On the nature of intellect

[PearlSeeker]

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.

 

[PureX]

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).

They then sought to understand this 'logos' mostly through mathematics as they saw mathematics as being the language of logical relationships. Which is kind of us. Especially in terms of 'ratios'. Which the Greeks were fascinated by.

But I'm not sure how much "truth" they can claim to have learned. That is still a very debatable goal line. They certainly did increase our collective human facility for reason, though. I will give them that much!

 

[PearlSeeker]

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).

They then sought to understand this 'logos' mostly through mathematics as they saw mathematics as being the language of logical relationships. Which is kind of us. Especially in terms of 'ratios'. Which the Greeks were fascinated by.

But I'm not sure how much "truth" they can claim to have learned. That is still a very debatable goal line. They certainly did increase our collective human facility for reason, though. I will give them that much!

Greek concept of reasoning involves discursive thinking (dianoia) as well as intuitive immediate grasp of truth (noesis).

 

[Kathryn]

All I know is that I am reading the Aeneid by Virgil and I am half way through it and so far all it is a bunch of fighting. The language is beautiful but it is still mostly just fighting.


Oh, wait, Virgil is Roman.

 

[wellwisher]

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.

These ancient thoughts of Plato, also applies to human invention, such as new technology that would not naturally form from natural laws. The iPhone would never be found growing on trees of dug up in mines. Such things are about a future beyond natural laws. Something like the triangle is not very common in nature, until we go down to the atomic and molecular state. It is more of a product of the mind in ancient times since they could not see atoms, but they could imagine them.

I model this analysis as connected space and time, where we have connected space-time and separated space and separated time. We live in space-time, which is based on matter and mass, with mass, via GR, what sustains space-time. The mass of the sun creates a radial space-time gradient zone of space-time references, that moves with the mass, as the sun moves in the galaxy. Space-time is tangible reality governed by the law of physics.

Separated space and time, have different properties since these two variables can act independently of each other. This is more like the third realm and also appears to be connected to the human mind and imagination; consciousness. We can imagine things that are natural and as well as not natural. We can imagine fact or fiction. Fact can be define was what is connected to space-time; the tangible. Fiction may look like fact; look tangible, but is not quite anchored in space-time. It is more ethereal as though space and time are not joined all the way to tethered tangible space-time reality.

In historical fiction; War and Peace, many things written were part of space-time; historical facts. But there is also a human plot of things that could be possible, since it touches upon the human condition, but the character are not exactly a part of tangible space-time.

Separated space and separated time do exist and was proven by Heisenberg and is the basis for what is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that there is inherent uncertainty in the act of measuring a variable of a particle. Commonly applied to the position and momentum of a particle, the principle states that the more precisely the position is known the more uncertain the momentum is and vice versa.

Position is connected to space, while momentum needs time to be expressed. If the particle was just in space-time, these two variables should always act together. But Heisenberg's experiment show an inverse relationship, as though both are not exactly tethered,, but are acting like each can move in its own way, at least at the quantum level.

Quantum entanglement is where two particles synchronize in time, independent of distance; needs time potential. To do this they conceptually need to send signals to each other faster than the speed of light, which is the limit of tangible space-time. The third realm or independent space and time are not only common to the quantum state, but also to life and consciousness, with the connection to consciousness, inferred by human creation beyond the natural laws of space-time; ethereal to tangible and tangible to tangible.

The quantum state is a bridge between the two extremes of space-time and independent space and time. It is part space-time tangible and part separated space and separate time; electron is tangible, but also Heisenberg Uncertain when in motion. Our brain and consciousness also appear to go both ways. It is interesting how the ancient brain, could see the future of Physics. This comes from the inner self and the thalamus; most wired part of the brain. There time is not exactly tethered to any particular space-time era.

 

[Ostronomos]

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).

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.

They then sought to understand this 'logos' mostly through mathematics as they saw mathematics as being the language of logical relationships. Which is kind of us. Especially in terms of 'ratios'. Which the Greeks were fascinated by.

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.

 

[RestlessSoul]

All I know is that I am reading the Aeneid by Virgil and I am half way through it and so far all it is a bunch of fighting. The language is beautiful but it is still mostly just fighting.


Oh, wait, Virgil is Roman.

