On the nature of intellect

[RestlessSoul]

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.

Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution, which he began to formulate whilst researching a course on Aristotle he was planning to teach at Harvard, does indeed challenge the received view that scientific progress is cumulative in a linear manner.

Most scientific research, Kuhn argues, takes place within an established paradigm, a prevailing orthodoxy which is seldom challenged by the scientists working within it. Operating with an agreed set of axioms and assumptions, scientists communicate and co-operate, building on each other’s observations and experiments.

However, here’s the rub; within any paradigm, anomalies eventually begin to accumulate. These anomalies are initially disregarded in the hope they will eventually be resolved (as, for example, contemporary cosmologists hope to directly observe dark matter). Eventually however, the accumulation of anomalies begins to constitute a crisis, and the prevailing paradigm begins to be questioned.

Crisis eventually leads to a scientific revolution, in which a paradigm is wholly replaced by a new one which better matches the way scientists collectively now view the world. Most genuinely innovative science is done during these revolutionary stages, when dissenting voices are heard, and old assumptions are challenged.

The holistic rejection of one paradigm in favour of another, implies that scientific progress is not cumulative between paradigms. Moreover, non commensurability between paradigms implies that it is meaningless to even compare competing paradigms because even the meaning of theoretical terms are defined by the paradigm in which they are used. For example, Kuhn observed that Aristotle had a very different concept of motion, than did Newton. With this in mind, we should be cautious when making statements like “Aristotle was wrong”, or Newton was wrong, or Einstein was wrong, when evaluating work done in one paradigm, from the perspective of another. Especially when we recognise that all our own cherished theories are likely to be overthrown at some time in the future.

Defending his work from accusations of anti rationalism and mob psychology, Kuhn identified those core scientific values which he considered common to all paradigms; theories should be empirically accurate, consistent with other accepted theories, wide in scope, simple and fruitful.

Anyway, get yourself a copy of Kuhn’s seminal work. It’s quite short, and accessible.

 

[PearlSeeker]

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.

Yes, Aristotle didn't completely agree with Plato about forms - for him forms (essences) don't exist in a sperate realm (apart from matter). But there is an exception. Aristotle distinguished between passive and active intellect. The later is of the same nature as the Plato's concept of intellect.

The reason why Aristotle came to postulate an active intellect was his rejection of Plato’s theory that the essences of sensible things existed apart from matter, in a state of actual intelligibility. For Plato there was clearly no need to posit an active intellect. But Aristotle, who regarded the essences of sensible things as existing in matter with only a potential intelligibility, had to invoke some abstractive principle in the mind itself to render these essences actually intelligible. (Aquinas’s commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima)​

​

Source:

The Medieval Problem of Universals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[Tomef]

Yes, Aristotle didn't completely agree with Plato about forms - for him forms (essences) don't exist in a sperate realm (apart from matter). But there is an exception. Aristotle distinguished between passive and active intellect. The later is of the same nature as the Plato's concept of intellect.

The reason why Aristotle came to postulate an active intellect was his rejection of Plato’s theory that the essences of sensible things existed apart from matter, in a state of actual intelligibility. For Plato there was clearly no need to posit an active intellect. But Aristotle, who regarded the essences of sensible things as existing in matter with only a potential intelligibility, had to invoke some abstractive principle in the mind itself to render these essences actually intelligible. (Aquinas’s commentary on Aristotle’s De Anima)​

​

Source:

The Medieval Problem of Universals (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Sure, but what Aristotle meant by essence isn't the same as what Plato meant, so passive or not the intellect in Aristotle's conception doesn't correspond with the notion of an immaterial intellect defined as such through its ability to 'know' the essence of things in their ultimate 'form'.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Sure, but what Aristotle meant by essence isn't the same as what Plato meant, so passive or not the intellect in Aristotle's conception doesn't correspond with the notion of an immaterial intellect defined as such through its ability to 'know' the essence of things in their ultimate 'form'.

It corresponds to immaterial intellect but yes, it's form is not the same kind as Plato’s forms. Aristotle's immaterial object is a particular thing, not an uninstantiated universal.

 

[Sinful Hypocrite]

I love how this conversation dives into the differences between Plato and Aristotle! It’s fascinating how they each tackle the idea of intellect. Plato's forms feel so abstract and almost otherworldly, while Aristotle brings it back to reality with his notion of active intellect. It’s like they’re approaching knowledge from two sides of the same coin. Makes me wonder if we’re really discovering timeless truths or just piecing together our own experiences.

 

[Tomef]

It corresponds to immaterial intellect but yes, it's form is not the same kind as Plato’s forms. Aristotle's immaterial object is a particular thing, not an uninstantiated universal.

