(Il)Literacy Problem in the West

[FlashDangerpants]

You're quite desperate Dopey.

My illiteracy is not the issue though, reread the thread.

What I enjoy about Berkeley is how he really destroyed Solipsistic philosophies and philosophers by connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain.

Cognition is how the brain renders sense-perception into biological data, which is in turn selectively Memorized into the subconscious.

Berkeley explicitly denies that "the brain renders sense-perception into biological data" , which is why he wrote this...

Hence it is evident the production of ideas or sensations in our minds, can be no reason why we should suppose matter or corporeal substances, since that is acknowledged to remain equally inexplicable with, or without this supposition

You have been doing this shit for days already and you still don't appear to even know that Berekeley was an idealist.

Reality is what is verifiably apprehended through the senses via perception.

Idealization is the projection of existential objects, into reality, by presumption, presupposition, and inference or belief/faith.

Berkeley specialized in the specific and exact manner by which sense-perception is converted into data within the mind.

I'm always open to some exciting new scholarship. Please show us where in the Treatise Berkeley describesd this exact manner by which sense-perception is converted to data. Perhaps we can pass tht information to Chalmers and sort out a couple of controversies rather nicely.

Here's the Treatise, free and online for all.
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/ ... frontcover

[Wizard22]

I finished my University education long time ago, don't really have interest to educate, lecture, or tutor you.

You have proven in this thread your complete lack of literacy and competency. I appreciate that.

Now you may leave, and take Clowny with you. I don't want a couple of idiots clogging my threads with inanity.

[FlashDangerpants]

I finished my University education long time ago, don't really have interest to educate, lecture, or tutor you.

You have proven in this thread your complete lack of literacy and competency. I appreciate that.

Now you may leave, and take Clowny with you. I don't want a couple of idiots clogging my threads with inanity.

But your scholarship is superior to that of Stanford University
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/#2.1
They hold the mundane normal view that

He was a talented metaphysician famous for defending idealism, that is, the view that reality consists exclusively of minds and their ideas.

So your new interpretation with its integration of materialism and idealism is something remarkable and everyone should hear about it.

[Wizard22]

Your misunderstandings are not my responsibility, and not my problem.

[Age]

PROVIDE just ONE example of WHERE you have ANSWERED the ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED you

Right here:

SEE, HOW you do NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTIONS, which I POSE, and ASK you?

What do you think this is? Your lack of self-awareness is comical.

You are illiterate. You are oblivious to when your questions are answered.

LOL

ONCE AGAIN, the ACTUAL QUESTION is NOT ANSWERED. Although it is EXTREMELY OBVIOUS that you posted A REPLY. But SEEING as you appear to NOT YET KNOW the DIFFERENCE between 'AN ANSWER, to the ACTUAL QUESTION', FROM 'A RESPONSE', but BELIEVE you do, this would EXPLAIN WHY you are CONTINUALLY FAILING to READ and UNDERSTAND what 'I', and "others", here ARE WRITING and SAYING.

[Age]

It's impressive how wrong you are able to be in so few words. Locke was interested in brains, Berkeley was interested in minds. Let me help you out there with some literacy issues you are experiencing....

1. "…though we give the materialists their external bodies..." he is referencing here "the materialists". That's people who offer a mechanistic explanation of matter causing perception to occur within a brain. What you called "connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain", so in this phrase he is supposing for the sake of argument that the external bodies (the apple for instance that instantiaties redness and firness and sweetness) do have real mind-independent existence.

2. "since they own themselves unable to comprehend in what manner body can act upon spirit" . This is a reference to Locke who in the Essays (the book you thought you were talking about when you cited Berkeley) he says this "Body as far as we can conceive being able only to strike and affect body; and Motion, according to the utmost reach of our Ideas, being able to produce nothing but Motion, so that when we allow it to produce pleasure or pain, or the Idea of a Colour, or Sound, we are fain to quit our Reason, go beyond our Ideas, and attribute it wholly to the good Pleasure of our Maker." So the problem here is one of interaction between material substance and immaterial mind. In that history of phil book you did actually read, look for the part about Descartes and the pineal gland for more background to that.

3. "Hence it is evident the production of ideas or sensations in our minds, can be no reason why we should suppose matter or corporeal substances, since that is acknowledged to remain equally inexplicable with, or without this supposition". Here he argues that, because the causal chain from a (for sake of argument) mind-independent red apple to light in those wavelengths which are redness-representing, through eyes and into "logical circuits" contains material components only.... there is no causal step to put the immaterial impression even of the redness into an immaterial mind (see quote from Locke above). Therefore, ipso-reverse-uno, our immaterial mental experiences of red apples do not give us any reason to suppose that there is a red apple in a real world outside of our mind.

I think this is a great thread which consistently proves the point in the OP.

You don't understand Berkeley. You tried twice to use second-hand sources as attributions to him, the author (Berkeley).

Are you even AWARE that you could NOT prove that you understand this one mentioned here WITHOUT this one being 'here' to INFORM us of WHO is 'understanding' better, if even AT ALL?

Then, when you finally quote him, you clearly don't understand the points he makes or his overall philosophy. Not even close.

But 'you' understand ABSOLUTELY and FULLY, right "wizard22"?

I appreciate your contribution.

[Age]

This thread proves to me the importance of Clarity of Mind.

Even 'clarity of mind' is a Truly IDIOTIC and NONSENSE term and phrase. And to PROVE this True I will ask you to EXPLAIN for ALL of the readers here what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, and HOW 'clarity of mind' could even ACTUALLY be A 'thing'.

So, we now WAIT to SEE how 'literate' you are to what I just SAID and WROTE, EXACTLY.

If your mind is polluted, as is common in this Age of Dis-information, where ideological pollution is pumped into the minds of the masses... then Clarity is rare.

But 'you', "wizard22", are NOT polluted NOR cloudy and confused here AT ALL, correct?

In Philosophy, it is a requirement.

And what IS 'philosophy', EXACTLY?

But that doesn't stop a forum full of mere hobbyists from clogging threads and responses with their oblivious Biases.

LOL Have you even READ the opening post of this thread?

Cognitive dissonance is overwhelming. These mere hobbyists do not clear their mind—instead they come into Philosophy on the presumption of Knowing, what is True, and Righteousness.

LOL

Have you NOT YET NOTICED, EXACTLY, what 'it' IS that 'you' are DOING here?

If not, then what 'you' ARE DOING here is PRESUMING that 'you' ALREADY KNOW what is True AND Right here.

And just how SUPERIOR you ACTUALLY BELIEVE you are, FROM the just "hobbyists" here, speaks LOUD and CLEAR of one who BELIEVES that 'they' are CLEAR and OPEN, while the "others" ARE CONFUSED and MUDDIED.

your CONDESCENDING ATTITUDE does NOT go UNNOTICED, and thus WHY so MUCH CONFLICT and PUSH BACK you are GETTING BACK.

They *SHOULD BE* on religious and political forums.

But NOT 'you' BECAUSE 'you' ARE SO OPEN and WISE, right?

There, they might actually be effective in their ignorance. But not here.

But what you ARE DOING here is DOING 'philosophy', AND FINDING CONCLUSIONS, IN PEACEFUL AGREEMENT and WITH ACCEPTING "others", right?

Instead, here, in Philosophy, is merely an Embarrassment.


Unable to Listen.

Unable to Read.

Unable to Accept.

UNLOL and UNBELIEVABLE.

WHO is NOT reading, NOT listening, and NOT understanding here, THE MOST, is CLEAR and OBVIOUS.

[Age]

In looking for an advantage to everything said, these illiterates hear nothing, except what they wanted to hear before anything was said at all.

Echoes in the mind, Autistic.

At least it is easy and simple to expose these hypocrites...

But just SAYING, 'one is a hypocrite', for example, WITHOUT providing ANY ACTUAL proof is just saying NOTHING AT ALL, and just EXPOSING your OWN ALREADY HELD BELIEFS and ASSUMPTIONS.

[Age]

You're quite desperate Dopey.

My illiteracy is not the issue though, reread the thread.

What I enjoy about Berkeley is how he really destroyed Solipsistic philosophies and philosophers by connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain.

Cognition is how the brain renders sense-perception into biological data, which is in turn selectively Memorized into the subconscious.

Berkeley explicitly denies that "the brain renders sense-perception into biological data" , which is why he wrote this...

Hence it is evident the production of ideas or sensations in our minds, can be no reason why we should suppose matter or corporeal substances, since that is acknowledged to remain equally inexplicable with, or without this supposition

You have been doing this shit for days already and you still don't appear to even know that Berekeley was an idealist.

Reality is what is verifiably apprehended through the senses via perception.

But if you were even a quarter smart of what you BELIEVE you are, then you would KNOW that this is False, Wrong, AND Incorrect.

For example, you BELIEVE that you are the MOST 'literate' one here, and this so-called 'reality' was verified through the senses, via your OWN 'perception'.

Which IS OBVIOUSLY biased, and what was ALLEGEDLY 'verified', (but ONLY to you), IS HOW 'confirmation bias' WORKS, EXACTLY.

The REAL 'thing' that is being VERIFIED and PROVEN here is just HOW BELIEFS cause or create 'confirmation biases', which then effect how one SEES and PERCEIVES 'things'.

Idealization is the projection of existential objects, into reality, by presumption, presupposition, and inference or belief/faith.

AND what 'we' can CLEARLY SEE here is 'you' IDEALIZING and IDOLIZING "your" OWN 'self' here.

Berkeley specialized in the specific and exact manner by which sense-perception is converted into data within the mind.

ONCE AGAIN, what is this 'mind' 'thingy', EXACTLY, which 'you', people, continually go on ABOUT?

[Wizard22]

Even 'clarity of mind' is a Truly IDIOTIC and NONSENSE term and phrase. And to PROVE this True I will ask you to EXPLAIN for ALL of the readers here what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, and HOW 'clarity of mind' could even ACTUALLY be A 'thing'.

So, we now WAIT to SEE how 'literate' you are to what I just SAID and WROTE, EXACTLY.

Clarity of mind involves at least a few different functions.

First of all it requires self-awareness and self-consciousness. You need to be aware of yourself, your thoughts, your beliefs, and your biases. In your case, personally, you've claimed that you "have no beliefs". This demonstrates lack of clarity. Everybody has beliefs. Because everybody has presumptions about mechanical operations of the world. For example, if somebody trips you, then you will fall. Your belief in Gravity, is given, by your expectation (to fall). Belief is directed toward the source of Causes. It doesn't need to be accurate—because most people don't know exactly how Gravity works. But, everybody knows that it does work. Thus the expectation is presumed, and its belief is derivative.

Let's say a person, you, are aware of your own thoughts and beliefs. You know the difference between statements you would agree to, or disagree. This is easily demonstrated in every thread on this forum. People post and presume answers or responses to statements...then they accept or reject what another replies. You do this too.

Thirdly, you need to expand upon Biases of these beliefs and thoughts. Thus you must presume some statements and sentences are true, and so the consequences of those true statements will resonate throughout the rest of its argument. Everybody has beliefs. Everybody believes in the implications of statements. Therefore everybody has biases, what their mind intuits as 'True' or 'False'.

Philosophy requires the suppression of these Biases. Although you may presume little to be True—at least you still have some remaining and reserved Biases. These must be identified, by yourself, and made aware. If you cannot become aware of your own biases, then they will be used against you, eventually, in Philosophical arenas and avenues. Because they expose the individuality of any Person.


Clarity arrives when...after suppression of Confirmation-Bias, a person or individual wants to learn about the objective universe, or existence, beyond any possible subjective bias. In order to achieve this, oppositional perspectives and arguments must be heard out completely, before being disseminated and deconstructed. This means, inevitably, that other people hold oppositional beliefs, with oppositional "My Truth", and there is a supremacy of some ideas versus others. Thus, some ideas are 'better', 'truer', 'superior' than others. This is as easy as...being caught in front of a train, and "wishing away the existence of the train", denying it is there and coming...rather than moving out of the way. Some beliefs are better than others, at least in this example, when it comes to your immediate survival.

Believing in falsity and lies, or delusion, can...and do...cost people their lives.

[FlashDangerpants]

Your misunderstandings are not my responsibility, and not my problem.

My understanding is in line with that of every expert on the subject, and of course with all the people who have actually read the book. It is not in line with yours because you are fabulating the whole thing.

Your misunderstanding arises from you only having read some intro to philosophy book and then assuring yourself that you are now expert, while sadly geting Locke and Berkeley mixed up.

[Sculptor]

I finished my University education long time ago, don't really have interest to educate, lecture, or tutor you.

The Trump University does not really count.

[Wizard22]

My understanding is in line with that of every expert on the subject, and of course with all the people who have actually read the book. It is not in line with yours because you are fabulating the whole thing.

Your misunderstanding arises from you only having read some intro to philosophy book and then assuring yourself that you are now expert, while sadly geting Locke and Berkeley mixed up.

Accuser, your lies have been exposed.

You came into this thread, with your two pals Clowny and Moron, trying to 'one-up' my post about literacy.

You ended up proving my case for me. Thank you. You need to resort to lies about what I've read, about 20 years ago, to make yourself feel better, to assuage your own insecurities and intimidation. All you've shown is that you haven't read Berkeley, nor do you have the intelligence/IQ to understand him, even if you tried. You've shown that you have a bad-habit of using 2nd hand sources, instead of 1st hand. You've shown that your reliance on fallacies, is a nasty habit. This is to compensate with your lack of intelligence, which you've over-exaggerated for the majority of your life. You've always thought yourself as clever, but when really put to the test, you quickly fold.

Philosophy is not for you...maybe try a box of tinker toys instead?

[Age]

Even 'clarity of mind' is a Truly IDIOTIC and NONSENSE term and phrase. And to PROVE this True I will ask you to EXPLAIN for ALL of the readers here what the 'mind' IS, EXACTLY, and HOW 'clarity of mind' could even ACTUALLY be A 'thing'.

So, we now WAIT to SEE how 'literate' you are to what I just SAID and WROTE, EXACTLY.

Clarity of mind involves at least a few different functions.

First of all it requires self-awareness and self-consciousness.

If 'you' are, REALLY, self-aware, then who and/or what is that 'one', EXACTLY?

And, while 'we' are here, what the proper and correct answer to the question, 'Who am 'I'?'

Let us SEE just how 'self'-AWARE 'you' REALLY ARE.

You need to be aware of yourself, your thoughts, your beliefs, and your biases.

So, what was 'your' ANSWER to the QUESTION, 'Who am 'I'?'

In your case, personally, you've claimed that you "have no beliefs".

What the ACTUAL and FULL Truth IS here, EXACTLY, you are YET TO FIND OUT, UNDERSTAND, and KNOW.

But 'this' will do, for now.

This demonstrates lack of clarity.

Yes 'we' can AGREE WITH 'this'.

Everybody has beliefs.

So what are the BELIEFS that new born children have?

Because everybody has presumptions about mechanical operations of the world.

This is OBVIOUSLY False, Wrong, Inaccurate, and Incorrect.

For example, if somebody trips you, then you will fall. Your belief in Gravity, is given, by your expectation (to fall).

you are Wrong, AGAIN.

Belief is directed toward the source of Causes.

ONLY if and when one HAS BELIEF. But, OBVIOUSLY NOT EVERY body has.

It doesn't need to be accurate—because most people don't know exactly how Gravity works.

Do you YET KNOW how gravity works?

But, everybody knows that it does work.

Is this like EVERY body KNOWS that 'trees' and 'wombats' DO WORK?

Thus the expectation is presumed, and its belief is derivative.

This is WHY I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE ANY 'thing', AND do NOT like to PRESUME NOR ASSUME ANY 'thing' ALSO.

Let's say a person, you, are aware of your own thoughts and beliefs.

Okay, but there HAS TO BELIEF existing FIRST, BEFORE one could be AWARE OF 'it/them'.

Also, are you ABSOLUTELY SURE that the term and phrase 'your own thoughts' is ACTUALLY True, Right, AND Correct? [/quote]

If yes, then who and/or what is 'it', EXACTLY, which supposedly has 'its' OWN thoughts.

You know the difference between statements you would agree to, or disagree.

Do you KNOW the difference between statements you WOULD agree to?

If yes, would you like to share some of them?

If no, then WHY NOT?

This is easily demonstrated in every thread on this forum. People post and presume answers or responses to statements...then they accept or reject what another replies. You do this too.

Okay, if this is what you BELIEVE is true, then 'it' MUST BE true, correct?

Thirdly, you need to expand upon Biases of these beliefs and thoughts.

WHAT BELIEFS?

Are you NOT YET ABLE TO READ, and UNDERSTAND, what the words, 'I NEITHER BELIEVE NOR DISBELIEVE', MEANS?

Thus you must presume some statements and sentences are true,

I do NOT necessarily HAVE TO DO 'this' AT ALL.

And, I do NOT do 'this', which partly explains WHY I ASK MORE QUESTIONS, FOR CLARITY, then MOST of 'you' here.

and so the consequences of those true statements will resonate throughout the rest of its argument. Everybody has beliefs.

REALLY?

If yes, then what ARE the BELIEFS in new born bodies?

Everybody believes in the implications of statements.

What ABOUT the bodies that are said to be 'unconscious'?

Therefore everybody has biases, what their mind intuits as 'True' or 'False'.

'We' ARE WAITING to FIND OUT, through CLARIFYING QUESTIONS, whether those premises here are True, or False.

Also, could it be YOUR OWN 'biases', which have LED 'you' TO this CONCLUSION here, BEFORE the PROOF that the premises are even True has even been UNCOVERED?

Also, HOW, EXACTLY, do 'bodies' HAVE or POSSESS 'their minds', and what IS the ANSWER to the QUESTION, What are 'minds', EXACTLY?

Philosophy requires the suppression of these Biases.

But here you ARE SHOWING and EXPRESSING your OWN biases, and even CLAIMING that EVERY body has BELIEFS, and thus BIASES.

Would you even just like to 'TRY TO' suppress your OWN biases here?

Although you may presume little to be True—at least you still have some remaining and reserved Biases.

I found it to be FAR MORE REFRESHING to just REFRAIN from ASSUMING or PRESUMING ANY 'thing'.

These must be identified, by yourself, and made aware.

YET you appear to be completely and utterly INCAPABLE of doing just 'this' "yourself".

If you cannot become aware of your own biases, then they will be used against you, eventually, in Philosophical arenas and avenues.

But if one has ALREADY REMOVED ALL biases, by NOT believing NOR assuming 'things' here, then there is absolutely NOTHING that could be used AGAINST THAT one. Which is WHY you have NOT YET FOUND absolutely ANY 'thing' to use AGAINST me.

Because they expose the individuality of any Person.

Just the False, Wrong, Inaccurate, AND Incorrect thoughts and thinking in THAT body EXPOSE the INDIVIDUALITY, and the PERSON, WITHIN, TO 'us'.

Clarity arrives when...after suppression of Confirmation-Bias, a person or individual wants to learn about the objective universe, or existence, beyond any possible subjective bias.

Which has ALREADY BEEN DONE, and which you have PROVEN NEVER being able TO DO, that is; if and while you KEEP CARRYING ON the WAY that you ARE here.

In order to achieve this, oppositional perspectives and arguments must be heard out completely, before being disseminated and deconstructed. This means, inevitably, that other people hold oppositional beliefs, with oppositional "My Truth", and there is a supremacy of some ideas versus others.

you OBVIOUSLY NEED to LEARN how to distinguish between the TWO forms of 'truth' AND 'Truth' here.

Thus, some ideas are 'better', 'truer', 'superior' than others.

But I much prefer to just STAY WITH what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True ALWAYS, and INSTEAD.

This is as easy as...being caught in front of a train, and "wishing away the existence of the train", denying it is there and coming...rather than moving out of the way. Some beliefs are better than others, at least in this example, when it comes to your immediate survival.

Are you STILL 'trying to' "justify" and "rationalize" your OWN BELIEF that you and EVERY one "ELSE" MUST BELIEVE 'things'?

Which, by the way, has been a GREAT example of the ACTUAL POWER of BELIEF, itself.

Believing in falsity and lies, or delusion, can...and do...cost people their lives.

Okay. AND BELIEVING in ALL DIFFERENT 'things' could, and does, cost people their lives.

[FlashDangerpants]

My understanding is in line with that of every expert on the subject, and of course with all the people who have actually read the book. It is not in line with yours because you are fabulating the whole thing.

Your misunderstanding arises from you only having read some intro to philosophy book and then assuring yourself that you are now expert, while sadly geting Locke and Berkeley mixed up.

Accuser, your lies have been exposed.

No, I am quite right in this matter. You are dimsissed now.