The meaning of George Berkeley's "Esse est Percipi"
Bottom Line: Did George Berkeley mean that the existence of the entire world was dependent upon human perception, or divine perception? — charles ferraro
I'm not an expert on such esoteric questions, but my rather naive interpretation of "esse est percipi" means just the opposite of Solipsism : "the view or theory that the self is all that can be known to exist". Apparently he was merely stating the underlying assumption of traditional Idealism : that we observers are merely ideas, concepts, Forms, avatars in the mind of God (or LOGOS for Plato ; or the Universe Game for players). In other words, we humans, including bodies, are merely instances of universal Mind : parts of the whole ; chips off the old block. Is that hubris or modesty? Can we prove our claimed patrimony? Can the part question the Whole?
Both Self-image and God-image are imaginary concepts in your mind, not empirical objects. But, which came first : the Causal Principle or the Actual Effect ; the universal-eternal Creator or the local-temporal Conceiver? I guess that depends on your opinion of the reality/ideality/necessity of Eternity/Infinity to explain Space-Time and Consciousness. The computed answer is "42".
Mind of God :
Plato thought that forms (which he called Ideas) exist in a realm of their own. However, Aristotle considered that forms only exist in so much as they are instantiated in the things they inform. St Augustine, taking a basically Platonic point of view, placed the realm of the Ideas in the mind of God. In this question, Aquinas attempts to reconcile the teaching of St Augustine concerning Ideas in the mind of God with an Aristotelian metaphysical framework.
http://readingthesumma.blogspot.com/201 ... f-god.html
TPF : Esse est percipi
Re: TPF : Esse est percipi
As I understood it via Bernando Kastrup, all of reality emanates from the mind of God and this allows for apparent object permanence and the regularities of nature. — Tom Storm
I'm currently reading the 2021 book by Charles Pinter, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things. He seems to be an Idealist, but unlike Plato or Berkeley, he bases his idealistic interpretation of Reality on scientific evidence ; especially the non-classical (non-mechanical) notions of Quantum Physics.
For example, he says, echoing Donald Hoffman, that "we are biologically designed to believe that what we see is Reality with a capital R". Then he notes that "the 'cup in itself' the real teacup in the unobserved physical world, consists of atoms & charged particles, and 'appearance' is not a force of physics". What he's referring to is the world as described by physicists probing the sub-atomic foundations of the physical world. What they report is something to the effect that atoms are fuzzy-fluff-balls of invisible energy. And each atom is like a star, whirling through empty space, connected to other atoms only by links of invisible attractive forces, like gravity. Hence, we perceive them only en masse (as a whole system), just as clouds are merely swarms of microscopic water particles as seen collectively from a distance. Hence, he concludes that "objectively the unobserved universe is formless and featureless" : like a fog.
Although I haven't reached the concluding chapter, so far Pinter doesn't seem to use the metaphor of the "Mind of God" to represent the ultimate reality. He does occasionally refer to a "mind-independent world", but that merely indicates the obvious fact that the Cosmos consists of more than a single human perspective. Yet that could imply that we collectively create the world, or that we each perceive a fraction of the whole world as created by some enigmatic cosmic mind. Similarly, Kastrup*1 sometimes uses the German term "alter" (elder ; other ; father ; dude)*2 to label a mysterious feeling of connection to some higher power.
Reality is not what it seems :
The idea that reality is fundamentally thought, consciousness, or an idea, as opposed to physical matter, atoms, or particles, is becoming more main stream. The many problems with scientific materialism are finally coming home to roost. But this does not mean reality just is how it appears to be in our own private consciousness of it, writes Bernardo Kastrup.
https://iai.tv/articles/reality-is-not- ... -auid-2312
Alter :
An alter is a “dissociation” of a part of the universal mind from the whole. A bit like monads
https://neuroself.wordpress.com/kastrup-bernardo/
I'm currently reading the 2021 book by Charles Pinter, subtitled : How the Mind Creates the Features & Structure of All Things. He seems to be an Idealist, but unlike Plato or Berkeley, he bases his idealistic interpretation of Reality on scientific evidence ; especially the non-classical (non-mechanical) notions of Quantum Physics.
For example, he says, echoing Donald Hoffman, that "we are biologically designed to believe that what we see is Reality with a capital R". Then he notes that "the 'cup in itself' the real teacup in the unobserved physical world, consists of atoms & charged particles, and 'appearance' is not a force of physics". What he's referring to is the world as described by physicists probing the sub-atomic foundations of the physical world. What they report is something to the effect that atoms are fuzzy-fluff-balls of invisible energy. And each atom is like a star, whirling through empty space, connected to other atoms only by links of invisible attractive forces, like gravity. Hence, we perceive them only en masse (as a whole system), just as clouds are merely swarms of microscopic water particles as seen collectively from a distance. Hence, he concludes that "objectively the unobserved universe is formless and featureless" : like a fog.
