality. But we only know of this mind-independent reality through our ideas. What is it that allows is to infer such a reality merely from our ideas?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tony


Radio signals, UV rays, X-rays are some that come to mind.

All of which are eventually cashed out in terms of sense experiences. He held that reality is our sensory perceptions.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Sundog

There's nothing at all wrong with the syllogism. The problem lies in the assumptions.

Physical things are things perceived by sense - No. Tony gave some excellent examples.



But those examples miss the point since on most interpretations it is held he wouldn't have supposed they existed. (of course Berkeley didn't discuss these things that Tony mentioned as they were not discovered until about 150 years after his death. He did however discuss corpuscles, and forces).



Things perceived by sense are ideas - Again, whatever this is meant to mean, the are implying identity is inappropriate here.



As I have said I don't see how one can argue with Berkeley here. It simply makes no sense to me as you seem to be equating physical things with things perceived by sense (ie ignoring premise 1). How can our sensory experiences (ideas) not be our sensory experiences (ideas)?? This is essentially what you're denying.

You cannot deny 2. You must deny 1.


"Everything you perceive is just an idea" which is certainly an questionable premise. Ian might accept it but I don't.


As I say I can't understand how it can be disputed.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Sundog
Please excuse me if this point has been made before a zillion times, but Berkeley died in 1753. Ben Franklin conducted his kite experiment only one year earlier. Berkeley knew virtually nothing of electromagnetic phenomena!

Would he have come up with this philosophy if he had known about the unseeable yet undeniably real features of nature? After all, the idea of "it all exists in your head" is a little more palatable if you really can sense the entire universe... but we can't.

Modern science supports his metaphysic, not constitutes evidence against it. Berkeley was of course very aware that we will only ever perceive a minute percentage of the "physical" world.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
Berkeley is a comic-book philosopher.



Not many good philosophers agree with this opinion of yours. Even those that vehemently disagree with him thought he was extremely clever.



He was devoutly religious and by his own writings admit that he was growing deeply disturbed by the advancement of Newtonian physics and other similar scientific advancements that were increasingly calling into question the existence of God.



Yes absolutely. Very much so indeed.



Rather than base his philosophy on observation of the world around him he chose to decide on the answer he wanted to obtain first and then rationalize what he saw to fit his predefined answer.



It just came to him in a sudden insight. It explained everything, it explained the successes of science, and showed that we have absolutely no reason to subscribe to a materialist interpretation of reality, and every reason to suppose it is simple wrong. A brilliant insight indeed!



His philosophy is ultimately neither provable nor disprovable,



Wrong. Wheel out your conscious robot. Of course metaphysical hypotheses do tend to be difficult to prove or disprove. This of course includes materialism. Of course we can have suggestive evidence favouring one metaphysic over the over. For example quantum mechanics is suggestive of idealism, and has refuted the materialism that Berkeley was attacking. Also psi phenomena gives evidence for idealism and creates problems for materialism (even in its most modern form).



has absolutely no application to solving any real world problems suffered by the human race and despite the rather monumental amount of ink that has been wasted on this juvenile wishful thinking it still boils down to, maybe, maybe not.



You really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Go and talk about your usual mundane stuff and stop making a complete idiot of yourself.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki

Sundog beat me to it... I can't even accept the first premise as it is written - it already seems to be assuming the conclusion. .

Basically yes.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CWL


As you have pointed out, premise 2 presumes that "things perceived by sense" are nothing but "ideas". As there is no reason for this assumption it may reasonably be argued that the premise is false-a-rony.

The syllogism is thus rather refuted. [/B]

No, he means that which is sensed is an idea. 2 is fine. You need to dispute 1.

[Bluefire]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't see how 2 can be disputed.

Ok, lets make it a little easier to understand:

Berkeleys syllogism equates the perception, with what you perceive.

My opposition is on the grounds that you dont perceive the perception. You perceive a thing by means of a perception.

Number 2 is false in that it treats the things, eg. the image in my head and the thing I perceive by means of the image, as interchangeable.

[CWL]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, he means that which is sensed is an idea. 2 is fine. You need to dispute 1.

Fair enough. Let's have a look at 1 then:

In order for the conclusion to follow from the premises, the premise "Physical things are things perceived by sense" must imply that "there are no physical things which are not perceived by sense".

Does that strike anyone as being absolutely true?

[LW]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well, the things perceived by sense are ideas (sense impressions or qualia), not floarghbzzzs.

And how exactly can you know that for certain? Do you even know what a floargbzzz is? [Note to the audience, these were rhetorical questions.]

I now see a blue pen in front of me. Now I touch it. These sensory inputs cause some process to start in my brain and I perceive that there, indeed, is a blue pen in front of me. Of course, I can't prove that there isn't some mystical immaterial consciouness that does the perceiving thing. But anyway, saying that the actual pen whose existence I perceive by sight and touch is actually an idea in my consciousness is assuming quite much.

The object and my perception of the object are not necessarily equal.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't believe it refutes the notion of a material world. It simply shows that we have no reason to believe in its existence. We are only ever acquainted with our sensory perceptions (ideas), so with what reason do we have to suppose there is something lying "beyond" or "behind" such sensory experiences? Even if there were something, what would it be like? Similar to our sensory perceptions? Berkeley goes into detail about how implausible this is. Different? Huge problems again.

Since this is the philospohy forum, I can easily admit that there are things that might be beyond our perception, in the line of EMR that we can't directly percieve. So I would agree that there may be many things that we can't percieve because of the limited nature of our senses.

As to what lies 'beyond' or 'behind' the world of perception, depends are you a philosopher or a scientist. One says that there is anything we can concoieve the other says there is only what we percieve.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by LW


And how exactly can you know that for certain? Do you even know what a floargbzzz is? [Note to the audience, these were rhetorical questions.]

I now see a blue pen in front of me. Now I touch it. These sensory inputs cause some process to start in my brain and I perceive that there, indeed, is a blue pen in front of me. Of course, I can't prove that there isn't some mystical immaterial consciouness that does the perceiving thing. But anyway, saying that the actual pen whose existence I perceive by sight and touch is actually an idea in my consciousness is assuming quite much.

The object and my perception of the object are not necessarily equal.

Indeed, but why introduce unnecessary entities (ie a material world) into reality? What is its purpose? What are material things like? Are they like our ideas of them? Have you heard of Ockham's razor incidentally?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Since this is the philospohy forum, I can easily admit that there are things that might be beyond our perception, in the line of EMR that we can't directly percieve. So I would agree that there may be many things that we can't percieve because of the limited nature of our senses.

As to what lies 'beyond' or 'behind' the world of perception, depends are you a philosopher or a scientist. One says that there is anything we can concoieve the other says there is only what we percieve.

If there is only what we perceive how does this differ from idealism?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If there is only what we perceive how does this differ from idealism?

I think it differs in the assumptions about the evidentiary nature of the scientific method. If you limit yourself to your perceptions and assume at least local isotropy, then you can practise the scientific method as though there is a 'material' world beyond the perceptions. No proof , just the assumption.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


As I have said I don't see how one can argue with Berkeley here. It simply makes no sense to me as you seem to be equating physical things with things perceived by sense (ie ignoring premise 1). How can our sensory experiences (ideas) not be our sensory experiences (ideas)?? This is essentially what you're denying.

You cannot deny 2. You must deny 1.

As I say I can't understand how it can be disputed.

I think our difference of opinion is purely linguistic:

Things perceived by sense are ideas. I read this to assign equality between physical objects and the mental representation of them. Physical things are "things perceived by sense". I suspect this is just badly worded and what is meant is more like "perceptions are ideas" which seems to be how you're interpreting it, and as you say, it's hard to argue with that.

[Franko]

Q-Source

Berkeley's syllogism is valid. The problem you are having convincing people here that it is so, is that most of the people on this forum have been brainwashed into believing in the all powerful “Matter-God”.

Everything in the universe is made of matter, and no amount of logic or evidence will convince them otherwise. For you to even to suggest it is heresy.

Tony:
Radio signals, UV rays, X-rays are some that come to mind.

Actually you can only Hear (senses/mental) radio waves, or see (senses/mental) a picture of them (same for UV and X-rays). For all you know the radio waves (like all matter) only exist in your imagination and you are “God”.

Sundog:
All physical things can be perceived by the senses, which still is demonstrably false.

Actually the hallmark of “science” is observation. Either you can observe a phenomena, or you can create a device which can indirectly observe it for you. Either way every single input (piece of information) you ever receive is a purely mental construct. As far as you are concerned information exist only in your mind, and ultimately you have no way of knowing whether that mind is made of anything "more tangible".

Blue Monk:
His philosophy is ultimately neither provable nor disprovable, has absolutely no application to solving any real world problems suffered by the human race and despite the rather monumental amount of ink that has been wasted on this juvenile wishful thinking it still boils down to, maybe, maybe not.

The same exact statement could be made regarding Materialism.

Loki:
The existence of *any* physical element (certain wavelengths in the audio/visual spectrum for example) that are not directly detectable by human senses seems to invalidate the entire idea.

If something is truly “undetectable” (i.e. invisible) then how do you know it exists? Either you conceive (mental idea) of a method to observe it (perceive with the senses), or it doesn’t exist.

c4ts:
When you perceive something, you really have two things- the thing itself (1) and your idea of the thing which you perceive (2). Berkley's syllogism assumes that a simultaneous existence of the two is actually one, but if you remove the idea or the senses that cause it, the physical thing is still there.

… Okay, so last night I was dreaming that I was walking through a strange town. Now according to your logic since I could see some buildings lining the street I should assume that those buildings had material substance independent of my thoughts about them?

Unless you have evidence that this reality is different than the reality of your dreams then you have no evidence that this reality is different than the reality of your dreams.

Or are you claiming that objects in your dreams are made of real atoms?

Mr. Quick:
I don't believe it refutes the notion of a material world. It simply shows that we have no reason to believe in its [the material world’s] existence. We are only ever acquainted with our sensory perceptions (ideas), so with what reason do we have to suppose there is something lying "beyond" or "behind" such sensory experiences?

That’s what I like about you Ian, you always were a True Atheist. You lack a belief in that for which there is no evidence.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Franko
Q-Source

Berkeley's syllogism is valid. The problem you are having convincing people here that it is so, is that most of the people on this forum have been brainwashed into believing in the all powerful “Matter-God”.

Everything in the universe is made of matter, and no amount of logic or evidence will convince them otherwise. For you to even to suggest it is heresy.

Hello Franko,

I am very happy to see you again. I hope everything has been going well with you. :cool:

For me to even put into question my materialistic beliefs has been the worst thing I've ever done in this forum. Now they call me idealist, dualists, insane, liar, etc. All I am doing is being skeptical of what scientific materilism holds.

Good to see you Frank.

Q-S

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Franko
Mr. Quick:
I don't believe it refutes the notion of a material world. It simply shows that we have no reason to believe in its [the material world’s] existence. We are only ever acquainted with our sensory perceptions (ideas), so with what reason do we have to suppose there is something lying "beyond" or "behind" such sensory experiences?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That’s what I like about you Ian, you always were a True Atheist. You lack a belief in that for which there is no evidence.



Everyone's calling me an atheist all the time! Right, must make my beliefs even more radical :D

BTW I was very impressed with your responses to everyone.

[Franko]

Now they call me idealist, dualists, insane, liar, etc. All I am doing is being skeptical of what scientific materilism holds.

Ohhh, my friend ... I told you a long time ago that you were destined to fight for the Forces of Light.

Why should you care that the goose-steeping flat-earthers mock you for your crazy round-earth beliefs?

Matter may not exist, but the Truth most assuredly does.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source


For me to even put into question my materialistic beliefs has been the worst thing I've ever done in this forum. Now they call me idealist, dualists, insane, liar, etc. All I am doing is being skeptical of what scientific materilism holds.

Q-S [/B]

Those damn goose stepping flat earthers! :mad: When will they listen to reason???

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Franko
Actually the hallmark of “science” is observation. Either you can observe a phenomena, or you can create a device which can indirectly observe it for you. Either way every single input (piece of information) you ever receive is a purely mental construct. As far as you are concerned information exist only in your mind, and ultimately you have no way of knowing whether that mind is made of anything "more tangible".



But none of that is to the point, which is to show that physical things are perceived by sense is not necessarily true. To my mind, seeing evidence of x-rays on a meter is not at all the same thing as directly experiencing them.

[Franko]

Sundog:
But none of that is to the point, which is to show that physical things are perceived by sense is not necessarily true. To my mind, seeing evidence of x-rays on a meter is not at all the same thing as directly experiencing them. [emphasis added by Franko]

I must be missing your point as well.

How can you claim that perceiving evidence of X-rays is not perceiving evidence of x-rays?

Prior to anyone imaging (mental/cognition) that X-rays might exist, and prior to anyone devising a mechanism so that X-rays could be detected and observed (perceived/sensed mentally) X-rays were no more real (to humans) than the invisible elves and dragons living in the woods behind my house.

Do $-rays exist? There is no way you can observe or detect them, but I can assure you they are real. Are you prepared to take my word for it, and alter your lifesytle accordingly?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Hey Franko, welcome back. We never had the chance to chat much before your empumkination. Somebody needs to catch you up to where we are these days.

Actually the hallmark of “science” is observation. Either you can observe a phenomena, or you can create a device which can indirectly observe it for you. Either way every single input (piece of information) you ever receive is a purely mental construct. As far as you are concerned information exist only in your mind, and ultimately you have no way of knowing whether that mind is made of anything "more tangible".
We have rejected solipsism by agreement, more or less. Dead end and all that. Some of us have clarified that we make no ontological assumptions, because ontology is meaningless and silly. So then we constantly have to correct other people who try to pin some metaphysical tail on our arses.

It might all be mind. It might all be physical stuff. It might all be furious green dreams. No way to know.

We have some dualists floating about, too. I don't get them.

~~ Paul

[Franko]

Hey Paul!

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos:
We have rejected solipsism by agreement, more or less. Dead end and all that.

Yeah, but how do you know that You didn’t just force Them to “agree”?

???

I am one of those figments who “thinks” there is more to Solipsism than most people have patience (or tolerance) to look for.

Some of us have clarified that we make no ontological assumptions, because ontology is meaningless and silly. So then we constantly have to correct other people who try to pin some metaphysical tail on our arses.

What about Base Axioms and Initial Premises? Aren’t they a form of ontology regardless? The problem seems to be you have to start somewhere, but no matter where you start you have to make some assumptions that require terms you cannot initially define with complete precision.

It might all be mind. It might all be physical stuff. It might all be furious green dreams. No way to know.

The irony of claiming that There are no Absolutes is that such a statement is an absolute. Along those lines how can you say that there is “no way to know”? That would seem to imply that you already know something beyond what you are saying.

We have some dualists floating about, too. I don't get them.

If Duality is the notion that all things are symmetric (all base-memes have a mutually exclusive opposite) then I would say that not only is Duality an obvious and necessary assumption, but that any reason or thought would absolutely require it.

But I don’t know … maybe that isn’t what people mean when they use the term Dualism?

[jan]

Thus spoke Franko. Do I dare to add my two cents? Of course.

A simple test-case:

I open an empty box, put two coins in it, close the box, open the box again and find two coins in it (not three, not one). What has happened?

Theory A
There is something called matter, and this matter is the cause of my perception. Even while I am not looking into the box, the matter is still there.

Theory B
There is something called god's memory, and god is causing my perception according to the content of his memory. Even while I am not looking into the box, god still remembers what should be found in the box.

Theory C
There is something called gibble-di-gogg, and this gibble-di-gogg is the cause of my perception. Even while I am not looking into the box, the gibble-di-gogg somehow preserves the information of the state of the box.

Theory D
Something different is going on: while perceiving two cents being in the box, my mind tries to construct memories of past encounters with the box. Therefore, I am deluded to think that I looked inside the box earlier, but in fact such a thing as "past" doesn't exist. Reality is just some kind of association game.

Theory D is the only creative theory, but as far as I see, no one around here is claiming it (with perhaps one exception). Theories A to C are essentially the same theories, with different wording. Theory B differs as it has not only god's memory, but also a god. But this entity seems to be a bit unnecessary. So it ain't the materialists adding some unnecessary entity (called "matter") to our perceptions. Berkeley adds a unnecessary personal god to his "consistency-of-perceptions-preserving-thing".

[Franko]

Hey Jan,

Do you know what is funny, just by coincidence, last night in my dreams I opened an empty box, put two coins in it, close the box, open the box again and found two coins in it (not three, not one).

I guess that means the objects in my dreams are made of matter?

Similarly, the other day I wrote a computer program. And in a certain variable I stored the value of “2”. Now nothing in the program should have modified this value, so later I checked it, and sure enough it was still 2 (not 3, not 1). The funny thing is that this program was running over a network, and when I checked the program somehow that “2” had magically copied itself to all of the machines that had the program running?!? From you logic should I conclude that my program and computer network is creating new matter by propagating all these number 2's out of nothing but an initial zero?

My question is, what kind of atoms is the number “2” made of? (and as a follow up, what kind of matter/atoms is 1 and 3 made of?)

[LW]

Originally posted by Franko








My question is, what kind of atoms is the number 2 made of? (and as a follow up, what kind of matter/atoms is 1 and 3 made of?)

In your example of a computer program, it is made of the exactly same matter as the memory chips are.

If you are making a more philosophical point on existence of natural numbers, then, my answer is that they don't really exist as separate entities.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Some of us have clarified that we make no ontological assumptions, because ontology is meaningless
~~ Paul [/B]

I really have absolutely no idea wht it could conceivably mean to declare ontology is meaningless.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Franko


I must be missing your point as well.

How can you claim that perceiving evidence of X-rays is not perceiving evidence of x-rays?

Prior to anyone imaging (mental/cognition) that X-rays might exist, and prior to anyone devising a mechanism so that X-rays could be detected and observed (perceived/sensed mentally) X-rays were no more real (to humans) than the invisible elves and dragons living in the woods behind my house.

Do $-rays exist? There is no way you can observe or detect them, but I can assure you they are real. Are you prepared to take my word for it, and alter your lifesytle accordingly?

Again, interesting subject, but all beside the point. My interest in this topic is limited to examination of the syllogism. The first premise is

Physical things are things perceived by sense

If you think Berkeley would have accepted defining "sense" broadly enough to include instruments to detect X-rays and such, then fine, I accept that you are defining it that way. If not, ample evidence has been presented that there exist physical things that are not perceivable directly by the senses.

This of course begs your question of the reality of X-rays, which is an interesting discussion in itself naturally, but I beg that you won't begin your return by turning an interesting thread into another discussion of your philosophies. You are intelligent enough that I am sure you have interesting things to say that are still on-topic, and I'd like to hear them.

[Franko]

LW:
In your example of a computer program, it is made of the exactly same matter as the memory chips are.

Did I say “computer program”? Maybe I meant algorithm?

Do all algorithms require computers? How about functions? What kind of atoms are functions and algorithms made of?

Couldn’t you say that the laws of physics are an algorithm? What kind of atoms (matter) are the laws of physics made out of?

If you are making a more philosophical point on existence of natural numbers, then, my answer is that they don't really exist as separate entities.

… And my response would be, how do you know that me or the atoms (the matter) exist as separate entities?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Franko said:I am one of those figments who "thinks" there is more to Solipsism than most people have patience (or tolerance) to look for.
What more could there be? Everything is a figment of your imagination. Are there two of you imagining things?

What about Base Axioms and Initial Premises? Aren’t they a form of ontology regardless? The problem seems to be you have to start somewhere, but no matter where you start you have to make some assumptions that require terms you cannot initially define with complete precision.
I can have epistemological assumptions and skip the ontological ones.

