"esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived")

Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
"esse est percipi" ("to be is to be perceived")

"esse est percipi" – "to be is to be perceived"

 

This is the central statement of George Berkeley’s idealism.

 

Would the universe exist if there were no minds to perceive its existence?

 

I will take George Berkeley’s stance that the universe could not exist without minds to perceive its existence.

 

Here is a reason why I take this stance: What size would the universe be if there were no minds to perceive its existence? Here is the answer: It would not be any size, because the notion of size comes from a perceiving mind. Since the universe without minds to perceive it would not be any particular size, it therefore would not exist i.e. it would possess no size.

 

Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

 

Therefore Berkeley’s idealism is true, and the opposing positions of naturalism and physicalism are false. Naturalism and physicalism are irrational.

 

Idealist


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
It simply would not "be" as

It simply would not "be" as we percieve it but it would remain, this is a tree falling in the woods question. If someone happens along at a later time and see's a fallen tree they could assume it fell, dur.

We are not so grand as all that.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

"esse est percipi" – "to be is to be perceived"

This is the central statement of George Berkeley’s idealism.

Would the universe exist if there were no minds to perceive its existence?

I will take George Berkeley’s stance that the universe could not exist without minds to perceive its existence.

Here is a reason why I take this stance: What size would the universe be if there were no minds to perceive its existence? Here is the answer: It would not be any size, because the notion of size comes from a perceiving mind. Since the universe without minds to perceive it would not be any particular size, it therefore would not exist i.e. it would possess no size.

Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

Therefore Berkeley’s idealism is true, and the opposing positions of naturalism and physicalism are false. Naturalism and physicalism are irrational.

I see no logic in that stance.

"So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist." is only true to the extent that our subjective experience and the knowledge encoded in our brains would not exist - it has no implications about the existence of that which we perceived which in turn caused us to have knowledge of it.

That statement of George Berkeley is a simple non-sequiter. He was a dumb-ass.

That which is perceived, assuming it is not a hallucination, must exist, but it does not need to be perceived in order to exist. The 'causality' is one way, from the existence to the perception.

It really is that simple. Ontology is not a useful discipline. Another of Aristotle's many errors and failures of reasoning.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I have faced this argument before

 

From god people who seem to think that without us and our brains everything else would cease to exist. But the earth is 4.5 billion years old and deep hominid history perhaps 4 or 5 million years at most. At what point in our recent history did the human mind reach the giddy heights of intellectualism required to develop a brain capable of 'creating' the entire universe via perception? Contending that before our modern naval-gazing time there was nothing in the universe is what's irrational. 

I think the OP needs to go and pray for guidance in this perplexing matter.

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

From god people who seem to think that without us and our brains everything else would cease to exist. But the earth is 4.5 billion years old and deep hominid history perhaps 4 or 5 million years at most. At what point in our recent history did the human mind reach the giddy heights of intellectualism required to develop a brain capable of 'creating' the entire universe via perception? Contending that before our modern naval-gazing time there was nothing in the universe is what's irrational. 

I think the OP needs to go and pray for guidance in this perplexing matter.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

Edit: On second thought, this is clearly another handle for our resident troll.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Hey Kavis

 

Are we talking about Paisley/Epistemologist or another more schizophrenic personality. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Universe or Multiverse

To everyone:

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
I see no logic in that stance.

 

"So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist." is only true to the extent that our subjective experience and the knowledge encoded in our brains would not exist - it has no implications about the existence of that which we perceived which in turn caused us to have knowledge of it.

 

That statement of George Berkeley is a simple non-sequiter. He was a dumb-ass.

 

That which is perceived, assuming it is not a hallucination, must exist, but it does not need to be perceived in order to exist. The 'causality' is one way, from the existence to the perception.

 

It really is that simple. Ontology is not a useful discipline. Another of Aristotle's many errors and failures of reasoning.

 

Another way of understanding “to be is to be perceived” is in terms of the multiverse i.e. are we living in the universe, or are we living in a multiverse?

 

The idea of the multiverse is that the universe we perceive could be one of an infinite number of different types of universes. One of the multiverses could only be 1mm away from our universe, but we may not be able to perceive it if it is in a different dimension.

 

Each of the multiverses could have a different set of physical laws, and a different range of physical values. Because of the anthropic principle, we live in a universe in which the physical laws and range of physical values are conductive to the type of life forms that we are. However, there may be other life forms in other universes elsewhere in the multiverse, which are defined by a completely different set of physical laws, and a different range of physical values.

 

In short, if we are living in a multiverse (infinite series of different universes), rather than just this universe, then what we perceive the universe to be is not all that there is i.e. if we actually live in a multiverse rather than a universe, then the universe we perceive is just an infinitesimally small part of the multiverse.

 

George Berkeley’s "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived) is compatible with the idea of a multiverse. That’s because in a multiverse, whatever we perceive is not what reality is. What we perceive may be only an infinitesimally small fraction of reality.

