On the nature of intellect

[plodding inarticulateness]

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.

That potential doesn't transcend reality, it is firmly grounded in reality. For example, I cannot make a 100 foot skyscraper out of Jello. All possibility is confinded to the properties inherent to reality.

 

[PureX]

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?

Do you honestly believe that because we do knot know the answer to a question that there must not be one? Or have I misunderstood your comment?

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.

Making stuff up is what we humans do. Our ability to imagine possibilities that are not before us is our "superpower". It's what sets us apart and above all the other life forms that exist (so far as we know). And you want to reject this?

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.

They are one and the same activity. We can't even recognize that we don't know without imagining that we could ... that there is something there to be known.

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

But you aren't admitting it. You're rejecting it. You're claiming there is nothing there to be known.

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.

It's what makes us such an extraordinary species. We get to invent all those possibilities, and then explore them.

 

[PureX]

That potential doesn't transcend reality, it is firmly grounded in reality. For example, I cannot make a 100 foot skyscraper out of Jello. All possibility is confinded to the properties inherent to reality.

The possibility of a skyscraper does not exist without the intellect. No skyscraper would have occurred, anywhere, ever, without the advent of intellect. Intellect has allowed us to transcend the limitations of what is possible to exist. Intellect extends what is possible into the realm of what would not otherwise be possible.

A thousand monkeys pecking at a thousand typewriters for a thousand years were never going to write a Shakespeare play. And yet those plays now exist because one hairless monkey with an intellect and an imagination decided to create an alternative reality and share it with his fellows.

 

[wellwisher]

Intellect is not the same as imagination. Forming a mental image of something is not the same as forming an intellectual idea of something. You can form no clear mental image of a chiliagon but you can easily grasp the concept of a chiliagon.

The intellect is more deliberate, while the imagination is more dependent on unconscious processes. Dreams occur in the imagination even as we sleep. While controlling dreams with the intellect; deliberate, is not an easy skill to acquire.

There is another difference. The intellect uses written and spoken language, which is subjective. The intellect processes information with words and numbers; reading, writing, talking and listening.

The subjectivity of language is evident in that there are 7000 different languages throughout the world, implying any noise/sound can be mean anything you want. There are 7000 arbitrary systems, one or more of which you will agree to use. Often translations between systems; Ancient Greek to Modern English, can cause meaning to be lost or changed. There are 47 Eskimo words for snow,

There is no natural spoken languages where sounds are naturally represented. The cat does not make the noise/sound "cat", so why use that? It is subjective and arbitrary. We can use Klingon. Also words have more than one meaning. In the current, US elections, both sides are calling the other side Fascists, and yet both are sort of opposite. It is not clear if everyone knows what the sound "fascist" means. They cannot meet on the same page but can only preach to their own choir.

The imagination, on the other hand, uses more of a visual language. There is actually a natural visual language, since the reflection of light off objects and actions, that enter the eyes, and then brain, have a natural definitive visual alphabet of color, texture, edges and reflections; photons. If we had 7000 people in a theater, and we asked everyone, in all the 7000 languages, to point to the "cat", based on their visual scans, and the universal language of sight, all would find it, even if the words get in the way. This is an advantage of the imagination; natural clarity in terms of the natural visual language we all share.

The intellect by using language to express ideas, has built in subjectivity. We still need to do experiments to confirm, with the universal visual language of the imagination; seeing is believing to make sure the words do not get in the way.

The ancient Philosophers, would ponder things in their imagination, with unconscious processes helping them to run visual experiments; active imagination; nous. This often involved symbolism. Then they would deliberate and try to put this into words, which can never fully express what they saw, thereby their intellectual output still falls short of a full reveal of the truth. Unlike spoken language, where we can trade ideas, visualization is private, and to deliberate from private, and then go from there into the imaginations of others, so they can see with the universal language of inner sight, still needs the spoken language bridge, that falls short. There is now leap of faith to the other side. Experiments became a makeshift bridge to prevent falls.

 

[Madsaac]

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.

