CERTAINTY Part II

More Dangerous Philosophical Journeys Into The Unknown

CERTAINTY Part II
Part two!?

More Dangerous Philosophical Journeys Into The Unknown

My head still hurts from part one!

CERTAINTY Part II
More Dangerous Philosophical Journeys Into The Unknown

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Okay so now you heard what Descartes and Spinoza have to say about certainty.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Fun huh?

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Because he can ask the question, Do I exist? Descartes can prove that his mind exists.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

But thats it. Using reason alone, Descartes cant get very far because he cant prove that anything he gets from his senses isnt an illusion.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

And that led him to think that our minds and our bodies are separate things. Our minds have no physical substance, so Descartes didnt think our minds are really connected to our bodies.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Thats why he is a dualist. He thinks that minds and bodies are two separate things. Dual means two so Descartes belief in two separate realities is called dualism.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Spinoza thought that it was pointless to doubt our senses since the physical world and the mental world were not really two different things.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Mind and body were two different parts of the same thing. Spinoza thought that our thoughts and our bodies were just different features of God.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Since everything was all part of God anyway, Spinoza reasoned that there was no difference between mind and body. It was all one. Mono means one so Spinoza called the mind-body a monad. His philosophy based on the monad is called monism.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

So Descartes doubts the physical world because his dualism says that mind and body are separate and since Descartes is a rationalist he trusts the mind over the body.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Spinoza doesnt doubt anything because he thought that mind and body were different features of the same thing. Body and mind were both equally reliable since both were connected to one great reality that he calls God. Spinoza called this oneness monism.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Descartes dualism and Spinozas monism. Which one will bring us certainty?

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Before you try and answer that one, you should know that theres more to this debate.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

There are a couple more dudes to throw into this mess. John Locke, David Hume and George Berkeley.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

First, lets meet John Locke. He was also born in 1632 -- same as Spinoza! Whew, must have been something in the water that year.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Besides being interested in what was real and how we get knowledge, Locke also wrote about politics. His writing influenced Thomas Jeffersons work.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Lets see what John Locke has to say for himself.

Theres something all the rationalists keep forgetting. We wouldnt know anything at all if not for our senses.

JOHN LOCKE

In order for Descartes to be able ask the question, Do I Exist? he first needs language.

JOHN LOCKE

Descartes was smart, but he still had to learn to speak French or Latin or Chinese or Arabic or English or Pig Latin or any other language.

JOHN LOCKE

Without language, he couldnt ask the question about whether or not he exists.

JOHN LOCKE

We learn language through experience. We need our senses to hear and see the words. If not for that, Descartes wouldnt be able to ask, Do I exist? because he wouldnt have the words to even think the idea.

JOHN LOCKE

Sacre Bleu! Plato said that we only understood things in the world because they were copies of the eternal ideas or FORMS.

JOHN LOCKE

Yes, but Plato was a real whack-adin-hoy! Aristotle had it right when he said that Plato had it backwards because our ideas come from our experiences.

JOHN LOCKE

Its quite simple, really. Rene, if you never learned any language (that you HEARD as a baby) then you would not have been able to develop the concepts you have in your mind when you think. I say that the only thing you know is what you can experience WITH your senses. JOHN LOCKE

I only trust things I can observe and perceive through my senses. Once I am sure that I am dealing with something real, I can use reason to analyze itbut using reason alone? Preposterous! I am an empiricist.

JOHN LOCKE

Empiriwhatnow?

JOHN LOCKE

EMPIRICIST! I know that thanks to the Roman Empire, latin was the official language of europe, so let me throw my own latin catchphrase at you: tabula rasa.

JOHN LOCKE

Tabula Rasa? I think I ordered that with a side of falafel last week.

JOHN LOCKE

What are you saying, silly Englishman?

JOHN LOCKE

When we our born, our minds are like empty dry-erase boards. Every time we have an experience, its like we are writing on our boards.

JOHN LOCKE

We have no ideas about anything until we experience it. If we have an idea about something we have not experienced, then it is a false conception. When you say that God is like this or like thatHOW DO YOU KNOW?! You never experienced God directly.

JOHN LOCKE

So how do we know anything?

JOHN LOCKE

Let me break it down for you. When we are babies, we begin to sense the world. I call this, Simple Sensation

JOHN LOCKE

Simple Sensation? Arent the a Boy Band from the eighties?

JOHN LOCKE

Dont look at us!

