>>1068128
Idk why don't you ask Philonous?

>>1068128
Elaborate on your point, please. Say something along the lines of, "Since mind altering substances do this:____ and Berkeley says this:____, what would Berkeley think about them?" My knowledge of Berkeley is slim but I actually happen to be writing a short paper on his First Dialog.

>>1068738
Since mind-altering substances exist, wouldn't that lend to the idea of things existing independently of the mind?

>>1068128
He would question if non-sensical infinitesimals were conceived of while under the influence.

>>1068754
> nonsensical
> infinitesimals
Non-standard analysis is as much powerful as standard but with more intuitive verbalization behind it then standard.

>>1068744
I don't think so. If we were to say that mind altering substances are substances that exist independent of the mind then I think Berkeley would deny this claim. A similar claim can be made about light. "Since light exists and alters your mind insofar as it allows you to see things, wouldn't that lend to the idea of things existing independently of the mind?" Berkeley does talk a bit about passive vs active perceptions. He says, "The mind therefore is to be accounted active in its perceptions, insofar as volition is included in them." He then distinguishes between active and inactive perceptions by giving some examples. One of them, smelling a flower. You are active in your smelling of the flower insofar as you put it up to your nose and sniff, but the sensation, or perception your mind goes through once you smell is passive. That is, you have no control over it. Another example he gives is sight. You are active in opening your eyes but passive in perceiving light. So I think this has something to do with your question because you are active in taking the mind altering drug, but passive in perceiving the effects of the drug. I see no significant difference between the mind altering drugs and the mind altering light.

I should be done with my essay by tomorrow, if my view on this changes at any point I will let you know.

Cheers.

>>1068832
Perceiving light due to light rays isn't the same thing as hallucinating due to drugs. This is my point. Both are passive perceptions, but they're arrived at differently. We commonly see light as an actual thing that's "out there" that we sense, while we also hold that the things that drugs make people see aren't "actually there." This is the meaningful difference I feel between mind-altering light and mind-altering drugs.

>>1068128

DUDE

>>1068853
Well I am not exactly sure why the way in which the perceptions are arrived at being different is important. I say this because the way in which we perceive light and smells are different, yet we don't really run into any problems for Berkeley.

I do see some significance in your last point though. There definitely seems to be some distinction between what we are perceiving when we open our eyes versus when we take mind altering drugs. Namely that seeing seems to be perceiving some "outside world" more than taking a mind altering drug does. However I am not sure how Berkeley distinguishes thinking & the imagination from sensing and the supposed outside world. He may just say to your question that the drugs alter your imagination and that has some impact on what you see.

This is interesting, I hope I can find an answer to this in my readings. What have you read so far of Berkeley's?