Berkeley's Treatise and Dialogues As It Is

@Extrain,

Extrain;147036 wrote:

This is exactly why Berkelian Idealism is impossible, and commits the very same alleged "metaphysical error" Berkely accuses the "Materialists" of making.

If what the conclusion were about did need a mind to perceive or conceive it, then what the conclusion is about would not even be able to be drawn.

Just consider what this is saying. If "esse est percipi" is true, then how could I even draw a conclusion about non-esse-est-percpi things? I couldn't. But I do draw a conclusion about non-esse-est-percipi things, therefore, "esse est percipi" is false.

...we ought to be performing a kind of reductio ad absurdum on Berkeley's own view like Kant did.

I don't understand this horn. Berkeley is not supposed to be drawing a conclusion about non-esse-est-percpi things. Is he?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;147029 wrote:

But it does not follow from the fact that the conclusion that there is a Moon cannot be drawn from the scientific evidence by scientists without a mind, that what the conclusion is about cannot exist without a mind. Your argument is just an other variation on the theme of the WAITW. It does not follow that because a mind is needed to draw a conclusion, that what the conclusion is about needs a mind.

First of all, you need to note that you are making an assumption of the philosophical realist stance, i.e.

Quote:

Contemporary philosophical realism is the belief in a reality that is completely ontologically independent of our conceptual schemes, linguistic practices, beliefs, etc. -wiki

I am a philosophical non-realist, thus i do not agree with your assumption.

As such, how do you demonstrate that 'what the conclusion is about' do not need a mind.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;147043 wrote:

I don't understand this horn. Berkeley is not supposed to be drawing a conclusion about non-esse-est-percpi things. Is he?

He's not "supposed to be," but he had no other way around it.

The trick is in the could part of drawing, not about what he actually concluded or drew.

Try putting that in your pipe and run it through again on Berkeley's own premises (or the reductio of them). Smile

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 07:12 AM ----------

Humanity;147047 wrote:

First of all, you need to note that you are making an assumption of the philosophical realist stance, i.e.

Berkeley is making the assumption that Material Substance cannot be known independent of the mind.

Humanity;147047 wrote:

I am a philosophical non-realist, thus i do not agree with your assumption.

I am a philosophical realist, so I do not agree with your assumption.

Humanity;147047 wrote:

As such, how do you demonstrate that 'what the conclusion is about' do not need a mind.

As such, how do you demonstrate that "what the conclusion is about" does need a mind?

@Humanity,

Humanity;147047 wrote:

First of all, you need to note that you are making an assumption of the philosophical realist stance, i.e.

I am a philosophical non-realist, thus i do not agree with your assumption.

As such, how do you demonstrate that 'what the conclusion is about' do not need a mind.

I don't have to demonstrate it. I am not even asserting it. I am simply pointing out that your premises do not support your conclusion that the Moon does needs a mind. Your conclusion might (for all I care) be true. It simply does not follow from its premises. I hope you understand the difference between validity and truth. If not, we have to go back to Logic 101.

@kennethamy,

This is why it sometimes feels like waste of everyone's time............

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;147054 wrote:

I don't have to demonstrate it. I am not even asserting it. I am simply pointing out that your premises do not support your conclusion that the Moon does not need a mind. Your conclusion might (for all I care) be true. It simply does not follow from its premises. I hope you understand the difference between validity and truth. If not, we have to go back to Logic 101.

Logic 101 takes into account assumptions and axioms for granted.
I am questioning your implied assumptions and axioms, i.e.
before we even consider the major premise.

My assumption is that of the philosophical non-realist, i.e. the mind is interdependent with reality.
I am fully aware that 'I am' and is self-conscious, and whatever
that i conclude is based on "I am", my consciousness and my mind.
Thus whatever that follows to the conclusion is mind-interdependent.

Anything wrong with that?

Btw, i do have alternative means to counter, but i just want do a short cut.