The Greeks did a lot of fighting too, mostly against each other. But when they weren’t fighting they were thinking, and what they thought about they recorded because they were also literate.

When you’ve finished the Aeneid, you might want to try Virgil’s Georgics, an epic poem about agriculture, the seasons, and the joys and burdens of human labour.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

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

Plato would be wrong.

Curious as to why you would look back to our (Humanity in general) distance and more ignorant past to find answers regarding the nature of Homo sapien cognition?

Our collective base of knowledge is a work in progress, built incrementally over time, continually revised and improved as new information is reconciled and encorporated into that collective base of knowledge.

My recommendation would be to start your search regarding the nature of intellect in 2024, not the 4th century BCE.

 

[Tomef]

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

Since it can imagine the forms, as in the abstract geometric forms, rather. Those 'forms' that are knowable are the ones used as the basis for the theory, the intellect doesn't 'know' theorised forms. Once you get past that it all gets more dubious.I mean, what is the perfect form or a table, or a tree, or a person? That's a much more subjective notion than what determines the shape of a triangle. There are a lot of begged questions, too. For one thing, triangles do exist in nature. And because a set of mathematical rules are devised to define different types of triangle, this is a process of definition, not the discovery of 'the essence of triangle'. If there were no thinking brains, there would be no geometry, and all the evidence points to thinking brains being part of spacetime. The notion that triangles or anything else exists outside of what we know as spacetime is an act of imagination, coming from inside our brains, not something imposed from the outside.

Plato's ideas had a lot of influence on some NT writers, especially Paul, with his ideas of the ultimate form of spiritual bodies, the perfect knowledge now seen through a glass darkly, and so on, which might explain why those ideas have intuitive appeal to some Christians, but the idea that being able to imagine abstract things somehow proves brains are immaterial doesn't hold much water. If that were the case, why would changes in the brain affect how people think? There were a lot of things that 'made sense at the time', but which have been updated many times over through new discoveries. In the case of the forms, Plato in his later writings clearly recognised that it didn't really work, but he didn't have another overarching idea to replace it with. His own most famous student, Aristotle, pretty much put the idea to bed while Plato was still alive.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Plato would be wrong.

Curious as to why you would look back to our (Humanity in general) distance and more ignorant past to find answers regarding the nature of Homo sapien cognition?

Our collective base of knowledge is a work in progress, built incrementally over time, continually revised and improved as new information is reconciled and encorporated into that collective base of knowledge.

My recommendation would be to start your search regarding the nature of intellect in 2024, not the 4th century BCE.

My recommendation to you would be to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (1962, University of Chicago Press) and familiarise yourself with contemporary objections to the assumption that knowledge is built incrementally over time.

 

[Balthazzar]

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).

They then sought to understand this 'logos' mostly through mathematics as they saw mathematics as being the language of logical relationships. Which is kind of us. Especially in terms of 'ratios'. Which the Greeks were fascinated by.

But I'm not sure how much "truth" they can claim to have learned. That is still a very debatable goal line. They certainly did increase our collective human facility for reason, though. I will give them that much!

I agree with the way the Greeks defined it. Spinoza's understanding of God is where I tend to stand as a Christian, and the Logos applies to everything as THE expression of truth. Truth comes in many forms and through many vehicles. I particularly enjoy the logos as applied through music and art. It's in truth that we are able to increase intellect, so between all the vehicles adequate for the expression of truth, I think they all play equal roles, even in the opposite less honest expressions of truth as moral teachings. One of the limiting factors to intelligence are lies/deceit/and dishonesty and this is due to always having a need to cover and hide the practice. Brilliant people can be dishonest, and the mental gymnastics involved can be a feat in and of themselves, but the practice still clogs the pathways.

 

[Tomef]

My recommendation to you would be to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (1962, University of Chicago Press) and familiarise yourself with contemporary objections to the assumption that knowledge is built incrementally over time.

Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions are arrived at incrementally. His argument (or part of it) is that paradigms don't suddenly shift because of one act of genius, but through iterative processes that build to a kind of critical mass. That is as opposed to the idea of a kind of flow wherein the paradigm remains the same and is added to. That isn't to say, though, as you seem to be saying, Kuhn didn't think scientific knowledge grows, his arguments are to do with how it develops, not whether it does.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Kuhn argues that scientific revolutions are arrived at incrementally. His argument (or part of it) is that paradigms don't suddenly shift because of one act of genius, but through iterative processes that build to a kind of critical mass. That is as opposed to the idea of a kind of flow wherein the paradigm remains the same and is added to. That isn't to say, though, as you seem to be saying, Kuhn didn't think scientific knowledge grows, his arguments are to do with how it develops, not whether it does.

I think you need to revisit Kuhn, with particular reference to the concept of non-commensurate paradigms.

 

[Tomef]

I think you need to revisit Kuhn, with particular reference to the concept of non-commensurate paradigms.

That older/newer paradigms can only be evaluated on their own terms isn't an argument that there is no new knowledge. What is it you understand from that? Can you elaborate a bit on what you understood from the point, I mean what your understanding is and how you arrived at it.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

My recommendation to you would be to read The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn (1962, University of Chicago Press) and familiarise yourself with contemporary objections to the assumption that knowledge is built incrementally over time.

Is it your contention that humanity's core level of knowledge hasn't increased over the millennia based on Kuhn's thesis? Is it your position that if one wishes to understand human intellect that they should look no further than Plato?

Or is it simply the word 'incrementally' that is causing you issue? If so, I'm not sure why it would be a significant issue in regards to the point of my post you were commenting on.

I'm happy to look at a synopsis of the book but I will be very suprised to see it argue that overall knowledge hasn't increased from one time period to the next if one were to take a snapshot assessment at different points throughout human history. I would also reiterate that I am talking about the overall corpus of knowledge. We may stall in advancement in one particular line of inquiry over an interval selected yet show progress over that interval in other areas.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Plato would be wrong.

Why do you think so?

 

[PearlSeeker]

Since it can imagine the forms, as in the abstract geometric forms, rather...

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.

 

[Tomef]

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.

That's kind of a non-point. What do you think it has to do with whether or not the mind is immaterial, or what Kuhn had to say? Read the following sentence. Picking parts of a someone's post to raise irrelevant points can come across as arguing in bad faith.

Note also that whatever you think are meant by the words intellect and imagination, you can be sure it doesn't correspond to how Plato, or anyone in his time, thought about the functioning of the mind. It's important to be aware of that kind of thing when discussing the ideas of someone from a totally different era.

Being able to draw up plans for a building does not mean the intellect is formed of floors, rooms or building materials. Being able to set parameters for geometric forms or create thought experiments does not mean that the intellect is not dependent on the physical structure of the brain. Plato himself had plenty of doubts about his own ideas, but he didn't have the information needed to evaluate them, as it were, from outside. Aristotle went a long way in illustrating Plato's errors, and a long way in forming - as in Kuhn's idea of successive (not linear, but successive) paradigms - to developing ideas with a closer correspondence to what is generally considered to be objective reality, in other words things that lead to the development of real world technologies, medicine that heals more than it hurts and so on. A genius in his or her time is a genius in his or her time, that genius does not somehow magically make their ideas an accurate representation of the world. The scientific method of testing hypotheses is the best thing humans have come up with so far for testing ideas. Plato had a tremendous intellect, but he had no possibility of reaching millennia into the future to test his ideas.

 

[Ostronomos]

Plato would be wrong.

Actually, Plato was correct. His ideas have been articulated by other great minds in a multitude of ways. He was well-aware of an immaterial reality. A mathematical ideal.

Curious as to why you would look back to our (Humanity in general) distance and more ignorant past to find answers regarding the nature of Homo sapien cognition?

Our collective base of knowledge is a work in progress, built incrementally over time, continually revised and improved as new information is reconciled and encorporated into that collective base of knowledge.

My recommendation would be to start your search regarding the nature of intellect in 2024, not the 4th century BCE.

Yes, and modern science is confirming what the ancients knew all along.

See: Your Consciousness Can Connect With the Whole Universe, Groundbreaking New Research Suggests

 

[Ostronomos]

The source of reality (the One): It is thought that shortly after the Big Bang, a "soup" of quarks were beginning to join up to form protons, neutrons and mesons.

This lead to the world we see today. But the building blocks of matter are quantum particles, which exhibit quantum weirdness on the microscopic scale. Such behaviors when seen on the macroscopic level, are given the title "supernatural".