4
   

Berkeley's Response to Descartes

 
 
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 11:09 am
@Setanta,
If there are a fixed number of particles in that bar, and you eat half, then there's only half as many in the remaining half. Those you ate become other things.

Like I said, explaining this in terms of sub-atomic phenomena isn't practical, but that doesn't mean that there are no sub-atomic phenomena involved in a granola bar.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 11:19 am
@Cyracuz,
Yeah, the other half are in your gut, and there's no reason to assume that they've changed in the least.
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 11:20 am
@Cyracuz,
Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
Would you agree with this interpretation of classical physics by UCLA professor Sandra Harding?


I am not sure I understand the context.
A consistent analysis of classical physics? Is that what the first sentence of the quote refers to?



Specifically, it is Sandra Harding's critique of Newtonian mechanics.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 11:41 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
A consistent analysis...

..of classical physics? ...of Newtonian mechanics?
Quote:
...would lead to the conclusion that understanding nature as a woman indifferent to or even welcoming rape was equally fundamental to the interpretations...

...equal to which interpretations?
Quote:
...of these new conceptions of nature and inquiry.


Does she presume that nature has feelings regarding Newtonian mechanics similar to those of a woman regarding rape?





wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 12:03 pm
@Cyracuz,
never mind
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 12:20 pm
@wandeljw,
Perhaps if you gave me a little more than that quote. Sorry for being dense here, but that wasn't so much to go on. A link to the text you quoted perhaps?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 12:21 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Yeah, the other half are in your gut, and there's no reason to assume that they've changed in the least.


So what you eat comes out the other end looking just like it did before you ate it?
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 12:26 pm
@Cyracuz,
It may have been me who misunderstood you.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 12:30 pm
@Cyracuz,
You're right about that: no one can deny that for everything that occurs on the macro cosmic level, there co-occurs corresponding activity on the sub-atomic level. The Cosmos is ultimately a unity-- a principle I accept without effort. The only difficulty is showing how that unity operates--you already acknowledged the practical difficulty of that--at its aspect of multiplicity, to show how that correspondence occurs between levels and its functional (and theoretical) implications.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 01:12 pm
@JLNobody,
I think particle physicist John Hagelin has some interesting things to say about this. I found some videos on youtube where he describes some of these things, and then goes on to explain how he thinks consciousness fits into reality. I think it's fascinating, though I think that other particle physicists who have worked on the unified field theory with him don't agree with his approach. The total duration of these videos is around 40 min. I just linked them all in case you were interested, but I think the first one covers what we are speaking of here.

Discovery of the Unified Field
What is Consciousness
Experience the Unified Field
The Unified Field is Consciousness
Human potential is unlimited
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 01:27 pm
@G H,
G H wrote:

Something else to add here: Berkeley later either clarified or discarded any notion of God perceiving the world and maintaining it via being an ultimate observer. He viewed God as indeed the intelligible source of things, but God featured no inferior sensory faculty. Essentially, God simply replaced the intellectual/formal world of the ancients in Berkeley's scheme.

Well, I think Berkeley still maintained that esse est percipi, even though he was somewhat vague in The Three Dialogues regarding god's role in all of that. I think his point was that god perceived things, he just didn't perceive by means of five senses the way humans do. God perceived, but in a uniquely god-like way.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 02:30 pm
@Cyracuz,
As far as sub-atomic particles are concerned, yes. I can't believe you're still trying to flog that bullshit.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 02:31 pm
@JLNobody,
Your bullshit is as bad as his. Talk about simple-minded . . .
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 03:17 pm
@Setanta,
Laughing
Aren't you the guy who who announced on another thread that he did not know much about maths or science ?
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 03:20 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
As far as sub-atomic particles are concerned, yes.


I think that is just plain wrong.
You eat something, part of it becomes refuse that passes through you, other parts become new cells, and some of it becomes energy that you burn through the day.

If there is no change in the sub-atomic structure of the substance you eat as it goes through these transformations, then your granola bar, the energy of your body, the cells in your body and the **** you leave in the bowl have the exact same sub-atomic structure in the exact same configuration?
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 03:41 pm
@Cyracuz,
NB On the "wavicle" (node of reinforcement) paradigm one needs to be cautious about "identity", especially when the concept of "locality" has also been questioned.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 05:46 pm
@Setanta,
You equate me with Cryacuz? I'm flattered. So I guess I DO care what you think of me.
G H
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 06:16 pm
@joefromchicago,
Quote:
...though he was somewhat vague in The Three Dialogues regarding god's role in all of that. I think his point was that god perceived things, he just didn't perceive by means of five senses the way humans do. God perceived, but in a uniquely god-like way.

That could be. I thought much earlier about dropping the post below as yet another addendum, but decided maybe it was like beating a boring horse further. But since there's some interest....

- - - - - - - - - - - -

In The Three Dialogues, there is a place where Berkeley finally does state plainly that God perceives; and therefore "seems" to contradict himself in Siris, his final work. I see no way to avoid it, unless he contends elsewhere in his writings that perception is not always dependent upon sense. Or that because he was referring to what "other men believe", it might be inferred for the sake of brevity that he sloppily retained "perception" in application to his own conclusion.

"Men commonly believe that all things are known or perceived by God, because they believe the being of a God; whereas I, on the other side, immediately and necessarily conclude the being of a God, because all sensible things must be perceived by Him."

Again, in Siris: "...There is no sense, nor sensory, nor any thing like a sense or sensory in God. Sense implies an impression from some other being, and denotes a dependence in the Soul which hath it. Sense is a passion, and passions imply imperfection. God knoweth all things, as pure mind or intellect, but nothing by sense..."

Some try to excuse Berkeley by claiming that he was senile when he wrote Siris. Not just because of the tar-water, but his veering into Platonism. But he wrote of similar in The Three Dialogues, that God had no use for our ideas (sensation, thought, and imagination):

"I do not understand how our ideas, which are things altogether passive and inert, can be the essence, or any part (or like any part) of the essence or substance of God, who is an impassive, indivisible, pure, active being."

And, again:

"...I do not say, I see things by perceiving that which represents them in the intelligible Substance of God."

Plus, Berkeley's apparent "change of mind" in Siris actually makes a good point (if such can be attributed to remarks about god beings). A feat for a philosopher they accuse of being senile by then.
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Dec, 2011 10:37 pm
@G H,
If I were a theologian and accepted the premise of a God, I would assume that His mechanisms of perception would be far beyond the understanding of an opthamalogist or audiologist.
Cyracuz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Dec, 2011 09:25 am
@JLNobody,
It could be argued that god, at least the christian version of it, is an anthropomorphism in the first place.
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 05:00:41