1) Beds and tables as they are by their nature, the singular forms.
2) Beds and tables as they are made by the craftsman with an eye to the form
3) Beds and tables as they are made by a maker of images, whose model is the beds and tables made by the craftsman. — Fooloso4

Their Nature is their Law (Natural).

The Soul is its Nature.

The Law (of polis) is an Imitation of Nature.

The Nature of things is what their Truth is.

"Clochard" is a new word to me. I had to look it up .Maybe you should, too. — tim wood

I didn't. Literal quote from book is "the homeless, the clochards."

Give me some credit for knowing the meaning of the word PLEASE! :D

"Clochard" is a new word to me. I had to look it up .Maybe you should, too. — tim wood

It means 'homeless'. I had seen it before in Oscar Wilde I think, and again in the very book I quoted - 'homeless'. I was using it in a dystopian sense of what could come.

If you do not understand, you do not understand.

Someone else can explain if they want to. I already tried.

1) Beds and tables as they are by their nature, the singular forms.
2) Beds and tables as they are made by the craftsman with an eye to the form
3) Beds and tables as they are made by a maker of images, whose model is the beds and tables made by the craftsman. — Fooloso4

1) The purpose.
2) The technique/skill ('techne'/'arete' perhaps?).
3) The sensory impression ('imitation').

To what extent is justice in the soul like justice in the city? — Fooloso4

1) Purpose = Nature
2) Ability = Individual
3) Imitation = Law

The laws of a city is an imitation of natural laws. The human 'soul' is a 'natural law'. The individual is allowed to reconstitute itself in the face of nature and the contraposition of the 'imitative' force of nature embodied in 'law'.

The main problem with the last part is Plato trying to equate the idea of 'imitation' of a 'visible image' with a 'narrative'.

edit NOTE: I am not stating Plato's position here.

It is pretty simple.

Some people (A) cannot comprehend 'thinking' as X and others (B) refuse to define 'thinking' as X. In both cases A and B would, probably more often than not, state "thinking must have words" (A and B are not mutually exclusive either).

It could be possible that someone who cannot comprehend 'thinking' without words would accept the statements from those who say they can. One need not experience something to believe in its possibility. That is why I wrote 'probably more often than not'.

I think there is some truth to that. If I understand him correctly, Damasio makes a distinction between emotions and feelings. Emotions come instinctively while feelings have to be learned. — T Clark

Things get messy when people use the same words within different contexts. I personally see philosophy as being one of those fields of interest that plays a large role in sorting out such messes, whilst often also exacerbating them! It gives with one hand and takes with the other :D

Thinking is not "guided." Guided by whom? — T Clark

'Goal Directed' would have been a better way of framing it. As in, merely having a sense of the word "gradation" as possessing the taste of "blackberries" is not really teleologically significant.

Using Logic is pretty useful. Other than that ... I dunno?

Are you familiar with Schiller? This link might interest you. I have not read it myself but I have read the full work, so assume they pick out the main focus of his work.

If not, there are is some similarity in what he conveys with the ideas of material-impulse (concrete, physical world) and formal-impulse (abstract, rational world) being somewhat bridged by the playful-impulse (aesthetic world).

Maybe I was acting harshly above. My comment to the maker of this thread was simply to keep in mind that some people will not accept that 'thought' can exist without 'words'.

That is all. I can absolutely 'think' without the use of 'words'.

My friend didn't "pretend" to fit in, she wasn't aware until late in life that she was any different from other people. — T Clark

That is not what I meant at all btw. People do tend to conform and if they believe something about how they perceive the world differs from others, and they are viewed with deep scepticism, they tend to just say they experience the world like others do. You know this, as does everyone. That is all I meant; AND I have seen people do this firsthand when quizzed about worded thought versus other thought. One minute they state they cannot visualise and when they realised this was 'different' to me they switched. When pressed further they resorted to stating they cannot 'see' or represent ideas in any other way than through worded thought.

There is the then the further problem of measurable data, in terms of fMRI and such, because they are one particular aspect of the empirical evidence. Empirical evidence and anecdotal evidence are close enough when dealing with subjective experiences in the real world. This is simply because we cannot create a 'controlled' setting if the setting is life experience.

I am not trying to twist the meaning of 'anecdotal evidence' here only state that the more subjective the phenomenon under investigation, the more so-called 'anecdotal evidence' becomes meaningful when some rigor is added - hence the field of psychology.

Synesthesia is another instance where experience and thought can become difficult to grasp. Many people can assign colours to abstract ideas where to others this seems utterly ridiculous. Again, this is a 'thought' in some sense of the word, but not something that utilises 'words'. Some people cannot do this. It can be argued by some that this is not 'thinking' though because it does not appear to be guided ... this is precisely the bias some people hold (maybe correctly) regarding what we refer to as 'thought'. Which seems to be more or less what you are saying. We can agree to disagree here.

