I don't think that's a question for 19th century biology. — Vera Mont

No. But I believe it's a question for today, and not only for biology ...

It can only be applied deliberately to human life; all other life continues only as long and far as humans allow it to. For other species, only one aspect of fitness still is effect: their ability to adapt to humans. — Vera Mont

Good points.

What about the theory? — Vera Mont

My remark about words and semantics referred to the element of language, based on what you said: "he couldn't have foreseen what the future speakers of English" ...

I think it works pretty well, even today. It was certainly a solid foundation for the new branch of scientific study that Darwin's generation pioneered." — Vera Mont

Yes, I believe it was a solid foundation at the time and it still is today, in its basic aspects, but it has limitations, esp. regarding human species. First of all, technology has changed dramatically since 250 years ago. E.g. @L'éléphant talked about adaptation based on mutation. Medicine can do "miracles" today. All that do not belong to "natural selection" but rather to "artificial changes". But even, if we don't take these changes into account, NS or SOF fails utterly in matters of the human mind and the human nature. A basic example is that it does not take into account human mind and consciouness.

"The problem with the theory of evolution by natural selection, according to [Thomas] Nagel, is that it does not provide an understanding of consciousness as a likely product of evolution. Therefore, we face a double mystery: We are unable to explain the relationship between the mental and the physical, and we cannot explain why and how consciousness evolved. Furthermore, given that consciousness is a feature of life, if we cannot explain how and why consciousness evolved, we cannot fully account for life." (https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/4/355/248583)

but at least you know those books are being written and that there’s an alternative to the bleak SOF ideology. — Wayfarer

Right. It's a comfort! :grin:

I don't think we're as animal as a dog or trout is an animal; something quite artificial about us, but of course this doesn't mean survival of the fittest doesn't apply to us. — Agent Smith

Indeed, it applies to us in every sense. And IMO more than to animals, esp. in the sense of "strongest" or "more suitable for survival", which --for better or worse-- has prevailed. To that, we have to add two human elements that are missing from animals: free will and mental illnesses.

Anyway, we can find elsewhere that Spencer talked about this concept to Darwin and convinced him to use it instead of "natural selection". But this is trivial to me.
— Alkis Piskas
It was coined by Herbert Spencer but Darwin approved it and included it in later editions of OoS - as OP says.
— Wayfarer
May I ask what was the response of Darwin when Spencer talked to him about using the phrase. — L'éléphant

I made a correction in an earlier comment about that: it was Alfred Russel Wallace, not Spencer himself who talked to and persuaded Darwin about "survival of the fittest". (https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/06/03/the_problem_with_survival_of_the_fittest_778335.html). But this trivial, anyway.

what did Darwin think of "survival of the fittest"? — L'éléphant

I believe one has to roll up his sleeves ans start searching the web regarding the subject to found out details about that! :smile:

This [re: conquering] is an example of how Darwin's natural selection had been misused. It really is about the species of animals. — L'éléphant

Right. It's a wrong interpretation of Darwin's concept of "fittest", as I described earlier. Yet, I think that the concepts of "strongest", "better suited for survival", etc.-- have prevailed, and this has bad consequences for the human species.

So, afterall, maybe Darwin should have known better and stick to his "natural selection", with the concept of the "fittest" staying in the background. Yet, as it is discussed in here, even the concept of "natural selection" has its own flaws.

The Genial Gene. — javra

Very interesting. Thanks for bringing it up. :up:

(I don't know however when I'll find the time to read all that --including @Wayfarer's recommendation-- the whole works, I mean. Considering also that I have already a backlog of things to read and that I am not a fast reader! :smile:)

You may like Survival of Friendliest — Wayfarer

I, liked it! :up:

Thanks for your contribution to the topic.
(Are you sure this is only "two cents"? :grin:)

the latter phrasing [re: “survival of the form that survives in successive generations”] can just as well be reduced to “survival of that form which survives”. — javra

I see what you mean. But is just "survives" enough? Every organism survives ...
I believe that Darwin's "reproductive success" is very clear and satisfies his theory. If we have to translate it in to "survival", we could say "the form that survives longer, in terms of generations". As we say figuratively that a person "survives through his children".

it depends on how the phrase "survival of the fittest" gets interpreted. — javra

Yes, it can be interprested in different ways. However, as I mentioned to @Vera Mont, there's only one definition as far as Darwin's theory is concerned. Which, BTW, I missed to include in my description of the topic. (See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/782308.)
Otherwise, your analysis is quite interesting and its purpose is clear.