@Humanity,

Humanity;147060 wrote:

Logic 101 takes into account assumptions and axioms for granted.
I am questioning your assumptions and axioms, i.e.
before we even consider the major premise.

My assumption is that of the philosophical non-realist, i.e. the mind is interdependent with reality.
I am fully aware that 'I am' and has self consciousness, and whatever
that i conclude is based on "I am", my consciousness and my mind.
Thus whatever that follows to the conclusion is mind-interdependent.

Anything wrong with that?

Yes, because kennethamy is not making any assumptions or stipulating any axioms from which to draw any conclusions. It's that your very own premise doesn't support your own conclusion (non-realism) which is the problem.

So the problem is yours, not kennethemy's

and you don't get to just assume non-realism either. just as the realist doesn't get to assume realism either.

@Extrain,

Kennethamy,

253. At the foundation of well-founded belief lies belief that is not founded.
On Certainty - Wittgenstein

I agree with the above, i am questioning your grounds and on what they are founded.

My ground is that 'I am' and 'I exists'.
Reality is at the least centered around I am and my existence.
That is my axiom as a philosophical non-realist.

There seem to be some fuss.
Can you explain

Quote:

Your conclusion might (for all I care) be true. It simply does not follow from its premises. I hope you understand the difference between validity and truth.

Why not valid or not true?

@Humanity,

Humanity;147060 wrote:

Logic 101 takes into account assumptions and axioms for granted.
I am questioning your implied assumptions and axioms, i.e.
before we even consider the major premise.

My assumption is that of the philosophical non-realist, i.e. the mind is interdependent with reality.
(1) I am fully aware that 'I am' and is self-conscious, and whatever
that i conclude is based on "I am", my consciousness and my mind.
(2) Thus whatever that follows to the conclusion is mind-interdependent.

Anything wrong with that?

Btw, i do have alternative means to counter, but i just want do a short cut.

There are not any implied assumptions because kennethemy is not even making any claims!

YOU are the one assuming non-realism just like you outright admitted it....sheesh.

You desperately need logic 101.....REALLY BAD TOO

and your conclusion (2) doesn't follow from (1) either.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 07:56 AM ----------

Humanity;147064 wrote:

Kennethamy,

253. At the foundation of well-founded belief lies belief that is not founded.
On Certainty - Wittgenstein

I agree with the above, i am questioning your grounds and on what they are founded.

(1) My ground is that 'I am' and 'I exists'.
(2)Reality is at the least centered around I am and my existence.
That is my axiom as a philosophical non-realist.

Again, Kennethemy is not making any claims, so there are no "grounds," or lack thereof, for any claim that he is making!!!

The Wittgenstein quote applies to YOU not kennethemy! Kennethemy hasn't made any claims needing to be grounded! YOU DID! It simply doesn't matter what his private unexpressed beliefs are, because he could hold irrational beliefs just as anybody could. So even if he did believe what you are asserting of him, it doesn't matter. You are the one who lacks justifcation for non-realism--you are the one who made this claim in the forum. And you have to defend it. So far, all your "pretended" arguments are invalid. Therefore, you lack support for your own belief.

And again, (2) does not logically follow from (1). So the argument is invalid

oh my....hahaha.....we are all in trouble....So THIS is the problem.

@Humanity,

Humanity;147064 wrote:

kennethamy;147054 wrote:
I don't have to demonstrate it. I am not even asserting it. I am simply pointing out that your premises do not support your conclusion that the Moon does not need a mind. Your conclusion might (for all I care) be true. It simply does not follow from its premises. I hope you understand the difference between validity and truth. If not, we have to go back to Logic 101.

Why not valid or not true?

You still don't know the difference between validity and truth, and so you think they are the same. But they are different.

(I) (1) I am fully aware that 'I am,' and am self-conscious.
(2) Therefore, what i conclude is based on "I am", my consciousness and my mind, so that that whatever follows to the conclusion is mind-interdependent.

