On the nature of intellect

[plodding inarticulateness]

This is all based on functionality. But knowing some aspects of physical functionality does not equal knowing anything at all about it's source, or about existence as a whole. All it does is give us a small degree of control which we then imagine to be knowing some great truth.

Having started from complete ignorance, are there things that are still beyond our understanding or ability to investigate? Of course. That, as they say, are the cards we have been dealt. We simply have to patiently work the problem. It has taken thousands of years to get to this point. If you do not have the patience and insist on knowing all the secrets of the Cosmos today, you are going to be sorely disapointed and frustrated.

I would suggest to you that it is those who are impatient that imagine knowing great truths and history has time and again shown us the value of those.

I would also say, given where we started and how far we have come, for you to characterize our current body of knowledge as small is to be either purposefully obtuse or utterly disingenuous.

Our confidence and a dollar will get us a very small cup of coffee.

Again, utterly disingenuous.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

But what we can logically surmise, is that whatever this mystery source is, it would be beyond the limitations of that which is it's result: existence as we know it. Which is why we will not likely ever be able to "know" (understand) this source. This mystery 'source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is'. "God" is simply a common universal word we use to refer to this mystery source. Irrespective of all that various ways we humans might choose to conceptualize this mystery.

I don't see how you can logically think so, since science cannot even investigate the whole of existence as we currently experience it. Let alone ever investigate the transcendent mystery source that must surpass it. Sounds to me like you simply want to replace "God" with "scientism".

Again with the evoking of logic.

Your "logically" surmised god is equivallent to Luminiferous Aether. They both stand on equal footing, logically.

 

[Nakosis]

Since any knowledge must be conceived by a human mind to begin with,

Not what I implied. Human knowledge obviously can't exist without the human mind. However we can observe the knowledge possessed by other species through their behavior.

how can we know about any reality that exists independently of the mind?

We can't with absolute certainty. Our conscious human knowledge is an interpretation of reality. It's accurate enough to allow us to survive but not accurate enough to not have imperfections. All we really know, our knowledge is the interpretation of reality which is created by our brain.
As long as that interpretation allows us to survive/navigate reality, we can accept it is accurate enough.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

It's far from apparent. Actually it's in principle impossibile. There are things like qualia and consciousness, that don't conform to objective physical reality independent of any mind or conscious experience or subjective mental representation. If everything is physical then those things have to be treated as a mere projection of the mind. Right?

But there is one thing that you can't apply this method on. This is the mind itself. You can't explain something subjective, mind-depended in terms of objectively quantifiable properties like firing of neurons, particles in motion... This would not explain it. It would just implicitly ignore it and deny its existence.

But “qualia” just are, by definition, these subjective or mind-dependent features, while “matter” or “physical reality” just is whatever exists independently of any mind or subjective point of view. Hence it is in principle impossible to “explain” qualia in purely material or physical terms, and any materialist attempt at such an “explanation” is really just a disguised denial of their very existence, and thus of the existence of conscious experience itself. (E. Feser, The Last Superstition)​

What your analysis fails to take into account, along with every "philosopher of the mind", is that we have yet to fully understand the very complex neurochemical systems of the central nervous system, endocrine system, etc. You and they have absolutely no grounds upon which to declare what of the mind is, or is not, physical. This is not the point at which we throw up are hands and say we know all there is to know about the physical brain and there is just something more to what constitutes mind beyond it.

The very fact that those mind-dependent features you wish to call "qualia" can be both physically affected and changed, by injury, illness, disease, chemical compounds, etc. speaks strongly to the conclusion that the mind is an entirely physical process. There is nothing to suggest a non-physical component, especially an immutable one.

 

[RestlessSoul]

We do understand a bit of Relativity, a bit of Uncertainty and a bit of Quantum Mechanics. The veil goes up bit by bit.

If 100 years of quantum physics has any ontological implication at all, it's that we should probably drop the idea of objective reality.

"Everything we call real is made of things that cannot be regarded as real." - Niels Bohr

"An isolated object, taken in itself, has no particular state. At most we can attribute to it a probabilistic disposition to manifest itself one way or another. But even this is only an anticipation of future phenomena, a reflection of past phenomena, only and always relative to another object." - Carlo Rovelli

 

[PureX]

Yeah, it is a difficult question. Really the most difficult question in the world.
Perhaps the best answer is 'Creatio Ex-nihilo' as propounded by Lawrence Krauss and Stephen Hawking.

"We have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction."
Lawrence Krauss in "A Universe from Nothing".

You are just wrongly labeling a deeper mystery, "nothing", so you can dismiss it. But a deeper mystery is not nothing. And nothing cannot give rise to something.

Hawking may have been a great at science, but he was a lousy philosopher.

If I go to Hindu philosophy, then something like this:

"Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent."
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation. (around 1,000 BCE)
"What is the origin of this world?
Space, said he. Verily, all things here arise out of space. They disappear back into space, for space alone is greater than these, space is the final goal. This is the most excellent truth."
-  Chandogya Upanishad 1.9.1 (https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/b...doc238789.html) (800 BCE and later)

Oh, well, of a 'sage' said it ...

 

[PureX]

Having started from complete ignorance, are there things that are still beyond our understanding or ability to investigate? Of course. That, as they say, are the cards we have been dealt. We simply have to patiently work the problem. It has taken thousands of years to get to this point. If you do not have the patience and insist on knowing all the secrets of the Cosmos today, you are going to be sorely disapointed and frustrated.

I would suggest to you that it is those who are impatient that imagine knowing great truths and history has time and again shown us the value of those.

I would also say, given where we started and how far we have come, for you to characterize our current body of knowledge as small is to be either purposefully obtuse or utterly disingenuous.



Again, utterly disingenuous.

Did we begin in "complete ignorance"? I don't know. And neither do you.

Have we really learned so much? We've learned to manipulate our environment and each other to our own advantage. But we have no idea how much we DON'T know. Or can know. So we have no idea how what we do know stands in relation to it.

And I can't help seeing all this bravado about Joe smart we are in relation to the fact that we have no idea how to control our own selves WITH all that knowledge. Which may not be all that much knowledge to begin with.

So I'm just not seeing any reason that we should be so arrogant, or confident in our presumed knowledge. Because it looks to me a lot like a cage full of hyperactive monkeys have just discovered a box of loaded pistols.

 

[PureX]

Again with the evoking of logic.

Your "logically" surmised god is equivallent to Luminiferous Aether. They both stand on equal footing, logically.

The fact that you could not negate the logic itself, and so had to resort to rediculous comparisons only serves to negate your own assertions.

 

[PureX]

Again with the evoking of logic.

Your "logically" surmised god is equivallent to Luminiferous Aether. They both stand on equal footing, logically.

The fact that you could not negate the logic itself, and so had to resort to rediculous comparisons only serves to negate your own assertions.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Did we begin in "complete ignorance"? I don't know. And neither do you.

Every baby that is born demonstrates where we begin.

Have we really learned so much? We've learned to manipulate our environment and each other to our own advantage. But we have no idea how much we DON'T know. Or can know. So we have no idea how what we do know stands in relation to it.

And I can't help seeing all this bravado about Joe smart we are in relation to the fact that we have no idea how to control our own selves WITH all that knowledge. Which may not be all that much knowledge to begin with.

So I'm just not seeing any reason that we should be so arrogant, or confident in our presumed knowledge. Because it looks to me a lot like a cage full of hyperactive monkeys have just discovered a box of loaded pistols.

What we do with what we learn is a separate matter from that of what the extent of our relative knowledge is. If you want to charaterize humanity as a bunch of hyperactive monkeys, great. It does highlight the point that each new human being born is the same type of animal that has been born for millennia, instilled with the very same intrinsic behavioral instincts. We haven't gotten around to changing that any faster than occurs naturally, so yes, we are a species of ape with more collective knowledge than any other, but still apes.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

The fact that you could not negate the logic itself, and so had to resort to rediculous comparisons only serves to negate your own assertions.

I have explained to you the limits of logic given the limitation on our ability to aquire sufficient facts necessary to even apply the kind of logic you seem to imply you use. Rather than repeat myself I will simply remind you that your use of logic is as sound and accurate as that used to propose luminiferous aether.

 

[PureX]

Every baby that is born demonstrates where we begin.

And yet they somehow each have their own unique personalities and capacities for learning. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all "knowledge" is related to functioning in a physical environment.

What we do with what we learn is a separate matter from that of what the extent of our relative knowledge is.

How do you assume that? Seems to me that who we are and how well we think will have a whole lot to do with what we can claim to know.

If you want to charaterize humanity as a bunch of hyperactive monkeys, great. It does highlight the point that each new human being born is the same type of animal that has been born for millennia, instilled with the very same intrinsic behavioral instincts. We haven't gotten around to changing that any faster than occurs naturally, so yes, we are a species of ape with more collective knowledge than any other, but still apes.

All the more reason not to be bragging about how much we think we 'know', or even can know.

 

[wellwisher]

Yes but none of that remotely answers the question, How can we access, or even conceive of, mind-independent reality? We have an agreed, collective reality, sure, but that is simply a web of mutually agreed narratives; the product of many minds rather than one, but mind-stuff nonetheless.

If you look at evolution; natural selection, it is connected to potentials created by natural and practical reality. Relative to natural consciousness; inner self, the materials of the brain are sculptured by natural reality through natural sensory input. The inner self or the center of the unconscious mind, was molded, over eons, by natural reality, and is not the product of the subjectivity of human language.

The difference would be a natural stone forming from just the potentials of the earth, versus one made in a factory. Both will look like a stone, but one is uses only natural laws; no additives, while the other uses tools that nature does not have or use. The statistical model used by life sciences, is not how nature does it. That will fall short from the truth; get a correlation instead.

The inner self was naturally sculptured by natural data impinged upon the five senses, via a endless variety of scenarios, while the ego is more of a product of the social environment; consensus of thought, instead of a natural product. Imagination is connected to the inner self and natural, while the intellect is more ego and subjective language based. They tend to be separated.

The imagination is sort of the medium for the unconscious mind and inner self, with inner self consciousness using the brain's data; natural subliminal, and human invention, to assemble a truth; eureka! Innovation, comes from inside, which has been unconsciously massaged via both natural and egocentric data input. This gets us part the way to the full truth; science evolves.

Consider the ancient Egyptians building the pyramids. You cannot buy that off the shelf, or find a how-to book. So how did they do it? It was an image in the imagination, from the inner self, which can data crunch ahead of its time, since it can extrapolate from natural laws. This is why it has lasted so long; like a manmade/natural mountain. Genius is the inner self.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

And yet they somehow each have their own unique personalities and capacities for learning. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all "knowledge" is related to functioning in a physical environment.

Somehow? I think we have a fair understanding of how and why that is so.

You have 'knowledge' in quotes so I won't even try to guess what it is you want to include under the banner of 'knowledge'. Regardless of any one baby's capacity to learn, they all must learn about the world if they want to function in it beyond mere instinctive reactions.

How do you assume that? Seems to me that who we are and how well we think will have a whole lot to do with what we can claim to know.

Not every individual has the same capacity to know and understand. Most fall within a broad similar range of capacity. But when we talk about what "we" know, it is my understanding that we are speaking of humanity as a whole, not of any one individual. We have confidence in that collective knowledge because of its predictive power, the use of that acquired knowledge conforms to expectations. In those instances when it doesn’t, we adjust our understanding and derived expectations accordingly.

All the more reason not to be bragging about how much we think we 'know', or even can know.

Bragging? Hardly. Simply describing the current state of affairs.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Yes, that's true. Phisicalism doesn't entail determinism.

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, one can do that by suspension of disbelief. You can enjoy these things like you enjoy a video game or a movie.

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.

You are biting your own tail. Then science is also simply speculations - because it's founded on philosophical speculation.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

You are biting your own tail. Then science is also simply speculations - because it's founded on philosophical speculation.

Is it? How so? Is it mere speculation that we exist and are aware of that existence, for that is the starting point for science.

