Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[FatAndFaithless]

...except for the fact that the immaterial idea wouldn't exist if there wasn't a material brain to conceive of it.  Material, fleshy, pink brains are the source of ideas.  There's a direct necessity for the material brain in order for the immaterial conception to exist or matter.  A material brain is the necessary cause for ideas, as far as all the available evidence tells us.

But Berkeley would argue that we've never experienced a pink, fleshy brain directly... all we've experienced is the idea of a pink, fleshy brain...


@Khem

So, yeah, you have a system of firing neurons which cause the idea. If you are going to call those neurons (or the energy flowing through them) the idea, then, yes, then the idea takes up space and has mass. But even biological naturalists might disagree with the notion that the neurons are the actual idea. I don't want to say the word "qualia" too loudly because of recent controversies, but yeah... *whispers* qualia.

I think Berkeley's philosophy can be understood apart from neuroscience, regardless. Obviously he didn't know anything about it because neuroscience wasn't even a thing in his time. But he does have a point about ideas. All we ever know are ideas, and we never really "experience" material things. I'm pretty sure it's too airy fairy for you to take seriously, but he does have a point.

Would Berkeley argue that holding my hand in fire means I'm not really experiencing heat, I'm experiencing the idea of heat?  All consciousness is in the brain and experience is the result of neurons firing, and ideas are simply neurons firing as well - so in that literal sense, absolutely everything we experience is an idea.  Fine, I get it.

How is that in any way useful or helpful or descriptive of reality? It sounds almost like a vague form of solipsism.