The irony of claiming that There are no Absolutes is that such a statement is an absolute. Along those lines how can you say that there is "no way to know"? That would seem to imply that you already know something beyond what you are saying.
Who said there are no absolute existents? I just don't see how we're going to know what they are. If you find a way to know, I'm all ears. Until then, why me worry?

But I don’t know ... maybe that isn’t what people mean when they use the term Dualism?
I think they mean there are two fundamental existents.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Sundog
[B]

Again, interesting subject, but all beside the point. My interest in this topic is limited to examination of the syllogism. The first premise is

Physical things are things perceived by sense

If you think Berkeley would have accepted defining "sense" broadly enough to include instruments to detect X-rays and such, then fine,



Yes indeed he did. He specifically mentions microscopes and telescopes for example. Looking through such instruments one simply receives further ideas.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Sundog
If you think Berkeley would have accepted defining "sense" broadly enough to include instruments to detect X-rays and such, then fine, I accept that you are defining it that way.
I have to agree with Franko on this one (did I just say that?) Indirect sensory evidence (via a machine) produces direct sensory expierence, so it should count.

The point everyone is trying to make still remains valid, though. Physical things are percievable by senses, but not necessarily percieved. As everyone points out, you can have lots of physical things that exist without anyone percieving them (like pebbles on the dark side of the moon). Thus, even though physical things are necesarily percievable, they are not necessarily percieved, which wrecks the syllogism, unless Berkley is trying to argue that things have an objective existance until they are percieved, at which point they turn into mere ideas.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian asked:I really have absolutely no idea wht it could conceivably mean to declare ontology is meaningless.
I have no idea how one can possibly determine what the fundamental existents are. For that matter, what is a fundamental existent? Even if someone miraculously came up with "the fundamental existent is mind," what is the difference between that and "the fundamental existent is matter" or "the fundamental existent is snorglobazorg"? Ontology is incoherent.

I cite as informal evidence for my position the fact that thousands of years of intellectual grinding on the subject has gotten nowhere.

~~ Paul

[Franko]

Hey Paul,

[Solipsism …] What more could there be? Everything is a figment of your imagination. Are there two of you imagining things?

I’d say that Solipsism is a metaphysical starting point.

I can have epistemological assumptions and skip the ontological ones.

Could you please explain what you see you see as the precise difference between an epistemological assumption and an ontological assumption?

[on Absolutes …]Who said there are no absolute existents? I just don't see how we're going to know what they are. If you find a way to know, I'm all ears. Until then, why me worry?

Okay, but that was my original point. If there is no necessity in believing that matter exist, why claim with utter certainty that it does, and why further claim that matter must preexist consciousness? (not that I am implying you are making that claim).

I have no idea how one can possibly determine what the fundamental existents are.

You mean like True and False? How can you determine what is True and False with nothing to act as a point (or frame) of reference?

[jan]

I guess I agree with Paul.

Originally posted by Franko
Hey Jan,

Do you know what is funny, just by coincidence, last night in my dreams I opened an empty box, put two coins in it, close the box, open the box again and found two coins in it (not three, not one).

I guess that means the objects in my dreams are made of matter?


No, it means the objects in your dream are made of gibble-di-gogg, brand 2. Instead of asking "that-and-that is made out of x" (with x being atoms, or aristotelian matter, or ideas, or perceptrons, or gravitons, or monads, or gibble-di-gogg), you should try to investigate what the rules are those things obey. Perhaps you agree that the objects in your dream follow different rules than the objects outside your dreams (but maybe life is just a dream, or maybe you are just dreaming now). If you agree, the objects outside your dream seem to be made of some different brand of gibble-di-gogg than the objects inside your dream. If you don't agree, than it would be interesting to hear something about the common laws both the objects inside and outside your dreams obey.


Originally posted by Franko

Similarly, the other day I wrote a computer program. And in a certain variable I stored the value of “2”. Now nothing in the program should have modified this value, so later I checked it, and sure enough it was still 2 (not 3, not 1). The funny thing is that this program was running over a network, and when I checked the program somehow that “2” had magically copied itself to all of the machines that had the program running?!? From you logic should I conclude that my program and computer network is creating new matter by propagating all these number 2's out of nothing but an initial zero?

My question is, what kind of atoms is the number “2” made of? (and as a follow up, what kind of matter/atoms is 1 and 3 made of?)

The number "2" is not made of atoms, but gibble-di-gogg, brand 3. Once again you should ask: what kind of rules do numbers (or any kind of mathematical objects) obey? If you agree that the laws of physics and the laws of numbers are not the same, atoms and numbers differ, regardless of what they are made of. Your example is a bit confusing, since it merges the content of a certain variable (which happens to be 2), and the number 2 itself. I guess the orthodox materialistic answer would be that the value of a variable of a computer programm is an epiphenomenom of matter, while the number two itself is an abstraction (and the question whether the number 2 "really exists" or "is nothing but a mere abstraction" is a question of your personal flavour, I guess).

The naïve idea of materialism is that everything is made of tiny solid balls. But the concept of materialism has evolved, and few people do still believe that matter consists of tiny solid balls. All you have are the laws that follow from corrobated, testable theories. You can invent a kind of "model" that puts those laws in some kind of disguise (like, saying, that the Strings of String theory are something similar to ordinary strings, but much, much smaller), but this usually is just an aid for your imagination.

The philosophically interesting and challenging claim of materialism is not that gibble-di-gogg, brand 1, is made of atoms (neither Berkeley nor Interesting Ian, as far as I can see, doubt that, since it just mean that our perceptions are consistent with the laws of modern physic). The interesting and challenging claim is that gibble-di-gogg brand 2 and 3 can be reduced to gibble-di-gogg, brand 1, that is, consciousness and abstractions can be explained in terms of physic. I assume somebody like Interesting Ian might claim that it is the other way round: you could use an advanced theory of consciousness to explain matter. While, on the other side, there are strict materialists who claim that consciousness literally is a brain process. Others would say consciousness is an epiphenomenom of brain processes and can be reduced to those brain processes. Still others hold that although matter is the primary and consciousness is caused by brain processes, it will never be possible to have a theory that reduces consciousness to brain processes (believe it or not, there is discordance among the forces of darkness).

Originally posted by Franko

Couldn’t you say that the laws of physics are an algorithm? What kind of atoms (matter) are the laws of physics made out of?


If it makes you happy, of course: The laws of physics are an algorithm. But Berkeley never liked the gibble-di-gogg of brand 3 very much: he would never have admitted that mathematical entities, for example, have proper existence. His views about abstractions have been very close to those of hard-core materialists.

[Franko]

Yahzi:
I have to agree with Franko on this one (did I just say that?) Indirect sensory evidence (via a machine) produces direct sensory expierence, so it should count.

Actually … I use to keep count and we almost always agreed.

The point everyone is trying to make still remains valid, though. Physical things are percievable by senses, but not necessarily percieved. As everyone points out, you can have lots of physical things that exist without anyone percieving them (like pebbles on the dark side of the moon).

Okay, so by this logic an infinite number of invisible parallel universes and even God exist, because even though we can’t see (perceive) them it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

For that matter there are planets in the universe where water flows uphill and giant self-aware taco’s poop ice cream. (not seeing is believing)

Did I get that right?

Thus, even though physical things are necesarily percievable, they are not necessarily percieved, which wrecks the syllogism, unless Berkley is trying to argue that things have an objective existance until they are percieved, at which point they turn into mere ideas.

No … I think what Berkley is saying is How do you know that people you have never met and places you have never seen actually exist?. Maybe they don’t exist until you imagine them?

[Franko]

Jan:
No, it means the objects in your dream are made of gibble-di-gogg, brand 2.

How do you know that the objects in your dreams aren’t made of the exact same kind of matter you perceive now?

Instead of asking "that-and-that is made out of x" (with x being atoms, or aristotelian matter, or ideas, or perceptrons, or gravitons, or monads, or gibble-di-gogg), you should try to investigate what the rules are those things obey. Perhaps you agree that the objects in your dream follow different rules than the objects outside your dreams

Not that I am aware of, but perhaps you are just imagining my existence right now?

but maybe life is just a dream, or maybe you are just dreaming now.

It’s amusing, because this is almost exactly what someone once told me in a dream.

Perhaps when you awake from this dream you will feel silly for claiming everything here is as real as it gets?

If you agree, the objects outside your dream seem to be made of some different brand of gibble-di-gogg than the objects inside your dream. If you don't agree, than it would be interesting to hear something about the common laws both the objects inside and outside your dreams obey.

Perhaps the laws of physics are different for figments of the imagination than they are for real entities such as yourself, but as best I can tell the laws of physics in my dreams are identical to the laws of physics in effect right now.

The number "2" is not made of atoms, but gibble-di-gogg, brand 3. Once again you should ask: what kind of rules do numbers (or any kind of mathematical objects) obey?

The laws of physics?

If you agree that the laws of physics and the laws of numbers are not the same, atoms and numbers differ, regardless of what they are made of.

Atoms obey the laws of physics
Humans are made of atoms.
Humans invented/discovered math.
The Laws of Physics (or TLOP) made humans and preordained that they invent/discover mathematics.

Your example is a bit confusing, since it merges the content of a certain variable (which happens to be 2), and the number 2 itself. I guess the orthodox materialistic answer would be that the value of a variable of a computer programm is an epiphenomenom of matter, while the number two itself is an abstraction (and the question whether the number 2 "really exists" or "is nothing but a mere abstraction" is a question of your personal flavour, I guess).

Do the laws of physics have to know about 2 in order to operate? (how well would modern physics equations work if the number 2 suddenly vanished?)

The naïve idea of materialism is that everything is made of tiny solid balls. But the concept of materialism has evolved, and few people do still believe that matter consists of tiny solid balls.

Did Materialism really evolve or the consciousnesses (algorithms) that conceived of Materialism evolve?

All you have are the laws that follow from corrobated, testable theories.

Then you should be able to demonstrate that the other entities you perceive are real and not simply figments of your imagination. (just like you can do in your dreams)

You can invent a kind of "model" that puts those laws in some kind of disguise (like, saying, that the Strings of String theory are something similar to ordinary strings, but much, much smaller), but this usually is just an aid for your imagination.

Imagination??? What kind of atoms is imagination made out of?

Look, if your mind is really made of matter, and those “strings” are also made of matter, then why do we need imagination? Does a rock need imagination for those strings to exist? or are you saying that rocks don’t perceive the “strings”?

The philosophically interesting and challenging claim of materialism is not that gibble-di-gogg, brand 1, is made of atoms (neither Berkeley nor Interesting Ian, as far as I can see, doubt that, since it just mean that our perceptions are consistent with the laws of modern physic). The interesting and challenging claim is that gibble-di-gogg brand 2 and 3 can be reduced to gibble-di-gogg, brand 1, that is, consciousness and abstractions can be explained in terms of physic. I assume somebody like Interesting Ian might claim that it is the other way round: you could use an advanced theory of consciousness to explain matter.

Put simply there is no evidence for matter … so there is no need to assume matter.

If you will pardon the expression, it (matter) is just a crutch for the philosophically weak-minded.

While, on the other side, there are strict materialists who claim that consciousness literally is a brain process.

If you are a strict materialist, then how on Earth can consciousness be anything other than a Laws of Physics process? Atoms obey the laws of physics, your brain is made of atoms, ergo, your brain (and brain processes) obey the laws of physics.

Or are you suggesting that your brain isn’t made of atoms and/or isn’t bound by the same laws of physics as all of the “other matter”?

Others would say consciousness is an epiphenomenom of brain processes and can be reduced to those brain processes. Still others hold that although matter is the primary and consciousness is caused by brain processes, it will never be possible to have a theory that reduces consciousness to brain processes (believe it or not, there is discordance among the forces of darkness).

Ohhh, the Forces of Darkness love Discordia. Sometimes I think She’s their only reason for existence … until they meet her …

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Franko asked:Could you please explain what you see you see as the precise difference between an epistemological assumption and an ontological assumption?
An epistemological assumption is an assumption about what we can investigate, while an ontological assumption is one about what exists.

Okay, but that was my original point. If there is no necessity in believing that matter exist, why claim with utter certainty that it does, and why further claim that matter must preexist consciousness? (not that I am implying you are making that claim).
I make no claim about whether matter exists, nor what preexists what. I only claim that, for what we can know, we don't need two existents, and that consciousness is nothing special. Consciousness is a brain process.

You mean like True and False? How can you determine what is True and False with nothing to act as a point (or frame) of reference?
I don't understand what you're saying here.

How do you know that the objects in your dreams aren’t made of the exact same kind of matter you perceive now?
We don't. But we do know that they behave significantly differently, so informally we say they are different.

Perhaps the laws of physics are different for figments of the imagination than they are for real entities such as yourself, but as best I can tell the laws of physics in my dreams are identical to the laws of physics in effect right now.
Then your dreams are quite mundane.

Put simply there is no evidence for matter ... so there is no need to assume matter.
Likewise, there is no evidence for anything else, either. Because you feel that your mind is something other than x does not make it so, for all possible values of x.

~~ Paul

[Dancing David]

Franko! Welcome back!

Never really had the chance to undertsand your ideas, as you left the fray.

Question 1, how long do you steep a goose to be a goosed steeper, is that hot or cold water?
(I am a notorius poor speller and typist, but goose steeper is just prime)

Question 2:

You mention the dream and the dream coins and are they made of matter?
As a *scientific materialist* I have two answers
a. the coins are just mental construscts and from what evidence I have seen they exist only in your dreams, so they exist as mental constructs, whatever they may be
b. if you choose to define mental constructs as brain events then they are part of the matter which interacts in your brain through chemical interactions.

*scientific materialism* as used and defined by me , to be events tested and verified by the scientific method. This brand does not consider anything that can not be tested to be part of the material world, as such. Although debate and speculation are welcome.


Everyone:
I like the direction that Sundog was taking, the syllogism can basicaly be restated that
1 all perceptions exist in the brain
2 all that we can know is dependant on perception
3 therefore all is dependant on perception and the brain.

[Loki]

Hi Franko.

Glad to to see you're not dead - how was prison, by the way? :)

I sincerely hope that my mentioning your name in yesterday's thread hasn't brought you back to life?

Anyway, must run - happy to see you alive, but reserving judgement on the value of your continued contributions. :confused:

[jan]

Dear Franko,

I assume this thread was assumed to be about Berkeley (more specific: a certain formalisation of one of Berkeleys arguments). Berkeley never was a solipsist, as far as I know, and I am not in the mood to natter about solipsism, if you don't mind.

Originally posted by Franko


How do you know that the objects in your dreams aren’t made of the exact same kind of matter you perceive now?

Not that I am aware of, but perhaps you are just imagining my existence right now?



Perhaps. As far as I see it, if you engage in a discussion, you and your opponent have some common ground both of you agree about. For example, if I could discuss with Berkeley (if he wouldn't have been so unkind to decease), we could agree that Solipsism is false. Now what's up with you? Do you think solipsism is right? Do you think that solipsism is wrong? Or do you just think "perhaps, perhaps, perhaps"?

Originally posted by Franko

Perhaps when you awake from this dream you will feel silly for claiming everything here is as real as it gets?



But I do not claim that everything here is more real than within a dream. I was suggesting that dreams and awaken life follow different laws.

Originally posted by Franko

Perhaps the laws of physics are different for figments of the imagination than they are for real entities such as yourself, but as best I can tell the laws of physics in my dreams are identical to the laws of physics in effect right now.



I wanted to write:
"Your dreams seem to be pretty boring."
But Paul's answer obviously is far better.

Originally posted by Franko
[what kind of rules do numbers obey?]

The laws of physics?



Hardly. Can't remember any laws of physics that regulated the behaviour of numbers.

Originally posted by Franko

Atoms obey the laws of physics
Humans are made of atoms.
Humans invented/discovered math.
The Laws of Physics (or TLOP) made humans and preordained that they invent/discover mathematics.



Seems to be a fair summary of a certain flavour of materialism. Do you claim this, or are you trying to show that you understand that flavour of materialism? I assume the latter.

Originally posted by Franko

Do the laws of physics have to know about 2 in order to operate? (how well would modern physics equations work if the number 2 suddenly vanished?)



In modern physics, it is common behaviour to try to formulate theories in a mathematical way. Therefore, perhaps one may say that the laws of physics indeed have to know about 2. But I am not certain what "knowing" in this context means. A person can know something, but how can the laws of physics know something? The theory of physics depends on the rules of logic reasoning, I would say.

The laws of physics seem to be some entities of brand 3 (that is, abstractions). Therefore you could ask how it is possible that the entities of brand 1 (atoms and stuff) obey some entity of brand 3, while on the other hand all things of brand 3 are assumed to be just an epiphenomenom of entities of brand 1? That is, how is it possible to explain consciousness and abstract ideas strictly in terms of physics, if physics itself is an abstraction? Maybe this could trouble a materialist (or at least some flavours of materialists). But it has nothing to do with the relation of matter and consciousness, as far as I see.

So are we discussing Berkeley, or solipsism, or the ontological state of abstract theories?

If we are discussing the latter, on possible answer may be that we have to distuingish between our theories about physics, which happen to be entities of brand 3, and the manner the entities of brand 1 happen to behave, which is not a theory, but just the way they behave.

Originally posted by Franko

Did Materialism really evolve or the consciousnesses (algorithms) that conceived of Materialism evolve?



I'm afraid I don't understand you. The materialistic answer is that since Materialism is not a living being, it can't evolve, and speaking of it as evolving just means that human beings replace one concept they call "Materialism" with another concept they give the same name.

Originally posted by Franko

Then you should be able to demonstrate that the other entities you perceive are real and not simply figments of your imagination. (just like you can do in your dreams)



Once again, I think it is neither interesting what kind of ontological substances are "real", nor what kind of ontological substances should be given what kind of name. Are the entities of brand 2 or 3 real? Should the entities of brand 1 be called "matter" or "god's memory"? I don't care much. The interesting questions, I think, are: how many different substances are they, how are they related, and what laws do they obey?

The strong claim of a certain kind of materialism is that the laws that consciousness obey can be deduced from a full-fledged theory of physics. You may doubt that claim. I would be interested in any argument against it. Of course since it is a strong claim, it has the burden of prove. But it isn't as if there would be no evidence at all that this claim indeed could be true. For example, some mental states can be linked to certain brain injuries or certain drugs.

Originally posted by Franko

Imagination??? What kind of atoms is imagination made out of?



I hope I was able to explain why imagination do not have to be made of atoms for materialism to be true.

Originally posted by Franko

Look, if your mind is really made of matter, and those “strings” are also made of matter, then why do we need imagination? Does a rock need imagination for those strings to exist? or are you saying that rocks don’t perceive the “strings”?



No, my mind is not made of matter ("thick as a brick" comes to my mind...)

No, the strings I mentioned are not matter. They are part of a theoretical concept, therefore, they are made of idea-stuff (gibble-di-gogg brand 3). The hope is that matter behaves in a way as predicted by the theory those strings are part of. As far as I know, rocks do not contemplate nuclear physics and have no perception. But who am I to judge! Perhaps my ideas about the inner life of rocks are completly bogus.

Originally posted by Franko

Put simply there is no evidence for matter … so there is no need to assume matter.



In my test-case example, the fact that you find 2 cents is evidence that things are not happening at random. As you may remember, I am not insisting that you call wathever makes the coins to be two instead of three "matter". But as far as I can see, it is helpful to talk the same language as your fellow citizens, at least if you want them to understand you.

Originally posted by Franko

If you will pardon the expression, it (matter) is just a crutch for the philosophically weak-minded.



I don't mind to be called weak-minded. Perhaps I am. My claim in my first post was that Berkeleys theory is materialism, it just goes under a funny name. Do you agree or disagree?

