And mirror neurons might give us that strong illusion of sharing platonic ideas and the same sensations ?

Mind is the capacity to grasp meaning and is present in very rudimentary form even in the simplest organisms. — Wayfarer

How about mind as the body's performance of meaning ? As you say, it's there from the beginning. But with us there is intense timebinding. I see this 'spirit ' or thickening-stacking software as what differentiates us.

Attention is drawn to surprise, right? — plaque flag

Yeah, novelty usually pricks one from one's mneumonic slumber.

Yeah, novelty usually pricks one's mneumonic slumber. — 180 Proof

It's maybe like an employee running for the manager when they don't want responsibility for the decision.

And mirror neurons might give us that strong illusion of sharing platonic ideas and the same sensations ? — plaque flag

I don't know. My guess is that "platonic ideas" (universals) are quixotic (mis)uses of language rationalized whereby (formal and nonformal) abstractions are fallaciously reified. We share 'semantic illusions' discursively as a matter of course – "mirror neurons", I think, only play a significant role in prelinguistiic cognition (i.e. before babies habitualize language-use).

I am exploring the notion that Plato's ideas or forms are instead an intuitive grasp of what we now understand as principles and laws. The 'fallacious reification' only enters the picture when we think of them as being objectively existent - which they're not. Maybe they are constraints - they delimit what is possible for something in order that it exists and performs a function, i.e. a wing must be flat and light if it is to provide lift. 'Flatness' and 'lightness' are not objectively existent things separable from their instantiation in wings, but nevertheless all wings must 'participate' in the forms of flatness and lightness if they are going to achieve flight.

My guess is that "platonic ideas" (universal) are quixotic (mis)uses of language rationalized whereby (formal and nonformal) abstractions are fallaciously reified. — 180 Proof

:up:
Have you considered an equivalence class approach to thinking about ideas ? In other words, an idea is just a blurry set of expressions that are used in basically the same way, for the same purpose. This way sentences need not be thought of as containers of Content.

(Still feel as though the point I was labouring has somewhat slipped the net here.) — Wayfarer

I think the point you are referring to is the idea of rational intuition. That idea is very much out of favour among contemporary philosophers, but that is a merely a matter of normative correctness, of fashion. The idea may come back into favour again for all we know.

The problem is that it is not in any way demonstrable, so in light of that, I think it is not something that can really be cogently argued for, or against. Its detractors will say that there is no reason to believe in rational intuition, probably because they don't feel any "rightness" in the idea, or they are hoodwinked by feeling a need to be "correct", and, of course, on the grounds that it cannot be demonstrated to be true. Its supporters find reason to believe in it just because they feel it is right, and because it cannot be demonstrated to be false.

The thing is, if you feel you have rational intuition into the nature of reality you will have a very different vision of life than those who reject the idea. So, for me the real issue is an ethical one: how do I want to live and what kind of vision do I want to live by? For me, that would be the only way to decide between rational intuition or no rational intuition, God or no God, and so on.

These kinds of questions will never be definitively settled by philosophy, simply because what constitutes philosophy is itself a contentious question. There are several mutually exclusive understandings of what philosophy is and/ or should be.

Not explicitly.

'Flatness' and 'lightness' are not objectively existent things separable from their instantiation in wings, but nevertheless all wings must 'participate' in the forms of flatness and lightness if they are going to achieve flight. — Wayfarer

So the question is whether this participation metaphor is the best one. Why isn't it just that wings need to be flat ? Adjectives look like classifications which I'd expect to have inferential consequences. Because that wing is not flat enough, the plane it's on won't fly.

The 'fallacious reification' only enters the picture when we think of them as being objectively existent - which they're not. — Wayfarer

Perhaps I'm somewhere in the middle on this. Concepts exist in some sense. Note that they are objective or public. There is a right way to use them. None of us individually govern them, and they make philosophy possible.

I think you mean 'nonphysical,' but even this is not obvious. Concepts could be the patterns in the movement of otherwise nonconceptual stuff. It is way too easy in my view to forget time and motion.

