posted 06-11-2001 01:09 AM               

---

So basically, Berkeley is saying that without an all-knowing God, we would know nothing, and essentially be nothing. It actually reminds me of a tangent my high school chemistry teacher went off on one day about subatomic particles. Without boring you or making a complete fool of myself since it’s been several (ahem) years since chem class, the argument was that the existence of even the most basic known subatomic particle, the electron, was dependent upon an observer. So basically, for matter to exist at all, some presence had to be there first.

OK, tangent over, and my apologies to Dr. Caiafa, my chem teacher, if I butchered that.

Dave, when you say that Berkeley has demonstrated the importance of the human mind in grouping together ideas and sensation into concepts, do you mean to say that whatever "clusters" we form are unique to the individual because each human mind is unique? That part makes sense to me. It certainly reminds me of your book from last month.

posted 09-10-2001 07:34 AM               

---

Sorry to leave this hanging for so long. I know people have been breathlessly awaiting further discussion of Berkeley.

I'd say there's a difference between what Berkeley probably intended and what I take away from his texts. Berkeley would probably say that the clusters of ideas themselves are existing independent of us. He'd probably be willing to agree, though, that the WORDS we use to DESCRIBE certain clusters are ideas generated by human minds, and that they possibly vary from mind to mind, and to me, in the long run, that's the more important point.