Originally posted by Franko

If you are a strict materialist, then how on Earth can consciousness be anything other than a Laws of Physics process? Atoms obey the laws of physics, your brain is made of atoms, ergo, your brain (and brain processes) obey the laws of physics.

Or are you suggesting that your brain isn’t made of atoms and/or isn’t bound by the same laws of physics as all of the “other matter”?



I usually don't like telling somebody "you should first read books X and Y before you dare talking to me". But since I do not support this particular theory I fell little compelled to defend it. You could, for example, read Frank Jackson, John R. Searle, Thomas Nagel or Jerry A. Fodor.

For a start, the brain obeys the laws of physics, but the consciousness is not the same as the brain. The consciousness is assumed to be caused and determinated by a brain process, but the brain is made of matter, the consciousness not. The brain is an entity of brand 1, the consciousness is an entity of brand 2. Even if all entities of brand 2 are fully determinated by entities of brand 1, it could be possible that knowing the laws of physics is not sufficient to know all about consciousness.

And don't get confused if Paul telkls you that consciopusness is a brain process, while I tell you that it is caused by a brain process. That's just Discordia.

Originally posted by Franko

Ohhh, the Forces of Darkness love Discordia. Sometimes I think She’s their only reason for existence … until they meet her …

But since Berkely, Interesting Ian or you also seem to disagree, the Forces of Light seems to be loved by Discordia too.

*

By the way, Dancing David, shouldn't it read

3. therefore all we can know is dependant on perception and the brain

to make it perfectly valid?

[Sundog]

God closes a door but opens a window... :)

Welcome Jan.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Q-Source
1. Physical things are things perceived by sense
2. Things perceived by sense are ideas

Therefore physical things are ideas.


What do you think of Berkeley's syllogism?

Can you refute it?

A=B, B=C, A is not necessarily equal to C. In this case Physical things would be A, Senses would be B and Ideas would be C. this is a logical fallacy that many people are prone to fall into. They assume that since the steps can lead to a conclusion, if you cut out the middle part then the conclusion is still true, but that is not necessarily true. An example: Lions are cats, cats meow, therefore lions meow. This is not true, lions do no meow.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Chanileslie


A=B, B=C, A is not necessarily equal to C. In this case Physical things would be A, Senses would be B and Ideas would be C. this is a logical fallacy that many people are prone to fall into. They assume that since the steps can lead to a conclusion, if you cut out the middle part then the conclusion is still true, but that is not necessarily true. An example: Lions are cats, cats meow, therefore lions meow. This is not true, lions do no meow.

Ooooo.... kay.

:confused:

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Indeed, but why introduce unnecessary entities (ie a material world) into reality? What is its purpose? What are material things like? Are they like our ideas of them? Have you heard of Ockham's razor incidentally?

Material reality is a pretty good explanation for the world we interact with. Compared to Berkeleyan idealism, anyway.

Berkeley's metaphysics don't work without an all-seeing God to observe everything (to stop everything we aren't looking at vanishing in a puff of logic).

That's a Razoring offence to begin with. Especially since Berkeley's offered reason for believing in God was utter rubbish and no one has come up with a better one.

Of course we could all be brains in vats, meat batteries plugged into a Matrix, philosophers being deceived by an omnipotent demon, computer simulations or whatever. It's just that these metaphysical ideas are less useful than materialism and no better supported.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Yahzi


The point everyone is trying to make still remains valid, though. Physical things are percievable by senses, but not necessarily percieved.

Quantum Mechanics has vindicated Platos' World of Ideas and Berkeley's idealism.


As everyone points out, you can have lots of physical things that exist without anyone percieving them (like pebbles on the dark side of the moon). Thus, even though physical things are necesarily percievable, they are not necessarily percieved, which wrecks the syllogism, unless Berkley is trying to argue that things have an objective existance until they are percieved, at which point they turn into mere ideas.

Exactly, you found the heart of the problem with the syllogism.

The solution that Berkeley gave to this conundrum was not to say that things have an objective existence (he couldn't, he was an idealist), instead he said that for all physical things to exist in the Universe, at least one consciousness should perceive them all.

From his syllogism it follows that when we see a physical object we perceive its qualities and then it exists as an idea (a mental representation in our heads), if we cannot perceive a fallen tree in an Island then -strictly speaking- it doesn't exist.

Berkeley thought that it was God the only consciousness capable of perceiving everything. In this way, his syllogism was still valid and was not in contradiction with the possibility that pebbles on the dark side of the moon exist even though we haven't perceived them yet.

Q-S

[LW]

Originally posted by Chanileslie

A=B, B=C, A is not necessarily equal to C.

Well, strictly speaking you are right, but the mathematical convention is that the symbol '=' is reserved for either equality or in some cases equivalence. Both cases are transitive meaning that A=B and B=C necessarily imply that A = C.

But, if you want to redefine already established mathematical symbols to have new meanings, then the transitivity doesn't have to hold.

An example: Lions are cats, cats meow, therefore lions meow. This is not true, lions do no meow.

There are two possible errors in that, depending on what quantifier you use in the second proposition. That one reads either:

(2a) ALL cats meow; or
(2b) SOME cats meow.

In the case of (2a) you have an incorrect premise, since not all cats meow. In the second case your conclusion is wrong, since you can't conclude that all (or even only some) lions are in the set of meowing cats.

Putting the case (2b) into formal first-order predicate logic we get (with the weaker condition for meowing lions):

(1) forall x (Lion(x) -> Cat(x)
(2b) exists x (Cat(x) & Meows(x))
(concl) exists x (Lion(x) -> Meows(x))

The simplest counterexample for this is the structure:

U = { c, l }
Lion = { l }
Cat = { c, l }
Meows = { c }

(Meaning that we have only two objects in the universe, c and l, where l is a lion and c is a cat that is not a lion. Both (1) and (2b) are true since l is a cat and c meows, but (concl) is not true.)

[Franko]

Paul:
An epistemological assumption is an assumption about what we can investigate, while an ontological assumption is one about what exists.

Okay, so would you agree that unless you believe in the Supernatural (that which is inherently incomprehensible or intrinsically random ) then epistemologically speaking we can investigate and understand everything?

Ontologically speaking I would say the [I]default criteria for existence would be logical consistency (or self-consistency) – not that there may not be other criteria, but consistency is a minimum. In other words, 4 sided triangles cannot exist. Would you concur?

Franko said:
Okay, but that was my original point. If there is no necessity in believing that matter exist, why claim with utter certainty that it does, and why further claim that matter must preexist consciousness? (not that I am implying you are making that claim).

Paul replied:
I make no claim about whether matter exists, nor what preexists what. I only claim that, for what we can know, we don't need two existents, and that consciousness is nothing special. Consciousness is a brain process.

Well here we seem to part ways.

I would say that you are definitely certain that your consciousness exist whereas you can only suppose (imagine or pretend) that the “matter” does.

You have direct experience of your consciousness, but you only experience the “matter” indirectly.

Franko asked:
How do you know that the objects in your dreams aren’t made of the exact same kind of matter you perceive now?

Paul replied:
We don't. But we do know that they behave significantly differently, so informally we say they are different.

In what way does the “matter” in your dreams “behave significantly different” then the “matter” when you are awake?

Franko said:
Put simply there is no evidence for matter ... so there is no need to assume matter.

Paul:
Likewise, there is no evidence for anything else, either. Because you feel that your mind is something other than x does not make it so, for all possible values of x.

Ohhh, I strongly disagree.

There is ample evidence for your mind. If not, then what exactly is generating this conversation? Surely it is not the “matter” is it? Do you often observe inanimate rocks having these types of conversations?

The fact is, if what you are saying is true, than there wouldn’t be any “You”. Parsimony and the laws of Physics would eliminate the need for “You” (mind). This conversation, and in fact ALL of your actions would be nothing more than the inevitable result of the immutable laws of physics. You would have no more control over your actions than a rock or the moon has control over its actions. If what you are saying is true than minds don’t control anything because the laws of Physics control EVERYTHING, and a mind which controls nothing isn’t a mind … it’s an inanimate object.

[Dancing David]

Strangely enough, I would argue that parsimony does not say that there is a self or a mind at all.

There are the sperate parts and the seperate events but there is no self or mind.

Self: an illusion placed upon the aggregates of the body, thoughts, feelings, sensations and habits

Mind: an illusions placed over the aggregates of thoughts, perception, memories, feeling and habits.

parsimony would say that we have all the seperate components but that we don't need the construct that unites them

[Franko]

jan said:
Perhaps. As far as I see it, if you engage in a discussion, you and your opponent have some common ground both of you agree about. For example, if I could discuss with Berkeley (if he wouldn't have been so unkind to decease), we could agree that Solipsism is false.

How can you agree with anyone that Solipsism is false?

If Solipsism is true then the only people you could “agree” with are figments of your imagination.

Either you can prove Solipsism is false, or you are kidding yourself.

Now what's up with you? Do you think solipsism is right? Do you think that solipsism is wrong? Or do you just think "perhaps, perhaps, perhaps"?

May I assume you believe in the “Big Bang” creation myth … ?

Solipsism is the EXACT SAME theory as the Big Bang, just on a much, much more parsimonious scale, and like the Big Bang Myth it is a starting point for the universe/existence.

I wanted to write:
"Your dreams seem to be pretty boring."
But Paul's answer obviously is far better.

Do the laws of physics bore you and Paul, or do the laws of physics make for a boring existence? I am not sure what you are trying to say?

jan:
what kind of rules do numbers obey?

Franko:
The laws of physics?

jan:
Hardly. Can't remember any laws of physics that regulated the behaviour of numbers.

You lost me.

In what way does Mathematics violate (T)he (L)aws (O)f (P)hysics (TLOP)?

If the laws of mathematics don’t violate the TLOP, then I’d say they were obeying TLOP.

Look, TLOP discovers you (your genetics). Then TLOP controls you (or some other human) and makes you discover/invent the laws of mathematics. The atoms in your brain aren’t magically special. They obey the same exact rules that any other atoms obey. The entire universe is nothing but a bunch of particles obeying a bunch of unbreakable laws. Events don’t occur “randomly” or “accidentally”. Everything happens EXACTLY according to the way TLOP prescribed it from the dawn of time.

In modern physics, it is common behaviour to try to formulate theories in a mathematical way. Therefore, perhaps one may say that the laws of physics indeed have to know about 2. But I am not certain what "knowing" in this context means. A person can know something, but how can the laws of physics know something? The theory of physics depends on the rules of logic reasoning, I would say.

In what way does “matter” comprehend logic or reasoning? Logic, reasoning, comprehension, and perception are completely unnecessary from the point of view of matter and TLOP – aren’t they?

The strong claim of a certain kind of materialism is that the laws that consciousness obey can be deduced from a full-fledged theory of physics.

I don’t see how a True Materialist could come to any other logical conclusion?

If the laws of physics don’t explain everything then what else is required … magic?

You may doubt that claim. I would be interested in any argument against it.

So would I, yet I never hear one.

Of course since it is a strong claim, it has the burden of prove. But it isn't as if there would be no evidence at all that this claim indeed could be true. For example, some mental states can be linked to certain brain injuries or certain drugs.

Right. The brain is made of atoms, and obeys the same laws of physics as everything else. Modify the atoms or the chemical processes and obviously you modify the mind/consciousness.

But there is no “You” in the process … right? There are only atoms, and the laws of physics. “You” are just an illusion.

[UndercoverElephant]

Hey Frank! :)

[Franko]

Q-Source said:
The solution that Berkeley gave to this conundrum was not to say that things have an objective existence (he couldn't, he was an idealist), instead he said that for all physical things to exist in the Universe, at least one consciousness should perceive them all.

From his syllogism it follows that when we see a physical object we perceive its qualities and then it exists as an idea (a mental representation in our heads), if we cannot perceive a fallen tree in an Island then -strictly speaking- it doesn't exist.

Berkeley thought that it was God the only consciousness capable of perceiving everything. In this way, his syllogism was still valid and was not in contradiction with the possibility that pebbles on the dark side of the moon exist even though we haven't perceived them yet.

There you go …

Throw in a referee, and the desperate need for vast amounts of unparsimonious “matter” goes down the path of the flat earth society.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
[B]

Material reality is a pretty good explanation for the world we interact with. Compared to Berkeleyan idealism, anyway.


Actually I don't think it constitutes an explanation at all. It's certainly not a scientific explanation, and I can make little sense of it as a metaphysical explanation either. What is this wholly mysterious material reality which forevermore is beyond what we could ever experience?



Berkeley's metaphysics don't work without an all-seeing God to observe everything (to stop everything we aren't looking at vanishing in a puff of logic).



No, not true. And the word "vanish" here is not being used in its standard sense. There is nothing incoherent in supposing that there is no God and that the external world is nothing over and above our sensory experiences. Why do we see the same things? Well it's just the way the world is. How can you say that is implausible if this is the only world we have ever been acquainted with?



That's a Razoring offence to begin with.


I beg to differ. Dispensing with a whole material Universe and yet explaining all things (indeed better than materialism), can hardly be described as a "Razoring offence" :eek:


Especially since Berkeley's offered reason for believing in God was utter rubbish and no one has come up with a better one.



Nonsense. His argument for God is good enough. I don't agree with him though that the existence of God is more likely than the existence of other people.



Of course we could all be brains in vats, meat batteries plugged into a Matrix, philosophers being deceived by an omnipotent demon, computer simulations or whatever. It's just that these metaphysical ideas are less useful than materialism and no better supported.

Such scenarios are not equivalent to idealism because they are envisage a specific situation. Materialism has absolutely no use at all. It holds back scientific progress and has absurd consequences for the nature of the self.

[UndercoverElephant]

Ian,

I don't know how you manage to keep this up! It's like Chinese water torture. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip.

I admire your dedication.

:D

G

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by JustGeoff
Ian,

I don't know how you manage to keep this up! It's like Chinese water torture. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip.

I admire your dedication.

:D

G

Actually I got to confess I'm getting a bit pissed off with this board. Especially with Stimpson who follows me around all over the place and still continues to display his impressive lack of any reasoning ability or logic with his vacuous posts. You wanna see the primary and secondary qualities thread that I started in the science forum. Oh well LOL :)

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Actually I got to confess I'm getting a bit pissed off with this board. Especially with Stimpson who follows me around all over the place and still continues to display his impressive lack of any reasoning ability or logic with his vacuous posts.

I believe he was offered the opportunity to come and explain his position at www.philosophyforums.com. He chose not to. Wisely. ;)

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Actually I don't think it constitutes an explanation at all. It's certainly not a scientific explanation, and I can make little sense of it as a metaphysical explanation either. What is this wholly mysterious material reality which forevermore is beyond what we could ever experience?


It certainly seems like electrons and whatnot have an independent existence that doesn't depend on anything else like a God or an observer or a Matrix.

The simplest way to look at this is to say "That's because they have an independent existence. They're just these things that do what they do. We can say nothing more".


No, not true. And the word "vanish" here is not being used in its standard sense. There is nothing incoherent in supposing that there is no God and that the external world is nothing over and above our sensory experiences. Why do we see the same things? Well it's just the way the world is. How can you say that is implausible if this is the only world we have ever been acquainted with?


It bloody well is true. I spent ages earlier this year poring over Berkeley's dialogues to write a couple of essays for teaching purposes. I know what his position was. He held that his philosophy needed God to make it work. Any story you want to push that doesn't need a God is your own and not Berkeley's.

It's also implausible to claim that the universe is just sense impressions, since it shows every sign of having existed long before any minds existed to have sense impressions about it.

No, Berkeley's story is really not very good.


I beg to differ. Dispensing with a whole material Universe and yet explaining all things (indeed better than materialism), can hardly be described as a "Razoring offence" :eek:


It leaves a lot of things unexplained. Why do objects persist in existing even when no one is perceiving them? Why is there cosmic background radiation?


Nonsense. His argument for God is good enough. I don't agree with him though that the existence of God is more likely than the existence of other people.


His argument for God is unmitigated bollocks, if you'll excuse the expression.

It goes like this. "I am fallible and finite. Therefore it follows that there is something which is infallible and infinite. Therefore it follows that this thing is the Christian God".

No stage of the argument follows, and any child can see it.


Such scenarios are not equivalent to idealism because they are envisage a specific situation. Materialism has absolutely no use at all. It holds back scientific progress and has absurd consequences for the nature of the self.

Yes, yes, whatever. Go back and read Berkeley again (assuming you read it in the first place, as opposed to reading Philosophy For Dummies) and have a think about what he actually wrote if you are going to post about it.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by JustGeoff


I believe he was offered the opportunity to come and explain his position at www.philosophyforums.com. He chose not to. Wisely.

Are you suggesting that scientific materialism holds by itself in this skeptic forum just because it appeals to popularity? :eek:

What do you think about Berkeley's solution to his syllogism? ;)


Q

[Interesting Ian]

Kevin Lowe
I spent ages earlier this year poring over Berkeley's dialogues to write a couple of essays for teaching purposes.


Want to e-mail them to me? I'll make some constructive criticisms. Then you'll have better teaching material.

Seriously

e-mail to interesting.ian@ntlworld,com (replace "," with a "." before com).

[Franko]

Kevin Lowe:
It certainly seems like electrons and whatnot have an independent existence that doesn't depend on anything else like a God or an observer or a Matrix.

What makes you so sure that electrons exist? You’ve never actually seen one; in fact the best you can do is imagine what they “look” like. (by the way, what is the intrinsic color of an electron?)

The simplest way to look at this is to say "That's because they have an independent existence. They're just these things that do what they do. We can say nothing more".

Actually I’d call that Begging the Question.

You say: Matter must be real (electrons must exist), ergo matter is real.

The fact is you have no idea if electrons and atoms have any more of an independent existence than the electrons and atoms in your dreams at night have independent existence.

It bloody well is true. I spent ages earlier this year poring over Berkeley's dialogues to write a couple of essays for teaching purposes. I know what his position was. He held that his philosophy needed God to make it work. Any story you want to push that doesn't need a God is your own and not Berkeley's.

It's also implausible to claim that the universe is just sense impressions, since it shows every sign of having existed long before any minds existed to have sense impressions about it.

For all you know at this very moment your mind is nothing more than a networked PC receiving information about the Universe from a PC-Server somewhere (TLOP or God [take your pick]).

This explanation has EXACTLY as much evidentiary support as does Materialism but this explanation is far more consistent and parsimonious (and it has other superior qualities over materialism).

It leaves a lot of things unexplained. Why do objects persist in existing even when no one is perceiving them? Why is there cosmic background radiation?

Objects persist (like cosmic background radiation) because they are stored/maintained on the “Server”.

In other words, just because you do not generate reality doesn’t mean someone (something) else isn’t doing it. (… and even you would probably concede that TLOP is doing it in any event).

[whitefork]

I'd like to steer you towards Tlon, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius by Borges, in the event that you've not read it. Q may know it in the original Spanish, or perhaps not.

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~boozer/etexts/tlon.html

A section that's stayed with me for years:
Hume noted for all time that Berkeley's arguments did not admit the slightest refutation nor did they cause the slightest conviction. This dictum is entirely correct in its application to the earth, but entirely false in Tlön. The nations of this planet are congenitally idealist. Their language and the derivations of their language - religion, letters, metaphysics - all presuppose idealism. The world for them is not a concourse of objects in space; it is a heterogeneous series of independent acts. It is successive and temporal, not spatial. There are no nouns in Tlön's conjectural Ursprache, from which the "present" languages and the dialects are derived: there are impersonal verbs, modified by monosyllabic suffixes (or prefixes) with an adverbial value. For example: there is no word corresponding to the word "moon,", but there is a verb which in English would be "to moon" or "to moonate." "The moon rose above the river" is hlor u fang axaxaxas mlo, or literally: "upward behind the onstreaming it mooned."