Aristotle's conception doesn't seem all that different to cartesian dualism, or any other sort of mind/body, mind soul dualism. The sort of idea that's still quite common. It makes a kind of sense, as in his use of a country and its constitution as an analogy, the country is the material entity, the constitution what gives it 'form'. But it doesn't follow that mind and body have to be separate. There are much more definite examples of how alterations in the body, especially in the brain, influence the functioning of the mind, and a number of diseases that attack the brain can send what we call the mind into disorder or pretty much stop it working altogether. So, although there might be some other thing we don't know about yet, current evidence points to the mind and consciousness being an integral function of the material body, and the environment it exists in. That isn't to say there aren't other possibilities, but what reason is there to try and jump back to a time when virtually nothing was known about the functioning of the mind? Aristotle's paradigm made sense according to the way he perceived the world, some of his ideas have stood the test of time, some haven't. That's the sense of incommensurate in Kuhn, that a paradigm makes sense only within its own terms of reference, not that successive paradigms don't add anything to human knowledge. Should we all avoid the sin of eating beans? Probably not many people subcribe to that one. Is there a perfect form of the mobile phone outside of space time? Is there an outside of space time? Are there perfect unicorns there too? Over a long timescale, paradigms that are closer to objective reality, because with time more things are discovered about objective reality (without getting into a tangent about what objective reality is, for the purposes of this post what is generally considered to be the real world) and with more knowledge more comprehensive hypotheses can be formed and tested.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Why do you think so?

The initial factor determining intellect, Homo sapien cognitive ability specifically, would be the specific set of DNA that an individual is born with. Subsequent to that, intellectual capacity or potential is influenced by environmental conditions throughout development of the central nervous and endocrine systems of the individual, both during fetal development and throughout develepment into adulthood.

What determines human cognition, human intellect, and ultimately how it expresses itself is quite complex and far from completely understood. Plato's speculations, formed in period of relatively greater ignorance than today, had no awareness of any of the factors mentioned above.

The fuctioning of the human mind is innately tied to the physical structures of the CNS and endocrine systems as has been clearly demonstrated through many studies relating to injury and illnesses associated with the various components of these systems as well as direct studies on the function of these systems within other species.

So Plato was wrong. Wrong about Universal Forms as they are simply a product of his imagination; and wrong about the mind, intellect, etc being immaterial and immortal.

Again, if your goal is to understand human intellect, it is my recommendation you begin with a survey of our current understanding of the broad multidiciplinary topic of neurociences and behavioral sciences as they stand today.

ETA: Given what we can glean of both Plato's and Aristotle's personalities from their writings, where would you imagine they would start their search in understanding human intellect if they were born in this day and age?

 

[Ostronomos]

The fuctioning of the human mind is innately tied to the physical structures of the CNS and endocrine systems as has been clearly demonstrated through many studies relating to injury and illnesses associated with the various components of these systems as well as direct studies on the function of these systems within other species.

This is false. It is possible to explore other avenues and arguments in which mind does not = to brain, but rather, mind = reality in general.

The human body is simply a conduit for the mind/ consciousness. Consciousness is said to enter from a higher dimension. For those (such as myself) who have experienced supernatural experiences, we can testify to the veracity of this claim.

So Plato was wrong. Wrong about Universal Forms as they are simply a product of his imagination; and wrong about the mind, intellect, etc being immaterial and immortal.

Again, you are the one who makes this claim out of pure, unadulterated arrogance.

Again, if your goal is to understand human intellect, it is my recommendation you begin with a survey of our current understanding of the broad multidiciplinary topic of neurociences and behavioral sciences as they stand today.

These sciences are only beginning to scratch the surface of a comprehensive understanding of the mind as something that is not dependent on the brain. Your appeal to authority does not stand up to scrutiny. I recently posted an article that proves that the mind can fill our flesh and blood bodies as well as everything else including the entire universe.

Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are not known through matter, only through mind connection.

God is in our hearts?

Could the qualities of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience be possible without intelligent lifeforms to conceive it?

Does God, in the religious sense, acheive these qualities by existing "in" our hearts in times of need? But how do we define "need". Is "need" merely the feeling that arises as a defence mechanism against the horror of unreality and "anti-creation"?

Their seems to be an emotional tendency towards God where science is absent. But if God possesses the above qualities (the three O's), science cannot bereft God despite our claims.

The argument from transhumanism suggests that intelligence is inevitable and that it can evolve to the point that it eventually embodies the three O's.

 

[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.

Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolution, which he began to formulate whilst researching a course on Aristotle he was planning to teach at Harvard, does indeed challenge the received view that scientific progress is cumulative in a linear manner.

The word "incrementally" did not exclusively connote linearity in my mind. Regardless, your clarifying point is taken.

Still, Kuhn seems to agree that knowledge is cumulatively built, which would be the more relevant aspect regarding my point.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

This is false. It is possible to explore other avenues and arguments in which mind does not = to brain, but rather, mind = reality in general.

