Matter occupies space and - in common day life - has a weight. Anything that has these properties is made of matter. That's the definition. — Heiko

That's just an idea though, an assumption, not an observation. You are claiming, to paraphrase, "anything that occupies space and has weight is matter". But what we sense, and observe, is particular things occupying space and having weight, not matter. So the validity of this idea, this assumption, or claim you've made, needs to be supported.

When we see a chair, how do we not see what it is composed of? If we can't say what it is composed of, how can we even say that what we see is a chair? — Harry Hindu

I don't see any logic in what you have written here. I see a chair, as a distinct entity, a unity, a chair. I do not see a collection of parts, molecules or atoms or any such thing. Therefore, I can say that I see a chair, this is supported by empirical evidence. The claim that the chair is composed of something, molecules, atoms, or matter, is the claim that needs to be justified.

No one has ever sensed matter. We do not observe matter. The things we observe are objects like the chair, the table, and the various other objects we encounter. — Metaphysician Undercover

Chairs and tables are matter.

The reason for your aggravation/aggression, is because your native sense of what is real is being called into question. It's annoying, but that's what philosophy aims at doing. — Wayfarer

I've been studying philosophy for 45 years now, and I have a "formal" background in it. So no. Idealism isn't actually rampant in the field at large. Why there are so many idealists on this board I don't know. Same with so many religious believers here.

By the way, after I first discovered Berkeley/idealism in general, as well as Descartes' obsession with certainty, etc. I thought that stuff was pretty interesting (even though I didn't agree with it (well, idealism at least) and thought it was bizarre when I first encountered it) and presented something of a challenge when I was about 16-17 years old. But then I advanced. That was about 40 years ago now.

What you rather need to do, if you find yourself seduced by the "you can only know/there only are ideas" doctrine, if you find yourself seduced by representationalism, etc. is realize this: you're making a decision between believing that (a) "you can only perceive/know ideas" and (b) "you can perceive/know (things that aren't simply ideas in) the external world." In making that decision, you should have good reasons to believe one of those options instead of the other. You need to critically look at that, critically look at what you consider to be good reasons for buying one option rather than the other, and I can help you be critical regarding the typical reasons given for (a), because the typical reasons for that are very poor. Maybe someone has some unusual, very idiosyncratic reasons for choosing (a), but in that case, let's hear 'em, and we'll see whether they're good or not.

So you can't observe that the chair is composed of wood or platic, of a seat and legs? Again how do you know that you are looking at a chair if you can't say what it is composed of. Is every chair the same?

If solipsism/idealism is the case, then the chair only exists as an idea along with whatever it is composed of. In idealism, the chair really is made of wood and plastic - as you see it. (Indirect) Realism is the one that says the chair is not as you see it.

What difference does it make what word we use to refer to what things are composed of? Answer the question.

You philosophers like to argue over nonsense and/or throw together a bunch of words that don't mean anything, or are useless.

Idealism/solipsism is actually a type of naive realism. What you experience is actually how things are.

One cannot say that things are composed of ideas, for how would you distinguish one idea from another? Ideas themselves are composed of sensory impressions/representations. Yet ideas are different from an experience of the same thing. Is idea of your pet the same as your experience of your pet. The idea is vague, faded, and an overlay of the actual experience.

Idealism/solipsism is actually a type of naive realism. What you experience is actually how things are. — Harry Hindu

For it to be naive realism, though, it has to not just be ideas that you're observing or that you believe exists.

So you can't observe that the chair is composed of wood or platic, of a seat and legs? — Harry Hindu

No, those are deductions made from observations. How would you sense that the chair is composed of wood, plastic, a seat, or legs?

What difference does it make what word we use to refer to what things are composed of? Answer the question. — Harry Hindu

It makes a lot of difference what words we use to refer to what things are made of.. Each word has its own meaning, and some claims are more easily justifiable than others. That the chair is composed of a seat and legs, or even that it is composed of wood or plastic, is much more easily justified than that it is composed of matter. The latter appears to be entirely speculative.

