Efficient law-like agent of change. Has a nice ring to it, for sure.

I swear, Feynman had a cool phrase like that, talking about how fields should be treated as real things. It was in the Caltech lectures, but I could never find it again. Wish-I’d-thought-of-that moment, lost to time and weakened memory.

Reason is a way our thoughts work.................Categorical items are not something that operate themselves.................... It is a rational basis for one's action and judgement......................... And of course you can talk about reason as a property of mind just like in CPR. — Corvus

:up:

it sounds like reason is some kind of a biological or living entity itself as a lump of substance. That would be Sci-Fi, not Philosophy...It is a really abstract concept. — Corvus

Where is reason exactly?

As a logic gate is a particular type of structure within a computer, I suggest that reason is also a particular structure within the brain. As the logic gate is a mechanical entity, a lump of substance, similarly, reason is a biological entity, a lump of substance.



As a logic gate has a physical existence, has a concrete existence, the logic gate cannot be said to have an abstract existence. Similarly, as reason has a physical existence, has a concrete existence, reason cannot be said to have an abstract existence .

However, I agree that the thought of a logic gate is an abstract concept, as the thought of reason is an abstract concept. This raises the question as to what are thoughts?

As a CPU within a computer interprets, processes and executes instructions, I suggest that within the brain are also particular types of structures that interpret, process and execute instructions, where a thought is no more than a difference in the physical structure of the brain between two moments in time.

However, if a thought is a difference between two things, can a difference have an ontological existence. For example, there is a difference in height between the Eiffel Tower and Empire States Building of 81metres. In what sense does this difference exist? Either differences do have an ontological existence, in which thoughts ontologically exist, or differences don't have an ontological difference, in which case thoughts don't ontologically exist.

Philosophy cannot be carried out in a vacuum, by a philosopher sitting in a dark room shut off from the world with only their thoughts. The philosopher must take the world into account within their philosophising.

As a logic gate is a mechanical entity, reason is a biological entity.

Kant never said a word about the brain in all his works as far as I am aware...Chomsky's Innatism sounds like a type of SocioBiology subject. I am sure it has nothing to do with Kant's transcendental Idealism. Neither Skinner's Behaviourism. — Corvus

True, Kant didn't talk about the brain, but then neither did Plato talk about Kant.

But surely, comparing and contrasting is an important evaluative tool in learning and developing understanding about a topic.

You compared and contrasted Kant with Plato when you wrote:
I thought about Kant as a Platonic dualist too at one point, but as @Wayfarer pointed out, there are clear differences between Kant and Plato.

You also compared and contrasted Kant with knowledge he had and knowledge that only came later, when you wrote:
Anyway, Kant was not a Phenomenologist, and Phenomenology didn't exist when Kant was alive.

I find Kant's Critique of Pure Reason relevant and interesting precisely because it can be explained in today's terms. It is not a dead historical subject, but has insights as to contemporary problems of philosophy.

Kant's Critique of Pure Reason is a battle in the war between Innatism and Behaviourism, as exemplified by Chomsky and Skinner. The a priori and the innate are two aspects of the same thing, the first from a 18th C viewpoint and the second from a 21st C viewpoint.

These we can compare and contrast.

As a CPU within a computer interprets, processes and executes instructions, I suggest that within the brain are also particular types of structures that interpret, process and execute instructions, where a thought is no more than a difference in the physical structure of the brain between two moments in time. — RussellA

Th difference between the physical structure which interprets, what you call the logic gate, and the human mind, is that the human mind does not necessarily have to follow the procedure when the input is applied, while the logic gate does. This is the nature of free will. The logic gate has an outcome determined by the input and the system. The outcome from the human mind is not determined in the way that the outcome from the logic gate is, because the human mind has something else, called free will, which implies that the system is not closed in that way, which necessitates the product. The initial conditions cannot predict the outcome with logical necessity.

The difference between the physical structure which interprets, what you call the logic gate, and the human mind, is that the human mind does not necessarily have to follow the procedure when the input is applied, while the logic gate does. This is the nature of free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're assuming free will rather than determinism.

Why do you think humans have free will rather than being determined by forces beyond their control?

:up:

I figured it might be something like that. I've read the Tractus and PI, but not particularly closely (I don't think I ever finished the Tractus) and PI in particular doesn't exactly lend itself to easy interpretation.

