Perhaps idealism adds nothing, but you simply accept physicalism as the default position. — Tobias
I've admitted to the unspeakable sin of being a physicalist, yes. But that's not the point. Idealism is just another version of physicalism. It renames the transcendent from "matter" to "mental". That's all. Until the truth can be proved one way or the other, physicalism is not invalidated by idealism.
I am amused by the contempt which idealists hold toward physicalism on TPF. — Real Gone Cat
Is that all there is to life? Is there more to life or anything beyond the scope of perception? What can we learn from a life that only entails a limited perception of human mind? — chiknsld
What I also find interesting is that these kind of metaphysical questions, "what is really really real? as opposed to what is real", seems to be all the rage on TPF these days. — Tobias
If so and if, however, it doesn't make sense to say "perceiving is perceived", then "perceiving" cannot be; therefore "to be" has to be other (more) than "to be perceived". :eyes: — 180 Proof
They do not seem to be not just "categories" in this Berkeleyan context."Being" and "perception" are categories ... — hypericin
:fire:If you doubtthe transcendent[exteriority], then all is what's in your mind. That's solipsism. — Real Gone Cat
:up:Idealism is justanother[an incoherent] version of physicalism. It renamesthe transcendent[exteriority] from "matter" to "mental". That's all. — Real Gone Cat
:100: :clap:The forum is presently dominated by fools with little to no grasp of basic philosophical or logical notions and yet with thoroughgoing confidence in their opinions; by those who have failed to learn how to learn. — Banno
if "to be is to be perceived", then, for a perceiver to be, a perceiver must be perceived by another perceiver ... by another perceiver . .. by another perceiver .. ad infinitum. :chin: — 180 Proof
:roll:The mind is essentially a function that maps sensory data to the virtual world of qualia. There is no other reasonable way to understand our place in the world. — hypericin
IIRC, there's nothing in Berkeley's speculation that says 'to be is to be self-perceived'. And even if so, that's mere solipsism, which I suppose pertains to the function of Berkeley's "God" as the Ur-perceiver (i.e. arbitrary terminus à la "unmoved mover" or "first cause" or "necessary being", etc).No need for an ad infinitum. It's a circle, not a line. A perceiver can perceive itself. — ZzzoneiroCosm
And even if so, that's mere solipsism, — 180 Proof
IIRC, there's nothing in Berkeley's speculation that says 'to be is to be self-perceived'. And even if so, that's mere solipsism, which I suppose pertains to the function of Berkeley's "God" as the Ur-perceiver (i.e. arbitrary terminus à la "unmoved mover" or "first cause" or "necessary being", etc). — 180 Proof
The forum is presently dominated by fools with little to no grasp of basic philosophical or logical notions and yet with thoroughgoing confidence in their opinions; by those who have failed to learn how to learn. — Banno
he point about the rose colored glasses is particularly apt. That IS the argument against physicalism. Just reframe it: "if you assume you have an abstract thought model that explains reality, and you interpret all experience using that model, does that mean your model is actually a reflection of reality?" — Count Timothy von Icarus
IIRC, there's nothing in Berkeley's speculation that says 'to be is to be self-perceived'. And even if so, that's mere solipsism.
To be is to be and to be perceived is to be and be perceived — jgill
What's a tautology? — Agent Smith
The forum is presently dominated by fools with little to no grasp of basic philosophical or logical notions and yet with thoroughgoing confidence in their opinions; by those who have failed to learn how to learn — Banno
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.