No, it seems they were some of the most intelligent people in history.

However, I thought intellect was the way we acquired knowledge and obviously we have better ways of doing that, these days. And because of that we have been able to answer questions today, that weren't able to be answered back then.

Imagine Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras or Euclid with the 'tools' of today.

 

[Madsaac]

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.

Yes but because of science we are closer to knowing there is no 'third realm' or the increased improbability of it.

Imagine Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras or Euclid came back to life today, having access to the 'tools' of today. They would say, yes the probability of a 'third realm' is unlikely.

 

[Madsaac]

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).

Yes, what does that say about metaphysics. Its an old idea, that's fun to reflect upon, the infinite possibilities of our mind.

Actual fact, we know our mind operates because of our physical being, and as time goes on, this is becoming more apparent. In 2000 years time, people will be thinking that we were on the right track but lacked the intellect to solve the problem, similar to what we think of Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras or Euclid. Awesome people who did amazing things with the resources and knowledge available to them.

 

[Madsaac]

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.

I love a good sci fi novel, and often fantasize and speculate but unfortunately there is nothing apart from fictional stories to suggest there is anything beyond the physical world we live in.

If you have any good theories or ideas, please share.

 

[blü 2]

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.

In my student days, Philosophy 101, we learnt of Plato and his other-worldly forms. After an amount of reflection on the question, I dismissed the idea of forms. The triangle of geometry, for example, is entirely conceptual, and being two-dimensional has no equivalent in reality, though of course it has many (equally conceptual) analogies as convenient interpretations of reality (the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses).

The same is true of the Platonic view of of numbers, and it pains me to disagree with the mathematical Platonism asserted by so smart a dude as Roger (these days Sir Roger) Penrose, and others. The ideas are all purely conceptual, notional, imaginary, all in the mind, and when no humans are around to think about them, there's no arithmetic, no geometry, no calculus, no quaternions / vectors, no nothing, just stuff.

(But ideas can be very useful and productive and explanatory ─ I'm not trashing ideas, just pointing to how in fact we use them.)

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

You seem to advocate scientific reductionism. By the same token, everything can be explained with physics and its laws. I think this is a one sided view of science. There is also emergence.

Reductionism vs. emergence: Are you “nothing but” your atoms?

Reductionism offers a narrow view of the Universe that fails to explain reality.

bigthink.com

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.

Yes, early (empirical) science is now outdated. But not all philosophy. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

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.

Do you think that philosophy, psychology and anthropology are not sciences?

Cognitive sciences:

 

[PearlSeeker]

The intellect is more deliberate, while the imagination is more dependent on unconscious processes. Dreams occur in the imagination even as we sleep. While controlling dreams with the intellect; deliberate, is not an easy skill to acquire.

There is another difference. The intellect uses written and spoken language, which is subjective. The intellect processes information with words and numbers; reading, writing, talking and listening.

The subjectivity of language is evident in that there are 7000 different languages throughout the world, implying any noise/sound can be mean anything you want. There are 7000 arbitrary systems, one or more of which you will agree to use. Often translations between systems; Ancient Greek to Modern English, can cause meaning to be lost or changed. There are 47 Eskimo words for snow,

There is no natural spoken languages where sounds are naturally represented. The cat does not make the noise/sound "cat", so why use that? It is subjective and arbitrary. We can use Klingon. Also words have more than one meaning. In the current, US elections, both sides are calling the other side Fascists, and yet both are sort of opposite. It is not clear if everyone knows what the sound "fascist" means. They cannot meet on the same page but can only preach to their own choir.

The imagination, on the other hand, uses more of a visual language. There is actually a natural visual language, since the reflection of light off objects and actions, that enter the eyes, and then brain, have a natural definitive visual alphabet of color, texture, edges and reflections; photons. If we had 7000 people in a theater, and we asked everyone, in all the 7000 languages, to point to the "cat", based on their visual scans, and the universal language of sight, all would find it, even if the words get in the way. This is an advantage of the imagination; natural clarity in terms of the natural visual language we all share.

