A Defense of Immaterialism: The Debate - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
#14938068
Victoribus Spolia wrote:please quote where i made this claim.

I gave you a definition of perceptual appearances,

The difference between the external and the internal mind-dependent appearance of a thing.

You replied:

There is no such distinction in Phenomenal Idealism.

my perceptual experience must come from some other Mind.

Berkeley is a realist in the sense he believed that the world exists independently of the thought and experience of finite minds.

If an object exists independently of us, the Indirectness Principle applies, and the 'Problem of the External World' is back.

For God's ideas cannot be our ideas.

God is a being who can suffer nothing, nor be affected with any painful sensation, or indeed any sensation at all. (Berkeley 1713)


:)
Last edited by ingliz on 08 Aug 2018 15:07, edited 2 times in total.
#14938073
ingliz wrote:I gave you a definition of perceptual appearances,

The difference between the external and the internal mind-dependent appearance of a thing.

You replied:

There is no such distinction in Phenomenal Idealism.


Because there is no reality external to the mind according to Phenomenal Idealism, and I don't even know how a percept could be external in this sense.

Percepts are mental content, there is no division between their internal and external characteristics, there is just their characteristics as they are at the moment of experience.

How does that have anything to do with the subject (the one thinking) and object (the thing thought of) distinction?

ingliz wrote:Berkeley is a realist in the sense he believed that the world exists independently of the thought and experience of finite minds.


That is an interesting definition of realism, if that were true there is no distinction between idealists and realists at all. Berkeley denied that the reality existed only his own mind (solipsism) and only in created minds, He believed that the world's objectivity lied in the fact that its interconnected whole exists in the Mind of God.

I would not call this realism though, the position is still that everything is either a mind or mental content. That is contradictory with realism.

ingliz wrote:If an object exists independently of us, the Indirectness Principle applies, and 'the Problem of the External World' is back.


Thats not true at all.

ingliz wrote:For God's ideas cannot be our ideas.

God is a being who can suffer nothing, nor be affected with any painful sensation, or indeed any sensation at all. (Berkeley)


Yes and Berkeley is responding as Philonous to Hylas in that section of the Dialogues. Hylas is trying to attack Philonous by saying that if God is the source of our sensations that would mean that God suffers pain (which is an imperfection).

Philonous responds to this that there is a distinction between the sensation itself and how we are affected by it. We are dependent on our own sensations and succumb to them, we passively receive them. God actively produces them in us and is therefore not subject to them. Thus, God is the source of our perceptions and sensations, including pain, with out being the passive victim of them. Thus, the sensation is the same, but affects differently.

You are taking Berkeley out of context with that remark you quoted and it does not support your point at all.

what a shameful performance.
#14938079
Victoribus Spolia wrote:there is no reality external to the [finite] mind

God's mind, perhaps?

ingliz wrote:[finite]

We are not 'Gods'.

He believed that the world's objectivity l[ay] in the fact that its interconnected whole exists in the Mind of God.

He believed that the world exists in the Mind of God independently of us; that the world continues to exist when we are not there to perceive it.

Trivia:

Berkeley's notes bounce between 'who gives a shit if my table disappears' and 'the table continues to exist'. But then he decides to publish and he fears the world will laugh at him; the idea of worlds popping in and out of existence and more so him. So he plumps for a continuous world.

Your ideal world was defined by the vanity of one man.

lied

A Freudian slip?

Parapraxis: an unintentional error regarded as revealing subconscious feelings.

That's not true at all.

Why?


p.s.

I have noticed you will never write one word when ten will do.

I like to subtract words.


Reason for edits: to subtract words

:)
Last edited by ingliz on 08 Aug 2018 18:29, edited 8 times in total.
#14938094
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Do you have proof for this claim? What is energy and how do you know of it?


Sure, through my own perception. And you can experience energy through your own btw.

The definition of energy to understand what it is can be found in a dictionary.

Just because the experience of sound "follows-in-sequence" the observable phenomena of sound-waves does not mean that such is the cause of the perceptual experience of sound.

I am listening to a song that is "stuck-in-my-head" right now, even though no sound waves are around me for that particular song.


But you are not perceiving that song in your reality are you? Your memories are doing that for you. And that is a capacity of neuron interaction.

No they don't. This is an inference based on observation and is an assumption.

For instance, if I told you that I am looking at my wife's tits and you could look at my brain and see certain neurological activity via a device, including the firing of certain synapses. You still could not say that these synapses or neurons were doing anything in relation to thought. At best, you could argue that there is a correlation or sequence to what you observed me doing (looking at a nice pair of tits) and what you observe regarding brain activity; however, you cannot say that the neurons are "interpreting" anything. This cannot be logically demonstrated, at best you can say that neurons do stuff while I claim to be doing other stuff, but that proves pretty much nothing.


But the fact you can monitor brain activity is evidence that it must be doing something if the results are consistance to what you expect to happen btw. What is it you think the brain does anyway? What function does it have to you? Why does our senses and our consciousness rely on it in every single test you can imagine with the same results if it does nothing?

Spacetime is not a mind, so it cannot be the source of percepts (mental content), for that would violate the law of reasoning that something cannot give what itself does not have (ex nihil, nihil fit).


In my opinion perception is an illusion. It is an illusion of interaction. Spacetime isn't perception but part of the equation to create the illusion through interaction of neuron activity.

I am not talking about the body at all in this section you are responding to, I am only talking about minds. Whether the mind is related in any way to the body is a separate discussion at this point, for we are only discussing percepts. Percepts don't "exist" in the body, brain, waves, atoms, etc. Percepts are objects of awareness of conscious (mental) content.


Perception doesn't exist within the body alone correct. So what? It is the bodies interaction to its environment that creates perception. And God is not needed in any logical conclusion when understanding what perception is.

We are discussing where such come from on this. If something is defined as mental-content, as percepts are, that means that they are ontologically mental-content. IF something is not a mind, then it cannot have mental-content. Thus, if you have mental content and it did not come from your mind (because otherwise you would have to be preaware of all future precepts); then you must explain what other mind these percepts came from.


Perception comes from interaction VS. Mental capacity is only half the equation. Interaction of an individual surrounding is another. The mind of the individual creates the illusion into something we can understand. So if you are arguing that I am suggesting perception is something you can only find in the mind, then you are wrong. I am actually suggesting it is just an illusion and no where near the reality of what we think it is. I also don't think our mental capacity could ever understand what the universe is either.

Yes. if by a requirement you mean that eyes are logically necessary. This is simply improvable.

Likewise, we right now have good reason to question this for the same reasons I mentioned; that people who lost their eyes have "visual experience" or report of having them.


Visual experience of mental capacity is completely different from visual perception of someones surroundings. When someone passes their car test without the use of their eyes, let me know.

How can energy have mental content if its not a mind? Only a mind can have mental content by definition. Percepts are mental-content by definition as objects of awareness.


Sure. But I have never said otherwise. But the mind cannot have perception without the interaction of energy through the senses of the individual. So energy is important.

How do you know that the mind of such a person is not still having conscious experience in spite of you not being able to monitor it?

Also, have you monitored all people in all times and places to know if this experience has held universally? If not, how do you know for certain there has been no exceptions or never will be any?

Thats the issue. You cannot logically say there is any necessary (causal) relationship between the brain and awareness, to say otherwise is fallacious. There is only a correlative or sequential relationship.


But you can test of from what you know to be true. If perception can be monitored when the individual is alive, why should the results be different when they are dead? You are after all monitoring the same thing and only mental capacity has changed. If the results change then there is correlation.

Nothing in my original debate post was faith-based, and neither was this. These are all arguments based on reason.


Does your concept require the existence of God that you admit you have not proven? If so your concept requires faith.

I would still like you to address them or discuss them.


Later then.
#14938122
B0ycey wrote:Sure, through my own perception.


you perceived a cause? Please explain, because you can only ever perceive correlations and sequences, so unless you have a different explanation it sounds like the same fallacy; cum hoc or post hoc.

Likewise, the argument is circular; you perceived energy which is the cause of perceiving. Circular arguments are also fallacious.

Lastly, how can energy be the source of percepts (mental content) if energy is not a mind?

B0ycey wrote:But you are not perceiving that song in your reality are you? Your memories are doing that for you.


No, I am. I see no difference other than clarity. But if sound waves are the CAUSE of the experience of sound, as you maintain, then I shouldn't be having that experience at all, and an appeal from memory doesn't cut it unless you can prove that memory creates sound waves.

B0ycey wrote:And that is a capacity of neuron interaction.


That neuron interaction occurs when I am having this experience is irrelevant, thats just a correlation and has nothing casually to do with it, unless you give me a reason why such is logically (universally and absolutely) true.

B0ycey wrote:But the fact you can monitor brain activity is evidence that it must be doing something if the results are consistance to what you expect to happen btw.


Not really, thats just a presumption. I don't think the brain does anything at all and there is no logical reason for me to believe otherwise.

B0ycey wrote:What is it you think the brain does anyway? What function does it have to you?


