On the nature of intellect

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Yes, but it's not enough that we exist and are aware of that. Science depends on some additional metaphysical assumptions. For example:

Objective reality exist.

This reality is intelligible - it has structure that is accessible to our senses and reason.

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” (Albert Einstein)

 

[blü 2]

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

I pointed out that the only manner in which mathematical concepts are known to exist is as concepts, notions, things imagined, in individual brains.

If you think that's wrong, just show me an uninstantiated 2 out there in the world external to the self.

 

[Ponder This]

Plato uses the word imitation (mimesis) in the sense of representation. Concrete objects are shadowy representations of platonic forms.

"shadowy"? Do you mean of uncertain identity or nature? Or do you mean insubstantial? It seems a strange word choice here. Concrete objects are substantial and of certain identity or nature, yes?

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)

If I understand this correctly:

the physical table is not a table​

rather the idea of a table (created by God) is actually a table​

and the artist in not imitating an actual table​

but rather is imitating the physical "table" that the carpenter made.​

How then, does this help us resolve the question of what it is that we call a "table"?

The thing we are calling a "table"​

is not actually a table​

but then why do we call it a "table"?​

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.

So far, we haven't resolved how Plato can call a table a table. How do the other philosophical positions resolve the question?

I suppose Aristotle can call a table a "table" because tableness is "immanently real within specific things themselves".
Since conceptualism holds that they only exist in the mind, conceptualism can't explain why the thing we call a "table" actually is a real table.
And nominalism seems to deny that there is such a thing as a table.

Also, it's not clear yet how Plato has ascertained that

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

The goal of this thread is to understand the nature of the intellect.
So far, we have that:

the intellect is part of the human soul (used here as a synonym for the human mind)​

the intellect is associated with the logistikon (reason) or cognitive category​

humans have intellect and other life forms do not (unclear why that is thought to be the case)​

the forms themselves are universal, immaterial, extramental, and known via the intellect.​

But how does Plato deduce that the intellect (part of the human mind) is immaterial and immortal?

On the basis of the previous thread... was it not argued that the forms exist within a supreme intellect? But the intellect discussed in this thread is part of the human mind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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

That is perfectly OK. What if existence and non-existence are phases of reality? We have an incorrect perspective of what is real. Our real fits our current perspective only.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

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)?

Are you saying that particular things have in reality nothing in common? But there were people before (and after) you asked: "how many people..." otherwise your question is meaningless.

 

[PearlSeeker]

"shadowy"? Do you mean of uncertain identity or nature? Or do you mean insubstantial? It seems a strange word choice here. Concrete objects are substantial and of certain identity or nature, yes?

I don't think Plato regarded objects of the senses as a mere illusion. For him they are less real than forms. They are imperfect representations, transient and changeable reflections of the forms. That's why Plato used shadows as an metaphor for objects of the senses (in his famous Allegory of the cave).

If I understand this correctly:

the physical table is not a table​

rather the idea of a table (created by God) is actually a table​

and the artist in not imitating an actual table​

but rather is imitating the physical "table" that the carpenter made.​

How then, does this help us resolve the question of what it is that we call a "table"?

The thing we are calling a "table"​

is not actually a table​

but then why do we call it a "table"?​

Every table is a table because it participates in the Form of the table - the abstract essence of every table. For Plato all forms are eternal, not created, but there is one ultimate form - the Form of the Good.

How do the other philosophical positions resolve the question?

I suppose Aristotle can call a table a "table" because tableness is "immanently real within specific things themselves".
Since conceptualism holds that they only exist in the mind, conceptualism can't explain why the thing we call a "table" actually is a real table.
And nominalism seems to deny that there is such a thing as a table.

Yes. Nicely summed up.

 

[RestlessSoul]

That is perfectly OK. What if existence and non-existence are phases of reality? We have an incorrect perspective of what is real. Our real fits our current perspective only.

