Berkeley's argument for the existence of God

[vulcanlogician]

Let's stick with color then. Outside of the mind there is no such thing as "blue". There are light waves. We can measure the wavelength of the light (in the same way we can measure temperature) and say "that is what the mind interprets as blue" but blueness exists only as an idea.

Sunflowers disagree...all plants disagree.  They respond to a narrow wavelength and reflect the rest.  Auxin, btw.  It's a photophobic growth hormone.  (one of) Their version(s) of a mechanoreceptor..except that it senses light.  Cool shit, huh.

Blueness may be "only an idea"..lets run with it. -  why would that matter to the argument..if ideas have mass and occupy space anyway?

Sunflowers respond to wavelengths of lights. Wavelength is an actual primary quality of waves of light. The idea of light doesn't have wavelength (so to speak)... it has blueness. Blueness doesn't exist outside of the realm of ideas. Therefore ideas are essentially different than material things. There is a causal relation between material and ideas but not an essential similarity.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why would the idea of light have a wavelength as light does (and are you sure it doesn;t..if we could see an open neuron firing).....hexcode doesn't have a wavelength either.  The idea of light isn't even light, anyway, as we've agreed.  I fail to see any relevance.  

I want to run this past you again..to see if you really want to go with it.

Because something has/doesn't have "blueness"...it;s not similar in any way to the material?  Do you think the one supports the other...and..again..if blueness is an idea with mass that occupies space.....does it matter whether or not the signal or brain is blue?

[Mystic]

  Doing so (if you could, lol....) would be a refutation anyway.

Yahweh and Al-Hayu in Arabic, are emphasized regarding God for a reason.

I want to see him try to show dualism as possible with God existing. 

It would refute the argument, but I feel he will go the route non-material can create material, but the other way doesn't work   which would be a fun argument to see. 

But it would refute this argument, but I doubt he will be able to.

---

This proof is the most blissful thing I experienced in this whole year. I never been able to prove dualism is impossible.

I am so happy. Thank you OP.

[brewer]

Let's stick with color then. Outside of the mind there is no such thing as "blue". There are light waves. We can measure the wavelength of the light (in the same way we can measure temperature) and say "that is what the mind interprets as blue" but blueness exists only as an idea.

Other animals perceive what humans call blue. So there is such a thing as blue. Don't discount third person/entity perspective.

[vulcanlogician]

The thing is Khem, ideas are sometimes blue. Nothing in the material world is. This at least says something of a distinction between ideas and material things. There are qualities that only pertain to ideas and not physical matter. That's the starting point for the argument anyway.... Your going to make me dig out Hylas and Philonous here.

---

Let's stick with color then. Outside of the mind there is no such thing as "blue". There are light waves. We can measure the wavelength of the light (in the same way we can measure temperature) and say "that is what the mind interprets as blue" but blueness exists only as an idea.

Other animals perceive what humans call blue. So there is such a thing as blue. Don't discount third person/entity perspective.

There is a third person way to observe blue... it's called wavelength and it is a material objective thing... and guess what? It's not blue. Blue is in the eye of the beholder and nowhere else.

[FlatAssembler]

Let's stick with color then. Outside of the mind there is no such thing as "blue". There are light waves. We can measure the wavelength of the light (in the same way we can measure temperature) and say "that is what the mind interprets as blue" but blueness exists only as an idea.

Other animals perceive what humans call blue. So there is such a thing as blue. Don't discount third person/entity perspective.

Other animals perceive the image on TV as being three-dimensional, that doesn't mean that it actually is. And, actually, many animal species can be proven by an experiment to be color-blind. You just think they perceive colors the same way you do because of, well, qualia.

[The Grand Nudger]

The thing is Khem, ideas are sometimes blue. Nothing in the material world is. This at least says something of a distinction between ideas and material things. There are qualities that only pertain to ideas and not physical matter. That's the starting point for the argument anyway.... Your going to make me dig out Hylas and Philonous here.

While I disagree with you, there's no need to.  The issue of contention is not whether or not something is blue.  It;s whether or not some x has mass and occupies space.

If -this- is the difference between the material or immaterial...not "blueness"....then -this- is all that would be relevant to whether or not an idea was material or immaterial. If some x was not blue, or did not posess blueness...but did have mass and occupied space..it;s lack or possession of blueness is moot. An idea can be unlike any other material thing in many ways..and still be similar in that one integral and relevant way. Just as the oidea of an elephant and an elephant can be different..while both have mass and occupy space.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Okay, I'll lay my cards on the table. Berkeley's mistake is that he considers thoughts as what is known; whereas, thoughts are actually the means by which we know. For example, someone can know about an apple but the thoughts by which he knows about the apple are not the apple itself.

[The Grand Nudger]

Other animals perceive what humans call blue. So there is such a thing as blue. Don't discount third person/entity perspective.

Other animals perceive the image on TV as being three-dimensional, that doesn't mean that it actually is. And, actually, many animal species can be proven by an experiment to be color-blind. You just think they perceive colors the same way you do because of, well, qualia.

Do you want to hear the material explanation for color vision (in it's various incarnations), or the lack thereof...or do you already suspect that there is one?   

Who, btw, is under the impression that a dog sees color like we do? We know they don't..and we know why. The answer isn;t "qualia", lol.

[brewer]

The thing is Khem, ideas are sometimes blue. Nothing in the material world is. This at least says something of a distinction between ideas and material things. There are qualities that only pertain to ideas and not physical matter. That's the starting point for the argument anyway.... Your going to make me dig out Hylas and Philonous here.

---

Other animals perceive what humans call blue. So there is such a thing as blue. Don't discount third person/entity perspective.

There is a third person way to observe blue... it's called wavelength and it is a material objective thing... and guess what? It's not blue. Blue is in the eye of the beholder and nowhere else.

Blue is only a name. If another person calls the perception of the same wavelength pickle are they both experiencing the blueness/pickleness?

---

Other animals perceive what humans call blue. So there is such a thing as blue. Don't discount third person/entity perspective.

Other animals perceive the image on TV as being three-dimensional, that doesn't mean that it actually is. And, actually, many animal species can be proven by an experiment to be color-blind. You just think they perceive colors the same way you do because of, well, qualia.

Nope, I know that's not the case. And that was a pretty poor judgement.