Nothing, its just a percept, an object of awareness. Objects of awareness have no causal efficacy in themselves whatsoever. That the brain does certain things in correlation or sequence to what people claim to be experiencing at a given moment is merely an observed coincidence. There is no logical reason to believe otherwise.

B0ycey wrote:Why does our senses and our consciousness rely on it in every single test you can imagine with the same results if it does nothing?


Coincidence, there is no causal relationship demonstrable at all. The "why are things like this" is irrelevant, its just the way it is.

B0ycey wrote:In my opinion perception is an illusion. It is an illusion of interaction. Spacetime isn't perception but part of the equation to create the illusion through interaction of neuron activity.


Illusion of what and how do you know of that "what" without perception since perception is illusory?

Likewise, this still doesn't explain how spacetime (which is not a mind) can have percepts (as the source of yours) if its not a perceiving agent.

Ex Nihil, Nihil Fit is still violated by this idea. It is irrational on the face of it.

B0ycey wrote:Perception doesn't exist within the body alone correct.


It doesn't exist in the body at all.

Please show me where in my body you can open up and see what I am currently think about.

B0ycey wrote:It is the bodies interaction to its environment that creates perception. And God is not needed in any logical conclusion when understanding what perception is.


We aren't talking about God, why do you keep bringing this up? Are you scared of the big bad divinity? :lol:

Stay on topic.

The body does not have perception at all, nor does the environment, the environment and body are both perceived so they exist in your mind as perceptions.

To say that you perceptions of body and environment contain your perceptions is circular and begs the question. Where do these perceptions (including your body and the environment) come from? That is the issue under contention.

B0ycey wrote:Perception comes from interaction VS. Mental capacity is only half the equation. Interaction of an individual surrounding is another.


Please prove to me that it does, show me how this work works?

B0ycey wrote: I am actually suggesting it is just an illusion and no where near the reality of what we think it is.


How do you know there is a reality outside of this illusion?

B0ycey wrote:Visual experience of mental capacity is completely different from visual perception of someones surroundings.


How so? I see no difference.

Especially since your argument has been that eyes and light waves are necessary for visual perception, but if someone has no eyes and can perceive the sun, how can he be seeing that image without light or eyes? The memory claim is irrelevant, because memory or not its still an object of awareness and if it is visual in nature, then according to your argument, he could not possibly be seeing it without light or eyes.

If there are exceptions to this rule, then that just means that visual experiences are not dependent on light or eyes.

Which is logically true as well.

B0ycey wrote:When someone passes their car test without the use of their eyes, let me know.


Thats irrelevant and wouldn't prove anything anyway as a causal relation requires universal knowledge and so such an example, if produced, wouldn't demonstrate anything.

B0ycey wrote:But the mind cannot have perception without the interaction of energy through the senses of the individual. So energy is important.


This is a causal claim. You have claimed to know of energy through observation (perception), so several fallacies occur here:

1. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc :a correlation between energy making contact with a person and their claims regarding their perceptual experience cannot be used to infer that energy is necessary for perception, the correlation cannot yield causation.

2. Begging the question; you are claiming that a percept (energy) is the cause of your percepts.

3. Percepts are objects of awareness and so only exist in an awareness, so energy cannot give percepts unless itself is an awareness (ex nihil, nihil fit).

B0ycey wrote:If the results change then there is correlation.


Sure, but thats only a correlation, I never denied correlations, I only denied causation or absolute claims.

B0ycey wrote:Does your concept require the existence of God that you admit you have not proven? If so your concept requires faith.


This is a loaded question.

1. I never claimed that I did not prove the existence of God. EVER.

2. I DID SAY that my original debate argument had as its main goal and burden of proof, the demonstration that human mentality is not physically reducible.

3. God's existence being necessary for a position is not faith-based if God's role in the system is rationally inferred.

4. My point in these remarks was only to point out again, that at this juncture of discussion, God is not the topic under discussion and is not entirely relevant to the point being made.

Whether the conclusion of these present points will eventually lead to a discussion of God's necessary existence downstream in the argument, is different matter altogether, but discussing him now is a red herring.

ingliz wrote:God's mind, perhaps?


You know what I mean, Phenomenal Idealists reject a mind-independent reality, a percept as perceived is what it is, it bears no subdivision into internal and external qualities, the whole notion is unintelligible.

ingliz wrote:He believed that the world exists in the Mind of God independently of us; that the world continues to exist when we are not there to perceive it.


Sure. Whats your point? You tried to push the philosophical problems of representational empiricism (Locke) onto Berkeley, but as I said regarding your taking the good Bishop out of context, he never argued that sensations were qualitatively different when they existed in the Mind of God from their existence in our own consciousness.

