Prishon says: "Yes! How the f. did you know?" — Prishon

Prishon must know himself/herself. Way ahead of the rest of us on his Socratic quest.

Prishon must know himself/herself. Way ahead of the rest of us on his Socratic quest. — Fooloso4

:heart:

Right! Damned! Why don't you write things once in a while with which I don't agree? — Prishon

How about "We never agree on anything."
We will have some disagreements for sure, but that's just natural. :D

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

I think your elaboration is excellent. I remembered my teen time reading Archimedes shouting out "Eureka '' coming out of the bath after finding out how to measure mass of any matter no matter how odd shaped they are, just immersing them into water, and measuring the overflown water from the tub. Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery is still in my reading list. :roll:

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

Plato was also a dualist I gather. The material world we live now is a shadow of the true world of Idea. Maybe in the world of Idea, is where the Forms belong? 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.

The material world we live now is a shadow of the true world of Idea. — Corvus

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.

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

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.)

Good summary but there's a point that it doesn't pick up on.

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

That is something brought out in Aquinas' epistemology also.

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

Correct. This is Plato's Theory of Recollection (anamnesis) according to which souls having lived before and having experienced the Forms, have latent knowledge of them, which knowledge can be retrieved through recollection.

Plato introduces this in the Meno and Phaedo:

“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)”

Yes, if Platonism believes in eternal truths like the Forms, then it is incompatible with materialism and naturalism.

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

I think Theosophy was responsible for a lot of confusion which is not surprising as it was invented by Blavatsky and promoted by subversive elements like Annie Besant for their own agendas. When genuine spirituality is in decline, it creates a vacuum that impostors rush to fill ....

This in turn gave rise to "Transcendental Meditation" and other fraudulent New Age projects promoted by the hippy movement that developed around the belief in drug-induced "shortcuts to enlightenment".

They’re not all bad. Important conduit for ideas at the very least. Adyar Bookshop used to be marvelous in its heyday. But I otherwise agree.

How about "We never agree on anything."
We will have some disagreements for sure, but that's just natural. :D — Corvus

:grin:

Ha! Good one! I have to day that I'm a bit biased in my attitude towards Popper. At university I took philosophy as one of the teachhings to choose from. Physics is nice but one wants a bit more! At least, if I''m that one. A professor gave me some copied papers of some books of Feyerabend. Well, the papers weren't copied but Feyerabend's writings were on them. I dunno if I wouldn't have met Feyerabend if he hadn't give those copies (I'm sure I would) but I'm thankful he did. Feyerabend is something else and in 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!

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:

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

How is the term 'memes' not simply a metaphor or an idiomatic expression? They can be physical, mental, objective, subjective - however you want to define them! I think it was coined by Dawkins as a counterpart to genes, but that is not a particularly favourable provenance. And granted, it's a useful word, and I sometimes use it myself. But I don't think it refers to anything real.

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

Plato's dualistic world view must had been opposed by many, even one of his pupil Aristotle. Aristotle seemingly had his own worldview (monistic), and his own theory of form.

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

But wouldn't that view of mind is a mythology rather than philosophy or science?

Physics is nice but one wants a bit more! At least, if I''m that one. — Prishon

Physics is cool, but Metaphysics is even more cool. :grin:

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

I have a couple more Popper - Self and Brain(??), Open Society and Its enemies.

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

All theories with weakness deserved to be criticised and falsified.

:up: :smile:

I don’t think so but it’s too much of a digression for this thread.

Correct. This is Plato's Theory of Recollection (anamnesis) — Apollodorus

Thanks for your confirmation.

I will add though that it’s plausible to think of numbers as structures of mind.

Self and Brain(??) — Corvus

:smile: Morning (at least, here it is). I havent read that book. Is it relevant maybe for another discourse currently taking place on this forum?

I would have thought, if we know more about the nature of mind, then it would help understanding the ideas of mathematics and forms of Plato. And your claim about mind as general or universal being was interesting, if not mysterious :)

Morning (at least, here it is). I havent read that book. Is it relevant maybe for another discourse currently taking place on this forum? — Prishon

Morning to you. :) Yup sure, I haven't even read it yet.

Well whatever the nature of number 7 is, we are all in perfect agreement as to what it means, regardless of your ethnicity, location, historical context, or anything else.

But would you agree that it is the product of your mind, rather than some object in the world?

Well whatever the nature of number 7 is, we are all in perfect agreement as to what it means, — Wayfarer

But you firstly have to learn the meaning.

My maths isn’t great, but I can count.

My maths isn’t great, but I can count — Wayfarer

You have learned to count. There are peoples who cant count to ten or even four.

But would you agree that it is the product of your mind, rather than some object in the world? — Corvus

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.

There are peoples who cant count to ten or even four. — Prishon

Humans can be educated to count. Crows and monkeys can count very small numbers, up to about 4, or at least recognise the difference between a collection of 3 and 4. But beyond that, they can’t count. It’s that ability that makes homo, sapiens.

They’re not objects, except in the metaphorical sense of being ‘objects of thought’. — Wayfarer

Numbers are not objects themselves. That's clear. Though the number seven candle put on top of the birthday cake of my child neighbor seemed pretty real and objective. Numbers have the habit of embracing equals. The equals being objects or mental whatevers. You have to look for equals first. Whats the difference between 5 and 6 apples? One apple. Whats the difference between 356 apples and 357 apples? Still 1. But what if you cant count? Is there still a difference? How would you know the difference? By laying all apples side by side? How many apples are sqrt(-1) apples? How many are -1 apoles?

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

Some people seem to think the numbers, data, and information are objects in the universe. I think mathematics objects and all information are in the human mind. You just apply to the real world for practicality.

It is not about how you learnt to do mathematics. The point is that once you learned it, you apply it to do all further counting / maths by yourself without recourse to observation like the Science must do. In that respect mathematics is a priori.

If you can recognise ‘=‘ then you’re pretty well on the way, aren’t you? What kind of basic intellectual machinery would you have to have to recognise that this equals that? Pretty advanced, I would think.

I think mathematics objects and all information are in the human mind. — Corvus

But that doesn’t do justice to the predictive ability of maths, to make discoveries about reality that could otherwise never be made. It sells it short. It’s a cop-out.