The intellect by using language to express ideas, has built in subjectivity. We still need to do experiments to confirm, with the universal visual language of the imagination; seeing is believing to make sure the words do not get in the way.

The ancient Philosophers, would ponder things in their imagination, with unconscious processes helping them to run visual experiments; active imagination; nous. This often involved symbolism. Then they would deliberate and try to put this into words, which can never fully express what they saw, thereby their intellectual output still falls short of a full reveal of the truth. Unlike spoken language, where we can trade ideas, visualization is private, and to deliberate from private, and then go from there into the imaginations of others, so they can see with the universal language of inner sight, still needs the spoken language bridge, that falls short. There is now leap of faith to the other side. Experiments became a makeshift bridge to prevent falls.

Linguistic entities are signs of concepts (mental entities). Only the signs themselves are arbitrary and subjective.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Yes but because of science we are closer to knowing there is no 'third realm' or the increased improbability of it.

Imagine Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras or Euclid came back to life today, having access to the 'tools' of today. They would say, yes the probability of a 'third realm' is unlikely.

Iif Plato were to meet Nobel Prize winning mathematician and physicist, Roger Penrose, they could discuss the nature of the Platonic realm. Here’s Penrose’s conceptual representation of his three world theory, in which each arises from another

 

[PureX]

Yes but because of science we are closer to knowing there is no 'third realm' or the increased improbability of it.

No, we are not. Because science cannot even address the question of any "third realm" of existence. That is a question for philosophy. And in fact, the logic of philosophy requires a transcendent realm of being.

Imagine Plato, Aristotle, Pythagoras or Euclid came back to life today, having access to the 'tools' of today. They would say, yes the probability of a 'third realm' is unlikely.

You have no idea what they would say. And neither does anyone else.

 

[PureX]

I love a good sci fi novel, and often fantasize and speculate but unfortunately there is nothing apart from fictional stories to suggest there is anything beyond the physical world we live in.

Well, except for the physical world itself. Since it is illogical to assume that it generated itself out of nothing.

If you have any good theories or ideas, please share.

The question is why is there something when nothingness is the ideal eternal condition? How did something become possible against the logical backdrop of eternal and absolute nothingness? And then, why THIS something as opposed to any other? And finally, why are we capable of asking these questions (as part of the something that now exists) but not capable of answering them?

Are you suggesting that we run away from these questions just because we can't positively answer them?

 

[PearlSeeker]

What is the mind-body problem?

Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Descartes, Rene | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Do you honestly believe that because we do knot know the answer to a question that there must not be one? Or have I misunderstood your comment?

There is always an answer to any question, though that answer may be that the question itself is invalid, incongruent, or simply nonsense.

In this particular case, it isn't a question at issue, rather, it was your definitive statement that "science is limited to the realm of physical interactions, only, and cannot investigate further." What is silly about this statement is that we human beings *are* science. It is a human activity and endeavor. Any limits to science would be limits to human beings. In other words, we human beings can't know anything outside of science. If it is within our capacity to know and understand it is within the capacity of science to know and understand.

Making stuff up is what we humans do. Our ability to imagine possibilities that are not before us is our "superpower". It's what sets us apart and above all the other life forms that exist (so far as we know). And you want to reject this?

Mate, I love fiction, I simply accept and treat it as what it is. I also fully embrace our relentless efforts to understand how the Cosmos works, which in turn ever expands our ability to actualize what is possible. So no, I don’t reject any of it.

They are one and the same activity. We can't even recognize that we don't know without imagining that we could ... that there is something there to be known.

It is not the same thing. To admit complete ignorance provides the strong impetus, the driving force, to resolve that ignorance. Once you form unfounded presumptions about the unknown and then build further presumptions upon them from the comfort of your easy chair, the feeling of ignorance is dissipated and commensurately the drive to appropriately and successfully resolve that state of complete ignorance is dissipated.

And yes, we can recognize we don’t know regardless of what we think our likelihood of actually knowing is.

But you aren't admitting it. You're rejecting it. You're claiming there is nothing there to be known.