JOHN LOCKE

Okay. Moving on.

JOHN LOCKE

After we have a simple sensation, our minds think about the experience, associate the sensations with memories and other ideas. I call this process reflection.

JOHN LOCKE

After we reflect on our sensations, we form a complex idea about the sensations.

JOHN LOCKE

Allow me to show you a demonstration: using Academy Award Winner, Jeff Bridges

JOHN LOCKE

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

Interpreted by the mind to Reflection

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

All Mr. Bridges gets from the world is simple sensation.

JOHN LOCKE

Yeah and a whole lotta money for being such a famous actor.

JOHN LOCKE

And what do you mean complex idea? Sour milk isnt so complex.

JOHN LOCKE

Oh, but it is. In order for you to have the idea of sour milk, you have to first experience and then reflect on many separate sensations. It is only after you put them all together that you arrive at the complex idea sour milk.

JOHN LOCKE

So youre saying that complex just means made up of lots of little parts?

JOHN LOCKE

Precisely. All of your complex ideas about the world come from putting together all the little bits of simple sensations.

JOHN LOCKE

But what if I have an idea about the worldlike werewolves existIve never actually experienced a werewolf directly.

JOHN LOCKE

Then you should reject the idea until you can find the sensation that led to it.

JOHN LOCKE

Well at least I know what I am experiencing for myself, though, right?

JOHN LOCKE

Uhnot exactly. You see, things have primary qualities. Those are things everyone can agree on with a high degree of certainty.

JOHN LOCKE

Oh, solikeLady Gaga and I can both look at this and see how much mass and volume the container has and what materials make it up and whether or not its got milk inside or some other liquid?

JOHN LOCKE

Precisely. But there are other ideas that might not be as easy to identify because they are more personal.

JOHN LOCKE

Yes, Jeff, that milks not sour, it smells fine to me.

JOHN LOCKE

What are you talking about, Gaga? This milk is bad. You cant drink that!

JOHN LOCKE

Dont be silly. The milk is fine.

JOHN LOCKE

It is not fine!

JOHN LOCKE

Is so!

JOHN LOCKE

Is not!

JOHN LOCKE

Is so!

JOHN LOCKE

JOHN LOCK! WHY CANT WE AGREE?!

JOHN LOCKE

Because now you are talking about SECONDARY QUALIITIES! These are more personal. You cant measure milk for sourness any more than you can measure a sunset for beauty or measure a chocolate ice cream cone for yumminess.

JOHN LOCKE

Thats because vanilla is way better than chocolate, man.

JOHN LOCKE

It is not!

JOHN LOCKE

Is so!

JOHN LOCKE

Is not!

JOHN LOCKE

So, wait, man. Im getting a headache here. How come we can agree how much milk is in the container, but we cant agree on whether or not tastes sour?

JOHN LOCKE

Because the quality of mass exists in the milk itself, but the quality of taste does not.

JOHN LOCKE

So youre saying the quality of the taste of the milk isnt actually part of the milk, but that its part of our own minds?

JOHN LOCKE

Precisely. The primary qualities are actually part of the object, but the secondary qualities are really not qualities in the object. They are completely our own ideas about the object. They cant be measured or shared or even compared with other peoples sensations.

JOHN LOCKE

Wait a minute, man, youre saying that the secondary qualities of an object arent actually in the object? Theyre in us, man? Thats far out.

JOHN LOCKE

But if Jeff says that the milk is sour and I say that its not, whos right? I mean what is reality? Is the milk really sour or is the milk really not sour?

JOHN LOCKE

Actually, both ideas are real for each one of you. It is really sour to him and it really isnt for you.

JOHN LOCKE

That cant be right, because thats like saying reality is something that only exists in our minds!

JOHN LOCKE

That cant be right, because thats like saying reality is something that only exists in our minds!

JOHN LOCKE

Im afraid thats the case. Reality for each person is slightly different. There is no reality that is completely true for everyone.

JOHN LOCKE

Okay, but is this milk really sour or isnt it?

JOHN LOCKE

That all depends on whom you ask.

JOHN LOCKE

Wellyou taste it.

JOHN LOCKE

Oh no. Im lactose intolerant. I never touch the stuff or I get gassy.

JOHN LOCKE

WHOA!

JOHN LOCKE

Certainty Part II: More Dangerous Philosophical Journeys into the UNKNOWN. . .

