Suppose the critics are right. That is, suppose Berkeley says we perceive ideas or sensations in our head but actually we perceive things and not our sensations or ideas of things. Would this make any...

Suppose the critics are right. That is, suppose Berkeley says we perceive ideas or sensations in our head but actually we perceive things and not our sensations or ideas of things. Would this make any difference to Berkeley’s argument for idealism? That is, if the critics are right would that demolish Berkeley’s argument for his claim that nothing exists “without the mind” (in other words, that everything exists in the mind)? Or would it make no difference?