Laurel or Yanny? - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

What do you hear?

Laurel
18
69%
Yanny
8
31%
#14915727
@Saeko,

maybe if you have getting skull-fucked in the ear somewhere in your history. But for the rest of us, its yanny.
By B0ycey
#14915728
Who has denied the reality of the world VS? Not me. Perhaps we have reached an impass. We agree on the same thing but with different conclusions. I can't say I have read Berkeley for quite some time. And even then it was mostly snippets. I accept immaterialism for what it is, but not Berkeleys conclusion. The same can be applied with you post towards me. The table is only real because we perceive it as real. Without perception it is just empty space and energy. Energy is the deity Berkeley should have looked for. Not religion.
User avatar
By Rancid
#14915731
Saeko wrote:IT'S LAUREL YOU FILTHY BARBARIANS! LAUREL! >:

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!


NO

PENIS!
#14915732
B0ycey wrote:Who has denied the reality of the world VS? Not me.


Sure you did, when you said this:

B0ycey wrote:Nothing we perceive is real. Our minds create the universe around us. It is that simple.


B0ycey wrote:Perhaps we have reached an impass.


Only if you refuse to engage, there is no impasse about it. Berkeley's system is theistic at the structural level (not merely as a conclusion). That is the fact of the matter. The system does not work without the Theistic aspect. At all.

B0ycey wrote:I can't say I have read Berkeley for quite some time....And even then it was mostly snippets.


Clearly.

as for me?

I taught a 17 week class on Berkeley for grad students.

B0ycey wrote:I accept immaterialism for what it is, but not Berkeleys conclusion.


I don't understand this.

B0ycey wrote:The table is only real because we perceive it as real.


esse est percipi correct, but you are missing: aut percipere which is the full doctrine and is why God is necessary.

B0ycey wrote:Without perception it is just empty space and energy.


Actually, there is nothing, not even energy and space, it cannot be known to exist unless it is perceived or necessary for perception itself (such as the existence of minds).

B0ycey wrote:Energy is the deity Berkeley should have looked for.


What the fuck? Phenomenal states are conscious content, only a Consciousness can have conscious content and energy is not consciousness so it cannot be the origination of conscious content (phenomenal states).

Energy, if not directly perceived, falls under the same category as matter. Something that is not perceiving cannot be the grounds or origination of reality, the phenomenal world.

All that exists is either perceived or perceiving.
User avatar
By noemon
#14915735
I can hear Laurel very clearly, wtf is all about with yanny?

Are you yanny guys taking the piss or something?
By B0ycey
#14915738
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Sure you did, when you said this:


please don't do a 'One Degree' and confuse the word perception with reality. I expect better from you.


Only if you refuse to engage, there is no impasse about it. Berkeley's system is theistic at the structural level (not merely as a conclusion). That is the fact of the matter. The system does not work without the Theistic aspect. At all.


Of course it does. Change God with Energy.

The rest I can't be bothered with. Too busy. Perhaps another day.
User avatar
By noemon
#14915740
And the dress is white & gold, the blue is a different dress which looks blue and black cause that one is blue & black while the white and gold is white and gold.
#14915742
I heard “yory” when one of the teenagers shoved her phone in my face and made me listen.

But is also sounded a bit like a cat in a bagpipe bladder getting crushed.
User avatar
By noemon
#14915764
If you turn the speakers all the way down or get some really shitty ones and you really believe you might hear some yoer indeed.
#14915857
B0ycey wrote:please don't do a 'One Degree' and confuse the word perception with reality. I expect better from you.


Except in Berkeley perception is reality.

So this is important.

This is the same as saying that the phenomenal world, phenomena themselves, are reality.

They are the same thing.

Note:

Percepts = Perceptual Objects = Identifiable Bundles of Sensation = Phenomena.

Esse Est Percepi = The Phenomenal World is The Real World

Thus, that which is perceived is the real; whereas, you said that which was perceived was not real.

What makes something real is that it is in fact perceived.

To be perceived is to exist in a mind

B0ycey wrote:Of course it does. Change God with Energy.