A paradox then. The material world, with all
it’s apparent richness, texture and depth, is an illusion arising from emptiness.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The goal of this thread is to understand the nature of the intellect.
So far, we have that:

the intellect is part of the human soul (used here as a synonym for the human mind)​

the intellect is associated with the logistikon (reason) or cognitive category​

humans have intellect and other life forms do not (unclear why that is thought to be the case)​

Aristotle defined humans as rational animals but he also noticed intelligent bahaviour of other animals. That's why he said that humans are "the most intelligent of animals".

the forms themselves are universal, immaterial, extramental, and known via the intellect.​

This is true for Plato and platonic school.

But how does Plato deduce that the intellect (part of the human mind) is immaterial and immortal?

I must admit that I haven't studied Plato's (four) arguments in detail yet. They are in Phaedo. Here is a summary of one argument by Edward Feser:

1. The soul knows the Forms, which are eternal, whereas the senses know material things, which pass away.

2. But each of these faculties is like the thing it knows (e.g. the senses are material, the soul is invisible).

3. Thus it is because the senses are like the things they know that they too pass away.

4. So the soul, since it is like the Forms that it knows, must not pass away.

Source:

Plato’s affinity argument

In an earlier post I suggested that the arguments of great philosophers of the past need to be understood, not only in the context of their...

edwardfeser.blogspot.com

On the basis of the previous thread... was it not argued that the forms exist within a supreme intellect? But the intellect discussed in this thread is part of the human mind.

Augustine's explanation is divine illumination. Human mind is illuminated by God. A similar role has the Form of the Good for Plato in his Analogy of the Sun.

In the previous thread we discussed design in nature. For Aristotle form is immanent in the existing things. For example acorn has the form of acorn. But it's final cause (aok tree) is not yet existing (or even may never exist) - acorn is only directed to it as its end. How can something have effect if it's not existing? The only way is that it exists as an idea in the mind. From there we discussed the intellect.

So the intellect can intend or plan actions and outcomes and remain directed toward those ends. It can also think about things that exist, existed before, never existed, never will exist. And it can do this not necessarily with a purpose or intent - you can just direct or point your mind (contemplate). All this is called intentionality. And it's impossible to reduce this to anything material.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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".

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...doQuc238789.html) (800 BCE and later)

Quantum vacuum is not nothing - it's something. It's just that there is nothing stable in this state.

" Two paths are open to investigation.
The first says: being is and nonbeing is not.
It is the path of certainty, because it follows the truth.
The other says: being is not, therefore nonbeing is.
This misdirected path, I tell you, cannot lead to a sound conviction
For, if this statement were true, it would not be possible for you to conceive of nonbeing, nor to
na me it." (Parmenides, On Reality)

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

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

I address the value of your comments separately. I call out the emotional content to convey that I have lowered expectations that you will receive my comments with an open mind.

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.

Why the necessity to appoint? Shouldn't your arguments alone be sufficient to demonstrate your capacities?

As to your access to other dimensions, I am highly skeptical. We human beings are imperfect creatures. We have a tremendous capacity to misperceive, miscategorize, misinterpret, as well as deceive ourselves, for many varied reasons. In short, we cannot implicitly trust ourselves or any other single observer. Your explicit trust in your "astounding powers of deduction" are a red flag to me. I would not take your, my, or any other persons deductive abilities for granted, even with a proven track record. Whatever we might deduce must be thoroughly reconciled within the complete corpus of understanding we share. It must first meet the hurdle of falsifiability and then be satisfactorily demonstrated, shown that it has explanatory and predictive power in the real world.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A paradox then. The material world, with all
it’s apparent richness, texture and depth, is an illusion arising from emptiness.

Material? How would you define material? E=mc(squared)
It could well be.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

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.

There are lots of examples in life where we understand the source and cause of a problem yet lack the capacity to do anything about it, be it the cause of a volcanic eruption or the cause of Down Syndrome, for example. I think your retort falls short here.

"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.

You seem to want to argue that if we do not have an utterly complete understanding then we have no understanding at all. All I can say here is that I would not agree, nor do I imagine many others.

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.

Oh, I quite disagree. Each new generation does not start from the same point as our earliest ancestors. With the advent of language and the capacity to transfer the previous generations' acquired knowledge to that of the new, each generation stands on the shoulders of the previous generation and consequently begins their work of better understanding the world with that advantage over their forebears.

Now view this process compounded over a great span of time (in human terms) and we clearly see the power of this process and its capacity to significantly advance our knowledge despite the limitations you cite.

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.

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?

Let’s recall that this little exchange between us started with my comment:

“We gain confidence in that collective reality because it has predictive power. The expectations we develop regarding reality are met.”- LINK

You had been challenging my view that we can know things about reality and now you seem to suddenly acknowledge it and pivot to a different issue, the issue of how we behave.

I’m going to stop here as I think my point that we can know reality has clearly been made and to which you seem to grudgingly acknowledge. How we use our continually increasing knowledge is a discussion for another thread.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

We are actually aware, of being aware, of existence. The human brain has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The ego is the center of the conscious mind, and the inner self is the center of the unconscious mind. The two centers, like two eyes, adds a stereo optic effect; simulated 3-D.

When you watch a beautiful sunset, that nice timeless feeling, comes from the inner self, processing this natural data, that even the cave men saw. It is a time average awareness on the human DNA. We are aware of the timeless feelings that the inner self gives us, which have this feeling of an eternal human commonality. That awe is like vision in 3-D; two eyes of temporal words and eternal feelings. This is two data streams; blended. However, those who are unaware of the inner self and assume one stream with try to blend, so the temporal words may appear to reflect the eternal truth; heart felt opinion that falls short due to the words.

We; ego, are aware, we; inner self, is aware, and it is expressing joy. The inner self has this pure visual translation, which the ego can enjoy at an intuitive level. Or it can try to put that into words. However, a glorious sunset, is hard to put into words and with just those words, induce the same feelings of awareness in others as an actual sunset. It would hard to recreate that experience with just words. Even science falls short, of the inner self wisdom; 3-D view, which is why science is still needed and everyone in science has not already retired from science; steady state has not been reached. We feel the awe but cannot pin it down 100%. Clinging to obsolete does not make it eternal. That is politics.

I did unconscious mind research on myself to get to the source of the primary awareness; inner self. This ancient natural part of the brain, that is still with us, has been updated with the times; impact of the ego over time; updated operating system. I do have an advantage in terms of seeing how the hierarchy works, as well as having learned a more efficient language for translations; visual/intuitive.

As an another analogy, say you take a new job in science and have a PC; ego, that was connected to a mainframe computer; inner self. You have a science problem, so you; ego set upon the mathematical matrix of an iterative method. Your PC would take days or weeks to process and reach a steady state. So you send it to the main frame, since it has more speed, and get an output in much shorter time.

Let us add to this, the fact that you are not aware your PC is also connection to the main frame; two centers. Nobody told you and/or you are discouraged to use it. You do it the old fashion way and wait, while also getting this strange secondary output, very fast. But you are not aware, you are aware; you are not aware you are connected to the main frame processing output. The output does not match since it is more advanced in time; faster.

You deny the inner self in favor of a science procedure. The Philosophy of science; external only, is good if the goal is 1-D science. But the mainframe; internal data, adds a second eye for a more natural 3-D view. Science philosophy would need an update to include the inner self main frame data, so that data stream can also be made useful. Its wiring is the product of natural selection with natural potentials, which gives the output a natural flavor, not blended with ego language and the contrived; awe without the words.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Yes, but it's not enough that we exist and are aware of that. Science depends on some additional metaphysical assumptions. For example:

Objective reality exist.

This reality is intelligible - it has structure that is accessible to our senses and reason.

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” (Albert Einstein)

Just to clarify terminology, your initial comment was, “Then science is also simply speculations - because it's founded on philosophical speculation.” - LINK

Above you reference “metaphysical assumptions”. Is this synonymous with “philosophical speculations”? For me, ‘assumption’ and ‘speculation’ are not synonyms. While to ‘assume’ would be to take for granted as true, to ‘speculate’ would be to propose something is the case with its truth or accuracy yet to be determined. Both terms are quite broad and general, and are used within a spectrum of confidence in the associated conclusion. In other words, we can assume and speculate with little to support the conclusion.

While science definitely uses speculation in developing a hypothesis, in generating a line of potential inquiry, is it accurate to declare all of science based on mere speculation? I would say the answer is clearly no. In fact, I would say that one of the fundamental principles of science is that nothing is taken for granted. For science there are no unchallengeable axioms. Everything is up for reevaluation as new facts come to light.

Is it accurate to characterize the assertion that there *is* an objective reality, and that reality *is* intelligible, as merely assumption or speculation? Again, I would say the answer is a definitive no. Both conclusions are drawn from the vast experience of billions of observers over a great expanse of time, experiences that we have ample confidence in based on the expectations we have drawn from those conclusions having been continually met.

As to the Einstein quote, I do not share the sentiment. The universe has demonstrated that it is comprehensible, why should we expect otherwise?

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

We are actually aware, of being aware, of existence. The human brain has two centers of consciousness; inner self and ego. The ego is the center of the conscious mind, and the inner self is the center of the unconscious mind. The two centers, like two eyes, adds a stereo optic effect; simulated 3-D.

When you watch a beautiful sunset, that nice timeless feeling, comes from the inner self, processing this natural data, that even the cave men saw. It is a time average awareness on the human DNA. We are aware of the timeless feelings that the inner self gives us, which have this feeling of an eternal human commonality. That awe is like vision in 3-D; two eyes of temporal words and eternal feelings. This is two data streams; blended. However, those who are unaware of the inner self and assume one stream with try to blend, so the temporal words may appear to reflect the eternal truth; heart felt opinion that falls short due to the words.

We; ego, are aware, we; inner self, is aware, and it is expressing joy. The inner self has this pure visual translation, which the ego can enjoy at an intuitive level. Or it can try to put that into words. However, a glorious sunset, is hard to put into words and with just those words, induce the same feelings of awareness in others as an actual sunset. It would hard to recreate that experience with just words. Even science falls short, of the inner self wisdom; 3-D view, which is why science is still needed and everyone in science has not already retired from science; steady state has not been reached. We feel the awe but cannot pin it down 100%. Clinging to obsolete does not make it eternal. That is politics.

I did unconscious mind research on myself to get to the source of the primary awareness; inner self. This ancient natural part of the brain, that is still with us, has been updated with the times; impact of the ego over time; updated operating system. I do have an advantage in terms of seeing how the hierarchy works, as well as having learned a more efficient language for translations; visual/intuitive.

As an another analogy, say you take a new job in science and have a PC; ego, that was connected to a mainframe computer; inner self. You have a science problem, so you; ego set upon the mathematical matrix of an iterative method. Your PC would take days or weeks to process and reach a steady state. So you send it to the main frame, since it has more speed, and get an output in much shorter time.

Let us add to this, the fact that you are not aware your PC is also connection to the main frame; two centers. Nobody told you and/or you are discouraged to use it. You do it the old fashion way and wait, while also getting this strange secondary output, very fast. But you are not aware, you are aware; you are not aware you are connected to the main frame processing output. The output does not match since it is more advanced in time; faster.

You deny the inner self in favor of a science procedure. The Philosophy of science; external only, is good if the goal is 1-D science. But the mainframe; internal data, adds a second eye for a more natural 3-D view. Science philosophy would need an update to include the inner self main frame data, so that data stream can also be made useful. Its wiring is the product of natural selection with natural potentials, which gives the output a natural flavor, not blended with ego language and the contrived; awe without the words.

The fundamental lesson of the scientific revolution is that we cannot rely on either your asserted "ego" nor your asserted "inner self", regardless of whether your metaphor has any value. Human beings are fallible creatures and to deny or ignore this will only hamper and frustrate one's efforts in pursing a greater understanding of the Cosmos and ourselves. We must maintain a reasoned skepticism towards the subjective product of any individual, and instead rely on the standards of scientific inquiry to sort the wheat from the chaff. This is the way progress has been made, time and again, over the less effectual practice of philosophy that came before.