1. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    ZellulÀrer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    14 Jan '10 10:33
    What convincing arguments are there? I admit to being bamboozled.
  2. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    14 Jan '10 11:101 edit
    If a tree falls in the forest...

    If we take the BI view of the universe, what does "to be real" mean?
  3. Standard memberblack beetle
    Black Beastie
    Scheveningen
    Joined
    12 Jun '08
    Moves
    14510
    14 Jan '10 11:26
    Originally posted by Palynka
    If a tree falls in the forest...

    If we take the BI view of the universe, what does "to be real" mean?
    Methinks it mean we perceive ideas thick as a brick and that we build a wall-like reality using these breaks -and we are constantly falling headfirst on that wall
    đŸ˜”
  4. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    ZellulÀrer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    14 Jan '10 11:271 edit
    Originally posted by Palynka
    If a tree falls in the forest...

    If we take the BI view of the universe, what does "to be real" mean?
    I don't know. Berkeley talks about what exists, I think, not what is real. He contends that it's impossible for us to talk meaningfully about things that exist independently, outside the mind. In other words for us 'matter' can only be an idea, not something that exists independently, outside of the mind. It doesn't follow from this view that things therefore come into existence only when they are perceived -- just that they only do so in that way for us. (I think this is a strawman frequently foisted on Berkeley.)

    The 'tree falling in a forest' koan is quite apt.
  5. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    14 Jan '10 11:37
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    I don't know. Berkeley talks about what exists, I think, not what is real. He contends that it's impossible for us to talk meaningfully about things that exist independently, outside the mind. In other words for us 'matter' can only be an idea, not something that exists independently, outside of the mind. It doesn't follow from this view that things th ...[text shortened]... man frequently foisted on Berkeley.)

    The 'tree falling in a forest' koan is quite apt.
    It's still a play with words, in my view. The concept of "mind" is a dualist concept, so it's pretty meaningless without matter. Moreover, how can perceptions arise without anything existing independently of this weird 'mind' concept?

    I understand how we cannot really grasp what matter truly is (the more Kantian view), but to deny it exists entirely begs too many questions.
  6. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    ZellulÀrer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    14 Jan '10 12:01
    Originally posted by Palynka
    It's still a play with words, in my view. The concept of "mind" is a dualist concept, so it's pretty meaningless without matter. Moreover, how can perceptions arise without anything existing independently of this weird 'mind' concept?

    I understand how we cannot really grasp what matter truly is (the more Kantian view), but to deny it exists entirely begs too many questions.
    You're repeating the strawman I mentioned. Berkeley doesn't say that 'there is nothing outside the mind', only that all things we can talk about are ideas. In that regard, I don't see the difference between Berkeley and Kant. Do you?

    As it happens, I don't think 'mind' need necessarily be a dualist concept. I think for Berkeley it tends towards the monadic ...
  7. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    14 Jan '10 12:111 edit
    Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
    You're repeating the strawman I mentioned. Berkeley doesn't say that 'there is nothing outside the mind', only that all things we can talk about are ideas. In that regard, I don't see the difference between Berkeley and Kant. Do you?

    As it happens, I don't think 'mind' need necessarily be a dualist concept. I think for Berkeley it tends towards the monadic ...
    Then I don't know enough to comment, as my view of BI is wrong...
  8. Standard memberBosse de Nage
    ZellulÀrer Automat
    Spiel des Lebens
    Joined
    27 Jan '05
    Moves
    83887
    14 Jan '10 12:24
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Then I don't know enough to comment, as my view of BI is wrong...
    Well, if you're interested:
    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/#3.1.1

    I find him an entertaining writer.
  9. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91614
    14 Jan '10 12:44
    Originally posted by Palynka
    If a tree falls in the forest...

    If we take the BI view of the universe, what does "to be real" mean?
    "Aquire" a property in the country. Build a house in the middle. Grow heaps of Diviners Sage. Surround your house with it. Stay in your house.Only let close family and absolutely trusted persons visit you. Anyone else who wants to visit must smoke a cone of Diviners Sage first. Then you will get an understanding of what 'being real' means.
  10. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    14 Jan '10 13:05
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    "Aquire" a property in the country. Build a house in the middle. Grow heaps of Diviners Sage. Surround your house with it. Stay in your house.Only let close family and absolutely trusted persons visit you. Anyone else who wants to visit must smoke a cone of Diviners Sage first. Then you will get an understanding of what 'being real' means.
    Fascinating.
Back to Top