Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Felix]

Huxley goes on to talk about mental filters....

Reflecting on my experience, I find myself agreeing with the eminent Cambridge philosopher, Dr. C. D. Broad, "that we should do well to consider much more seriously than we have hitherto been inclined to do the type of theory which Bergson put forward in connection with memory and sense perception.

The suggestion is that the function of the brain and nervous system and sense organs is in the main eliminative and not productive. Each person is at each moment capable of remembering all that has ever happened to him and of perceiving everything that is happening everywhere in the universe. The function of the brain and nervous system is to protect us from being overwhelmed and confused by this mass of largely useless and irrelevant knowledge, by shutting out most of what we should otherwise perceive or remember at any moment, and leaving only that very small and special selection which is likely to be practically useful." According to such a theory, each one of us is potentially Mind at Large. But in so far as we are animals, our business is at all costs to survive. To make biological survival possible, Mind at Large has to be funneled through the reducing valve of the brain and nervous system.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Bertrand Russell wouldn't say that all perceptions are equally real, but that some are more real or true than others (which is, after all, a measure of sanity). For him, waking state sensory perceptions are a truer measure of reality than are extrasensory perceptions such as dreams, visions etc. For a mystic such as Ramana Maharshi, the reverse is true. We each have to decide whether we'd prefer to make our home on solid ground or in the clouds - if we're capable of making that decision.

Our filters protect us. Without them, we would be blinded, deafened and would f-l either as if burning alive or freezing - all the senses turned to maximum.

They appear to act more like a dimmer switch than a binary on/off one, so it's possible to dim then down (or up) with meditation, psychedelic drugs, etc. This can be frightening and/or enlightening depending upon one's psychological stability.

Your understanding of Bertrand Russell is different from mine.

[Felix]

"Your understanding of Bertrand Russell is different from mine."

Well, he had a long career, his philosophical outlook changed quite a bit over time.

[GaryLouisSmith]

"Your understanding of Bertrand Russell is different from mine."

Well, he had a long career, his philosophical outlook changed quite a bit over time.

I am interested and know only about his metaphysics, not his social ideas. Yes, some things in his metaphysics did change, but some things remained constant. What aspect of his thinking are you interested in? Do you know about the philosophy of Alexis Meinong? He was right there in the mix, along with Wittgenstein.

[Belindi]

GaryLouisSmith wrote quoting Greta:

Our filters protect us. Without them, we would be blinded, deafened and would feel either as if burning alive or freezing - all the senses turned to maximum.

You have given a sensual interpretation to what I wrote, but I did not have sensa in mind. As you know I am a big fan of Platonic Forms, abstract things, the elements of logic. If you add –ness, -ty,try, -tion, or –hood to a word you get the abstract element. It is that that I am interested in. As a realist I assert that those abstract things exist. They exist external to the mind. They are not concepts in the mind. In my philosophy, there are no concepts.

Regarding direct realism, if it's truth you pursue, some percepts are more real than other percepts.

Those percepts that have space-time qualifications such as the moon, or a hen's egg, are more real than abstracted universals such as horseness, eggness, nonsense and so forth. Kathmandu-ness is less real than Kathmandu.

1.Kathmandu has its own peculiar space-time quality and you yourself who know the place intimately and immediately have a relatively true percept of Kathmandu.

2.Kathmandu-ness exists only subjectively in individuals' imaginations because Kathmandu-ness lacks space-time physicality. Is Kathmandu-ness which is a universal also a Platonic form?

3. If someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of Kathmandu and fantasizes about Kathmandu, perhaps that K is a vacation resort in the US, that's a chimera made from his own inadequate memories and is the least true sort of percept .

Only item 1. applies to direct realism. Terrestrial reality relates to the cognitive quality of the percept. There is also a unified transcendent reality and the more rational percepts are closer to unified transcendent reality. (By 'rational' I contrast it with 'irrational' and not non-rational as in mystical percepts).

[GaryLouisSmith]

GaryLouisSmith wrote quoting Greta:

You have given a sensual interpretation to what I wrote, but I did not have sensa in mind. As you know I am a big fan of Platonic Forms, abstract things, the elements of logic. If you add –ness, -ty,try, -tion, or –hood to a word you get the abstract element. It is that that I am interested in. As a realist I assert that those abstract things exist. They exist external to the mind. They are not concepts in the mind. In my philosophy, there are no concepts.

Regarding direct realism, if it's truth you pursue, some percepts are more real than other percepts.

Those percepts that have space-time qualifications such as the moon, or a hen's egg, are more real than abstracted universals such as horseness, eggness, nonsense and so forth. Kathmandu-ness is less real than Kathmandu.

1.Kathmandu has its own peculiar space-time quality and you yourself who know the place intimately and immediately have a true percept of Kathmandu.

2.Kathmandu-ness exists only subjectively in individuals' imaginations because Kathmandu-ness lacks space-time physicality. Is Kathmandu-ness which is a universal also a Platonic form?

