I find George Berkley philosophy of immaterialism quite interesting to the extent of welcoming an informed approach to the philosophy of mind. He further contended that ” objects exist independently of mind is not testable or provable by the scientific method, because all objects we would wish to examine must enter our awareness in order to experiment on them.”
Although I am a firm believer that philosophy is just the tools we use to understand our own limited conditioning and environment (adjusted to a moment in timeframe) tends to lean more towards the idea that we are never truly close on explaining anything in regards of absolutes (truths or universals) but rather contribute into the developing of new forms of information processing. As we evolve or find new methods of stretching those mental faculties (which are the core essence of the foundations of our ideas of experience) we obtain new philosophical perspectives along the way and dispose of that which once was “truth” or “knowledge” passing forward as “belief”. The Ancient greek pre-socratic Gorgias of Leontini had a strong philosophical argument, as the father of paradoxism he revolutionize our ideas of reality, challenged the essence of being, epistemology and ontology, which further pushed Plato to examine the immaterial world of Ideas, intangibles and abstractive forms, hence his works on platonic realism or platonism.
“I think good philosophy basically just is cognitive science, plus math.” Mathematics is a subset of the metaphysical abstractive conceptualization occurring by the mechanism of the brain and its relation to the physicalist body (and that with space which is annexed with time by the pre-disposition of perception). Therefore to a degree, our experience are actually paradoxical in basis, The contingency issue arises by intending to describe what is real with something that is originally limited into its constituent parts. The corporeal(body) generates the senses that feed information to the brain creating the immaterial(mind), the immaterial creates the idea of the physical through abstraction of the sensory perception (hence giving it definition and property); the two are essential for supporting the existence of experience( subjective empiricism) under limited parameters which only exit seams to be an upgrade-evolution of the senses. Since our capabilities of communication have advanced over the different levels of human development: from sight-feeling-hearing, to thought-forms, to signaling, to pictography, to linguistics, to written forms, to history and internet we have further organized our individual ideas into collective frame in which we become more interdependent of our connections than never before and our mental processing and understanding enhance exponentially, each time we enhance the way we view the physicalism under direction of the immaterial(mind). So is the mind what defines the body/object (experience) or the body/objects defines the mind? An Interesting paradox. Without the mind functions(come) what happens to the body? without the body functions(death) what happens to the mind?
An example of this would be a debate on “Qualia”. Or the refutation of epistemological knowledge- “The sky is blue! ” -is the sky blue? What makes the sky seam blue? What is blue to an innate blind person who never experienced that information processing? and how it is described from the experience of another makes it blue?...How much of “knowledge” is “belief” and its vise-versification?
I find George Berkley philosophy of immaterialism quite interesting to the extent of welcoming an informed approach to the philosophy of mind. He further contended that ” objects exist independently of mind is not testable or provable by the scientific method, because all objects we would wish to examine must enter our awareness in order to experiment on them.”
Although I am a firm believer that philosophy is just the tools we use to understand our own limited conditioning and environment (adjusted to a moment in timeframe) tends to lean more towards the idea that we are never truly close on explaining anything in regards of absolutes (truths or universals) but rather contribute into the developing of new forms of information processing. As we evolve or find new methods of stretching those mental faculties (which are the core essence of the foundations of our ideas of experience) we obtain new philosophical perspectives along the way and dispose of that which once was “truth” or “knowledge” passing forward as “belief”. The Ancient greek pre-socratic Gorgias of Leontini had a strong philosophical argument, as the father of paradoxism he revolutionize our ideas of reality, challenged the essence of being, epistemology and ontology, which further pushed Plato to examine the immaterial world of Ideas, intangibles and abstractive forms, hence his works on platonic realism or platonism.
“I think good philosophy basically just is cognitive science, plus math.” Mathematics is a subset of the metaphysical abstractive conceptualization occurring by the mechanism of the brain and its relation to the physicalist body (and that with space which is annexed with time by the pre-disposition of perception). Therefore to a degree, our experience are actually paradoxical in basis, The contingency issue arises by intending to describe what is real with something that is originally limited into its constituent parts. The corporeal(body) generates the senses that feed information to the brain creating the immaterial(mind), the immaterial creates the idea of the physical through abstraction of the sensory perception (hence giving it definition and property); the two are essential for supporting the existence of experience( subjective empiricism) under limited parameters which only exit seams to be an upgrade-evolution of the senses. Since our capabilities of communication have advanced over the different levels of human development: from sight-feeling-hearing, to thought-forms, to signaling, to pictography, to linguistics, to written forms, to history and internet we have further organized our individual ideas into collective frame in which we become more interdependent of our connections than never before and our mental processing and understanding enhance exponentially, each time we enhance the way we view the physicalism under direction of the immaterial(mind). So is the mind what defines the body/object (experience) or the body/objects defines the mind? An Interesting paradox. Without the mind functions(come) what happens to the body? without the body functions(death) what happens to the mind?
An example of this would be a debate on “Qualia”. Or the refutation of epistemological knowledge- “The sky is blue! ” -is the sky blue? What makes the sky seam blue? What is blue to an innate blind person who never experienced that information processing? and how it is described from the experience of another makes it blue?...How much of “knowledge” is “belief” and its vise-versification?