ManM

Thanks for the review guys. I think I'll go contemplate monads now.

Synaesthesia

WJ,
I don’t see how that would change anything at all. Indeed, even the (not entierly unjustified) belief would not protect you totally from the cartesian demon. Yes, that’s correct, even God in heaven is vulnerable to the demon’s illusions.

Of course, we can show that positing a mental existence as apart from physical existence is both unparsimonious and theoretically futile. At any rate, I agree that the cartesian demon still reigns, but he is a distant God and easily disregarded - like the rest of them.

Regards,
Synaesthesia

WJ

SYN!

So, you know God? Of course you don't. Think of it this way, if you could create a universe or a mind from inert matter, then we would not actually be having this conversation-I doubt. In theory, Berkely's solipsism would have no logical necessity to exist, or at least would not have an impact or make one wonder.

For instance, because we can't understand essences of a thing, it becomes a logical possibility that a snapshot in time (apprehended view or perception) is only that which was observed at that point in time. Physical things in themselves change their appearence with time. Sometimes they even disappear with time. The universe is much the same way; it changes over time.

Of course, this is one hole in the impiricists/rationalist epitemology. Subsequent observation and timeless concepts in the mind [mathematics] are not ultimately capable of understanding [our]cosmological existence.

In otherwords, if our essence is based on say electrial forces, what are we? What is the essence of matter?


Thoughts?

Walrus

snatchbalance

The question seems to be , not so much, what is the nature of matter, but what do we agree on.

Discounting instances of pleasure and pain, which seem to be encompassed by concepts like Ahhh! or Arrrgh!, the nature of reality does seem to be something of a social construction, something to agree on.

For example, you are rolling dice by yourself; no witnesses. you write down your results.

How do you know you got it right?

The fact that confirmation of the outside world can only be provided by others, seems to be confirmation of an objective reality. Otherwise, why would those who disagree be labled insane?

WJ

Yo snatch!

I think that is an interesting point. Before you posted I was thinking about strange things like cats or animals lacking certain functions of sentience and thus wondering if they then think that sentience [human] doesn't exit. or, like when you dream and the images are allelectrical/mental and you never woke up how would you know whether that moment(s) in time are real in the objective sense. Kind of strange isn't it?

To that end you said: "The fact that confirmation of the outside world can only be provided by others, seems to be confirmation of an objective reality. Otherwise, why would those who disagree be labled insane?"

I think that is part of the problem. We don't have an independent third party to tell us exactly whether you and I both see red in the same way. We can use common sense from objects to know that we see, feel, smell certain things the same, but we can't say that the ability to see (images in the brain), feel, smell, which comes from electrical stimuli is the appropriate means and method for a perfect reality.

Thus my argument about the nature of things (and analogy to limited creature's brain power, etc.). and so in a way, we are kind of back to cracking the mysteries of human reason (consciousness). The question obviously comes back around to suggest, like other animals, for some reason we cannot crack the origins of universal consciousness and cosmological existence. Why can't this be known? I think there lies the stumbling block to Berkeley's reality.

From a [human] physics standpoint (electrical forces/matter/brain images), he [berkeley] could not be proven wrong by surmizing that our essences are metaphysical or spiritual. Science must continue to find answers for problems such as 'mind-body' and the origins of universal consciousness. (Personally, I don't think it will ever happen.) Perhaps you could say then, that truth, is indeed subjectivity. Or, perhaps truth is electricity in one's mind? Certainly when one dreams, it feels like reality at that point in time, no? And do we even know the dimensions of time when we dream?

...just thinking aloud...lot's of different directions to explore here I think.

Walrus

[ March 26, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

hezekiah jones

LOL! When I first read Berkeley, I thought he had to have been joking, what with all the derogatory remarks about Locke and the rest of those "patrons of matter."

Then I was told that, without the mind of god, Berkeley wouldn't have any furniture in his bedroom while he was out shopping (or out kicking rocks with Samuel Johnson).

snatchbalance

WJ

My own thoughts have been running something like this:

1. Objective reality exists in some form.

2. Living creaturs add thier own "sense" to the form.

3. Depending on thier "hardware" creatures can provide diferent levels of organization. For example, bacteria - none, cat-some, people-more.

4. People, due to thier hardware(DNA) are complex social animals. They are capable of high levels of organization(comparativly speaking).

5. Thier social nature forces them into finding agreement. For example, bears(as far as I know)do not need to find agreement.

SNB

WJ

Snatch!

Just a quickie, in your last comment about 'agreement' do you have any practical implications to this? In other words, many physicists have their own theories as to why the laws of nature can be uncoded thru mathematics (the world is ordered to a large extent). While their are other's, who can only postulate (and rightfully so) that ultimately mathematic's is not solving the problems relative to the origins of the universe.

For instance if there exists mystery to the nature of objective existence, in that we (ie, human scientists) cannot completely agree to some of the how's (but mostly the why's) of the origins of that physical existence, how does agreement provide any insite? Perhaps it is thru this mystery that 'disagreement' occurs and thus some solutions are discovered. For without disagreement, perhaps there would be not as much motivation or reason for the search itself. However, I think we are back to the inherent nature of man as to why he consistently questions his existence (which we still don't know and understand why we have this intrinsic need to do so).

Is this what you mean by agreement? Or am I delving into too much of the 'nature' of a thing (as we perceive it)?

Walrus

WJ

All!

Here are some interesting thoughts I found on the paradox/contradiction of Nothing viz. perceptions in the mind:

Nothing. Let us consider it as a term. Now, et us try and define Nothing. Is Nothing the lack of Something? If we try to find an example in the existing Universe, can we succeed? Nothing should be the lack of:

Matter. Obviously, if there is matter, then it is defined as something, excluding the existence of Nothing.

Energy. Another word for matter, or vice versa; same logic applies to it as well.

Emanations. Or, not-matter, not-energy. Just in case we haven't covered everything with the first two.

Space. Space? Space is not exactly matter, nor energy.. more in category of our next term

Perception. Why perception? Because if Nothing is there, then simple perception gives it definition, and Nothing is void of anything, including definitions.

The following conclusion is that Nothing simply excludes itself. If it exists, then by its very act of existence it gains definition, thus rendering it into Something (for example the definition of Nothing), which definitely is not Nothing.

---------------------------
NOTHING COMES EASY

Nothing is the opposite of everything.

Thought turns Nothing into something.

You get something from Nothing.

Thinking makes Nothing something.

Nothing only exists in relation to its opposite only if we choose to think of it in relationship to something.

Nothing cannot exist without thought.

Nothing comes easy.

As a matter of fact, there's Nothing to it.
------------

Enjoy,

Warus

Kim o' the Concrete Jungle

Matter "exists" because we have a continuous and shared sensory experience of solidity in our perceptual world that we agree to call "matter". It doesn't matter where that sensory experience comes from. It only matters that it is a continuous experience, and that we have agreed what to call it.

It's not so much that solipsism isn't true, more that it's irrelevant.