As to (2), how most interpret “survival of the fittest” is to my mind a simple mirror held up to the principle values which humanity at large currently entertains. — javra

Ha! :smile:

In reality, non-human species that tend to not live in harmony with their surrounding species and environment also tend to not be very fit, apex predators included. — javra

Good point.

And in terms of (3), again imo, given the aforementioned perspectives, the phrasing is morally detrimental in so far as it reinforces the predominant view of “fitness” being equivalent to a kind of individualism wherein the individual person or cohort outcompetes all others in a zero-sum game. — javra

I agree.

So, to sum my own perspective up, there’s a lot more cooperation and harmony in nature than what we are typically interested in acknowledging — javra

Well said. I agree.

Thanks for considering and responding to all 3 questions!
As I see the whole thing now, it nust be quite a tiresome task! :grin:

Thank you for your response to the topic.

Fitness is a very poor choice of word to apply to humans, let alone human social organization. — Vera Mont

Certainly.

It has too many meanings and potential applications. A scientific terms needs to be far more precise. — Vera Mont

Right, we can attribute to it different meanings. However, there is a scientific and precise definition for it in the present context:
Also called Dar·win·i·an fit·ness [dahr-win-ee-uhn]. Biology.
"1. The genetic contribution of an individual to the next generation's gene pool relative to the average for the population, usually measured by the number of offspring or close kin that survive to reproductive age.
2. The ability of a population to maintain or increase its numbers in succeeding generations."
(Dictionary.com, former Ofxord Lexico)

In nature, the genetic strains that replicate most successfully have the highest survival rate. In human societies, both reproduction and survival capability are unnatural.
So, no, it can't be applied. — Vera Mont

I agree.

Darwin was articulate, but he couldn't have foreseen what the future speakers of English, and particularly those with an agenda of their own, would make of his words. — Vera Mont

This is correct. However, we are not talking here just about words and semantics. We are talking about concepts and principles. In fact, about a whole theory of evolution.

Thank you for your response, Javi.

I have always understood the theory of "survival of the fittest" on a military/conquering way. — javi2541997

Right. The concept fits to all conquerors. The will for and act of conquering comes from mental illness and is a form of criminality. One has just to read their lives and feats, as well as their behavior in general, to ascertain that.

Which leads me to say that "survival of the fittest", if used willfully as a principle and not as "natural selection", is a criminal and/or insane attitude. I guess Darwin consider the animal kingdom alone.
But humans differ from animals and, unfortunately in this case, they suffer from mental illnesses that are absent in animals.
A mental illness is an aberration, i.e. a deviation from (what considered as) normal or "natural" behaviour. Darwin was a biologist and not a psychologist, so he regarded humans as animals and he ignored this very important human factor.

Thank you for your response.

Survival of the fittest was incorrectly attributed to Darwin's theory of evolution. — L'éléphant

This is what I said at the beginning. It was Spencer's idea:
"Herbert Spencer (1820–1903) was an English philosopher who initiated a philosophy called ‘Social Darwinism’. He coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ seven years before Darwin’s publication of his theory of natural history," (https://newlearningonline.com/new-learning/chapter-4/neoliberalism-more-recent-times/herbert-spencer-on-the-survival-of-the-fittest)

"Hearing of Spencer's idea, noted British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, who independently conceived of evolution by natural selection, wrote to Darwin and urged him to adopt the phrase "survival of the fittest" in future editions of On the Origin of Species. Natural selection seemed to personify nature as "selecting" successful species, he contended. Using "survival of the fittest" would do away with that misconception." (https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2021/06/03/the_problem_with_survival_of_the_fittest_778335.html

We already know that adaptation due to mutation has been successful as shown in species and within the cultural context (i.e. humans). — L'éléphant

Right. Mutation is not "natural selection".

