“Cube, sphere, table, are words he has known applied to things perceivable by touch, but to things perfectly intangible he never knew them applied.  Those words in their wonted application always marked out to his mind bodies or solid things which were perceived by the resistance they gave.  But there is no solidity, no resistance or protrusion perceived by sight.”

Here “solidity” means resistance to pressure, which is apprehended by the muscular sense; but when in section 154 Berkeley says of his pure intelligence—­

    “It is certain that the aforesaid intelligence could have no
    idea of a solid or quantity of three dimensions, which follows
    from its not having any idea of distance “—­

he refers to that notion of solidity which may be obtained by the tactile sense, without the addition of any notion of resistance in the solid object; as, for example, when the finger passes lightly over the surface of a billiard ball.

Yet another source of difficulty in clearly understanding Berkeley arises out of his use of the word “outness.”  In speaking of touch he seems to employ it indifferently, both for the localization of a tactile sensation in the sensory surface, which we really obtain through touch; and for the notion of corporeal separation, which is attained by the association of muscular and tactile sensations.  In speaking of sight, on the other hand, Berkeley employs “outness” to denote corporeal separation.

When due allowance is made for the occasional looseness and ambiguity of Berkeley’s terminology, and the accessories are weeded out of the essential parts of his famous Essay, his views may, I believe, be fairly and accurately summed up in the following propositions:—­

1.  The sense of touch gives rise to ideas of extension, figure, magnitude, and motion.

2.  The sense of touch gives rise to the idea of “outness,” in the sense of localization.

3.  The sense of touch gives rise to the idea of resistance, and thence to that of solidity, in the sense of impenetrability.

4.  The sense of touch gives rise to the idea of “outness,” in the sense of distance in the third dimension, and thence to that of space, or geometrical solidity.

5.  The sense of sight gives rise to ideas of extension, of figure, magnitude, and motion.

6.  The sense of sight does not give rise to the idea of “outness,” in the sense of distance in the third dimension, nor to that of geometrical solidity, no visual idea appearing to be without the mind, or at any distance off (Sec.Sec. 43, 50).

7.  The sense of sight does not give rise to the idea of mechanical solidity.

8.  There is no likeness whatever between the tactile ideas called extension, figure, magnitude, and motion, and the visual ideas which go by the same names; nor are any ideas common to the two senses.

9.  When we think we see objects at a distance, what really happens is that the visual picture suggests that the object seen has tangible distance; we confound the strong belief in the tangible distance of the object with actual sight of its distance.