- 18 May 2018 16:47
#14915905
I will follow your advice and read the three dialogues VS. It will be the next thing I read.
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
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
Potemkin wrote:It is here, however, that modern science parts company with the good Bishop Berkeley - there does not seem to be an all-perceiving deity whose perception of the phenomenal world ensures its self-consistency and continued existence. Unless, of course, you regard the probability wave of the entire Universe as existing in the mind of God...
Victoribus Spolia wrote:Well, it seems to me that modern science has less in common with Berkeley than you insinuate.
For one, to say that the reality is augmented by perception is not the same as saying it does not exist except in the perceiving mind. Berkeley's position makes a much stronger claim. There is no epistemic (and therefore metaphysical) reality independent of being perceived and perceiving. "probability waves" and other such must either be perceptually detectable or be a mind themselves; otherwise, they cannot be the source of mental content for only a mind can have mental content.
Anything else is ad hoc, which is why Berkeley's system is Occamist.
Likewise modern science still seems content with assuming causation between perceptual objects, which is absolutely denied by Berkeley.
Berkeley even rejected that the brain had any relation to the mind whatsoever except mere correlation. The brain, for Berkeley, could not be logically shown to have anything to do with thought.
Philosophy of Mind has more-or-less shown him to be right in this regards as well.
Potemkin wrote:Probability waves are merely a heuristic algorithm to enable scientists to perform calculations and make predictions concerning what they can observe. In no sense are they metaphysically 'real', independent of any perceiving or thinking human mind.
Potemkin wrote:Modern science (unlike, say, Aristotelian science) is not logically based on the concept of causality, but is based on abstract mathematical rules to which the phenomenal world seems to conform (eg, in Newton's 2nd law of motion, F=ma, which causes which? - does the force cause the acceleration or does the acceleration cause the force? Neither the force nor the acceleration are logically or temporally prior to each other, but both occur simultaneously). The concept of 'causality' only appears in Einstein's theory of relativity as a rule-based constraint on the behaviour of physical systems.
Potemkin wrote:It is logically impossible to prove that the brain (a physical object) 'causes' thoughts (an abstract mental concept). To try to do so is to commit a category error. At best, we can demonstrate a correlation between 'brain events' and 'mind events', which is good enough for most people. This is, of course, just another example of the philosophical sloppiness of most scientists.
B0ycey wrote:I have got through the first dialogue and I can tell you now VS, I am going to continue to maintain my view on Berkeley.
B0ycey wrote:Without the benefit of hindsight, there was no way of knowing energy was stored in matter back in the 18th century. And we also know matter is mostly empty space.
B0ycey wrote: Colour doesn't exist. Pain doesn't exist. Heat is a concept our brains perceive.
B0ycey wrote:Nonetheless it is clear you are an absolutist and will devoid yourself of reasonable debate. So natually you will only accept his version of events. And that is fair for a man of faith.
B0ycey wrote:But I will continue to the end to see how we need a third person (God) to create the universe around us nonetheless. But that will be tomorrow.
B0ycey wrote:I quite enjoyed your post VS.
B0ycey wrote:I might re-read what I read.
B0ycey wrote:But I still don't see the need for a third person when it comes to perception.
It wouldn't be so bad if blue collar folks were willing to learn (they usually aren't) and liberals were willing to be cordial with conservatives (they usually aren't)
Potemkin wrote:Modern science (unlike, say, Aristotelian science) is not logically based on the concept of causality, but is based on abstract mathematical rules to which the phenomenal world seems to conform (eg, in Newton's 2nd law of motion, F=ma, which causes which? - does the force cause the acceleration or does the acceleration cause the force? Neither the force nor the acceleration are logically or temporally prior to each other, but both occur simultaneously). The concept of 'causality' only appears in Einstein's theory of relativity as a rule-based constraint on the behaviour of physical systems.
Potemkin wrote:It is logically impossible to prove that the brain (a physical object) 'causes' thoughts (an abstract mental concept). To try to do so is to commit a category error. At best, we can demonstrate a correlation between 'brain events' and 'mind events', which is good enough for most people. This is, of course, just another example of the philosophical sloppiness of most scientists.
Rugoz wrote::eh: Since when are there no equations of motion in physics?
Unless of course the brain events precede the mind events.
Potemkin wrote:How does that follow from what I said? Equations of motion have nothing to do with causality in and of themselves.
Potemkin wrote:With respect, you seem to be missing the point. There is a serious philosophical problem with trying to prove that brain events cause mental events. It is in fact a category error. Physical events can only cause other physical events.
Rugoz wrote:Time only moves in one direction, so yes.
I suppose by mental events you mean "thoughts"? If there's a perfect correlation between brain events and thoughts and the former precede the latter that pretty much establishes causation (obviously never 100% since the data is finite).
Naturally you can always claim there's some hidden unobservable variable that is perfectly correlated with the brain events and actually causes the thoughts. But such a claim would be pointless.
Potemkin wrote:Causality involves more than just the fact that time moves from the past to the future, Rugoz.
Potemkin wrote:I agree, but the problem still remains - a physical cause can never be proven to have led to a mental effect, for logical reasons. It's a category error. Physical causes can only have physical effects.
Potemkin wrote:No, it doesn't. It establishes correlation but not causality, and can never do so.
Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]