The dialog that follows is fictitious. Any reference to real persons or aliens, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

How would we know whether an alien was dead or alive? — BC

According to my report, we can't. We only found it dead.
But we don't and won't know what the report by the US government is.

Why would a allegedly dead alien be traveling with the balloon? — BC

Again, as I said, we only found it dead. We don't know if it was dead or alive before we shot the balloon down. But most most probably we killied it. (Ask the US government for more details. They must have found the time of death based on body temperature and stiffness. If of course, these apply to the alien's body.)

How was the alien getting around before it allegedly died? — BC

We will never know. (If the aloen is already dead, even the US government couldt know. Otherwise, they can always find out about this by interrogating the alien. If it is willing to speak, of course. It also depends how much can the alien can withstand tortures.)

What happened to the allegedly dead alien's flat round space ship? — BC

Tech changes!


... To be continued (maybe)

In the beginning was the word
— John — Agent Smith

This is a translation of the Greek "Εν αρχή ην ο λόγος και Θεός ην ο λόγος" (transliterated as "En archi in o logos kai Theos in o logos"), with which John managed to perplex everyone, including St. Augustine. As the ancient Greek priestess Pythia did with her oracular statements! :smile:

Augustine, talking about the Trinity, "not just in his theological writings, but frequently in his homilies, encouraging his audience to plumb the depths of this mystery even though they cannot fully understand it: 'It says and the Word was God (Jn. 1:1). We are talking about God; so why be surprised if you cannot grasp it? I mean, if you can grasp it, it isn’t God.'" (https://www.faithandculture.com/home/2020/4/15/john-113-with-st-augustine).

Now, here's what I have to say about this big "riddle":

First of all, the word "logos" has been wrongly translated as "word", which does does not make any sense as Arche. So the English translation makes John's "riddle" even more difficult to solve!

In Greek, the word logos had --and still has-- different meanings: speech, logic, analogy, reason, to mention a few. The word "word" (a literal translation of the word "lexis" in Greek) is not even among them. But even if we take the word "speech" as the closest one to it, it makes no sense that everything was created by speech, does it? There are other meanings that are much more pertinent, the first of which being "logic", which has the same root with "logos" and it is also close to "reason".

As for the word "Om" that you have brought up as a parallel, the prime symbol of Hinduism, is has also different meanings and has been interpreted in various ways, but mainly to denote the essence of the supreme Being or God, the Absolute, consciousness, Atman, Brahman or the cosmic world.
So, Hinduism at least refers to ॐ as a symbol, not a word (although it is spoken as part of chants or songs).
I don't know of anyone referring to John's "Word" as a symbol of some kind. That at least would make more sense. But no, it is left "hanglng on the air".

At least, Augustine admitted he can't solve the riddle and (cunningly) stated: "If you can grasp it, it isn’t God"! (It reminds of "God Works in Mysterious Ways", doesn't it? :smile:)

It's hard to tell exactly what that [payload] means, but they made it sound ominous to say the least. — Tzeentch

The payload was a dead alien travelling with the balloon.
(Fans of "Area 55" are certain about this.)
:grin:

If China has the means to carry out its reconnaissance in a legal manner in space, why would it invade U.S. air space? — Tzeentch

Good question.

I also have a question: "Why almost all known conspiracy theories involve the US?"

Hi-tech can be defeated/confused by low-tech — Agent Smith

No-tech can also do that. Jackie Chan has demonstrated this many times. :grin:

Kamis tend to be physically connected with nature and the environment. — javi2541997

OK. But if their nature is physical, shouldn't they be perceivable?

Well, I wonder if the same question applies to the gods of the Greek and other mythologies, who are usually considered "creatures", which by definition are physical! How can intelligent people --as I assume they were-- talk about "invisible" creatures?

The gods in the American Indian culture, on the orher hand, although they have names of animals, they are considered spirits, whish are not physical. Hats off to them! (And of course to all the other people, the culture of whom includes gods that are not physical in nature. E.g. the Australian aboriginal mythological spirits.)