You're assuming free will rather than determinism. — RussellA

I am assuming that humans do not necessarily follow the results of logic in their actions. This is evident and common, every time one is "overcome by passion" or something similar and does not act according to what was figured to be logically necessary. And, I am pointing out that this type of behaviour, where one acts contrary to one's own logical process, is explained by the concept of free will.

Why do you think humans have free will rather than being determined by forces beyond their control? — RussellA

In the context, this question does not make any sense. If there are "forces beyond their control" these are forces not understood, because understanding them allows us to make use of them, therefore control them. Therefore we cannot know whether such proposed forces are deterministic or not, and cannot assume that a person would be "determined" by them, as you propose.

I would argue that some sort of determinism is a prerequisite for free will. We can't choose to bring about some states of affairs and not others based on our preferences unless our actions have determinant effects. We must be able to predict the consequences of our actions, to understand ourselves as determinant cause.

Likewise, arbitrary action is not free. Randomness isn't free, it is simply determined by nothing. But to be free, we must be determined by ourselves. Self-determinination is always relative for human beings, we can be more or less in control, more or less our authentic selves.

So the problem with 's contention for me is not in assuming free will, but in assuming that freedom comes from not being determined by "inputs." But if our actions aren't determined by the way the world is, inputs, what would they be determined by? And in what way would they now be free?

To my mind, Plato has the best answer to this conundrum. The fact that a person will tend to always prefer "what is really good," over "what they currently think is good," (Republic 5) shows the potential for reason to always go "beyond itself." It is in going beyond, in transcending current belief, emotion, and opinion, that we can achieve an "ascent" towards self-determination. And then, what is self-determining (not mere effect caused by external sources) is, in an important sense, more real (hence, self-"actualization.")

Ah, I've misunderstood you then. I was thinking of the way in which a logic gate is deterministic in roughly the same way neurons, cells, etc. behave as such.

But you are right, the structure of computers is set up with all sorts of artificial constraints such that inputs will flow into outputs in a straightforward manner, based in human logical operators. A person does not work this way, I agree.

The difference between serial processing and the single set of "instructions" in the Turing Machine head and the decentralized parallel processing at work in animals is profound.

As a logic gate is a mechanical entity, reason is a biological entity. — RussellA

You wouldn't call or equate a lump of computer chips and memories as mind, reason or consciousness. :)
Of course the physical existence of the chips and memories are the body where the software defined logic and machine reasoning can be set, and happening. But they are at the software level, not hardware. Software operations are conceptual just like human mind.

There is a clear difference in software and hardware of any computer architecture. They work together but one is not the same as the other, and vice versa.

Philosophy cannot be carried out in a vacuum, by a philosopher sitting in a dark room shut off from the world with only their thoughts. The philosopher must take the world into account within their philosophising. — RussellA

Speculative philosophy can be done in a dark room full of vacuum for sure, because its tool is the concepts, logic and reasoning. :) Of course, philosophy can work on any topic or subjects, but they would be topics of themselves.

True, Kant didn't talk about the brain, but then neither did Plato talk about Kant. — RussellA

Plato couldn't talk about Kant obviously, as having not been born for almost another 2000 years, Kant wasn't around when Plato was alive :)

I find Kant's Critique of Pure Reason relevant and interesting precisely because it can be explained in today's terms. It is not a dead historical subject, but has insights as to contemporary problems of philosophy. — RussellA

Yes, I suppose you could look at any contemporary system or thoughts under the light of Kant's TI, and draw good philosophical criticisms or new theories out of them, and that is what all classical philosophy is about.  But as I said, it would be a topic of its own.

This raises the question as to what are thoughts? — RussellA

Correlations drawn between different things.

Speculative philosophy can be done in a dark room full of vacuum for sure — Corvus

The basis upon which the speculation happens cannot happen in a vacuum.

It would be a conceptual vacuum of course.

I'm objecting to the very notion. Speculative philosophy requires common language. One cannot acquire common language without conceptions.

And, I am pointing out that this type of behaviour, where one acts contrary to one's own logical process, is explained by the concept of free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

I see a truck approaching me at speed.

If things were going well in my daily life, the logical thing to do would be to step to one side. This would be an example of Determinism, acting logically.

If things were going well in my daily life, even though the logical thing to do would be to step to one side, out of passion, I decide not to step to one side. This would be an example of Free Will, acting illogically.

In practice, do people act illogically? How many times do we see people in a city centre, when seeing a truck approaching them at speed, decide not to step out of the way?

If there are "forces beyond their control" these are forces not understood, because understanding them allows us to make use of them, therefore control them. — Metaphysician Undercover

The fact that gravity is a force beyond the control of humans does not mean that humans don't understand gravity.

The fact that humans understand gravity does not mean that humans can control gravity.

I see a truck approaching me at speed.

If things were going well in my daily life, the logical thing to do would be to step to one side. — RussellA

Logic does not always determine how one reacts in such circumstances. It's not like everyone has pondered what to do at the time based upon some logical calculus. There's no time to run the rules through one's mind while the train is approaching. One avoids danger successfully, nonetheless.

Logic does not determine how one reacts in such circumstances. It's not a logical thing to do.

This would be an example of Determinism, acting logically. — RussellA

Determinism is the name of a position one may take upon how the world works. Determinism is a worldview. Worldviews are not the sort of things that 'act logically'. Determinism is not the sort of thing that acts logically any more than Indeterminism, or Theism.

If things were going well in my daily life, even though the logical thing to do would be to step to one side, out of passion, I decide not to step to one side. This would be an example of Free Will, acting illogically. — RussellA

Free Will does no acting.

One may logically decide to step out in front of a train. They may plan to do so. They desire the effect. They want certain things to happen as a result of their deliberate choice. They do so in order to make the world match their desires...

According to you this is illogical.

Phenomenology :
1.the science of phenomena as distinct from that of the nature of being.
2. an approach that concentrates on the study of consciousness and the objects of direct experience. — Gnomon

Number one is a powerful statement. Being here refers to what can be "totalized" or assimilated into a system of understanding. I thing does not appear before one at all without it being a part of a totality, a matrix of contextual embeddedness. No object has this "stand alone" non categorical status, for context is an epistemic necessity. The question is never whether this "eidetic horizon of structures" is there to constitute the knowldege experience, because this structure is what makes intelligibility possible. The question is, IN this matrix of possibilities (Heidegger's potentiality of possibilities) can one encounter the world of actualities ('actuality' being itself a contextualized partical of language)?

A massively interesting question. Is there anything prohibitive about language being the "opening" to the world, that which makes things "unhidden" (alethea is the Greek term) to us and that defines our radical finitude, that makes the "leap" (Kierkegaard) to a non cognitive and non propositional understanding impossible?

I hold the answer to be, no, there is nothing prohibitive like this about language and logic and the context nature of knowing.

A massively interesting question. Is there anything prohibitive about language being the "opening" to the world, that which makes things "unhidden" (alethea is the Greek term) to us and that defines our radical finitude, that makes the "leap" (Kierkegaard) to a non cognitive and non propositional understanding impossible? — Astrophel

...to there... from where exactly?

I would argue that some sort of determinism is a prerequisite for free will. We can't choose to bring about some states of affairs and not others based on our preferences unless our actions have determinant effects. We must be able to predict the consequences of our actions, to understand ourselves as determinant cause. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, there is the problem of how free will can transcend what would otherwise be determined.

1) Imagine two people X and Y at time t with the same physical state of mind A.
2) Suppose person X has no free will. Suppose their physical state of mind at time t + 1 is B
3) Suppose person Y has free will. Suppose their physical state of mind at time t + 1 is C
4) The change in the physical state of mind of person X from A to B has been determined by A
5) The change in the physical state of mind of person Y from A to C cannot have been determined by A, otherwise person Y's physical state of mind would also have changed from A to B.
6) As both person X and Y at time t had the same physical state of mind A, person Y's free will must exist in addition to their physical state of mind.

If free will exists in addition to a person's physical state of mind, and determines changes in a person's physical state of mind, how is free will connected to a person's physical state of mind?

I'd say the image on the screen like any photo or painting is really a "flat" three-dimensional image. Of course, I am not denying that we call such images 'two-dimensional' because they are presented on "flat" surfaces. but there is no such thing as a truly flat surface, and even if there were any surface still possesses depth, otherwise there would be nothing to project the image onto or present it on.

:cool:

In practice, do people act illogically? How many times do we see people in a city centre, when seeing a truck approaching them at speed, decide not to step out of the way? — RussellA

Yes, in practice people commonly act illogically. Your truck example is just so extreme, it would rarely occur. Take something more simple for example, like when someone buys a lottery ticket, or breaks the law, knowing that getting caught would have serious consequences. There are many other common instances, like when we are overcome by passion to act violently or lustfully for example.

The fact that gravity is a force beyond the control of humans does not mean that humans don't understand gravity.

The fact that humans understand gravity does not mean that humans can control gravity. — RussellA

Humans do not understand gravity. They can predict the effects of gravity, but they do not understand how it works. One cannot control something without understanding how it works.

You wouldn't call or equate a lump of computer chips and memories as mind, reason or consciousness...Of course the physical existence of the chips and memories are the body where the software defined logic and machine reasoning can be set, and happening. But they are at the software level, not hardware. Software operations are conceptual just like human mind. — Corvus

The brain can be equated with hardware and the mind can be equated with software

I would not equate a computer chip with the mind, but I would equate the computer chip with the brain.

However, there is not a clear distinction between what a thing is and what it does. There is not a clear distinction between what the brain is and what the brain does. There is not a clear distinction between the hardware within a computer and what the software the hardware enables.

A physical structure can only do what the physical structure is capable of doing. A microwave cannot play a DVD, a cat cannot debate the literary values in Ernest Hemingway's novels and the human cannot reason about things that are outwith the physical limitations of its brain.

There are forms such as the brain and hardware in a computer and there are processes, such as the mind in a sentient being and software in a computer. Form and process are distinguished by their relationship with time. The brain and hardware in a computer exists at one moment in time, but the mind and software in a computer need a duration of time in order to be expressed.

That both the mind and computer software require a duration of time to be expressed does not mean that within this duration of time either exist in some form other than physical. IE, when considering one moment in time, neither the mind nor computer software exist outside the physical form of either the brain or computer hardware. The mind and computer software are not some mysterious entities existing abstractly outside of time and space, but rather, exist as the relation between two physical forms at two different moments in time.

As you say that software operations are conceptual, we say that the mind is conceptual, But this does not mean that either the hardware of the computer or brain of the human need to exist outside of time and space in order for the software of the computer or mind of the brain to be expressed.

===============================================================================

Speculative philosophy can be done in a dark room full of vacuum for sure, because its tool is the concepts, logic and reasoning. — Corvus

A philosopher can only philosophise about something

A tool isn't a tool until it is used. A piece of metal at the end of a piece of wood isn't a hammer until it hammers something. As a thought must have intentionality, a thought isn't a thought until it is a thought about something. Similarly, reasoning must be about something. For example, for what reason do apples exist. Tools, concepts logic and reasoning cannot exist if they are not about something, if they don't have some object of investigation.

A Philosopher cannot work in a vacuum. A philosopher cannot philosophise if they have no topic to philosophise about, even if that topic is philosophy itself.

===============================================================================

Plato couldn't talk about Kant obviously, as having not been born for almost another 2000 years, Kant wasn't around when Plato was alive......................Yes, I suppose you could look at any contemporary system or thoughts under the light of Kant's TI, and draw good philosophical criticisms or new theories out of them, and that is what all classical philosophy is about. But as I said, it would be a topic of its own. — Corvus

Kant should be looked at for his philosophy not as a historical figure

True, but as we can compare and contrast Plato and Kant in order to evaluate their respective positions, we can compare and contrast Kant's Transcendental Idealism with contemporary Indirect Realism in order to evaluate their respective similarities and differences.

I think that looking at Kant as a historical figure from the viewpoint of the 18th C may be interesting as a historical exercise, but I don't think it contributes to our philosophical knowledge and understanding.

And, I am pointing out that this type of behaviour, where one acts contrary to one's own logical process, is explained by the concept of free will. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, in practice people commonly act illogically. — Metaphysician Undercover

Free Will may be an illusion

Suppose I saw someone act in an unexpected way. For example, they had bought a winning lottery ticket and then proceeded to tear it up. As an outsider, how can I know their inner logical processes in order to say they are exhibiting either Determinism or Free will.

On the other hand, if I had bought a winning lottery ticket, and freely decided to tear it up, I would think that I was exhibiting Free will. However, what if in fact my act had been determined, and what I thought was Free Will was in fact only the illusion of Free Will.

How can I know that what I think is Free Will is in fact only the illusion of Free Will?

I'd say the image on the screen like any photo or painting is really a "flat" three-dimensional image — Janus

We could throw caution to the wind and call a "flat" three-dimensional image a two-dimensional image. :smile:

The brain can be equated with hardware and the mind can be equated with software — RussellA

Yes, I suppose the brain and mind's closest analogy would be computer processor and software. But again there are too many gaps between them to equate. Human brain and microchip cannot compare in complexity and also capacity. Same goes with the human mind and computer software.

As you say that software operations are conceptual, we say that the mind is conceptual, But this does not mean that either the hardware of the computer or brain of the human need to exist outside of time and space in order for the software of the computer or mind of the brain to be expressed. — RussellA

It is not to do with existence in time and space, but the complexity and capacity gaps, computers and human mind cannot be equated.

A Philosopher cannot work in a vacuum. A philosopher cannot philosophise if they have no topic to philosophise about, even if that topic is philosophy itself. — RussellA

Philosophy can be done in a dark room in vacuum I believe.  You go into the room, put on a light, shut the door, take out some of your favorite philosophy books, do some reading, meditating, reasoning, and write what you think about them. To me that is good enough philosophy for a casual reader. If you are a professional philosopher, perhaps you must also prepare the lecture notes.

 If you were a scientist, then it would be different. You must have a lab, and all the test equipment, the books, notes, and you would be doing experiments, observations and verifications. You must then try to come up with the conclusions for your experiments, and try to make up some theories.  

Kant should be looked at for his philosophy not as a historical figure
True, but as we can compare and contrast Plato and Kant in order to evaluate their respective positions, we can compare and contrast Kant's Transcendental Idealism with contemporary Indirect Realism in order to evaluate their respective similarities and differences.

I think that looking at Kant as a historical figure from the viewpoint of the 18th C may be interesting as a historical exercise, but I don't think it contributes to our philosophical knowledge and understanding. — RussellA

The most compelling point for Kant's TI are still, whether
1. Metaphysics is possible as a legitimate science or is it just an invalid form of knowledge.
2. Whether Thing-in-Itself is a true independent existence on its own separate from human cognition therefore unknowable, or whether it is part of human perception, which is possible to be known even if it may look unknowable at first.

These are the compelling points that have attracted different opinions and interpretations. All other points are, I still believe, separate issues and subjects of their own.

Determinism is not the sort of thing that acts logically any more than Indeterminism...One may logically decide to step out in front of a train. — creativesoul

When we act, is it from Free Will or Determinism. It has been said that we can act illogically because of our free will, inferring that somehow Determinism is logical. This raises the question of what is logic, the subject of numerous Threads, such as the recent thread What is Logic?

My definition of logic is that is that of repeatability, in that given a prior state of affairs A then the subsequent state of affairs B will always happen. It would then be illogical for someone to say that given a prior state of affairs A, then the subsequent state of affairs may or may not be B. Repeatability must be the foundation of logic

For me, Determinism is an exemplar of logic, in that given a prior state of affairs A then the subsequent state of affairs B will always happen.

Human brain and microchip cannot compare in complexity and also capacity. Same goes with the human mind and computer software. — Corvus

True, but the principles each operates under may be the same. Gravity can attract a ball to the ground and can attract Galaxies together. A difference in complexity but the same principle applies.

===============================================================================

Philosophy can be done in a dark room in vacuum I believe.  You go into the room, put on a light, shut the door, take out some of your favorite philosophy books, do some reading, meditating, reasoning, and write what you think about them. — Corvus

True, as long as they have something to think about.

===============================================================================

The most compelling point for Kant's TI are still, whether
1. Metaphysics is possible as a legitimate science or is it just an invalid form of knowledge. — Corvus

A Metaphysician asks "what are numbers". An engineer asks "what does 130 plus 765 add up to". The engineer in designing a bridge doesn't need to know the metaphysical meaning of numbers.

Though different, both the metaphysician's question and the engineer's question are valid, both are legitimate and both are forms of knowledge.

===============================================================================

2. Whether Thing-in-Itself is a true independent existence on its own separate from human cognition therefore unknowable, or whether it is part of human perception, which is possible to be known even if it may look unknowable at first. — Corvus

We as humans know that for every other animal in the world there are some things that are unknown and unknowable to them because of the physical limitations of their brains. For example, we know that a cat can never understand the literary nature of Hemingway's novels.

It would hardly be surprising that as we are also animals, there are some things that are unknown and unknowable to us also because of the physical limitations of our brains.