(Learning Companion)

Question 1 According to John Locke, how do we get our knowledge? What does Locke mean by the terms Simple sensation, reflection and complex idea? How does Lockes view differ from Descartes?

Remember me? Im iGor and Im STILL your learning companion!

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

So Locke puts a lot of trust in his senses. I wonder if hes putting too much.

Oh the Thinks We Could Think!

Keep then one in mind and take a look at what David Hume has to say on the subject.

I am David Hume. You have been hearing a lot about reality and certainty and I think that most of these philosophers are getting too caught up in crazy ideas.

Hey! We can still hear you!

Good. I am going to unclutter your ideas!

Hey! Clearing away philosophical debris was my idea!

Oh just shut up you annoying Frenchman!

Like John Locke, I am also an empiricist.

Empiricists like me only trust information that comes from our senses. We use reason, only after we are certain about what objects we are dealing with.

We are Navi. Were from Pandora. Where are empiricists from?

Empiricists are philosophers who believe that all knowledge comes from the senses. And all empiricists I have ever encountered have come from Earth.

Isnt that a materialist?

Stupid human! Materialists believe that physical objects are real.

I thought you said you were Navi? Why are you calling him stupid human?

He is stupid and he used to be human.

But then scientists combined human DNA with Navi DNA so that my mind could be put into this body.

Couldnt do anything about the stupid, though.

And people say philosophy is confusing!

Anyway, empiricists believe that the senses are the best way to learn about reality.

Im glad youre here, though, because you are fictional characters.

I BEG your pardon!

A Navi doesnt exist at least not in the physical experiences of anyone living on Earth.

Wait! Didnt John Locke say that we are born with totally empty minds and that our experiences with the world allow us to form ideas?

Some minds stay empty, Jakesulley.

HEY!

I agree with John Locke that we need experiences to get our ideas.

But we humans are a clever bunch.

Shyahas if!

If not for me, there would be a shopping mall built over your dumb Hometree by now and all your monkey-friends would have no place to live.

Anyway, while no human has ever experienced a Navi, humans have experienced other humans, and things that are blue --

Like Smurfs?!

Those are made up also, but other blue experiencescrayons or the sky or the seaanyway we take those ideas and we put them together withwhatlions maybe? And PRESTO! We have just invented a Navi.

That sounds pretty complicated.

You think sitting in a chair is complicated!

My tail gets in the way! Why couldnt James Cameron have combined humans, blue things and rhinoceroses.

ACH! BLAH! PTOOEY!

Sorry. Hairball.

And I thought Rene Descartes was annoying.

I still hear you!

Oh just go away!

You Navi are a COMPLEX IDEA because you are made up of several simple ideas. In other words we get our simple ideas directly from the world through our senses and then we can put them together to make new ideas.

You Navi are a COMPLEX IDEA. Time for a flashback.

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

Interpreted by the mind to Reflection

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

Hey! How did I get here?

Interpreted by the mind to Reflection

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

Interpreted by the mind to Reflection

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

This islikereally weird, man. Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Interpreted by the mind to Reflection

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

Interpreted by the mind to Reflection

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

Interpreted by the mind to Reflection What Locke calls a simple sensation, I call an impression.

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

Interpreted by the mind to Reflection

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

And what Locke calls a complex idea, I just call an idea. Simple Sensation

Complex Idea

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

Thats annoying, Dave. Why not just use the same words Locke uses to keep it all simple? Interpreted by the mind to Reflection

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. would have called I see purple Locke Interpreted by the mind to me a copycat. and white and Reflection I smell something sour.

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

Its true. Hey, man, I feel something hard, smooth and cold and something sloshy inside. I see purple and white and I smell something sour.

Interpreted by the mind to Reflection

Hey, man, this milk is sour! Im not payin for it!

Complex Idea

Simple Sensation

Okay. Flashback over. What have we learned?

We get information about the world in two steps. FIRST we get an IMPRESSION of the things around us. Impressions are the direct experience of our senses.

I can do an impression of Hannah Montana!

You get the BEEEEST of both worlds!

HEY!

Sorry!

Okay. That was creepy.

Anyway, after we get an impression about the world from our senses, we use that impression and combine it with other impressions and ideas to form an IDEA about the world. But your ideas are always influenced by other ideas and even by emotions.

Exactly. An impression we get by experiencing the world while an idea we get after we reflect on that impression.

So if I burn myself on a hot fire, thats an impression right?

Quite so.

But when I think about it later, that memory is part of in idea right?

So far; so good.

But my memory of getting burned is never as strong in my mind as the actual experience of getting burned.

No. The impression is the original and the idea is sort of a copy stored in your mind.

Hey, thats like the opposite of what Plato said. Plato thought that what we see in the world is an imitation of the ideas in our minds.

Yes. Excellent observation my blue, feline friend.

Hes still a stupid human.

At least I dont purr in my sleep.

The point of all this is that we sometimes form ideas about things that dont actually exist as material objects in the universe.

What do you mean?

If I held a stone up over my head and let go of it, what will happen to the stone?

It will fall to the ground.

How do you know that it will fall to the ground.

Because of gravity.

But you never experience gravity directly, all you experience are things falling. If you assume that this is an effect of something else, you have jumped to a conclusion that might not be false.

I dont understand.

Figures.

Let me give you an example of what I mean.

Suppose my friend Joe decides to wear a Viking helmet on his head every single day from September first through May 31.

Wassup, haters!

Why would somebody --

Just work with me here.

If Joe wears a Viking helmet on his head every single day from September 1st through May 31st, can you be sure that he will still wear the helmet on June 1st?

No. He might decide to stop wearing it.

Psyche! Im going cowboy, yall.

Yippie kai yay!

The point is that just because something happens, doesnt guarantee that it will happen again.

Think about the argument. Joe wore a hat every day for six months, therefore he will continue to wear it in the seventh month is inductive.

Inductive arguments, no matter how strong, are never certain. They are never deductive.

Now think about this argument: Every time I have ever dropped a stone it fell to the ground, therefore it will fall to the ground next time.

Thats an inductive argument too!

Exactly. So while we can use our senses to experience objects and events, we cant use those experiences to make predictions.

Think about Isaac Newtons so-called first law of motion.

Happy trails, suckers!

Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

But Sir Isaac, how do you know that a force can act on an object. For example, how do you know that if you grab a moving shopping cart full of groceries it will stop?

Ive never grabbed a moving shopping cart had had it keep going. And if it had more mass, that just means I need more force to stop it.

But thats an inductive argument. Just because you could do it in the past doesnt guarantee that you will continue to be able to do it in the future.

You are a slave to your habits of thought. You havent discovered a law; you have jumped to a conclusion.

You have assumed that events in the past can impact events in the future. That might be true, but it isnt certain knowledge. All we know with certainty is what we have already experienced.

Whatever. Im still a genius and I invented calculus.

Hes such a diva.

At least I dont wear a silly-looking hat!

Dont be hating my turban!

Anyway, my big idea is that if we ever expect to arrive at a true idea about reality, we cant be SLAVES to habits of thought.

Each new idea must be rigorously tested with new sense impressions and not just assumed to be true because we jumped to a conclusion about a sense impression we had in the past.

Certainty Part II: More Dangerous Philosophical Journeys into the UNKNOWN. . .

(Learning Companion) Question 2

According to Hume, how do we acquire knowledge about the world? How does this process sometimes lead us to ideas that dont correspond to reality (such as fictional characters)? How should we ensure that our ideas are true?

I get what youre saying, but I have a question. When I think about myself, who I am, my own identity and existenceis that an impression or an idea?

Who are you?!

George Berkeley, Bishop of Cloyne at your service.

And here is something you are all forgetting: You never experience the material world. The only thing you can experience are your own sensations.

This is getting weird. Im out of here.

But you and I agree on many points.

Its not youthe blue cat people are starting to freak me out.

If you reach out and touch a rock. What you feel are your own sensations of hardness, roughness, etc. To assume that there is a substance beyond our own perceptions is to jump to a conclusion.

Huh?

Our senses dont help up perceive the world out there. We cant be sure that there is any matter because all we know is that we have sensations. To assume that those sensations are caused by something out in the world is to jump to a conclusion.

Hold onif I touch a table, I feel it. Doesnt that prove that the table is there and that it is made of matter?

All you know is that you felt something hard and flat, but you didnt feel the actual atoms that make up the table.

And beside which, if you dream that you are hitting a table, you still feel the same hardness and flatness, but you know that that dream-table isnt made up of actual matter.

Here we go again!

But if the table in our dreams isnt actually hard, why do we feel it?

Because it isnt made of matter, it must be made of mind or as I prefer to call it. . .spirit.

Now thats just silly.