We are talking here of course about gods in native cultures (from a historical viewpoint), not the religions that we have today, in which God is considered a spirit.

***

(For the rest, which is outside this topic, check your INBOX ...)

All this is very interesting, Javi!

Kami, the deities, divinities, spirits, phenomena or "holy powers" that are venerated in the Shinto religion. In Shinto, kami are not separate from nature, but are of nature, possessing positive and negative, and good and evil characteristics. — javi2541997

I know almost nothing about Shinto religion, but from what you say I understand that these gods are physical in nature rather than spirits, which are not. Is that right?

For a moment I thought that they are not of this world but they take the form and are manifested as physical entities, in order to be part of this world. Which gives rise to another conceptualization of "God" and "gods" and their depiction as such. But this is another kind of story, isn't it? :smile:

Japanese culture tend to be sensitive with seasons and nature — javi2541997

I believe you mean more sensitive than in other cultures, right?

The zenko (善狐, lit. 'good foxes') are benevolent, on the other hand, the yako (野狐, lit. 'field foxes', also called nogitsune) tend to be mischievous or even malicious. — javi2541997

Something like angels and demons, God and Satan or Devil, right?
BTW, I love Japanese writing! These symbols, for me, are the most beautiful in all languages I know of.

Japanese painting representing a kitsune under the moonlight — javi2541997

Beautiful indeed.
This is another thing I love a lot in Japanese art. So fine and airy painting!
I have 4 Japanese scroll paintings in my living room.

The concept of God is inherently unprovable and unverifiable. — gevgala

I would rather say that the existence of God is inherently unprovable and unverifiable, since concepts are abstract ideas, not objects, hypotheses or facts to undergo proof.

the pursuit of God is often based on subjective experience and personal conviction — gevgala

Indeed, the existence of God --any god and as a commonly shared concept-- cannot be proved. "By definition", as we say.
Usually, for the persons who really believe in (a) God, i.e. they do not pretend to or superficially believe because of tradition and various religious elements in the society, have come to that belief from personal experience and/or conviction. God can only be experienced.

In addition, the concept of God may be too complex for human beings to fully understand. — gevgala

Indeed. However, I don't think that humans really try to understand such concept. We cannot even imagine e.g. how an omnipotent being would look and act like. Imagination is at full play here.

So people have simplified that concept using subtraction or deduction. They get some abstract idea of an omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient entity and they use it when they are talking about God. Then, they also compare it to things they consider very valuable, e.g. "God is Love", "God is Light", etc.
All these are enough for creating different "images" of God that produce pleasurable and in general positive feelings to people, giving them hope in life and so on.

In short, although the concept of God may be complex --we must never forget that it is ourselves who have created!-- for most people actually is something very simple, something that exists in their everyday life.

As for the pursuit of God that you are talking about, I have no much to say. I know it exists but I have no examples in mind.

Philosophers may spend their entire lives attempting to prove the existence of God — gevgala

I don't have any one in mind. Do you?
I believe that most philosophers --and philosophy in general-- are not much concerned about God's existence or have a direct sense of God.

Of course person(ified) Gods are products of imagination. But not only that; single-entity Gods are depicted as males and referred to in the male gender. Of course, since they were created in a male-dominated society. And not only that. The Christian God is depicted as an old man, with white hair and beard, as if time has affected them. Not only that. They have emotions. Like the angry God below:



So, a personified God should at least be depicted as a being of a non-identified gender, ageless and emotionless. And It should be addressed to in a neuter gender.

Non-personified Gods, on the other hand, are more "realistic" and are usually depicted as energy, esp. light:



In fact, God should not even be depicted like that or referred to as such, since It should not be physical in nature. A God should look like this:



Nice topic, @Art48.

He was proud without being proud. Sometimes facts can seem condescending/haughty/belittling. — Agent Smith

Why do you say all this about Siddhy? :smile:

Il est facile de voir que that arche is of great importance; of course some disagree, like Siddhartha Gautama for example. Gautama "disliked" speculation and it's obvious he tried (his best) to keep imagination out of his weltanschauung. Hats off to the Buddha for his decidedly anti-metaphysical stance. — Agent Smith

It looks like "arche" is indeed very important in philosophy. But only in a general sense,. E.g. for me, it isn't.
And of course I undestand why you brought up Siddhartha Gaudtama. who was against speculations and abstract ideas in general. Yes, hats to him!

