Right! Damned! Why don't you write things once in a while with which I don't agree? — Prishon
It was Xenophanes .... Popper "expanded" endless falsification as the real thing will never get reached; tiring indeed. Why not saying that after falsifying, criticizing, falsifying, criticizing, ...ad inf. that you theory is "it"? — Prishon
Here too the Forms are hypothetical not things known. In the Republic we also find the promise of dialectic being able to move beyond hypothesis by the use of hypothesis. But nowhere in any of Plato's dialogues does he identify anyone, either an historical individual or a fictional character, whose journey ends in knowledge of the Forms. The journey always ends in aporia. — Fooloso4
The material world we live now is a shadow of the true world of Idea. — Corvus
How did you come to that thought? Do you have any explanation for that belief or thought or conviction? Just a feeling? Guess? Personal experience? Inductive or deductive reasoning? If there were such things as general mind, then again where is it? — Corvus
when you think, you see - mentally see - a form which could not, in principle, be identical with a particular - including a particular neurological element, a circuit, or a state of a circuit, or a synapse, and so on. This is so because the object of thinking is universal, or the mind is operating universally.
….the fact that in thinking, your mind is identical with the form that it thinks, means (for Aristotle and for all Platonists) that since the form 'thought' is detached from matter, 'mind' is immaterial too. — Lloyd Gerson, Platonism V Naturalism
Some books says that Plato thinks that we are all born with the Forms from the past life. We never learn new things. The knowledge is all in the mind and forms already with us, and we just retrieve them. — Corvus
“What you think,” he [Socrates] asked, “about the argument in which we said that learning is recollection and that, since this is so, our soul must necessarily have been somewhere before it was imprisoned in the body?”
“I,” said Cebes, “was wonderfully convinced by it at the time and I still believe it more firmly than any other argument.”
“And I too,” said Simmias, “feel just as he does, and I should be much surprised if I should ever think differently on this point (91e-92a)”
There was a popular 1960's book about Tibetan Buddhism 'liberation through knowing the One Mind', but it was by a Californian theosophist who never set foot in Tibet. Such ideas are very easily misconstrued — Wayfarer
How about "We never agree on anything."
We will have some disagreements for sure, but that's just natural. :D — Corvus
Memes are abstractions that live as part of the emergent system of conciousness in their hosts. However, I think memes can still be understood as physical processes. — Count Timothy von Icarus
We live in the shadow of our images, the results of our attempts to imagine what is happening. Noticing that is happening doesn't put the "material world" in a place. That would be pretty arrogant after just saying you didn't know what things are. — Valentinus
That all of our individual minds also form part of a collective consciousness. Jung's idea of a collective unconscious. The Buddhist doctrine of ālāyavijñāna, the 'storehouse consciousness'. That there is a kind of 'species consciousness' - a form of consciousness common to h. sapiens, mediated by culture and history. Unity of mankind. That kind of thing. But it's very important not to reify it as 'the One Mind', as something objectively real. It's not something we can objectify. (There was a popular 1960's book about Tibetan Buddhism 'liberation through knowing the One Mind', but it was by a Californian theosophist who never set foot in Tibet. Such ideas are very easily misconstrued.) — Wayfarer
Physics is nice but one wants a bit more! At least, if I''m that one. — Prishon
strong disaggreement (talking of which!) with Popper. So... I have read that book of Popper you have on your shell. It's on my shell to, but to say I wipe the dust off...No. He should himself be falsified! — Prishon
Anyhow, suppose I have a theory about the origin of the universe. What took place around the big bang (inflation) and before (and after). How long should I go on criticizing or trying to falsify it ( which would be a bit problematic...)?
Always nice writing with you! :smile: — Prishon
Correct. This is Plato's Theory of Recollection (anamnesis) — Apollodorus
But would you agree that it is the product of your mind, rather than some object in the world? — Corvus
There are peoples who cant count to ten or even four. — Prishon
They’re not objects, except in the metaphorical sense of being ‘objects of thought’. — Wayfarer
They’re not objects, except in the metaphorical sense of being ‘objects of thought’. But they’re common to all who think. That’s the point. That’s what I mean by ‘structures in mind’ although I’ve only just come up with that expression, don’t know if it’s going to work. — Wayfarer
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.