You cannot unless "energy" is unperceived and is only perceiving. I doubt you would claim this. Perceptual reality can only originate from a Supreme Mind as only a mind can have percepts.

If you want to call this Supreme Mind "energy" ok, sure. Its silly, but the conclusion is the same. There is a supreme mind (which is necessarily Trinitarian as well, logically speaking) that is the source of all of our perceptions (reality).

call Him energy all you want. :lol:

Just be sure to capitalize the "E"

;)
By B0ycey
#14915878
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Except in Berkeley perception is reality.

So this is important.

This is the same as saying that the phenomenal world, phenomena themselves, are reality.

They are the same thing.

Note:

Percepts = Perceptual Objects = Identifiable Bundles of Sensation = Phenomena.

Esse Est Percepi = The Phenomenal World is The Real World

Thus, that which is perceived is the real; whereas, you said that which was perceived was not real.

What makes something real is that it is in fact perceived.

To be perceived is to exist in a mind



You cannot unless "energy" is unperceived and is only perceiving. I doubt you would claim this. Perceptual reality can only originate from a Supreme Mind as only a mind can have percepts.

If you want to call this Supreme Mind "energy" ok, sure. Its silly, but the conclusion is the same. There is a supreme mind (which is necessarily Trinitarian as well, logically speaking) that is the source of all of our perceptions (reality).

call Him energy all you want. :lol:

Just be sure to capitalize the "E"

;)


When I said I have read snippets of Berkerley, it was in part of peoples analysis of his work. Their interpretation, something that I agree with, is perception is not real. Well I agree. I accept immaterialism under my own terms. That is not to say reality doesn't exist. Of course it does. We live it. But our peception of reality is different to each other because our minds tell us what to think by interpreting energy. Berkerley however thought God was needed to tell us what to perceive as the science didn't exist at the time. Now we know (and can prove) differently.

Nonetheless to keep you happy I will concede I am not Berkeleyan. I just accept his methology but not his conclusion.
User avatar
By Godstud
#14915882
Laurel, obviously. Anyone thinking it's Yanny, is wrong. :D
#14915890
B0ycey wrote:Berkerley however thought God was needed to tell us what to perceive as the science didn't exist at the time.


Berkeley argued God was logically necessary if reality could be demonstrated as phenomenal. Likewise, his system utterly precludes any system of science which would dare to disagree as fundamentally irrational. Such can be easily demonstrated.

B0ycey wrote:Nonetheless to keep you happy I will concede I am not Berkeleyan.


Good. Thanks.

B0ycey wrote:I just accept his methology but not his conclusion.


If you actually followed his methodology you would have to accept his conclusions. They are logically inseparable.

Perhaps when you "have more time," I will show you why.
By B0ycey
#14915892
Victoribus Spolia wrote:
Perhaps when you "have more time," I will show you why.


My time would be in regards to you receiving a reply. Your time is needed to show me why. I find Berkeley fascinating. I am open to any view on his work so will digest anything you write. I doubt we will agree nonetheless.
#14915900
B0ycey wrote:My time would be in regards to you receiving a reply. Your time is needed to show me why. I find Berkeley fascinating.


Well, I don't like posts sitting for long periods unanswered, especially when the trolls come out to feed.

B0ycey wrote:I find Berkeley fascinating. I am open to any view on his work so will digest anything you write.


That is a good attitude to have, the Berkeleyan system is quite amazing and there are other Berkeleyan thinkers worth reading as well, but you should definitely read the Three Dialogues. They are short and easy to read, but represent the core system.

However, whatever you want to know in the meantime (until you are more available to have our "discussion") feel free to ask. I know Immaterialism/Phenomenal Idealism inside and out.

B0ycey wrote:I doubt we will agree nonetheless.


Don't poison the well so soon. If you are committed to reason then this sort of topic will leave neither of us many options. Either the strong claims of Berkeley are necessarily true, or they are not.

There is no alternative.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

The "Russian empire" story line is inve[…]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]