A line from Berkeley...

[lifegazer]

I saw a great line as I was browsing a book about the works of George Berkeley, today:-

"To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."

Spot on Georgie boy. Even if things do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them. Therefore, the things we perceive are not real in themselves. Everything we actually see is completely unreal and is just an abstract representation of a universe.
Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.
Absolute fact.

 

[scribble]

I saw a great line as I was browsing a book about the works of George Berkeley, today:-

"To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."

Spot on Georgie boy. Even if things do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them.

We *ALL* agree!

Therefore, the things we perceive are not real in themselves. Everything we actually see is completely unreal and is just an abstract representation of a universe.
Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.
Absolute fact.

Prove it.

That's all. Put up, or shut up.

Oh, why do I bother? We'll never get you to prove it, OR shut up... this is ridiculous.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

We *ALL* agree!

You agree that if things do have existence, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them.

I then went on to say that [therefore] this means the universe (of things) we perceive exists within us and is not real in itself - because the universe of real things is distinct/separate from how they are perceived, as you agreed.

The universe (of things) we perceive is not real. It's an abstract/intangible universe existing within perception. You have agreed to this.
Join the queue for your robe and sandals.

 

[RandFan]

I saw a great line as I was browsing a book about the works of George Berkeley, today:-

"To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."

Spot on Georgie boy. Even if things do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them. Therefore, the things we perceive are not real in themselves. Everything we actually see is completely unreal and is just an abstract representation of a universe.
Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.
Absolute fact.

Just a wee little problem. We can make predictions of the things that we perceive.

To prevail in your assertion you are going to have to give a coherent model for why we can do this (as opposed to for instance our dreams where we can't predict anything).

Remember the room experiment? If I put you in there you will become hungry and thirsty and if you are not let out you will die.

Predictable.

The rule of parsimony dictates that we must accept what we see is real absent a more parsimonious and predictable model.

RandFan

 

[scribble]

Look, I had a thought I'd like to share. It's rare that I even have a thought, much less one that approaches sharability, so listen up.

I can't prove that you are wrong. Neither can I prove that materialism is true. The reason I go along acting as though materialism is true is because it's the only philosophy I've encountered that can explain why getting hit in the head with a baseball bat hurts so f-ing much, without resorting to calling me schizophrenic or otherwise insane.

That's putting it in very basic terms so anyone reading can understand, but that's really the bottom line for me.

I'm sure if I wanted to, I could make the law of parsimony argument with you (which my above example is related to but not the same as) - but the simple fact is an actual debate with your ideas can't be held until you've presented them. All we've got so far is assertions and theories that have been shown demonstrably false.

 

[scribble]

Re: Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

The universe (of things) we perceive is not real. It's an abstract/intangible universe existing within perception. You have agreed to this.
Join the queue for your robe and sandals. [/B]

No, I haven't agreed to that. I asked you to prove it. You think it follows naturally from what I did agree to, but when you actually try to spell it out, you'll find it doesn't.

The reason I'm asking you to do this instead of doing it for you is twofold:

1) Socrates would agree you could benefit from the experience.

2) You're too ignorant for me to actually debate with.

 

[Atlas]

Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.

This seems like you have cracked the door of your philosophy a bit.

Your statement suggests that you have come around to the notion that Objective Reality exists but it is experienced only as the Subjective Reality of thoughts and feelings. You may get more support with this line of reasoning.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

Just a wee little problem. We can make predictions of the things that we perceive.

Why's that a problem? All you are saying here is that our perceptions are ordered. Since I contend that what we perceive is perceived by design, I would suggest that this is more of a problem for you!

Besides, you have completely overlooked everything I have just said. Do you agree with that or not, and if not why not?

To prevail in your assertion you are going to have to give a coherent model for why we can do this (as opposed to for instance our dreams where we can't predict anything).

The construct of dreams is largely founded upon the individual's emotional disposition. The construct of conscious reality is free from such emotional considerations and hence is universal in that the laws of physics remain unaltered by our emotions.

Remember the room experiment. If I put you in there you will become hungry and thirsty and if you are not let out you will die.

As I kept trying to tell you, these things would only happen within perception. Hence my perceived body is affected by perceived ill-treatment, etc..

This ongoing debate is not about who's right and who's wrong. It's about the truth and it's about our future. If you're serious about knowing the truth, then just accept the fact that your whole life has been spent inside your own mind. You know of absolutely nothing beyond your own self, and everything within yourself is completely intangible (without objective form).

 

[Ratman_tf]

Absolute fact.

The mind's door swings firmly shut, never letting anything new in ever again.

Bravo.

 

[lifegazer]

Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

This seems like you have cracked the door of your philosophy a bit.

Your statement suggests that you have come around to the notion that Objective Reality exists but it is experienced only as the Subjective Reality of thoughts and feelings. You may get more support with this line of reasoning.

All I have done is given you the starting-point of my philosophy. The conclusion towards God and the exclusion of an external reality is what follows this. But the reason I have done this is to try and get a reasonable foothold. The question by upchurch, for example, in the upchurch's-question thread is just silly, as I stated yesterday. In truth, this thread probably stems from the silliness of that question. What I aim to do here is convince you all of the intangibleness of your perceived reality.

 

[Interesting Ian]

I saw a great line as I was browsing a book about the works of George Berkeley, today:-

"To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."

Are you claiming Berkeley said this sentence?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: A line from Berkeley...

Are you claiming Berkeley said this sentence?

Actually I just checked up. Berkeley does indeed say this, but only through the mouthpiece of the opponent of immaterialism i.e Hylas in the Dialogues.

Berkeley's true position is diametrically opposed to this utterance.

 

[lifegazer]

Are you claiming Berkeley said this sentence?

I have a book here: Everyman... George Berkelely, philosophical works, including the works on vision.

From the first of the three dialogues between Hylas and Philonous, on page 138:-
Hylas: "To exist is one thing, and to be perceived is another."

 

[lifegazer]

Actually I just checked up. Berkeley does indeed say this, but only through the mouthpiece of the opponent of immaterialism i.e Hylas in the Dialogues.

Berkeley's true position is diametrically opposed to this utterance.

Not that it would matter either way to me (since I am not opposed to this utterance), I would like to know why you think Berkeley is opposed to this utterance.

Edit: Also, I'd like to know why you are opposed to this "utterance". How can the things we perceive be the reality of those things?

 

[Krandal2]

Lifegazer

I agree with you that an object and the perception of an object are two seperate things, that is, that there must be aspects of objects that we cant percieve, and in turn, things we percieve about objects that have no correlation to the object itself.
But it seems to me that your conclusion of "if things do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them" leads to a contradiction for If a perciever has absolutly no connection to what is percieved than how is he to percieve anything in the first place. In other words, while there may be a gap between the observer and the observed, it cannot be total, for otherwise observation is impossible.

But perhaps I am taking you to literally.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Lifegazer said:
Everything we actually see is completely unreal and is just an abstract representation of a universe.
Thus, the universe we actually experience IS WITHIN US AND IS UNREAL.

I believe a better statement would be "Thus, the experience of our universe is within us and is unreal." I don't think you can infer that the universe is within us.

~~ Paul

 

[scribble]

Not that it would matter either way to me (since I am not opposed to this utterance), I would like to know why you think Berkeley is opposed to this utterance.

Edit: Also, I'd like to know why you are opposed to this "utterance". How can the things we perceive be the reality of those things?

The quote you rendered could be taken the way you mean it, out of context. It could equally be taken to mean that things exist, yet our perceptions of them vary. To assume things exist is of course, the opposite of what you mean.

It might help to not be so ignorant. Then again, it might not help your position any.

 

[lifegazer]

But it seems to me that your conclusion of "if things do exist, their existence is distinct/separate from how we perceive them" leads to a contradiction for If a perciever has absolutly no connection to what is percieved than how is he to percieve anything in the first place. In other words, while there may be a gap between the observer and the observed, it cannot be total, for otherwise observation is impossible.

There is nothing tangible or real that exists within perception. The reality of the things (if indeed there is a reality of those things), resides beyond our sensations of them. It's seemingly impossible to argue against this, imo... and I was pleased to see you agree with me.
You say that this leads to a contradiction - that there must be a connection between the thing that is perceived and the thing itself. But that connection is simply one of knowhow. I.e., the creation of an abstract representation of "a thing" simply requires the will & knowhow to create abstract sensations in such a way as to mirror things against things within those sensations.
A mind doesn't require direct contact with a thing in order to create the abstract awareness of a thing. Check-out your dreams and fantasies for confirmation of this.

 

[lifegazer]

I believe a better statement would be "Thus, the experience of our universe is within us and is unreal." I don't think you can infer that the universe is within us.

~~ Paul

Why not? Tell this forum (and me) of any knowledge you have gleaned of the universe beyond your perception.

 

[scribble]

I'd like to apologize for calling you ignorant, lifegazer. I shouldn't do that - you're obviously very excited about philosophy and once you learn more, you might have a lot to contribute.