There is a psychologist (or cognitive neuroscientist/linguist?) who believes that ALL emotions exist only because we created words for them. Crazy as that sounds we can see clear physical changes in a toddlers brain when they first learn the words for colours. Through fMRI it can be seen clear as day that pre-speaking one part of the infants brain lights up when exposed to and focusing on a particular colour, yet when they learn the words for the colours the activity in the brain dramatically shift to the other hemisphere. Of course, this does not present hard evidence for or against, but it is intriguing nevertheless.

Note: I do think Damasio has a point when it comes to viewing consciousness more in line with 'feeling' and his somatic marker view of consciousness. He did a lot to tear people away from the widely held dichotomy of emotion and reason in the public eye.

You are being silly. Bye

I have never met Ms. C. Science nor Mr. Psychology. Widen your circle :D

Seriously, you are confusing subjective experience with empirical data. You would hardly tell someone with blind-sight they can see just because they can walk around a room and avoid every object. For them they are blind.

I have met several people who cannot think without words. I first became aware of this when my secondary English teacher told the class he could not think without words - had no subjective capacity to produce images and his dreams were purely auditory. Other people I have spoken to like this do have visual dreams but cannot perform the same visualisation when in a waking state.

It is bizarre, but it is more prevalent than you would think. A lot of people when pressed on this matter do sometimes 'pretend' to fit in. I get random flashes of images when I meditate but some people get nothing other than their own inner dialogue. Some people also insist that 'thinking' has to involve 'worded thought' and they are usually the ones who have a limited visualisation or none at all.

To repeat, some people on this forum have stated they cannot think without words.

If you speak to enough people some will tell you this.

But to really understand that idea, you must learn to step out of thinking a bit. — Carlo Roosen

You are talking about 'worded' thought. You will come to understand, if you have not already, that some people cannot 'think' without words. This was a strange thing for me to find out and equally strange for those who cannot think without words to grasp that anyone can think without words.

There will be some people on this forum that simply cannot fathom 'thinking' without words; and others who refer to 'thinking' as only being worded.

Yesterday I wrote that I not only have to build this SHAI to save the world, I also have to get philosophy back on track. Maybe you think I am arrogant. Believe me, I am not. A better description would be that I feel extremely lonely. It feels like I am in a room with 120 people and they all say that the moon is a cube. — Carlo Roosen

Stating this is not at all likely to help your cause. Some things are best left unsaid. Which you will agree with given what you are hoping to explicate .

Yes of course I will do everything I can to describe it. The difficulty of course is that language can refer only to shared experiences, and even then only if we use the same labels. I could call it a "religious experience" for instance, but what does that mean for me and for you? — Carlo Roosen

I have a good enough idea of what you say you have experienced to say that it is likely far more common than you think. Not the EXACT experience, but the same family of experiences (be they brain clots or less apparent physiological/psychological instances).

I mentioned split brain cases to someone recently, and that kind of instance can be related to the kind of 'non-languaged' expression of experience in some way.

I haven't read it, I will. I had no stroke. No diagnosis has been given in my case, except for a conversion syndrome that distorts my left eye on occasion. — Carlo Roosen

I am certain you will find common ground in there.

When I woke up after a heart surgery, 5 years ago, my memory was completely blank. I didn't know my own name. No memory no thinking, yet I was perfectly conscious. Since that time this happens to me on a daily basis, although my memory does not drop out completely anymore. Without thoughts, I can eat my lunch, make coffee perfectly. When somebode asks something simple, I can answer. But cooking a meal is challenging, because I need to make decisions.

I believe this non-thinking state is similar to what animals experience. Some animals have learned a few words, but as far as I know, they do not have these trains of thoughts like we humans have. I don't think they have words that imply causality, for instance. — Carlo Roosen

I know this is practically impossible to explicate but I would appreciate further and more detailed accounts of this please. I would find this EXTREMELY useful to hear an attempt at a first-hand account of this experience (although I understand it is now second-hand to you).

Also, have you read 'My Stroke of Insight' by Jill Bolte-Taylor? She is a neuroscientist who had a stroke and had to relearn pretty much everything.

Where is the UK going? — ssu

Down economically, maybe Up in terms of politics (although the latter will not come into meaningful effect anytime soon). I think having a more diverse choice in terms of parties will help matters in the future ... I am talking more long term though.

Note: I do not follow economic growth, trading and such things. My perspective is merely one from a distance based on firsthand experience with a focus on the 'politics' of the country.

Blame only holds value if directed at yourself.

I could write more about it from this perspective, if that is helpful? — Carlo Roosen

It probably would be.

Context might help.

Example: https://www.rootstrap.com/blog/the-use-of-ai-in-a-cookieless-future

I would step swiftly away from Kant and speak as plainly as possible on your own terms and allow someone else to guide you to a philosophical approach that better suits what you wish to say.

It might help. Otherwise this could go on for several pages where everyone talks past each other.