No, I was saying that your presumptions about what may lay beyond our current understanding are groundless. I’m rejecting your presumptions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dualism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Descartes, Rene | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

iep.utm.edu

If it is dualism, then remove it, first between God and humans (or animals/vegetation/non-living substances).
"Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti. Nasti, nasti, na nasti kinchana." (What exists is one, there is no second. No, no, no, not even in the least)
Ancient Sanskrit saying.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

You seem to advocate scientific reductionism. By the same token, everything can be explained with physics and its laws. I think this is a one sided view of science. There is also emergence.

Reductionism vs. emergence: Are you “nothing but” your atoms?

Reductionism offers a narrow view of the Universe that fails to explain reality.

bigthink.com

The article you linked to was quite weak in my view. From the article you linked:

"This is really a question of “bottom-up” predictability. If you know the fundamental entities and their laws, you can, in principle, predict everything that will or can happen."​

This passage mischaracterizes what it means to understand fundamental laws of nature. The Cosmos is not strictly deterministic as illustrated in the thought experiment of Pierre-Simon Laplace, Laplace's Demon. The Cosmos is probabalistic, such that the further into the future one wishes to causally predict, the lower the probability to do so accurately. In other words, the future is not fixed, set in stone, a slave to causal inevitability set in motion in some distant past.

And yet, the author's very next sentence is true:

"All of future history, all of evolution, is just a rearrangement of those electrons and quarks. In the reductionist view, you, your dog, your love for your dog, and the doggie love it feels for you are all nothing but arrangements and rearrangements of atoms. End of story."​

The author seems to feel that accepting the truth of this sentence somehow erases any value we may assign to loving and being loved by our dog. This is of course not true. One can both understand that the Cosmos is at it's core mass-energy with spatio-temporal extension, and at the same time enjoy a beautiful sunset, the love of an embrace, and marvel at an incredible feat of engineering.

Yes, early (empirical) science is now outdated. But not all philosophy. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I think you are conflating pre-scientific revolution inquiry with that of the post-scientific revolution. What has value post revolution has been relabled science. What remains as philosophy is either the study of purely analytical abstract systems, or regarding the real world, it is the personal subjective expressions of the philosopher which at best are speculations grounded in current scientific understanding, and at worst, completely unfounded speculation. Of course any particular philosophy can fall on a spectrum between these extremes, but in all cases they are simply speculations.

Do you think that philosophy, psychology and anthropology are not sciences?

Cognitive sciences:

Science is not related to specific topics or lines of inquiry, science is the means by which the inquiry is conducted, adhereing to principles and specific standards aimed at recognizing the subjectivity of any investigator and working to overcome that subjectivity and develop objectivity in the inquiry process.

Psychology and anthropology are sciences when conducted in a scientific manner. Philosophy, as I have illustrated above, is not scientific as it immerses itself within the subjectivity of the philosopher (in regards real world lines of inquiry).

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

No, we are not. Because science cannot even address the question of any "third realm" of existence. That is a question for philosophy. And in fact, the logic of philosophy requires a transcendent realm of being.

If one has to proclaim their argument is logical, dollars to doughnuts it is not. Simply invoking the word 'logic' is not the magic wand you think it is.

There are no questions reserved solely for philosophy other than those questions based on presumptions the philosopher wishes to shield from the objectivity of science.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Well, except for the physical world itself. Since it is illogical to assume that it generated itself out of nothing.

We have insufficient information upon which to assume anything. Logic cannot help. We do not know enough about reality to make such a speculation, let alone say that it is in any way a logical conclusion.

For example, it was logical to presume that when it first became apparent that light traveled in waves that such waves would require a medium through which to propagate as dictated by our experience with other waves. Luminiferous aether was thus proposed as the medium filling outer space as space being a vacuum would not permit light to travel through it. This example illustrates the value of logic applied to insuficient information.

The question is why is there something when nothingness is the ideal eternal condition?

On what grounds do you claim that nothingness is "ideal" and that it ideally should be "eternal"?