On the nature of intellect

[Madsaac]

Regardless how consciousness developed, mind has certain features that can't be explained in materialistic terms. Some operations are immaterial.

I think its important to know evolution developed our consciousness because it was at that point we were then able know truths, concepts and interpret reality to survive and thrive.

So, our consciousness is part of evolution, our physical being therefore the minds 'unexplainable' features are a good chance of being part of nature.

How might you explain these certain 'unexplainable' features?

 

[Madsaac]

he 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 categoryhumans 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?

Can't we just 'dumb' it down a bit and say that our intellect is simply part of human's evolution. It's simply part of nature.

And all this pondering is just an example of how evolved our brain has become. And remember Plato didn't know about evolution

All this talk about 'what's a table?' is irrelevant because it simply our natural brain doing what it does because of nature

 

[PearlSeeker]

The idea of a certain kind of intelligence (yet to be defined), as a primary emanation is an ancient cosmological concept, common to many ancient societies, even predating Greece.

Interesting. Can you expand on this? I thought this was a later concept - neoplatonism.

If one really wants to assign a faculty to "this intelligence", then perhaps, the heart will be more closer to truth than the intellect. But again, then we would have to define what the heart is. They certainly don't mean the fleshy organ.

Greek nous is associated with immediate experience/intuition - "organ" of contemplation. As such it's the eye of the heart.

 

[whoamI?]

I thought this was a later concept - neoplatonism.

Maybe you're right. Perhaps I am mixed up in its historicity.

 

[Ostronomos]

It is most fitting to describe the mind as immaterial. Owing to the fact that mind can expand beyond the skull and into the external world, thereby influencing people as well as media such as television and radio. Hence its elusive nature.

 

[Ostronomos]

Furthermore, Quantum physics holds the key to comprehending the hard problem of consciousness because the mind is Quantum, despite what naysayers might say.

 

[Ponder This]

For him they are less real than forms.

I don't understand what "less real" means. Of two things which are real, how can the one thing be less real than the other thing?

They are imperfect representations, transient and changeable reflections of the forms.

I don't understand why tables are "imperfect"... a table is not completely a table? But then, why call it a table?
I can understand that material, physical manifestations are temporary... but calling them transient or changable reflections suggests an analogy that I'm not sure is appropriate. What does "reflections" mean?

Every table is a table because it participates in the Form of the table - the abstract essence of every table.

Does this suggest that Aristotle's view of the situation is more accurate than Plato's?

For Plato all forms are eternal, not created, but there is one ultimate form - the Form of the Good.

That forms are eternal, not created makes sense because their existence is not dependent upon time.
Ultimate form? That suggests the end of a process. What does that mean here? Aren't forms eternal?

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".

Hmm, then there seems to be a problem with Aristotle's definition of "human" unless there is an important distinction between being intelligent and being rational. What is that distinction?

This is true for Plato and platonic school.

Do other schools of thought fail to acknowledge that forms are universal, immaterial, extramental and known via the intellect? Why?

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

We have already taken "soul" to be synonymous with "mind". It will be confusing if Edward Feser does not mean the same thing.
As for his assertion that the mind knows things which are eternal and the senses know things which pass away... how is he able to conclude such a thing?
For one thing, the mind perceives that which the senses provide to it. And for another thing, not everything which is perceived via the senses is obviously temporary. For although things are temporary, when the absence of things is perceived, that absence or zero state is not obviously temporary else it would not serve it's purpose as a baseline upon which variations are perceived.

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.

To clarify, the forms exist within a Supreme Intellect, and thus that Supreme Intellect is immaterial and also immortal.
However, although the human mind perceives forms, the forms that it perceives do not exist within the human mind... In fact, the forms are not dependent upon the existence of human minds to perceive them (i.e. the forms are discovered - not invented). Thus, we cannot similarly argue that the human mind (or synonymously the human soul) is immaterial and immortal by arguing that the forms exist within it. Is there an argument from divine illumination or the Analogy of the Sun that I am missing that addresses this point?

 

[Ponder This]

Can't we just 'dumb' it down a bit and say that our intellect is simply part of human's evolution. It's simply part of nature.

And all this pondering is just an example of how evolved our brain has become. And remember Plato didn't know about evolution

All this talk about 'what's a table?' is irrelevant because it simply our natural brain doing what it does because of nature

Can we do that? How do you explain the perception of forms that are universal - not dependent upon the existence of human minds or evolution? The form of tables is immaterial and extramental, but evolution is material and physical.

 

[Madsaac]

Can we do that? How do you explain the perception of forms that are universal - not dependent upon the existence of human minds or evolution? The form of tables is immaterial and extramental, but evolution is material and physical.

Please bear with me, I'm a novice to philosophy and these are just my ideas.

Perception of forms that are universal, do exist independent of our human mind, they are objective, yes? However, these perceptions come from our mind which have evolved, so we can perceive these forms at an immaterial and extramental level.

So in other words, all our thoughts, feelings opinions etc just come from our highly developed evolved brain.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I think its important to know evolution developed our consciousness because it was at that point we were then able know truths, concepts and interpret reality to survive and thrive.

So, our consciousness is part of evolution, our physical being therefore the minds 'unexplainable' features are a good chance of being part of nature.

How might you explain these certain 'unexplainable' features?

Evolution can explain how brain evolved from simpler structures but it doesn't explain when and how consciousness emerged from brain.

I don't have an explanation for special features of mind. I just think the explanation should include extraphysical reality.

 

[PearlSeeker]

I don't understand what "less real" means. Of two things which are real, how can the one thing be less real than the other thing?

One thing is eternal/permanent and one thing is transient/impermanent.

I don't understand why tables are "imperfect"... a table is not completely a table? But then, why call it a table?
I can understand that material, physical manifestations are temporary... but calling them transient or changable reflections suggests an analogy that I'm not sure is appropriate. What does "reflections" mean?

Objects of the senses are also called "reflections" because they only indirectly point to form (the original source).

Does this suggest that Aristotle's view of the situation is more accurate than Plato's?

For Plato sensible objects exist by participation in forms. There is also participation of forms among themselves... Aristotle didn't agree - there is no separation... Neoplatonists tried to reconcile both views with the doctrine of emanation.

More:

Participation | Encyclopedia.com

PARTICIPATION In the Platonic tradition, where the notion was first systematically developed, participation (μέθε

www.encyclopedia.com

I will ponder on other interesting points some later time...

 

[PearlSeeker]

I don't understand what "less real" means. Of two things which are real, how can the one thing be less real than the other thing?

I would also add that imitation is less real than the original. Just like the painting of a table is less real than the real table.

That forms are eternal, not created makes sense because their existence is not dependent upon time.
Ultimate form? That suggests the end of a process. What does that mean here? Aren't forms eternal?

Like the Sun is for the visible realm so the (form of the) "Good" is for the intelligible realm. We have eyes capable of sight but there is nothing to see if there is no light. Likewise the Good illuminates the intelligible with truth, which in turn makes it possible for people to have knowledge. The sunlight not only makes objects visible but is necessary for their growth and nourishment, similarly to how the Good not only makes it possible for things to be known, but also allows for things to be. See The Analogy of the Sun:

Analogy of the Sun - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Hmm, then there seems to be a problem with Aristotle's definition of "human" unless there is an important distinction between being intelligent and being rational. What is that distinction?

Aristotle's anthropology is in many ways problematic...

 

[PearlSeeker]

Do other schools of thought fail to acknowledge that forms are universal, immaterial, extramental and known via the intellect? Why?

As for his assertion that the mind knows things which are eternal and the senses know things which pass away... how is he able to conclude such a thing?

Plato didn't trust the senses. What mind perceives via senses (imitations of forms) is not real knowledge for him (see Analogy of the divided line)... Aristotle was an empiricist. That's why he didn't agree with Plato.

 

[PearlSeeker]

To clarify, the forms exist within a Supreme Intellect, and thus that Supreme Intellect is immaterial and also immortal.
However, although the human mind perceives forms, the forms that it perceives do not exist within the human mind... In fact, the forms are not dependent upon the existence of human minds to perceive them (i.e. the forms are discovered - not invented). Thus, we cannot similarly argue that the human mind (or synonymously the human soul) is immaterial and immortal by arguing that the forms exist within it. Is there an argument from divine illumination or the Analogy of the Sun that I am missing that addresses this point?

Actually for Plato the Form of the Good is above all forms. It's the source of all forms, truth and being. Even more real than the forms - it's the form of forms...

Human mind (soul) is something immaterial like the forms since it can grasp forms (the forms themselves are mind independed). What is immaterial is imperishable - if this is true then the soul is immortal.

 

[Ponder This]

I would also add that imitation is less real than the original. Just like the painting of a table is less real than the real table.

I'm sorry... what?
You just said that what made one thing less real than another thing is:

One thing is eternal/permanent and one thing is transient/impermanent.

Both a table and the painting of a table are transient/impermanent. Moreover, the painting of a table could last longer, which means that the painting can be is less transient/impermanent than a table. Logically, doesn't this make the painting of a table more real than a table?

Moreover, we've failed to explain:

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

After all, the argument just presented indicates that the table is transient/impermanent - not immortal. Is Plato wrong about the immortality of the intellect?