The human body is simply a conduit for the mind/ consciousness. Consciousness is said to enter from a higher dimension. For those (such as myself) who have experienced supernatural experiences, we can testify to the veracity of this claim.

Again, you are the one who makes this claim out of pure, unadulterated arrogance.

These sciences are only beginning to scratch the surface of a comprehensive understanding of the mind as something that is not dependent on the brain. Your appeal to authority does not stand up to scrutiny. I recently posted an article that proves that the mind can fill our flesh and blood bodies as well as everything else including the entire universe.

Omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence are not known through matter, only through mind connection.

God is in our hearts?

Could the qualities of omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience be possible without intelligent lifeforms to conceive it?

Does God, in the religious sense, acheive these qualities by existing "in" our hearts in times of need? But how do we define "need". Is "need" merely the feeling that arises as a defence mechanism against the horror of unreality and "anti-creation"?

Their seems to be an emotional tendency towards God where science is absent. But if God possesses the above qualities (the three O's), science cannot bereft God despite our claims.

The argument from transhumanism suggests that intelligence is inevitable and that it can evolve to the point that it eventually embodies the three O's.

I'll just say that I'm quite skeptical regarding your claims here and leave it at that.

Cheers.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Aristotle's conception doesn't seem all that different to cartesian dualism, or any other sort of mind/body, mind soul dualism. The sort of idea that's still quite common. It makes a kind of sense, as in his use of a country and its constitution as an analogy, the country is the material entity, the constitution what gives it 'form'. But it doesn't follow that mind and body have to be separate. There are much more definite examples of how alterations in the body, especially in the brain, influence the functioning of the mind, and a number of diseases that attack the brain can send what we call the mind into disorder or pretty much stop it working altogether. So, although there might be some other thing we don't know about yet, current evidence points to the mind and consciousness being an integral function of the material body, and the environment it exists in. That isn't to say there aren't other possibilities, but what reason is there to try and jump back to a time when virtually nothing was known about the functioning of the mind? Aristotle's paradigm made sense according to the way he perceived the world, some of his ideas have stood the test of time, some haven't. That's the sense of incommensurate in Kuhn, that a paradigm makes sense only within its own terms of reference, not that successive paradigms don't add anything to human knowledge. Should we all avoid the sin of eating beans? Probably not many people subcribe to that one. Is there a perfect form of the mobile phone outside of space time? Is there an outside of space time? Are there perfect unicorns there too? Over a long timescale, paradigms that are closer to objective reality, because with time more things are discovered about objective reality (without getting into a tangent about what objective reality is, for the purposes of this post what is generally considered to be the real world) and with more knowledge more comprehensive hypotheses can be formed and tested.

Aristotle's conception is not dualism. Right the opposite. Form and matter are not separate. Active intellect as something immortal is an exception. And there were debates what Aristotle actually meant with this term.

 

[PearlSeeker]

The initial factor determining intellect, Homo sapien cognitive ability specifically, would be the specific set of DNA that an individual is born with. Subsequent to that, intellectual capacity or potential is influenced by environmental conditions throughout development of the central nervous and endocrine systems of the individual, both during fetal development and throughout develepment into adulthood.

This explains only the biological aspect - how brain evolved and how it forms.

What determines human cognition, human intellect, and ultimately how it expresses itself is quite complex and far from completely understood. Plato's speculations, formed in period of relatively greater ignorance than today, had no awareness of any of the factors mentioned above.

You don't have to know all the biological aspects if you are trying to understand the fundamental nature beyond those aspects. You use introspection, logic and reasoning.

 

[Tomef]

Aristotle's conception is not dualism. Right the opposite. Form and matter are not separate. Active intellect as something immortal is an exception. And there were debates what Aristotle actually meant with this term.

There's no point in having a discussion if you just hunt around for things that fit what you want to think. There are lots of different 'Aristotles', lots of different interpretations. As you say 'there were debates', and are ongoing debates, to put it your way. Hylomorphic dualism is still dualism, it differs from Plato's, the original point, in that Aristotle didn't accept the idea of forms in its entirety, and immaterial souls. But he didn't rule out immaterial intellects/minds, whatever you want to call it, either. His state/constitution example illustrates the idea, one thing, two parts. That Aristotle has a kind of theoretical intellect with some demiurgic source as the immaterial part only makes the overall idea different from cartesian dualism in the nature of the details.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

This explains only the biological aspect - how brain evolved and how it forms.

And how it works.

You don't have to know all the biological aspects if you are trying to understand the fundamental nature beyond those aspects. You use introspection, logic and reasoning.

Yet there is no logical or reasonable justification for speculating there is some fundamental nature beyond the biological aspects.

If we have learned anything over these many centuries it is that human beings are imperfect creatures, individually susceptable to all manner of flawed thinking. All subjective introspection will get you is an understanding of how you wish the world to be, not an understanding of how it actually is.