Although I haven't reached the concluding chapter, so far Pinter doesn't seem to use the metaphor of the "Mind of God" to represent the ultimate reality. He does occasionally refer to a "mind-independent world", but that merely indicates the obvious fact that the Cosmos consists of more than a single human perspective. Yet that could imply that we collectively create the world, or that we each perceive a fraction of the whole world as created by some enigmatic cosmic mind. Similarly, Kastrup*1 sometimes uses the German term "alter" (elder ; other ; father ; dude)*2 to label a mysterious feeling of connection to some higher power.
Reality is not what it seems :
The idea that reality is fundamentally thought, consciousness, or an idea, as opposed to physical matter, atoms, or particles, is becoming more main stream. The many problems with scientific materialism are finally coming home to roost. But this does not mean reality just is how it appears to be in our own private consciousness of it, writes Bernardo Kastrup.
https://iai.tv/articles/reality-is-not- ... -auid-2312
Alter :
An alter is a “dissociation” of a part of the universal mind from the whole. A bit like monads
https://neuroself.wordpress.com/kastrup-bernardo/
Re: TPF : Esse est percipi
I want to make a couple of points about this. The first is a reference to the Copenhagen Intepretation of quantum physics. According to it, the object of analysis of an experiment does not exist until it is measured or observed ('no phenomena is a phenomena until it is an observed phenomena' ~ Neils Bohr.) But a corollary of this was that it was incorrect to say that the object did not exist until it was observed. Rather, nothing could be said about it, until it was observed. — Quixodian
Yes. As I understand it, the Copenhagen Interpretation was not about Idealism, but about Holism. The particle that suddenly appears upon "collapse" of the superposed statistical state did not just materialize from thin air. Instead its statistical (mathematical) existence is Potential, and its collapsed existence is Actual.
For example, a Holistic system -- such as a galaxy of stars -- appears as a Nebula (cloud) from a distance, and its component stars are bound into a system by mutual gravitational attraction. As long as the gravitational field is stable, none of the stars can move independently. Likewise, an Atom is a cloud of particles that act holistically and display collective properties. But when an atom-smasher destroys the system, each sub-atomic particle moves off on its own trajectory, defined by its own properties. When bound into the atom, each electron only has a statistical existence. It's in there, but undetectable until Actualized by the collapse (mathematical state to physical state) of the atomic system.
Aristotle probably had nothing like the modern concept of Electrons or Galaxies, but he saw a need to distinguish Potential existence from Actual being.
Systems Theory/Holism :
Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism
Yes. As I understand it, the Copenhagen Interpretation was not about Idealism, but about Holism. The particle that suddenly appears upon "collapse" of the superposed statistical state did not just materialize from thin air. Instead its statistical (mathematical) existence is Potential, and its collapsed existence is Actual.
For example, a Holistic system -- such as a galaxy of stars -- appears as a Nebula (cloud) from a distance, and its component stars are bound into a system by mutual gravitational attraction. As long as the gravitational field is stable, none of the stars can move independently. Likewise, an Atom is a cloud of particles that act holistically and display collective properties. But when an atom-smasher destroys the system, each sub-atomic particle moves off on its own trajectory, defined by its own properties. When bound into the atom, each electron only has a statistical existence. It's in there, but undetectable until Actualized by the collapse (mathematical state to physical state) of the atomic system.
Aristotle probably had nothing like the modern concept of Electrons or Galaxies, but he saw a need to distinguish Potential existence from Actual being.
Systems Theory/Holism :
Holism emphasizes that the state of a system must be assessed in its entirety and cannot be assessed through its independent member parts.
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Systems_Theory/Holism
Re: TPF : Esse est percipi
↪Quixodian
"I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity." — Quixodian
Speaking of persistence in the form of general "existence" --- in the context of Phenomena and Noumena --- I just read the chapter In Search of Reality in Charles Pinter's Mind & Cosmic Order. On the topic of Facts, he says "our words cannot refer to things in the world, because those things don't really exist in the world. They only exist when they have been individuated, separated out, and noted in mind". (Internal Realism : word to world mapping) --- Gnomon
As I continued to read the Facts and Information chapter, I began to see how Pinter was using the term "exist" in his idealistic worldview. First, he makes the same differentiation as I do, between Shannon's use of "information" --- defining the physical carrier instead of the metaphysical content of a message --- and the traditional meaning of the word as "informative" (meaningful) content. He says "wherever there is some variation or modulation of a physical medium, there is potential information". {my bold} Then he further distinguishes the physical carrier (e.g. energy pulses) from the metaphysical content (meaning). "We shall regard information as a non-material 'something' "
Pinter goes on to define "Form" (the root of information) in terms of Structure : "aspects of an object that are accessible only to observers able to see in Gestalts". That is, to separate the meaningful Pattern from the noisy foggy background. Next comes the introduction of substance/property dualism : "every fact consists of two separate pieces of reality". One piece is A> the general material-world background --- including the not yet discerned Object --- and B> the specific logical structure (Form) that the observer interprets as meaningful to the Self.
Further down, he notes that things "outside the view of any sentient observer are latent and unrealized. They become actualized when living observers individuate them by assigning features and structure to them, and perceiving them as wholes". {my bold} I would prefer to substitute "conceiving" as the interpretation of parts into wholes. "Objects do not exist outside the purview of minds" That is not a universal Ontology, but a personal meaning of Being.
Next, he makes the assertion that I found counter-intuitive : "If this [gestalt] information is absent from the universe, then the object does not exist." {my bracket} It does not exist for the viewer until defined (from meaningless background) by an act of conception. The brain perceives raw data, which the mind conceives into personally meaningful Gestalts (words). "To put it another way, the information which brings an object or fact out of the background in which it is immersed . . ."
As I understand his view of contingent "existence", clumps of matter (e.g. stars) only exist as a noisy meaningless background, but the concept of a star (Gestalt object) comes into existence when an observing sentient Mind defines it as a particular thing. An object may have potential Form when unobserved, but it only takes on actual formal Meaning in the mind of a Subject.
"Prior to the existence of conscious awareness, there were physical processes, but they were virtual [potential] and not actual because they were not impressed on any aware observer". Of course, that statement of fact is true only if you ignore the contribution of Berkeley's universal Observer. But that outside awareness may be the only way to "explain the existence of the world", as defined against the background of nothingness.
A Precis of Enformationism :
"This is a powerful and far-reaching proposal. What it claims is that all of reality is divided into two very different branches. There is the purely material aspect of reality which encompasses matter and energy playing by the rules of physics. In addition, there is information --- or rather knowledge --- which is immaterial . . . ." ----Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order
Note 1 --- BothAnd dualism = material & immaterial exist, but in different forms : substance + property
Note 2 --- Monistic Existence = both Physical and Metaphysical = universal Ontology
Note 3 --- The non-traditional vocabulary & counter-intuitive nature of this BothAnd worldview makes it difficult to convey without lots of parenthetical diversions.
DO YOU PERCEIVE A CAMOUFLAGE BACKGROUND OR CONCEIVE A "DAZZLE" OF ZEBRAS ?
w0589_1s_Stylish-black-and-white-zebra-pattern-wallpaper-hidden-form_Repeating-Pattern-Sample-1.jpg?v=1631212734
"I'm afraid that explaining the existence of the world is quite beyond my capacity." — Quixodian
Speaking of persistence in the form of general "existence" --- in the context of Phenomena and Noumena --- I just read the chapter In Search of Reality in Charles Pinter's Mind & Cosmic Order. On the topic of Facts, he says "our words cannot refer to things in the world, because those things don't really exist in the world. They only exist when they have been individuated, separated out, and noted in mind". (Internal Realism : word to world mapping) --- Gnomon
As I continued to read the Facts and Information chapter, I began to see how Pinter was using the term "exist" in his idealistic worldview. First, he makes the same differentiation as I do, between Shannon's use of "information" --- defining the physical carrier instead of the metaphysical content of a message --- and the traditional meaning of the word as "informative" (meaningful) content. He says "wherever there is some variation or modulation of a physical medium, there is potential information". {my bold} Then he further distinguishes the physical carrier (e.g. energy pulses) from the metaphysical content (meaning). "We shall regard information as a non-material 'something' "
Pinter goes on to define "Form" (the root of information) in terms of Structure : "aspects of an object that are accessible only to observers able to see in Gestalts". That is, to separate the meaningful Pattern from the noisy foggy background. Next comes the introduction of substance/property dualism : "every fact consists of two separate pieces of reality". One piece is A> the general material-world background --- including the not yet discerned Object --- and B> the specific logical structure (Form) that the observer interprets as meaningful to the Self.