Like the Sun is for the visible realm so the (form of the) "Good" is for the intelligible realm. We have eyes capable of sight but there is nothing to see if there is no light. Likewise the Good illuminates the intelligible with truth, which in turn makes it possible for people to have knowledge. The sunlight not only makes objects visible but is necessary for their growth and nourishment, similarly to how the Good not only makes it possible for things to be known, but also allows for things to be. See The Analogy of the Sun:

But the Sun is not "ultimate". The Sun is transient and intersteller gas formed the Sun. So what makes "the Form of Good" the "ultimate" form? The analogy does not address the question.

Aristotle's anthropology is in many ways problematic...

Hmm, then we shall drop the claim that...

humans have intellect and other life forms do not

in the absence of a sufficiently convincing argument.

Plato didn't trust the senses. What mind perceives via senses (imitations of forms) is not real knowledge for him (see Analogy of the divided line)... Aristotle was an empiricist. That's why he didn't agree with Plato.

And it seems we must drop the claim that the intellect is immaterial and immortal, as we were unable to assert the first statement of Edward Freser's argument:

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

The Analogy of the Divided Line also does not address the question.

Actually for Plato the Form of the Good is above all forms. It's the source of all forms, truth and being. Even more real than the forms - it's the form of forms...

How does Plato define "Good" or "the Form of Good"? Is he defining it as ultimate?

Human mind (soul) is something immaterial like the forms since it can grasp forms (the forms themselves are mind independed). What is immaterial is imperishable - if this is true then the soul is immortal.

There are two claims here:

1. The human mind is immaterial​

2. That which is immaterial is immortal​

Since we know a material table reflects the Table Form. We know that material things can reflect immaterial things. How do we know the human mind is immaterial? And how do we know that which is immaterial is immortal?

 

[Ponder This]

Please bear with me, I'm a novice to philosophy and these are just my ideas.

Perception of forms that are universal, do exist independent of our human mind, they are objective, yes? However, these perceptions come from our mind which have evolved, so we can perceive these forms at an immaterial and extramental level.

So in other words, all our thoughts, feelings opinions etc just come from our highly developed evolved brain.

While we can likely agree that the human brain is material, the problem is determining whether or not the human mind is material or immaterial.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Both a table and the painting of a table are transient/impermanent. Moreover, the painting of a table could last longer, which means that the painting can be is less transient/impermanent than a table. Logically, doesn't this make the painting of a table more real than a table?

You are right. A painting is also impermanent (although it can last longer). My mistake. I think what I added later must be the correct reason for Plato’s gradation - immaterial form is the original/source, sensual object is an imitation (or reflection, representation) of form and a painting is an imitation of imitation.

The Analogy of the Divided Line divides human knowledge in four grades:

Is Plato wrong about the immortality of the intellect?

The intellect grasps the (immaterial, universal) form not just the particular phisical representation perceived through the senses. This is the first premise of Plato’s argument (Feser just wrote a summary) for the immortality of the intellect. If you ask me, I'm not sure if all forms are immaterial, but the argument still stands.

But the Sun is not "ultimate". The Sun is transient and intersteller gas formed the Sun. So what makes "the Form of Good" the "ultimate" form? The analogy does not address the question.

The Sun if you take it as an analogy is ultimate reality (so does Plato define it). The actual Sun isn't. Every analogy has its limits.

To be continued...

 

[Ponder This]

You are right. A painting is also impermanent (although it can last longer). My mistake. I think what I added later must be the correct reason for Plato’s gradation - immaterial form is the original/source, sensual object is an imitation (or reflection, representation) of form and a painting is an imitation of imitation.

I see that you are stating that a table is less real than its form and a painting of a table is less real than a table, but I don't see why the "imitation" is less real than the thing it imitates (we've discarded the idea that something is less real just because is it more transient).

The Analogy of the Divided Line divides human knowledge in four grades:

The Divided Line is an analogy, but it doesn't explain why the mind knows things that are eternal and the senses know things which pass away. It simply asserts that this is the case without explaining why.

The intellect grasps the (immaterial, universal) form not just the particular phisical representation perceived through the senses. This is the first premise of Plato’s argument (Feser just wrote a summary) for the immortality of the intellect. If you ask me, I'm not sure if all forms are immaterial, but the argument still stands.

The question is not whether or not the mind via intellect grasps immaterial, eternal forms. The question is why does it logically follow that the intellect is immaterial and immortal. After all, a table is an immitation of the form of a table and yet a table is both material and transient.

The Sun if you take it as an analogy is ultimate reality (so does Plato define it). The actual Sun isn't. Every analogy has its limits.

Okay, the analogy has its limits. And, in particular, the Good being "ultimate" does not fit the analogy. Therefore, to say the Good is "ultimate" requires some other reasoning.

To be continued...

I look forward to it.