Logic has extremely limited utility in expanding our understanding into unknown territory as we don't know what we don't know and therefore are often hamstrung with insufficient factual information upon which to apply any logical process. In other words, logic alone will not help us. We must demonstrate and observe something is so in order to have any confidence that it is so.

I think it is becoming clear as to why you wish to center your investigation of intellect within the ancient past. It allows you to indulge your subjective preference of how you wish things to be without having to reconcile all that has been discovered to date that may conflict or contradict with your subjective desires.

 

[Ponder This]

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.

There's are some terms to unpack there:
"highest faculty" This seems to mean the most important faculty, which immediately raises the questions: What are the other faculties? And why is nous the most important faculty?
"human soul" what is it?

nor mental – that is to say, something that exists neither in the material world nor merely in the human mind

What is meant here by "human mind"? And what is the diffference between mind and soul?

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.

"universal" in this context, I take it is meant that the essence of these things is not simply a matter of one's personal perspective
"intellect" this is the subject of the thread. Here it's asserted the the intellect is the means by which the essence of things is known and it is implied that intellect is something humans have. But is the intellect of the human mind? Or is it of the human soul?

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

Then how is the essence of a table related to the physical existence of something we call a table?
And how is the human soul related to the human mind?... This brings me back to:

something that exists neither in the material world nor merely in the human mind

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

 

[PearlSeeker]

That Aristotle has a kind of theoretical intellect with some demiurgic source as the immaterial part only makes the overall idea different from cartesian dualism in the nature of the details.

Yes, there is a hylomorphic dualism - the difference between human (rational) soul and lower forms... This is very different from the Cartesian dualism. Not just in details.

 

[Tomef]

Yes, there is a hylomorphic dualism - the difference between human (rational) soul and lower forms... This is very different from the Cartesian dualism. Not just in details.

Where did you find that definition?

As in my past post - That Aristotle has a kind of theoretical intellect with some demiurgic source as the immaterial part only makes the overall idea different from cartesian dualism in the nature of the details. - this is the dualism part, as in my post, not hylomorphic dualism part (a composite of form and matter, I don't know where you got the idea of 'lower forms' from). Aristotle had that notion of a unified soul/body, although not in a physical sense, and the possibility of immaterial intellects. Bear in mind these are interpretations of Aristotle, and so speculative.

If you read what the post says before replying, it saves time. What is it you are getting at? Your original point was something about souls and bodies being separate I think, and there being forms outside of spacetime, referencing Plato, my point was that Aristotle argued quite convincingly against Plato's ideas of forms, so what point is it you are making now?

 

[Tomef]

This is very different from the Cartesian dualism.

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

 

[PearlSeeker]

Yet there is no logical or reasonable justification for speculating there is some fundamental nature beyond the biological aspects.

If we have learned anything over these many centuries it is that human beings are imperfect creatures, individually susceptable to all manner of flawed thinking. All subjective introspection will get you is an understanding of how you wish the world to be, not an understanding of how it actually is.

Logic has extremely limited utility in expanding our understanding into unknown territory as we don't know what we don't know and therefore are often hamstrung with insufficient factual information upon which to apply any logical process. In other words, logic alone will not help us. We must demonstrate and observe something is so in order to have any confidence that it is so.

I think it is becoming clear as to why you wish to center your investigation of intellect within the ancient past. It allows you to indulge your subjective preference of how you wish things to be without having to reconcile all that has been discovered to date that may conflict or contradict with your subjective desires.

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

 

[PearlSeeker]

There's are some terms to unpack there:
"highest faculty" This seems to mean the most important faculty, which immediately raises the questions: What are the other faculties? And why is nous the most important faculty?
"human soul" what is it?

"Plato divided the soul into three parts: the logistikon (reason), the thymoeides (spirit[ed part] , which houses anger, as well as other spirited emotions), and the epithymetikon (appetite or desire, which houses the desire for physical pleasures)." (Wiki) Nous is associated with logistikon. It's the highest part because it's naturally intended to guide and rule. Plato explained this with an allegory - a chariot with a charioteer and two horses. He also applied the same model to state government...

Today psychology usually classifies mental processes into three categories: cognitive, emotional and motivational (and also conscious and unconscious). They encompass different mental abilities that can be divided into different categories, which vary in number between specific scholars and schools...

Human soul or psyche is human mind. Aristotle used this term as essence or form of any living thing. "His discussion [On the Soul] centres on the kinds of souls possessed by different kinds of living things, distinguished by their different operations. Thus plants have the capacity for nourishment and reproduction, the minimum that must be possessed by any kind of living organism. Lower animals have, in addition, the powers of sense-perception and self-motion (action). Humans have all these as well as intellect." (Wiki)