On the nature of intellect

[wellwisher]

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

That is correct. Language creates subjective noise, that causes the loss of clarity within the mental entities imagination, when we try to transfer them to the imagination of others, so they can use the universal natural visual language, to see.

The analogy is say you had the image of an object in your mind; imagination. It is the head of a friend. You are an artist and need to transfer that image, to a visual object using clay, so others can see; universal language of sight. A photograph would be easier; visual to visual. Language is like the clay, that we mold into the object; bridge between visual to visual. Based on your subjective/lacking or level of sculpture ability, there are limits to how realistic you can get. There is not a a complete transfer of thought with limited skills on either side.

If we add to this, the other person, may not have ever seen your friend, so what you are visualizing, no matter how it comes out, they have no clue if this is exactly what you saw, and meant, or not. But it is what they see, now, with their universal language of sight. There may not be a good meeting of the minds; some subjective haze, but not universal clarity. The clay gets in the way but it nevertheless gets us closer; your friend at least looks human.

Over time, as scholar ponder the Classics and extrapolate, the clay is molded better and better; practice makes perfect. But when we go back to the time of Plato or other ancient thinkers, they did not have an any starter clay objects. The practical problem became how to make an object that nobody has seen before, if you are not a perfect sculpture. They will not know what to compare it too, and may accept anything and become confused, comparing it only to what they are seeing. You may have to dumb it down to what is known, as an analogy, and over time, add more onto the clay figure.

The larger refined data based of modern times, allows for more analogies, as a platform for the clay goals of language. It is not smarter but easier, now. The ground floor is the hardest part and as things elevate one can stand on the shoulders of giants to see and transfer, further.

I speak not from Philosophy, but more from the practical needs of visual thought transfer into a universal language of another person's imagination, via the limits of language. Different philosophies often formed due to the clay of language, that is not perfectly formed, adding subjectivity and another branch. Then the same practical challenges appear for that new foundation.

 

[Ostronomos]

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

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

CH'WRONG!

With astounding powers of deduction we can know that there are more than one universe. We can know that our universe is a simulation. We can know that space, time and object are not all there is. We can also know and speak of the Platonic realm. So your belief that we cannot know anything outside of science is simply false.

 

[PearlSeeker]

IMO, we created triangles as an abstract shape and apply abstract rules the perfection of which belies their actual existence outside of human intellect. We create a mental construct of the universe which we can analyze and deconstruct so we can pretend to know something about the actual universe.

Intellect, it is a way of creating an alternate reality in our minds which provides an illusion of understanding. So sure lots of immaterial stuff in the sense that none of it exists outside of the mental realities we create for ourselves.

Some version of (philosophical) realism is necessary to make sense of language, science, mathematics and the intelligibility of the world. For example, what we know about triangles are objective facts, things we have discovered rather than invented. It is not up to us to decide that the angles of a triangle should add up to 180 degrees etc. These things were true long before we discovered them and will remain true even if every particular triangular thing and every mind that might think about triangularity went out of existence. Wouldn’t it still be true that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees? Of course it would.

We didn’t invent mathematical and geometrical truths, propositions, universals... couldn’t change them if we wanted to – they do not depend on our minds. It is implausible to regard them either as material things or as dependent on the human mind for their existence.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

CH'WRONG!

With astounding powers of deduction we can know that there are more than one universe. We can know that our universe is a simulation. We can know that space, time and object are not all there is. We can also know and speak of the Platonic realm. So your belief that we cannot know anything outside of science is simply false.

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

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.

 

[Nakosis]

Some version of (philosophical) realism is necessary to make sense of language, science, mathematics and the intelligibility of the world. For example, what we know about triangles are objective facts, things we have discovered rather than invented. It is not up to us to decide that the angles of a triangle should add up to 180 degrees etc. These things were true long before we discovered them and will remain true even if every particular triangular thing and every mind that might think about triangularity went out of existence. Wouldn’t it still be true that the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees? Of course it would.

We didn’t invent mathematical and geometrical truths, propositions, universals... couldn’t change them if we wanted to – they do not depend on our minds. It is implausible to regard them either as material things or as dependent on the human mind for their existence.

We discovered them after we invented the shapes.
Without the shapes being first invented there'd be no mathematical truths.
We could always invent other shapes which would come along with their own set of mathematical truths.

Being these things are not having a material existence outside of abstract mental concepts should be a clue of the necessity of intellect for their existence.

 

[Madsaac]

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

View attachment 99235

Yes, the mystery of consciousness. Penrose, may well be right with the idea of Quantum Mechanics and the consciousness. One of the biggest questions for humanity

And there seems to be many other ideas about consciousness. Here's one example

A New Theory in Physics Claims to Solve the Mystery of Consciousness - Neuroscience News

Consciousness can not simply be reduced to neural activity alone, researchers say. A novel study reports the dynamics of consciousness may be understood by a newly developed conceptual and mathematical framework.

neurosciencenews.com

From my very limited understanding, for good or bad, as time moves on, things are pointing to consciousness coming from neurological activity within our 'physical' brain.

 

[Madsaac]

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

This is true, where did it all come from, maybe a 'god' of some sort, unfortunately we'll probably never know.

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

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

Yes, you put it well but I think these questions are still, and probably will be best answered best through 'scientific' methods rather than what we don't know, the made up, if you will.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Is there a post here on how the idea of Forms might conflict with Postmodernism / subjectivity? Or what's the interplay, if there is one

 

[PearlSeeker]

Actual fact, we know our mind operates because of our physical being, and as time goes on, this is becoming more apparent.

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)​

 

[PearlSeeker]

The triangle of geometry, for example, is entirely conceptual, and being two-dimensional has no equivalent in reality, though of course it has many (equally conceptual) analogies as convenient interpretations of reality (the world external to the self, which we know about through our senses).

We can draw, make or discover many different triangles. Each particular triangle, regardless of its size and other features, instantiates or exemplifies the universal "triangularity" as its essence. This also applies to other general concepts (universals) like "dog".

Debate how this is so, is known as the problem of universals. Philosophers had been engaging with this problem for more than 2000 years. There are different positions regarding universals but basically there are two camps: realism and anti-realism. Some form of realism (position that universals are real) is necessary to make sense of language, communication, science...

 

[PearlSeeker]

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

How do you know that the one and only substance is physical and not mental or something other?

 

[RestlessSoul]

We discovered them after we invented the shapes.
Without the shapes being first invented there'd be no mathematical truths.
We could always invent other shapes which would come along with their own set of mathematical truths.

Being these things are not having a material existence outside of abstract mental concepts should be a clue of the necessity of intellect for their existence.

Since any knowledge must be conceived by a human mind to begin with, how can we know about any reality that exists independently of the mind?

 

[blü 2]

We can draw, make or discover many different triangles. Each particular triangle, regardless of its size and other features, instantiates or exemplifies the universal "triangularity" as its essence. This also applies to other general concepts (universals) like "dog".

Debate how this is so, is known as the problem of universals. Philosophers had been engaging with this problem for more than 2000 years. There are different positions regarding universals but basically there are two camps: realism and anti-realism. Some form of realism (position that universals are real) is necessary to make sense of language, communication, science...

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)?

 

[PureX]

This is true, where did it all come from, maybe a 'god' of some sort, unfortunately we'll probably never know.

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.

Yes, you put it well but I think these questions are still, and probably will be best answered best through 'scientific' methods rather than what we don't know, the made up, if you will.

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".

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

Since any knowledge must be conceived by a human mind to begin with, how can we know about any reality that exists independently of the mind?

To start, we can because we are able to compare notes with other minds. In fact, once we were able to take actual notes, we have all of written history with which to compare along with the billions of our fellows currently walking this earth.

 

[RestlessSoul]

To start, we can because we are able to compare notes with other minds. In fact, once we were able to take actual notes, we have all of written history with which to compare along with the billions of our fellows currently walking this earth.

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.

 

[plodding inarticulateness]

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.

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

Remember, we are starting from nothing, the complete ignorance of our most distant ancestors. We have had a very long time to develop confidence in the efficacy of this approach, plenty of time to see the stark contrast of where we were to where we are.

 

[PureX]

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

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.

Remember, we are starting from nothing, the complete ignorance of our most distant ancestors. We have had a very long time to develop confidence in the efficacy of this approach, plenty of time to see the stark contrast of where we were to where we are.

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

 

[Aupmanyav]

How do you know that the one and only substance is physical and not mental or something other?

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...doc238789.html) (800 BCE and later)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Since any knowledge must be conceived by a human mind to begin with, how can we know about any reality that exists independently of the mind?

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