On the nature of intellect

[PearlSeeker]

Then how is the essence of a table related to the physical existence of something we call a table?

Plato uses the word imitation (mimesis) in the sense of representation. Concrete objects are shadowy representations of platonic forms. For example the universal essence of all tables is the form of tableness. "Developing upon this in Book X, Plato told of Socrates's metaphor of the three beds: One bed exists as an idea made by God (the Platonic ideal, or form); one is made by the carpenter, in imitation of God's idea; and one is made by the artist in imitation of the carpenter's." (Wiki)

It's implied that something may exist in the human mind. What may exist in the human mind?

There are different philosophical positions regarding the existence of abstract objects:

Plato's position is called "extreme realism". Forms exist independently of mind and particular physical representations. They are in a separate realm.

Aristotle's "moderate realism" holds that universals are immanently real within specific things themselves, not in a separate realm, and not mere concepts in mind.

Conceptualism holds that they exist, but only in the mind, while nominalism holds that universals do not "exist" at all but are no more than words that describe specific objects.

Philosophical realism - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[PearlSeeker]

Your definition is. Aristotle had the notion that, although body and soul were composite, the intellect could operate independently of the body, and hence must be immaterial, although not whole, if not in a living body. Which is consistent with Descartes' division of reality into domains of mind and matter.

"This position can be called “Hylomorphic Dualism” and it maintains the hylomorphic apparatus according to which the soul is the form of the body while, at the same time, stressing the immateriality of the human intellect /... /

Hylomorphic dualism is “dualist” in the sense that the soul — or the intellect — and the body are as mutually irreducible and, on top of that, the soul is conceived as immaterial. However, body and soul are not seen as substances in their own right. The soul is rather the substantial form of the body, that by virtue of which the substance it informs — in the case, human beings — carries out his distinctive activities. And the body is what provides the potential for those activities to actually occur. Human beings are thus conceived as a unified whole, as rational animals, not as a composite of two different substances." (source below)

Who or what is it that perceives, thinks, remembers, imagines, etc.? According to hylomorphic dualism it is the human being – not his soul or intellect – who perceives, thinks, sees, smells, remembers, imagines.

Aristotelian Hylomorphic Dualism — thomistica

Hylomorphic dualism manages to keep the best insights from both hylomorphism—its unified account of the human being—and dualism—the immateriality of the intellect—, building a cohesive account of human beings that avoids the problems that arise for other forms of dualism.

thomistica.net

 

[Tomef]

"This position can be called “Hylomorphic Dualism” and it maintains the hylomorphic apparatus according to which the soul is the form of the body while, at the same time, stressing the immateriality of the human intellect /... /

Hylomorphic dualism is “dualist” in the sense that the soul — or the intellect — and the body are as mutually irreducible and, on top of that, the soul is conceived as immaterial. However, body and soul are not seen as substances in their own right. The soul is rather the substantial form of the body, that by virtue of which the substance it informs — in the case, human beings — carries out his distinctive activities. And the body is what provides the potential for those activities to actually occur. Human beings are thus conceived as a unified whole, as rational animals, not as a composite of two different substances." (source below)

Who or what is it that perceives, thinks, remembers, imagines, etc.? According to hylomorphic dualism it is the human being – not his soul or intellect – who perceives, thinks, sees, smells, remembers, imagines.

Aristotelian Hylomorphic Dualism — thomistica

Hylomorphic dualism manages to keep the best insights from both hylomorphism—its unified account of the human being—and dualism—the immateriality of the intellect—, building a cohesive account of human beings that avoids the problems that arise for other forms of dualism.

thomistica.net

That's the hylomorphic part, as I said earlier it is the combination of material and form, state/constitution, body/soul, not a division between tiers of higher/lower beings. The other part - which you referred to earlier as the active intellect - is the immaterial part (although in the overall conception possibly part of the whole that is ultimately physical, Aristotle seems to have thought, but in a way he was not able to determine), something outside of the hylomorphic unity of material and form, what I was referring to earlier as having some demiurgic source. This is a shared resource of a sort, connected in some immaterial way to the intellects Aristotle thought moved heavenly bodies.

Discussion of Aristotle gets a bit confusing because it's hard to avoid terms (English terms) that don't mislead. How he thought about what he said isn't how you or I think about it. Here's a summation of the idea:

Aristotle discusses the origin of the intellect in his treatise "On the Soul," where he argues that the intellect is not generated by the body, but is instead a separate substance that is joined with the body. According to Aristotle, the intellect is a divine and eternal substance that exists independently of the body, and it is only through the body that we are able to access its powers. In this sense, the intellect is not generated by the body, but is instead present in every human being from birth.