Our percepts originate in the Mind of God necessarily, thus, what is in my mind now, was first in His. Thus, there is not a problem of disjunction between what personal perceptual experience and objective reality as it exists as a whole in the mind of God (contra the indirectness problem).

The problem you brought up, common to all materialists, does not obtain in the case of Idealism.

ingliz wrote:Trivia:

Berkeley's notes bounce between 'who gives a shit if my table disappears' and 'the table continues to exist'. But then he decides to publish and he fears the world will laugh at him; the idea of worlds popping in and out of existence and more so him. So he plumps for a continuous world.

Your ideal world was defined by the vanity of one man.


Your starting to sound pretty butt-hurt.

This a strawman and an ad-hominem btw.

ingliz wrote:A Freudian slip?

Parapraxis: an unintentional error regarded as revealing subconscious feelings.


presumptive ad-hominem.

ingliz wrote:Why?



Because there is no dis-junction between the percepts as they exist in my own mind and how they exist in objective reality (the Mind of God) in Idealism.

This is why, ironically, Idealism is the only true realism. Which was Berkeley's point. Every other system results in skepticism or solipsism regarding the objective world, Idealism alone can give a metaphysical basis for the reliability of empirical thought and an objective world.
#14938126
Ok, I have some time. Lets look at these shall we.

The issue is not that we have sequential or correlative experiences regarding perceptual reality, the issue is inferring a causal relationship from these observations in order to conjure up a metaphysical system that makes absolute claims regarding the nature of reality. If such inferences are fallacious, as they are with physicalism, they must be dismissed.


If you accept correlation of energy and neuron activity, it is a start. If you are after the cause of perception, it is a series of interactions beginning with energy and our senses becoming aware of it.

Ah, here comes the science. :lol:

Most science is fallacious, logically speaking. The entire scientific method is technically fallacious (the hypothetical deductive method asserts the consequent, which is fallacy); Likewise, inductive inferences are fallacious (composition fallacy) and are used constantly in science, plus scientists constantly commit cum hoc and post hoc fallacies.

For instance (regarding those latter two fallacies again):

Science does not know that the brain is the cause of certain sensations, at best it can only record a correlation between certain portions of the brain doing something (as observed) and the testimony regarding persons pertaining to their sense-experiences.

Even if experiments recorded this 100% of the time among 100 million people, it still would be fallacy to claim that the brain is the cause of sensation. It is logically erroneous, thus you can never claim the brain to be the cause of perception.


Is anything not fallacious to you? Science theories can be tested. If it can be tested and the results are the same every time as you predict then it is has more substance to it then God's will. So if you claim science is fallacious then what do you think of a claim that cannot be tested?

If by fact you mean a correlation, then I agree, but that does not prove causation nor does it prove that there is no conscious experience occurring independent of the brain, it just means that every time a person's brain was killed off or denied oxygen, the subject stopped reporting via testimony of having a continual sense-experience.


Actually, this can be tested to be proven to be true. Perhaps this is the evidence you are after of me actually. If you are conscious and I monitor your brain activity for perception, then reduce oxygen and monitor it, then return the oxygen to you and monitor it, I can then ask you what perceptions your experienced at specific times when you gain conciousness. If you say you didn't experience any when you were blacked out, then I can use the information of brain activity at that period to the times you were conscious and blacked out to determine a link to brain activity and consciousness, without assuming anything.

This is easy.


Not so easy...

The reason the burden of truth is with you and not her is because her arguments were not up for debate. She argued your points and you are required to provide the evidence to dismiss her points and prove your own. The fact she cannot provide evidence to suggest that there are things we cannot be aware of (which is obvious because to do so would prove her wrong) is irrelevant. Because materialism is not the debate.
#14938127
Victoribus Spolia wrote:The problem you brought up, common to all materialists, does not obtain in the case of Idealism.

But it does, once you posit there is a world existing independently of our thought and experience.

the Mind of God... the indirectness problem

... how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord?

Romans 11:33-34

the indirectness problem

Berkeley’s view: God, not being an idea, is not knowable directly.

Not that I imagine we see God (as some will have it) by a direct and immediate View

Principles 148

This a strawman and an ad-hominem btw.

It is a bundle of ideas; God's ideas.

what is in my mind now, was first in His.

presumptive ad-hominem.

Perhaps, but God was wondering the same (see above).

:lol:

Because there is no dis-junction between the percepts as they exist in my own mind and how they exist in objective reality (the Mind of God) in Idealism.

Don't be silly.

