Thanks, Humanity, for your post. It clarifies some points of which I had been a little unclear. Yes, I do ascribe consciousness to all matter. Well, not really. I just like the way that sounds, the shock value of it when most people associate consciousness with its human instance.

I base my proposition on a rather simple premise. All knowledge is memory and comes through experience. Experience cannot occur unless (1) something experiences and (2) something is experienced. Both these elements of experience must exist before an experience can occur. Human consciousness is I think one instance of "something that experiences." But human consciousness is a very complex and sophisticated instance of "something that experiences," while with reference to the process of experience, that-which-experiences is a much broader category of phenomena, and experience is a vast, indeed universal, process.

I am not assigning any divine properties to experience or existence, although I personally understand how such an association can be conceived. Check out my blog entries at this site for further details about my ideas, and we can discuss them without taking this thread too much off subject. Samm

I don't quite get the emphasis on what Berkeley's theory was exactly, and whether it was logically disproven. If you were trying to answer the same question that Berkeley was, would your answer be closer to his or to Johnson's?

The fact that the theory is internally consistent and can't be disproved is not that problematical.


Originally Posted by Bertrand Russell
There is no logical impossibility in the supposition that the whole of life is a dream, in which we ourselves create all the objects that come before us.
But although this is not logically impossible, there is no reason whatever to suppose that it is true; and it is, in fact, a less simple hypothesis, viewed as a means of accounting for the facts of our own life, than the common-sense hypothesis that there really are objects independent of us, whose action on us causes our sensations.

aka: *Kicks stone*-- "I refute it thus"

This is why I find books discussing the problems of philosophy much more interesting than books discussing the history of philosophers.

In one sense it must be admitted that we can never prove the existence of things other than ourselves and our experiences.

The 'idealist principle' as you call it does not suppose that objects spring into existence when they are observed, and dissappear when they are not. It doesn't suppose that prior to the evolution of H Sapiens, the moon and everything in the skies did not exist. It does posit 'Mind' as an abstract principle, as well as the specific instance which is instantiated in humans. This is a theistic or deist concept.

The argument you keep referring to of 'the moon predates our mind and therefore idealism is false' is not therefore a refutation of idealism. It is an indication that you have not correctly understood the idealist viewpoint. To do so requires an understanding of Mind in the abstract, I would suggest.

But that does not mean that whether stones exist is up to people.

If it is not up to peole, then it is up to what?
God or some supernatural being??

I agree.

I disagree. If solidity is only a necessary condition, and not a sufficient one, then you would be committing a logical fallacy if you tried to 'prove' that a stone is a material object, thus:

If something is a material object, it is solid.
This stone is solid.
Therefore, this stone is a material object.

Clearly an invalid argument.



Yes. Forget about kicking stones; this seems a much stronger argument in favour of realism. (I am aware of the Kantian counter-argument that pre-existing objects only prove "common-sense" realism and not "philosophical" realism; but I don't fully understand it.)

I don't quite get the emphasis on what Berkeley's theory was exactly, and whether it was logically disproven. If you were trying to answer the same question that Berkeley was, would your answer be closer to his or to Johnson's?

The fact that the theory is internally consistent and can't be disproved is not that problematical.



aka: *Kicks stone*-- "I refute it thus"

This is why I find books discussing the problems of philosophy much more interesting than books discussing the history of philosophers.

In other words, the idealists basically do not have a grasp of reality. Very tactfully put, Ken, but I can assure you, we are quite sane. It is what you call 'reality' that is crazy.:bigsmile:

The whole issue is that the idealist view is basically a spiritual or religious outlook, in a philosophical rather than a dogmatic sense. And in 'this secular age' there is something about it which simply does not add up or make sense. Generally, analytic and modern philosophers simply do not have a spiritual outlook. They are most comfortable with logical analysis, language, maths, science, and so on.

In Secular Philosophy and the Religious Temperament , Thomas Nagel says that a basic question of religion in the broader (and not specifically Christian) sense is: how can one bring into one's individual life a full recognition of one's relationship to the universe as a whole? He then discusses the various secular responses to that question, starting with analytic philosophers. He says he finds that most of them are simply devoid of the religious temperament, and that they cannot take seriously the thought that something is missing from the world as it is given to the senses. The most perfect examplar of this is, he thinks, David Hume, who is someone 'perfectly free from the religious impulse'.

So one possible secular stance is 'Take life as you find it, and try to play the hand that you have been dealt by the contingencies of biology, culture and history. It is possible to go far beyond these boundaries in the pursuit of pure understanding, but all such understanding will be essentially scientific.... The sense that religious belief confers on everything is entirely gratuitous - an unnecessary add-on whose removal leaves no gap to be filled (e.g. 'commit it to the flames...')

Someone who takes this point of view can regard it as a legitimate philosophical task to try and make sense of human life from within - to have something systematic to say...about the good life. But it will not seem intelligible to try and make sense of human existence altogether'.

Now this rebirth of interest in idealism is one thing that came out of the 60's - exactly this thirst for a 'new paradigm', a spiritual renewal through philosophy and spirituality, rather than through downtown Christian evangelism.

This is where I am coming from, and it is a big movement, not in terms of numbers, but in terms of impact.

Indeed, it is the Next Big Thing.

The 'idealist principle' as you call it does not suppose that objects spring into existence when they are observed, and dissappear when they are not. It doesn't suppose that prior to the evolution of H Sapiens, the moon and everything in the skies did not exist. It does posit 'Mind' as an abstract principle, as well as the specific instance which is instantiated in humans. This is a theistic or deist concept.

The argument you keep referring to of 'the moon predates our mind and therefore idealism is false' is not therefore a refutation of idealism. It is an indication that you have not correctly understood the idealist viewpoint. To do so requires an understanding of Mind in the abstract, I would suggest.

I did not say that, of course. No one is an Idealist when not in a philosophy setting. All I meant is that the attraction of Idealism nowadays, needs an explanation, both because it, of course, deviates from how people are outside of the philosophical setting, but also, because it is fairly recent change in philosophical direction among mostly younger people who used to be (say before World War 2) philosophical Realists.

I am pleased we are starting to understand one another. It has taken some doing.

You will have to make me understand what esse est percipi means, unless it implies that the mind predates the existence of the Moon. A counter-example not refuting an hypothesis is a very different thing from a counter-example not being permitted to refute an hypothesis (by those who maintain the hypothesis). "By their fruits shall ye know them".

the latest modern sciences and others, i.e. Physics & QM, Neuroscience, Cognitive Neuroscience, Neuropsychology, Neurophilosophy, evolutionary biology, evolutionary psychology, linguistics and the likes.

The concept of mind-interdependence had been brought up the the ancients, Greeks, Eastern philosophies, etc. There is also a sudden surge in what is apparently Idealism, because these ancient philosophies could reconcile (in term of a mind-interdependent reality) with the modern sciences listed above.

I doubt a leopard will ever change its spots.

Speaking from the viewpoint of traditional Western philosophy, all these lines of argument go back to the ancient idea that the universe is arranged intelligibly; and that the intelligible arrangement seems in a very real sense to precede the manner in which things actually develop (for the simple reason, that were this order not already existing, nothing whatever could develop. Something which is, of course, at odds with Darwinism.)

Perhaps this sounds like a roundabout way of saying 'God did it' but this is actually more Greek than Biblical (but of course, Christian doctrine absorbed both). In any case, the ancients had an intuitive idea that the workings of the individual mind somehow mirrored that of the divine intelligence - the idea of 'the rational soul in an intelligible universe', which I maintain is the essence of the Western philosophical tradition. In this traditional understanding, taken to its highest expression in the ancient world by Plotinus, the mind (which is really much more like the Soul) is kin to the World-Soul.

Now I am not going to present a winning argument at this point. All I will say is that, springing from this traditional heritage of Platonic idealism, there was the notion of 'Nous' or 'Divine Intelligence', which is Mind in the abstract: not this or that mind. That, I think, is key to understanding Berkeley's notion of 'Absolute Mind' and the key to understanding his esse est percipe. The percipe is not an attribute only of this or that mind. It is a much more, shall we say, esoteric depiction of the idea. Now I have said before, I don't actually wish to declare that I think Berkeley's idea true or false: but I think this is a more accurate depiction of his doctrine than the idea that mind is simply the attribute of an H Sapien brain. It may be a wrong idea, but it is not wrong in the way that you have depicted it.

The reason all of this seems so alien to 21st century philosophy is, as mentioned, it is more or less inimical to Darwinism, which always must presume that mind is simply the operation of the primate brain, and always, somehow, the result of adaptive necessity. (I am sure Darwinism is antagonistic to all metaphysics. But that is a separate debate.) However, it helps to understand why there is this tremendous gulf between pre-modern philosophical idealism and the current naturalistic or scientific outlook. There is no easy way to accommodate the idealist view within the naturalist framework. However as others have pointed out, the idealist view again has started to assert itself again, because



With which I am in agreement. However, as I remarked, there is a similar sentiment to be found in Emerson and the American Transcendentalists also (including James.)




Quite true, but at least I will know where in the jungle to expect him.:bigsmile:

---------- Post added 03-23-2010 at 08:28 PM ----------

I guess this contains some very large and vague statements, but I hope I have conveyed the drift.

So one possible secular stance is 'Take life as you find it, and try to play the hand that you have been dealt by the contingencies of biology, culture and history. It is possible to go far beyond these boundaries in the pursuit of pure understanding, but all such understanding will be essentially scientific....

Now this rebirth of interest in idealism is one thing that came out of the 60's - exactly this thirst for a 'new paradigm', a spiritual renewal through philosophy and spirituality, rather than through downtown Christian evangelism.

This is where I am coming from, and it is a big movement, not in terms of numbers, but in terms of impact.

Indeed, it is the Next Big Thing.

All existence, experience, and activity is isolated in the instant of the now of things. The past is only memory and the traces of what has been that remain intrinsically in the substance of what is. The future is only the potentials for becoming that lie embedded in the present and beckoned by the momentum of change. Everything is in the here and now. See how little of our reality is manifest and visible while so very much is hidden in the memories and potentials of what now exists?

If existence were limited only to human perception, not only would existence be impossible before mankind but also beyond mankind. Quarks and atoms could not exist except on the occasions some human is viewing them, and excuse me but I don't think we ever do! But are these not the foundation of all else? And those first generation stars that lived and died to make the elements that planets are built of, how could they have existed? It is clear that existence cannot be limited only to what human minds perceive.

Easy enough for Berkeley to argue that these things (or what he knew of them) exist in the mind of God. What an excellent argument for the existence of God, if one asserts that existence is only what is perceived by the mind and only God's mind can give reality to what is beyond human perception, including the human mind itself.

Sure Berkeley's argument has holes in it, but supposing that reality was not solid simply because it was not material was not one of those holes. The solidity of things is something that we perceive. It is intrinsic to our perception of reality. It is not (rightly) intrinsic to our definition of matter. Even if reality is not material, it must still be solid in nature because that is what we perceive.

Johnson was arguing that matter, AND ONLY MATTER, was solid. Berkeley would agree that matter, by definition, is solid. But he argued that reality is not material, that it is ideal, having the nature of ideas of the mind. And some of this ideal reality is solid, some is liquid, some gaseous ideal reality. These are not just "states of matter", they are qualities of perceptions, and Berkeley never argued that our perceptions lacked such qualities. Therefore, Johnson kicking a stone only verifies that our perception has these qualities. IF reality were material, it would prove that material can be solid. But it cannot prove that material is solid, a priori of proving that the foot and stone are material. So Johnson only verified that we perceive that feet and stones are solid, one of the several qualities we may perceive.

Samm

Yes, I think you have put your finger on the divide here. What I don't understand is the ever present implication that the scientific explanation of the world is boring and unfulfilling. I can, I think, see the appeal of a spiritual attitude. But I don't get the dislike of science. This is a crude and somewhat belittling comparison (I can't think of a better one at the moment) but it reminds me of people being defensive about their ghost stories when presented with logical or scientific arguments. Isn't the flipside of "how people come to believe they are being haunted" fascinating and mysterious? Why the idea that science is a big wet blanket?

You talking about how Idealism is alien to 21st century philosophy.But there have been Realists throughout all the centuries. .

It is generally not "science" that is being objected to.
The major objection is to the assertion that science tells us the universe is primarily more like a dead inert insensate mechanical deterministic machine than like an living enchanted mystery. Of course, that is not really what science tells us at all.

Dawkins and the like are out there asserting that science tells us the universe is blind, pitiless, indifference and that is what people object to; not science but scientism and metaphysical assumptions and philosophical speculaltions (like materialism and determinism) cloaked in the; this is what science tells us or proves. Science proves and tells us none of those things It is the assertion that science tells us what is true and everything which is real and if you can not measure it or study it with science than it is nothing more than meaningless imagination or speculation. Failure to acknowledge the limits of science and metaphysics justified as science are the problem not science itself.