Matter+form (soul) = body, human body + intellect = being human, a material being with form that has access to an immaterial intellect existing in some sense outside of itself.

There's more of a discussion and differing views here: Genesis of Intellect in Aristotle

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Mind is certainly beyond biological aspects. That's why cognitive science includes also psychology, philosophy etc. It's absurd to claim that everything can be explained with biology.

Is mind beyond biological aspects? What we are learning of the mind does not point in that direction. What informs your position that there is something beyond the biology that explains the mind?

Cognitive science does include psychology, but that would still be biology. Of course, as with all broad categories of inquiry, there was a time when everything fell under the heading of Philosophy, be it psychology, astronomy, medicine, etc. The scientific revolution however highlighted major flaws in the methodologies of traditional philosophy such that post revolution, those lines of inquiry that worked to address those flaws and shortcommings became distinctive in their ability to make measurable headway regarding the questions they addressed and thus philosophical inquiry that incorporated the new methods became know as the sciences. Because of this schism between traditional philosophy and what has become science, it would be incorrect to say philosophy is included in cognitive science in the modern era.

I would be curious as to what institutions you feel fall under your "etc." as being part of cognitive sciences that are not also a science.

 

[Madsaac]

It's been a long, LONG time, but as I recall, the ancient Greeks held the idea that the physical universe is an expression of a divine (perfect) intellectual ideal (called 'logos'). That trees and rocks and lakes or whatever other all physical emanations of a perfect, very complex, idealized universe that exists in the 'sacred realm of a cosmic intellect' (logos).

Isn't this idea, an opinion formed from there knowledge and resources of the day. Humans intellect has improved beyond the days of the ancient Greeks because of available resources.

This is a very compelling argument for a single source or origin of everything. It can even be proven mathematically, D(S)->d and d->D(S) where D(S) is reality (the source) and d are the many objects within reality. Upon further reflection, one can conclude that reality topologically contains itself while descriptively containing itself. A dual operation.

God is real because He is proven using logic.

In this context, D(S) can stand for a more basic form (or universal distributed form) of reality and d can stand for the objects that surround us. The latter leads to a meaningless existence in which we misunderstand what reality is and the former to the only true meaningful existence.

Is this fact or your assumptions?

Could, the intellects/scientists of today, run this formula and come up with god? Or is it just a possibility?

 

[Madsaac]

This thread was inspired by discussion with @Ponder This in the thread about Aquinas’s teleological argument which is also related to intellect.

Greeks had a concept called nous. It's the highest faculty of the human soul, responsible for our ability to grasp the essences of things and to reason on the basis of them. This enables us to attain truth and understand the world around us.

Take for example what we know about triangles:

The Pythagorean theorem, etc., were true long before we discovered them and will remain true long after we’re all dead, just as the sun and planets were here before we were and would remain even if we blasted ourselves out of existence in a nuclear conflagration. Now if the essence of triangularity is something neither material nor mental – that is to say, something that exists neither in the material world nor merely in the human mind – then it has a unique kind of existence all its own, that of an abstract object existing in what Platonists sometimes call a “third realm.” And what is true of the essence of triangles is no less true, in Plato’s view, of the essences of pretty much everything: of squares, circles, and other geometrical figures, but also (and more interestingly) of human beings, tables and chairs, dogs and cats, trees and rocks, justice, beauty, goodness, piety, and so on and on. When we grasp the essence of any of these things, we grasp something that is universal, immaterial, extramental, and known via the intellect rather than senses, and is thus a denizen of this “third realm.” What we grasp, in short, is a Form. (E. Feser, The Last Superstition)​

Plato thinks that the intellect, since it can know the forms, must also be something immaterial and also immortal.

Humans intellect has moved beyond that of the Ancient Greeks because of the resources available to us. Therefore we have shown that the possibility of a 'third realm' is very unlikely.

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is a very compelling argument for a single source or origin of everything. It can even be proven mathematically, D(S)->d and d->D(S) where D(S) is reality (the source) and d are the many objects within reality. Upon further reflection, one can conclude that reality topologically contains itself while descriptively containing itself. A dual operation.

God is real because He is proven using logic.

In this context, D(S) can stand for a more basic form (or universal distributed form) of reality and d can stand for the objects that surround us. The latter leads to a meaningless existence in which we misunderstand what reality is and the former to the only true meaningful existence.

Another correct viewpoint accredited to the ancient Greeks.

The Logos is the most high. A language of languages that is so powerful that it can create entire universes simply by speaking them into existence. A paper that you may be familiar with is the Metaformal System by Christopher Langan. It argues for a third level of language that is so powerful that it merges with the universe based on shared structure and content. A new science surrounding the G.O.D or Global Operator Definor is in its infancy.