(II) (1) 'I am' and 'I exists'.
(2) Therefore, reality is at the least centered around I am and my existence.

(I) I am fully aware of myself.
Therefore, what I conclude is based on ""I am," and my conclusions are about things that are mind-interdependent.

This is invalid.

(II) I am, I exist.
Therefore, reality is centered around my existence.

This is invalid.

Logic 101:

Arguments are either valid or invalid. Conclusions and premises are not "valid" and "invalid." Conclusions and premises are either true or false.
And it is logically impossible to have a valid argument with a true premise and a false conclusion. They simply don't exist.

Therefore, precisely BECAUSE your arguments are invalid, you have no reason to believe either conclusion is true (even if they were true). Like Wittgentstein would say, you have no grounds for your beliefs, because they are all ungrounded.

So, you are being irrational by holding the belief that non-realism is true.

So the problem is that you have no case to make against the realist at all who does have very good reasons to believe an external world exists independent of his mind. So, as far as YOU know, the realist could be right, simply because YOU don't have reason for believing that he is wrong.

So while you don't have reasons for thinking the world is mind-dependent, the realist has plenty of reasons for believing that the external world is mind independent.

Therefore, the realists beliefs are grounded, and your own beliefs are not grounded.

So you should not be holding your belief that non-realism is true, since we have more reason to think it is false.

@Humanity,

Humanity;147060 wrote:

Logic 101 takes into account assumptions and axioms for granted.
I am questioning your implied assumptions and axioms, i.e.
before we even consider the major premise.

My assumption is that of the philosophical non-realist, i.e. the mind is interdependent with reality.
I am fully aware that 'I am' and is self-conscious, and whatever
that i conclude is based on "I am", my consciousness and my mind.
Thus whatever that follows to the conclusion is mind-interdependent.

Anything wrong with that?

Btw, i do have alternative means to counter, but i just want do a short cut.

Yes. I don't understand what you are writing, and besides, it seems to have nothing to do with my post. I am saying that your premises do not support the conclusion that in order for the Moon to exist, a mind must exist, whether that conclusion is true or not, or whether or not you assume it is true or not. Logic 101 will teach you the difference between truth and validity, and, so, teach you that whether or not the premises support the conclusion of an argument has nothing whatever to do with whether or not the premises or the conclusion is true or false. Therefore, it does not matter what you assume, your argument is awful.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;147245 wrote:

Yes. I don't understand what you are writing, and besides, it seems to have nothing to do with my post. I am saying that your premises do not support the conclusion that in order for the Moon to exist, a mind must exist, whether that conclusion is true or not, or whether or not you assume it is true or not. Logic 101 will teach you the difference between truth and validity, and, so, teach you that whether or not the premises support the conclusion of an argument has nothing whatever to do with whether or not the premises or the conclusion is true or false. Therefore, it does not matter what you assume, your argument is awful.

OK, I agree it is awful and there were missing premises (perhaps a lot) as I stated i wanted to do a short cut.

Note your original statement.

kennethamy;147029 wrote:

But it does not follow from the fact that the conclusion that there is a Moon cannot be drawn from the scientific evidence by scientists without a mind, that what the conclusion is about cannot exist without a mind. Your argument is just an other variation on the theme of the WAITW.
It does not follow that because a mind is needed to draw a conclusion, that what the conclusion is about needs a mind.

Note your last sentence.
"what the conclusion is about" does need a mind.

The obvious is when the conclusion involved mental states of humans or in relation to anything relating to the human mind.

The other not so clear example is;
When scientists conclude a moon exist, the conclusion rested on
intersubjective verifiability and peer review, i.e. involvement of the mind.
Therefore the existence of the moon cannot be absolutely independent of the mind.
You are not aware of this subjectivity or do not accept it.
As I had stated earlier what the scientist intersubjectively agreed upon is
a general abstract idea of the moon not a real moon.

Scientist may agree that Galaxy XYZ exist and is a billion billion light years away by relying on their observation of the night sky.
But in real time, Galaxy XYZ may not even existed if had been swallowed by some black hole or vanished due to other events.
Scientist can only conclude based on their observation and consensus (mind interdependent) but they can never conclude what is really real.

There is another basis why I asserted the mind-based conclusion inevitably pressuppose 'what the conclusion is about' is mind-interdependent.

Here is a thought experiment to support my point.
Suppose we sink a big glass bubble i.e. similar to Controlled Ecological Life Support System,which is semi self-supporting with some interaction with the ocean, into the middle of the Pacific Ocean and it can support infinite generations of humans.
Since this is a thought experiment, certain knowledge is ignore so that the main point can be highlighted.

The first generation of humans would be aware, know and think in terms of them living in the ocean and interdependent with the ocean.
The next few generation may still do the same, but after say the 5th generation, it is likely that the awareness and idea of in the ocean will be forgotten.
That is human nature, when one's survival is not threaten, what is not threatening is put aside.
Perhaps after the 10th generations, the humans inside the bubble will insist that they are living within a system and what is surrounding them is inhospitable space.
But the fact remained that this 10th generation humans are in a system in the Pacific Ocean.

The point in relation to what i state about mind-based conclusion is this;
The Pacific Ocean in the above example is the mind-based conclusion.
The self-supporting bubble is 'what the conclusion is about'.
The mind-based conclusion encompassed the 'what the conclusion is about'

This is what Berkely meant when he stated,

Quote:

23 .........But the mind taking no notice of itself,
is deluded to think it can and does conceive bodies existing unthought of or without the mind,
though at the same time they are apprehended by or exist in itself. ......

We have evolved from billions of years with the mind generating externality that we take for granted the mind is not involved at all.
Berekely is aware of this in his book on 'Vision' and neuroscience, cognitive neuroscience, evolutionary biology, etc. are continuing to study this issue.

Btw, if you cannot understand any point from the thought experiment, just ignore it,
..don't want to waste time explaining it.

@Humanity,

Humanity;147319 wrote:

OK, I agree it is awful and there were missing premises (perhaps a lot) as I stated i wanted to do a short cut.

Note your original statement.

Note your last sentence.
"what the conclusion is about" does need a mind.

.

That is not Not what I wrote. I said exactly the opposite. That what the conclusion is about does not need a mind although drawing the conclusion does need a mind. Do you really think that I believe that what the conclusion is about, namely the Moon, needs a mind when that is exactly what I have been denying throughout this conversations. You make me despair.

Your argument would be awful with or without the missing premises, unless the missing premise were false. In any case, your argument would be unsound because it was invalid, or it would be unsound because the premises are false. One can always make an invalid argument valid by adding false premises. That is just a fact about argument. You had better learn some logic.

Trying to philosophize without knowing logic, is like trying to row a boat without oars.

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;147322 wrote:

That is not Not what I wrote. I said exactly the opposite.

Yes you stated the opposite.
What i presented may not have been clear and misleading.

I stated, note your last sentence and I straightaway presented my view i.e.
"what the conclusion is about" does need a mind and follow by examples.

As i had stated earlier, i do not have high respect for logic.
It is useful only within a range of conventional reality.
However, it is not effective when dealing with the
more refined levels of reality.

@Humanity,

Humanity;147325 wrote:

As i had stated earlier, i do not have high respect for logic.
.

What a surprise!

Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.

I suggest that before you don't respect logic, you learn a little about it. If you knew some and did not respect it, I would be a little more impressed.

@Humanity,

Humanity;147325 wrote:

Yes you stated the opposite.
What i presented may not have been clear and misleading.

I stated, note your last sentence and I straightaway presented my view i.e.
"what the conclusion is about" does need a mind and follow by examples.

