[Victoribus Spolia]

No.

If it did, you and me both would be drowning in a sensory sea of irrelevant noise.

Non-Sequitur. You receive percepts as they are and as they are received. Your argument here assumes a Kantian notion of mental categories creating perceptual reality out of bare sensory mush. Which is not only unnecessary, but silly and improvable.

If anything, sensations are abstractions from the percepts as they represent the component parts of such.

God's mind?

sense is a passion; and passions imply imperfection

I doubt Berkeley was going to get into a long diatribe on the qualifiers of that statement in his work on Tar-Water.

He already explained in the Dialogues (as did I in this thread) how God can have the sensation of pain in His mind without it being an imperfection in Him, for we receive pain as a perceptual experience from without and are therefore subject to it; whereas, it originates in God and He is therefore not subject to it. The imperfection being in our minds in contrast to His, not in the sensation in-and-of-itself.

So when he speaks generally of sensations in Siris, he has no need to make such a qualification as he does in the Dialogues due to the audience and his context.....which is Tar-Water.

I am not the simpleton here.

Struck a nerve did I?

Good.

Wittgenstein, Brassier, and Moore is proof enough.

If they are too cerebral for you, here's a more muscular response.

Moore?

Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it, ‘I refute it thus.'

As yes the famous and cynical quip of the eminent professor of rhetoric, Samuel Johnson.

As if Berkeley were denying solidity......

You claimed you weren't a simpleton, but if you think to use the example that is used by historical philosophers in their "how not to argue against Berkeley" sections, I am beginning to wonder if my initial charge was not accurate.

The belief that everything is really just an object of experience in some mind must be necessarily true in order to have its intended consequences for the idealist scheme. Yet it seems clear that the belief is not analytic, since there is at least a conceptual difference between being on the one hand and being perceived on the other.

Thus idealists simply assume without evidence the truth of their most important principle.

[Note In Bold]

The conceptual "difference" is unjustified and is ad hoc.

I assume the given, the conceptual "difference" is not a given, its a claim without proof or evidence.

If you are only quoting the idiotic G.E. Moore to argue your solidarity with his critiques of Idealism which all amount to bold assumption of realism as if that were somehow an argument against Idealism, I can assure you that you have advanced nothing against my position.

So where is your proof again?

I see none.

[RhetoricThug]

OHHH, I see now! Parallel mental computations obstructed by space-time compression wish to ignore this present moment. Instead, we have pages of "I'm right, you're wrong, quote X is stupid, person ABC is idiotic, argument Y is not coherent or argument Z is coherent, I win, and you lose..." conflict ad infinitum. A reflection of the human condition, truly.

I'm beginning to wonder if forum image @ingliz and forum image @Victoribus Spolia are unable to contemplate this present moment. It's staring them directly in the face (because the observer is the observed), but the observers prefer to ignore it (self-evident conception). They'd rather rearrange a collection of past thoughts and squabble like school children.

When you understand this present moment, THE ONLY MOMENT you can experience... You understand that duality is an illusion of BEING present, and you no longer concern yourself with the discord of contretemps.

For the reader, perhaps we should study the behavior of this thread. This thread is a representation of how a present moment compiles itself at runtime. On your mark, get set... GO!

Igliz sums up what is happening in this thread.

you and me both would be drowning in a sensory sea of irrelevant noise.

neither I or Berkeley deny that objects can exist apart from our own individual minds

Then you are stuck with the Indirectness problem.

See, the all-important Ingliz is armed with an all-important realization. We should take heed, a few words could quite possibly have this present moment pinned down.

Let's see how a counter program reacts

Non-Sequitur. You receive percepts as they are and as they are received. Your argument here assumes a Kantian notion of mental categories creating perceptual reality out of bare sensory mush. Which is not only unnecessary, but silly and improvable.

If anything, sensations are abstractions from the percepts as they represent the component parts of such.

Look here, through pings of the past (echo request, echo reply) an expression of consciousness, forum image Victoribus Spolia (VS), generated the future for readers of this present moment. What we're observing is a reflection of the past bouncing off a consciousness network, but that doesn't stop fragments of consciousness from rearranging abstract thoughts collected from our past (pretending to be a mental isolate). Such selective awareness (to select is to distort), illustrates how finite human perception is, especially when you consider the infinite potentiality of this present moment. VS unknowingly acknowledges this, saying sensations are abstractions from the percepts as they represent the component parts of such. Component parts of reality (this present moment) appear in this thread, as we co-generate reality on a small scale inside a technological extension of collective consciousness.

