Hence the requirement for noesis, philosophical ascent. The culmination of those states is in 'seeing things as they truly are', of arriving at an insight into the totality, an epiphany or a great 'aha' moment. This is not necessarily confined to mysticism. There are episodes in the history of science where individuals had sudden noetic insights into the nature of things which lead to great breakthroughs in scientific understanding. An example would be Copernicus' realisation that the orbits of planets were elliptical whilst searching for the Platonic ideals in his observational data; Nikolai Tesla's mystical vision of the Sun and the interchangeability of matter and energy which preceeded Einstein's discovery of the same fact. There are no doubt many other examples, at least some of which resulted in the overthrow of the current paradigm... — Wayfarer
You'd probably need to start with a definition of 'physical' which I suspect will be very difficult to derive. — Wayfarer
whatever passes for the consensus of physicists, — wonderer1
An example would be Copernicus' realisation that the orbits of planets were elliptical whilst searching for the Platonic ideals in his observational data; — Wayfarer
Perhaps there is a mode of certainty that transcends discursive understanding. — Pantagruel
I'm pretty sure that was Kepler, not Copernicus. — Janus
the odd thing is that even if we can have intuitive intellectual knowledge of reality, we cannot be certain that we can, no matter how certain we might feel about it. — Janus
Which brings us right back to scepticism 101. — Wayfarer
Is there an example of such a thing you can identify? Is there anything that couldn't be justified by using such an intuitive approach? — Tom Storm
how the inherent non-self-evidentiality of perception means that the perception of the real-objective must be a function of the apprehension of the entire "system of general laws", which he clearly demarcates as separate from science. — Pantagruel
I'm not sure what this means. Can you restate it in simple or clearer language? — Tom Storm
Is this a reference to the lack of justification for realism?the inherent non-self-evidentiality of perception — Pantagruel
Is this a reference to a Kantian things as they appear?the perception of the real-objective — Pantagruel
This one has me stumped.a function of the apprehension of the entire "system of general laws — Pantagruel
Is there an example of such a thing you can identify? Is there anything that couldn't be justified by using such an intuitive approach? — Tom Storm
Perhaps there is a mode of certainty that transcends discursive understanding. — Pantagruel
↪Pantagruel I'm afraid that doesn't help me - I have no idea what the words mean. — Tom Storm
All I was asking about was a plain English account of what you have already written in 3-4 sentences. I'm not asking for any additional work. If you are unable to clarify it further, that's ok too, we can move on. — Tom Storm
Have at it. :up: — Pantagruel
I don’t think there is one. There are major gaps and conundrums in physics, even without considering the very tenuous connection it might have with how or if mind ‘emerges from’ neural networks, and the implications of that. I think the sense of what is physical, in this context, is post-Cartesian. This is the view that emerges from first of all dividing the world into the two domains of extended matter and ‘thinking substance’ and then by demonstrating the conceptual difficulties with the ‘thinking substance’ (a.k.a. ‘ghost in the machine’.) So having eliminated that problematical conception of the mind, there is purportedly nothing left other than ‘the physical’ in terms of which mind can be explained.
Do you think that is near the mark? — Wayfarer
I like the idea of letting go of the need to know, being able to live with uncertainty and thus cultivating ataraxia. I see that stance above as all as truthful in being able to live in accordance with our actual situation. — Janus
What I would like to see is more people developing the cognitive toolkit to recognize that an understanding of human thought and consciousness, as supervening on physical processes, is extraordinarily explanatory and not just a simplistic parsimony. — wonderer1
I tend to agree with this. If only for the fact that most metaphysical views or scientific theories make no difference to how I live my life or what choices I make. — Tom Storm
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.