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?
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.