As i had stated earlier, i do not have high respect for logic.
It is useful only within a range of conventional reality.
However, it is not effective when dealing with the
more refined levels of reality.

you're in desperate need of a reality check.
Obeying the rules of Logic 101 isn't "optional" if you want anyone to take you seriously. This isn't any high-powered physics, math, or philosophy. This is just basic REASONING 101. So there is nothing "more refined" in your argument than anyone elses in this forum. So if logic couldn't capture your argument, then it sure as heck doesn't capture anyone else's argument either.

You're a fool if you think you don't use your reasoning powers in your own everyday world. Where would we be as human species if we didn't obey logic????

You invent your own rules and you spin everything just to suit your own cherished irrational beliefs.

There is nothing rational about what you believe whatsoever. There can't be because you are throwing out logic and reason!!!!

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 09:07 PM ----------

kennethamy;147334 wrote:

What a surprise!

Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.

I suggest that before you don't respect logic, you learn a little about it. If you knew some and did not respect it, I would be a little more impressed.

I can't believe people actually think this way, and then try to do philosophy. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Is Humanity serious???? What is wrong with people today? Do they just lack the ability to think altogether???

All this is a sign of wholescale cognitive mental breakdown that happened along time ago. My bet is that this person is in highschool.

@Extrain,

Extrain;147338 wrote:

you're in desperate need of a reality check.
Obeying the rules of Logic 101 isn't "optional" if you want anyone to take you seriously. This isn't any high-powered physics, math, or philosophy. This is just basic REASONING 101. So there is nothing "more refined" in your argument than anyone elses in this forum. So if logic couldn't capture your argument, then it sure as heck doesn't capture anyone else's argument either.

You're a fool if you think you don't use your reasoning powers in your own everyday world. Where would we be as human species if we didn't obey logic????

You invent your own rules and you spin everything just to suit your own cherished irrational beliefs.

There is nothing rational about what you believe whatsoever. There can't be because you are throwing out logic and reason!!!!

---------- Post added 04-01-2010 at 09:07 PM ----------

I can't believe people actually think this way, and then try to do philosophy. It makes me sick to my stomach.

Is Humanity serious???? What is wrong with people today? Do they just lack the ability to think altogether???

This is cognitive mental breakdown!!!!

Aren't you a college instructor? You must be inured to this. If not, where have you been? In academic heaven?

@kennethamy,

kennethamy;147334 wrote:

What a surprise!

Trying to philosophize without logic is like trying to row a boat without oars.

I suggest that before you don't respect logic, you learn a little about it. If you knew some and did not respect it, I would be a little more impressed.

I know a lot about the theory and principles of logic.
I am not very fluid on its practice as i do not focus on logic which is
the back-end of philosophy but rather more on the exploratory front end.
Analogically, i prefer to be the architect who comes up with innovative ideas and leave the logical aspects to the back-end technical draughtsman.
Another example is the CEO who seek new business to ensure the survival of the organization and leave the more precise logical and technical to the back room boys of Admin, HR and finance.

I can see your boat have a jammed rudder and its going in circles. Very Happy

@kennethamy,

I'm not a college professor. I am still a graduate student.

And yes, I have been in academic heaven. But I haven't personally seen someone ever this stubborn after so many repeated failed attempts to get through to him.

Even in a classroom, a student who thought like this would immediately see his mistakes and continue to try to correct them.

We are not witnessing a person making mistakes and then wanting to correct those mistakes. We are witnessing stubborn ignorance.

I wasn't even this way at 15 years old. So there is no excuse. The causal factors at stake for this failure to learn are 3:

(1) Sloth
(2) Stubbornness
(3) Some kind of character disorder.

@Extrain,

Quote:

you're in desperate need of a reality check.

................................:sarcastic: Very Happy

Philosophy Forum

Berkeley's Treatise and Dialogues As It Is

Quick Links

My Account

able2know