3. If someone who has no knowledge whatsoever of Kathmandu and fantasizes about Kathmandu, perhaps that K is a vacation resort in the US, that's a chimera made from his own inadequate memories and is the least true sort of percept .

Only item 1. applies to direct realism. Terrestrial reality relates to the cognitive quality of the percept. There is also a unified transcendent reality and the more rational percepts are closer to unified transcendent reality. (By 'rational' I contrast it with 'irrational' and not non-rational as in mystical percepts).

The words "more real and less real" mean nothing to me. It seems to me that something is real or it isn't. Perhaps you mean more determinate or less indeterminate.

[Belindi]

"More real" and "less real" relate to transcendent reality. Plato's forms are transcendent reality, overarch terrestrial reality ,and must therefore be more real than terrestrial reality.

More cognitive, more rational, percepts are closer to Platonic forms/transcendent reality than are less cognitive, less reasoned percepts.

This particular egg, and the Moon, and Kathmandu all are qualifiable by space -time. The more your knowledge of the egg, the Moon , and Kathamandu the closer your percepts to unified transcendent reality i.e. the metaphysical locus of Platonic forms.

[GaryLouisSmith]

"More real" and "less real" relate to transcendent reality. Plato's forms are transcendent reality, overarch terrestrial reality ,and must therefore be more real than terrestrial reality.

More cognitive, more rational, percepts are closer to Platonic forms/transcendent reality than are less cognitive, less reasoned percepts.

This particular egg, and the Moon, and Kathmandu all are qualifiable by space -time. The more your knowledge of the egg, the Moon , and Kathamandu the closer your percepts to unified transcendent reality i.e. the metaphysical locus of Platonic forms.

Whoa, your understanding of these matters is almost the opposite of mine.

[Belindi]

Please would you say where you think is the locus of Platonic forms? Where/ what did Plato say is the locus of Platonic forms?

[GaryLouisSmith]

Please would you say where you think is the locus of Platonic forms? Where/ what did Plato say is the locus of Platonic forms?

Here is the Phaedrus. Go down about a quarter of the way to where Socrates begins his long speech that begins with "Know then, fair youth. This is a nineteenth century translation so some of the language may seen old. http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/phaedrus.html

[Jklint]

Plato's dialogs are in essence syllogistic meaning full of leading questions advancing to the response the questioner, mostly Socrates, had in mind to receive usually in the form of simple agreement. This technique wouldn't be very successful on philosophy forums or in any philosophy course. It's as if one person is doing all the thinking and the other ones are tagging along too lazy to think forward. Under the stringent rules in a court of law such type questionings would be considered completely ultra vires not leading to any truth but merely forcing one's views as outwardly logical hoping thereby to win one's case and therefore objectionable.

[GaryLouisSmith]

Plato's dialogs are in essence syllogistic meaning full of leading questions advancing to the response the questioner, mostly Socrates, had in mind to receive usually in the form of simple agreement. This technique wouldn't be very successful on philosophy forums or in any philosophy course. It's as if one person is doing all the thinking and the other ones are tagging along too lazy to think forward. Under the stringent rules in a court of law such type questionings would be considered completely ultra vires not leading to any truth but merely forcing one's views as outwardly logical hoping thereby to win one's case and therefore objectionable.

I agree that the argument presented by Plato in the dialogues is artful deception. I think all philosophical argument of any kind is that. Where I disagree with you is that you seem to think there is argument that is not artful deception. There isn't. It is all rhetoric, even "good" scientific argument. Good scientific argument is nothing more than good, proper academic formatting.

[Sculptor1]

Plato's dialogs are in essence syllogistic meaning full of leading questions advancing to the response the questioner, mostly Socrates, had in mind to receive usually in the form of simple agreement. This technique wouldn't be very successful on philosophy forums or in any philosophy course. It's as if one person is doing all the thinking and the other ones are tagging along too lazy to think forward. Under the stringent rules in a court of law such type questionings would be considered completely ultra vires not leading to any truth but merely forcing one's views as outwardly logical hoping thereby to win one's case and therefore objectionable.

I agree that the argument presented by Plato in the dialogues is artful deception. I think all philosophical argument of any kind is that. Where I disagree with you is that you seem to think there is argument that is not artful deception. There isn't. It is all rhetoric, even "good" scientific argument. Good scientific argument is nothing more than good, proper academic formatting.

pearls before swine

[GaryLouisSmith]

I agree that the argument presented by Plato in the dialogues is artful deception. I think all philosophical argument of any kind is that. Where I disagree with you is that you seem to think there is argument that is not artful deception. There isn't. It is all rhetoric, even "good" scientific argument. Good scientific argument is nothing more than good, proper academic formatting.

pearls before swine

i before e, except after c.

[Belindi]

Gary, I did read the passage you recommended. I agree that perfect elevation of reason would bring emotional flatness. But except when a man is unwell or dying it's as likely he'd lack emotions as if his blood did not circulate around his body.

But I had asked you if you would comment on the locus of Plato's forms.