This is the language of NOW. The underlying script of consciousness running this mirror we experience as REALITY.



-Consciousness having a human experience

[ingliz]

unprovable

That cuts both ways

it originates in God

Proof? There is none.

You simply assume without evidence the truth of your claim.

Struck a nerve did I?

No.

Note that only the two of us were here.

"how not to argue against Berkeley"

It was a joke.

Are God botherers always so dour?

I see none

Well you know what they say, 'There's none so blind that cannot see'.

[RhetoricThug]

Well you know what they say, 'There's none so blind that cannot see'.

Amen. Thanks for sending us some of your finite energy. I'll return the favor by quoting your quote and affirming its validity.

Proof?

Here IT IS. Creation is proof. We're co-creating this moment.

Note there are only the two of us here.

Actually world population estimates count about 7.6 billion humans.


Forum image ingliz decided to edit his post, but he originally said something along the lines of:

Consciousness hardly counts as having been here. It just pops in, and then It is out

That's what consciousness does when it travels through the flesh.

[Victoribus Spolia]

That cuts both ways

I have demonstrated my claims.

Would you be game to be cross-examined?

I doubt it given your refusal to answer questions ask by me thus far.

Proof? There is none.

You simply assume without evidence the truth of your claim.

I gave a formal syllogism, what are you even talking about?

Are God botherers always so dour?

Perhaps.

Well you know what they say, 'There's none so blind that cannot see'.

[RhetoricThug]

I have demonstrated my claims.

Yes, you appear to exist, presently.

Would you be game to be cross-examined?

Would cross-examination provide comfort for your existential angst?

I doubt it given your refusal to answer questions ask by me thus far.

Yes, evasiveness is an attribute of consciousness.

I gave a formal syllogism, what are you even talking about?

Packet loss, lost in reflection. Try it again, persistence is another attribute of consciousness.

[B0ycey]

I gave a formal syllogism, what are you even talking about?

Your syllogism was an assumption. If someone cannot be the source of their perception, why must the source be another mind? Where is the link? Where is proof of cause?

As of yet I have seen no proof of any of your claims. I have seen no quantifiable evidence for your claims. And your claims fall into the same pitfalls of evidence you claim to be unknowable and fallacious. So Ingliz is right to highlight this.

[ingliz]

syllogism

A syllogism (Greek: συλλογισμός syllogismos, "conclusion, inference") is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two or more propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Your syllogism was an assumption. If someone cannot be the source of their perception, why must the source be another mind? Where is the link? Where is proof of cause?

Actually I gave the reason; Ex Nihil, Nihil Fit;

Something cannot give what itself does not have; mental content only exists in a mind, so matter can't give you mental content, percepts can't give you mental content, and energy can't give you mental content because non of them are conscious minds and only minds can have, and therefore give, mental content.

My argument was quite clear. This was all in the argument. You lack of analysis of what was said is your problem, not mine.

As of yet I have seen no proof of any of your claims. I have seen no quantifiable evidence for your claims. And your claims fall into the same pitfalls of evidence you claim to be unknowable and fallacious. So Ingliz is right to highlight this.

Please name the fallacies I committed and how they apply. Thanks.

Your hatred of God clouds your judgment and your rationality. You are too triggered to be of any value in assessing arguments based on validity or invalidity.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@B0ycey @ingliz

If Physical Reality in conscious-content; contra realism, the argument below follows.

Feel free to give it critique and I will respond appropriately.

Syllogism One

P1: All Physical Reality is Conscious-Content. (Demonstrated in Previous Sections)

[Established Previously Under Heading Three]

P2: All Conscious-Content is Supreme-Mind-Originating.

[Demonstrated Below]

C: All Physical Reality is Supreme Mind Originating.


Premise Two Demonstration: The physicalist or materialist assertion that a mind-independent reality might exist as the source of conscious content cannot be established because of the corollary to the old principle of reason know as, Ex Nihil, Nihil Fit. (out-of-nothing, nothing comes), the corollary being: Something cannot give what itself does not have.

Hence an unthinking, non-perceptible, who-knows-what (that some call matter) cannot be the source of conscious-content as held under the axiom, for an unthinking non-percept is not a mind and only a mind can have mental content.

A man cannot be the source of his own perceptions (as that would imply omniscience), hence, these perceptions must originate from some other mind. The objectivity presumed in human intelligibility necessitates (as a transcendental condition) that this mind be singular in essence as the source of all mental content (or else the laws of identity would become subjective or relative, which is impossible). This mind is called a Supreme Mind. This Supreme Mind, being the source of all mental content (knowledge) is therefore affirmed as being omniscient consistent with the definitions given in this thread.

Now, If the Supreme Mind is the source of all knowledge (mental content) and reality reduces to mental content, and all finite minds rely on such for both intelligibility and a meaningful (epistemologically) existence, this Supreme Mind as the source of such is therefore perfectly independent (contra mental content/reality and all finite minds which are dependent on Him). The Supreme Mind is therefore omnipotent; furthermore, that all space-time relations reduce to human mentality, and since such originates in the Supreme Mind, then this Supreme mind exists independently of, and in fact contains, all space-time relations. Hence, The Supreme Mind is also omnipresent. The Supreme Mind is Omniscient, Omnipotent, and Omnipresent. The Supreme Mind is God. Therefore, God Exists.

[B0ycey]

Actually I gave the reason; Ex Nihil, Nihil Fit;

Something cannot give what itself does not have; mental content only exists in a mind, so matter can't give you mental content, percepts can't give you mental content, and energy can't give you mental content because non of them are conscious minds and only minds can have, and therefore give, mental content.

Why? This is an assumption. The evidence suggests otherwise btw. So actually this has less worth than an assumption. It is guess work.

Nonetheless wasn't it you who said correlation is not evidence for causation?

Please name the fallacies I committed and how they apply. Thanks.

You assume a percept is a percept by perceiving. Explain perception to me. If you can trust your own perception you can trust it's results.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Why? This is an assumption. The evidence suggests otherwise btw. So actually this has less worth than an assumption. It is guess work.

Nonetheless wasn't it you who said correlation is not evidence for causation?

Correct, but where in the above argument did I make a correlation?

There is no assumption in the above, if all of reality reduces to mental content (which is proven earlier in the larger proof), then reality's origination must be explained.

If something is mental content by definition, (content of consciousness), that means that the ontological basis of its origination cannot contradict its nature, so if something is mental content and comes from something that is not a mind, that would be a contradiction.

Lets say you argue that matter is the source of mental content (including percepts); the next question to you would be; "is matter a mind?"

If you say "No", the next question would be "If its not a mind, how can it have mental content (that which exists in a mind)?"

It can't by definition.

This is not a correlation, that is a necessary inference based on definitions which are established by either prior proof or axiom.

No correlations argued from whatsoever.

You assume a percept is a percept by perceiving.

No, I don't.....even if this word-salad made any sense.

Explain perception to me.

You are aware of stuff.

If you can trust your own perception you can trust it's results.

What do you mean by results? I am not sure percepts even have "results" depending on how you define that term.

[B0ycey]

Correct, but where in the above argument did I make a correlation?

A mental mind creates mental percepts. Why? There is no causation only correlation.

There is no assumption in the above, if all of reality reduces to mental content (which is proven earlier in the larger proof), then reality's origination must be explained.

But the evidence suggests reality isn't reduced to mental content. And to assume otherwise falls under the same fallacies as believing the statement is true actually. Although Newtons laws of motion is logical evidence enough to prove that reality continues outside our mental state nonetheless.

If something is mental content by definition, (content of consciousness), that means that ontological basis of its origination cannot contradict its nature, but if something is mental content and comes from something is not a mind, that would be a contradiction.

A contradiction by definition is not a contradiction in reality. You have provided no evidence and only an assumption that mental content can only exist from another mental content. The evidence suggests external sources creates percepts. And you can do a simple test yourself to prove this to be true. Turn you lights off and read a damp book.

Lets say you argue that matter is the source of mental content (including percepts); the next question to you would be; "is matter a mind?" ...

I don't. I believe you only perceive light and never matter. Matter is energy and not an object. So there goes your shitty example.

No, I don't.....even if this word-salad made any sense.

It is quite simple VS. How are you aware what a percept is if you do not perceive it? How can God create percepts in his mind without knowing what to perceive to begin with? And why the fuck is an external mind required to create any reality to begin with?

[Victoribus Spolia]

A mental mind creates mental percepts. Why? There is no causation only correlation.

You can only have a correlation from two observed events, like when you observe cold temperatures and water being frozen and infer from that a causal relationship; both the cold temperatures and the water-being-frozen are observed in tandem (correlation) and therefore your conclusion that one causes the other is an inference based on correlation (fallacy).

The inference I argued started with the axiom of human mentality which is consciousness and conscious-content by definition.

Its validity (minds-having-mental-content) was established in that you cannot deny the axiom without contradiction. No correlations at all.