(BTW, I like that you are addressing to him by his name, as a person, and not as "Buddha", which is too general, or even as "The Buddha", which kind of deifies him.)

It seems that my language opts to understand universe and cosmos as "whole world" etc... — javi2541997

I think this interpretation is correct. The Greek word for "universe" is "σύμπαν" (sympan), which comes from the preposition"συν" (= with, together) and the name "παν" (= all, everything), i.e. "everything together".
And as you see, it doesn't mean just everything, but everything together, which makes a whole. And a whole is different than (all) its parts.

BTW, go back to https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/780871 because I have added something quite interesting during the time you composed your post.

I read a little more about "kosmos" to see why Pythagoras used that word and what it meant to him. According to his biographer Iamblichus, "Pythagoras was the first to name the area of all the cosmos, from the order in it." (Translation)

Also, in the same article, from the Greek Wikipedia (https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%9A%CF%8C%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%BF%CF%82), we read:
"The World, which according to Anaxagoras was put in order and decorated by Mind [Nous] is so wonderful that he clearly states that any sufferings of mortal life are nullified before the privilege of being able to 'consider the sky and the surrounding the whole world in order'" (Translation)

The connection of the concepts of "whole world" and "universe" with "order" --via the Greek word "kosmos"-- is clearly explained here.

***
On a second plane, but outside the current topic, we see a very interesting connection of the Universe with Mind [Nous], in fact a suggestion that the Universe was created by the Mind. This of course relates to "In the beginning was the Word" in the Book of Genesis, which is so much debated and misinterpreted in the English language, since the original word "Λόγος" ("Logos") at the place of "Word", besides "speech", it also meant mind (nous) and reason (hence logic) and, by extention "pneuma" (spirit). Of course, the idea that the universe was created by Mind cannot be easily grasped and it is open to different interpretations, but the idea that the universe was created by "speech", well, I personally cannot grasp it at all!

Interesting! Greek is such a beautiful language. We can learn a lot from your lexicon because of the origin of many words that complement our vocabulary, but I guess that's could be a subject of other thread: Specifically, philosophy of language! — javi2541997

True. The "magic" of the ancient Greek language was --and still is!-- that the words themselves most often contain their meaning. This can be easily seen by examoning their etymology. (The Modern Greek has lost this magic of course.)

I did a research in the R.A.E (Real Academia de la Lengua Española/ Real Academy of Spanish language), and it says about cosmos: From lat. cosmos 'universe', and this from Geerk κόσμος kósmos 'universe' and 'ornament' — javi2541997

This interpretation does not only convey misinformation but it is totally stupid ... "cosmos" coming from Latin "universe"! This is a real pearl! Moreover, as I just mentioned to @AgentSmith, the word "universe" did not exist at that time. How could "kosmos" mean "universe"?
Godssake. What do these guys smoke?

3. Plant of the family of compounds that comes from Mexico and has spread as cultivated in many varieties.
LMAO the third meaning of the word! :rofl: — javi2541997

This is quite laughable, indeed.

Liddell and Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon — Fooloso4

Yes, this is the dictionary I was talking about :up:
I have the monolingual version (Greek). But the term "kosmos" contains no reference about or hint about a "whole". It mainly means simply "order", which has different applications (e.g. for goverrnment.) (Some secondary meanings of the word are used as derivations. E.g. the verb "kosmein" means "decorate". And the adjective "kosmios" means "well-behaved, decent".)
Anaximander expanded the application of the word "order", as he talked about the "cosmic order", which most probably was evolved into the concept of term "universe", the corresp. of the Greek "sympan", a word that did not exist yet at that time.