Nothing needs to be proven. It is self-evident that there is a single source of everything, and that is 'physical energy'. That is what we started with at the time of 'inflation' (expansion of the universe). Your philosophical or your so-called mathematical BS (D(S)->d and d->D(S)) is not required.
'Physical energy' does not demand prayers, does not demand acceptance of those who masqueraded as representatives of God like Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. It does not judge, does not reward, does not punish the actions of humans. 'Physical energy' is not a God.

If God can be proven with logic, you have not explained it anywhere. What is wrong with a universal distributed form of reality? After all, whether it is humans, animals, vegetation or inanimate objects, all are composed of atoms. We are the result of a long process of self-replicating molecules over a period of some 3.5 billion years. Life will exist on earth for another billion year before the dying sun becomes so hot that it dries up the earth of all water. We, and other life-forms (if they exist anywhere in the universe) are a flash in the history of universe. We come and go.
Yeah, Greeks were deep thinkers, better than the God-believers of today with crazy views (Christopher Langan - not surprisingly, he endorses Donald Trump), but they had their knowledge limitations. Today, we know more than them.

 

[PureX]

Isn't this idea, an opinion formed from there knowledge and resources of the day. Humans intellect has improved beyond the days of the ancient Greeks because of available resources.

Of course, yet they did envision the nature of existence much as we do, today (molecules, atoms, etc. making up the physical world, and being governed by invisible, very sophisticated and inter-related forces).

 

[PearlSeeker]

Humans intellect has moved beyond that of the Ancient Greeks because of the resources available to us. Therefore we have shown that the possibility of a 'third realm' is very unlikely.

I used Plato just as a starting point. Plato was also self-critical. His own objection to his own theory is known as The Third Man argument... Aristotle opposed the third realm. However, he also argued that the intellect is immortal...

Since the old Greeks the science about physical world has advanced a great deal. Not so about metaphysical matters (closely related to mind). Actually the attempts to move beyond Greek metaphysics have led into many problems, for example the mind-body problem...

Plato still has advocates in science and philosophy to this day. For example modern mathematicians may be generally considered as platonists (at least in regard to mathematical objects).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of course, yet they did envision the nature of existence much as we do, today (molecules, atoms, etc. making up the physical world, and being governed by invisible, very sophisticated and inter-related forces).

The (current) four fundamental forces of nature are not a proof of existence of any God or Goddess.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of course, yet they did envision the nature of existence much as we do, today (molecules, atoms, etc. making up the physical world, and being governed by invisible, very sophisticated and inter-related forces).

The (current) four fundamental forces of nature are not a proof of existence of any God or Goddess.

for example the mind-body problem...

What is the mind-body problem? Something advocated by those who have not studied science and pose as philosophers?

 

[PureX]

The (current) four fundamental forces of nature are not a proof of existence of any God or Goddess.

No one is suggesting they are "proof" of anything. However, even the most basic logical reasoning forces us to ponder their source. The natire of which must transcend the results. And the most common word used for that mysterious source is "God".

But I was simply pointing out that the ancient Greek concept of the nature of existence (logos) was surprisingly similar to the view of it today.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Humans intellect has moved beyond that of the Ancient Greeks because of the resources available to us. Therefore we have shown that the possibility of a 'third realm' is very unlikely.

In what way has intellect moved beyond that of the Ancients? These people were in every way our intellectual equals.

We may have outstripped them in the sum of our knowledge, but it would be hubristic in the extreme to conclude from this either that we are enlightened beings of superior intellect, or that there is nothing we can learn from Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras or Euclid.

 

[PureX]

Humans intellect has moved beyond that of the Ancient Greeks because of the resources available to us. Therefore we have shown that the possibility of a 'third realm' is very unlikely.

That is not at all true. All we've learned is that science is limited to the realm of physical interactions, only, and cannot investigate further.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

In what way has intellect moved beyond that of the Ancients? These people were in every way our intellectual equals.

I assumed what was meant that it is our collective understanding of what constitutes intellect today that has moved beyond what was understood of intellect in ancient Greece.

We may have outstripped them in the sum of our knowledge, but it would be hubristic in the extreme to conclude from this either that we are enlightened beings of superior intellect, or that there is nothing we can learn from Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras or Euclid.

I would argue that the good bits that our ancient ancestor came up with get passed down and encorporated into a constantly revised and updated model of understanding. I am not arguing there is no value in looking at how our understanding has changed over time, to see where humanity was and follow the story to how we have arrived where we are today, but that does not mean we have to treat every ancient utterance as if it has immutable and eternal value. In our work today, we do not have to start at the very beginning and relitigate every unfruitful notion or idea generated by our ancient ancestors.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

That is not at all true. All we've learned is that science is limited to the realm of physical interactions, only, and cannot investigate further.