Then, it was shown that this human mentality could not be physically reduced.

Afterwards it was shown that all of what we may call physical reality was reducible to human mentality (the axiom)

Then it was argued that the aspect of human mentality (mental content) must have origination, but that origination cannot be contradictory.

There are no correlations in my argument because I did not used an empirical argument.

But the evidence suggests reality isn't reduced to mental content.

I also proved this. Would you like to go through this with me as well, because we need to cover that FIRST before my proof for God could make any sense.

And to assume otherwise falls under the same fallacies as believing the statement is true actually.

How so? please explain.

Although Newtons laws of motion is logical evidence enough to prove that reality continues outside our mental state nonetheless.

Newton's laws are not "logical evidence" because they were not based on the laws of logic; "newton's laws" are empirical evidence because they were derived from observation, which begs the question when we are discussing the source and conditions of observation (and therefore evidence) itself.

A contradiction by definition is not a contradiction in reality.

So a dog can also be a cat at the same time and in the same instance? How about a square circle?

Can two also be three?

These are contradictions in definition, show me how they are not in reality. Thanks.

The evidence suggests external sources creates percepts.

Evidence is not relevant to logic. If logic says something is impossible, then your evidence is to be rejected.

Logic proves that non-minds cannot have mental content. Full-Stop.

You have provided no evidence and only an assumption that mental content can only exist from another mental content.

We are discussing the very basis of evidence itself. The argument that mental content can only come from a mind is a logical necessity, it is irrefutable and is the only evidence I need.

The evidence suggests external sources creates percepts. And you can do a simple test yourself to prove this to be true. Turn you lights off and read a damp book.

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc/ Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.

The evidence is invalid and fallacious.

So there goes your shitty example.

The example was not addressed to you specifically, its a hypothetical that can be applied to anything.

Your response is the only thing that is "shitty"

If you have mental content; where did it come from? If the answer is anything other than a mind, you have a logical contradiction. PERIOD.

It is quite simple VS. How are you aware what a percept is if you do not perceive it?

Tautology.

How can God create percepts in his mind without knowing what to perceive to begin with?

Petito Principii, this assumes an external refernent for percepts to be intelligible, which is begging the question.

And why the fuck is an external mind required to create any reality to begin with?

Because if your own mind were the source of percepts it would require that you were pre-aware of them; and therefore omniscient.

[B0ycey]

You can only have a correlation from two observed events, like when you observe cold temperatures and water being frozen and infer from that a causal relationship; both the cold temperatures and the water-being-frozen are observed in tandem (correlation) and therefore your conclusion that one causes the other is an inference based on correlation (fallacy).

Correlation doesn't need to be observed. It just needs to have a mutual relationship.

I also proved this. Would you like to go through this with me as well, because we need to cover that FIRST before my proof for God could make any sense.

No need. That is also an assumption. And I will wait until you are published anyway before judgement.

Newton's laws are not "logical evidence" because they were not based on the laws of logic; "newton's laws" are empirical evidence because they were derived from observation, which begs the question when we are discussing the source and conditions of observation (and therefore evidence) itself.

Newton's laws are equations that have validity. So they are not assumptions and can be tested, even when tests are not being observed. Where are your equations btw?

So a dog can also be a cat at the same time and in the same instance? How about a square circle?

Can two also be three?

These are contradictions in definition, show me how they are not in reality. Thanks.

Shame you have resorted to POD tactics. Whether there is a contradictoon in reality is not determined by its defintion.

Evidence is not relevant to logic. If logic says something is impossible, then your evidence is to be rejected.

Evidence provides validity and reasoning to logic. Not the other way round. Duh!

Logic proves that non-minds cannot have mental content. Full-Stop.

Minds are required to have mental content. But the provider of content does not have to be another mind. Does a car create motion without petrol btw?

Logic suggests light. How well can you read in the dark btw?

We are discussing the very basis of evidence itself. The argument that mental content can only come from a mind is a logical necessity, it is irrefutable and is the only evidence I need.

Well good luck during peer review. It is refutable actually.

If you have mental content; where did it come from? If the answer is anything other than a mind, you have a logical contradiction. PERIOD.

Where did Gods mental content come from again during the first few days btw?

Because if your own mind were the source of percepts it would require that you were pre-aware of them; and therefore omniscient.

Good job it is light then.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Correlation doesn't need to be observed. It just needs to have a mutual relationship.

Give an example.

No need. That is also an assumption. And I will wait until you are published anyway before judgement.