Our sensory ideas cannot be copies of God's nonsensory ones:

How can that which is sensible be like that which is insensible? Can a real thing in itself invisible be like a colour; or a real thing which is not audible, be like a sound? (Berkeley 1713)
Last edited by ingliz on 09 Aug 2018 11:55, edited 8 times in total.
#14938138
Victoribus Spolia wrote:you perceived a cause? Please explain, because you can only ever perceive correlations and sequences, so unless you have a different explanation it sounds like the same fallacy; cum hoc or post hoc.


What needs explaining? You can only perceive the causes that allow you to perceive. And your opinion uses exactly the same principle btw. God mind is the cause and you as an individual perceive that cause. Is your opinion also a fallacy?

Likewise, the argument is circular; you perceived energy which is the cause of perceiving. Circular arguments are also fallacious.


It is not a circular argument if you are discussing interaction. Energy alone does not create perception. Your mind alone does not create perception. Only the interaction of these two things creates perception. And if you want a better example that you can visualize to understand this much better, a car does not create movement, petrol does not create movement, but together when operated can.

Lastly, how can energy be the source of percepts (mental content) if energy is not a mind?


Because perception and the mind are not the same thing. If they were, they would be spelt the same with the exact same definition.

No, I am. I see no difference other than clarity. But if sound waves are the CAUSE of the experience of sound, as you maintain, then I shouldn't be having that experience at all, and an appeal from memory doesn't cut it unless you can prove that memory creates sound waves.


Memory does not create sound waves nor do I claim such a thing. Memory only requires neuron activity. So what you experience is your neurons interacting with each other. This being the case, memory is not the same as perception of your surroundings.

Not really, thats just a presumption. I don't think the brain does anything at all and there is no logical reason for me to believe otherwise.


Ok. So my point that a brain dysfunction such as Dementia is nothing for you to worry about is valid correct?

Nothing, its just a percept, an object of awareness. Objects of awareness have no causal efficacy in themselves whatsoever. That the brain does certain things in correlation or sequence to what people claim to be experiencing at a given moment is merely an observed coincidence. There is no logical reason to believe otherwise.


So your rebuttal is coincidence?

Coincidence, there is no causal relationship demonstrable at all. The "why are things like this" is irrelevant, its just the way it is.


So your rebuttal is coincidence.

Illusion of what and how do you know of that "what" without perception since perception is illusory?


You do know that perception and intelligence are not the same thing right? What I experience as perception is what my mind tells me to perceive. Being that I agree with Berkeley that everything we perceive is just an illusion and material things do not exist to how we perceive them, I believe the source of perception is not another mind but energy. And I don't think energy disappears and reappears either.

Likewise, this still doesn't explain how spacetime (which is not a mind) can have percepts (as the source of yours) if its not a perceiving agent.


I didn't make the claim that spacetime is perception. I said it is required for perception. And the reason it is, is due to my own opinion what perception is. And that is not something I plan on debating on PoFo ever.

It doesn't exist in the body at all.

Please show me where in my body you can open up and see what I am currently think about.


Well, I could open up your brain for the source. But the reason I cannot see your thought is simple. I am not connected to you nerve or neuron networks - which is required to experience your perception

The body does not have perception at all, nor does the environment, the environment and body are both perceived so they exist in your mind as perceptions.

To say that you perceptions of body and environment contain your perceptions is circular and begs the question. Where do these perceptions (including your body and the environment) come from? That is the issue under contention.


Perception is only awareness. It isn't material. It isn't the environment or you brain or body or whatever you keep claiming it is. It is only awareness. So energy is needed to be the thing to be aware of and your mind is needed to be aware of it. You cannot cut open anything and see it. You cannot cut open anything and hear it. That is not what it is. And it doesn't matter how many times you keep claiming I am saying this, it simply isn't what I am saying it is at all.

How do you know there is a reality outside of this illusion?


Because what we class as the reality is the illusion.

How so? I see no difference.

Especially since your argument has been that eyes and light waves are necessary for visual perception, but if someone has no eyes and can perceive the sun, how can he be seeing that image without light or eyes? The memory claim is irrelevant, because memory or not its still an object of awareness and if it is visual in nature, then according to your argument, he could not possibly be seeing it without light or eyes.

If there are exceptions to this rule, then that just means that visual experiences are not dependent on light or eyes.

Which is logically true as well.


But he isn't seeing the sun how it is. Only what he can remember from memory. Although he can perceive the sun by feeling heat of course. And that is why eyes are required to see the reality as it is at that point of time and not how it was when they could remember what they saw once before they lost their eyes.
#14938615
@Victoribus Spolia


God the deceiver.

Why does God deceive us through a sense of touch into believing our bodies are material objects?

Bishop Berkeley saw this as a problem in his An Essay Towards A New Theory of Vision (1709).

His solution was to allow that there is a mind-independent reality.

For all Visible Things are equally in the Mind, and take up no part of the External Space: And, consequently, are Equidistant from any Tangible Thing which exists without the Mind.

NTV CXI

"any Tangible Thing ... exists without the Mind."

So much for immaterialism - A New Theory of Vision was published barely a year before the Principles (1710).
#14939497
ingliz wrote:But it does, once you posit there is a world existing independently of our thought and experience.


That not true, because under Phenomenal Idealism, the world existing independent of my personal perception is still always directly perceived and precepts as experienced are exactly as they are received, they do not correspond to anything else that is mind-independent, which is the point of the indirectness problem. The indirectness problem does not apply to the Phenomenal Idealist's position of direct perception.

ingliz wrote:... how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord?

Romans 11:33-34


This text just means that God's providential purposes, regarding teleology, are mysterious, this has nothing to do with direct perception.

ingliz wrote:Berkeley’s view: God, not being an idea, is not knowable directly.

Not that I imagine we see God (as some will have it) by a direct and immediate View

Principles 148


Yes, God is not perceived directly except by in His Son, Jesus Christ.

Berkeley was saying that God was not a perceptual object. This has nothing to do with God's mental content as is relevant to the question of perceptual objects.

ingliz wrote:Don't be silly.

Our sensory ideas cannot be copies of God's nonsensory ones:

How can that which is sensible be like that which is insensible? Can a real thing in itself invisible be like a colour; or a real thing which is not audible, be like a sound? (Berkeley 1713)


Except they are not copies of non-sensory ones, I never said that or claimed that. I already addressed this earlier. If they are copies, they are direct copies of sense-perceptions that exist in the Mind of God. Berkeley there is addressing the realist notion that color as a secondary quality can be said to be analogous of, or originate in, the non-colored. Such a claim is rightfully ridiculed as unintelligible by Berkeley.

This has nothing to do with what we are discussing here.

ingliz wrote:God the deceiver.

Why does God deceive us through a sense of touch into believing our bodies are material objects?

Bishop Berkeley saw this as a problem in his An Essay Towards A New Theory of Vision (1709).

His solution was to allow that there is a mind-independent reality.

For all Visible Things are equally in the Mind, and take up no part of the External Space: And, consequently, are Equidistant from any Tangible Thing which exists without the Mind.

NTV CXI

"any Tangible Thing ... exists without the Mind."

So much for immaterialism - A New Theory of Vision was published barely a year before the Principles (1710).


That is irrelevant, the latter Berkeley eschewed the earlier notion he got from Locke. Berkeley's system acknowledges of no mind-independent substance.

Berkeley was only in his early twenties when he wrote the Principles, so a year is like an eternity for a young man developing in his thought.

The fact remains though, in spite of your terrible historical analysis of Berkeley himself, that ultimately Berkeley himself is irrelevant to my views. My views are under debate here, not Berkeley's views, no matter how similar they may be or how much he may have influenced me.

@B0ycey

I am now going to address the substantial problem in both of your previous posts to me, as the issue is the same in both.

You don't seem to understand the serious implications of logic regarding you attribution of perception to physical causes and what I mean when I say that these things are fallacious.

You keep arguing for various things being the "Cause" of sensations; such as eyes, neurons, brains, ears, nerves, energy, enegry-interacting with sensory organs, etc, etc, etc.

ALL of these are logically invalid arguments.

This is because ANY explanation for causation deriving from observation by an individual is ALWAYS insufficient to establish a causal relationship.

causation in philosophy is a necessary condition where antecedent and consequent observations are connected.

For something to be logically necessary, it must be universal, but individual observation, testing, experimentation, etc., can NEVER establish a universal (necessary) relationship between antecedents and consequents.

Causality (also referred to as causation,[1] or cause and effect) is what connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect),


As David Hume pointed out; you cannot infer causation from correlation (the relation of two things observed in interaction) or from sequence (observable patterns of antecedent and consequent events).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality ... ent_causes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlati ... al_pattern


Thus,

If you say that you derived a conclusion from scientific and empirical tests as the cause of perception, that is a fallacy, because that very method cannot yield a necessary condition or connection.

If you say that neurons, the brain, the sensory organs, energy, or any combination of such, are the cause of perception, you have engaged in a fallacy.

This is the whole point, it is impossible to infer a causal source for human perception from anything observed or scientifically analyzed or tested.

This is why physicalism fails.

There is no logical grounds that it cannot establish its claims. there is no non-fallacious method by which it can demonstrate a material reduction of human mentality.

I have shown this and now I ask you to demonstrate a non-fallacious a basis for human perception (just like I asked Saeko).

If you cannot, but insist on believing in such anyway, it is you that believe in something purely by faith and not me.
#14939500
they are direct copies of sense-perceptions that exist in the Mind of God.

Don't be silly.

How can that which is sensible be like that which is insensible?

God is a being who cannot be affected with any painful sensation, or indeed any sensation at all. (Berkeley 1713)


:)
#14939505
ingliz wrote:Don't be silly.

How can that which is sensible be like that which is insensible?

God is a being who cannot be affected with any painful sensation, or indeed any sensation at all.


I never claimed such, God perceives, the mental content that He gives to us is by definition sensible, they are percepts in His mind.

That is the heart of Berkeley's argument for God as a solution to the problem of objectivity in idealism, the belief in a objective world is grounded in His existence as the perceiver of all, having all percepts (the whole of the world) in His own Mind.

Likewise, I agree that God cannot be affected by any sensation, that does mean He does have sensations and they don't originate in Him, quite the contrary.

I already addressed all of this, multiple times.
#14939513
they don't originate in Him

Are you saying now that there is an objective reality 'outside' of God that God perceives?


:lol:
#14939517
ingliz wrote:Are you saying now that there is an objective reality 'outside' of God that God perceives?


No, it exists in His own mind. Anytime I say that something is perceived, or someone "perceives" I am speaking of mental content. I am referring to awareness and the objects of such.

Like all Phenomenal Idealists.
#14939524
Victoribus Spolia wrote: it exists in His own mind.

Distinction between act and object.

To say that what we know is "in the mind" as if we mean "before the mind" is to speak a tautology. Yet, this leads to the contradictory conclusion that what may be before the mind may not be in the mind as it may not be mental. (Russell 1912)


:lol:
#14939527
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
@B0ycey
You keep arguing for various things being the "Cause" of sensations; such as eyes, neurons, brains, ears, nerves, energy, enegry-interacting with sensory organs, etc, etc, etc.


"The cause" of course is not the organs but the interaction of the organs with energy.

This is because ANY explanation for causation deriving from observation by an individual is ALWAYS insufficient to establish a causal relationship.


Why?

causation in philosophy is a necessary condition where antecedent and consequent observations are connected.

For something to be logically necessary, it must be universal, but individual observation, testing, experimentation, etc., can NEVER establish a universal (necessary) relationship between antecedents and consequents.


Why?

If you cannot, but insist on believing in such anyway, it is you that believe in something purely by faith and not me.


Perhaps explain what proof you have that God's perception exists. All I read is opinion. Although I still find it amusing you still insist that human eyes can't see a cause that is natural but only one that is supernatural and say I am fallacious when I disagree. And as your opinion is the one that is subject to this debate, the burden of proof is on you.
#14939530
B0ycey wrote:"The cause" of course is not the organs but the interaction of the organs with energy.


but if that interaction is determined from observation its still a fallacy, for both the energy and the organs and their interaction are all claimed to be known by observation.

Same fallacy still applies.

B0ycey wrote:Why?


Because it cannot yield universal knowledge. Universal knowledge can only be derived from necessary inferences (logical deduction), as observation is always only ever particular. To claim universal observation of all possible variable in all times and places is basically a claim to be God Himself.

B0ycey wrote:Why?


See above and try reading the links I gave. I'm trying to help you by giving them.

B0ycey wrote:Perhaps explain what proof you have that God's perception exists.


I am not talking about God here, you are.

Why do you keep bringing Him up when we are having a conversation about the nature of perception and its causal reduction?

You are so triggered by religion it makes you basically ineffective in having a discussion.

You don't always have to bring religion into every point of a conversation.

B0ycey wrote:Although I still find it amusing you still insist that human eyes can't see a cause that is natural


It is amusing only because you have grown up your whole life trusting in a scientific worldview that is grounded of serious logical errors.

B0ycey wrote:but only one that is supernatural and say I am fallacious when I disagree. And as your opinion is the one that is subject to this debate, the burden of proof is on you.


I only say that something is fallacious if it is, which your claims manifestly are.

I have shown that perception is not physical reducible. I have proven this, everything above is basically a restatement as to why.

Thus, I have satisfied the burden of proof. If I haven't satisfied the burden of proof, I must be shown how and why via a demonstration of the contrary claim.

