George Berkeley's Idealism Dialogues

  • 6 Replies
  • 5201 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« on: March 25, 2014, 11:49:59 pm »
Interesting. Not much else to say at the moment, but I do think these are worth a read even if the arguments are likely to remain unconvincing.

Three Dialogues Between Hylas and Philonous in Opposition to Sceptics and Atheists.

The First Dialogue
Quote

Hyl. I frankly own, Philonous, that it is in vain to longer. Colours, sounds, tastes, in a word all those termed secondary qualities, have certainly no existence without the mind. But by this acknowledgment I must not be supposed to derogate, the reality of Matter, or external objects; seeing it is no more than several philosophers maintain, who nevertheless are the farthest imaginable from denying Matter. For the clearer understanding of this, you must know sensible qualities are by philosophers divided into Primary and Secondary. The former are Extension, Figure, Solidity, Gravity, Motion, and Rest; and these they hold exist really in bodies. The latter are those above enumerated; or, briefly, all sensible qualities beside the Primary; which they assert are only so many sensations or ideas existing nowhere but in the mind. But all this, I doubt not, you are apprised of. For my part, I have been a long time sensible there was such an opinion current among philosophers, but was never thoroughly convinced of its truth until now.

Phil. You are still then of opinion that extension and figures are inherent in external unthinking substances?

Hyl. I am.

Phil. But what if the same arguments which are brought against Secondary Qualities will hold good against these also?

Phil. You are still then of opinion that extension and figures are inherent in external unthinking substances?

Hyl. I am.

Phil. But what if the same arguments which are brought against Secondary Qualities will hold good against these also?

Hyl. Why then I shall be obliged to think, they too exist only in the mind.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2014, 12:41:45 am »
Here's a Youtube video giving a basic summary of the dialogues.

It's interesting that Berkeley's idea of God as the final Mind perceive everything matches Kaku's description of the Super Observer that solves the problem with Wigner's Friends:
Quote
In 1967, the second resolution to the cat problem was formulated by Nobel laureate Eugene Wigner, whose work was pivotal in laying the foundation of quantum mechanics and also building the atomic bomb. He said that only a conscious person can make an observation that collapses the wave function. But who is to say that this person exists? You cannot separate the observer from the observed, so maybe this person is also dead and alive. In other words, there has to be a new wave function that includes both the cat and the observer. To make sure that the observer is alive, you need a second observer to watch the 1st observer. This second observer is called “Wigner’s friend,”and is necessary to watch the 1st observer so that all waves collapse. But how do we know that the second observer is alive? The second observer has to be included in a still-larger wave function to make sure he is alive, but this can be continued indefinitely.Since you need an infinite number of “friends” to collapse the previous wave function to make sure they are alive, you need some form of “cosmic consciousness,” or God.

Gets weirder when Kaku notes this cosmic consciousness isn't exactly disproven, though I'm pretty sure Wigner rejected it:

Quote
Wigner concluded: “It was not possible to formulate the laws (of quantum theory) in a fully consistent way without reference to consciousness.” Toward the end of his life, he even became interested in the Vedanta philosophy of Hinduism. In this approach, God or some eternal consciousness watches over all of us, collapsing our wave functions so that we can say we are alive.

This interpretation yields the same physical results as the Copenhagen interpretation, so this theory cannot be disproven.But the implication is that consciousness is the fundamental entity in the universe, more fundamental than atoms. The material world may come and go, but consciousness remains as the defining element, which means that consciousness, in some sense, creates reality. The very existence of the atoms we see around us is based on our ability to see and touch them.

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #2 on: July 03, 2014, 12:28:54 am »
Modern Idealism: Way Beyond Berkeley

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKzIT3S7wWA

mrganondorf

  • *
  • The Mouth of Bakker Fans
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Nurse Leweth
  • Posts: 2002
  • PSUKHE ALL THE THINGS!
    • View Profile
    • R. Scott Bakker Fans (on Twitter)

mrganondorf

  • *
  • The Mouth of Bakker Fans
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Nurse Leweth
  • Posts: 2002
  • PSUKHE ALL THE THINGS!
    • View Profile
    • R. Scott Bakker Fans (on Twitter)

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2014, 09:55:44 pm »
Thanks mate!

sciborg2

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Contrarian Wanker
  • Posts: 1173
  • "Trickster Makes This World"
    • View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 07, 2014, 10:16:06 pm »
There’s No Leaving the Bubble of Consciousness:Herbert Müller’s 0-D Epistemology

Quote
By viewing certain structures as derived from, or referring to, a mind-independent reality, traditional ontology has painted itself into a corner. As was stressed by philosopher Karl Jaspers, consciousness/experience is encompassing. The question as to how something in the objective world can give rise to subjective experience is therefore ill-conceived; it rests on the mistaken premise that mind and body are ontically separated,and that this separation has somehow to be overcome.Herbert Müller has developed these insights into an epistemology that does not refer to an outside world and that,a fortiori, does not seek to derive knowledge from an external source. This article presents Müller’s work on “structuring with zero-derivation” (0-D), mainly in his own words, extracted from three articles that appeared in the highly commendable open-access e-journal Constructivist Foundations