Think about itmy own spiritor mindor soulwhatever you want to call it creates the reality of my own dreams. All of the people and things that are in your dreams are made of mind, not of matter. Specifically, they are made of YOUR mind.

But we dont make other peoples dreams. So when Im not dreaming, what makes that? It cant be just my mind.

No, another spirit makes up the world around us. Its not matter and its not our own mindsso it must be the mind of God.

Here we go again!

HUH?!

Just as the things in your dream are actually made up of your mind, things in the world are made up of Gods mindthere is no matter.

I thought you were an Empiricist?

I am, but I am not a materialist. I dont believe the world around me is made of actual matter, and I believe that if I use my reason and my senses very carefully, I can understand that it is not.

S youre saying that God iswhatdreaming us all up? All the events of the world? All the people? Everything? We only exist as a. . .as a dream in the mind of God?

Row, row, row, your boat, gently down the stream. Merrily merrily merrily merrilyLife is but a dream.

Gods dream.

I thought the hokey pokey was what it was all about.

Since we cant perceive the matter that makes up the world, we cant know what lies behind anything that we perceive. We perceive only our own sensations. We cant know whether those simple sensations are reflections of what is in the world, but we know we are having sensations, so all we have is pure spiritits all in the mind. Literally.

Heres an argument Descartes would enjoy: We perceive ordinary objects (houses, mountains, etc.). We are only able to perceive ideas. Therefore: Ordinary objects must be ideas or we could not perceive them.

Ta daaa!

Could you explain that another way?

When you read a book, what are you actually seeing with your senses?

The words.

I cant read, so I dont see words, I just see black patterns of ink on a white page.

Now were talking!

Youre saying its good that he cant read!

It helps me to explain. You dont read with your senses, you are only seeing the patterns on the page. Your mind interprets the images into words and ideas. Theres no actual connection between the ideas and the words and the patterns on the page except in your mind.

But were not actually seeing the ideas. I mean, if I see the word love or justice or rhinoceros, its not the same as seeing actual love or justice or even a real rhinoceros.

What is it with you and rhinoceroses?

I like their pointy noses. Reminds me of my mother.

Thats just creepy.

Okay, were not talking about Freud, were talking abut me. Try to focus you strange, blue, catpeople.

At least we can agree that we can only see things that are visible right? Like letters on a page are visible, but the ideas they represent are not visible.

I got that.

So if I look up and see that the sky is red at sunset, I dont see all the causes that make the sky red, I just see red. And when I hear a sound I dont hear the cause of the sound, I just hear the sound. Are you with me?

More or less.

And if someone drops a hot and heavy rock into your hand, all you feel are the heaviness and the heat.

Right. I dont feel the cause of the weight or the heat directly, I just feel that it is hot and heavy.

Id like to drop something hot and heavy on him.

Ouch!

Okay, look, we get it. When we talk about things you can know through your senses I mean the stuff you can actually see and hear and smell and all that, but you still need your mind to process all that information so you can understand what you experience.

So if you take away everything you can perceive directly with your senses, whats left? What else can you know?

Uhnothing I guess.

So the things you can perceive with your senses are really just qualitieslike when you feel a hot rock you are really not feeling a hot rock, you are feeling heat and hardness and heaviness and it only becomes a hot rock in your mind?

Precisely.

But heat is something you can feel with your senses. Doesnt that make it real?

Well, does something only exist when we perceive it or are existence and perception different things?

To exist is one thing and to be perceived is something else.

Yeah! Stuff exists whether someone perceives it or not. Didnt the Earth exist before there were any people around to perceive it?

So you think that if you perceive something, then it is made of matter and exists outside of your own mind right?

Duh!

There are real things that exist outside of our minds. IF they didnt exist, we wouldnt sense them.

There are real things that exist outside of our minds.

So when you feel the heat from a hot slice of pizza, that heat is a real thing and would exist whether or not you were there to feel it?

Duh again.

Which is more real, the heat coming from a slice of pizza that is comfortably warm or the heat coming from a slice of pizza that is sizzling hot, straight from a hot oven?

Both kinds of heat are real, its just that one slice has a lot more of it.

Because the hotter something is, the more strongly we feel it. In other words, I can chew a piece of pizza that is comfortably warm, but a very hot piece I can only keep in my mouth for a second or it will burn me.

In other words when you experience great heat, you experience great pain, right? Like if you didnt know it was hot and just bit it, you would burn your mouth. You might even spit it out.

How many times can a blue alien girl say duh?

But if something has no senses, then it cant feel any pain, right? If you set the hot slice down on a plate, the plate doesnt feel it.

Uhyeah. That sounds right, things that cant feel anything cant feel any pain.

Like if a doctor gives me anesthesia or if a dentist gives me Novocain, I dont feel any pain when they operate on me, even though I would feel the pain if they didnt give me those medicines.

Do you think that matteryou knowmaterialstuffdo you think matter can feel?

I cant know for sure

Well, if I smash a rock with a hammer Im pretty sure that it doesnt feel anything.

When you bite into an apple, do you really believe that it feels pain as if you were biting a person?

NahI mean the reason I feel is because I have nerves that send electrical signals to my brain. An apple doesnt have any of that.

An apple, technically isnt even alive. It doesnt respond to its environment, it doesnt use energy, it cant reproduceits not a living thing even though it was produced by a living thing.

Like my tail. If I cut it off it couldnt survive without me. Its a living part of an organism, but its not a living thing itself.

So how about that slice of warm pizzais it able to sense the heat of the oven?

I dont think so.

How about a rock? If you put a rock into a pizza oven and cooked it at a 500 degrees for an hour, would you want to pull it out with your bare hands?

No way! I would get badly burned.

But the rock doesnt get burned. Does it feel heat?

Nothing it does seems to show that it does feel the heat of the oven.

But you are telling me that heat exists as a real thing outside of your mind, but how can great heat exist in that rock if the rock cant feel it or sense that it is there? The heat cant exist in the rock because the rock itself is unaware of it.

Hold it! I never said the rock wasnt hot, I just said that the rock isnt feeling the pain of being burned, but its still hot. I can measure its temperature. The heat is a real thing that causes the pain in my mind if I touch something hot.

But even a baby who has no language and who has not yet developed the ability to think and reason would feel pain if she tried to grab that hot rock. So its not two feelings, one of pain and the other of heat, its just pain. The intense heat is felt as pain when you sense it.

So what are you saying, that intense heat is one form of pain?

Its all one sensation. Intense heat gives us the experience of pain when we sense itwhen we touch it.

So youre saying pain is just an intense form of sensing somethingof feeling.

But that would mean that a painful heat wouldnt exist in any object if a mind didnt perceive it as painful?

Exactly. In fact, no heat can exist in any object, only in the mind that perceives it.

Thats not the same thing. I didnt say that there isnt real heat in objects. I only said that there is no such thing as painfully intense heat. Im not denying the heat, only the pain.

But you said before that all degrees of heat are equally real and that there is no difference between heat and pain when we experience it except that greater the heat, the more easily it was perceived so the more real it is. When you touch something that burns you, there is no question of how hot it is, you just know immediately that it is too hot to touch.

Yeah, but thats when something is really hot.

Did you say REALLY hot? As in the heat is real? Earlier you said that all types of heat were equally real. Now you seem to be saying that the more hot something is, the more real the heat is.

Thats kind of true, I mean if we are both eating pizza, it might be too hot for you to eat it, but I might not mind so its debatable how hot it is, but if it was so hot that it would actually burn us, like when it first comes out of the oven, then we would both agree that it was too hot to eat so the heat would be more real.

I never really thought that great heat is perceived as a kind of pain and that pain only exists in the mind of the person who feels it. That means that painful heat cant exist in an object, since the heat that causes the pain needs to be perceived or there would be no pain. But why does that mean that the heat itself does not exist?

Because as you just said, the difference between the heat that causes pain and the heat that doesnt only exists in the mind. Without a mind to feel the pain, which is what we feel when we feel strong heat, there is no painso there is no heat.

Heres the argument: Pain exists only in the mind (non-living objects dont sense pain). When we sense strong heat, we sense only pain, not heat. Therefore we sense only pain when we feel strong heat, so strong heat and pain are the same thing. The only difference between strong heat and weak heat is that one causes pain and the other does not. If there is no painthere is no heat. There is no way to tell the difference between the heat that causes pain and the heat that doesnt except in our mind. Therefore, all heat exists only as an object of the mind and does not exist outside our minds.

Certainty Part II: More Dangerous Philosophical Journeys into the UNKNOWN. . .

(Learning Companion) Question 3 According to Berkeley, how do we acquire knowledge about the world? Explain how he is not a materialist but still an empiricist. What does Berkeley mean when he says that heat only exists in the mind.