Your failure is absolute, like all who have dared to challenge this position.

@ingliz

Russel is wrong. His realist presumptions are clouding his argument for not such distinction exists in Idealism, this is but a matter of semantics.
#14939547
Victoribus Spolia wrote:but if that interaction is determined from observation its still a fallacy, for both the energy and the organs and their interaction are all claimed to be known by observation.


Under this logic, all you are doing is proving Kant right. There are things that can't be known. If you cannot trust your own sensory observations when testing and analysing results to reach a conclusion that reoccurs and call this a fallacy when this fact is brought up, then any opinion on anything is a fallacy. And that includes your own opinion on things. And that is a massive fuck-up if you are trying to defend something such as immaterialism btw.

Because it cannot yield universal knowledge. Universal knowledge can only be derived from necessary inferences (logical deduction), as observation is always only ever particular. To claim universal observation of all possible variable in all times and places is basically a claim to be God Himself.


But what is knowledge? And how do you know it exists? And can you prove it exists? Remember any mental observation is a fallacy. And anything you conclude via perception is a fallacy. If it is circular reasoning it is a fallacy. Basically anything you say under your own logic is a fallacy.

I am not talking about God here, you are.


Funny how you have mentioned God in this and the previous posts as you are not talking about him. :lol:

I have shown that perception is not physical reducible. I have proven this, everything above is basically a restatement as to why.


Of course. This is something I also agree with. What is the point in me playing devil advocate when I agree with you strongly on this? Although I don't see your proof. Although through science and the nature of matter I could provide it myself. But that is not good enough for you.

Thus, I have satisfied the burden of proof. If I haven't satisfied the burden of proof, I must be shown how and why via a demonstration of the contrary claim.

Your failure is absolute, like all who have dared to


But you haven't proved anything. You have used reasoning to conclude that nothing can be known. That isn't proof. It certainly isn't proof of immaterialism. Or a defence. It is just a conclusion that you cannot prove it is a fact ever unless you trust your own mental observations through perception.
#14939557
B0ycey wrote:Under this logic, all you are doing is proving Kant right. Nothing can be known. If you cannot trust your own sensory observations when testing and analysing results to reach a conclusion that reoccurs and call this a fallacy when this fact is brought up, then any opinion on anything is a fallacy. And that includes your own opinion on things. And that is a massive fuck-up if you are trying to defend something such as immaterialism btw.


This sounds like whining.

All this fallacy shows is that you cannot determine the nature of metaphysical reality from observation, and the origin of the universe, the origin of our own thoughts, etc., likewise cannot be determined by scientific inquiry.

This doesn't mean you can't trust your senses, quite the contrary, it just means that what you can deduce about reality from observation is limited to descriptions of what you can immediately observe and that your predictions regarding what might happen in the future are only ever tentative, not absolute.

There is no fallacy in believing that the sun will rise tomorrow because it rose yesterday, its only a fallacy if you say that such a prediction was absolutely and universally true. Its the nature and extent to which truth is claimed that is the issue.

B0ycey wrote: then any opinion on anything is a fallacy.


That doesn't follow at all, only claiming something to be necessarily caused from observed phenomena is a fallacy under this instance.

There are other fallacies to be sure, but not every opinion is automatically post hoc or cum hoc.

B0ycey wrote:Remember any mental observation is a fallacy.


Observation is not a fallacy, inferring causes from observation is a fallacy.

B0ycey wrote:Funny how you have mentioned God in this and the previous posts as you are not talking about him.


I have not been discussing God with you, with Ingliz yes, but we are talking about causation.

B0ycey wrote:But you haven't proved anything. You have used reasoning to conclude that nothing can be known. That isn't proof.


That isn't my argument. Strawman. I have proven that human mentality cannot be physically reduced, that is what I was asked to prove and that is what I demonstrated.
#14939563
Victoribus Spolia wrote:All this fallacy shows is that you cannot determine the nature of metaphysical reality from observation, and the origin of the universe, the origin of our own thoughts, etc., likewise cannot be determined by scientific inquiry.

This doesn't mean you can't trust your senses, quite the contrary, it just means that what you can deduce about reality from observation is limited to descriptions of what you can immediately observe and that your predictions regarding what might happen in the future are only ever tentative, not absolute.


If you are now saying you can trust your senses/observations, then you can trust the results you conclude from them. Science now comes into play and most of my posts that you call a fallacy can now be used as factual evidence. Thanks.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 22

It is possible but Zelensky refuses to talk... no[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@skinster Hamas committed a terrorist attack(s)[…]

"Ukraine’s real losses should be counted i[…]

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]