17:00 is just false. Of course (2) is also contradictory, though in disguise. If I conceive an arbitrary obejct as existing unconceived then in this moment this very object is conceived by me and therefore cannot exist as unconceived. Example: If I conceive a tree in an empty world then in this world the tree might seem to exist unconceived, but after all I do conceive the world with the tree in it, so eventually the tree is conceived by me.
I agree I have this inkling with the master argument that it doesn't work yet anytime i look at why im left unimpressed. It just seems obvious that we can't conceive of an unconceived object or a mind-independent object so i dont get how this argument tackles realism. Is it trying to say a mind-independent object is as logically impossible as a round circle?
Yes. It's very straightforward: Let's say realism was true (to me). Then there must be at least one object for me to identify as existing unconceived. This is - even in theory - impossible for if I bring up such an object it's automatically conceived by me by the very act of bringing it up. So realism must be false to me. That's the proof and anybody can check it out by plugging in him-/herself into "me/I" of the proof. Realism is an (useful) illusion where you forget yourself and pretent the world runs without you at helm.
Again i accept that its impossible FOR ME to conceive of an object existing unconceived but dont understand why that means mind-independent objects are impossible.
Well, ask yourself: what would such a mind-indepedent object be like? You or anybody could not give any answer whatsoever because in doing so the object becomes mind-depedent. But then how can such an object exist if no human can ever refer to it as existent? You could argue that it could still exist and we just cannot comprehend it, but I say there's no difference between non-existence and an existence which we can never detect or even refer to.
Well i dont buy into this sense data nonsense direct realism seems much more plausible and that doesn't have the problem of mind-independent objects being unconceivable. Do you really think the world wouldn't exist if you died or did i read that wrong?
How do we distinguish between perception and imagination? The same way as anyone else does. The hypothesis that there exists a mind-independent reality does not, and indeed could not in principle, help us distinguish between perception and imagination. I have a visual sensation resembling an apple. I stretch out my hand and experience a certain characteristic tactile sensation. I can lift it up and it has a certain weight. I can bite into it and it has a certain taste. And last but not least all my perceptual sensations of the apple have a realness which surpasses that of imagining an apple. All this suffices to distinguish between the real apple and an imaginary apple. And even if it doesn't those who hypothesise a mind-independent reality do not fare any better.
Have you investigated Leibniz ? His theory of perception is a bit difficult to understand, but essentially it consists in the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals into mental experience. If you google on perception Leibniz you will find a number of listings. If you include my name, Roger Clough, you can see some of my own writings.
At first I thought that you were on to something? I then considered, how many moment's it would take me to dispute most of your philosophical ideas and opinion's based on your "sense perception" information? Consequently and in consideration of your posit that nothing exists? I decided that to you, the effort would be a waste of my moment's?! I am of a different opinion! I posit that there is no such thing as nothing and therefore people are responsible for their action's in life. ~ Rather than help ignorance along by excusing the fact that it is ignorant of it's own action!
That Berkeley purportedly ‘believed’ in the existence of a god disqualifies him for membership in the ‘religio-philosophical realm’. period. To do so stopped the intellectual development he could have accessed if his thinking hadn't have been so narrowly defined by the context of the culture in which he was compelled to exist to survive, and the religion he was compelled to practice during his youthful and formative years. And that is the truth. (actually, only a component of the Whole Truth.)
" I am conceiving that there exist an object ( ? ) such that the object (?) is unconceived." ' I am possessed of the idea of an object THAT EXISTS that I nor anyone else has an idea of. ' An Empiricist would disagree, it seems...as they'd say all of our conceptions ( Ideas ) come from perceptions ( Empirical Data, ) right? You claim the real existence of your object, but don't define or classify it ( nice try... ) " there exist an object... " Or would you reject its real existence while saying " there exist an object... ? " Is it a pure object of a mind ( Idea ...) or is it an idea from perception... you don't say. If you rule out conception ( Idea ) from perception ( Sense Data )... we have an absolute idea/object of the mind, right, that you are obviously conceiving and asserting the REAL existence of ! There is a conceived object... the idea of the object comes from the perception of the object... if only in a mind... So, it is... " I possess a thought object in my mind, an idea... gained from the perception by my mind of an existing/real object... which is not perceived or conceived by any mind, which, of course, includes mine " It doesn't work as I have shown... as it is self refuting, or... its vagueness ( failure to classify the object you claim the real existence of... ) means one can take the proposition any number of ways.. . It seems that you're trying to cobble together some version of the Liar Paradox, but it's a no go, because we can relate the IDEAS of your proposition to fleshed out philosophies that you can't refute, but only argue against... Not all believers in G-d... give G-d the attributes that you claim. You sound like an atheist that defines all believer's in G-d as fundamentalists... You make these " attributes of G-d " literal conceptions of what G-d is... to suit yourself... your dogmatism...your argument. Berkeley was a Nominalist... if I am not mistaken... So, that is a Strawman... And actually... ancient Skepticism would be the route to go, rather than with Hume's unintelligible and contradictory dogmatic nonsense... if one wanted to appear logical and rational... rather than dogmatically anti - religious... like Hume... Some humble equipollence ( real Skepticism ) is in order rather than this shoddy dogmatism...
Just discovered this goldmine of a channel.
Thank you for your work.
17:00 is just false. Of course (2) is also contradictory, though in disguise. If I conceive an arbitrary obejct as existing unconceived then in this moment this very object is conceived by me and therefore cannot exist as unconceived. Example: If I conceive a tree in an empty world then in this world the tree might seem to exist unconceived, but after all I do conceive the world with the tree in it, so eventually the tree is conceived by me.
I agree I have this inkling with the master argument that it doesn't work yet anytime i look at why im left unimpressed. It just seems obvious that we can't conceive of an unconceived object or a mind-independent object so i dont get how this argument tackles realism. Is it trying to say a mind-independent object is as logically impossible as a round circle?
Yes. It's very straightforward: Let's say realism was true (to me). Then there must be at least one object for me to identify as existing unconceived. This is - even in theory - impossible for if I bring up such an object it's automatically conceived by me by the very act of bringing it up. So realism must be false to me. That's the proof and anybody can check it out by plugging in him-/herself into "me/I" of the proof. Realism is an (useful) illusion where you forget yourself and pretent the world runs without you at helm.
Again i accept that its impossible FOR ME to conceive of an object existing unconceived but dont understand why that means mind-independent objects are impossible.
Well, ask yourself: what would such a mind-indepedent object be like? You or anybody could not give any answer whatsoever because in doing so the object becomes mind-depedent. But then how can such an object exist if no human can ever refer to it as existent? You could argue that it could still exist and we just cannot comprehend it, but I say there's no difference between non-existence and an existence which we can never detect or even refer to.
Well i dont buy into this sense data nonsense direct realism seems much more plausible and that doesn't have the problem of mind-independent objects being unconceivable. Do you really think the world wouldn't exist if you died or did i read that wrong?
How do we distinguish between perception and imagination?
The same way as anyone else does. The hypothesis that there exists a mind-independent reality does not, and indeed could not in principle, help us distinguish between perception and imagination.
I have a visual sensation resembling an apple. I stretch out my hand and experience a certain characteristic tactile sensation. I can lift it up and it has a certain weight. I can bite into it and it has a certain taste. And last but not least all my perceptual sensations of the apple have a realness which surpasses that of imagining an apple. All this suffices to distinguish between the real apple and an imaginary apple. And even if it doesn't those who hypothesise a mind-independent reality do not fare any better.
There's an even better criterion: consensus.
2:50 - "Ess-ay eh-st per-kipp-y"
can't we feel the shape through tactile sense data?
Have you investigated Leibniz ? His theory of perception is a bit difficult to understand, but essentially it consists in the conversion of physical sensory nerve signals into mental experience. If you google on perception Leibniz you will find a number of listings. If you include my name, Roger Clough, you can see some of my own writings.
how does this idealism relate to the discovery of quantum mechanics?
Great video. Here is a reply: a non-theistic rebuttal of the arguments against Idealism: th-cam.com/video/tKzIT3S7wWA/w-d-xo.html
I always thought that Samuel Johnson's philosophical pronouncements betrayed a serious lack of critical thinking :)
7:00
Moore
At first I thought that you were on to something?
I then considered, how many moment's it would take me to dispute most of your philosophical ideas and opinion's based on your "sense perception" information?
Consequently and in consideration of your posit that nothing exists? I decided that to you, the effort would be a waste of my moment's?!
I am of a different opinion!
I posit that there is no such thing as nothing and therefore people are responsible for their action's in life. ~ Rather than help ignorance along by excusing the fact that it is ignorant of it's own action!
R u idealist mow?
That Berkeley purportedly ‘believed’ in the existence of a god disqualifies him for membership in the ‘religio-philosophical realm’. period.
To do so stopped the intellectual development he could have accessed if his thinking hadn't have been so narrowly defined by the context of the culture in which he was compelled to exist to survive, and the religion he was compelled to practice during his youthful and formative years.
And that is the truth. (actually, only a component of the Whole Truth.)
" I am conceiving that there exist an object ( ? ) such that the object (?) is unconceived."
' I am possessed of the idea of an object THAT EXISTS that I nor anyone else has an idea of. '
An Empiricist would disagree, it seems...as they'd say all of our conceptions ( Ideas ) come from perceptions ( Empirical Data, ) right?
You claim the real existence of your object, but don't define or classify it ( nice try... ) " there exist an object... " Or would you reject its real existence while saying " there exist an object... ? "
Is it a pure object of a mind ( Idea ...) or is it an idea from perception... you don't say.
If you rule out conception ( Idea ) from perception ( Sense Data )... we have an absolute idea/object of the mind, right, that you are obviously conceiving and asserting the REAL existence of !
There is a conceived object... the idea of the object comes from the perception of the object... if only in a mind...
So, it is... " I possess a thought object in my mind, an idea... gained from the perception by my mind of an existing/real object... which is not perceived or conceived by any mind, which, of course, includes mine "
It doesn't work as I have shown... as it is self refuting, or... its vagueness ( failure to classify the object you claim the real existence of... ) means one can take the proposition any number of ways..
.
It seems that you're trying to cobble together some version of the Liar Paradox, but it's a no go, because we can relate the IDEAS of your proposition to fleshed out philosophies that you can't refute, but only argue against...
Not all believers in G-d... give G-d the attributes that you claim.
You sound like an atheist that defines all believer's in G-d as fundamentalists...
You make these " attributes of G-d " literal conceptions of what G-d is... to suit yourself... your dogmatism...your argument.
Berkeley was a Nominalist... if I am not mistaken...
So, that is a Strawman...
And actually... ancient Skepticism would be the route to go, rather than with Hume's unintelligible and contradictory dogmatic nonsense... if one wanted to appear logical and rational... rather than dogmatically anti - religious... like Hume...
Some humble equipollence ( real Skepticism ) is in order rather than this shoddy dogmatism...
22:33. LOL. Last time I checked materialism was dead.
How do you even prove ‘matter exists’? Let alone being the fundamental reality. Sorry, but you’re an idiot.