Kant is a common stumbling block for many people.

The 'thing-in-itself' is where he arrives at the concept of Noumenon as opposed to Phenomenon. We can only talk of Noumenon in a Negative sense. We can talk of Phenomenon in a Positive sense.

It is quite hard to get your head around the idea of noumenon being more than simply 'stuff we do not know' it is more or less 'stuff we cannot even refer to' - hence 'negative' only.

What is unknowable is unknowable.

He is out! Will be interesting to see what happens now ...

But surely you see that if that is how Kant defines it by defining it it becomes fundamental reality. He cannot speak of that which he speaks of ... yet he does. Explain.

Also, how does this help you creating an AI algorithm?

In short:just accept that fundamental reality is (by definition) something we cannot understand, but we can prove it is there. — Carlo Roosen

Why?

Maybe you are better equipped to answer the follow-up questions posed:

Is there something we can say about it? Maybe it will be closer to fundamental reality? — Carlo Roosen

?

My was AI doesn't think. Concepts are associated with thinking.

Either way, I do not see how this reveals the questions that came after it. If you can explain.

I can run with the hypothetical that "AI" will just become "I". The question about how this forms will be shaped by input/output. If in 'cyberspace' then there could be something we may call akin to 'consciousness' but certainly nothing like human consciousness ... it may even be faulty to call it 'conscious' at all in anyway we appreciate the term.

So, no. This will not be 'closer to reality' as reality is for us what it is just as it is what it is for other conscious sentient creatures. A shared world makes the reality shared. If AI can map reality it is mapping reality not knowing it.

I have a feeling you mean more than this so you'll likely have to explain further what your point is?

The philosophical question I am struggling with is this: I believe the conceptual reality of this AI will be completely different from ours. Is there something we can say about it? Maybe it will be closer to fundamental reality? What do you think? — Carlo Roosen

How can AI have a concept of reality? If you can answer that then this might make more sense.

minus "self"

I think you believe you may have some interesting things to say even though your ideas are probably not as enlightened as you think they are.

If you are an actual AI programmer it will certainly be interest to see what you have to say in that department.

I think the whole problem can be easily addressed here by framing the is-ought problem with a the lens of emotivism. It is a conscious association not an instinctual one.

We also know that we are neurological wired to favour whatever outcome serves us. So, our evolutionary adjusts have, so some degree, led us to associate 'good' outcomes as 'ought to be' situations.

It does seem to suit species survival. The problem behind this though is the tools used to assess how favourable an outcome is alongside our temporal appreciation - short vs long term repercussions.

Where it comes down to basic survival (meaning immediate existential threats) the is-ought is overruled by instinctual apparatus.

It is not against the guidelines. Posting a link in the thread is unless it is relevant to the conversation.

No link posted.

That depends on your views of morality.

Yes. Obvious. If neither of us have anything other than the obvious say maybe we should just shut :D

If there is a choice between one or the other I choose change. My point being change weighs more in favour of exploration and development than standing still. Errors along the way serve to function as a guides not dead ends.

This is pretty obvious though ... or so I thought.

I was talking about the constituents not the use. A car without an engine will not run, but it still possesses all the other constituents that would.

Change is good if you are able to change your mind about something. Understanding that what you once thought was correct is actually not as solid as you first thought is a step towards independence and away from indoctrination.

Basically, any change that instills you to question your opinions, beliefs and perspective more is positive growth. It is certainly unpleasant though at some point during the process; in my experience.

I would be thunderstruck to learn this is true. Two examples jump quickly to mind, but I'm sure there are others. — Patterner

It was in a collection of papers published in 'Cognitive Neurosciences' by Gazzaniga (I believe it would have been Fourth Edition).

They were talking more broadly though than you I think ;)

It is completely rational for different people to come to completely different conclusions.

It is rational for someone religious to pray for their children. Rationality is not dictated by the outcome it is dictated by an evidence based system. People have different conceptions of what constitutes evidence, and this changes fairly fluidly - hence why I no longer believe in Santa.

The reason I am arguing so strongly is we learn how to think and we should not expect everyone to think rationally without training. We should not take thinking for granted. — Athena

Your idea of rational training might be irrational. Saying that rationality requires language seems fairly rational, but it might be wrong. Your opinion about what is or is not rational can be faulty.

A man with no conception of language managed to figure out what language was. He did this in an irrational way? Accidently? Are we seriously suggesting that having the mental capacity to acquire language using our cognition is not a rational process? That just does not make sense to me.

This is little more than arguing that only humans are intelligent because no other animals possess the same type of intelligence as us. The very same goes for rationality and even language.

It should be noted that animals have cultures, traditions and can pass on knowledge to others. There scope is limited compared to ours though. All elements of human language (spoken/written/signed) can be seen in the rest of the animal kingdom, it is just that we happen to possess them all. Does rationality suddenly emerge because of this? Maybe that is your argument, I do not know?