[mistermann]

> One of his big statements is that “to be is to be perceived” — that is, anything that cannot be perceived doesn’t actually exist. Berkeley makes a pretty decent argument for this...

Do you know of where a person could read a summary of his argument?

[maxfan8]

The original text is the best, I think (maybe look at Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy's treatment of the subject [1]).

The way I like to think of Berkeley's position is like an equivalence argument. Suppose one is arguing that mind-independent objects exist (that is, there are things out there that cannot be perceived, but one claims to exist). Berkeley's conception of the world (in which such undetectable objects do not exist) is equivalent, at least from the perspective of any observer. Any mind/observer in the world, by construction, cannot perceive or detect (even indirectly) mind-independent objects. If they could, then those objects wouldn't be mind-independent. So a world in which mind-independent objects exist is indistinguishable from Berkeley's world.

Does it really make sense when materialists argue that unobservable, undetectable, totally unperceivable and uninferrable things in this world actually exist?

So, Berkeley argues that reality is actually contingent on our minds (and he tries to show that this isn't as big of a deal as it sounds).

Berkeley's real argument goes a bit differently (as I understand it), but I think a claim of functional equivalence may be more convincing for people with a math/CS background.

[1]: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/berkeley/#2.1

[mistermann]

> The way I like to think of Berkeley's position is like an equivalence argument. Suppose one is arguing that mind-independent objects exist (that is, there are things out there that cannot be perceived, but one claims to exist). Berkeley's conception of the world (in which such undetectable objects do not exist) is equivalent, at least from the perspective of any observer. Any mind/observer in the world, by construction, cannot perceive or detect (even indirectly) mind-independent objects. If they could, then those objects wouldn't be mind-independent. So a world in which mind-independent objects exist is indistinguishable from Berkeley's world.

This seems like not a sound argument to me....is it not tautological, or, simply an observation that perception of reality does not necessarily match actual reality?

If one was to imprison a child in a room from day one, they would have no way to perceive what is outside the room, yet multiple outside observers would agree in very high detail that certain specific things outside the room do exist. Does this scenario not consist of some sort of a reasonable disproof of this theory?

And if the counter-argument is that the perception of the outsiders is what causes those objects to exist, if we then killed all of those outside observers (say, just a few researchers who are aware of what is in the room surrounding the child's room), would the objects in that room then cease to exist (and if so, by what mechanism that we reasonably know exists)?

From your link:

>> Berkeley presents here the following argument (see Winkler 1989, 138):

>> (1) We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.).

>> (2) We perceive only ideas.

>> Therefore,

>> (3) Ordinary objects are ideas.

To me, the obvious flaw here is that there seems to be an implicit "only" perceived within the conclusion: "Ordinary objects are [only] ideas [and nothing else]." This is an extremely common error that the human mind makes, but you'd think that a philosopher would catch it in review of an idea (or the reviewers, who say: "The argument is valid, and premise (1) looks hard to deny."), so I feel like I must be missing something in the argument.

> Does it really make sense when materialists argue that unobservable, undetectable, totally unperceivable and uninferrable things in this world actually exist?

It makes complete sense to me (and I typically disagree with materialists)!

> So, Berkeley argues that reality is actually contingent on our minds (and he tries to show that this isn't as big of a deal as it sounds).

I 100% believe that reality is contingent on our minds, but I disagree extremely with the idea that this isn't a big of a deal - I think it might be the biggest (unrecognized) deal out there.

[maxfan8]

> This seems like not a sound argument to me....is it not tautological, or, simply an observation that perception of reality does not necessarily match actual reality?

The argument is trying to say that the distinction from "actual reality" (whatever that means) and perception of reality doesn't make much sense. One cannot break free of their perceived reality in order to see/compare/reason about "actual reality".

> And if the counter-argument is that the perception of the outsiders is what causes those objects to exist ...

As I understand it, this is Berkeley's position.

> ... if we then killed all of those outside observers (say, just a few researchers who are aware of what is in the room surrounding the child's room), would the objects in that room then cease to exist (and if so, by what mechanism that we reasonably know exists)?

Yeah, basically -- assuming you, the experimenter/person who is observing this thought experiment, is also killed.

I think the issue with some of these thought experiments is that they assume there exists some omniscient perspective who can see every part of the experiment (i.e. the person running the experiment).

> To me, the obvious flaw here is that there seems to be an implicit "only" perceived within the conclusion: "Ordinary objects are [only] ideas [and nothing else]." This is an extremely common error that the human mind makes, but you'd think that a philosopher would catch it in review of an idea (or the reviewers, who say: "The argument is valid, and premise (1) looks hard to deny."), so I feel like I must be missing something in the argument.

Yeah, I think the link I sent doesn't sum up Berkeley's point well. Perhaps it'd be better to take a look at the original argument. [1]

> > Does it really make sense when materialists argue that unobservable, undetectable, totally unperceivable and uninferrable things in this world actually exist?

> It makes complete sense to me (and I typically disagree with materialists)!

Interesting! How do you reconcile this with the belief that "reality is contingent on our minds"?

[1]: This was the best-formatted online link I could find: https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/... (part 1, sections 3-5 are most relevant)

[mistermann]

> The argument is trying to say that the distinction from "actual reality" (whatever that means) and perception of reality doesn't make much sense.

Oh I disagree, and would offer belief (perception) in covid as an example of the consequences of not making a distinction between the two.

> One cannot break free of their perceived reality in order to see/compare/reason about "actual reality".

Only as a binary (100% break free and see True Reality as it is), but as a spectrum, it is certainly possible to improve upon one's perceptions, education is a good example of that, and for the already educated, things like meditation and psychedelics can teach you substantial new things.

>> ... if we then killed all of those outside observers (say, just a few researchers who are aware of what is in the room surrounding the child's room), would the objects in that room then cease to exist (and if so, by what mechanism that we reasonably know exists)?

> Yeah, basically -- assuming you, the experimenter/person who is observing this thought experiment, is also killed.

Is this not simply a proof by re-assertion, that is easily countered by simply asserting the opposite?

> I think the issue with some of these thought experiments is that they assume there exists some omniscient perspective who can see every part of the experiment (i.e. the person running the experiment).

I mean that would certainly help, but asserting True/Accurate knowledge of the true state/nature of reality with no concern for what is actually true seems weird to me. Maybe this has something to do with the mind's common inability to not "know" certain things?

>>> Does it really make sense when materialists argue that unobservable, undetectable, totally unperceivable and uninferrable things in this world actually exist?

>> It makes complete sense to me (and I typically disagree with materialists)!

> Interesting! How do you reconcile this with the belief that "reality is contingent on our minds"?

Oh I was not explicit in my belief, I am thinking of ~the unfolding of reality....the future state of reality is a function of human perception (accurate or not). But this isn't really relevant to the question of whether there are unobservable/undetectable things in the world - simply imagine a position in the deep dark corner of the ocean, in a spot where man and his devices cannot reach: what is located there? Nothing? Null? A black hole? I simply presume that there will be your typical ocean stuff, but I do not know this to be true. And that's just a simple example, a more complex one would be: how does this world that we live in actually work? Why do things happen the way they do, and not some other way? Now, it is often very difficult for people to realize that they do not actually know the answer to questions like this (including or maybe even especially materialists), but that is very different from them actually knowing the answer. (Apologies if that sentence is hard to understand!)