 

[Ostronomos]

The only way "universals" are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined in individual brains.

Thus when no brains are involved, no "universals" are involved.

You are short-selling the Platonic mathematical realm. Mathematics is content. Existence is content. Therefore they're the same.

Concepts, of course, can be very useful, and we employ them in their thousands every day. But search the universe all over, and you'll never find eg an uninstantiated 2 running around naked in the wild. In fact the only way 2 and reality interact is when a human decides she wants to known the number of Xs within the field F ─ how many cows (X) in the barn (F)? How many people whose surnames start with J (X) live in Boston (F)?

 

[Ostronomos]

Is it? How so? Is it mere speculation that we exist and are aware of that existence, for that is the starting point for science.

Existence is a transcendental term that extends to every possible universe.

Existence is also an illusion or as they say in Sanskrit, maya.

So yes, it is a flawed assumption that science has been working with since its birth.

 

[Ostronomos]

Given the use of all caps on your part, I take it that the subject holds high emotion for you.

Why reduce my contributions to mere emotional ones? It does not diminish their value any less.

I would suggest to you that the greater the emotional attachment to an idea the less objective and unbias one tends to be regarding it.

I'm not familiar with what might constitute "astounding powers of deduction" and who you think might possess them. Yourself perhaps?

I appoint myself intellectually capable of having this conversation. So your poor attempt at sarcasm is unwarranted - what Oscar Wilde called "the lowest form of wit".

I happen to have the advantage in this discussion because I am privy to this other dimension that atheists and non-believers long to experience.

When you speak of "our universe" it seems to imply our physical world and all the celestial bodies beyond it, such as our solar system, galaxy, etc. While declaring all that to be a simulation is not a new idea, it is certainly one that is not widely held with any confidence whatsoever. I am not interested in debating such an idea so I will just say that your opinion is noted.

As to knowing and speaking of "the Platonic realm", we can know and speak of all manner of purely abstract concepts and ideas. It doesn't make them existent outside of human thought however.

 

[PureX]

Somehow? I think we have a fair understanding of how and why that is so.

If we did, we could identify sociopathic serial killers and correct their deadly inclinations biomechanically in advace. We could correct mental retardation and all sorts of other cognitive anomalies. But we can't, because we don't really understand these nearly as well you presume to believe we do.

You have 'knowledge' in quotes so I won't even try to guess what it is you want to include under the banner of 'knowledge'.

"Knowledge" is in quotes because we humans do not differentiate between what we think we know to be so, and what we can actually know to be so. Similar to what you did, above.

Regardless of any one baby's capacity to learn, they all must learn about the world if they want to function in it beyond mere instinctive reactions.

Of course, but given the fact that we all start with very similar equipment and we all apply them using similar instincts, and we all only live a limited number of years, the sum of our knowledge does not significantly advance beyond those limitations. At some point someone figured out how to create a bicycle, and someone else came up with penicillin, and now we have those "tools" in our living-life tool box, and some others as well. But these don't seem to have made us any wiser, or even more effective at living, given the fact that we are facing the possibility of completely annihilating ourselves.

One could actually argue that all this accumulated 'knowledge' has in fact only served to make us more stupid and dangerous than we already were.

Not every individual has the same capacity to know and understand. Most fall within a broad similar range of capacity. But when we talk about what "we" know, it is my understanding that we are speaking of humanity as a whole, not of any one individual. We have confidence in that collective knowledge because of its predictive power, the use of that acquired knowledge conforms to expectations. In those instances when it doesn’t, we adjust our understanding and derived expectations accordingly.

But all that predictive power ends up giving us is an increased ability to manipulate and control our environment. Thus, the reference to the 'box of loaded pistols' in my post, above. You don't seem to be grasping the fact that all this manipulative control (knowledge you call it) is not resulting in any meaningful advancement of collective human intelligence. And it may well be the "advancement" that allows us to annihilate ourselves because in spite of all the control and manipulation, we still have not learnrd to control our own animal fear, greed, and stupidity.

When is all this science-knowledge going to help us to address that?