Are dances nonphysical ? Or are we too quick to think of motionless stones when 'physical' is used ?

Not explicitly. — 180 Proof

I like structuralism (Saussure on language and Benacerraf on math), which thinks in terms of roles in structures. So the numeral 4 is like the wooden bishop (the material token) in Chess is like one of the many ways to say 'hello' in 45 languages. Along these lines, translation is just finding a phrase that does basically the same thing in the target context as it did in the source context, so it is not moving some immaterial content from one material container to another. I think we both reject the container metaphor, so I'm elaborating for others too.

So, for me the real issue is an ethical one: how do I want to live and what kind of vision do I want to live by? — Janus

This 'voluntarism' seems to beg the "intuition" question. I'm with Freddy here: judge by example – how one actually lives, particularly one's manifest habits insofar as they embody some "kind of vision" one lives by – practies before principles.

:up:

1, How could random chance produce rational thought, and unreal Ideals? — Gnomon

Respectfully (and I hope helpfully), I suggest (1) you study the theory of evolution [to understand complexity emerging from simplicity] and (2) read more philosophy [ to question Everyman prejudices about 'unreal' or 'immaterial' ideas] .

Smart people have made some real progress on this stuff, and (as you mention) it's inexpensive entertainment.

This 'voluntarism' seems to beg the "intuition" question. I'm with Freddy here: judge by example – how one actually lives, particularly one's manifest habits insofar as they embody some "kind of vision" one lives by – practies before principles. — 180 Proof

Sure, but you're looking at the life in question from the outside. We all live our lives from the inside; what's important to the indivdual is the quality of life as it seems to them.

So, of course hypocrisy is possible and "by their fruits shall ye know them", but one must first want to live in a certain way and then strive to embody that personal vision of the good life. Apart from hypocrisy, there are many possible explanations why one might fail to live in accordance with the way one thinks is the most desirable.

Sure, but you're looking at the life in question from the outside. — Janus

Am I? I wrote "one", not you or him/her or people or them. Also, I took your comment about "rational intuition" to be philosophical, not sociological, so it was (meant to be) prescriptive as well as descriptive.

Am I? I wrote "one", not you or him/her or people or them. Also, I took your comment about "rational intuition" to be philosophical, not sociological, so it was (meant to be) prescriptive as well as descriptive. — 180 Proof

I thought you were looking at it from the outside because you seemed to be counting behavior as paramount. What I wanted to counterpose was the idea that we look at the quality of our lives from the perspective of how they feel to us. Well, I know I do at least, and I imagine that others feel the same way.

Am I saying people should think this way? No, I'm saying I think they mostly do. As I keep hammering on this theme: I think the idea of rational normativity (beyond consistency) is an abomination; it is anathema to me, at least.

Mind is the capacity to grasp meaning and is present in very rudimentary form even in the simplest organisms. In rational sentient beings it attains the capacity for reason and self-knowledge. — Wayfarer

This is consistent with Aristotle's description, but the issue which necessitates dualism logically, comes down to what we might call the first living organism. Such a material body came into existence as an organized body, with that rudimentary capacity. Now there must be a cause of that organized body with that capacity, and this cause must be an actuality. This supports the concept of an immaterial soul, as the actual cause of existence, 'the first actuality" of that organized body. As the actual cause, it is necessarily prior to it, and in that sense not dependent on the material body.

The same principle is shown to be applicable to the entire universe through the cosmological argument. Since all material things have some degree of organization (form or actuality) in order to exist as a "thing", and matter itself without form would be pure potential without the actuality required to cause actual organized existence, we must conclude an actuality which is prior to all material things, as cause of them. In theology this is God.

As I see it, the reason why dualism is called for is that the forms which we come to know in our minds, as intelligible objects, are derived from the material objects, through the means of sensation. But the forms which are shown logically to be independent from material objects, are prior to the material objects as cause of them. This leaves a medium of "matter" which lies between, and separates the forms within the human mind, as dependent on the material body, from the truly separate, immaterial forms which are prior to and not dependent on material bodies.