Further down, he notes that things "outside the view of any sentient observer are latent and unrealized. They become actualized when living observers individuate them by assigning features and structure to them, and perceiving them as wholes". {my bold} I would prefer to substitute "conceiving" as the interpretation of parts into wholes. "Objects do not exist outside the purview of minds" That is not a universal Ontology, but a personal meaning of Being.
Next, he makes the assertion that I found counter-intuitive : "If this [gestalt] information is absent from the universe, then the object does not exist." {my bracket} It does not exist for the viewer until defined (from meaningless background) by an act of conception. The brain perceives raw data, which the mind conceives into personally meaningful Gestalts (words). "To put it another way, the information which brings an object or fact out of the background in which it is immersed . . ."
As I understand his view of contingent "existence", clumps of matter (e.g. stars) only exist as a noisy meaningless background, but the concept of a star (Gestalt object) comes into existence when an observing sentient Mind defines it as a particular thing. An object may have potential Form when unobserved, but it only takes on actual formal Meaning in the mind of a Subject.
"Prior to the existence of conscious awareness, there were physical processes, but they were virtual [potential] and not actual because they were not impressed on any aware observer". Of course, that statement of fact is true only if you ignore the contribution of Berkeley's universal Observer. But that outside awareness may be the only way to "explain the existence of the world", as defined against the background of nothingness.
A Precis of Enformationism :
"This is a powerful and far-reaching proposal. What it claims is that all of reality is divided into two very different branches. There is the purely material aspect of reality which encompasses matter and energy playing by the rules of physics. In addition, there is information --- or rather knowledge --- which is immaterial . . . ." ----Pinter, Mind and the Cosmic Order
Note 1 --- BothAnd dualism = material & immaterial exist, but in different forms : substance + property
Note 2 --- Monistic Existence = both Physical and Metaphysical = universal Ontology
Note 3 --- The non-traditional vocabulary & counter-intuitive nature of this BothAnd worldview makes it difficult to convey without lots of parenthetical diversions.
DO YOU PERCEIVE A CAMOUFLAGE BACKGROUND OR CONCEIVE A "DAZZLE" OF ZEBRAS ?
w0589_1s_Stylish-black-and-white-zebra-pattern-wallpaper-hidden-form_Repeating-Pattern-Sample-1.jpg?v=1631212734
Re: TPF : Esse est percipi
OUT OF ORDER
I'm sure we discussed this article before Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities -'“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility”. Notes that Heisenberg (Platonist that he was) endorses the Aristotelian concept of potentia. — Quixodian
Yes, that article seems to agree with my assessment of the Quantum quandaries, that make the basement of physical reality appear to be a dungeon of dragons. On the other hand, "including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses". Ironically, it expands our conventional materialistic notion of Reality into the realm of Platonic Ideality. Potential "things" --- hidden in statistical superposition --- are technically not-yet-manifest in our sensory reality. They must be coaxed to actualize (realize) by a technological act of mind.
That's why pragmatic scientists were appalled to "see" real particles appearing as-if out of nowhere (statistical probability) after an intervention by their mind-probes into the holistic systems of material atoms, that were previously assumed to be indivisible. Even singular photons are seen to split into multiple manifestations upon passing through a bottleneck slit. But, if we can be content to assume that the Potential for the multiple photons already existed in the potential of immaterial Energy, the mystifying magic is revealed to be merely a trick of the mind.
I'm sure we discussed this article before Quantum mysteries dissolve if possibilities are realities -'“This new ontological picture requires that we expand our concept of ‘what is real’ to include an extraspatiotemporal domain of quantum possibility”. Notes that Heisenberg (Platonist that he was) endorses the Aristotelian concept of potentia. — Quixodian
Yes, that article seems to agree with my assessment of the Quantum quandaries, that make the basement of physical reality appear to be a dungeon of dragons. On the other hand, "including “potential” things on the list of “real” things can avoid the counterintuitive conundrums that quantum physics poses". Ironically, it expands our conventional materialistic notion of Reality into the realm of Platonic Ideality. Potential "things" --- hidden in statistical superposition --- are technically not-yet-manifest in our sensory reality. They must be coaxed to actualize (realize) by a technological act of mind.
That's why pragmatic scientists were appalled to "see" real particles appearing as-if out of nowhere (statistical probability) after an intervention by their mind-probes into the holistic systems of material atoms, that were previously assumed to be indivisible. Even singular photons are seen to split into multiple manifestations upon passing through a bottleneck slit. But, if we can be content to assume that the Potential for the multiple photons already existed in the potential of immaterial Energy, the mystifying magic is revealed to be merely a trick of the mind.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests