 All right, so the question is if we reject Barclay's conclusion, we could do that. That's fine, but What does that commit you to? All right? so Here we go So the premise premise a that we labeled here if there's something supporting color figure and extension then it is without color figure and extension Right, so atoms don't have blue They cause blue, but they don't have blue If we reject that we say there is something supporting color figure and extension and it has Color figure and extension. Okay Well, how would this play out right? So we've got the substance of my shirt and You know we say well, it's it's causing blue. Okay, but then Does the substance itself have a color? Okay, so what if we look close enough at the material at the atoms, then we'll start to see blue on the atoms All right, I guess you could do that But then the question is what's causing that because remember on Locke's theory Right, there's ideas and there's qualities And you know for what it's worth is what we currently think right we have these qualities of this shirt And they cause blue they cause the sensations and you know right now the qualities that are causing blue on my shirt Are different than the qualities that are causing blue and you right now because you're looking at a computer screen not my shirt so There's these qualities there and they cause These sensations right, but what happens if we say the qualities themselves have color figure and extension Okay, well if we say something like that then the qualities themselves has some color figure and extension But then that color figure and extension has to be supported by a material substance And it's what is what we're saying by this You know by this rejection of this premise that color figure extension and that whatever is supporting it also has color figure and extension so then Blue the qualities of my shirt are causing blue, but then they also have a color Well, there's a color there then there's something supporting it. So we've got the qualities of my shirt Sorry, we got the Sensations from my shirt caused by these qualities the qualities have you know these sensations well then then they're caused by some kind of qualities Which were caused right that have is that they themselves a color figure so that's caused by a quality Right, so if we say that you know qualities cause these perceptions All right, the material substance Causes these perceptions causes these sensations and they themselves have color figure and extension then we're committed to like this infinite regress of Color figure extension all the way down and since in material substances or just whoa keeps going That would be bizarre I don't know. Maybe I want to say that The material substance causes the you know color figure extension and it has those same ones Okay, I you know maybe we could do that, but then we're then we're kind of jumping down to D Right, so D just to just show you right D is color figure and extension or my mind only So if we deny that then we say it's false a color figure extension or my mind only we're saying not only is it in my mind It's in the thing So my shirt here Right, my shirt here has you know caused this color figure and extension and it has it So my shirt causes blue and it has blue Right, there's blue in there. So if we were to look at my shirt We'd find these fibers right and we go closer and closer closer. We keep looking on down Then we find the atomic structure of the shirt, right is blue in there If you think blue is also in the shirt, I'm gonna ask for its chemical composition Right, what is the chemical composition of blue? Because it's not of the period periodic table of elements and again for what it's worth Right, what you're looking at right now is not my shirt You're looking at a computer screen or phone screen, right? You're looking at some kind of electronic screen. You're not looking at me You're not looking at my shirt Does that mean that your computer screen has the same blue chemical composition that's in my shirt And it just happens to be both places. So your screen produces a bunch of different chemicals No right According to our best physics All of these things around us cause our sensations But they are not identical to our sensations if we say D is true We say that our sensation means almost weird, right? We have material substance as one view in the Dandala we have Idealism is the other metaphysical idealism is the other right material substance says that This material substance causes these ideas and idealism says no the material substance doesn't exist There's just the ideas And that's what that's what the guitar is It's it's all those ideas if we say that color figure and it's false a color figure an extension My mind only it's like we're taking these two views and cramming them into one Not only is our atoms, but the ideas of the caused by the atoms are also in there Wow, so my mind's infusing all of reality No No realities causing the ideas on my mind sure But it's not that that my ideas are also in the guitar my the guitar is causing the ideas not not the reverse They're not the reverse so Either a or D rejecting either a you know if you reject a You're committed to like this infinite regressive Material substance all the way down Or if you try to say well, it also has the thing within you doing D And now my ideas are also infused in the guitar effused infused amongst the material substance That's probably it. That's probably not good And C is kind of related to that too if you look at C If it does not exist if what has color figure an extension does not exist So let's embrace immaterialism then there is not something supporting color figure and extension So I'm sorry, I'm not embracing materialism embracing idealism say empiricism if Color figure an extension right does not exist then there is not something supporting color figure an extension Well, then we look at what it means to deny that we say what is without color figure an extension does not exist So if it doesn't have these ideas, it doesn't exist That's the essence of empiricism and there is something supporting color figure an extension That's that's a little strange, right? That pretty much seems like saying I Can't see it. Therefore it doesn't exist. What is also something there supporting what I Can see that but I can't see it I See this is an out and out logical contradiction. We're saying Right what doesn't have color figure an extension doesn't exist and there's something supporting color figure an extension So nothing is supporting color figure an extension that's That's that that's absurd It does exist it does not exist and it exists because of supporting that now it doesn't work that way So rejecting see results in an out utter contradiction Not to me a part minute is have a field day with this thing look you're saying nothing is supporting color figure an extension. Thanks. That's helpful So then that leaves us with be If there's something without color figure an extension, then it does not exist. This is embracing All right embracing empiricism So if we reject be we're saying there is something without color figure an extension and it exists Okay, we don't have a logical contradiction in here We don't even have something absurd like with a or d Right a committed to this regress of material substance d is saying my ideas are infusing the guitar Right see results in a logical contradiction But what are we saying with be we're saying there is something without color figure an extension There's something that I can't see and it exists That's rationalism You can stick with us you can say there's some there's an atomic structure here. There's material substance here I can't see it But it's there You're now rationalist Which is Barclay's point Now Barclay says I will I reject material substance the favor of empiricism And you can take his approach if you'd like you can stick to empiricism But then you reject a material substance Or you can say look physics is amazing stuff. I'm really proud of our achievements in physics It's really really awesome. They suppose that there are that matter is composed of finite particles. I'm gonna stick with physics Okay, you could do that But you've now rejected empiricism You're saying there's material substance it exists, but you can't see it. You could do that with if you like but now you're you're committed to rationalism and You know, here's an interesting question. Why stick with one rationalist approach over another You didn't keep Plato Plato had some bizarre theories. We didn't keep Aristotle. He said that what is real is composed of what's not real There's plenty of various rationalist views out there and they are Some massive creativity happening with some of these folks So why stick with one rationalist theory over another because it's yours you can do that if you like