As far as I can tell, the only 'mystery' (and I think 180 Proof agrees ?) is that of any postulated origin, because we can always ask but why ? Why this and not something else ? — plaque flag

Notice how this comes down to a question of "why". And questions of "why" are readily answered when intention is the cause. So when the question "Why this and not something else" is asked, it is easily answered with, that was choice of the intentional agent. When we overcome the physicalist prejudice, which inclines us to believe that all causes must be physical, then we can understand the reality of intention and free will as truly non-physical causes. And when we come to understand that this type of non-physical cause is very real, and prior to, rather than posterior to the activities of material objects, we can apprehend how this sort of cause must pervade the entire physical universe.

then we can understand the reality of intention and free will as truly non-physical causes. — Metaphysician Undercover

To me that looks like superstition.

It's not a bias toward the physical on my part (I don't think 'physical' is a fundamental concept) but just a care for whether socalled explanations are just sentimental stories about gods more complex than what they are supposed to explain. To me the concept of free will is mystification of our enacted convention of selfhood as a focus of responsibility.

And questions of "why" are readily answered when intention is the cause. So when the question "Why this and not something else" is asked, it is easily answered with, that was choice of the intentional agent. — Metaphysician Undercover

I'm surprised that you would say so. The obvious next question is : 'why did that intentional agent make such a choice?' One does not explain something relatively simple (a natural world without life in it yet) in terms of something hopelessly complex (the psychology of a superior being, perhaps of a god.) This is anti-explanation.

But why do some think it is a genuine explanation ? Because it makes them feel good. It gives them an emotional orientation. Fine. Let people have their religion. But I like explanation and clarification, which is joyful sober hard work. For me this is essentially social / normative. Serious critical minds come together to tell a truer and truer story about our shared world.

To me that looks like superstition. — plaque flag

Why would you think that free will, the capacity to make a choice, is superstition? Do you really believe that you do not have the capacity to choose?

I'm surprised that you would say so. The obvious next question is : 'why did that intentional agent make such a choice?' One does not explain something relatively simple (a natural world without life in it yet) in terms of something hopelessly complex (the psychology of a superior being, perhaps of a god.) This is anti-explanation. — plaque flag

Oversimplification of that which is inherently complex, is not a way toward understanding. It is misunderstanding. The problem with your approach, obviously, is that there is no such thing as "a natural world without life in it yet". So this counterfactual proposition is completely misguided. You propose this as a means of simplification, to produce the logical conception of a simplified world. But it's based on a false premise, a counterfactual.

However, what this counterfactual reveals is that this simplification renders "the world" as unintelligible, incoherent. "Emergence" fails as a rational proposal for understanding the becoming of the universe, and we are left to accept the reality that the proposition of "a natural world without life in it yet" is fundamentally flawed.

The issue here, and the obvious deficiency, is that you cannot remove the observer from the observation. So, "a natural world without life in it yet" is not a true proposition which a life form can make. Therefore this does not give us an acceptable, true ontological starting point. Instead, we must take as the staring point, the perspective of the life form making the observation. And, since choice and intention are fundamental aspects of this life form, we need a thorough understanding of these before we proceed toward any hypothetical removal of the observer from the observation. This is because to remove the observer from the observation requires that we remove all the influence which the observer contributes to the observation. And, we know that choice and intention have great influence on observations.

But why do some think it is a genuine explanation ? Because it makes them feel good. It gives them an emotional orientation. Fine. Let people have their religion. But I like explanation and clarification, which is joyful sober hard work. For me this is essentially social / normative. Serious critical minds come together to tell a truer and truer story about our shared world. — plaque flag

That's pathetic. You reject "feeling good" and choose "hard work", and you pretend there's something "joyful" about this choice. Where are your priorities? That your "explanation and clarification" is directed toward a "truer story" is demonstrably false, as analysis of your counterfactual premise displays. Therefore you ought to realize that any such hard work of explanation and calculation will be misdirected, fruitless and endless. Where is the joy in fruitless hard work? Next, you will need to direct this hard work toward hiding the deficiencies of your metaphysics, rather than toward a truer understanding. So not only will you be claiming to be enjoying the fruitlessness of your hard work, but also the hard work of covering up that fruitlessness. That becomes deception. So the honourable course here is to admit to the mistake of oversimplification, and get back on track toward understanding the true complexities of reality.

I'll leave you to your monologue.

Why would you think that free will, the capacity to make a choice, is superstition? Do you really believe that you do not have the capacity to choose? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not in the libertarianist sense. Either our decisions are determined by some prior cause or they occur spontaneously, neither of which seem to satisfy libertarian free will.

We might not even have it in the compatibilist sense. See unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain:

There has been a long controversy as to whether subjectively 'free' decisions are determined by brain activity ahead of time. We found that the outcome of a decision can be encoded in brain activity of prefrontal and parietal cortex up to 10 s before it enters awareness. This delay presumably reflects the operation of a network of high-level control areas that begin to prepare an upcoming decision long before it enters awareness.

it seems that the ultimate source of human conceptual ability remains a mystery — Gnomon
As far as I can tell, the only 'mystery' (and I think 180 Proof agrees ?) is that of any postulated origin, because we can always ask but why ? Why this and not something else ? — plaque flag

Since the Big Bang Theory didn't begin at the ultimate beginning, I'd call that missing "ultimate source" the Big Mystery. Are you aware of any inherent limits on empirical Science? Such as the explanatory gap called "The Singularity" (defined by lack of definition). Despite the lack of data from the Great Beyond, many scientists have continued to probe into the darkness before the postulated Big Bang --- Inflation, Many Worlds, Multiverse --- with no grounds other than speculation on "what if?" based on limited knowledge of "what is".

Philosophy is built upon conjectures into the unknown, with no "grounds" except the human talent for inference : Reason. If you want to know "what is?", post on a Science site. But if you want to know "what if?", post on a Philosophy forum. Pragmatic Science doesn't ask "why?" questions. Why ask "why?" if you don't want to hear conjectures? "Why" questions tend to put devout Materialists on the defensive. Give a high five for me. :smile:

PS___I wasn't using the term "mystery" as a black box into which you can postulate any possibility. Instead, it was simply a pragmatic admission of limitation, and an aspirational challenge to go beyond physical limits with imagination and rational speculation. If you don't like a conjecture about a "mystery", refute it with "observations", not sarcasm . :joke:

The Big Bang: Solid Theory, But Mysteries Remain
https://www.space.com/8066-big-bang-solid-theory-mysteries-remain.html

Mystery behind the Big Bang theory revealed!
https://tech.hindustantimes.com/tech/news/mystery-behind-the-big-bang-theory-revealed-and-some-tech-and-gadgets-that-caught-it-71663128550229.html

Conjecture :
In scientific philosophy, Karl Popper pioneered the use of the term "conjecture" to indicate a statement which is presumed to be real, true, or genuine, mostly based on inconclusive grounds, in contrast with a hypothesis (hence theory, axiom, principle), which is a testable statement based on accepted grounds.
https://psychology.fandom.com/wiki/Conjecture

What does Popper mean when he says science cycles through conjectures and refutations?
He claimed that all testing in science has the form of attempting to refute theories by means of observation. And crucially, for Popper it is never possible to confirm or establish a theory by showing its agreement with observations.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.7208/9780226300610-006/pdf

Either our decisions are determined by some prior cause or they occur spontaneously, neither of which seem to satisfy libertarian free will. — Michael

:100:

1, How could random chance produce rational thought, and unreal Ideals? — Gnomon
Respectfully (and I hope helpfully), I suggest (1) you study the theory of evolution [to understand complexity emerging from simplicity] and (2) read more philosophy [ to question Everyman prejudices about 'unreal' or 'immaterial' ideas] . — plaque flag

It would be more helpful if, rather than point fingers, you would try to answer the "how" question above. Did you really think I was unaware of evolutionary theory, and the prevalence of "everyman prejudices" about immaterial ideas? Are you aware of any Material Ideas? What kind of atoms are Concepts made of? Did Darwin propose a theory to explain the origin of Reason?

FWIW, My non-academic thesis & blog are built upon 18th century evolution theory, plus 21st century Systems Biology, and other cutting-edge ideas about ideas. I even have my own hypothesis (conjecture?) about how "random Chance", plus non-random Selection, could work together (like a computer program's Data + Criteria) to evolve rational thinking beings. For years, I've been following the Santa Fe Institute's research into Complexity (in general), and Complex Adaptive Systems (in particular). So I'm better informed on such questions than the average layman. And, like the Institute scientists, I like to think outside the conventional box. :smile:



Santa Fe Institute
the scientists sought a forum to conduct theoretical research outside the traditional disciplinary boundaries of academic departments and government agency science budgets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Fe_Institute

Systems Biology
Denis Noble, Oxford University & Santa Fe Institute
https://irp.nih.gov/catalyst/19/6/systems-biology-as-defined-by-nih
A Holistic approach to living organisms that goes beyond the self-imposed limitations of traditional Reductive scientific methods. A Systems View of the world only became doable since computers accelerated & expanded the pace & reach of human inference. Reductive methods are an old-fashioned hang-over from the times when scientists used pencils & chalk to record their thought processes.

I'll leave you to your monologue. — plaque flag

As you wish, simpleton.

Not in the libertarianist sense. Either our decisions are determined by some prior cause or they occur spontaneously, neither of which seem to satisfy libertarian free will. — Michael

What's wrong with the idea of free will choices occurring spontaneously? That looks like an adequate descriptive word for libertarian free will to me, though I suppose you might have a different idea of what constitutes libertarian free will. Wouldn't it be necessary for the will to act spontaneously, in order for one to be quick witted? Spontaneity appears to be very consistent with free will. So, of your two choices, let's go with "spontaneously", and that seems to satisfy libertarian free will.

We might not even have it in the compatibilist sense. See unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain: — Michael

"Determinants" is not a problem to the concept of free will. It is well known that there are numerous determinants, but free will takes numerous determinants and produces one act which is not determined by any one of those determinants, nor is it the sum of any number of determinants. That is why it is proper to say that our freely willed actions are affected by these determinants, but we cannot say that they are the effect of these determinants. We must look elsewhere for the cause of these actions.

From what I can see, the article you linked doesn't seem to have any real evidence against the reality of free will. I could decide today, what I will do tomorrow, and that's a lot longer time span than ten seconds. But that time span is irrelevant. The critical point in time is when I spontaneously move to act on what I previously decided to do, that's when the will acts. That the will to carry out the act does not occur at the same time the decision to act is made, is evident from the reality of procrastination and changing one's mind.

That's why Augustine divided the intellect into three parts, memory, reason, and will. The will, being free, does not necessarily follow reason. That is why a person sometimes does what one knows ought not be done, and has even decided not to do it, in the case of bad habits and temptations for example.

.

Did you really think I was unaware of evolutionary theory, and the prevalence of "everyman prejudices" about immaterial ideas? Are you aware of any Material Ideas? What kind of atoms are Concepts made of? Did Darwin propose a theory to explain the origin of Reason? — Gnomon

You are just proving my point.

Did you really think I was unaware of evolutionary theory, and the prevalence of "everyman prejudices" about immaterial ideas? Are you aware of any Material Ideas? What kind of atoms are Concepts made of? Did Darwin propose a theory to explain the origin of Reason? — Gnomon
You are just proving my point. — plaque flag

What point are you pointing at? That I think outside the box of conventional science? Well, duh! What else do you expect on a freaking Philosophy Forum? Goose-stepping ideologues?

FYI, I'm merely reflecting your challenge back at you. Are you afraid of philosophical mysteries? Is Idealism too scary to think about? Are you trying to prove that you are a doctrinaire disciple of Scientism, as the final authority on all things? Try to think for yourself once in a while. Step outside the creed, and sample the infinite varieties of reality and ideality. :joke:

From previous post : If you don't like a conjecture about a "mystery", refute it with "observations", not sarcasm

What does Popper mean when he says science cycles through conjectures and refutations?
He claimed that all testing in science has the form of attempting to refute theories by means of observation. And crucially, for Popper it is never possible to confirm or establish a theory by showing its agreement with observations.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/ ... 10-006/pdf

The Myth of Objectivity :
What we know is generally considered to be the result of our exploration of the real world, of the way things really are. . . . How we know is a far more vexing problem. To solve it, the mind needs to step outside itself, so to speak for at this point we are no longer with facts that apparently exist independently of us in the outside world ...
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4613-0115-8_2

it seems that the ultimate source of human conceptual ability remains a mystery — plaque flag

Are you a Materialist or Mysterian or both? Are such ultimate questions off-limits on a Philosophy Forum? Of course such topics are beyond the scope of physical Science, but we're talking about non-physical Mind here, on a Philosophy forum. AFAIK, the only thing blocking the human mind from contemplating its own genesis is a Physicalist prejudice. I can respect the Mysterian position on scientific topics. But in this thread, we're discussing abstract subjective general Principles, not concrete objective specific Objects. Aren't we? :smile:


Philosophy's explanations are grounded in arguments of principles, while science tries to explain based on experiment results, observable facts, and objective evidence.
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/career-education/difference-between-science-and-philosophy/

Mysterian :
…of thinkers, known as “mysterians,” who claim that, although we know that the conscious mind is nothing more than the brain, it is simply beyond the conceptual apparatus of human beings to understand how this can be the case.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/mysterian
Noe -- How do "we know" that Consciousness is nothing more than a Brain function. That's a tautology, not a scientific fact.

“The term physical is just kinda like an honorific word, kinda like the word 'real' when we say 'the real truth'. It doesn't add anything, it just says 'this is serious truth'. So to say that something is 'physical' today just means 'you gotta take this seriously'.”
― Noam Chomsky
Note -- From a Physicalist perspective, if it ain't physical you shouldn't take it seriously. But, on this forum, non-physical topics are de rigueur. And some of us take Subjective ideas very seriously.

Ontology
To me, that is the major subject of philosophy. It is the domain of the a priori, but it's not as if there's evidence for them, so much as that we rely on them to decide what constitutes evidence. — Wayfarer

Respectfully (and I hope helpfully), I suggest (1) you study the theory of evolution [to understand complexity emerging from simplicity] and (2) read more philosophy [ to question Everyman prejudices about 'unreal' or 'immaterial' ideas] . — plaque flag

I apologize for the defensive response above. But used to begin his sarcastic put-downs with a disrespectful "respectfully". Instead of responding to my itemized conjectures with specific refutations, he would dismissively recommend that I submissively "educate" my ignorant self -- "study", "understand", "read" -- on The Truth (whatever "settled" Science says). Presumably, anything that fits his scientific paradigm is respectable, and anything else is not suitable for philosophical discussions.

With no formal training in academic philosophy, I used to be uncertain, unassertive, and easily pushed around by sophist bullies. Now, after years of retirement leisure, and forum philosophizing, I tend to respond to derogation with a flood of information. Not expecting to change his shuttered mind, but merely to show that I've done my homework . . . even though not on the required reading list. I no longer waste my time trying to dialog with him. So, you can tell him how you detected bullshit and bashed baloney. :smile:

PS__Yes, I am familiar with Carl Sagan's "baloney detector" for pseudoscience. But the topic of this thread is, by your own admission, beyond current scientific proof or disproof. So, why not let philosophy have a go at it?

PPS__Typically superciliously refers to self-defense posts like this as "whining". Yet it's merely intended to reopen the dialog without the disrespect. Do you think that sarcasm & arrogance are appropriate philosophical forum etiquette? How would you respond to a put-down post?

Supercilious : behaving or looking as though one thinks one is superior to others.

Instead of learning from his errors or, at least, thanking me (& others) for making them explicit, just more grievance-whining for his wounded pride after having been Jedi mind-tricked into conceding to my three years-long criticism:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/792659

Apparently, I'm still living la vita loca & rent-free in the tin-foil hatted head of the leader of TPF's Quantum-Woo Crew. :lol: :party: :up: