But this is to identify efficient causation with final causation, a controversial move at best which Berkeley would be making without comment or argument.
For example, when a geometer draws a line on a blackboard, it is taken to represent all lines, even though the line itself is particular and has determinate qualities. There may be volition without Power.
Thus, whenever we have ideas of a working watch, we will find that if we open it,[ 15 ] we will see have ideas of an appropriate internal mechanism. Berkeley seems to argue that in any case one might consider - books in the back of a closet, plants deep in a wood with no one about, footprints on the far side of the moon - the objects are related to the mind conceiving of them.
On the other hand, if they resided in the category of "soul" or "incorporeal thing", they "do not properly belong to physics" as a matter. He established a school to teach spinning, and he attempted to establish the manufacture of linen.
Berkeley goes on to argue that visual cues, such as the perceived extension or 'confusion' of an object, can only be used to indirectly judge distance, because the viewer learns to associate visual cues with tactile sensations.
Berkeley argues that the objects of sight and touch - indeed, the objects of each sensible modalities — are distinct and incommensurable.
Since there are no necessary connections between the objects of sight and touch, the objects must be distinct. Outside of America, during Berkeley's lifetime his philosophical ideas were comparatively uninfluential.
On the face of it, his argument is weak. Why is this? Berkeley grants that he can abstract in the first sense - "I can consider the hand, the eye, the nose, each by it self abstracted or separated from the rest of the body" Intro.