 

The question is, are we living in a universe, or in a multiverse?

 

Here is a programme on this subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008z744

 

Idealist


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Winning debates by calling your opponent a troll

 

Kavis wrote:
Edit: On second thought, this is clearly another handle for our resident troll.

 

I think you need to get out of the habit of accusing people of being trolls just because they hold a controversial opinion. Simply because I hold a controversial opinion does not mean that I am a troll.

 

However, I agree that calling someone a ‘troll’ is a good way to win a debate. All you need is to vote that a particular poster is a troll, and when you have enough votes in favour of the ‘troll’ motion, you have won the debate. You don’t need to analyse the person’s arguments logically. Merely calling them a ‘troll’ refutes all of their arguments without any effort being made on your part. It is a very lazy way to win a debate, but it is effective.

Idealist


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:In

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

In short, if we are living in a multiverse (infinite series of different universes), rather than just this universe, then what we perceive the universe to be is not all that there is i.e. if we actually live in a multiverse rather than a universe, then the universe we perceive is just an infinitesimally small part of the multiverse.

George Berkeley’s "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived) is compatible with the idea of a multiverse. That’s because in a multiverse, whatever we perceive is not what reality is. What we perceive may be only an infinitesimally small fraction of reality.

The question is, are we living in a universe, or in a multiverse?

That's a fine-and-dandy question, and not at all what you were saying in your OP.

What you seem to have said the first go-round was: "The universe would not exist if there was no perception of the universe." What you seem to be saying now is, "The universe as we know it would not exist if we were not here to perceive it, as it is in reality a slice of a larger whole." Those are two slightly different statements. The first is a question of existence; the second is a question of how our limited perceptions limit our understanding of the universe.

If i misconstrue what you are saying, I apologize, and ask that you clarify exactly what you are attempting to explicate.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:To

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

To everyone:

BobSpence1 wrote:
I see no logic in that stance.

"So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist." is only true to the extent that our subjective experience and the knowledge encoded in our brains would not exist - it has no implications about the existence of that which we perceived which in turn caused us to have knowledge of it.

That statement of George Berkeley is a simple non-sequiter. He was a dumb-ass.

That which is perceived, assuming it is not a hallucination, must exist, but it does not need to be perceived in order to exist. The 'causality' is one way, from the existence to the perception.

 It really is that simple. Ontology is not a useful discipline. Another of Aristotle's many errors and failures of reasoning.

Another way of understanding “to be is to be perceived” is in terms of the multiverse i.e. are we living in the universe, or are we living in a multiverse?

The idea of the multiverse is that the universe we perceive could be one of an infinite number of different types of universes. One of the multiverses could only be 1mm away from our universe, but we may not be able to perceive it if it is in a different dimension.

Each of the multiverses could have a different set of physical laws, and a different range of physical values. Because of the anthropic principle, we live in a universe in which the physical laws and range of physical values are conductive to the type of life forms that we are. However, there may be other life forms in other universes elsewhere in the multiverse, which are defined by a completely different set of physical laws, and a different range of physical values.

In short, if we are living in a multiverse (infinite series of different universes), rather than just this universe, then what we perceive the universe to be is not all that there is i.e. if we actually live in a multiverse rather than a universe, then the universe we perceive is just an infinitesimally small part of the multiverse.

George Berkeley’s "esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived) is compatible with the idea of a multiverse. That’s because in a multiverse, whatever we perceive is not what reality is. What we perceive may be only an infinitesimally small fraction of reality, 

The question is, are we living in a universe, or in a multiverse?

Here is a programme on this subject: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b008z744

Those arguments in no way address or support your original post, and the fundamental illogic of Berkeley's assertion.

If there are such multidimensional aspects to the Universe, or an actual horde of 'multiverses' that are actually so close to us but not perceived, that further supports the simple truth that they would exist independently of our ability to perceive them, otherwise your whole scenario of the multiverse is nonsense - your OP would imply that such a multiverse would be impossible, since we could not perceive it.

Are you really so stupid? Implying you might be a 'troll' is giving you the benefit of the doubt - either you are deliberately trying to f**k with us, or you are a fool.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Lol, Bob.

 

Really Pissed - who cares about the multiverse. We don't know, can't know and that's the end of the story. Your talking about it in such a way as to seem to manouvre us to an admission of some possible reality that serves your as yet unstated agenda doesn't really take us anywhere. What are we really talking about here? Apparently we don't even know what the universe is made of, much less what's understand going on outside of it. In fact we don't even understand the nature of the planets in our own solar system. The weird magnetic field on Uranus for instance, or the incomprehensible core of Neptune. Talking about multiverses is mental masturbation without lubrication. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:
Talking about multiverses is mental masturbation without lubrication. 

It is the sand in the vaseline. (Apologies to Talking Heads.)

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Really Pissed - who cares about the multiverse. We don't know, can't know and that's the end of the story. Your talking about it in such a way as to seem to manouvre us to an admission of some possible reality that serves your as yet unstated agenda doesn't really take us anywhere. What are we really talking about here? Apparently we don't even know what the universe is made of, much less what's understand going on outside of it. In fact we don't even understand the nature of the planets in our own solar system. The weird magnetic field on Uranus for instance, or the incomprehensible core of Neptune. Talking about multiverses is mental masturbation without lubrication. 

Especially when when speculating about kinds of 'Multiverse' like he(?) is describing - universes co-existing and overlapping our Universe ...

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: Are

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Are we talking about Paisley/Epistemologist or another more schizophrenic personality. 

Epistemologist.  Comparing the formatting and content here to this thread makes it pretty glaring.

 

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

I think you need to get out of the habit of accusing people of being trolls just because they hold a controversial opinion. Simply because I hold a controversial opinion does not mean that I am a troll.

 

It's not your controversial opinion that nets you the label of troll.  Still:

It is improper to confuse knowledge of an entity for the reality of an entity.  If humans disappeared today, and there were no one else in the universe to observe it, the universe would be more or less unchanged.  The concept of space is not the same thing as the actual distance between the galaxies.  As has been pointed out to you before, the universe existed for billions of years before anyone thought to write that down.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
The multiverse and Berkeley's idealism

nigelTheBold wrote:
That's a fine-and-dandy question, and not at all what you were saying in your OP.

 

What you seem to have said the first go-round was: "The universe would not exist if there was no perception of the universe." What you seem to be saying now is, "The universe as we know it would not exist if we were not here to perceive it, as it is in reality a slice of a larger whole." Those are two slightly different statements. The first is a question of existence; the second is a question of how our limited perceptions limit our understanding of the universe.

 

If i misconstrue what you are saying, I apologize, and ask that you clarify exactly what you are attempting to explicate.

 

 

Yes, that’s roughly what I’m saying.

 

If we live in a multiverse, rather than a universe, that contradicts naturalism and physicalism. That is because for naturalism and physicalism (including eliminative materialism) to be true, the universe has to exist as we know it, externally to and independently of what we know. If however we live in a multiverse, then the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know. Instead, the universe that we perceive only exists as our perception – ‘to be is to be perceived’. In a multiverse, the universe that we experience through our senses is relative to our perceiving minds. It is therefore inside our perceiving minds.

 

As for my opening post, the issue of size is another factor. What size would the universe be if there were no minds to perceive it? Or what form would the universe take as it exists, rather than as it is perceived?

 

What is the difference between the universe we perceive, and the universe that actually exists, and how big is that difference?

 

What if the difference is infinite?

 

This also answers others in a roundabout way. 

 

Idealist


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

nigelTheBold wrote:
That's a fine-and-dandy question, and not at all what you were saying in your OP.

What you seem to have said the first go-round was: "The universe would not exist if there was no perception of the universe." What you seem to be saying now is, "The universe as we know it would not exist if we were not here to perceive it, as it is in reality a slice of a larger whole." Those are two slightly different statements. The first is a question of existence; the second is a question of how our limited perceptions limit our understanding of the universe.

If i misconstrue what you are saying, I apologize, and ask that you clarify exactly what you are attempting to explicate.

Yes, that’s roughly what I’m saying.

If we live in a multiverse, rather than a universe, that contradicts naturalism and physicalism. That is because for naturalism and physicalism (including eliminative materialism) to be true, the universe has to exist as we know it, externally to and independently of what we know. If however we live in a multiverse, then the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know. Instead, the universe that we perceive only exists as our perception – ‘to be is to be perceived’. In a multiverse, the universe that we experience through our senses is relative to our perceiving minds. It is therefore inside our perceiving minds.

As for my opening post, the issue of size is another factor. What size would the universe be if there were no minds to perceive it? Or what form would the universe take as it exists, rather than as it is perceived?

What is the difference between the universe we perceive, and the universe that actually exists, and how big is that difference?

What if the difference is infinite?

This also answers others in a roundabout way. 

This is all totally devoid of logic.

There is absolutely no necessary connection between existence of universes of any sort and existence of conscious minds able to perceive them, apart from the single requirement that a conscious mind is totally dependent on the existence of some sub-category of Universe in which can emerge and survive.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


chndlrjhnsn
chndlrjhnsn's picture
Posts: 159
Joined: 2010-03-28
User is offlineOffline
X exists and X is not

X exists and X is not perceived entails that X exists.


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Time

Kavis wrote:
It's not your controversial opinion that nets you the label of troll.

 

So what does net me the label of ‘troll’? I don’t like being called a troll. I find it offensive, particularly because I am a serious person, and not a troll. And being called a ‘troll’ quickly brings fine discussion to a halt. Is it simply because I am a ‘theist’ in an ‘atheist’ forum?

 

Kavis wrote:
It is improper to confuse knowledge of an entity for the reality of an entity.  If humans disappeared today, and there were no one else in the universe to observe it, the universe would be more or less unchanged.  The concept of space is not the same thing as the actual distance between the galaxies.  As has been pointed out to you before, the universe existed for billions of years before anyone thought to write that down.

 

As for the universe existing for billions of years, how do we know that time is a true property of the universe? Isn’t it possible that time is a concept in the human mind and nothing more? For example, if time is circular, then maybe the dinosaurs are still roaming the earth in another time dimension.

 

Or putting it differently, what if time is only a property of our universe, but not of other universes in the multiverse?

 

Is it possible for a universe to exist without the property of time? 

 

 

Idealist


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
The difference between what we perceive and what we do not

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
This is all totally devoid of logic.

 

There is absolutely no necessary connection between existence of universes of any sort and existence of conscious minds able to perceive them, apart from the single requirement that a conscious mind is totally dependent on the existence of some sub-category of Universe in which can emerge and survive.

 

But that makes the perceiving mind totally dependent upon the ‘sub-category of universe in which it can emerge and survive’. If we live in a multiverse, and the universe we perceive is not the only universe, then the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know i.e. naturalism and physicalism are false.

 

Also important here is this: What is the difference between the universe as it is, and our perception of it? How big is that difference? If the difference is very great, then Berkeley’s idealism is true, because the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know.

 

I think you confuse logic with your personal feelings. Just because something offends your feelings, it doesn’t mean it is devoid of logic.

Idealist


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1150
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist


Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

So the universe did not exist during its first 13 billion years, because humans with minds capable of perceiving it had not yet emerged? 

 

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Time

zarathustra wrote:
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

 

So the universe did not exist during its first 13 billion years, because humans capable of perceiving it had not yet emerged?

 

I’ve answered this question in post #18 (Posted on: June 27, 2010 - 6:39pm). Let me know if I’ve missed anything. Time is an important issue here.

 

Idealist


zarathustra
atheist
zarathustra's picture
Posts: 1150
Joined: 2006-11-16
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:As

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
As for the universe existing for billions of years, how do we know that time is a true property of the universe?

Because you took the trouble to specify:

 

Quote:
I’ve answered this question in post #18 (Posted on: June 27, 2010 - 6:39pm).

 Now then:  Did the universe not exist before there were minds to perceive it?

  

Jesus forgot the safe word.

πππ†
π†††


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
This is all totally devoid of logic.

 

There is absolutely no necessary connection between existence of universes of any sort and existence of conscious minds able to perceive them, apart from the single requirement that a conscious mind is totally dependent on the existence of some sub-category of Universe in which can emerge and survive.

 

But that makes the perceiving mind totally dependent upon the ‘sub-category of universe in which it can emerge and survive’. If we live in a multiverse, and the universe we perceive is not the only universe, then the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know i.e. naturalism and physicalism are false.

That is a non-sequiter. It simply doesn't follow'.

All minds that we know of are aspects of material beings that cannot exist in a total void. That doesn't logically preclude a mind that can exist outside a physical reality, ie, a 'universe' of some kind, but we have no evidence of such.

What is the logic that gets you from there being other universes, to "the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know"??

Quote:

Also important here is this: What is the difference between the universe as it is, and our perception of it? How big is that difference? If the difference is very great, then Berkeley’s idealism is true, because the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know.

I think you confuse logic with your personal feelings. Just because something offends your feelings, it doesn’t mean it is devoid of logic.

You have not presented any logic, merely this naked assertion that "the universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know". 

You seem to be letting your personal conviction that that is an unquestionable truth stop you from seeing that it needs to be logically justified.

Quote:

Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The only conclusion you can draw is that "without our minds, the knowledge of the universe contained within our minds would not exist", NOT the Universe that that knowledge refers to.

You are making the same simple fallacy of conflating the object of our perception with our perception of it. Our perception of an object is clearly contingent on the existence of the object, but there is no logical dependency in the reverse direction. 

if A then B does not entail if not B then not A.

That is the fallacy of "Affirming the Consequent".

What logic are you using to come to your conclusion?

Are you "intellectually challenged"? 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:So

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

So what does net me the label of ‘troll’? I don’t like being called a troll. I find it offensive, particularly because I am a serious person, and not a troll. And being called a ‘troll’ quickly brings fine discussion to a halt. Is it simply because I am a ‘theist’ in an ‘atheist’ forum?

Again, no. Edit because I got distracted with the discussion below and forgot to finish this thought:

There are a number of things that make you a troll.  Your debating "style", in which you simply assert again and again the superiority of your arguments, are one such feature.  The way you constantly hop among handles is another, and seems like nothing more than an attempt to trick people into thinking you're someone new.  If you aren't trolling consciously, this may help you understand why your MO smacks of trollery.

 

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

 As for the universe existing for billions of years, how do we know that time is a true property of the universe? Isn’t it possible that time is a concept in the human mind and nothing more? For example, if time is circular, then maybe the dinosaurs are still roaming the earth in another time dimension.

 

Or putting it differently, what if time is only a property of our universe, but not of other universes in the multiverse?

 

Is it possible for a universe to exist without the property of time? 

 

 



Time is a property of the universe closely related to space.  We can look at very distant objects and, because of the relationship between space and time and the limited speed of light, we can observe the ways the universe has changed over time.  Without time as an inherent property, there is no change over time. Furthermore, we can directly observe the passing of time, with a watch or by looking out a window occasionally. 

We can know, with some degree of certainty, that time is a (occasionally quite weird, but real) property of the universe through these observations and because of the utility they afford us.  We can make predictions and take actions based on the objective reality of time, space, and other phenomena that allow us to alter the state of the universe around us.  Without that utility, you may have a point, in that we could not know anything with any certainty. 

Once again, though, we should be careful to note the difference between our knowledge of objective reality and objective reality.  The universe exists in specific states, therefore we observe it.  It doesn't exist because we observe it (some quantum phenomena notwithstanding).

It would be nothing more than a thought experiment to extrapolate from the observable properties of our universe to the unobservable properties of some hypothetical multiverse. 

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Universe creating perception

 

at some recent point during human development of a perception of the universe - which dates back really only a hundred years or so - even less with actual mapping - we did not perceive the universe as existing. And in fact, there are still people in the world who have no perception of the universe even as we speak.

Where did our ancestors live before this perception/comprehension developed? Did they live on their perception of a disk-like Earth, with Ra whizzing around them?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

Kavis wrote:
It's not your controversial opinion that nets you the label of troll.

 

So what does net me the label of ‘troll’? I don’t like being called a troll. I find it offensive, particularly because I am a serious person, and not a troll. And being called a ‘troll’ quickly brings fine discussion to a halt. Is it simply because I am a ‘theist’ in an ‘atheist’ forum?

 

Kavis wrote:
It is improper to confuse knowledge of an entity for the reality of an entity.  If humans disappeared today, and there were no one else in the universe to observe it, the universe would be more or less unchanged.  The concept of space is not the same thing as the actual distance between the galaxies.  As has been pointed out to you before, the universe existed for billions of years before anyone thought to write that down.

 

As for the universe existing for billions of years, how do we know that time is a true property of the universe? Isn’t it possible that time is a concept in the human mind and nothing more? For example, if time is circular, then maybe the dinosaurs are still roaming the earth in another time dimension.

 

Or putting it differently, what if time is only a property of our universe, but not of other universes in the multiverse?

 

Is it possible for a universe to exist without the property of time? 

 

 

A theist that reads a lot of sci-fi? I do too but I don't take it seriously.

The multiverse theory is as good as the god theory or the pink unicorn theory. Why are we discussing this?

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

To everyone:

 

Idealism supports theism. That’s why you don’t like it. If idealism is in any way logical, then that debunks atheism. That’s why atheists are so heavily opposed to idealism.

 

Berkeley’s idealism is highly respected in philosophy. It would not have that respect if it was not logical.

 

Physicalism and naturalism are called materialism. Theists don’t like materialism because materialism supports atheism.

 

Here is a better discussion on Materialism vs. Idealism in Physics Forums: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2677

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
That is a non-sequiter. It simply doesn't follow'.

 

“To be is to be perceived” is not a non-sequitur. It is the denial of John Locke’s definition of an invisible ‘substance’ upon which our perceptions are supervened. If you deny the existence of an invisible substance, then reality is only that which you perceive and nothing more. It is actually perfectly scientific to conclude that it is only that which we perceive which is real i.e. “To be is to be perceived”. That is a central axiom in science. It’s not even remotely a non-sequitur.

 

Idealist


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
What's an MO?

 

Kavis wrote:
If you aren't trolling consciously, this may help you understand why your MO smacks of trollery.

 

What’s an MO?

Idealist


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5070
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's for

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

 

Kavis wrote:
If you aren't trolling consciously, this may help you understand why your MO smacks of trollery.

 

What’s an MO?

 

modus operandi.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Newprince
Newprince's picture
Posts: 38
Joined: 2009-12-19
User is offlineOffline
If there is a universe

If there is a universe parallel to ours, that we could never ever observe, functionally it wouldn't exist because we'd never 'discover' it. But we could probably find ways to create models of the multiverse eventually that would prove there 'should' be another universe parallel to our own. In this case, the universe parallel to our own does in fact exist, and we *should* expect it to exist.

Like said before, we are not that smart to really set up this perfect situation. But I don't see how his theory could possibly hold up to scrutiny. Did black holes suddenly come into existence when we first observed them? No, they must have existed before then. The idea of black holes was 'created' before they were observed. This should tell you about the relation of ideas to objects; that is, they are different from each other.

The reasoning is flawed because it conveniently makes no distinction between ideas and objects. This is pretty important. Objects can and do exist independently of our ideas about them. We stumble across them all the time.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:To

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

To everyone:

Idealism supports theism. That’s why you don’t like it. If idealism is in any way logical, then that debunks atheism. That’s why atheists are so heavily opposed to idealism.

NO. Atheists come to the position of non-belief in Gods primarily because they are of the inclination to require that knowledge be justified by empirical evidence, ie, that ideas cannot be self-justifying, they have to anchored in something beyond the mind which came up with the idea. It is because they see little or no justification for idealism that they do not accept the God concepts.

You have it backwards - rejection of idealism comes first, which normally leads to Atheism.

Quote:

Berkeley’s idealism is highly respected in philosophy. It would not have that respect if it was not logical.

To the extent that it is respected in philosophical circles, that merely demonstrates the irrelevance of philosophy to the pursuit of actual insight and knowledge.

It is a circular argument - it is only supported in circles which to an extent share the same error.

It amounts to an argument from popularity, and/or authority, well-established logical fallacies.

Quote:

Physicalism and naturalism are called materialism. Theists don’t like materialism because materialism supports atheism.

That is true.

Theism is typically based on raw pre-suppositions, feelings, intuitions. The more intellectual Theist will then attempt to derive arguments in support of the pre-supposition, and reject out of hand any arguments which don't support, and also attempt show why they are invalid.

Quote:

Here is a better discussion on Materialism vs. Idealism in Physics Forums: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=2677

BobSpence1 wrote:
That is a non-sequiter. It simply doesn't follow'.

“To be is to be perceived” is not a non-sequitur. It is the denial of John Locke’s definition of an invisible ‘substance’ upon which our perceptions are supervened. If you deny the existence of an invisible substance, then reality is only that which you perceive and nothing more. It is actually perfectly scientific to conclude that it is only that which we perceive which is real i.e. “To be is to be perceived”. That is a central axiom in science. It’s not even remotely a non-sequitur.

It is a non-sequitur, by your own argument, since you concluded what amounts to the opposite position to what is in Berkeley's statement.

IOW, you just deduced that "Reality is that which is perceived", IOW, "To be perceived is to be".

That is is still is not fully true, since it does not allow for imperfections in perception, both in perceiving something which does not actually exist, and not allowing for the close-to- absolute certainty that there is much that exists that we do not perceive.

The depths of your illogic are profound.

EDIT: It would be more charitable to assume you are deliberately trolling, trying to get us stirred up by throwing such patently absurd arguments at us. Otherwise we have to seriously consider you have a mental problem of some kind.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

BobSpence1 wrote:
It would be more charitable to assume you are deliberately trolling, trying to get us stirred up by throwing such patently absurd arguments at us.

 

Just because I’m in favour of idealism does not mean I am a troll. However, I see where you are coming from.

 

Because you don’t understand idealism, you claim it is illogical. And because I am in favour of an illogical worldview, therefore I am a troll. Now I get it.

 

I cannot logically defend idealism in the way that you want me to. However, that doesn’t mean that idealist philosophers like Plato, Leibniz, Kant, Berkeley and Schopenhauer could not logically defend idealism. They certainly did.

 

Idealism is not a well established logical fallacy, as you put it. It is perfectly logical.

 

 

 

Idealist


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It would be more charitable to assume you are deliberately trolling, trying to get us stirred up by throwing such patently absurd arguments at us.

 

Just because I’m in favour of idealism does not mean I am a troll. However, I see where you are coming from.

 

Because you don’t understand idealism, you claim it is illogical. And because I am in favour of an illogical worldview, therefore I am a troll. Now I get it.

 

I cannot logically defend idealism in the way that you want me to. However, that doesn’t mean that idealist philosophers like Plato, Leibniz, Kant, Berkeley and Schopenhauer could not logically defend idealism. They certainly did.

 

Idealism is not a well established logical fallacy, as you put it. It is perfectly logical.

 

Are you going anywhere with this? 

You cannot logically defend idealism but all these other people could and therefore it must be logical and we are all meanies.

Have I got it right?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It would be more charitable to assume you are deliberately trolling, trying to get us stirred up by throwing such patently absurd arguments at us.
 

Just because I’m in favour of idealism does not mean I am a troll. However, I see where you are coming from.

Because you don’t understand idealism, you claim it is illogical. And because I am in favour of an illogical worldview, therefore I am a troll. Now I get it. 

I cannot logically defend idealism in the way that you want me to. However, that doesn’t mean that idealist philosophers like Plato, Leibniz, Kant, Berkeley and Schopenhauer could not logically defend idealism. They certainly did.

Idealism is not a well established logical fallacy, as you put it. It is perfectly logical.

I understand idealism, I follow the thinking that leads to it, and I also see the gaps in the logic, where intuitive assumptions are inserted, which 'feel' logical and self-evident to the people inclined to this view.

I pointed out the fallacious assumption, the logical contradiction, in the argument you attempted to make for it. In the form expressed by you in that post, it is illogical, as I pointed out then.

You have yet to show me the logical justification I requested.

Philiosophy is only about ideas, not necessarily leading to any true conclusions, since it does not require the rigorous consideration of empirical evidence, otherwise it would be virtually another branch of Science.