That's why I asked what difference it makes what we call the thing everything is composed of.

How is ideas all the way down different from matter all the way down? The only difference between a naive realist and idealist is the word that they use to refer to what things are composed of. They both still believe that things are as they see it.

How is ideas all the way down different from matter all the way down? — Harry Hindu

It's like asking how a shoe is different from a jellyfish. What would require an explanation is not being able to see any differences. Ideas are not the same thing as not-ideas, and that's an important difference, even if there are plenty of similarities, too.

But it's a necessary component of the idealism vs. realism distinction that realism isnt positing that we only know or that there only are ideas.

That's just an idea though, an assumption, not an observation. You are claiming, to paraphrase, "anything that occupies space and has weight is matter". But what we sense, and observe, is particular things occupying space and having weight, not matter. So the validity of this idea, this assumption, or claim you've made, needs to be supported. — Metaphysician Undercover

Claim? That is the established definition of the word - go figure!

matter
[mat-er]
See more synonyms for matter on Thesaurus.com
noun

the substance or substances of which any physical object consists or is composed: the matter of which the earth is made.
physical or corporeal substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous, especially as distinguished from incorporeal substance, as spirit or mind, or from qualities, actions, and the like.
something that occupies space.

No, those are deductions made from observations. How would you sense that the chair is composed of wood, plastic, a seat, or legs? — Metaphysician Undercover

So you're telling me that you can't see the difference between a wooden chair and a plastic one? What is imitation wood if not the appearance of wood so that you can't visually distinguish between the plastic it is made of and actual wood?

It makes a lot of difference what words we use to refer to what things are made of.. Each word has its own meaning, and some claims are more easily justifiable than others. That the chair is composed of a seat and legs, or even that it is composed of wood or plastic, is much more easily justified than that it is composed of matter. The latter appears to be entirely speculative. — Metaphysician Undercover

Each word means what it refers to. What is the actual difference between ideas and matter?

For it to be naive realism, though, it has to not just be ideas that you're observing or that you believe exists. — Terrapin Station

It's what things are composed of that we are talking about. For the naive realist, ideas are composed of matter, so for the naive realist it is just matter that he observes and it is matter all the way down. For the idealist, it is only ideas that he observes and it is ideas all the way down. Again, what is the difference?

Each words means what it refers to. What is the actual difference between ideas and matter? — Harry Hindu

If you had read the Dialogues you would know that Berkeley already addresses this question as well as all of the other objections that have been raised so far in this thread.

The difference between ideas and matter is that ideas are mind dependent and matter supposedly is not. Berkeley is very good at demolishing the foundations of material substance but not so good at supporting his own foundation for spiritual substance.

At the end of the Dialogues he allows that the only real difference between the two is the materialists insistence that non-thinking objects or what you call material objects can exist without a mind that perceives them.

Claim? That is the established definition of the word - go figure! — Heiko

Right, to define something is to state an idea. It doesn't indicate whether the defined thing could be observed or not - go figure.

It is the claim that the defined thing, "matter", is something observed rather than just an idea, that is what needs to be justified.

So you're telling me that you can't see the difference between a wooden chair and a plastic one? What is imitation wood if not the appearance of wood so that you can't visually distinguish between the plastic it is made of and actual wood? — Harry Hindu

What I'm telling you is that I cannot look at the chair and tell you that it is made of wood, or that it is made of plastic without having some idea of what wood and what plastic are. By reference to these ideas, I can deduce whether the chair is made of plastic or wood. And, as your example of imitation wood indicates, I might sometimes be wrong in my deduction. So clearly I am not observing with my senses what the chair is made of, I am deducing it.

What is the actual difference between ideas and matter? — Harry Hindu

Matter is an idea, but not all ideas are matter.

The difference between ideas and matter is that ideas are mind dependent and matter supposedly is not. — Jamesk

Kant, for example, could not explain it's resistiveness and preservance in other ways. There cannot be a will to lift a thing up and one to hold it on the ground in one subject at a time.
But - again - this is not part of the definition of matter.

