Berkeley refuted: 1) If a thing cannot exist unless it is perceived or perceiving, the act of perception itself could not exist because it is only the means by which a thing is perceived or perceives, not the thing itself, and thus the perception itself would be in need of being perceived or of causing the perceiving. 2) If God exists merely by virtue of His perceiving as opposed to His being perceived, a human mind could exist on its own by the same token, i.e., by perceiving as opposed to being perceived. But if that is so, every human mind could exist without the need of being perceived by the divine perceiver, a conclusion that hardly seems in line with the Christian orthodoxy Berkeley advocated.
Who perceives God remains a problem for Berkeley because if God exists merely by virtue of His perceiving as opposed to His being perceived (as Prof Piekoff maintains in the Q&A), why could not a human mind exist by the same token, i.e., by perceiving as opposed to being perceived? But if that is so, every human mind may exist without the need for being perceived by the divine perceiver, a conclusion I doubt the good bishop would concede.
@@zardozcys2912 we scientists don’t rely on belief systems. In 1908 through 1913 the Rutherford experiments and then consequent experiments undoubtedly demonstrated the absence of matter in atoms - 99.9999999999996% of the atom is empty space and the rest - the nucleus and the electrons, are forces. I would reconnect you to take a physics class to understand these experiments. It’s in every college level textbook! Also? I can present the mathematics how to calculate this based on the observations. So, no room for speculations.
@@zakmatew Nothing of the sort has been proven. Yes, atoms are not 'solid chunks' Electrons, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks and it's a bit silly to say that those are forces.
@@zardozcys2912 yet, it has, and it is right in my textbook and in fact we even know how to calculate the “empty space”. Let me show you and educate you a little because you seem quite out of touch with physics (college level!). Formula: percent full = 100% X (volume filled/total volume), percent full = 100% (2.5x10^-45m^3/6.2x10^-31m^3) =0.0000000000004% Now: 100% - 0.0000000000004% = 99.9999999999996% empty space for the H atom! What do these numbers mean? 2.5x10^-45 is the proton volume based on most recent calculations (0.84x10^-15) and the 6.2x10^-31 is the volume of the hydrogen atom. The protons themselves as well as the electrons are not physical particles but wave forces that can be calculated through the wave equation. The word “particle” is used due to the Einstein’s idea that nature appears to behave as particles as well as waves…
@@zakmatew that's not a confirmation of the "absence of matter." It just means that's all the particles we need for "solid matter." Let me explain by analogy. Suppose you create an online service that's available 90% of the times (i.e no outage). This service is "mostly available" by any layperson's expectations. But this means that the service can be down for ~2.5 hours a day! In most professional software this would be unacceptable. It is common practice to aim for 99.9% availability or more. So the only objective fact is the percentage. Whether that's too little or too much is a subjective interpretation.
This guy is good,very clear, but I cannot bear his canadian - american accent....God save the Queen's english! Besides his latin pronunciation,meaning his saying "perkipi", is american,not latin!
Actually, that is Latin, the Latin of ancient Rome. Pronouncing it with a soft "c," i.e., as "persipi" would be the Latin of the Roman Catholic Church.
One is, there is no inner and outer worlds. We do not perceive our perceptions; we perceive the world. Studying the world we become aware that we perceive, with some mechanism, subject to many obstacles and conditions of etc. But all these conditions ARE aspects of the world we learn about.
@@stephanweaver1960 This doesn't seem much like a critique so much as just bare disagreement about realism/idealism. And to say "we do not perceive our perceptions" seems really strange and self-contradictory. Like...exactly what we perceive are our perceptions. The question is whether the perceptions carry information about an actual world and whether we can know they carry said information.
@@saintsword23 Perceiving a perception is redundant yes but the word perception has one meaning: Perceiving reality. All other definitions are incoherent.
@@dreyri2736 If you think that perception exists devoid of content then yes. But this statement is simply false. Perception depends on an interaction with actual subject matter not itself. Otherwise perception is just a synonym for non-perception which is a contradiction.
Berkeley refuted: 1) If a thing cannot exist unless it is perceived or perceiving, the act of perception itself could not exist because it is only the means by which a thing is perceived or perceives, not the thing itself, and thus the perception itself would be in need of being perceived or of causing the perceiving. 2) If God exists merely by virtue of His perceiving as opposed to His being perceived, a human mind could exist on its own by the same token, i.e., by perceiving as opposed to being perceived. But if that is so, every human mind could exist without the need of being perceived by the divine perceiver, a conclusion that hardly seems in line with the Christian orthodoxy Berkeley advocated.
Very well attempted to explain rather difficult concepts. Should get many more hits.
Who perceives God remains a problem for Berkeley because if God exists merely by virtue of His perceiving as opposed to His being perceived (as Prof Piekoff maintains in the Q&A), why could not a human mind exist by the same token, i.e., by perceiving as opposed to being perceived? But if that is so, every human mind may exist without the need for being perceived by the divine perceiver, a conclusion I doubt the good bishop would concede.
Is the Simulation hypothesis Berkeleyan?
Interesting how modern physics seems to confirm the absence of matter idea.
Only to those who already believe that idea.
@@zardozcys2912 we scientists don’t rely on belief systems. In 1908 through 1913 the Rutherford experiments and then consequent experiments undoubtedly demonstrated the absence of matter in atoms - 99.9999999999996% of the atom is empty space and the rest - the nucleus and the electrons, are forces. I would reconnect you to take a physics class to understand these experiments. It’s in every college level textbook! Also? I can present the mathematics how to calculate this based on the observations. So, no room for speculations.
@@zakmatew Nothing of the sort has been proven. Yes, atoms are not 'solid chunks' Electrons, protons and neutrons are composed of quarks and it's a bit silly to say that those are forces.
@@zardozcys2912 yet, it has, and it is right in my textbook and in fact we even know how to calculate the “empty space”. Let me show you and educate you a little because you seem quite out of touch with physics (college level!). Formula: percent full = 100% X (volume filled/total volume), percent full = 100% (2.5x10^-45m^3/6.2x10^-31m^3) =0.0000000000004%
Now: 100% - 0.0000000000004% = 99.9999999999996% empty space for the H atom!
What do these numbers mean?
2.5x10^-45 is the proton volume based on most recent calculations (0.84x10^-15) and the 6.2x10^-31 is the volume of the hydrogen atom.
The protons themselves as well as the electrons are not physical particles but wave forces that can be calculated through the wave equation. The word “particle” is used due to the Einstein’s idea that nature appears to behave as particles as well as waves…
@@zakmatew that's not a confirmation of the "absence of matter." It just means that's all the particles we need for "solid matter." Let me explain by analogy.
Suppose you create an online service that's available 90% of the times (i.e no outage). This service is "mostly available" by any layperson's expectations.
But this means that the service can be down for ~2.5 hours a day! In most professional software this would be unacceptable. It is common practice to aim for 99.9% availability or more.
So the only objective fact is the percentage. Whether that's too little or too much is a subjective interpretation.
This guy is good,very clear, but I cannot bear his canadian - american accent....God save the Queen's english! Besides his latin pronunciation,meaning his saying "perkipi", is american,not latin!
Actually, that is Latin, the Latin of ancient Rome. Pronouncing it with a soft "c," i.e., as "persipi" would be the Latin of the Roman Catholic Church.
What are some Objectivist critiques of Berkeley?
One is, there is no inner and outer worlds. We do not perceive our perceptions; we perceive the world. Studying the world we become aware that we perceive, with some mechanism, subject to many obstacles and conditions of etc. But all these conditions ARE aspects of the world we learn about.
@@stephanweaver1960Berkleyan rebuttal: that's a metaphysical abstraction.
@@stephanweaver1960 This doesn't seem much like a critique so much as just bare disagreement about realism/idealism.
And to say "we do not perceive our perceptions" seems really strange and self-contradictory. Like...exactly what we perceive are our perceptions. The question is whether the perceptions carry information about an actual world and whether we can know they carry said information.
@@saintsword23 Perceiving a perception is redundant yes but the word perception has one meaning: Perceiving reality. All other definitions are incoherent.
@@dreyri2736 If you think that perception exists devoid of content then yes. But this statement is simply false. Perception depends on an interaction with actual subject matter not itself. Otherwise perception is just a synonym for non-perception which is a contradiction.