The only person "caught" of something, is your illiteracy on display.FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 2:00 pmThat doesn't relate to Berkeley's argument...
Berkeley is stating here that the chain between perception and object of perception is not there. The bit yourefer to as "connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain" is what he is disputing in the quoted paragraph. Because, and I can't really be bothered to tell you this many more times.... you didn't get the talk of connecting sense-perception to stuff from him, he refutes that stuff. It comes from Locke.It is indeed an opinion strangely prevailing amongst men, that houses, mountains, rivers, and in a word all sensible objects have an existence natural or real, distinct from their being perceived by the understanding. But with how great an assurance and acquiescence soever this principle may be entertained in the world; yet whoever shall find in his heart to call it in question, may, if I mistake not, perceive it to involve a manifest contradiction. For what are the forementioned objects but the things we perceive by sense, and what do we perceive besides our own ideas or sensations; and is it not plainly repugnant that any one of these or any combination of them should exist unperceived?
Enough of this shit. You have been caught lying.
His point in the part you quoted, was that unperceived phenomena, by anybody at any time, cannot be said to Exist. And if it could exist, then it would only be in the mind of God, where perception is Universal.
Sorry, Dopey, you're out-classed.