Right, to define something is to state an idea. It doesn't indicate whether the defined thing could be observed or not - go figure.

It is the claim that the defined thing, "matter", is something observed rather than just an idea, that is what needs to be justified. — Metaphysician Undercover

I guess it is a nominalistic "We call things with those properties material." No claim - just calling names. It is not my problem that you go on and try to make the materialness a property inherent and important to the essence of the existence of everything(tm). Your are mixing up matter and materialism as well as ideas and idealism.

Matter is an idea, but not all ideas are matter. — Metaphysician Undercover

Objects are ideas surely? We have no idea of matter because we cannot directly perceive it.

It's what things are composed of that we are talking about. For the naive realist, ideas are composed of matter, so for the naive realist it is just matter that he observes and it is matter all the way down. For the idealist, it is only ideas that he observes and it is ideas all the way down. Again, what is the difference? — Harry Hindu

So you literally have no idea what the difference is between thinking that there can be matter that's not just an idea and thinking that there can be ideas that aren't matter?

We have no idea of matter because we cannot directly perceive it. — Jamesk

Again this is incorrect. We directly perceive matter all the time.

Again this is incorrect. We directly perceive matter all the time. — Terrapin Station

We perceive material objects all of the time, we do not perceive matter. The material substratum supporting the mind independent, absolute existence of those material objects is invisible.

You say that the atomic structure of a tree is what the tree is made of, however we only experience the tree not the swirling cloud of atoms that provide solidity and colour etc.

When was the last time you directly perceived an atom? a molecule? a particle? Never, because you can only experience them indirectly through their extensions i.e material objects.

Why in the world would you be thinking that matter is only microscopic?

We perceive material objects all of the time, we do not perceive matter. — Jamesk

That is the same as saying we do not percieve colors. We perceive a black-red screwdriver, we perceive ....
Fair enough - why would we need abstractions? We don't observe objects...

The material substratum supporting the mind independent, absolute existence of those material objects is invisible. — Jamesk

You, too, are mixing assumptions of materialism into the definition of matter. Here is a definition for you:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matter

matter noun
mat·​ter | \ˈma-tər
\
Definition of matter
...
2a : the substance of which a physical object is composed

b : material substance that occupies space, has mass, and is composed predominantly of atoms consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons, that constitutes the observable universe, and that is interconvertible with energy

....

3a : the indeterminate subject of reality especially : the element in the universe that undergoes formation and alteration

b : the formless substratum of all things which exists only potentially and upon which form acts to produce realities

...

7 Christian Science : the illusion that the objects perceived by the physical senses have the reality of substance

What do you think matter is?

There's a definition above, but it's certainly not only microscopic. It's not as if quarks and leptons and protons and neutrons etc. are matter, but when they're in larger combinations--including rocks and shoes and trees and buildings and mountains and planets, it's no longer matter.

So now, how about answering what I asked you--why in the world would you think that "matter" only refers to something microscopic?

What you rather need to do, if you find yourself seduced by the "you can only know/there only are ideas" doctrine, if you find yourself seduced by representationalism, etc. is realize this: you're making a decision between believing that (a) "you can only perceive/know ideas" and (b) "you can perceive/know (things that aren't simply ideas in) the external world." In making that decision, you should have good reasons to believe one of those options instead of the other. You need to critically look at that, critically look at what you consider to be good reasons for buying one option rather than the other, and I can help you be critical regarding the typical reasons given for (a), because the typical reasons for that are very poor. Maybe someone has some unusual, very idiosyncratic reasons for choosing (a), but in that case, let's hear 'em, and we'll see whether they're good or not. — Terrapin Station

Do you understand the sense in which your response to Berkeley is similar to Samuel Johnson’s, and why that matters? You’re basically saying: ‘c’mon , don’t be ridiculous’. That is about the strength of it. Your argument is simply that ‘naive realism is obviously correct’.

In respect of the nature of matter - what is at issue is the reality of matter. I can quite agree that tables and chairs exist, as I use them all the time. But recall the context of the debate - it’s about what is real, and what grounds there are for asserting the basis of its reality. Materialism is the view that material objects are inherently real, that the fundamental constituents of matter are what really exist, and these exist independently of anyone perceiving them.