Then why do you bother running your mouth if you aren't willing to have the discussion at this time?

Newton's laws are equations that have validity. So they are not assumptions and can be tested, even when tests are not being observed.

No test is logically valid as a conclusion for causation. No evidence and not test can ever prove a cause. Period.

You are using the wrong tool kit son.

Whether there is a contradictoon in reality is not determined by its defintion.

Give me an example.

Evidence provides validity and reasoning to logic. Not the other way round.

False. Evidence is unintelligible apart from logic.

A=A is the first law of logic.

All A is-not Non-A is the second law of logic.

Either A or non-A is the third law of logic.

All evidence assumes these laws, not the other way around. Don't be foolish.

Minds are required to have mental content. But the provider of content does not have to be another mind.

How can it have mental content in the first place if its not a mind?

You can't give something you do not have.

Logic suggests light. How well can you read in the dark btw?

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc; this question assumes an empirical argument (which is fallacious) and is not a deductive or logical argument.

It is refutable actually.

Show me where.

Where did Gods mental content come from again during the first few days btw?

He has all percepts, there is no other source that can be inferred.

Good job it is light then.

Light is not a mind and so it cannot have mental content, if light gave you mental content, then light is a mind and likely God.

Lets see some evidence for this....

[anarchist23]

[center-img]http://i67.tinypic.com/2qty895.jpg[/center-img]

[B0ycey]

Give an example.

Mental content creates mental percepts.

Then why do you bother running your mouth if you aren't willing to have the discussion at this time?

I don't need to. Ingliz, the great mind of philosophy and much more worthy of your opinion is doing fine without me. But sometimes I like to give him a heads up to let him know someone is reading this thread.

No test is logically valid as a conclusion for causation. No evidence and not test can ever prove a cause. Period.

You are using the wrong tool kit son.

So you cannot prove your assumption. Gotcha.

False. Evidence is unintelligible apart from logic.

A=A is the first law of logic.

All A is-not Non-A is the second law of logic.

Either A or non-A is the third law of logic.

All evidence assumes these laws, not the other way around. Don't be foolish.

To determine what A is, requires evidence.

How can it have mental content in the first place if its not a mind?

Because it is content. Although it is energy not mental and never been said to be otherwise.

You can't give something you do not have.

But you can give it something you do have. Light

Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc; this question assumes an empirical argument (which is fallacious) and is not a deductive or logical argument.

Correction. It bends you over and destroys your argument.

Show me where.

Light or A+B+C+D=E

He has all percepts, there is no other source that can be inferred.

How does he have all these percepts without mental content. You can't give something you do not have...

Light is not a mind and so it cannot have mental content, if light gave you mental content, then light is a mind and likely God.

Light does not have mental content. It creates mental content. How many times do I have to say this.

Lets see some evidence for this....

Turn you lights off and tell me what you see.

Where is your evidence btw? Where is your proof? Where are your equations?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Mental content creates mental percepts.

Tautology.

Percepts are mental content.

I don't need to. Ingliz, the great mind of philosophy and much more worthy of your opinion is doing fine without me. But sometimes I like to give him a heads up to let him know someone is reading this thread.

So you cannot prove your assumption. Gotcha.

Tests and evidence aren't deductive proofs.

They don't prove anything.

To determine what A is, requires evidence.

It requires a referent only, but that is not what you argued. You argued that scientific evidence and testing was authoritative over logic, which is absurd.

Because it is content. Although it is energy not mental and never been said to be otherwise.

Energy is itself a percept, and is thus mental content yes.

But mental content cannot be the source of mental content. That is a tautology and still a contradiction.

But you can give it something you do have. Light

That doesn't even make sense, now your just being foolish just to be annoying.

Correction. It bends you over and destroys your argument.

Trolling. Dismissed.

Light or A+B+C+D=E

Not an argument, I already addressed this crap of yours earlier.

How does he have all these percepts without mental content. You can't give something you do not have...

Percepts are mental content.

It creates mental content.

Proof?

Turn you lights off and tell me what you see.

Irrelevant, it proves nothing.

Where is your evidence btw? Where is your proof? Where are your equations?

All unnecessary, the proof I provided is sufficient and the only response I have seen to it are exercises in ignorance.

[B0ycey]

You need to prove percepts are mental concepts VS. Under A+B+C+D=E, the evidence suggests it isn't. You have yet to disprove that light is the cause of percepts and until I see evidence, equations or proof, your arguments are assumptions.

Nonetheless, if light is a percept, be kind enough to describe what is looks like to me.