I don't see any connection.

Also, that's a mischaracterization of idealism. The idealist does not think that only the conceivable exists, for minds themselves exist yet are not conceivable.

Berkeley, for instance, arrives at the conclusion that the sensible world is made of another mind's mental states because it resembles our sensations and he takes it to be self-evident to reason that sensations can only resemble sensations. Thus, it follows that the external sensible world - the place our sensations give us some awareness of - is itself made of sensations. And as he takes it to be equally self-evident that sensations cannot exist absent a mind to have them, then the external sensible world turns out to be made of the mental activity of another mind.

I don't see any connection. — Bartricks

Limiting the actual, the physical included, using the LNC (what our minds can't do) as a touchstone for what's possible/impossible.

minds themselves exist yet are not conceivable. — Bartricks

That which sees can't itself be seen. Ergo, that which sees doesn't exist.

mischaracterization of idealism — Bartricks

dependent on the mind — Agent Smith

:chin:

That which sees can't itself be seen. Ergo, that which sees doesn't exist. — Agent Smith

That's fallacious and it is not essential to idealism. As I explained, Berkeley - the ablest defender of the view - made no appeal to such arguments.

Minds exist. Minds are not perceivable and thus, as far as Berkeley is concerned, cannot be conceived of (for our imaginations can work only on what our sensations provide). But they exist and Berkeley affirms their existence. We know of them by reason, not sense.

So, you're working with a strawman version of idealism. No idealist worth their salt would argue that only that of which we can conceive exists.

Can a mind do contradictions?

That's fallacious and it is not essential to idealism. — Bartricks

What's the fallacy?

Berkeley — Bartricks

Yep, Berekely, he's behind this mess. Good to meet someone who's got a good handle on him. :up:

We know of them by reason, not sense. — Bartricks

Reason "senses" patterns?

I do not know what you mean by 'do a contradiction'. Certainly minds can think contradictory thoughts - they do so all the time and then express them on this site, among other places.

strawman version of idealism — Bartricks

What's the real version of idealism, pray tell.

I do not know what you mean by 'do a contradiction' — Bartricks

Never mind. I'm sure you have better things to do.

Certainly minds can think contradictory thoughts — Bartricks

Show me!

Reason "senses" patterns? — Agent Smith

No. Berkeley - the steel idealist rather than the straw one - thinks minds exist. He thinks it is manifest to reason that sensations cannot exist absent a mind to have them. As sensations clearly exist, a mind that is having them - your mind - exists. But the mind is not sensed, but inferred. So it is by reason, not sense, that we are aware of our own mind. And that too is how we can become aware of the mind whose sensational activity constitutes the external sensible world.

Well, I think an idealist who thinks minds exist but also thinks that the only things that exist are things that can be conceived of exist, is thinking contradictory things.

You think no one thinks contradictory things? That's absurd. People think contradictory things all the time. It's hard not to, for a lot of the time we don't have the time to figure out what contradicts what and which thoughts to stop having.

Anyway, your question seemed unrelated to the topic of the thread.

:ok:

What's the real version of idealism, pray tell. — Agent Smith

I just gave you an example: Berkeley's idealism. There's never been a finer defender of the view.

Berkeley's idealism — Bartricks

Berkeley's version is that everything is mind-dependent. It's in my OP.

No — Bartricks

Why is the brain/mind not a sense organ for patterns?

Certainly minds can think contradictory thoughts
— Bartricks

Show me! — Agent Smith

Well, I give you you. You are thinking contradictory things. You think God is a bad person. That's a contradiction. And you think it. So you 'did' a contradiction, in some sense of 'did'.

Why is the brain/mind not a sense organ for patterns? — Agent Smith

We're talking about idealism here, yes? What do idealists think the brain is? Do they think the brain is the mind? No. They think the mind is the mind and the brain is part of the sensible world - which is not a place, but the mental activity of another mind. It seems to me that you do not understand the idealist thesis.

That's a contradiction — Bartricks

Not necessarily. I could reject a premise and resolve the contradiction.

No, you think God is morally bad. That's a contradiction. It's no different to thinking bachelors have wives. Minds can and do think contradictory thoughts. In my case it is rare. In most others it is the norm.

No, you think God is morally bad. That's a contradiction. It's no different to thinking bachelors have wives. — Bartricks

:lol:

:broken:

Can someone please contradict himself/herself and tell us what's going on inside his/her head?

My thesis version 2.0

LNC

1. If it's impossible to the mind then, it's impossible in reality.

2. Contradictions are impossible (to the mind)

Ergo,

3. Contradictions are impossible in reality

On some reading, at some level, this is idealism (reality can't do a contradiction is the takeaway) i.e. reality must make sense to the mind or else it can't be reality or a part of reality.

However reality, some tell me, has a few surprises in store for us our minds - it defies the LNC on not one but multiple occasions I'm told. So what's this?

That which sees can't itself be seen. Ergo, that which sees doesn't exist. — Agent Smith

Then there is no such thing as seeing? Let's forget about minds for a minute. Colors and shapes exist, right?

Minds exist. Minds are not perceivable and thus, as far as Berkeley is concerned, cannot be conceived of (for our imaginations can work only on what our sensations provide). But they exist and Berkeley affirms their existence. We know of them by reason, not sense. — Bartricks

How do you know when you are reasoning and when you are not if not by sensation? What form does your reasoning take as opposed to being irrational if not some sensation?

Can someone please contradict himself/herself and tell us what's going on inside his/her head? — Agent Smith

No one can as it would require one to hold something in the mind while at the same time not holding it in the mind. Contradictions are essentially a misuse of language.

No one can as it would require one to hold something in the mind while at the same time not holding it in the mind. — Harry Hindu

Can you please tell me what exactly goes through your mind when, for example, I tell you to conceive (is this even the right word/concept?) the following:

1. Square & Not square (easy)
2. A quark & Not quark (hard)