But the difficulty is that it is just the reality of such supposed fundamental constituents that has been cast into doubt by 20th c physics. Particles are now ‘excitations of fields’, and fields are...well, what, exactly? And there are many serious and sober scientists who are prepared to entertain the apparently outlandish world-picture presented by the ‘many worlds interpretation’ (especially as an alternative to the so-called Copenhagen Interpretation.)

Much of this, it shouldnt’ be forgotten, originated with the ‘observer problem’ in quantum physics, the precise implication of which was that the act of observation did indeed have a material and philosophical bearing on the observation of the purportedly ‘mind-independent reality’ of sub-atomic entities. And I can help you with that. ;-)

Your argument is simply that ‘naive realism is obviously correct’. — Wayfarer

Citation?

I mean if you're going to either be that thick or dishonest, whichever it is . . .

Aside from that, you're seriously arguing from a subservience to the conventions of the discipline of physics interpreted non-instrumentally?

It's not as if quarks and leptons and protons and neutrons etc. are matter, but when they're in larger combinations--including rocks and shoes and trees and buildings and mountains and planets, it's no longer matter. — Terrapin Station

If the particles aren't matter, and the combination of particles are not matter, then what is matter?

I'll answer. The usual folk notion is that matter is a stuff, a substance - physical being. So it is a material suitable for construction. It exists in stable located fashion, occupying space and time. It has stable inherent properties. And it is suitable for turning into mixtures or combinations of greater complexity. It is pliant in some regard while also being stiff enough to maintain its identity as a part of some composition.

In short, this deep ontological question is normally approach from the shallow end of the pool where a human-centric set of concerns is uppermost in our minds. We are looking out into the world for stable, yet plastic, building materials. The kind of stuff that we can form into arbitrary objects like a chair or table. And atomism arose as a metaphysics to support that constructive mindset. It made sense that the base of a substantial reality would be little bits of ur-stuff acting and reacting with each other in an a-causal and thoughtless void.

So in summary, it has to be stable stuff that can be plastically re-shaped into stable forms. Materialism is the ontology of mankind the builder. That is the pragmatically useful way of understanding nature ... so it must be true. :lol:

If the particles aren't matter, and the combination of particles are not matter, then what is matter? — apokrisis

Wait--why would we be saying that either the particles or combinations of them are not matter?

The difference between ideas and matter is that ideas are mind dependent and matter supposedly is not. — Jamesk

So is the idealist saying that the primary substance is mind, not ideas? If so, then the question becomes, "what is the difference betweeen mind and matter?" Ideas would be matter-dependent or mind-dependant. Again, what is the difference?

At the end of the Dialogues he allows that the only real difference between the two is the materialists insistence that non-thinking objects or what you call material objects can exist without a mind that perceives them. — Jamesk

But we perceive thinking objects just as we perceive non-thinking objects. The difference lies in their behavior, not how they appear - as material objects. Both thinking and non-thinking objects are governed by the laws of physics (cause and effect).

Wait--why would we be saying that either the particles or combinations of them are not matter? — Terrapin Station

You said they were not matter, implying matter was something else beyond particles and objects. I was trying to unearth the folk notions that you are probably relying on there.

The failure of that kind of materialism was exposed by Aristotle. Nature needs to be understood through the lens of ontic structuralism or hylomorphism. But still, folk notions of matter continue to rule for everyday pragmatic reasons.

You said they were not matter, implying matter was something else beyond particles and objects. — apokrisis

No. I was responding to someone who seemed to think that matter referred to something only microscopic.

I basically said, "it's not as if 'a if F while b isn't F,' even though b is comprised of a."

So in summary, it has to be stable stuff that can be plastically re-shaped into stable forms. Materialism is the ontology of mankind the builder. That is the pragmatically useful way of understanding nature ... so it must be true. :lol: — apokrisis

truth noun

Definition of truth
....
4 capitalized, Christian Science : GOD