[UndercoverElephant]

Originally posted by Q-Source

Are you suggesting that scientific materialism holds by itself in this skeptic forum just because it appeals to popularity? :eek:


Materialism isn't just "popular" with skeptics. It is the foundation upon which the rest of their beliefs are based.


What do you think about Berkeley's solution to his syllogism? ;)


I think I'm not going to get into ontology on this forum again. ;)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko

But there is no “You” in the process … right? There are only atoms, and the laws of physics. “You” are just an illusion.

Quite right franko!

There is an illusion that creates the self!

[Franko]

So what you are saying is that to a Materialist rocks are just as "conscious" and "alive" as people?

... and that this is a superior worldview?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Franko
So what you are saying is that to a Materialist rocks are just as "conscious" and "alive" as people?

... and that this is a superior worldview?

Well if they roll down a hill they are.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


What makes you so sure that electrons exist? You’ve never actually seen one; in fact the best you can do is imagine what they “look” like. (by the way, what is the intrinsic color of an electron?)



Actually I’d call that Begging the Question.

You say: Matter must be real (electrons must exist), ergo matter is real.

The fact is you have no idea if electrons and atoms have any more of an independent existence than the electrons and atoms in your dreams at night have independent existence.


I think that from my own viewpoint of *scientific materialism*, it doesn't matter if electrons exist at all, what matters is that there a predictable observations and experimenst that can be conducted on the *material* realm wether it exists or not. The goal is approximation of *reality*, wether that reality exists or not is not a question that can really be put to the scientific method, so it is worthy of discussion but outside the scope of *scientfifc materialism*.

It doesn't matter if they are electrons or little monkeys on very fast motor scooters, it is the behavior of the *object* that can be approximated, regardless of what or why that *object* exists.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well if they roll down a hill they are.

Sorry, just being flippant (read the Primary and secondary qualities thread in the science forum and you'll understand my reference).

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko
So what you are saying is that to a Materialist rocks are just as "conscious" and "alive" as people?

... and that this is a superior worldview?

Well, thats what Ian says that materialists say, i haven't seen a post by a materialist who says that. So it is an Idealist POV of Materialism.

A materialist would find it humorous.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Actually I don't think it constitutes an explanation at all. It's certainly not a scientific explanation, and I can make little sense of it as a metaphysical explanation either. What is this wholly mysterious material reality which forevermore is beyond what we could ever experience?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It certainly seems like electrons and whatnot have an independent existence that doesn't depend on anything else like a God or an observer or a Matrix.



It certainly doesn't. In QM talking about an electron in abstraction from any measurement simply conveys no meaning. And it only makes sense to say a measurement has been taken when there is conscious awareness of that measurement. This (http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html) might interest you.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, not true. And the word "vanish" here is not being used in its standard sense. There is nothing incoherent in supposing that there is no God and that the external world is nothing over and above our sensory experiences. Why do we see the same things? Well it's just the way the world is. How can you say that is implausible if this is the only world we have ever been acquainted with?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It bloody well is true.



Well OK. You said "Berkeley's metaphysics don't work" without invoking God. But clearly this is trivially true in your interpretation! I thought you meant that if you abstract God from Berkeley's metaphysic it wouldn't work. If you didn't mean that, then your assertion is vacuous, and I don't see any purpose in you uttering it.



I spent ages earlier this year poring over Berkeley's dialogues to write a couple of essays for teaching purposes. I know what his position was. He held that his philosophy needed God to make it work. Any story you want to push that doesn't need a God is your own and not Berkeley's.



God is absolutely fundamental to his metaphysic sure. I'm unconvinced you know what his position was though. But a lot of Berkeleyian scholars don't either, so don't let that worry you.



It's also implausible to claim that the universe is just sense impressions, since it shows every sign of having existed long before any minds existed to have sense impressions about it.



{shrugs}

Just an unsubstantiated assertion. What possible signs could tell you this? I don't think you understand his metaphysic. You should really try to get to grips with it before teaching it. Not that a lot of other people teaching his philosophy will have any more clue than you.




No, Berkeley's story is really not very good.



I profoundly disagree. That's not to deny there are problems. But inevitably not any alleged problems the materialists bang on about. The vast majority of them are really utterly clueless.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I beg to differ. Dispensing with a whole material Universe and yet explaining all things (indeed better than materialism), can hardly be described as a "Razoring offence"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It leaves a lot of things unexplained. Why do objects persist in existing even when no one is perceiving them?



Well we just stipulate they do by definition. Maybe you're addressing the question of the ontological status of the physical realm when not observed by sentient beings? That's a bit more complex, but I would say Berkeley envisaged unobserved objects existing in a similar sense to objects existing within a computer game which are not currently displayed on the monitor.




Why is there cosmic background radiation?



For the same reason if idealism were not true. A remnant of the Big Bang. The past is created when the first sentient being springs into being.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense. His argument for God is good enough. I don't agree with him though that the existence of God is more likely than the existence of other people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



His argument for God is unmitigated bollocks, if you'll excuse the expression.

It goes like this. "I am fallible and finite. Therefore it follows that there is something which is infallible and infinite. Therefore it follows that this thing is the Christian God".



Huh?? Where did Berkeley write this?? Not in the Principles or Dialogues so far as I can recollect.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Such scenarios are not equivalent to idealism because they are envisage a specific situation. Materialism has absolutely no use at all. It holds back scientific progress and has absurd consequences for the nature of the self.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yes, yes, whatever. Go back and read Berkeley again (assuming you read it in the first place, as opposed to reading Philosophy For Dummies) and have a think about what he actually wrote if you are going to post about it.



Oh dear me LOL

[Franko]

D.D.:
I think that from my own viewpoint of *scientific materialism*, it doesn't matter if electrons exist at all, what matters is that there a predictable observations and experiments that can be conducted on the *material* realm whether it exists or not.

I agree, but what you are defining would still be True under a Solipsistic worldview and it would be far more logically consistent and parsimonious when compared with Materialism.

The goal is approximation of *reality*, whether that reality exists or not is not a question that can really be put to the scientific method, so it is worthy of discussion but outside the scope of *scientific materialism*.

Only if you arbitrarily redefine the standard meaning of ”Materialism”.

I always understood Materialism to be the doctrine that:

The universe is made of matter., or put another way The matter is real, and matter precedes consciousness.

Matter makes consciousness.

What you seem to be saying (and I could agree with you on this) is that Materialism is only asserting the existence of logically consistent relationships (rules or laws), but not necessarily anything which is tangible in the metaphysical sense (tangible independent of conscious perception).

It doesn't matter if they are electrons or little monkeys on very fast motor scooters, it is the behavior of the *object* that can be approximated, regardless of what or why that *object* exists.

I agree completely.

But in what form of “matter” are the rules of behavior contained? Where do the Laws of Physics themselves fit into the grand materialistic scheme? Where do they reside? What is the source of their Omnipotence?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


I agree, but what you are defining would still be True under a Solipsistic worldview and it would be far more logically consistent and parsimonious when compared with Materialism.


I use the asterix to denote my own personal brand of *scientifc materialism* , which being dependant on my POV as a pagan buddhist nihilist is somewhat different from the standard of materialism. I think that under *sm* the questions of ontology are untestable and therefore just the subject of discussion. So solopism or self standinf reality, doesn't matter until you get a theory that can be tested.

Only if you arbitrarily redefine the standard meaning of ”Materialism”.


It's not arbitrary its personal


I always understood Materialism to be the doctrine that:

[b]The universe is made of matter., or put another way The matter is real, and matter precedes consciousness.

Matter makes consciousness.

I realize that but, while I may hold the belief that matter precedes consiousness it seems that some question if it can be tested, I would say, show me consiousness without matter and I'll buy it. But since it can't be tested it is a moot point under *sm*


What you seem to be saying (and I could agree with you on this) is that Materialism is only asserting the existence of logically consistent relationships (rules or laws), but not necessarily anything which is tangible in the metaphysical sense (tangible independent of conscious perception).

I can't speak for materialism as a philospohy I am just promoting *sm*, if something is tangible enough to be tested then it falls under the scientific method.




I agree completely.

But in what form of “matter” are the rules of behavior contained? Where do the Laws of Physics themselves fit into the grand materialistic scheme? Where do they reside? What is the source of their Omnipotence?

I don't know! i think that the universe was designed by a commitee of stand up comedians. The laws of physics just are, they can be observed, but at this point they can only be tested for isotropy, not thier underpinings.


Thier source? God's furry b-hole? I don't know. Maybe Isis and Eris.

[Pahansiri]

Greetings Franko.

You write
Okay, so by this logic an infinite number of invisible parallel universes and even God exist, because even though we can’t see (perceive) them it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

For that matter there are planets in the universe where water flows uphill and giant self-aware taco’s poop ice cream. (not seeing is believing)

Did I get that right?

Then you write Atoms obey the laws of physics
Humans are made of atoms.
Humans invented/discovered math.
The Laws of Physics (or TLOP) made humans and preordained that they invent/discover mathematics.

The things I am going to point out you became angry at me for doing before and hope now we can just discuses them as friends.

I agree with the first statement. What we know for certain is there is certainly much we do not know.

You know as Buddhist I believe all things are illusions, collections of non-self elements placed ( if you will) by causes and conditions. What we label “ car” is completely comprised of non-car elements, there is nothing in and of itself, “car”.

This is the same for all material/compound things. We label what we perceive. What we do not see, feel etc we many times, too many times I believe simply say or believe there is no chance, that I feel is ego and illogical.

You are right there may be there are planets in the universe where water flows uphill and giant self-aware taco’s poop ice cream

I will say, may be not “are” there we may disagree as if we can not see or experience we can not “know”.

As to the poop ice cream there is a ice cream shop here that had a flavor here I tried and I believe it just may be that very poop ice cream you speak of.

But allow me to compare your post below to your post above and offer just my thoughts.


Atoms obey the laws of physics
Humans are made of atoms.
Humans invented/discovered math.
The Laws of Physics (or TLOP) made humans and preordained that they invent/discover mathematics.

1- Atoms obey the laws of physics

You limit here the laws of physics to only what you perceive here, on this small rock. The laws of physics here are greatly influenced by the causes and conditions of this rock, size, gravity, the number of planets near us their size and pull etc.

I am not sure we can say that “laws of physics” is a universal thing, just let us say a planet 100 times or 1 times larger or smaller would have in some cases greatly differing laws of physics.

In your first quote you demonstrate this. Okay, so by this logic an infinite number of invisible parallel universes and even God exist, because even though we can’t see (perceive) them it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

For that matter there are planets in the universe where water flows uphill and giant self-aware taco’s poop ice cream. (not seeing is believing)

2- Humans are made of atoms.

I would agree that human bodies are made of atoms and atoms are made up of smaller non atom elements, atoms are not the smallest or base elements it too has “parts” and the parts have parts.

But the mind is not made of atoms, thoughts are not made of atoms. I will agree that many or even most are so greatly influenced by the compound, i.e. the body and physical events.

But we also know the mind has developed ways to work within or for at least periods of time override the laws of physics.

I had pointed out my belief that if laws of physics completely controlled all and there were no form of “free will” all things would be the same, all actions, thoughts etc.

free will like all things is not a black and white, the definition is not found in the extremes but in the middle.

Is there total free will? No. Is there a total lack of free will? No.

3. Humans invented/discovered math.

Math is a truth, a truth is a truth even if no one sees it or knows it as your first quote points out.

Humans did not invent math, we may have discovered how it works and how to work within it but so did the poop ice cream maker in invisible parallel universe #5 on planet AYX.

Fire burns like crazy even before the first human stuck his hand in it. He did not invent it.

1+1=2 when that same first human did not know fire would burn him etc.

The Laws of Physics (or TLOP) made humans and preordained that they invent/discover mathematics.

I respect you believe that but have no proof. The Laws of Physics are not one thing, not proven to be a thinking thing it is a law that relates to the causes and conditions that are a reality in that “realm”.

Just what I believe.

[jan]

Franko,

since some people around here are still discussing Berkeley, I decided to start a new thread for my answer to avoid thread-hijacking. So the second part ot this conservation can be found on the I worship his Frankoness (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=27226) thread, ...

[Franko]

D.D.:
while I may hold the belief that matter precedes consiousness it seems that some question if it can be tested.

If you are making the claim, then you should have some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, why make the claim?

What is your evidence that matter precedes consciousness? Are you a proponent of The Theory of spontaneous generation? (as in maggots spontaneously generate on a piece of rotting meat [minus the meat]).

I would say, show me consiousness without matter and I'll buy it.

And I could say show me some matter without consciousness and I’ll buy it.

What you are claiming is that universes (matter) exist which no one has ever observed.

Kind of like the invisible dragon in my garage.

But since it can't be tested it is a moot point under *sm*

The fact that it cannot be tested doesn’t seem to stop you from asserting it though. How does that make you any different than a Christian or Hindu?

if something is tangible enough to be tested then it falls under the scientific method.

yes, but that is my point … NOTHING in Materialism is tangible enough to test! The only thing you can test is the logical relationships, which only exist within consciousness itself (from its perception or observation of “matter”). Remove the observation, or the consciousness, and there is no “matter”.

Franko:
in what form of “matter” are the rules of behavior contained? Where do the Laws of Physics themselves fit into the grand materialistic scheme? Where do they reside? What is the source of their Omnipotence?

D.D.:
I don't know! i think that the universe was designed by a commitee of stand up comedians. The laws of physics just are, they can be observed, but at this point they can only be tested for isotropy, not their underpinnings.

TLOP works in mysterious ways … ?

Their source? God's furry b-hole? I don't know. Maybe Isis and Eris.

… or maybe the Architect and Isis?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Franko said:Okay, so would you agree that unless you believe in the Supernatural (that which is inherently incomprehensible or intrinsically random [i.e. "magic"]) then epistemologically speaking we can investigate and understand everything?
I'm not sure what you mean. I think the answer to your question is yes.

Ontologically speaking I would say the default criteria for existence would be logical consistency (or self-consistency) --- not that there may not be other criteria, but consistency is a minimum. In other words, 4 sided triangles cannot exist. Would you concur?
I have no idea what exists.

I would say that you are definitely certain that your consciousness exist whereas you can only suppose (imagine or pretend) that the "matter" does.
I think if we carefully define what we mean by consciousness and what we mean by matter we will find that they are epistemologically equivalent. Whether they are ontologically equivalent I have no idea.

You have direct experience of your consciousness, but you only experience the "matter" indirectly.
I think consciousness feels like a more direct experience simply because it is going on inside my head.

In what way does the matter in your dreams behave significantly different then the matter when you are awake?
I can fly; walk through walls; shape-shift; compress or expand space; compose new people and objects from fragments; and so forth.

There is ample evidence for your mind. If not, then what exactly is generating this conversation? Surely it is not the "matter" is it? Do you often observe inanimate rocks having these types of conversations?
It is a particular arrangement of matter called a brain. Rocks apparently don't have them (although if consciousness is separate from matter, I can't imagine why a rock shouldn't be conscious; what does it feel like to be a rock?).

The fact is, if what you are saying is true, than there wouldn’t be any "You." Parsimony and the laws of Physics would eliminate the need for "You" (mind).
What does it mean for physics to have a need?

This conversation, and in fact ALL of your actions would be nothing more than the inevitable result of the immutable laws of physics.
Fair enough, with a little randomness thrown in.

You would have no more control over your actions than a rock or the moon has control over its actions.
Perhaps not.

If what you are saying is true than minds don’t control anything because the laws of Physics control EVERYTHING, and a mind which controls nothing isn’t a mind --- it’s an inanimate object.
Define inanimate.

~~ Paul

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Quantum Mechanics has vindicated Platos' World of Ideas and Berkeley's idealism.
Er, no. A conscious observer is not necessary to collapse the wave-function: any observer will do, including pebbles and bits of old sponge cake.

it is true that for the universe to exist, it must be observed: but the other parts of the universe can do the observing. They don't have to be conscious. So what this really tells us is that for something to exist, it has to interact with the universe. In an nice, physical sort of way.

Thus we see that QM not only refutes Berkely, but God and Santa Claus as well.

[Franko]

Pahansiri,

How are you doing my Buddhist friend … ?

Pahansiri:
You know as Buddhist I believe all things are illusions …

ALL things?

Is your consciousness an illusion? If it is, then how can “you” believe anything?

… collections of non-self elements placed ( if you will) by causes and conditions. What we label “ car” is completely comprised of non-car elements, there is nothing in and of itself, “car”.

Okay … I’m with you on this …

This is the same for all material/compound things. We label what we perceive. What we do not see, feel etc we many times, too many times I believe simply say or believe there is no chance, that I feel is ego and illogical.

Alright, I think I still follow. You are saying that how we perceive and define things is how we give objects and events meaning. Is that right?

You limit here the laws of physics to only what you perceive here, on this small rock. The laws of physics here are greatly influenced by the causes and conditions of this rock, size, gravity, the number of planets near us their size and pull etc.

I am not sure we can say that “laws of physics” is a universal thing, just let us say a planet 100 times or 1 times larger or smaller would have in some cases greatly differing laws of physics.

You lost me here.

Are you claiming that when the parameters (variables) change that the algorithm also changes? I’d say that a change to the inputs alters the outputs, but the algorithm itself (TLOP) remains constant.

But we also know the mind has developed ways to work within or for at least periods of time override the laws of physics.

Please explain what you mean when you claim your mind is able to “override the laws of physics”?

I had pointed out my belief that if laws of physics completely controlled all and there were no form of “free will” all things would be the same, all actions, thoughts etc.

How so?

Don’t the laws of physics control ALL celestial mechanics and planetary formation? Does that mean that all planets and moons are identical and have the same exact orbits?

free will like all things is not a black and white, the definition is not found in the extremes but in the middle.

Is there total free will? No. Is there a total lack of free will? No.

I disagree.

But please elaborate on precisely what you mean.

I contend that the Laws of Physics (TLOP) control ALL matter and energy, and since you are strictly and solely a material entity (at least according to Atheism/Materialism) then it is an obvious conclusion that TLOP controls your thoughts and actions completely and utterly.

Math is a truth, a truth is a truth even if no one sees it or knows it as your first quote points out.

I agree, but what I was driving at is what is the source of all Truth?

Surely it must be TLOP.

Humans did not invent math, we may have discovered how it works and how to work within it but so did the poop ice cream maker in invisible parallel universe #5 on planet AYX.

Fire burns like crazy even before the first human stuck his hand in it. He did not invent it.

1+1=2 when that same first human did not know fire would burn him etc.

I agree. But that is a statement in support of Destiny or Fate – not “free will”.

Franko:
The Laws of Physics (or TLOP) made humans and preordained that they invent/discover mathematics.

Pahansiri:
I respect you believe that but have no proof.

You mean there is no proof that TLOP is responsible for the present state and configuration of the universe? If you are suggesting that something else is responsible perhaps you could elaborate?

The Laws of Physics are not one thing

What do you mean? Could you elaborate?

[TLOP …] not proven to be a thinking thing …

Whether “it” (TLOP) thinks or not is a moot point though … isn’t it?

The way I see it, whether or not TLOP thinks depends largely upon whether or not You think. Either you and TLOP are both automatons obeying a prescribed path (sequence) of actions based on logically inviolate rules/laws, or you and TLOP are both “conscious”.

If you are claiming that You can be one way, and TLOP can be the other you will have to explain what you mean and how that could possibly be so? The best place for you to start would be by precisely defining what you mean by the term “free will”, and specifying why you believe that human action is capable of occurring beyond what is determined by TLOP

it is a law that relates to the causes and conditions that are a reality in that “realm”.

There is only one reality … cause and effect, cause and effect, cause and effect …

... and that’s what I believe, my friend. ;)

[Franko]

Paul:
What does it mean for physics to have a need?

It means that this: ** + ** has to equal this ****

Franko:
ALL of your actions would be nothing more than the inevitable result of the immutable laws of physics.

Paul:
Fair enough, with a little randomness thrown in.

What is the precise difference between randomness and magic or the supernatural?

I’ve noticed that Discordians aren’t very random about pretending that one is not exactly the same as the other.

If an apparently “random” process is actually governed by an underlying logical process, then it isn’t actually random, you have simply failed to perceive it deeply enough.

However if a random process is truly random and there is no underlying process which is even potentially comprehensible, then it is EXACTLY the same as saying it is magic.

Define inanimate.

The mutually exclusive opposite of alive (i.e. not conscious).

[Loki]

Paul,

It is a particular arrangement of matter called a brain. Rocks apparently don't have them (although if consciousness is separate from matter, I can't imagine why a rock shouldn't be conscious; what does it feel like to be a rock?).
Consciousness only has a *preference* for associating with brains. During NDEs in hospitals, consciousness often feels the need to attach itself to the ceiling so it can watch what's happening. During Remote Veiwing sessions consciousness likes to get out into the countryside and have a look around for a while. After death, consciousness often likes to hang around John Edward, waiting for a chance to make "cheap, long distance" calls to relatives.

[Dancing David]

Franko: should I issue a wonk point?

I stated "I believe", I did not assert that matter precedes consiousness, I stated it as a personal belief. belief are held in the abcense of evidence either way.

So who put a metaphysical bee up your metaphysical butt? You are up there with other believers who just want to sput thier nonsense. I haven't formed a belief about your ability to engage in conversation, but you appear to be a man with a mission.

I reserve my judgement for now, but am very disappointed that you just spew your Frano-ness and don't engage in conversation.

Quote by Franko the Wonk
If you are making the claim, then you should have some evidence to back it up. Otherwise, why make the claim?

What is your evidence that matter precedes consciousness? Are you a proponent of The Theory of spontaneous generation? (as in maggots spontaneously generate on a piece of rotting meat [minus the meat]).



I didn't claim anything, are you just a troll, I stated a belief. You make the difference of all fanatics in that you can't tell the difference between a belief, a claim or an assertion.
So are just some sort of Turing Machine that spewws random garbage based on your projection on my beliefs. If this is typical of your debate or discussion it is no wonder that you have the reputation that you do.

So act like you can just read my mind and guess what it is that I think or believe, rather typical of an immaterialist.




And I could say show me some matter without consciousness and I’ll buy it.

What you are claiming is that universes (matter) exist which no one has ever observed.

Kind of like the invisible dragon in my garage.

I ststed no such thing, I merely stated my personal belief, this is you putting words and concepts in my mouth, a very poor debate technique, but one that might label you an immaterialist. seems typical of II.







The fact that it cannot be tested doesn’t seem to stop you from asserting it though. How does that make you any different than a Christian or Hindu?

So WTF is your problem, you are the one who made a bogus assertion, this devolves from the single word 'believe' , I did not assert anything, Wonkmaster[b]

end of Franko's quote

So act like a troll, add drivel, or drop your mentaly ill delusional act and join the conversation. Your crappy discussion style speaks very poorly for your thoughts. Do you use meth amphetamine or something?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Franko said:It means that this: ** + ** has to equal this ****
where + is the catenation operator.

What is the precise difference between randomness and magic or the supernatural?
Randomness is random. Magic is purposeful.

If an apparently "random" process is actually governed by an underlying logical process, then it isn’t actually random, you have simply failed to perceive it deeply enough.
Individual events are random; clusters of events have predictable probabilities.

However if a random process is truly random and there is no underlying process which is even potentially comprehensible, then it is EXACTLY the same as saying it is magic.
We have a different definition of magic.

If what you are saying is true than minds don’t control anything because the laws of Physics control EVERYTHING, and a mind which controls nothing isn’t a mind --- it’s an inanimate object
...
The mutually exclusive opposite of alive (i.e. not conscious).
Since life is part of physics, then if physics has control (whatever that is), so does life. Perhaps you are referring to free will or some other concept.

~~ Paul

[Pahansiri]

How are you doing my Buddhist friend … ?

Good thank you summer is slipping away but it was a good one and hope yours was also.



quote:Pahansiri:
You know as Buddhist I believe all things are illusions …

ALL things?

Is your consciousness an illusion? If it is, then how can “you” believe anything?

All compound things are.
As to my consciousness an illusion, I believe as to a belief that it is a “self” that it is “ Mark B/Pahansiri” then yes that is an illusion.

There is no Mark B/Pahansiri that exists in and of itself. It is greatly shaped by many many causes and conditions, mother, father, all events etc.

I do believe there is a true nature of mind but that true nature is not “Mark B/Pahansiri”. I know we disagree on this and I respect your beliefs.

As to mind here one is provable and one not and a belief.

The provable being “Mark B/Pahansiri” is a combinations/shaped by many things and events so like the body is not in and of itself “self”.

Some thing that is “self” can be nothing other then just that, just “self” it could not contain any other thing.

As to what I see/believe as a primordial mind, true nature of mind that is belief and I do not demand it as fact.



quote:… collections of non-self elements placed ( if you will) by causes and conditions. What we label “ car” is completely comprised of non-car elements, there is nothing in and of itself, “car”.

Okay … I’m with you on this …

Cool.


quote:This is the same for all material/compound things. We label what we perceive. What we do not see, feel etc we many times, too many times I believe simply say or believe there is no chance, that I feel is ego and illogical.

Alright, I think I still follow. You are saying that how we perceive and define things is how we give objects and events meaning. Is that right?

yes, how we label a collection of causes and conditions or elements.

Here is a quote from a site http://www.buddhanet.net/qanda.htm that fits in away to this topic
Imagine an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Chinese and an Indonesian all looking at a cup. The Englishman says, "That is a cup." The Frenchman answers, "No it's not. It's a tasse." The Chinese comments, "You are both wrong. It's a pei." And the Indonesian laughs at the others and says "What a fool you are. It's a cawan." The Englishman get a dictionary and shows it to the others saying, "I can prove that it is a cup. My dictionary says so." "Then your dictionary is wrong," says the Frenchman "because my dictionary clearly says it is a tasse." The Chinese scoffs at them. "My dictionary is thousands of years older than yours, so my dictionary must be right. And besides, more people speak Chinese than any other language, so it must be pei." While they are squabbling and arguing with each other, a Buddhist comes up and drinks from the cup. After he has drunk, he says to the others, "Whether you call it a cup, a tasse, a pei or a cawan, the purpose of the cup is to be used. Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and refresh your thirst". This is the Buddhist attitude to other religions.

:)

quote: You limit here the laws of physics to only what you perceive here, on this small rock. The laws of physics here are greatly influenced by the causes and conditions of this rock, size, gravity, the number of planets near us their size and pull etc.

I am not sure we can say that “laws of physics” is a universal thing, just let us say a planet 100 times or 1 times larger or smaller would have in some cases greatly differing laws of physics. .

You lost me here

Are you claiming that when the parameters (variables) change that the algorithm also changes? I’d say that a change to the inputs alters the outputs, but the algorithm itself (TLOP) remains constant.


Well as to the algorithm changing i.e. a step by step problem-solving procedure changing as to the variables changing it could and it may not I am not sure what you mean here or how it is relevant.

May I ask you explain more?

My point is in your belief the laws of physics are a set thinking being/goddess. The fact is the laws of physics may vary wildly from situation to situation as in planet to planet or invisible parallel universes as your statement indicates.

Okay, so by this logic an infinite number of invisible parallel universes and even God exist, because even though we can’t see (perceive) them it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

For that matter there are planets in the universe where water flows uphill and giant self-aware taco’s poop ice cream. (not seeing is believing)

You point to many great possibilities to support these as you point to the fact that the laws of physics will be dependent on for example gravity due to planet size and not the “same law of physics” here on this planet.

I.e. water flowing up hill as you say.


For that reason the laws of physics are not a “self” an unchanging thing in and of itself.

Perhaps first to better help please list the laws of physics, what are as you see it the specific laws of physics.

If we look at each and see what is a law that is fully dependent on the conditions found here.

Example here on earth throw a apple in the air and it returns to earth, throw it up in space and it just keeps going. Go to a planet with a very dense gravity you could not lift the apple.

quote: But we also know the mind has developed ways to work within or for at least periods of time override the laws of physics.

Please explain what you mean when you claim your mind is able to “override the laws of physics”?

Throw off a building a plane without wings it is subject to the direct law of gravity and will fall. Put wings on and it will glide to a soft landing, put an engine on it and fuel and it will fly until the fuel is gone.

Change the design a bit, a more powerful engine and it leaves the atmosphere.



quote:I had pointed out my belief that if laws of physics completely controlled all and there were no form of “free will” all things would be the same, all actions, thoughts etc.

How so?

Don’t the laws of physics control ALL celestial mechanics and planetary formation? Does that mean that all planets and moons are identical and have the same exact orbits? [/quote]

“control” as in it being the nature of what is, control as a thinking plan, a program set out? I would need to see proof of that.

Let us say I do agree there is “control” but to say the laws of physics created them needs to be proven with facts. If these “laws” were the set and universal laws all planets would be the same following the set universal laws.

There would be no random size of how the gasses form planets, the atmosphere etc if any all would follow this one universal law, all planets would be the same as that would be the universal law.

quote:free will like all things is not a black and white, the definition is not found in the extremes but in the middle.

Is there total free will? No. Is there a total lack of free will? No.


I disagree.

I respect that.

But please elaborate on precisely what you mean.


I walk to the top of a building I decided to jump. If I do jump the laws of physics will be in play in that gravity is a reality I will fall and splat.

When I get there I look rethink and walk back down starts.

Tell me how the laws of physics
1- Made me consider walking to the top of the building.
2- I can explain the process how the muscles react to the brain and thought as to walking up the stairs. Can you explain how the TLOP controlled my thoughts to stimulate movement in the muscles?
3- When at the top of the building I thought of why I should not jump.


What Laws or Physics you believed controlled or made that choice.?

Please answer that and list the law.

If there were one universal law all people who walked to the top of a building would jump.


I contend that the Laws of Physics (TLOP) control ALL matter and energy, and since you are strictly and solely a material entity (at least according to Atheism/Materialism) then it is an obvious conclusion that TLOP controls your thoughts and actions completely and utterly.

The first problem is not all atheism as I have discussed with you in the past is Materialism, I am as a Buddhist an atheist but not a believer in Materialism. So I can not speak for our friends here who are.

2nd and since you are strictly and solely a material entity again not my belief and you must first define “you/me”. If you mean the body that is not “me” as it is completely constructed of non “me” elements and even shared with many other life forms. It is ever changing and never the same, it is subject to death and decay.

Please tell me how TLOP control thoughts?

TLOP made you come back here again? It makes you believe what you believe?

If that were the case and it was a law that makes you believe as you do everyone would think the same way. If you believe that we just do not choose to think like you do and follow the law that means you are contradicting your own belief and saying we DO have control over the laws or physics and they do not have control over us.



quote: Math is a truth, a truth is a truth even if no one sees it or knows it as your first quote points out.

I agree, but what I was driving at is what is the source of all Truth?

Surely it must be TLOP.

That is your belief, I say it is simply reality. I understand you believe it so now prove it.


If TLOP is the law of math then everyone would know all math. Unless you believe some choose not to and that would again mean it does not control thought.



quote:Humans did not invent math, we may have discovered how it works and how to work within it but so did the poop ice cream maker in invisible parallel universe #5 on planet AYX.

Fire burns like crazy even before the first human stuck his hand in it. He did not invent it.

1+1=2 when that same first human did not know fire would burn him etc.

I agree. But that is a statement in support of Destiny or Fate – not “free will”.

How so?
The “cave man” did not know the fire would burn him if it was the TLOP that controlled thought he would as it would be the law and for him not to means he had domain over the law.


quote:Franko:
The Laws of Physics (or TLOP) made humans and preordained that they invent/discover mathematics.

Pahansiri:
I respect you believe that but have no proof.

You mean there is no proof that TLOP is responsible for the present state and configuration of the universe? If you are suggesting that something else is responsible perhaps you could elaborate?

How is that relevant to what you said and to my response?

Do I believe that TLOP as they are here as to this gravity for example are responsible for the configuration universe. I believe that all things work together and do not place one before the other you are right and you are wrong. Too many black and whites.

The TLOP chance or represent the conditions of the event,place etc.

Back to your statement

quote:Franko:
The Laws of Physics (or TLOP) made humans and preordained that they invent/discover mathematics.

Please elaborate and give your data.

How did the laws of TLOP bring together my parents?
How did the laws of TLOP put them where and give the thoughts etc to have sex and “make me”?

What TLOP makes people preordained that they invent/discover mathematics.

We already agree that humans did not invent math so what law makes us learn it? If it a law all would learn in and non would skip math class…lol



quote:The Laws of Physics are not one thing

What do you mean? Could you elaborate?

I have above. May I ask could explain why you think there is one universal Laws of Physics and show date to support that.


TLOP …] not proven to be a thinking thing …

Whether “it” (TLOP) thinks or not is a moot point though … isn’t it?

Actually yes as your belief is that it is a Goddess and thinks and creates. Meaning no disrespect but in past talks I pointed out that for you to believe that the Goddess becomes angry because people do not believe in her and her rules means that TLOP do not control thought.




The way I see it, whether or not TLOP thinks depends largely upon whether or not You think.


but by your belief we do not think. The very act of thinking denotes a form of free will. Do I think to walk right or left. If one law everyone walks left.



Either you and TLOP are both automatons obeying a prescribed path (sequence) of actions based on logically inviolate rules/laws, or you and TLOP are both “conscious”.


Why? What do you have to support grouping both together?


You have said in the past that your goddess was TLOP have you changed?

You on one hand say we are conscious meaning thought then say we are not as TLOP control all thought. Which is it?

The very fact we are debating this and we all look at it in differing ways denoted a form of free will. If only one law there be only one thought.



If you are claiming that You can be one way, and TLOP can be the other you will have to explain what you mean and how that could possibly be so?


You would have to point out where I said that. It is clear from my post I did not. I work within the laws, a rock does not.




There again you switch beliefs.

You must first show how TLOP controls all thought.

quote:it is a law that relates to the causes and conditions that are a reality in that “realm”.



[quote]There is only one reality

Then when you said Okay, so by this logic an infinite number of invisible parallel universes and even God exist, because even though we can’t see (perceive) them it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.

For that matter there are planets in the universe where water flows uphill and giant self-aware taco’s poop ice cream. (not seeing is believing)


You did not mean it?


We do agree here… cause and effect, Is the universal law.



Be well my friend. I look forward to your answer and thoughts on all my points and questions as I have done for you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Originally posted by Q-Source
Quantum Mechanics has vindicated Platos' World of Ideas and Berkeley's idealism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Er, no. A conscious observer is not necessary to collapse the wave-function: any observer will do, including pebbles and bits of old sponge cake.



Well the first thing to note is that we couldn't possibly know this, since in order to verify a wavefunction has collapsed, it has to enter the consciousness of someone. So the possibility must always remain open that the wavefunction only collapses at the point of consciousness. Unless you are saying that QM predicts rocks, bits of cake, or whatever collapses the wave function? But then why should the wavefunction exist for any length of time at all since absolutely anything will collapse it? Basically it seems to me that in order to say that some measurement itself doesn't collapse the wavefunction you are denying that QM describes the whole of reality. You're going to need to give some reasoning to back up your claim here.



it is true that for the universe to exist, it must be observed: but the other parts of the universe can do the observing. They don't have to be conscious.



I don't think it makes any sense for a non-conscious object to observe.



So what this really tells us is that for something to exist, it has to interact with the universe. In an nice, physical sort of way.



I have absolutely no idea how you have reached this conclusion.



Thus we see that QM not only refutes Berkely, but God and Santa Claus as well.

I don't think anyone has ever before suggested that QM vindicates materialism (well apart from jj that is).

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Yahzi

Er, no. A conscious observer is not necessary to collapse the wave-function: any observer will do, including pebbles and bits of old sponge cake.


What are you talking about?, the observer is a fundamental part of QM, it is a conscious observer who collapses the wave function, not the instruments used to measure it.



it is true that for the universe to exist, it must be observed: but the other parts of the universe can do the observing. They don't have to be conscious.

Of course they have to be conscious, otherwise how could they possibly "know" that the wave function has collapsed?

The instruments do not observe or collapse anything, they only measure and register what happens with the atomic particles.


So what this really tells us is that for something to exist, it has to interact with the universe. In an nice, physical sort of way.

Yes, and it only interacts if a conscious observer perceives it directly or indirectly.


Thus we see that QM not only refutes Berkely, but God and Santa Claus as well.

It doesn't refute Berkeley, QM refutes materialist dogma.

Q-S

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Q-Source



What are you talking about?, the observer is a fundamental part of QM, it is a conscious observer who collapses the wave function, not the instruments used to measure it.

Are you sure? Do the double slit experiments really need someone to check the results for the refractive patern to occur? If there is a machine that records the double slit experiment are you saying that there will be no refractive pattern if no consious being checks the results? I suppose we could postulate a quantum entanglement based on the potential for a future observer to check the results.

Maybe there would be a way to double blind it. Could the machine report the results when the electrons don't show a refractive pattern, but then that involves observation. What if the machine randomly selcts which runs will be reported if the electrons don't show the refractive pattern. Hmm, givien the quantum entaglement how can we tell when the electrons don't go through both slits without having a potentail observer?




Of course they have to be conscious, otherwise how could they possibly "know" that the wave function has collapsed?

The instruments do not observe or collapse anything, they only measure and register what happens with the atomic particles.

I think that there is confusion with trhe language, it is the interaction of the wavicle which causes us to view it as a classical particle and thereby 'collapse the wave function".Maybe the issue is that the wave function does not really collapse at all, perhaps the wavicles just interact. I think it is a result of people's unhappiness with the Copenhagen interpretation. Maybe they are just waves all the time and we don't have to worry about the 'collapse at all. This is a thread I have thought about for a while.




Yes, and it only interacts if a conscious observer perceives it directly or indirectly.

I will have to think about that, so the photons in the sun don't ineract unless soemthing percieves them, I will have to ponder that.




It doesn't refute Berkeley, QM refutes materialist dogma.

Q-S


I guess that depends on how you interpret that phrase 'materialist dogma', if by that you mean the classical notions of matter, I suppose so. But if we assume that there are materialists who just consider replication and isotropy as the basis of science, I don't see how it would it would refute thier non existant dogma.

I thought that QM just is a way of dealing with wavicles that occupy a space determined by the speed of light? And of course thier potential wavelengths, the more 'particle' the shorter the wave length, the more a wave the longer the wave length. All matter is both, probably more a wave than a particle but we are contrained by the scale of our perceptive systems.

I will ponder your words.

Can you elaborate on how QM supports Berkley, an observer is not really needed in QM, which is where Yahzi was headed. You don't have to be consious for the particles to interact the 'collapse' the wave function, don't super novae go boom when no one is there to see the photons?

Hmm, more pondering.

[Franko]

Yahzi:
A conscious observer is not necessary to collapse the wave-function: any observer will do, including pebbles and bits of old sponge cake.

it is true that for the universe to exist, it must be observed: but the other parts of the universe can do the observing. They don't have to be conscious. So what this really tells us is that for something to exist, it has to interact with the universe. In an nice, physical sort of way.

Are you sure about this?

I was thinking of the double slit experiment. You know … the classic example of the QM wavefunction. In that experiment, photons are directed at a screen with two narrow slits cut into it. Now if one of the slits is covered, the photons stream through the only available slit as if they were individual particles and when they strike a wall behind the screen, they exhibit a pattern similar to what bullets might make. However, when you open both slits the photons do something very strange. Each individual photon appears to go through both slits simultaneously, and when they strike a wall behind the screen they make a pattern like a wave would make, instead of a particle pattern like individual bullets.

So my question is, if an observer really isn’t necessary, and the wavefunction can collapse all on its own without an observer, then how come it is only when you place a detector at one of the two open slits that the wavefunction collapses and the photons act like fixed position particles?

If what you are saying is accurate, then shouldn’t the atoms in the screen itself act as observers and collapse the wavefunction? Wouldn’t that mean that you would ALWAYS get the bullet like particle pattern and NEVER the wave like (both slit simultaneously) pattern?

[Franko]

where + is the catenation operator.

If we are speaking in terms of “matter” is there any difference between concatenation and regular addition? I’m thinking of the first law of Thermodynamics here.

Franko:
What is the precise difference between randomness and magic or the supernatural?

Paul:
Randomness is random. Magic is purposeful.

What is that suppose to mean?

Keep in mind, I am using the terms “magic” and “supernaturally” as logically equivalent. I am not talking about magic in the James Randi/David Blaine sense of the word. I am talking about magic as in the Gandalf, supernatural, incomprehensible force sense of the word. I am saying that with this definition, magic = supernatural = random. If you disagree with this assessment you are going to have to elaborate more precisely if you want me to comprehend you.

Individual events are random; clusters of events have predictable probabilities.

You mean kind of like if you flip one coin it’s hard to tell how many heads will come up, whereas if you flip 100 coins simultaneously you can be pretty certain that about 50 will land up heads?

First of all, I would dispute that there are ANY truly random events, and secondly the good reverend Bayes explained why clusters are predictable (and in the process explained why events aren’t really EVER random).

We have a different definition of magic.

Am I suppose to guess what your definition is, or are you going to tell me eventually?

Since life is part of physics, then if physics has control (whatever that is) …

Control explained simply, means that when you jump off the roof of a tall building you don’t get to fly just because you want to fly.

Since life is part of physics, then if physics has control (whatever that is), so does life. Perhaps you are referring to free will or some other concept.

Let me break this down:

1) Life is part of physics
2) physics has control
3) ergo, life has control

Yeah, okay … but the question is, who’s life has control? Yours, mine, or “God’s”? (or TLOP’s if you prefer?)

Perhaps you are referring to free will or some other concept.

I don’t know? Perhaps you could define “free will” for me. I don’t understand what that term means.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Franko
You mean kind of like if you flip one coin it’s hard to tell how many heads will come up, whereas if you flip 100 coins simultaneously you can be pretty certain that about 50 will land up heads? pretty certain, but not absolutely certain? Where does the uncertainty come from?

[Franko]

Pahansiri:
Imagine an Englishman, a Frenchman, a Chinese and an Indonesian all looking at a cup. The Englishman says, "That is a cup." The Frenchman answers, "No it's not. It's a tasse." The Chinese comments, "You are both wrong. It's a pei." And the Indonesian laughs at the others and says "What a fool you are. It's a cawan." The Englishman get a dictionary and shows it to the others saying, "I can prove that it is a cup. My dictionary says so." "Then your dictionary is wrong," says the Frenchman "because my dictionary clearly says it is a tasse." The Chinese scoffs at them. "My dictionary is thousands of years older than yours, so my dictionary must be right. And besides, more people speak Chinese than any other language, so it must be pei." While they are squabbling and arguing with each other, a Buddhist comes up and drinks from the cup. After he has drunk, he says to the others, "Whether you call it a cup, a tasse, a pei or a cawan, the purpose of the cup is to be used. Stop arguing and drink, stop squabbling and refresh your thirst". This is the Buddhist attitude to other religions.

That is a Logical Deist attitude towards other religions as well.

Word is to Symbol
Definition is to Action (or Deed)

Franko:
You lost me here

Are you claiming that when the parameters (variables) change that the algorithm also changes? I’d say that a change to the inputs alters the outputs, but the algorithm itself (TLOP) remains constant.

Pahansiri:
Well as to the algorithm changing i.e. a step by step problem-solving procedure changing as to the variables changing it could and it may not I am not sure what you mean here or how it is relevant.

May I ask you explain more?

My point is in your belief the laws of physics are a set thinking being/goddess. The fact is the laws of physics may vary wildly from situation to situation as in planet to planet or invisible parallel universes as your statement indicates.

Okay, here is what I am saying in a nutshell. Consciousness really consist of only one part – Cognition or Processing (i.e. your algorithm), but you can think of it here as four separate parts – Input (senses), Output (body, speech, action), Processing (cognition, thought), and Database (memory). You receive inputs from “the universe” and those inputs are processed by you consciousness and your consciousness relies on information in your database of past memories to generate an output.

The inputs you receive from the universe can be different every time. The memories you rely on from your database can change from situation to situation or over time as you accumulate more information. As a result the outputs you generate are practically unique for any given situation.

What isn’t changing (or more accurately what is changing very, very slowly) is the actual algorithm (processing) that makes you tick – the thing that makes you conscious.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Dancing David

.... so the photons ... don't interact unless something perceives them, I will have to ponder that.

[edited slightly for spelnig ;) & italics]


Part of the ponder might involve the definition you use for something that "perceives". :) Anthropomorphism is good for the ego anyway.

[jan]

Originally posted by jan

since some people around here are still discussing Berkeley, ...

Oh well, poor Berkeley.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Franko



So my question is, if an observer really isn’t necessary, and the wavefunction can collapse all on its own without an observer, then how come it is only when you place a detector at one of the two open slits that the wavefunction collapses and the photons act like fixed position particles?



If I understand what I've read, it's even stranger than that. The waveform collapses if the possibility exists of it being observed. Weird stuff, all right.

[slimshady2357]

Holy sh*t, Franko's back.

Welcome back Frank :)

Don't swear, or be too rude, or insult the wrong posters. You never know when the big hand o' moderation will start bit*hslapping. ;)

And get an avatar man! How am I supposed to scroll down looking for the meaninful posts when people don't have recognizable avatars?

Adam

[Franko]

The Shadow:
And get an avatar man! How am I supposed to scroll down looking for the meaninful posts when people don't have recognizable avatars?

Hehehe!

Hey buddy, how they hanging?

… an avatar? I am a figment of your imagination -- remember? You are suppose to imagine my avatar as whatever you want it to look like. ;)

[metacristi]

Yahzi

Thus we see that QM not only refutes Berkely, but God and Santa Claus as well.

I don't see how can you support that with sufficient arguments.You should have specified that a variant of a certain interpretation of QM (which incidentally happens to be the point of view of the majority of scientists as of now) postulates that decoherence takes place without the need of conscious beings.This is not at all proved,decoherence is postulated to take place very fast,basically there is no experimental way to prove that.Besides this does not really contradict Berkeley since in his view ideas exist in God's mind even if no conscious being 'percieve' them.

By the way there are very serious proposants of the hypothesis that consciousness is crucial for the 'collapse of the wavefunction' or,even stronger,that the past is indeterminate before a conscious being collapse the wavefunction (Eugene Wigner and John Wheeler for example).

I will never understand this type of hasty conclusions.It's one to say that there are no sufficient arguments to sustain the hypothesis that QM proves in a compelling manner that consciousness is crucial for the collapse of the wavefunction and totally other thing to claim that it is false ('QM refutes' amounts exactly to that).

I'm afraid we don't have now a proof that QM refutes Berkeley or God.Not even Santa.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Franko
Hehehe!

Hey buddy, how they hanging?

Not too bad ;) Where they've been hanging has been more interesting of late :D

… an avatar? I am a figment of your imagination -- remember? You are suppose to imagine my avatar as whatever you want it to look like. ;)

Well you could be a figment of my imagination.... I know I'm concscious ;)

Anyway, I think you'll find it's the same ol' same old here. I mostly post in puzzles now. I'm thinking of checking out Geoff's new stomping grounds for some philosophy. I find the R&P section here to be pretty much focused on the R.

I like metacristi though. Hi metacristi :w2:

I find the ideas behind your posts to be well thought out and fairly balanced. You tend to give a reasonable account of where we stand epistemologically in various areas. Well done.

Adam

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


-snip-
So my question is, if an observer really isn’t necessary, and the wavefunction can collapse all on its own without an observer, then how come it is only when you place a detector at one of the two open slits that the wavefunction collapses and the photons act like fixed position particles?

If what you are saying is accurate, then shouldn’t the atoms in the screen itself act as observers and collapse the wavefunction? Wouldn’t that mean that you would ALWAYS get the bullet like particle pattern and NEVER the wave like (both slit simultaneously) pattern?

I would think that this is the result of the inetraction of the detector at the slit, wether passive or active , it has an interaction with the electron at that point, I don't know if just puuting a magnet there would have the same effect or not. This sounds like a question for Dr. S. or Taz to anwer.

I think that resolution lies in the fact that the critical detection occurs at the double slit, not at the photo screen where the flash is detected, although there are some cool experiments where the slits are re directed and the entanglement thing occurs.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Franko said:If we are speaking in terms of matter is there any difference between concatenation and regular addition? I’m thinking of the first law of Thermodynamics here.
I have no idea what it means to add matter.

Keep in mind, I am using the terms magic and supernaturally as logically equivalent. I am not talking about magic in the James Randi/David Blaine sense of the word. I am talking about magic as in the Gandalf, supernatural, incomprehensible force sense of the word. I am saying that with this definition, magic = supernatural = random. If you disagree with this assessment you are going to have to elaborate more precisely if you want me to comprehend you.
Yes, I'm using them equivalently, too. I don't understand why you think supernatural influence would be random. I thought the whole point of supernatural influence was that it was purposeful: some supernatural being or force changing the natural world in a particular way.

First of all, I would dispute that there are ANY truly random events, and secondly the good reverend Bayes explained why clusters are predictable (and in the process explained why events aren’t really EVER random).
What does he say? That events aren't truly random because the randomness is constrained by some sort of overarching law? Sure, but the individual events still have unpredictable outcomes.

Am I suppose to guess what your definition is, or are you going to tell me eventually?
I think I clarified mine above, but I don't understand why you equate it with randomness.

1) Life is part of physics
2) physics has control
3) ergo, life has control
Physics has control of life. What does life have control of?

I don't know what "free will" means either.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Q-Source

It doesn't refute Berkeley, QM refutes materialist dogma.

Q-S


I wish there were more materialists like you out there. Refreshingly honest :D

BTW you might find Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking? (http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html) quite interesting.


"The world seems to be putting itself together piece by piece on this damp gray morning along the coast of Maine. First the spruce and white pine trees that cover High Island materialize from the fog, then the rocky headland, and finally the sea, as if the mere act of watching has drawn them all into existence. And that may indeed be the case." (emphasis added)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dancing David

Q-S
What are you talking about?, the observer is a fundamental part of QM, it is a conscious observer who collapses the wave function, not the instruments used to measure it.

David
Are you sure? Do the double slit experiments really need someone to check the results for the refractive patern to occur? If there is a machine that records the double slit experiment are you saying that there will be no refractive pattern if no consious being checks the results? I suppose we could postulate a quantum entanglement based on the potential for a future observer to check the results.



Well this is the crucial point David. Is there anyway of finding this out? I personally suspect that it is consciousness itself which brings about the collapsing of the wave function. Can you show me that I am wrong?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It certainly doesn't. In QM talking about an electron in abstraction from any measurement simply conveys no meaning.


Talking about anything without knowing something useful about it conveys no meaning in general. (Your thoughts on Berkeley are an excellent example of this general principle).

Things are what they are/do. The modern scientific view just draws a line under it and says "And that's all we can say about that".


And it only makes sense to say a measurement has been taken when there is conscious awareness of that measurement. This (http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html) might interest you.


To quote from the article, "Wheeler is the first to admit that this is a mind-stretching idea. It's not even really a theory but more of an intuition about what a final theory of everything might be like."

He's entitled to his intuitions. Now all he needs is evidence.


Well OK. You said "Berkeley's metaphysics don't work" without invoking God. But clearly this is trivially true in your interpretation! I thought you meant that if you abstract God from Berkeley's metaphysic it wouldn't work. If you didn't mean that, then your assertion is vacuous, and I don't see any purpose in you uttering it.


I think you're just confused.

Berkeley's world view doesn't work without an all-seeing God-like entity to watch it all. Yes, it's not exactly a novel insight. But it's a great reason for dismissing his story. Call that vacuous if you will.


God is absolutely fundamental to his metaphysic sure. I'm unconvinced you know what his position was though. But a lot of Berkeleyian scholars don't either, so don't let that worry you.


Fortunately I will not be losing sleep over whether or not I've convinced you I'm familiar with Berkeley's work. Especially since it's highly likely as far as I can tell from this end that you are wrong about what would be evidence of familiarity.


Just an unsubstantiated assertion. What possible signs could tell you this? I don't think you understand his metaphysic. You should really try to get to grips with it before teaching it. Not that a lot of other people teaching his philosophy will have any more clue than you.


We have a pretty good idea when life as we know it could have evolved. Before that, there was no life as we know it. Thus no observers as we know them.

You can assume a material universe with an existence that preceded intelligent life. Or you can assume spooky observers who watched the Big Bang. Guess which assumption multiplies entities beyond necessity?


I profoundly disagree. That's not to deny there are problems. But inevitably not any alleged problems the materialists bang on about. The vast majority of them are really utterly clueless.


Since you've said nothing about why you think his ridiculous story can be made to work, I'll just go on thinking you don't know what you're talking about.


Well we just stipulate they do by definition. Maybe you're addressing the question of the ontological status of the physical realm when not observed by sentient beings? That's a bit more complex, but I would say Berkeley envisaged unobserved objects existing in a similar sense to objects existing within a computer game which are not currently displayed on the monitor.


I wouldn't, and I've read his stuff.

What you seem to be working towards is just an unfalsifiable layer of fluff to put over materialism. "When you aren't looking things are different. But they go back to normal if you look. How dare you accuse me of multiplying entities beyond necessity!".


For the same reason if idealism were not true. A remnant of the Big Bang. The past is created when the first sentient being springs into being.


A past that looks exactly like it had been around for ages? Mmm. Where did this sentient being spring from, if not from cooling clouds of hydrogen? I feel a Razoring coming on.


Huh?? Where did Berkeley write this?? Not in the Principles or Dialogues so far as I can recollect.


In the dialogues. Hylas points out the obvious, and it's the best Philonous can come up with by way of reply. I guess you skipped that bit when you "read" them, right Ian? Since it's a point that his entire story hinges upon, it's a passage I'd expect any serious reader to be at least vaguely familiar with. Well, that's what I'd expect if they were actually trying to understand the piece.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I wish there were more materialists like you out there. Refreshingly honest :D

BTW you might find Does the Universe Exist if We're Not Looking? (http://www.discover.com/june_02/featuniverse.html) quite interesting.


Thank you, Ian. The article seems to be quite interesting.

Why people need to believe in paranormal phenomena if QM is the most bizarre thing that we've ever had?. :cool:

Q-S

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by slimshady2357


I like metacristi though. Hi metacristi :w2:

I find the ideas behind your posts to be well thought out and fairly balanced.

So are mine.

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Franko


That is a Logical Deist attitude towards other religions as well.

Word is to Symbol
Definition is to Action (or Deed)



Okay, here is what I am saying in a nutshell. Consciousness really consist of only one part – Cognition or Processing (i.e. your algorithm), but you can think of it here as four separate parts – Input (senses), Output (body, speech, action), Processing (cognition, thought), and Database (memory). You receive inputs from “the universe” and those inputs are processed by you consciousness and your consciousness relies on information in your database of past memories to generate an output.

The inputs you receive from the universe can be different every time. The memories you rely on from your database can change from situation to situation or over time as you accumulate more information. As a result the outputs you generate are practically unique for any given situation.

What isn’t changing (or more accurately what is changing very, very slowly) is the actual algorithm (processing) that makes you tick – the thing that makes you conscious.

Hello Franko..

I’m kind of disappointed. As you can my response to you addresses every point and answered every question you asked but you did not respond in kind, picking only one of many to even address.

Perhaps you are too busy to really engage in a meaningful conversation so I will wish you to be well and happy and move on.

Be well.
:)

[Franko]

Paul:
I have no idea what it means to add matter.

It means that if you have 2 apples, and I have 2 apples, that together we have 4 apples.

Yes, I'm using them equivalently, too. I don't understand why you think supernatural influence would be random. I thought the whole point of supernatural influence was that it was purposeful: some supernatural being or force changing the natural world in a particular way.

How can you control something that is “random”? If you are controlling it, then you can predict the result, and if you can predict the result, then how can you claim it is random?

What does he say? That events aren't truly random because the randomness is constrained by some sort of overarching law? Sure, but the individual events still have unpredictable outcomes.

True, but not seeing what’s going on doesn’t mean that what’s going on is magical and incomprehensible, it just means you have no information to determine what is going on.

It’s like Heisenberg … he didn’t say that what’s happening at the quantum level is incomprehensible and intrinsically random, all he said was that you can’t observe what’s going on. If you could observe it, then you could probably figure out EXACTLY what was going on.

1) Life is part of physics
2) physics has control
3) ergo, life has control

Physics has control of life. What does life have control of?

Does life control anything more than the Moon or rocks control? Is consciousness an illusion Paul?

If you can’t or don’t explain you position (view) on this matter, then there is no way for me to explain the difference between your view and mine.

I don't know what "free will" means either.

If you can’t define “free will”, then how can you claim to possess it? Or do you contend that all of your actions are predestined?

[Franko]

I.I.:
So are mine.

For what it’s worth my brother, You are definitely “thought out and balanced” in my opinion. ;)

[Q-Source]

David,



Are you sure?

Yes, read about QM.


Do the double slit experiments really need someone to check the results for the refractive patern to occur?

If there is no one to check for the results then why would they bother to make the experiments?. It is the conscious observer who will see if the refractive pattern occured.


If there is a machine that records the double slit experiment are you saying that there will be no refractive pattern if no consious being checks the results?

Yes.
The cat is dead and alive unless someone opens the box to observe the results. If you put a machine that could record what's happening inside the double slit experiment or inside the box with the cat, it wouldn't change anything. You still need a conscious observer who will collapse the wave function by observing thru the recording machine.




I will have to think about that, so the photons in the sun don't ineract unless soemthing percieves them, I will have to ponder that.

Good, now you know why reality as we perceive it has the form of a material world.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Well this is the crucial point David. Is there anyway of finding this out? I personally suspect that it is consciousness itself which brings about the collapsing of the wave function. Can you show me that I am wrong?

I am sure that there is no satisfactory answers to this question, in the science forum, i could g9ve a pat and stand answer, but the parameters are different in this forum.

First, I am not sure that the whole thing about collapsing wave functions isn't just more trying to fit the classical model on the quantum weirdess. Macro scale perceptions being crammed onto the micro scale weirdeness.

Second, in the science forum I would just point out that it appears that there are all sorts of nuclear events and electro magnetic events that occur with out the precense of an observer. take the example of a close to light speed jet shooting out of a quazar like object. We can not directly see the object spewing the jet, because of galactic dust, But we can see the jet. So it appears that I can see the consequences of nuclear and electro magnetic events without being able to directly percieve the events. When photons shoot out the sun, the current theory states that they have been interacting in the sun for a million years, more evidence of an event without direct observation of the event.

But this is the philosophy forum, so I put on my philosophy hat and I have to ask:
-how do I know that there are events that aren't observed, ie a supernova that we can't see?
-how do I know that there aren't distant observers that allow those events to occur?
-how do I know that there isn't an all pervasive viewer which allows these events to happen?
-how do I know that moldy bits of bread aren't sentient?

And under my versions of *scientific materialism* I state that these are valid points for discussion and that they can't be tested for. I may have strong personal beliefs but they don't fit into that model.

So I would state that I have to with hold judgement and that i believe it comes from the distrust of the copehagen interpretation of QM.

So the *sm* part of me says 'I can't know', the pragmatist in me says 'who cares' and the spiritual sode of me says 'Wheeee!'

Peace

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Q-Source
David,
Yes.
The cat is dead and alive unless someone opens the box to observe the results. If you put a machine that could record what's happening inside the double slit experiment or inside the box with the cat, it wouldn't change anything. You still need a conscious observer who will collapse the wave function by observing thru the recording machine.



I'm not sure you're correct about this. From what I've read, placing detection equipment in the box would indeed collapse the waveform, because it introduces the possibility of observation, which has been shown to be enough to collapse the waveform. I don't believe consciousness has been shown to enter into the process at all.

[slimshady2357]

Originally posted by Q-Source
Yes.
The cat is dead and alive unless someone opens the box to observe the results. If you put a machine that could record what's happening inside the double slit experiment or inside the box with the cat, it wouldn't change anything. You still need a conscious observer who will collapse the wave function by observing thru the recording machine.



You state that as if it's fact, can you back it up? I've read a lot about QM and I've not yet read about the experiment that proves that.

You are merely giving one interpretation, not facts.

Adam

[fsol]

Franko:

If you can’t define “free will”, then how can you claim to possess it?


Interesting Ian can't define consiousness, does that mean he can't claim to posess it?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It certainly doesn't. In QM talking about an electron in abstraction from any measurement simply conveys no meaning.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Talking about anything without knowing something useful about it conveys no meaning in general. (Your thoughts on Berkeley are an excellent example of this general principle).



Dear me! Just like a typical teacher. :rolleyes: I'm saying that electrons (and all other "physical" existents) existing independently of any of our sensory perceptions, do not characterise or depict reality as it really is. You disagree with this. So my question to you is why do you disagree? Insulting me does not address this question.



Things are what they are/do. The modern scientific view just draws a line under it and says "And that's all we can say about that".



And how does this equate to the physical world having a mind-independent existence? Should I give you a clue? It doesn't.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And it only makes sense to say a measurement has been taken when there is conscious awareness of that measurement. This might interest you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



To quote from the article, "Wheeler is the first to admit that this is a mind-stretching idea. It's not even really a theory but more of an intuition about what a final theory of everything might be like."

He's entitled to his intuitions. Now all he needs is evidence.



Revolutionary scientific ideas have their genesis in intuitions. Besides, this seems to be what a straightforward interpretation of what QM suggests.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well OK. You said "Berkeley's metaphysics don't work" without invoking God. But clearly this is trivially true in your interpretation! I thought you meant that if you abstract God from Berkeley's metaphysic it wouldn't work. If you didn't mean that, then your assertion is vacuous, and I don't see any purpose in you uttering it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I think you're just confused.



Not at all. The fact that theory X does not work if one of the theoretically entities implied by X hypothetically does not exist, does not provide any evidence against X.



Berkeley's world view doesn't work without an all-seeing God-like entity to watch it all.



God conceives not perceives.


Yes, it's not exactly a novel insight. But it's a great reason for dismissing his story. Call that vacuous if you will.


You're dismissing his metaphysic because it needs God?? :eek: How would you feel if I were to dismiss materialism because it doesn't need God? You wouldn't be impressed would you? And rightly so.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God is absolutely fundamental to his metaphysic sure. I'm unconvinced you know what his position was though. But a lot of Berkeleyian scholars don't either, so don't let that worry you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Fortunately I will not be losing sleep over whether or not I've convinced you I'm familiar with Berkeley's work. Especially since it's highly likely as far as I can tell from this end that you are wrong about what would be evidence of familiarity.



I have not claimed you are unfamiliar with his work. I meant I suspect you don't understand it. Just trying to be it in a polite way that's all {shrugs}



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just an unsubstantiated assertion. What possible signs could tell you this? I don't think you understand his metaphysic. You should really try to get to grips with it before teaching it. Not that a lot of other people teaching his philosophy will have any more clue than you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



We have a pretty good idea when life as we know it could have evolved. Before that, there was no life as we know it. Thus no observers as we know them.

You can assume a material universe with an existence that preceded intelligent life. Or you can assume spooky observers who watched the Big Bang. Guess which assumption multiplies entities beyond necessity?



No guessing is needed. Clearly the idea that reality is constituted by our perceptions wins out on parsimony. But I'm not convinced that parsimony, even if meaningful in the context of metaphysical theories, ought to be applied. With scientific theories sure.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I profoundly disagree. That's not to deny there are problems. But inevitably not any alleged problems the materialists bang on about. The vast majority of them are really utterly clueless.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Since you've said nothing about why you think his ridiculous story can be made to work, I'll just go on thinking you don't know what you're talking about.



Can be made to work? Well that's meaningless. The point is that it explains reality in a more comprehensive way than any other metaphysic does. And that includes materialism. Especially materialism! It also points to a reality which eastern philosophies point to, and that paranormal phenomena points to, and the most straightforward interpretation of QM points to.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well we just stipulate they do by definition. Maybe you're addressing the question of the ontological status of the physical realm when not observed by sentient beings? That's a bit more complex, but I would say Berkeley envisaged unobserved objects existing in a similar sense to objects existing within a computer game which are not currently displayed on the monitor.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I wouldn't, and I've read his stuff.



Well there is another interpretation which is expressed by these limericks

There once was a man who said, “God
Must think it exceedingly odd
If he finds that this tree
Continues to be
When there’s no one about in the quad.”





Reply

Dear Sir,
Your astonishment’s odd.
I am always about in the quad.
And that’s why this tree
Will continue to be,
As observed by
Yours faithfully,
God


Now this interpretation is in contrast to mine, and Berkeley does indeed seem to indicate on one or two occasions that this interpretation is the correct one. On other occasions, however, he definitely leans towards my interpretation, and, without going into it, I concluded that my interpretation is the correct one, and incidentally the better one for the overall intelligibility of his metaphysic.



What you seem to be working towards is just an unfalsifiable layer of fluff to put over materialism. "When you aren't looking things are different. But they go back to normal if you look. How dare you accuse me of multiplying entities beyond necessity!".



No no no! You don't understand his metaphysic :( It's simply no point in addressing questions about what things are like when they are not being perceived because you are implicitly presuming the existence of a material world! You are in fact therefore begging the question! For Berkeley, talk about unperceived objects is rather like talking about a grin without a cat.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the same reason if idealism were not true. A remnant of the Big Bang. The past is created when the first sentient being springs into being.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



A past that looks exactly like it had been around for ages? Mmm. Where did this sentient being spring from, if not from cooling clouds of hydrogen? I feel a Razoring coming on.



I don't think physical stuff can actually create consciousness. I think this is basically a problem for whichever metaphysic one subscribes to.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Huh?? Where did Berkeley write this?? Not in the Principles or Dialogues so far as I can recollect.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



In the dialogues. Hylas points out the obvious, and it's the best Philonous can come up with by way of reply. I guess you skipped that bit when you "read" them, right Ian?



No I've read the dialogues and the principles. I cannot recall the argument for God that you allege he came out with. You'll need to refer to the precise passage. Are you able to do this??

P.S I'm sorry I was hurtful to you in our first few exchanges. Can we put that behind us? Yes we disagree about plenty, but we also agree about a lot of stuff too. So can we put it behind us and start afresh?

[Dancing David]

Q-source,
thanks for the response!

I haven't read up on QM recently but did read in it considerably at one time. Are you aware that Scroedinger disavowed his Paradox? Even he eventualy admited that there were multiple interpretations to QM wierdness. He said that the problem with the paradox was that it applied QM thinking to a macro scopic object. IE the cat and that therefore the cat would not meet the Copenhagen Interpretation because it is a macroscopic object. The cat will be alive or dead during it's time in the box because it's wave function id very stable , being composed of all the wave functions and interactions in the cat.

I believe that I read that in Quantum Generations , so unfortunately for the cat, it is either alive in the box, or poisoned when the single atom decays. There is no superposition of possible states because the cat is a macroscopic object.

I understand and have conceded the philosophical point that this can not be resolved until there is a further expansion of QM, I still belief (without eveidence) that the whole 'collapse the wave function' stuff is just trying to fit the classical model onto quantum wierdness.

That is why i mentioned that placing a magnet would probably mess with the elctron's journey through the double slit. There is no way to detect that does not interfere with the electron, this is why the 'wave form' 'collapse", the act of detection collapse the possibilities for the electron.

So I would argue, from my understanding of the basis of the Uncertainty Priciple, that it is the act of detection that 'collapses' not the observation.

But that gets into the whole cart and horse scenarion, which is why I say this is a belief I have without evidence.

[metacristi]

I like metacristi though. Hi metacristi

I find the ideas behind your posts to be well thought out and fairly balanced. You tend to give a reasonable account of where we stand epistemologically in various areas. Well done.



Thank you for yor generosity adam.Personally I'm not sure that all my ideas are reasonable,all I know is that I try to attain that...Though it's unrealistic to beleive that we can arrive here at a conclusion which to force all would be logical persons to adopt a certain stance what count is that we have some dynamic discussions here,that we learn from each other...Finally I like to think that all people who are enough flexible,no matter the initial positions,will learn something valuable,no need to change entirely a world view.

From my own experience on other forums and here the most efficient,straightforward way to learn something in a consistent manner is in 'fights of ideas',of course without degenerating in ad hominems.Especially when the positions held are enough far apart.I'd say however that they must be valid logically otherwise the entire 'fight',though not useless,lose much of its value.

Whatever the case the reality is that uniformity of thought (in problems where there doesn't exist a clear enough answer) do not produce the same effects and,sometimes,could easily lead to dogmatism.

I think we need mavericks,even if some of them might be dogmatics.They might be even right,in my view their positions are acceptable as much as no attempts of imposing them as 'truth' or 'science' to others without compelling evidence [respecting the actual requirements of the scientific method though,possible,they are not the best possible] and a sufficient logical proof.Of course this does not mean they don't have the right to sustain logically their ideas,it's one to make a claim and another one to discuss/defend a certain hypothesis...Some of their ideas could become very well a part of the science of tomorrow even if this 'tomorrow' will be,let's say,500 years from now.All that count is that no one to be forced to believe/do something with,physical,brute force or using some indirect social mechanisms.After all words do not kill,even if the position expressed might be dogmatic,even against logic,sometimes....


So that,I think,all real skeptics here ('false skeptics' are all those who have already 'set in stone' forever a conclusion even if in reality things are not at all clear,not even epistemically) will recognize that without Ian,Franko,Win,UCE and others (sorry if I did not mentioned all of them)-who do not hold the same worldview as the majority of people here-the philosophy board at least (but not only) would have been much poorer...I would say that,in general,their posts are thought provoking and rational enough (I like to think that I 'qualify' here too) in spite of some problems...But who is perfect?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by Q-Source

What are you talking about?, the observer is a fundamental part of QM, it is a conscious observer who collapses the wave function, not the instruments used to measure it.
I believe Dancing David has explained this sufficiently. QM only applys at the quantum level, and there are no conscious entities at the quantum level. It is merely interaction with another object that serves as being observed.

Which is where my comment about God came from. Given that God is defined to be intangible, nothing could possibly interact with his wave function, thus it cannot collapse, and thus he cannot exist.

But of course the believer just waves his hands and says, "God is immune to the rules I don't like."

There was a brief period where QM was new, and some people working in the field believed in this consciousness requirement, but they got better.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dancing David
[B]Q-source,
thanks for the response!

I haven't read up on QM recently but did read in it considerably at one time. Are you aware that Scroedinger disavowed his Paradox? Even he eventualy admited that there were multiple interpretations to QM wierdness. He said that the problem with the paradox was that it applied QM thinking to a macro scopic object. IE the cat and that therefore the cat would not meet the Copenhagen Interpretation because it is a macroscopic object. The cat will be alive or dead during it's time in the box because it's wave function id very stable , being composed of all the wave functions and interactions in the cat.

I believe that I read that in Quantum Generations , so unfortunately for the cat, it is either alive in the box, or poisoned when the single atom decays. There is no superposition of possible states because the cat is a macroscopic object.



The cat will be alive or dead because its consciousness collapses the wave function. But you're maintaining that QM does not apply to the macroscopic realm? Why is that?

And what does this decoherence stuff mean?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahzi
[B]
I believe Dancing David has explained this sufficiently. QM only applys at the quantum level,


Why can't QM describe the totality of reality? What reasons do you have to suppose it doesn't?



Which is where my comment about God came from. Given that God is defined to be intangible, nothing could possibly interact with his wave function, thus it cannot collapse, and thus he cannot exist.



It is the physical world and physical things which are associated with a wave function, not consciousnesses whether ours or God's.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


The cat will be alive or dead because its consciousness collapses the wave function. But you're maintaining that QM does not apply to the macroscopic realm? Why is that?

And what does this decoherence stuff mean?

Well, that isn't my understanding of it, but I am just an amatuer hack. QM does apply to the macroscopic realm in that the effects of QM work there way up to the macrosocip level.

Yet,
For the Heisenberg Indeterminancy Principle(HIP), it states that the vector of the position of a particle are only known to the degree deteremined by HIP, the more accurate you know one the less accurate the other. (I am sure I could have stated this incorrectlt) HIP applies to all sorts of things when dealing on the scale of elementary particles (sorry hammegk , i know that we don't know what they are).

But when you take an aggregate of particles the QM effect of the HIP does not apply to the aggregate, you can determine the vector and position of a BB without QM applying.

Same too for the poor cat in the box, it could be an ice cube that magicaly melts when the atom decays. Because the ice cube is an aggregate there is no superpostion of states and the ice cube is either solid or melted.

This all comes about from the Copenhagen interpretation of QM that states, we should act as though different states for the particle as determined by it's wave function are superimposed and exist at the same time, until such time as an event occurs to ineract with the particle and collapse the wave function to a single state.

(Or something like that, I could have it all bass ackwards)

[Franko]

QM does apply to the macroscopic realm in that the effects of QM work there way up to the macrosocip level.

If QM really operates at the macroscopic level as you claim, then could you please provide a single example of when your behavior (macroscopic) has been uncontrolably random due to quantum mechanical effects?

How many times have you randomly and uncontrollably run red lights because of the acasual nature of QM? How often does QM make you punch you wife and kick your kids when you meant to hug and kiss them?

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Franko


If QM really operates at the macroscopic level as you claim, then could you please provide a single example of when your behavior (macroscopic) has been uncontrolably random due to quantum mechanical effects?

How many times have you randomly and uncontrollably run red lights because of the acasual nature of QM? How often does QM make you punch you wife and kick your kids when you meant to hug and kiss them?

Ah, are you sure you aren't an immaterialist, this seems to be common to the arguments of other immaterialists.

Quantum events happen at the level of the interaction of particles like electrons, I believe that Bohr discussed a theory whereby the covalent boding of chemicals is theorised through QM. Howver the random wierdness of QM may manifest though, it can become orderly in covalent bonding of chemicals, I am not up on chemistry but I believe the rules are fairly orderly seeming.

So you can have a randon system that is channeled into seeming order,

I wouldn't blame QM for people who have seizures and run red lights, there are macrosocpic events that lead to that.

And Franko , you have just made yourself, unless you claim LOP made you do it, very offensive to me.

Your behavior could be percieved as offensive.

I do not randomly strike my wife and two children, nor have I ever struck my wife and children, nor do I anticipate ever striking my wife and children.

Are you a perp? Are you looking for excuses to strike your loved ones? If you wish, we can discuss the mentality of abusers and I garuntee you, that in most cases it is not random, and is very deliberate.

But then the fact that you seem to act like a total rectum may just be an act and not indicative of your actual non self underlying the behavior.

Do you really want to learn about domestic violence? It is a good example of the denial and accountability shifting some evil humans are capable of.

[Loki]

Q-Source,

The cat is dead and alive unless someone opens the box to observe the results. If you put a machine that could record what's happening inside the double slit experiment or inside the box with the cat, it wouldn't change anything. You still need a conscious observer who will collapse the wave function by observing thru the recording machine.
The problem I have with this concept is that it appears to overlook "consistency" and "time" issues. Using the (exaggerated) example of a box containing the cat and the recording machine - lets add another recording machine outside the box that measures oxygen levels (to see if the cat is breathing). The second machine takes it's measurement 5 minutes after the first machine. A day later, a conscious observer reads the measurement from machine 2 (the oxygen levels), and notes them. Another day later, a different observer notes the result of the first machine. The results have to agree about the cat's dead or otherwise, obviously.

The implication seems obvious - making a single observation on anything at all must immediately "bring into being" a consistent state for that "anything" and all other things it has interacted with (and which they have interacted with, and so on) back through time. In other words, the past is fixed for indirect measurements (at least).

(Edited to add) : Actually, I think this is really just agreeing with Dancing Dave - trying to apply QM concepts to macro level objects creates this "problem". The point, I guess, is that it would appear that human consciousness can only *ever* have indirect observation of QM events, so it seems difficult to me to establish that QM decoherence is driven by conscious (human) observers.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Dear me! Just like a typical teacher. :rolleyes: I'm saying that electrons (and all other "physical" existents) existing independently of any of our sensory perceptions, do not characterise or depict reality as it really is. You disagree with this. So my question to you is why do you disagree? Insulting me does not address this question.


Mostly because it's simpler than the alternative stories. You just need one kind of thing, matter, which behaves in consistent and understandable ways.

You can make up any number of more complicated alternatives (the Matrix etc), but there's not a great deal of point.


And how does this equate to the physical world having a mind-independent existence? Should I give you a clue? It doesn't.


It's just that there's no evidence otherwise. Until evidence shows up, a material world is the simplest story that covers the facts.

That doesn't give it the status of Received Truth or anything. But we've got no particular reason to believe in Berkeley, the Matrix, brains in vats or whatever.


Revolutionary scientific ideas have their genesis in intuitions. Besides, this seems to be what a straightforward interpretation of what QM suggests.


Sure. But lots of kooky ideas stay at the intuition stage indefinitely. The jury is still out.


Not at all. The fact that theory X does not work if one of the theoretically entities implied by X hypothetically does not exist, does not provide any evidence against X.


That's not at all what I said.

Without God to save the day, Berkeleyan idealism is incoherent. It has no explanation for the simple, everyday facts that things persist when unobserved and things predate all known observers.

God is not implied by immaterialism, god is needed to get immaterialism off the ground.


God conceives not perceives.


Since the sky-pixie is an unsupported, ad hoc supposition it doesn't matter what God does.


You're dismissing his metaphysic because it needs God?? :eek: How would you feel if I were to dismiss materialism because it doesn't need God? You wouldn't be impressed would you? And rightly so.


Occam's Razor, Ian. Immaterialism needs a supernatural entity, for which there is neither evidence nor reasonable argument.


I have not claimed you are unfamiliar with his work. I meant I suspect you don't understand it. Just trying to be it in a polite way that's all {shrugs}


Fair enough. I'll return the suspicion, in an equally polite way.


No guessing is needed. Clearly the idea that reality is constituted by our perceptions wins out on parsimony. But I'm not convinced that parsimony, even if meaningful in the context of metaphysical theories, ought to be applied. With scientific theories sure.


It's not a LOP or anything, it's just a way of keeping things simple. We could, without contradicting any available evidence, be brains in vats in a computer simulation of a Matrix being deceived by an evil demon in the mind of a God made out of matter. But it's simpler to assume it's just matter all the way down until we see evidence otherwise.


Can be made to work? Well that's meaningless. The point is that it explains reality in a more comprehensive way than any other metaphysic does.


Rubbish. Scientific materialism explains all the facts that immaterialism does with fewer unnecessary entities. So I'll go with it until more evidence comes in.


And that includes materialism. Especially materialism! It also points to a reality which eastern philosophies point to, and that paranormal phenomena points to, and the most straightforward interpretation of QM points to.


Look Ian, there are two possibilities.

Either your ideas are testable, in which case we should be able to check them, and it's up to you to provide the experiment. Or they're not testable, in which case we should just go with whatever story is simplest.

I think they're not testable. I don't care what woo-woo spirituality "points to", unless is comes up with evidence or a simpler story to explain the universe.


Well there is another interpretation which is expressed by these limericks

(Kevin snips limericks to save space)

Now this interpretation is in contrast to mine, and Berkeley does indeed seem to indicate on one or two occasions that this interpretation is the correct one. On other occasions, however, he definitely leans towards my interpretation, and, without going into it, I concluded that my interpretation is the correct one, and incidentally the better one for the overall intelligibility of his metaphysic.


As I said, I read Berkeley's dialogues in great detail not too long ago. Believe me that I really did not want to get anything catastrophically wrong when I was trying to write an example of an excellent essay on Berkeley.

I'm as confident as I get on such matters that I understand his arguments and his position. I'm nigh certain that you're just wrong.


No no no! You don't understand his metaphysic :( It's simply no point in addressing questions about what things are like when they are not being perceived because you are implicitly presuming the existence of a material world! You are in fact therefore begging the question! For Berkeley, talk about unperceived objects is rather like talking about a grin without a cat.


Objects don't need observers. Or at least, that's what all the evidence points to. That's not begging the question, it's stating the facts.


I don't think physical stuff can actually create consciousness. I think this is basically a problem for whichever metaphysic one subscribes to.


Again, all the evidence is that you are just wrong. If I was so inclined I could go find a willing woman, engage in enjoyable activities with my physical stuff, and nine months later a consciousness made of physical stuff would pop out into the world.


No I've read the dialogues and the principles. I cannot recall the argument for God that you allege he came out with. You'll need to refer to the precise passage. Are you able to do this??

P.S I'm sorry I was hurtful to you in our first few exchanges. Can we put that behind us? Yes we disagree about plenty, but we also agree about a lot of stuff too. So can we put it behind us and start afresh?

Well said. I've done my best to be more civil, and I'll endeavour to keep it up.

Unfortunately I returned the borrowed book that I used as my reference. So I can't give you a paragraph number or anything. The relevant passage I do have saved, however:

“HYL: Since therefore you have no idea of the mind of God, how can you conceive it possible that things should exist in His mind? Or, if you can conceive of the mind of God, without having an idea of it, why may I not be allowed to conceive the existence of Matter, notwithstanding I have no idea of it?

(“Idea” in this context refers to a sense perception, an impression in the mind - Kevin)

PHIL: ...My own mind and my own ideas I have an immediate knowledge of; and, by the help of these, do mediately apprehend the possibility of the existence of other spirits and ideas. Farther, from my own being, and from the dependency I find in myself and my ideas, I do, by an act of reason, necessarily infer the existence of a God, and of all created things in the mind of a God.”

If you call that an act of reason, I've got an idealist metaphysic to sell you...

[Interesting Ian]

Kevin,

I don't any longer wish to address you on a point by point basis because I've alredy said what's needed to be said. You are looking at the world through non-idealist eyes and thus are simply not comprehending its internal logic.

At this point I just want to address our dispute about what Berkeley's view was on the status of unperceived "physical" things.

I happened to post something on this very question about 2 years ago on a Berkeley forum. Peter Lloyd was good enough to respond to me. His website on Berkeely can be found
here (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/berkeley.htm)

You might find it interesting reading.

{quote}

Hi,

I'm wondering how the 18th century philosopher George Berkeley regarded the ontological status of the world when unperceived by finite beings? That is to say does an unperceived tree, for example, exist in a "full-blooded" sense as a perception/conception in Gods Mind when unperceived by us? Likewise, when approaching an object, and it continually expands to fill our visual field, is this because God has in his conception the full repertoire of all possible sensory experiences constituting that object which he then allows us partial access to? Presumably the contents of this partial access will depend upon our "spatial" orientation with respect to the object concerned and the keenness of our senses.

Are Gods conceptions numerically identical to our perceptions here? Or should we understand it as being analogically akin to a 3 dimensional world in a computer game, where we might say objects within the game not currently displayed on the VDU exist in the computers memory, but not in quite the same form as when they are displayed?

Alternatively are objects in the external world entirely a psychological construct on our parts? That is to say there is no tree in Gods mind as such, but we subconsciously construct our notion of a tree from particular visual and tactile sensations which we habitually find together.

What was Berkeley's true position and what position should he ought to have adopted regarding this issue?




Response by Peter Lloyd

Ian raises a very good question: when we are not looking at some object (say, a tree), what precisely is it that persists in God's mind between successive observations?

Thus: "... should we understand it as being analogically akin to a 3 dimensional world in a computer game, where we might say objects within the game not currently displayed on the VDU exist in the computers memory, but not in quite the same form as when they are displayed?"

I believe that this is precisely right, and I believe that Berkeley held the same opinion, and expressed it as well as he could before the invention of computers, let alone virtual reality.

Berkeley maintained that God's mind contains 'archetypes' of the objects that we see around us. These archetypes are ideas in God's mind that direct Him in the construction of our perceptual world. Berkeley made a direct comparison of God's use of archetypes to a musician's use of a score to play music. The score is written in ink on paper, and bears no sensory resemblance to the sound of music. Yet they serve to direct the musician in re-creating the required sounds. Likewise, God's archetypes need bear no sensory resemblance to our sensory experiences, yet they serve to direct God in running our sensory show.

This is just like a database in an digital computer that embodies a mathematical model of a three-dimensional world. The computer can use that database to render any view as seen from any observer in any position. As you (virtually) move around within the (virtual) world, the computer continually adjusts its rendering of the world in our visual display.

We may say that, in the Berkeleian view, our entire waking world is a virtual reality, driven by a purely mental computer -- which Berkeley called God.

George Berkeley was not a very precise writer, and in some bits of his books, you might find suggestions of other opinions about the nature of unobserved objects. But the position expressed above is the one that we find persisting throughout his works, and in any case it is the only one that makes sense.

There are, of course, lots of interesting ramifications of this. For example, let us suppose that God's mind operates in an economical manner. Suppose that God does not construct the archetypes of things that have never yet been observed, until such time as some finite being observes them. In the computer analogy, we may say that some parts of the 3-D database are not populated until they are needed for rendering imagery. Suppose, for instance, you are walking around in a virtual house. There is a room that you have never been in. Then, eventually, you find the (virtual) keys and can unlock the (virtual) door. Until that moment, the computer is free to choose whatever is to be inside that room. The contents of the room can be enerated 'just in time' as you open the door. Then you might find inside an ancient, dust covered book three hundred years old, which predicts the very date and time when you will open the door. You might be amazed by this until you remember that this is a virtual reality and that the computer need not have generated the model of that book in its database until the moment you entered the room. In much the same way, I would suggest, God alters and modifies the unobserved parts of the universe, to bring about synchronicity and even miracles when those parts come to be observed.

As far as I am aware, Berkeley never explored this ramification of his own philosophy. If anyone knows of any passages where he does so, then I would be *very* interested!

Nevertheless, I do think that this theory is valid and that it can be used to give an account of parapsychological phenomena.

Peter

{/quote}

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

....
Objects don't need observers. Or at least, that's what all the evidence points to. That's not begging the question, it's stating the facts. ....


Can you define "observer"?

You have neither evidence nor facts other than your intuitive belief that what you & I perceive proves "matter exists". Nothing like circularity; it's what materialists do best.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by hammegk


Can you define "observer"?

You have neither evidence nor facts other than your intuitive belief that what you & I perceive proves "matter exists". Nothing like circularity; it's what materialists do best.

Firstly, I'll give you a minimalist definition of an "observer". This is it: hydrogen isn't an observer.

Since early on in the history of the universe stuff was going on with nothing but hydrogen to observe it, immaterialism seems prima facie silly.

Secondly, no one and nothing can prove matter exists. As I've said repeatedly, we can never know for sure we aren't being fooled by some greater power. Matter is just the simplest coherent story to explain what we observe.

Asking for "evidence" or "facts" to prove that we're not being deceived by God or a demon or whatever is evidence of nothing more than the fact that you are confused.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Kevin,

I don't any longer wish to address you on a point by point basis because I've alredy said what's needed to be said. You are looking at the world through non-idealist eyes and thus are simply not comprehending its internal logic.


You vanished last time I pressed you on these points, I recall.

Oh well. I too have said what's needed to be said.


At this point I just want to address our dispute about what Berkeley's view was on the status of unperceived "physical" things.

I happened to post something on this very question about 2 years ago on a Berkeley forum. Peter Lloyd was good enough to respond to me. His website on Berkeely can be found
here (http://easyweb.easynet.co.uk/~ursa/philos/berkeley.htm)


Q&A snipped.

(Sigh).

For starters this Lloyd guy is still framing everything in terms of God The Mainframe. God has not been established, and is a superfluous supernatural entity fit only for the Razor.

Secondly, I just think you're confused about what you are arguing. Saying that objects unobserved by humans are stored somehow in the mind of God is not an answer to the question "What story do you have if we don't give you God for free to prop your story up with?".

Which is the real problem for Berkeley.

Doll your silliness up however you like, it still boils down to "How do we know for sure we're not in the Matrix? Huh, huh?". To which the answer has always been and still is "We don't... so?".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


(Sigh).

For starters this Lloyd guy is still framing everything in terms of God The Mainframe. God has not been established, and is a superfluous supernatural entity fit only for the Razor.

Secondly, I just think you're confused about what you are arguing. Saying that objects unobserved by humans are stored somehow in the mind of God is not an answer to the question "What story do you have if we don't give you God for free to prop your story up with?".

Which is the real problem for Berkeley.

Doll your silliness up however you like, it still boils down to "How do we know for sure we're not in the Matrix? Huh, huh?". To which the answer has always been and still is "We don't... so?". [/B]

We're arguing about which is the correct interpretation of Berkeley's philosophy. The inherent reasonability or unreasonability of God is clearly wholly irrelevant to this issue.

Now you said you disgreed with my interpretation of Berkeley's stance on this issue. Do you still disagree? If so then why?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe


This is it: hydrogen isn't an observer.
Umm, so what did you say is? Oh, hydrogen exists without an observer. Do you see the circularity problem you will always be faced with?


.....Matter is just the simplest coherent story to explain what we observe.
Better said, the math that underlies what you & I perceive as "matter" provides a coherent "story". Are your maps the territories they represent?


.....you are confused.
Thanks for sharing your analysis of my situation.

BTW, so far as I see yet, you don't even know what we were discussing. :rub:

[Interesting Ian]

Kevin,

You originally claimed this was Berkeley's argument for the existence of God.

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

His argument for God is unmitigated bollocks, if you'll excuse the expression.

It goes like this. "I am fallible and finite. Therefore it follows that there is something which is infallible and infinite. Therefore it follows that this thing is the Christian God".



That was supposed to be the interpretation of what Berkeley said here.



PHIL: ...My own mind and my own ideas I have an immediate knowledge of; and, by the help of these, do mediately apprehend the possibility of the existence of other spirits and ideas. Farther, from my own being, and from the dependency I find in myself and my ideas, I do, by an act of reason, necessarily infer the existence of a God, and of all created things in the mind of a God.”

Kevin
If you call that an act of reason, I've got an idealist metaphysic to sell you...

Here is that quote in its context:


Hyl. Since therefore you have no idea of the mind of God, how can you conceive it possible that things should exist in His mind? Or, if you can conceive the mind of God, without having an idea of it, why may not I be allowed to conceive the existence of Matter, notwithstanding I have no idea of it? 32
Phil. As to your first question: I own I have properly no idea, either of God or any other spirit; for these being active, cannot be represented by things perfectly inert, as our ideas are. I do nevertheless know that I, who am a spirit or thinking substance, exist as certainly as I know my ideas exist. Farther, I know what I mean by the terms I and myself; and I know this immediately or intuitively, though I do not perceive it as I perceive a triangle, a colour, or a sound. The Mind, Spirit, or Soul is that indivisible unextended thing which thinks, acts, and perceives. I say indivisible, because unextended; and unextended, because extended, figured, moveable things are ideas; and that which perceives ideas, which thinks and wills, is plainly itself no idea, nor like an idea. Ideas are things inactive, and perceived. And Spirits a sort of beings altogether different from them. I do not therefore say my soul is an idea, or like an idea. However, taking the word idea in a large sense, my soul may be said to furnish me with an idea, that is, an image or likeness of God—though indeed extremely inadequate. For, all the notion I have of God is obtained by reflecting on my own soul, heightening its powers, and removing its imperfections. I have, therefore, though not an inactive idea, yet in myself some sort of an active thinking image of the Deity. And, though I perceive Him not by sense, yet I have a notion of Him, or know Him by reflexion and reasoning. My own mind and my own ideas I have an immediate knowledge of; and, by the help of these, do mediately apprehend the possibility of the existence of other spirits and ideas. Farther, from my own being, and from the dependency I find in myself and my ideas, I do, by an act of reason, necessarily infer the existence of a God, and of all created things in the mind of God. So much for your first question. For the second: I suppose by this time you can answer it yourself. For you neither perceive Matter objectively, as you do an inactive being or idea; nor know it, as you do yourself, by a reflex act, neither do you mediately apprehend it by similitude of the one or the other; nor yet collect it by reasoning from that which you know immediately. All which makes the case of Matter widely different from that of the Deity.


It is clear from the context that he is elaborating upon the concept of a "notion". We do not have ideas of other minds including God's Mind. But he is pointing out that doesn't necessarily mean they do not exist. It is true that he appears to be arguing for the actually existence of God, and I certainly agree that it is difficult to see how he reaches this conclusion from what he wrote here. Not that his "argument" remotely resembles what you said he said.

I should mention here that Berkeley wrote the dialogues because people didn't understand what he was talking about in the Principles. As such it is quite lightweight. As a matter of fact he puts his case for the existence of God best in Alciphron. But if we're concerned with just the Dialogues here, then he expresses his proof for the existence of God in the following extract:


Phil
It is evident that the things I perceive are my own ideas, and that no idea can exist unless it be in a mind: nor is it less plain that these ideas or things by me perceived, either themselves of their archetypes, exist independently of my mind, since I know myself not to be their author, it being out of my power to determine at pleasure what particular ideas I shall be affected with upon opening my eyes or ears: they must therefore exist in some other Mind, whose Will it is they should be exhibited to me. The things, I say, immediately perceived are ideas or sensations, call them which you will. But how can any idea or sensation exist in, or be produced by, anything but a mind or spirit? This indeed is inconceivable. And to assert that which is inconceivable is to talk nonsense: is it not? 44
Hyl. Without doubt.
Phil. But, on the other hand, it is very conceivable that they should exist in and be produced by a spirit; since this is no more than I daily experience in myself, inasmuch as I perceive numberless ideas; and, by an act of my will, can form a great variety of them, and raise them up in my imagination: though, it must be confessed, these creatures of the fancy are not altogether so distinct, so strong, vivid, and permanent, as those perceived by my senses—which latter are called real things. From all which I conclude, there is a Mind which affects me every moment with all the sensible impressions I perceive. And, from the variety, order, and manner of these, I conclude the Author of them to be wise, powerful, and good, beyond comprehension. Mark it well; I do not say, I see things by perceiving that which represents them in the intelligible Substance of God. This I do not understand; but I say, the things by me perceived are known by the understanding, and produced by the will of an infinite Spirit. And is not all this most plain and evident? Is there any more in it than what a little observation in our own minds, and that which passeth in them, not only enables us to conceive, but also obliges us to acknowledge.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ian, this is shameful.

Adding the surrounding text adds nothing to Berkeley's argument, which I accurately summarised. I'm sorry if the argument looks stupider if I put it in modern terms and shear off the masses of excess wordage, but that's just because it's a stupid argument.

The second huge passage you quoted does not have any reasonable argument for the existence of God. Berkeley is just showing how much his silly story needs God to make it remotely coherent.

You need to hone your critical reading and thinking skills, Ian, and actually analyse this stuff as you read it. Learn to tell the difference between a good argument and ********. Because it seems that when it comes to Berkeley, you lack that discernment. Berkeley makes some good points, but he also talks a lot of utter rubbish and you need to be able to pick it apart.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe

You need to hone your critical reading and thinking skills, Ian, and actually analyse this stuff as you read it. [/B]

What a complete clown you are. Send me your essay on Berkeley and get a taste of my critical reading and thinking skills.

No I thought not :rolleyes:

[Dancing David]

Quote-ing Phil and editing

But, on the other hand, it is very conceivable that they should exist in and be produced by a invisible pink elephant; since this is no more than I daily experience in myself, inasmuch as I perceive numberless ideas; and, by an act of my will, can form a great variety of them, and raise them up in my imagination: though, it must be confessed, these creatures of the fancy are not altogether so distinct, so strong, vivid, and permanent especialy after smoking opium,, as those perceived by my senses—which latter are called real things. From all which I conclude, there is a Invisble Pink Elephant which affects me every moment with all the sensible impressions I perceive. And, from the variety, order, and manner of these, I conclude the Joker of them to be wise, powerful, and good, beyond comprehensionDespite the fact that evil exists and creatures possesed of a mind, torture each other everyday. Mark it well; I do not say, I see things by perceiving that which represents them in the intelligible Invisible Pink Elephant. This I do not understand; but I say, the things by me perceived are known by the understandingwhich I don't understand but I'll use the word anyhow, and produced by the will of an infinite Rosy Pachyderm. And is not all this most plain and evident?Just as the material world is not plain and evident. Is there any more in it than what a little observation in our own minds, and that which passeth in them, not only enables us to conceive, but also obliges us to acknowledge. That I am a total fruitcake who would rather believe in an evil trickster god, than the material world.

End of mangled quote

So Ian in this discourse, the argument seems to be that the products of the mind are as vivid and real as the products of the material senses, so, this author assumes that the material realm exists. Otherwise the realm of mind is a fiction as well.
;P

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What a complete clown you are. Send me your essay on Berkeley and get a taste of my critical reading and thinking skills.

No I thought not :rolleyes:

The content of the essay I wrote, oddly enough, overlaps substantially with things I've said on this message board. There just isn't that much to say on this topic. So you've already read most of it in essence, and comprehensively failed to address any of it.

This is, I think, just another one of your transparent attempts to avoid engaging with the arguments that have been made against the immaterialist position.

I'll tell you what. If at some later stage you make a sensible reply to the points I've already raised, I'll reread the thing I wrote and raise any points in it that you haven't already encountered.

I doubt you'll do that. What I honestly expect you to do is blow some smoke, hide for a while, and then resurface in another thread with the same inanities.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kevin_Lowe
[B]

The content of the essay I wrote, oddly enough, overlaps substantially with things I've said on this message board.

Huh?? Everything you've said displays an abysmal incomprehension of Berkeley's philosophy! And you're supposed to teach poor sods from that?? Jesus wept.

Why are materialists so f*cking stupid?? :confused:

[Pahansiri]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian



Why are materialists so f*cking stupid?? :confused:

:( Why personal attacks and saying things like ? As you know I am not a materialists but do find such things as you have said the thing that is stupid and not part of logical mature debate.

Just what I believe.

[Sundog]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why are materialists so f*cking stupid?? :confused:

Why do you always eventually do this? You were doing so well.