Laurel or Yanny? - Page 3 - 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%
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14915933
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

Indeed. This is, after all, essentially what we mean when we say that something is 'real' - we mean that we have observed it, or could in principle observe it. Whatever we cannot observe even in principle cannot be real, but is merely an artifact of our mental model of the world, an abstraction with no substance. And in fact, even what we can observe seems to lack what we call 'reality' when we are not perceiving it. Modern science seems to bear this out - when we observe the location of an electron, we find it at a definite (though random) location, but in between observations it has only a tendency to exist at any definite location (which is mathematically described by a probability wave propagating through space and time). 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.... :)
#14915942
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...


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.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14915960
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. ;)
By B0ycey
#14915997
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.

Philonous is correct in his assessment and gives great examples of perception through our senses, but Hylas is a useless idiot who isn't asking the right questions. 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. So nothing is going to change. Colour doesn't exist. Pain doesn't exist. Heat is a concept our brains perceive. Philonous is correct there. So our reality is what we perceive it to be. But it is looking like I am going to agree with others assessments on Berkeley's work I read a few years back that has created my personal philosophical throught on reality today - and that is going to differ to Berkeley's final conclusion I suspect. 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. 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.
By B0ycey
#14916000
I am saying it's both. Of course you are correct that it us meant to be Laurel, but if you hear Yanny, what makes your perception less superior over someone who hears Laurel?
#14916672
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.


Then I would say they are ad hoc and I have no reason to impute to them any reality. Technically speaking, fairies were once as a heuristic device to explain the change of seasons, and I have no reason to care about them either. If anything, fairies would be more interesting.

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.


I think that depends, are physical conditions ever said to be the necessary grounds of other physical conditions? If so, then causality is erroneously inferred from sequential or correlative observations. That is my point.

Scientific journals often refer to the brain as the cause of human thought and will go round-and-round trying to explain which lobe or synapse causes which sensation or sentiment. This is rationally erroneous, and the same sort of things exist in every field from meterology to astro-physics. Don't even get me started on evolution, which is literally impossible without physical causation.

Now, you may say that "technically" scientists do know that there is no physical causation, but the fact that most scientists hold to some variation of physicalism and/or naturalism as their metaphysic tells me they speak with forked tongues. Neither naturalism or physicalism can obtain without the assumption of physical causes and the existence of mind-independent substance.

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.


Agreed completely. Once again, this is why I believe Berkeley is ultimately correct.

What implications this may or may not have for the possiblity of the Marxist metaphysic should probably be discussed sometime, for it seems that a monistic materialism was the grounds of dialectical materialism in Marxist thought, especially if we read Stalin's characterization of the situation.

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.


That would be a mistake if you want to be taken seriously. Though, before I pass too harsh a judgment, let me just say, that the work is called "the three dialogues" for a reason. The fact that you view Hylas as a useful idiot is proof that you need to read further, for Berkeley does give him the upper hand for a bit later on. This is important, for Berkeley will have to have argue (through Philonous) that his position does not lead to skepticism and relativism. He does this masterfully and the existence of God is the keystone of the whole system.

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.


Define Matter.

If you mean entities that can be perceived through the use of instruments, that is not what Berkeley is denying. Berkeley is denying the existence of mind-independent substance.

Matter for Berkeley is by definition not only unperceived, but imperceptible (it cannot ever be perceived for it underlies perception itself). Berkeley is not talking about atoms per se.

If energy or atoms can be perceived or measured, they are not what Berkeley was talking about.

The philosophical conception of matter being addressed here is something which is by definition: unperceived, non-perceiving, irreducibly basic, and metaphysically fundamental.


Berkeley is attacking the above definition.

Berkeley is also addressing the distinction between metaphysics and epistemology as an empiricist (he is greatly critiquing Locke here), in that he is demonstrating that if we believe that which is perceived by our sense is real, then we cannot have a philosophical distinction between what is real and what is known.

For Berkeley, if something is by definition unknowable, then it is by definition unreal. The perceived and the directly inferred from perception (as long as such is either perceived or perceiving) are the only things that can be known to exist, thus they are the only things that can logically be said to exist with any rational certainty (and are thus the only things which are philosophically relevant).

B0ycey wrote: Colour doesn't exist. Pain doesn't exist. Heat is a concept our brains perceive.


Not brains. Berkeley denies the brains had anything to do with thought whatsoever, and he is correct. brains are percepts themselves, they are not minds nor can they be demonstrated be such (logically speaking). This actually gets addressed in the Dialogues where Philonous proves that the brain is not the mind, just a correlated object we perceive in conjunction to our perceiving.

Also, Berkeley did not deny that "color exists" or "pain exists" He argues that color and pain are non independent of the mind, they exist only in the mind. This is a big difference.

Keep in mind, Berkeley believes his position is the common sense view of any average farmer or peasant. He is not trying to make the case for some sort of psuedo-mysticism grounded in a convoluted background in quantum physics. He is trying to defend what he believes is the everyday view of things, that what we perceive is real on the basis that we perceive it and that its surety as knowledge is grounded in divine origin.

He is attacking Locke, Descartes, and others who claim that the perceived is unreal, a mere representation, and that the "real thing" is that which is not perceived and that this unperceived "hidden reality" is the real cause of all things. He is attacking the odd-claim that the truly real is the technically unknowable.

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.


This is an ad-hominem caricature if there ever was one.

I am not an absolutist when its comes Berkeley, but to be a Berkeleyan I believe you must accurately hold to his fundamental positions, if you do not you should not take the title ( I think this is entirely fair).

Indeed, I go further than Berkeley on several points: For instance, I am more of an occasionalist than Berkeley, I believe more information about God can be necessarily inferred than Berkeley does (both ideas I took from the latter immaterialist, Jonathan Edwards), and I would also view the Master Argument as limited and not the best proof for the position (here taking the mantle of other later immaterialists), and that the two fundamental categories should be minds and mental content (consciousness and conscious-content) and not merely perceived and perceiving (which follow the late John Foster's thought and are more semantic in nature). I will articulate what are the fundamental points to be assumed by anyone who regards themselves a Berkeleyan at the bottom of this post.

But first, a reading list:

Besides Berkeley, you should also read:

All the later 17th and early-mid 18th century Immaterialists:

1. Jonathan Edwards: "On The Mind" "Of Being"
2. Stephen Collier's "Clavis Universalis"
3. Samuel Johnson's "Elementa Philosophica"

Early-mid twentieth century:

4. A.A. Luce's Sense Without Matter.

late twentieth and early 21st century:

5. John Foster's The Case for Idealism
6. John Foster's A World For Us: The Case for Phenomenalistic Idealism
7. John Foster's The Immaterial Self: A Defense of The Cartesian Dualist Conception of The Mind.
8. John Foster's The Divine Lawmaker.

As far as what makes one a Berkeleyan Immatialist (that all of the above men are), the following list are the fundamentals:

1. The denial of the existence of anything that is mind-independent by definition.
2. The admission of only two fundamental metaphysical categories: minds and mental content.
3. The denial of physical causes and therefore any system of naturalism or physicalism.
4. The affirmation of the Existence of the Supreme Mind as the causal grounds for objectivity, universal laws, the source of mental content, and the solution to the problem of solipsism.
5. The denial of any scientific belief that is ad hoc and cannot be said to be based on either direct perception or necessary inference, while not contradicting the above points 1-4. [Note: this takes a machete to modern science and makes one very skeptical of contemporary theories on just about everything).

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.


Yes, there is a metaphysical necessity for God according to Berkeley unless you are content to a be Humean skeptic or a solipsist (neither of which is tenable).

I will eagerly await your final analysis, and then if you still disagree, I would love to debate the matter with you. ;)

Happy Hunting.
#14916724
B0ycey wrote:I quite enjoyed your post VS.


Thank you.

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.


Read all three dialogues, then I will ask you some questions to show you why God is necessary according to Berkeley's logic and why the alternative positions (skepticism/solipsism) are untenable.

If you are willing, I will show you down the rabbit-hole.

Imagevia Imgflip Meme Generator
By Oxymandias
#14916768
@Victoribus Spolia

Wow, Vicky! All the liberals are taking a liking to you (which is surprising given that you're probably more far-right than most people on this forum are willing to admit to be)! You should give yourself a pat on the back.
#14916780
*PATS BACK*

:lol:

I went out to eat with a sales guy the other week and he told me he could guess my political views.

He said that he thought I was a liberal "because of how intellectual and articulate you are and how well you listen and consider other viewpoints."

Then I told him my views.

He was mortified.

I don't think he will be taking me out to lunch anymore. :hmm:

This is analogous to the situation you observed to be honest.

Liberals enjoy talking to me and respect my learning, but they loathe my views and hold out hope that I will change my ways. :lol:

Some of them also respect my consistency.

An atheist friend of mine with whom I had several serious public debates once told me I was the most consistent pro-lifer he ever met because of my view on contraception.

He also moderated a debate between me and an Objectivist one time and in his introduction to the debate said that my position was the most secular sounding approach to a fanatically religious position he had ever heard given its commitment to logical rigor."

I took that as a compliment as well.

This is part of the reason I feel out of place everywhere.

I relate with the more conservative rural working class and practice many of their skills and traditions, but I share a passion for academics with urban cosmopolitians who tend to be liberal but who also entirely lack common-sense or a sound morality.

Its frustrating really. Kinda lonely too.

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)

Oh well....I enjoy my wife, she is a wonderful intellectual companion and I will enjoy training my kids both on the farm and in the class room.

That will have to be good enough for now.

Though I would not hesitate to include @B0ycey and @Oxymandias on a shortlist of those I would invite to meet in person and have stay on my farm for a weekend of feasting, drinking, and debating.

There are a couple of others on that list too. They know who they are. ;)
By Oxymandias
#14916810
@Victoribus Spolia

That's actually one of the reasons I like you more than other conservatives, because you're both consistent and you don't try to sugar-coat your ideology as something enlightening or liberating. You see a lot of conservatives these days pretending that their beliefs are somehow liberal and completely compatible with what is currently considered "Western civilization" despite their beliefs being completely opposed to that of what they consider to be Western civilization (i.e. a beacon of enlightenment values and freedom). You, unlike other conservatives, are honest about this fact and don't try to create the false illusion that you're the real liberal or something because nowadays, being liberal is like a status symbol as the guy who is carrying the torch of Western civilization so everyone wants to be a liberal or pretends to be one.

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)


In Iran you have that in the intellectual spheres. Conservatives and liberals alike are more communicative of one another than their American counterparts (though to organize Iranians into conservatives and liberals is kinda useless when you consider how different political thought is compared to America).
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14916857
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.


:eh: Since when are there no equations of motion in physics?


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. ;)


Unless of course the brain events precede the mind events.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14916860
Rugoz wrote::eh: Since when are there no equations of motion in physics?

How does that follow from what I said? Equations of motion have nothing to do with causality in and of themselves.

Unless of course the brain events precede the mind events.

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.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14916867
Potemkin wrote:How does that follow from what I said? Equations of motion have nothing to do with causality in and of themselves.


Time only moves in one direction, so yes.

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.


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.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#14916869
Rugoz wrote:Time only moves in one direction, so yes.

Causality involves more than just the fact that time moves from the past to the future, Rugoz.

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).

No, it doesn't. It establishes correlation but not causality, and can never do so.

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.

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.
User avatar
By Rugoz
#14916875
Potemkin wrote:Causality involves more than just the fact that time moves from the past to the future, Rugoz.


Assuming the equation of motion is a true description of the world, the causation when moving forward in time is clear.

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.


How are thoughts not a physical effect? If I hurt you and you think "ouch" the causation is pretty clear.

Potemkin wrote:No, it doesn't. It establishes correlation but not causality, and can never do so.


According to you causation can never be proven ever, so we might as well stop talking about it.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

@JohnRawls Why do you think that? If you wer[…]

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

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

I (still) have a dream

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