In this response, as usual, you have made no attempt to actually address my specific arguments, and simply repeat your naked assertions, and only 'justify' them by appeal to the 'authority' of a bunch of philosophers whose writings you presumably based your acceptance of the error of idealism you all share.

You, and Plato et al, are/were sadly deluded, in an unfortunately all to common way.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 To everyone:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
I understand idealism, I follow the thinking that leads to it, and I also see the gaps in the logic, where intuitive assumptions are inserted, which 'feel' logical and self-evident to the people inclined to this view.

 

I pointed out the fallacious assumption, the logical contradiction, in the argument you attempted to make for it. In the form expressed by you in that post, it is illogical, as I pointed out then.

 

You have yet to show me the logical justification I requested.

 

Philiosophy is only about ideas, not necessarily leading to any true conclusions, since it does not require the rigorous consideration of empirical evidence, otherwise it would be virtually another branch of Science.

 

In this response, as usual, you have made no attempt to actually address my specific arguments, and simply repeat your naked assertions, and only 'justify' them by appeal to the 'authority' of a bunch of philosophers whose writings you presumably based your acceptance of the error of idealism you all share.

 

You, and Plato et al, are/were sadly deluded, in an unfortunately all to common way.

 

It is actually materialism and realism that are the delusion. Idealism is much more logically sound.

 

Idealism makes more logical sense than materialism for the following reason: Everything that we know is knowledge, and knowledge exists inside the mind. Knowledge cannot exist within the brain, because the brain is itself knowledge that exists inside the mind.

 

Even the idea that the Universe is billions of years old is knowledge. The brain is knowledge, the planet earth is knowledge, and the rest of the universe is knowledge. Knowledge exists inside the mind. Therefore the Universe is inside our minds. That is perfectly logical.

 

And 'appeal to authority' is perfectly appropriate. We have to appeal to authority all the time. That is why we have leaders. We have to appeal to the authority of our leaders because we do not possess authority ourselves.

Idealist


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist, I'm just

Pissed_Ontologist, I'm just curiuos.

Why did you make this thread in the section labeled "irrational precepts"?

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Everything that we

Quote:
Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

 

So the knowledge wouldn't exist without us, but does that mean that the universe itself no longer exists?  All idealism is is the conclusion that without our minds, the universe is irrelevant and unknowable, and EFFECTIVELY non-existent.  Idealists fail to realize that it still exists, whether or not they perceive it.  They then conclude wild things they think are possible, because they believe the universe is their mind/a collective mind/god's mind.  It is, in fact, not.


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

Whatthedeuce wrote:
Why did you make this thread in the section labeled "irrational precepts"?

 

It’s because either idealism, or its opposite, materialism, is irrational. I maintain that materialism (particularly eliminative materialism) is irrational, and idealism is rational.

 

Which forum section do you think I should have posted this thread in?

Idealist


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

 

So the knowledge wouldn't exist without us, but does that mean that the universe itself no longer exists?  All idealism is is the conclusion that without our minds, the universe is irrelevant and unknowable, and EFFECTIVELY non-existent.  Idealists fail to realize that it still exists, whether or not they perceive it.  They then conclude wild things they think are possible, because they believe the universe is their mind/a collective mind/god's mind.  It is, in fact, not.

 

The only way to prove that the universe is not in your mind is to become non-existent. Then when you are non-existent, demonstrate that the universe still exists even though you do not.

Idealist


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Knowledge can only exist

Knowledge can only exist within the brain, because the barin is a material structure with sufficient complexity to encode it.

Quote:

Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

Corrected (logical) version:

Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know about the universe (ie, our knowledge of it) would not exist.

Now show me how you logically justify your persistent identification of "our knowledge of something" with the actual existence of that thing, to imply that its existence is dependent on our knowledge of it.

Authority is necessary in human society for maintaining order, not as a justification for stating whether something is true or not.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

 
The only way to prove that the universe is not in your mind is to become non-existent. Then when you are non-existent, demonstrate that the universe still exists even though you do not.

 

They're called observational instruments.  You know, like a video camera?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You can't prove Idealism is

You can't prove Idealism is true, either.

Every time Science reveals and establishes something new and surprising, even counter-intuitive, such as Quantum Theory and Relativity, about the Universe, it reinforces the conclusion that it is NOT in our minds.

Every time people fundamentally disagree about something, especially about the nature of the Universe, that is further evidence.

It is not about 'proof', it about what is best supported by the evidence.

You can't disprove solipsism or "The Matrix" scenario either.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Knowledge can only exist within the brain, because the brain is a material structure with sufficient complexity to encode it.

 

The problem with that is that the brain is knowledge. Knowledge can’t exist inside knowledge. Knowledge must exist inside the mind. So the brain must exist inside the mind.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know the universe to be would not exist.

 

Corrected (logical) version:

 

Everything that we know about the universe is relative to our minds. So without our minds, everything we know about the universe (ie, our knowledge of it) would not exist.

