(Il)Literacy Problem in the West

[Wizard22]

That doesn't relate to Berkeley's argument...

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?

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.

Enough of this shit. You have been caught lying.

The only person "caught" of something, is your illiteracy on display.

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.

[Age]

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.

Firstly, LOOK AT HOW you ANSWERED, your OWN QUESTION, BEFORE you even gave me an OPPORTUNITY to ANSWER 'it'. But this is just what HAPPENS when people ASSUME or BELIEVE they KNOW 'things' BEFORE ACTUAL CLARITY is OBTAINED. Thus this was ANOTHER PRIME example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK.

Now, LOL what I think and KNOW 'this' IS, is 'it' IS A RESPONSE, to what I WROTE, but which, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT AN ANSWER to the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I POSED, WROTE, and ASKED you.

Now, LOOK AT the ACTUAL QUESTION, AGAIN. With CLEAR VISION what can be SEEN is 'that question' is ASKING FOR a 'Yes' OR a 'No' ANSWER.

What you DID here was NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION, but INSTEAD just RESPONDED WITH what you BELIEVE IS true, but which on FURTHER NOTICE what IS Truly FUNNY and HILARIOUS here can be CLEARLY SEEN, and RECOGNIZED.

For someone who CLAIMS to have the BEST 'literacy' skills here, and thus be the MOST 'literate' here, the AMOUNT that you ACTUALLY MISS, MISREAD, MISINTERPRET, and just plain old MISUNDERSTAND here would be Truly AMAZING, that is if it was NOT ALREADY OBVIOUS just how inflicted you are with the "dunning-kruger effect".

[Age]

That doesn't relate to Berkeley's argument...

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?

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.

Enough of this shit. You have been caught lying.

The only person "caught" of something, is your illiteracy on display.

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.

Are you even AWARE that the MORE you write and respond here the more 'ILLITERATE' you appear to be here?

[FlashDangerpants]

That doesn't relate to Berkeley's argument...

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?

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.

Enough of this shit. You have been caught lying.

The only person "caught" of something, is your illiteracy on display.

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.

We can see how far this delusional bullshitting can go I suppose. Here's some more Berkeley.

…though we give the materialists their external bodies, they by their own confession are never the nearer knowing how our ideas are produced: since they own themselves unable to comprehend in what manner body can act upon spirit, or how it is possible it should imprint any idea in the mind. 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.

Following from what I mentioned already, here he is arguing that what you refer to as "connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain" cannot be explained and thus we cannot reliably infer from mere perception that there are any objects to be percieved.

You really should have just abandoned the lie at the start, this overcommitment can't end well for you.

[Wizard22]

Firstly, LOOK AT HOW you ANSWERED, your OWN QUESTION, BEFORE you even gave me an OPPORTUNITY to ANSWER 'it'. But this is just what HAPPENS when people ASSUME or BELIEVE they KNOW 'things' BEFORE ACTUAL CLARITY is OBTAINED. Thus this was ANOTHER PRIME example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK.

Now, LOL what I think and KNOW 'this' IS, is 'it' IS A RESPONSE, to what I WROTE, but which, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT AN ANSWER to the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I POSED, WROTE, and ASKED you.

Now, LOOK AT the ACTUAL QUESTION, AGAIN. With CLEAR VISION what can be SEEN is 'that question' is ASKING FOR a 'Yes' OR a 'No' ANSWER.

What you DID here was NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION, but INSTEAD just RESPONDED WITH what you BELIEVE IS true, but which on FURTHER NOTICE what IS Truly FUNNY and HILARIOUS here can be CLEARLY SEEN, and RECOGNIZED.

For someone who CLAIMS to have the BEST 'literacy' skills here, and thus be the MOST 'literate' here, the AMOUNT that you ACTUALLY MISS, MISREAD, MISINTERPRET, and just plain old MISUNDERSTAND here would be Truly AMAZING, that is if it was NOT ALREADY OBVIOUS just how inflicted you are with the "dunning-kruger effect".

You have a nasty habit of asking others questions...and then pretending they didn't answer you.

And why? Because you didn't like the answer. *THAT* is selective-reasoning. It means you're illiterate, sorry.

You need to learn some respect for others, which I admit, is difficult for Autists/Aspergers like yourself.

You need to STFU, and listen. Absorb and accept what is said to you. Be able to repeat your Intelocutors.

Or...you don't belong on a Philosophy forum.

[Wizard22]

Following from what I mentioned already, here he is arguing that what you refer to as "connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain" cannot be explained and thus we cannot reliably infer from mere perception that there are any objects to be percieved.

You really should have just abandoned the lie at the start, this overcommitment can't end well for you.

Read it again.

He claims materialists don't understand how ideas are imprinted into the brain. He was talking about morons like you, Dopey.

[Age]

Firstly, LOOK AT HOW you ANSWERED, your OWN QUESTION, BEFORE you even gave me an OPPORTUNITY to ANSWER 'it'. But this is just what HAPPENS when people ASSUME or BELIEVE they KNOW 'things' BEFORE ACTUAL CLARITY is OBTAINED. Thus this was ANOTHER PRIME example of 'confirmation bias' AT WORK.

Now, LOL what I think and KNOW 'this' IS, is 'it' IS A RESPONSE, to what I WROTE, but which, OBVIOUSLY, is NOT AN ANSWER to the ACTUAL QUESTION, which I POSED, WROTE, and ASKED you.

Now, LOOK AT the ACTUAL QUESTION, AGAIN. With CLEAR VISION what can be SEEN is 'that question' is ASKING FOR a 'Yes' OR a 'No' ANSWER.

What you DID here was NOT ANSWER the ACTUAL QUESTION, but INSTEAD just RESPONDED WITH what you BELIEVE IS true, but which on FURTHER NOTICE what IS Truly FUNNY and HILARIOUS here can be CLEARLY SEEN, and RECOGNIZED.

For someone who CLAIMS to have the BEST 'literacy' skills here, and thus be the MOST 'literate' here, the AMOUNT that you ACTUALLY MISS, MISREAD, MISINTERPRET, and just plain old MISUNDERSTAND here would be Truly AMAZING, that is if it was NOT ALREADY OBVIOUS just how inflicted you are with the "dunning-kruger effect".

You have a nasty habit of asking others questions...and then pretending they didn't answer you.

LOL I HAVE ACTUAL PROOF that the ACTUAL QUESTIONS I ASKED are NOT BEING ANSWERED.

Whereas you CLAIM OTHERWISE, but when ASKED TO PROVIDE PROOF, you RUN AWAY and 'TRY TO' HIDE.

you have STILL NOT ONCE PROVIDED absolutely ANY PROOF of WHERE you have SUPPOSEDLY and ALLEGEDLY ANSWERED an ACTUAL QUESTION I POSED and ASKED you, and the reason you have NOT is BECAUSE there is NO ACTUAL PROOF. For if there was, then SURELY, by now, you would have PROVIDED 'it', right?

And why? Because you didn't like the answer. *THAT* is selective-reasoning. It means you're illiterate, sorry.

AND, A PRIME example of ABSOLUTE FAULTY REASONING is being DISPLAYED RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW, by the one KNOWN here AS "wizard22".

PROVIDE just ONE example of WHERE you have ANSWERED the ACTUAL QUESTION I ASKED you, and WHERE I have, SUPPOSEDLY, NOT like THAT answer, AND THEN CLAIMED that you did NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION.

Now what you WILL SHOW here is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, and this IS BECAUSE NONE EXIST.

You need to learn some respect for others, which I admit, is difficult for Autists/Aspergers like yourself.

LOL
LOL
LOL

you TELLING me or "others" what we NEED TO LEARN is EXTREMELY HILARIOUS here, especially considering what IS ACTUALLY HAPPENING and OCCURING here.

You need to STFU, and listen. Absorb and accept what is said to you. Be able to repeat your Intelocutors.

And this was the COMMON sort of response from THOSE who could NOT back up and support what they SAID and CLAIMED AFTER they had been CHALLENGED, and/or QUESTIONED.

Or...you don't belong on a Philosophy forum.

Are you even AWARE that 'we' are YET TO SEE 'you' SHOW that you have been ABLE TO REPEAT what has been SAID, and TOLD, TO you?

[FlashDangerpants]

…though we give the materialists their external bodies, they by their own confession are never the nearer knowing how our ideas are produced: since they own themselves unable to comprehend in what manner body can act upon spirit, or how it is possible it should imprint any idea in the mind. 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.

Following from what I mentioned already, here he is arguing that what you refer to as "connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain" cannot be explained and thus we cannot reliably infer from mere perception that there are any objects to be percieved.

You really should have just abandoned the lie at the start, this overcommitment can't end well for you.

Read it again.

He claims materialists don't understand how ideas are imprinted into the brain. He was talking about morons like you, Dopey.

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.

[Age]

That 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.

Enough of this shit. You have been caught lying.

The only person "caught" of something, is your illiteracy on display.

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.

We can see how far this delusional bullshitting can go I suppose. Here's some more Berkeley.

…though we give the materialists their external bodies, they by their own confession are never the nearer knowing how our ideas are produced: since they own themselves unable to comprehend in what manner body can act upon spirit, or how it is possible it should imprint any idea in the mind. 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.

Following from what I mentioned already, here he is arguing that what you refer to as "connecting sense-perception to the logical circuits of the brain" cannot be explained and thus we cannot reliably infer from mere perception that there are any objects to be percieved.

You really should have just abandoned the lie at the start, this overcommitment can't end well for you.

As I mentioned earlier, "wizard22" is just looking MORE and MORE 'ILLITERATE' as 'it' responds MORE here.

[Wizard22]

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.

[Wizard22]

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

I appreciate your contribution.

[Wizard22]

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

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. In Philosophy, it is a requirement. But that doesn't stop a forum full of mere hobbyists from clogging threads and responses with their oblivious Biases. 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.

They *SHOULD BE* on religious and political forums. There, they might actually be effective in their ignorance. But not here.

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


Unable to Listen.

Unable to Read.

Unable to Accept.

[Wizard22]

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...

[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.

[Wizard22]

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.