Was Biship Berkeleys subjectivist idealism right?is it possible to have any perceptable hard objecti

I assume or think iknow what i know by knowing what it is i know ,where it is i think that it is or what it, is because i know i know but assuming i know what i know simply because ' know 'is not ufficient reason for knowing what i know on the assumption what 'I' know is the guide for all knowing.Yet surely i can only know by being taught or shown what is known ,but the problem is even if i dont know i cant possibly know i dont know because i know that i dont know so yes i suppose 'esse est percipi '

reply to post by cuchullainuk777

Could you translate your question/statement to simple english? I have a hard time ridding my mind of all the circles...

BTW, I googled that Bishop Dude. All I can say is that for a non-existant object, a table sure does leave a nasty bruise if you walk into it.

ETA And while we're at it, most of what we think we know, we don't. We have been told it by another and that is not knowing. TO know something (imho) is to experience its truth directly. By being told "a fact" we never see its truth directly. Learning by rote.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver

yes but you would never know or feel a bruise if it wasnt percieved ,Berkeley never suggested we didnt feel the corner of that table but we can never 'know' someone elses pain or experience no objective knowledge of that pain or any other qualia

reply to post by cuchullainuk777

Surely I perceive a bruise by the pain it sends me and the mark it leaves behind? I could be missing something subtle, simple and fundamental here but I have woken up with bruises after a restless night.

reply to post by LightSpeedDriver
The clue is in the word 'percieved'hence Subjective Idealism goes something like this
"This theory denies the existence of material substance and instead contends that familiar objects like TABLES and chairs are only ideas in the minds of perceivers, and as a result cannot exist without being perceived. Thus, as Berkeley famously put it, for physical objects "esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived").

So if someone on the other side of the planet that no one is "perceiving" has a button that can destroy the entire universe , he can push the button and it wouldn't get destroyed because in actually he doesn't exist if he isn't being perceived?

Right now, I'm not being perceived and I KNOW I exist.

if reality is mechanical and not a magical unicorn fart...

Then objects are defined by their known properties.

you percieve yourself surely?your missing the target a little its impossible to 'KNOW' ,feel, or experience in a phenomenological way anything mental perception ,yes the pain u felt hurt because of your mind triggered the neurological response process nothing we KNOW cannot be so without it being percieved [

Originally posted by arpgme
So if someone on the other side of the planet that no one is "perceiving" has a button that can destroy the entire universe , he can push the button and it wouldn't get destroyed because in actually he doesn't exist if he isn't being perceived?

Right now, I'm not being perceived and I KNOW I exist.

how do YOU define per se? I f the colour green lost colour (without going into physics and the whole lighht spectrum thing)would the quality 'greeness' that makes green,green exsist or is it contingent on green being the colour green?

Originally posted by Wertdagf
if reality is mechanical and not a magical unicorn fart...

Then objects are defined by their known properties.

reply to post by cuchullainuk777


although neurological systems were bred for their effectiveness...

you want to say that they are still so flawed that what we see and experiance as a table doesnt exist? Things like tables were created... some of them by blind and deaf quadrapaligic mutes in a coma. Names are the written and verbal forms of communicating things like neruological impulses. The feel of a table or the pain of a bruise is every bit as much as an identifier of the object as its cognitive counterpart.

They are insperable... not non-existant.

I didnt say a table doesnt exsist ,it exsists within my mind as a construct of what i percieve .Berkeley's arguments for subjective idealism are like this :
1. perceptions do not exist unperceived (no objective reality outside our perception of it)
2. physical objects are complexes of perceptions (mental constructs)
3. Therefore, physical objects do not exist unperceived. (Searles chinese room argument would link in nicely)

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by cuchullainuk777

 

although neurological systems were bred for their effectiveness...

you want to say that they are still so flawed that what we see and experiance as a table doesnt exist? Things like tables were created... some of them by blind and deaf quadrapaligic mutes in a coma. Names are the written and verbal forms of communicating things like neruological impulses. The feel of a table or the pain of a bruise is every bit as much as an identifier of the object as its cognitive counterpart.

They are insperable... not non-existant.

I remember back in the day when people posted their threads they spell checked and the shizz actually made sense....

I remember when back in the day when men wore platform shoes and American cars had the suspension system of a badly sprung mattress.

Originally posted by Gigatronix
I remember back in the day when people posted their threads they spell checked and the shizz actually made sense....

reply to post by cuchullainuk777

You're right, it's much better this way. Now I can see that a thread is not worth my time just by counting the 5th grade grammar errors in the OP.

See ya.

I dont mind word police,because i have made some grammatical and spelling howlers in my enthusiasm to refute some bizzare post.

Bye darling

Originally posted by Gigatronix
reply to post by cuchullainuk777

 

You're right, it's much better this way. Now I can see that a thread is not worth my time just by counting the 5th grade grammar errors in the OP.

See ya.

edit on 30-11-2011 by Gigatronix because: (no reason given)

reply to post by cuchullainuk777


So if i throw a coma patient at a wall with a large slingshot he shoul quantum leap rigt through it?

Isnt a wall still inseprable from its physical properties no matter if the person percieves it or not?

If artificial intelliegence reaffirms our seemingly ignorant biological concepts then wouldnt that mean the falling tree does make a sound even if no one hears it? I know our minds create constructs of the world that we percieve but its been bred to do just that as acuratly as possible. Just because our minds feed us it made up story as to how the world around us is operating that doesnt mean it isnt right.

Running head first into things i might not understand at first is kinda my thing so i apreciate your patientce.

Berkeley recognized the issue that if all perceptive agents leave a room it wouldn't do for it to just disappear. He theorized that there must be a higher level perceptive agent who sees all. This is the mind of god and our own minds exist in his mental substratum.

He was a religious man so this explanation spoke to his intuition.

Originally posted by Eddy_Jordan
Berkeley recognized the issue that if all perceptive agents leave a room it wouldn't do for it to just disappear. He theorized that there must be a higher level perceptive agent who sees all. This is the mind of god and our own minds exist in his mental substratum.

He was a religious man so this explanation spoke to his intuition.

Eddie yes ive no contention with Berkeley on this point i just take it that objectivity is omnipitence.In answer to people who suggest kicking a stone and tell me it doesnt hurt , i say yes it hurts but i say to you tell me exactly how it hurts for ME?do i actually feel the same quality of pain or sensation?or how about differing thresholds of pain those distinctions are enough for me to suggest we dont have hard innate objective knowledge on experience,yes we feel pain ,love,taste

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by cuchullainuk777

 

So if i throw a coma patient at a wall with a large slingshot he shoul quantum leap rigt through it?

Isnt a wall still inseprable from its physical properties no matter if the person percieves it or not?

If artificial intelliegence reaffirms our seemingly ignorant biological concepts then wouldnt that mean the falling tree does make a sound even if no one hears it? I know our minds create constructs of the world that we percieve but its been bred to do just that as acuratly as possible. Just because our minds feed us it made up story as to how the world around us is operating that doesnt mean it isnt right.
Wert i take on board what your saying the shroedingers cat example with the tree etctake the example of being under anaesthetic we can have a leg cut off which is extreme physical pain yet its not our conscieness thats taken away we are fully alive,aware but our perception have been tricked so much that our neural responses have put to sleep .So you see if we could mediatate to such a level as certain brahmins in India have done we could with stand fire being buried alive or other extreme tasks ....

Running head first into things i might not understand at first is kinda my thing so i apreciate your patientce.