Perceiving, like imagining, remembering, speculating, inferring, etc., is a species of thinking.

Descartes: For any human mind, to think is to exist (cogito ergo sum).

In other words, when and while I am thinking, in the first person present tense mode, I must be existing.

Berkeley: For any human mind, to be (to exist) is to perceive (esse est percipere).

In other words, when and while I am perceiving in the first person present tense mode, I must be existing.

In my opinion, Berkeley's esse est percipere (to be is to perceive) and Descartes' cogito sum (while thinking, I am) are saying precisely the same thing.

To this extent Berkeley and Descartes are in agreement.

They both claim, each in his own way, that the existence or being of a human mind depends upon its perceiving or thinking.

However, Berkeley takes a major step beyond Descartes.

Unlike Descartes, Berkeley also claims the "esse" of every object of human perception depends upon its "percipi," i.e., the existence of every object depends exclusively upon its being perceived by a human mind.

However, Descartes was unable to go as far as Berkeley did because he claimed that, with the single exception of personal existence, the existence of all objects of human thought could not be indubitably certain.

In other words, for Descartes the performance of the esse est percipi (the to be is to be perceived) is neither existentially consistent nor existentially self-verifying, when and while I am performing it in the first person present tense mode, i.e., it cannot overcome hyperbolic doubt and, thus, is not indubitably certain.

Only the performance of the Cogito Sum is existentially consistent and existentially self-verifying, i.e., indubitably certain, when and while I am performing it in the first person present tense mode.

Perceiving, like imagining, remembering, speculating, inferring, etc., is a species of thinking. — charles ferraro

Imagining, remembering, speculating, inferring, etc., are indeed thinking. Perceiving is a total different thing. It involves our senses and is a most simple process: it stops at recognizing, identifying things, which are almost instant. What we observe we can then process with the mind, which involves thinking, a process that can take ... forever.

Descartes: For any human mind, to think is to exist (cogito ergo sum). — charles ferraro

I don't think Descartes has ever assumed "for any human mind". It;s an additive. It's Berkeley that assumed that, as I menteioned.

In other words, when and while I am thinking, in the first person present tense mode, I must be existing. — charles ferraro

I have showed in different occasions that this unfortunately is not true, referring th the term "thinking" as we use it today. In fact, its the opposite. During thinking you may lose the sense and experience of living. There are many times that you are thinking all sorts of things but in reality you are absent-minded, or immerged in the past by bringing up memories, or while you are imagining things, etc. Thinking can be also illusory. In all these cases you are not aware, or you are partially aware, of your existence and anything in your environment! Thinking actually is an obstacle to being totally aware, that is, observe and perceive things in your environment as well as aware of youresf. But I can't believe Descartes didn't realize all these things. That's why I believe that by "thinking" he most probably meant "being aware". That is, "I am aware, therefore I exist".

Berkeley's esse est percipere (to be is to perceive) and Descartes' cogito sum (while thinking, I am) are saying precisely the same thing. — charles ferraro

As I said, thinking and perception are two totally different things. But if by "thinking" pone means "being conscious/aware" --as in Descartes' time -- then they are close.

They both claim, each in his own way, that the existence or being of a human mind depends upon its perceiving or thinking. — charles ferraro

Please look up the definitions of "perceive" and "think" or "perception" and "thinking". I mean it.

However, Berkeley takes a major step beyond Descartes. — charles ferraro

Of course. He lived a century later. And most probably he took ideas from Descartes.

Berkeley also claims the "esse" of every object of human perception depends upon its "percipi," i.e., the existence of every object depends exclusively upon its being perceived by a human mind. — charles ferraro

Right. By this only you should see that thinking and perception are different things. And that Berkeley was very close to consciousness/awareness, since consciousness depends on perceiving; it is actually and in essence perception. (Not as a definition, of course).

For what it's worth, human thinking and human perceiving both presuppose human consciousness and are modes of human consciousness. When and while I am actively engaging in an act of thinking or an act of perception, in the first person present tense mode, I must be consciously aware of doing either while, simultaneously, also be consciously aware of the fact that I exist. To claim otherwise, in the first person present tense mode, would be existentially inconsistent and existentially self-defeating; i.e., impossible.

The main difference between thinking consciously and perceiving consciously is that the existence of the "object" thought consciously is indubitably certain (not subject to hyperbolic doubt), whereas the existence of the object perceived consciously is not indubitably certain (subject to hyperbolic doubt).

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. :smile:


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-what-it-seems-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/

As I see, you refuse to look up the terms. Well, you are not alone. You, along with all the others who hate or avoid to look up and/or examine closely and really undestand the terms the meaning of which they don't know or think they know, will always remain with misconceptions. Which means, they won't be able to make correct judgements. It's only obvious.

[reply="Alkis Piskas;8276

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. Good luck with your inviolable dictionary definitions. The only thing obvious to me is your closed-minded dogmatic attitude.

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

Aristotle probably had nothing like the modern concept of Electrons or Galaxies, but he saw a need to distinguish Potential existence from Actual being. — Gnomon

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.

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.