For the very practical reason that there is no "further" beyond physical interactions having in any way been established. There is no there, there. Nothing to sink our teeth into and begin an inquiry.

 

[PureX]

For the very practical reason that there is no "further" beyond physical interactions having in any way been established. There is no there, there. Nothing to sink our teeth into and begin an inquiry.

Just because you choose to believe this does not mean that it's true. It's just a convenient excuse not to have to confront questions that you know you will never get an answer for. At least not in the way you define an answer.

Seems rather cowardly, to me. And counter-productive. In that you cheat yourself out of the opportunity to fantasize, and speculate, and try on the various possibilities that you come up with to see how they work. Sort of like some religious fundamentalist accepting whatever they have been told so they don't ever have to grapple with the questions and possibilities offered to them by other religious and non-religious ideologies.

 

[Nakosis]

This thread was inspired by discussion with @Ponder This in the thread about Aquinas’s teleological argument which is also related to intellect.

Greeks had a concept called nous. It's the highest faculty of the human soul, responsible for our ability to grasp the essences of things and to reason on the basis of them. This enables us to attain truth and understand the world around us.

Take for example what we know about triangles:

The Pythagorean theorem, etc., were true long before we discovered them and will remain true long after we’re all dead, just as the sun and planets were here before we were and would remain even if we blasted ourselves out of existence in a nuclear conflagration. Now if the essence of triangularity is something neither material nor mental – that is to say, something that exists neither in the material world nor merely in the human mind – then it has a unique kind of existence all its own, that of an abstract object existing in what Platonists sometimes call a “third realm.” And what is true of the essence of triangles is no less true, in Plato’s view, of the essences of pretty much everything: of squares, circles, and other geometrical figures, but also (and more interestingly) of human beings, tables and chairs, dogs and cats, trees and rocks, justice, beauty, goodness, piety, and so on and on. When we grasp the essence of any of these things, we grasp something that is universal, immaterial, extramental, and known via the intellect rather than senses, and is thus a denizen of this “third realm.” What we grasp, in short, is a Form. (E. Feser, The Last Superstition)​

Plato thinks that the intellect, since it can know the forms, must also be something immaterial and also immortal.

IMO, we created triangles as an abstract shape and apply abstract rules the perfection of which belies their actual existence outside of human intellect. We create a mental construct of the universe which we can analyze and deconstruct so we can pretend to know something about the actual universe.

Intellect, it is a way of creating an alternate reality in our minds which provides an illusion of understanding. So sure lots of immaterial stuff in the sense that none of it exists outside of the mental realities we create for ourselves.

 

[PureX]

IMO, we created triangles as an abstract shape and apply abstract rules the perfection of which belies their actual existence outside of human intellect. We create a mental construct of the universe which we can analyze and deconstruct so we can pretend to know something about the actual universe.

Intellect, it is a way of creating an alternate reality in our minds which provides an illusion of understanding. So sure lots of immaterial stuff in the sense that none of it exists outside of the mental realities we create for ourselves.

What is extraordinary is that because the capacity for intellect exists, and because we humans can then apply it to the reality that we live in, new versions of reality become possible that would not otherwise have ever occurred. Reality transcends itself through the human intellect.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Just because you choose to believe this does not mean that it's true.

Um, that wasn't an expression of belief, simply a comment describing the current state of affairs. It would be an incorrect "belief" to "believe" otherwise, yes?

It's just a convenient excuse not to have to confront questions that you know you will never get an answer for. At least not in the way you define an answer.

Really? I see it in terms of not making stuff up simply to have the convenience of there being no big, unanswered and unanswerable questions hanging out there.

In other words, which attitude is in better service of expanding humanity's understanding of the world, the one that admits what it doen't yet know, or the one that invents a self-satisfying answer to unanswerable questions to meet some personal need.

Seems rather cowardly, to me. And counter-productive. In that you cheat yourself out of the opportunity to fantasize, and speculate, and try on the various possibilities that you come up with to see how they work. Sort of like some religious fundamentalist accepting whatever they have been told so they don't ever have to grapple with the questions and possibilities offered to them by other religious and non-religious ideologies.

Is it cowardly to admit ignorance, or is it cowardly not to? I say the latter.

Not sure how admiting the limits of one's understanding precludes any ability to speculate and try on various possibilities to see how they work. In fact it is this very process that is used to build our understanding beyond that which we are confident in.

What you fail to appreciate in your criticism of my comments is the fact that human beings have the capacity to believe all manner of *untrue* things, and as such, that fact must be acknowledge and care taken to mitigate that problem as we collectively work to ever increase our understanding of the world and of ourselves. To start, we do not presume our fantasies to be true.