 

Now show me how you logically justify your persistent identification of "our knowledge of something" with the actual existence of that thing, to imply that its existence is dependent on our knowledge of it.

 

It’s because if we did not exist, then neither would the universe. The burden of proof is actually on materialism and realism. To prove that the universe exists independently of your knowledge of it, you have to become non-existent. Then when you are non-existent, present evidence that the universe still exists.

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Authority is necessary in human society for maintaining order, not as a justification for stating whether something is true or not.

 

That’s a controversial claim. We have to trust scientific authorities when they make decisions about which pesticides are safe for human consumption, and which are not, for example.

Idealist


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

It’s because if we did not exist, then neither would the universe. The burden of proof is actually on materialism and realism.

 

 

Given that you start with an assertion, YOU have the burden of proof.  Good luck showing that when humanity ceases to exist so does the universe.


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
The only way to prove that the universe is not in your mind is to become non-existent. Then when you are non-existent, demonstrate that the universe still exists even though you do not.

 

They're called observational instruments.  You know, like a video camera?

 

But if no one existed, then neither would observational instruments, and neither would the universe.

Idealist


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You can't prove Idealism is true, either.

 

Now we’re getting somewhere. So would you agree that you can’t prove idealism false either?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Every time Science reveals and establishes something new and surprising, even counter-intuitive, such as Quantum Theory and Relativity, about the Universe, it reinforces the conclusion that it is NOT in our minds.

 

Every time people fundamentally disagree about something, especially about the nature of the Universe, that is further evidence.

 

It is not about 'proof', it about what is best supported by the evidence.

 

You can't disprove solipsism or "The Matrix" scenario either.

 

I would have said it is the opposite way around. All scientific knowledge is still knowledge. And knowledge only exists within the mind. However much ‘new’ knowledge we acquire, it is still knowledge. Therefore the universe exists inside our minds.

Idealist


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5802
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You haven't provided a

You haven't provided a logical argument for your assertion that "the brain is knowledge", or that that statement even makes sense. I have repeatedly provided a coherent description of the relation between knowledge and physical objects, including structures such as our brain, which hold and support the process of consciousness which has concepts which refer to the existence of perceived entities.

You still have not provided any logical argument for your views, or reasons why my picture is illogical, just variations on this naked assertion, which in itself is not even a coherent proposition.

Your last statement is fine, right up to "therefore". The rest is true in the sense that a logical model of the universe exists within our minds, which is just another way of summarizing the first part of the statement.

Again I ask, why do you insist on identifying that vastly simplified model, representation, whatever of the Universe with the Universe itself? What is your justification for that step?

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

v4ultingbassist wrote:
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:
It’s because if we did not exist, then neither would the universe. The burden of proof is actually on materialism and realism.

 

Given that you start with an assertion, YOU have the burden of proof.  Good luck showing that when humanity ceases to exist so does the universe.

 

Idealism does not have the burden of proof. Materialism and realism maintain that the universe exists as we know it externally to and independently of what we know. Advancement in our knowledge of the Universe demonstrates that the Universe does not exist as we know it externally to and independently of what we know. Therefore the Universe is knowledge inside our minds.

Idealist


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

Pissed_Ontologist wrote:

But if no one existed, then neither would observational instruments, and neither would the universe.

 

Ooh, but inanimate objects can serve as observational instruments without humans creating them.  Sand with a hoof print works as an example.  The impression in the sand is an 'observation' of the hoof that stepped on it.  No humans required to show that at some point something with a hoof stepped in the sand.

 

Now, the knowledge of said event requires a human, but the event itself does not.  Likewise, knowledge of the universe requires a mind (your mind), but its existence does not.


Pissed_Ontologist
Posts: 32
Joined: 2010-05-29
User is offlineOffline
Idealism

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
You haven't provided a logical argument for your assertion that "the brain is knowledge", or that that statement even makes sense. I have repeatedly provided a coherent description of the relation between knowledge and physical objects, including structures such as our brain, which hold and support the process of consciousness which has concepts which refer to the existence of perceived entities.

 

You still have not provided any logical argument for your views, or reasons why my picture is illogical, just variations on this naked assertion, which in itself is not even a coherent proposition.

 

I haven’t made naked assertions. I have been presenting logical arguments, just like you have.

 

Either the brain exists within the mind (idealism), or the mind exists within the brain (realism/materialism).

 

What do I mean by “the brain is knowledge”?

 

I mean that there are different fields of science, including biology, chemistry, physics, and mathematics. The brain is an idea or knowledge in the field of biology. The brain is a ‘theory’ about the mind in biology. Theory is knowledge.

 

Further, there is no evidence that knowledge exists in the brain. What do I mean by this? Well, can a neuroscientist discern the most advanced ideas in mathematics by observing the brain of the world’s most advanced mathematician? No, a neuroscientist cannot do that. Therefore, there is no evidence that mathematical knowledge exists within the brain. 

Idealist