To be is to be perceived

[sky_pink]

The empiricist philosopher George Berkeley claims that our perception of reality is objective, because we agree on the nature of reality with other people, and other people exist objectively, because they express ideas that have not originated in our mind or been perceived by our senses.

Do you agree? If yes, why? If no, why?

[osiris]

i tend to blend empiricism with spiritualism. indeed, it seems to me empiricism is spiritualism. just because it decomposes and dies doesn't mean that of which it is comprised ceases to be, in so many (*choke*) words.


so i agree to disagree, sky.

now i'll take whoopi goldberg for the block.

lol.

much love :)

[sky_pink]

Hmm. Care to elaborate? I'm afraid I didn't understand your point.

So, if you disagree, do you think reality is nonexistent? Or just subjective?

[osiris]

it is quite evident that "reality" is both objective and subjective. that the interaction of objective beings, percieving each other subjectively, shapes what constitutes reality. to say that reality is something people agree on can be made to seem quite farcical, if only you view the exchange of ideas in just this forum. yes, we may both see a chair, and agree to call it a chair. but the chair itself came from many perceptions through many generations of just what would be the most convenient and efficient way to design and modify an object that would be suitable for sitting.

does that clarify for you at all?

i do apologize for my ambiguous approach to philosophical discussion, but their are no specific words that cover the gammut of spirit emanation that flows through me.

much love :)

[sky_pink]

Of course. That is what I believe, too, by the way.

Still, it's interesting that we can know nothing for sure, as the nature of knowledge and its sources is little known itself...

[Scholar_Warrior]

The empiricist philosopher George Berkeley claims that our perception of reality is objective, because we agree on the nature of reality with other people, and other people exist objectively, because they express ideas that have not originated in our mind or been perceived by our senses.

Do you agree? If yes, why? If no, why?

I disagree. this guy is obviously cut off from God by his mind.

[osiris]

actually, didn't the empiricist philosophers of that time believe in a deity, a god? i know that locke did. didn't berkely... i believe that he only was refering to the capacity of humanity, not god. correct me if i am wrong here, pink.


much love :)

[osiris]

"Still, it's interesting that we can know nothing for sure, as the nature of knowledge and its sources is little known itself..."
-sky pink

yes, again, regarding knowledge, we are shrouded in ambiguity. but when you sit silently and regard your existance... does it feel so ambiguous? not the forms it takes, but... that which it is, all in and of itself? damn words! lol.

much love :)

[sky_pink]

actually, didn't the empiricist philosophers of that time believe in a deity, a god? i know that locke did. didn't berkely... i believe that he only was refering to the capacity of humanity, not god. correct me if i am wrong here, pink.
Out of the empiricists I know, Hume was an atheist (if I'm not mistaken) and Berkeley believed in God. I don't recall about Locke. It was quite important in Berkeley's case, as it meant that objective reality existed in all cases, because God was always there.

[sky_pink]

yes, again, regarding knowledge, we are shrouded in ambiguity. but when you sit silently and regard your existance... does it feel so ambiguous?
Depends on how much you've had to drink... :D :D

Anyway, I've always noticed how you can think about general things and think about specific things, but never both at the same time. Meaning, it's impossible to get even a subjectively whole view of reality.

[osiris]

i've found that it is possible. if you stop thinking. of course, i may just be delusional. lol. but its a hell of a "view".

really, all of those guys may have in truth been atheists, but in that time period it would have been dangerous for them to admit it. locke was one of the few who was married christian, though i'm not sure exactly what kind he was. i totally dig hume's "just don't talk about it, it's pointless and insoluble" philosophy regarding the nature of god, though i obviously don't ascribe to it. it's widely accepted that voltaire was an atheist, though for the sake of survival in fanatical france, he claimed himself a deist. voltaire, by the way, is my favorite... though he comes somewhat after the first empiricists, and might not necessarily be regarded as one himself. i highly recommend "Candide" and his other tales, they are especially rich in caustic wit, especially in their refutation of liebniz's "best possible world" philosophy.

much love :)

[sky_pink]

For philosophers, being a theist or an atheist (or an agnostic) is very important, especially in tradicional philosophy, I think. Most of the classical philosophical theories attempt to describe the whole world (at least the general principles of reality). This in turn means they likely didn't ignore God, they had a certain opinion on him.

Of course, whether they openly declared their beliefs is another thing, indeed...

[sky_pink]

Can you actually REMEMBER times when you've stopped thinking?

[osiris]

oooo... tricky question. the answer is no. i remember a space unremembered, a something between two remembered spaces... but since i was not actually thinking, there is no landscape, backround for the memory... but there is this extremely tranquil feeling afterwards.... my girlfriend said that i once disappeared out of thin air... but... well, even i'm skeptical. i haven't achieved that state in quite a while, really. too much on my plate to really be that still in the last few years...

much love :)

[sky_pink]

So one cannot remember wholeness, the whole reality. Interesting.

[osiris]

that is, of course, if that is really what i had... er, accomplished. i must be humbly skeptical. like i said, that tranquility... it felt so... absolute? true? complete? i don't know a word that really describes it. it was not the first time i had experienced it, but the first time someone had observed me... disappearing. had i known she was watching, i probably would not have been capable. she was asleep when i began the meditation that led me to that state. as a matter of fact, i think the lack of quietude and privacy is the main reason i have not achieved that state since... i do not lament this, though, as i have a distinct feeling there will be plenty of time for that after my death, which i am to stave off at least long enough to see my daughter grow to become a woman. :)

much love :)

[Spyder]

Both locke and berkley both believed in god..

berkley believed that nothing exists really, only that objects in the empiricle world are only thoughts in our brain, made in the mind of god. so there is nothing that is real about this world, only everything is thoughts and ideas. its called idealism

locke's theories extended to primary and secondry qualities when looking at realism.

all very interesting

i disagree with berkley though, im more of a materialist and a direct realist. i cannot say that with any degree of certainty, but for me direct realism is the way to go

[sky_pink]

How old is your daughter, osiris?

Anyway, some time ago I read a lot about Buddhism. And realized I didn't WANT to detach myself from life and its sufferings. Pointless to wish I did want it...

[osiris]

my daughter will be a month and a half old on friday! :) *proud father beams* every day has been a precious and dear revelation! she naps beside me now, in her bouncy chair. perfectly peaceful and oh so beautiful! .

and yes... i too have finally made a decision to be involved with life, whatever that means. i had to sit back and consider it seriously for a long time, but the birth of my child has decided for me. like i said, plenty of time for emptiness after death. funny that you mention buddhism. people used to ask me if was buddhist all the time, though i didn't know much of anything about it until just recently.

much love :)

[osiris]

she has demon eyes there, but we caught her in the tail end of a smile. her name is Phoenix.

[sky_pink]

Aw, she's so sweet! (Of course, what you feel towards her is different, but don't you think it's strange how we adore babies, kittens, puppies, basically all kinds of baby mammals?)

And how old are you, if you don't mind me asking?

[osiris]

we adore innocence, because it is truly valuable, and is rarer and rarer in us, as we grow and accumulate knowledge. :)

i am 25.

much love :)

[sky_pink]

I hadn't thought about that, but it's true.

Much love! :) :) ;)

[Andy73]

I agree with this in so far as the senses can be trusted, and they cannot always.

[osiris]

temperance with humility would seem to be the key.

much love :)

[Iacchus]

External reality is merely the aftermath of that which has gone on internally. In the sense that everything originates from within its center. Perhaps this is why we can only perceive of it in the subjective sense. So I would suggest that reality is ultimately derived from motive or, spirit.

[mati]

All that we can know is perception. All ideas are based on impressions. What impression is the idea of a distinct and continued existence based on? Or for that matter, what impression is the idea of self based on? Subjectivity and Objectivity are illusions. Where does the one leave off and the other begin?

[Hari]

The thing about words is that they become like a fog that clouds direct truth, so the best way to see
directly to the state of no doubt is to inquire; Who am i?
It takes a lot of energy to infuse the question with enough power to clear the mind completly of assumptions.

The first assumption is "I am", and from this the wholle world is created each micro second; but everything is built on the assumption of this Identity-self, therefore all is dream-like and completly false.

Is this clear?

[mati]

Subject and object are illusions not based on any perception. Where does one begin and the other leave off? What is the idea of self? When I hold my hand up, I see an array of coloured points. The chair in front of me is likewise a number of coloured points. How is the perception of one different from the other? We create the illusion of subject and object because it is easier to attribute a distinct and continued existence to perceptions that are resembling each other. We mistakenly believe one to be the other and to continue this lie we assign one the name of object, the other subject, with continued existence despite our perceptions otherwise.

[openmind]

its been noted that witnesses have no acuracy what so ever
if you stage an avent infront of 20 witnesses
then interveiw all of the twenty witnesses imediatly no one of these witnesses will recal the incerdent corectly
if you then put those witnesses in a room together for one hour
then interveiw them again they will have talked to each other and fabricated a story farther from the truth
and sadly all will honestlybelieve its the truth
until you show them a video of the incident
even then they will try and blame the camera angles and its acuracy

[Hari]

The wholle universe (or concept of it) can fit inside a mustard seed.

[Empathetic Hedonist]

First Hari, no that wasn't clear. But I don't think mine will be either.

Have you ever seen the movie K-Pax? Now I know that it was about an alien and all but there is a definate pearl of wisdom (I actually just remembered this right this second). He was asked ''well if you are from outerspace, why do you look like the rest of us?'' He said ''Why is a bubble round? It's because that is the most useful form for it.'' or something along those lines... damnit now I have to watch the movie again....

Anyway, I think we made ourselves and our world. Did we do it for maximum comfort, obviously not. But we are the way we are for a reason. I truly hate the best of all possbile worlds but I do think we have legs to put pants on them.... just not so oversimplistic.... yeah

There are things in this world that cannot be explained through logic. Like manifestation (not the Rainbow hippie manifestation). There was this yogi like person (why was Yogi bear named yogi? Was it after Yogi berra? I just always think of yogi and bubu when I think of those wonderful spiritual gurus)

But I digress.

He was being interviewed by this English guy and he couldn't think of a word, his interpreter was having and equally hard time. So he made one of what he was talking about. It was a twin acorn lookin thing, like a twin apple, but not. When the guy asked to keep it the Sri guy said wait, and manifested a gold locket and chain with a little emerald cut ruby at the top.

The English guy went all over India looking for another one like it, and found one in a jewlers shop for sale for the indian equivilant of 500 dollars American.

Anecdotal I know but still. In short I agree. I think we made the objective world, and we can unmake it. Do I know how? No. Do I want to learn, not really. Can it be done, yes.

Read the Holographic Universe. Then read the books in the bibliography.

[seda-azul8]

The wholle universe (or concept of it) can fit inside a mustard seed.

That would be JIMI HENDRIX..Not ''Jimmy'' Hendrix..do not disrespect the man..

[TelimTor]

All that we can know is perception. All ideas are based on impressions. What impression is the idea of a distinct and continued existence based on? Or for that matter, what impression is the idea of self based on? Subjectivity and Objectivity are illusions. Where does the one leave off and the other begin?
I don't see how subjectivity and objectivity are illusions. Objectivity describes the pure state of something. Subjectivity describes how it is percieved. It seems obvious to me that things are perceives differently by seperate beings.

[mati]

I don't see how subjectivity and objectivity are illusions. Objectivity describes the pure state of something. Subjectivity describes how it is percieved. It seems obvious to me that things are perceives differently by s
seperate beings. When I put my hand in front of me, I perceive a bunch of coloured points that I call 'my hand' , and then those coloured points of the object that I call my 'computer monitor'. The quality of the perception, that of a bunch of coloured points, is no different between the two. The concepts of subjective and objective are illusions we create.

[Esty]

nothing a human does, or thinks can be objective...every action is a result of the conscious or a reaction to something within that persons knowledge...

a building is objective...you can see it, it's there...anything from our minds can only be subjective....once we open our minds, hear sounds, smell, taste, touch....etc, objectivity is tainted...

i disagree with the master philosopher.....

[mati]

"reality" is not what people agree to have perceived.