What is the precise meaning of 'cosmos' in Greek philosophy?
— @Wayfarer
The ordered whole. — Fooloso4

In my Great Lexicon of the Ancient Greek Language, the main definition of the word "cosmos" (κόσμος, kosmos) is simply "order". The secondary definitions also refer to "order" (but also to "beautiful"). So, this is the only "precise meaning of 'cosmos'", as a word in ancient Greek language. I don't think that there is such an exact meaning in philosophy, however. The first philosopher to refer to "cosmos" --not to the term itself but to the subject-- was Anaximander, who tried to explain the origin of the universe. It is said that Pythagoras, not much later, was the first to use the term "kosmos" to refer to the universe itself. And not much later, Anaxagoras introduced the concept of "cosmic mind". And so on.

So, I believe this is as far as the "precision" of the word "cosmos" can go in Greek philosophy. :smile:

The dialogues have many instances of central characters complaining about this practice. — Paine

Interesting. I didn't know (or remember) that. I personally found (at that time) and I still find this method (Q & A) very interesting and productive. Way better of course than any teaching that does not involve the students' participation, and esp. any authoritarian or donnish kind of teaching. I can well read books instead, at my own pace and convenience. In fact, this is much better, because I can look up terms that I don't know or I am not sure about in a dictionary, which will make my understanding of the content better.

That clear expression of authorial intent makes it different from establishing the historical circumstances Descartes wrote within, for example. — Paine

Certainly.

out of a love of logical argument, out of excess expectations for its ability to provide answers. — Fooloso4

I think I suffer from this kind of illness! Not Misologism (hatred of logic). The opposite: Philologism (love of logic) :grin:

The main question of the Phaedo is what happens when we die. This is one of those big questions that Socrates admits he does not know the answer to. — Fooloso4

I'm a member of the same club. I admit I don't actually know.

Since logic cannot provide a clear answer logic cannot in this case be persuasive. — Fooloso4

This is only ... logical. How can I persuade you if what I say makes no sense to you?

So what is preferable, to accept a comforting answer or, as Socrates did, admit ignorance? The danger of the latter is nihilism. — Fooloso4

Maybe the saying "There is only one thing I know and that is I know nothing" refers to that or something similar? Who knows? See, this is the problem with these sayings: they are used out of their context. Sometimes we are able to find that context and all looks fine. E.g. Descartes' "I think, therefore I am". The reason he said that and how he came to that idea are known (although people don't care about that and prefer to interpret it as they wish). Other times, we have the context but still we cannot me sure about the meaning of a saying. E.g. Juvenal's "mens sana in corpore sano" (healthy mind in a healthy body), which is equivocal. If you try to undestand the pasage of the poem it features in, you might not be sure if he meant that a healthy body makes for a healthy mind or the opposite is or maybe both! :smile:

Plato does not give us a historical account of what Socrates said and did. — Fooloso4

This looks like a shady photo! Do we live in semi-darkness regarding ancient history?

In the Apology what he denies is having knowledge of anything "πολλὰ καὶ καλὰ", very much or great and good or beautiful. — Fooloso4

Maybe "having knowledge of everything"? Which is very plausible?

This is why I said the phrase is ambiguous. Stronger in what sense? — Fooloso4

Yeah. This too is a reasonable question.

By refuting them Socrates shows that although the arguments they make are weak, they make the argument seem stronger than it actually is. — Fooloso4

Right. They seem strong to a weak mind and weak to a strong mind! :grin:

am I persuaded because it is stronger or do I think it stronger because I am persuaded? — Fooloso4

Ha! The "chicken or the egg" dilemma!
But for me it isn't so: I am persuaded because my logic says so. Or the other way around. See, there's no room for logic and sentiment (being impressed, feeling omething is strong/weak etc.) in the same place. This is known even in Marketing (which I have studied): onsumers buy based either on reasoning or on emotion. (Of course, you can hear also talking about "emotional reasoning" and "reasonable emotion"! Id est, crap.)

Someone skilled at making arguments may make an argument that is stronger than someone who is less skillful at arguing, but this does not mean they are right. — Fooloso4

Right. (See my coment before last.)

Socrates accuses the sophists of "making the weaker argument stronger". The ambiguity in this is that if the stronger argument is the most persuasive argument then the most reasonable argument can become the weaker argument. — Fooloso4

Good point. And if Socrates actually said exactly that --I'm not always sure about the validity and/or exactness of his sayings as they have survived to our days, e.g. his "knowing nothing" is a myth-- then his statement indeed fails rationallly-wise, as you pointed out.
But from what I know about sophists is that they were deliberately using persuasive but false statements (fallacies) to mislead (rich) people to get paid for teaching them rhetoric.
So,these sophisms-fallacies do not make for strong arguments. Rather the opposite. And Socrates was no fool --he was not a "Foolosopher"! :grin:-- and it is difficult to believe that he believed they were actually strong ...

No problem, universeness. Enjoy yourselves! :party:

Yes, this was the dialogue I was taking about. Thanks for bringing this :up: (up)!
However, regarding Socrates, I'm not so much interested in his --and Plato's-- views about the immortality of the soul, or about Forms and Ideas, as much as his critical thinking, Q&A (maieutic) method, positive way of justifying ideas and resourcefulness in general.
Yet, I have not studied Plato's works after my first initiation in them--actually, as part of the my courses in Ancient Greek, not even philosophy!-- at school. But I'm very glad to see people that have done so, like yourself, who seems to know a lot about Plato/Socrates. (Maybe from your studies in College/University?)

I said to myself, "What the hell, I might improve my Physics afterall!". So I gave it a try.
Well, I believe my Physics were better before that! :grin:

Search for Searle's Chinese Room Argument ... — Agent Smith

I did. I also read the beginning of the homonymous article at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-room/.

The operation was successful, but the patient died! Meaning that the experiment and the analogy were successful, but they failed to answer the question about how understanding is achieved or at least explain how the brain can actually achieve understanding. (Which of course it can't. And that can be explained.)

It could be a good example though as an answer to people who believe that computers and AI can achieve human undestanding and consciousness, allthough there's a much simpler and faster way to do that: by explaining them what computers and artificial intelligence are and can do. Similarly, about the brain.

(Note: I would have commented about all that to @debd, but his topic is 2 years old. So, I did it to you, who regurgitated it. So, you asked for it! :smile:)

Very interesting analysis.
I had never digged into the subject of body and soul at the time I was reading about Socrates at school. But it was always clear to me that Socrates --and Plato, of course-- believed that the soul was immortal. More specifically, I remember vaguely one of Platos's dialogues in which Socrates, using his Q&A method, made a student "find" the solution of a math problem --geometric I think-- and then he said that the student actually knew the answer (from a past life, I suppose), and that he had only to remember it. Something like that. :smile:
(I was somehow surprised, but I also I felt very comfortable with it. I don't know though if and what effect that had to other students or people in general.)

Neurons, individually, can't do this :point: comprehend, but, together, as a brain, they can. — Agent Smith

:chin:

How can a group (the brain) consisting of stuff that can't understand (neurons) understand? — Agent Smith

Exactly!
So? Keep on ...
(Maybe you are close to something I would really like to hear. Not only from you but from others too in here ...)

The idea that my soul can attain divine knowledge that contradicts that of the prevailing formula for realism could possibly result in a mental health diagnosis. — introbert

I think that the idea of having a soul (re: "my soul") contradicts with your nature and alienates you from it, because it creates a relationship between you and the soul, that is, with yourself. And this is what results into a mental problem, which can be from imperceptible to quite severe.

And this is perhaps why you see in Socrates a conflict between rational objectivity and the soul trying to escape a physical world/society of deception. Because what Socrates did with his characteristic method of teaching based on Q & A, was to foster critical thinking to his students so that they discover the truth that resided in themselves. Not only there's no conflit in this but, on the contrary, there is cognition and agreement --and therefore harmony, which is the opposite of conflict.

Another puzzle, perhaps overriding all of these, is why it is believed that humans will ever be capable of solving these puzzles. — RussellA

Another puzzle, perhaps overriding the above, is that humans forget that they create these puzzles themselves and then try to solve them as if they exist in their own, independently of them.

I wish I had a physics PHD. — universeness

Keep digging into and insisting in quantum reality, as you do here, and you will get one! :grin: