>The soul never thinks without an image.“
>Aristotle, De Anima
Is this true? Is even the most abstract mathematical thinking reliant on some kind of sensible thought? If we squint hard enough, will there always be some kind of "pattern" from "sensible intuition" that serves as the framework for higher-level mathematics? Or can we think without any kind of mediated structure derived from the senses whatsoever?
He was talking about real math, not 0.999...=1 math.
Only NPCs do math without intuition.
If that's true, then how is that even possible? That's incredibly impressive and suggests that NPCs are even more powerful than normies.
>mfw chad cerebration
If I'm not mistaken, CS Pierce writes on that Exact Aristotle quote. I cant find it now
He was not talking about picture-thought, mentioned by Hegel, which is what most people of lower abstract ability use to think. Aristotle was getting at what would be called "thought signs" or "thought images" which is what philosophers, mathematicians, theologians and theorists generally utilize.
The difference between picture thought and thought-signs is that picture thought is simply a remembering tool and contains no "computational capacity" it is merely a mental representation that bears a spacio-temporal sense resemblance to the object to which it refers. Thought-signs bear a purely syntactic resemblance to that to which they refer. Thought-signs allow for meaninglu thought, and new ides to come into existence because there is an interal logic to them. Think it like thinking in pure mathematical objects.
>If I'm not mistaken, CS Pierce writes on that Exact Aristotle quote. I cant find it now
Do you recall in what essay or what topic he was speaking on? I could try to find it for you.
>The difference between picture thought and thought-signs is that picture thought is simply a remembering tool and contains no "computational capacity" it is merely a mental representation that bears a spacio-temporal sense resemblance to the object to which it refers. Thought-signs bear a purely syntactic resemblance to that to which they refer. Thought-signs allow for meaninglu thought, and new ides to come into existence because there is an interal logic to them. Think it like thinking in pure mathematical objects.
Before I continue, how well-versed are you on the way Aristotle thought about the mind and how it extracts knowledge from sensible objects? I think we could have a great conversation about how Peirce "generalizes" Aristotle.
That's a very longwinded way to say "I have aphantasia".
Do mathematicians have aphantasia? Or is there still a "grammar of reality" that they have access to?
You're not a mathematician. You're just coping with your inability to see images in your head. "Grammar of reality"... Jesus Clownfucking Christ, where do all these pseuds come from?
I can see images in my head though. I'm also not that anon you were initially responding to.
>I can see images in my head though
Are they pretty? Either way, I don't think Aristotle was trying to say something about le grammarino of reality.
>Either way, I don't think Aristotle was trying to say something about le grammarino of reality.
You've never read Aristotle's The Categories?
Nope. Provide some pertinent quotes that back up your take and I'll take it back and apologize. :^)
From the opening page of the Wikipedia article:
>The Categories (Greek Κατηγορίαι Katēgoriai; Latin Categoriae or Praedicamenta) is a text from Aristotle's Organon that enumerates all the possible kinds of things that can be the subject or the predicate of a proposition. They are "perhaps the single most heavily discussed of all Aristotelian notions".[1] The work is brief enough to be divided, not into books as is usual with Aristotle's works, but into fifteen chapters.
>The Categories places every object of human apprehension under one of ten categories (known to medieval writers as the Latin term praedicamenta). Aristotle intended them to enumerate everything that can be expressed without composition or structure, thus anything that can be either the subject or the predicate of a proposition.
How do you get from that to the idea that "images" actually means "the grammar of the universe"?
Well, I don't know what
means, but I suppose it goes somewhere like this:
>The soul never thinks without an image.“ - Aristotle
>"We think only in signs." - Charles Sanders Peirce
>images are a type of representation of the outside world (in other words, a sign)
>languages are also a type of a sign
>languages have grammar
>signs have a general grammar
and finally
>signs must correspond with the structure of reality or else we have no hope of knowledge
Huh? What evidence do you have to suggest that when Aristotle wrote "images" he meant "signs" a la Pierce?
I don't think he meant signs as broadly as Peirce, but he certainly meant something more broad than "image", considering that the perceptive and imaginative faculties compiles, processes, and manipulates all the senses together into a coherent sensible object. The imaginative faculty in particular is meant to be a "stable" representation of the outside world that can be "mined" by the intellect for true understanding. However, this is only possible if the sensible objects potentially contain intelligible objects inside of them. So, there's an intellect-realism, and then there's a sense-realism latent here that has to be explained somehow.
>he certainly meant something more broad than "image", considering that the perceptive and imaginative faculties compiles, processes, and manipulates all the senses together into a coherent sensible object.
Ok. That, I agree with. He probably meant the intuitive comprehension of the world that is learned through all the senses.
>The imaginative faculty in particular is meant to be a "stable" representation of the outside world that can be "mined" by the intellect for true understanding. However, this is only possible if the sensible objects potentially contain intelligible objects inside of them.
Sure. There are structures and patterns in what we perceive that are picked out intuitively and stand to be reflected on and formalized. The reason I dismissed all that "grammar of the universe" rhetoric is because the guy who posted, as far as I can tell, was doing his best to put abstract wank on a pedestal and divorce it from its origins in perception, which seems to be the opposite from the point of that Aristotle quote.
>The reason I dismissed all that "grammar of the universe" rhetoric is because the guy who posted, as far as I can tell, was doing his best to put abstract wank on a pedestal and divorce it from its origins in perception, which seems to be the opposite from the point of that Aristotle quote.
I'm the same guy btw from:
. I did write with the intention of it being a "smol bait", but I didn't think my post would have stirred that much controversy.
The main reason I asked the question was because I'm a bit of a mathlet (I've only done all the way up to CalcIII, linear algebra, and differential equations), and I'm vaguely yet distinctly aware that mathematics only becomes far more abstract after that point (e.g. abstract algebra, category theory, number theory, etc.). So, given the presumption that thinking originates from perception, how exactly does mathematical thinking work? It might as well be aphantasic, at least regarding your standard mental image. But is there something else going on, something residual left over from the images?
>So, given the presumption that thinking originates from perception, how exactly does mathematical thinking work? It might as well be aphantasic, at least regarding your standard mental image. But is there something else going on, something residual left over from the images?
I agree that trying to trace a path from "a monoid in the category of endofunctors" back to the senses would be pretty tenuous. Maybe it's more about the way concepts are grasped through a process that goes from the concrete to the abstract. Sense experience is... uh... ground zero, whereas advanced math deals with patterns in patterns in patterns, but the mechanism of true comprehension (by which I mean whatever is behind those eureka that seemingly come out of nowhere, and which you can't force by applying logical principles alone) is the same mechanism used for basic understanding of the world, that is the same mechanism that first comes to play handling the senses. This is in contrast to, say, Plato's mystical insights beamed from the realm of perfect forms or whatever.
>I agree that trying to trace a path from "a monoid in the category of endofunctors" back to the senses would be pretty tenuous.
But wouldn't it still be possible?
>Maybe it's more about the way concepts are grasped through a process that goes from the concrete to the abstract.
I see it as a distillation of the concrete to the abstract through symbolization, and then a manipulation of symbolization to progress further into symbolization. There's always a medium to be worked through, though. It's never aphantasic, though whatever is being "imagined" could very well have nothing to do with any familiar sense-perception.
I don't know how Aristotle would've regarded modern mathematics or what exactly your philosophy of symbols implies. To me a symbol of any kind is just a mental reference, not some kind of distilled essence. Symbols don't capture any essence as far as I'm concerned. When you're manipulating symbols you are, at best, playing with tautologies and there is no creative intelligence in that and it can be "aphantasic" in every way.
So, what exactly are the symbols of modern mathematics referring to, then? How do we recapture the "Aristotelian" understanding of thinking, at least in a broad sense? Should we get rid of it entirely?
>what exactly are the symbols of modern mathematics referring to, then?
Hopefully some kind of structure internalized through a gradual process that starts from the fairly concrete and goes to the highly abstract.
>How do we recapture the "Aristotelian" understanding of thinking, at least in a broad sense?
The closest thing would be to teach in a way that instills a deep intuitive understanding of the concepts through application and grounded analogies that illustrate those concepts from many different angles.
We need a mathematician with good introspective skills to lend us a hand.
>The reason I dismissed all that "grammar of the universe" rhetoric is because the guy who posted, as far as I can tell, was doing his best to put abstract wank on a pedestal and divorce it from its origins in perception, which seems to be the opposite from the point of that Aristotle quote.
it is 100% related to the Aristotle quote. Every meaningful thought about theory, existence, how to act, etc. is ultimately arrived at through a process of semiosis. Which can be modeled by Pierces theory of signs.
>But is there something else going on, something residual left over from the images?
there is, just take into account the main mathematical objects in foundations. Sets and categories for example. The main properties these sorts of objects have is identity, difference, and relation. These properties are the main properties found in the intellect, completely independent of sense perception. These properties are also the threads that goes through all concepts, and therefore all beings that exist (and can possibly exist). So once one reaches the highest level of abstract thought, you learn to "think using pure abstract objects". this dosent mean you imagine seeing them with your senses, but that you utilize them by thinking "through" them.
>These properties are the main properties found in the intellect, completely independent of sense perception.
Proof?
the concept of proof is the thing im trying to explain
Why don't you explain how proof is possible and even desirable?
No... I mean prove your statement.
i can close my eyes and still be conscious
what is your point?
are you saying there are things that I can experience that somehow can't be conceptualized?
>i can close my eyes and still be conscious
So? That doesn't prove this statement:
>These properties are the main properties found in the intellect, completely independent of sense perception.
You sound very confused.
whats the point of replying if you dont explain anything?
if someone is born with no senses they can still learn languages and think because that is the inherently part of the mind and its process
>if someone is born with no senses they can still learn languages and think because that is the inherently part of the mind and its process
Proof?
are you every going to explain what you mean?
What I mean by what? Is the following a statement that YOU wrote?
>These properties are the main properties found in the intellect, completely independent of sense perception.
If so, I want you to prove it.
I can think without having to observe the world. When I try to write new code or try to complete a task on a computer I dont have to check every computer program in the world to see if the halting problem is true or false. I can know it by simple logical rules. No experiment required, I have an intellect and consciousness.
I don't know how else to explain it to you.
If you aren't going to explain your position its not going to go anywhere, which is fine but its disappointing you have just wasted time.
>I can think without having to observe the world
Easy to say after having obsereved the world for a solid 12 years. :^)
The intellect is what was there before the growth and generation of ideas. It is the reason why this sort of growth was possible.
>The intellect is what was there before the growth and generation of ideas
Prove that intellect "was there" and doesn't develop in response to interaction with the world.
philosophers in several traditions have called the intellect the kernel of knowledge since at least Leibniz. Knowledge develops when the intellect interacts with thought and the world. You're making a category error. The intellect is not knowledge, but it is the source of knowledge.
Why do rocks not develop ideas and knowledge when the interact with the world? its because they dont have an intellect. Do you have an actual theory that differentiates between a rock and a human with intellect?
>Appeal to tradition
How is that appeal to tradition? Am i supposed to just make up words?
>Let X equal the thing that interacts with matter to create concepts.
>X is therefore the thing that is independent of matter because it is the thing that is interacting with matter to create concepts
there you go bro, proof
>How is that appeal to tradition?
>philosophers in several traditions have called the intellect the kernel of knowledge since at least Leibniz.
Are you going to at least try to maintain enough intellect to post on this board, or are you better suited for Stack Exchange?
StackExchange is much higher quality than LULZ lol.
>philosophers in several traditions have called the intellect the kernel of knowledge since at least Leibniz.
Wouldn't be the first thing they were wrong about. Still waiting for your proof, though.
>Why do rocks not develop ideas and knowledge when the interact with the world?
They don't have the wetware to pick up rules.
>They don't have the wetware to pick up rules.
correct, they don't have the wetware that give them intellect, the faculty of the mind that picks up on rules.
im glad you finally made a statement, but i don't think you actually have anything substantial to say
>they don't have the wetware that give them intellect,
They don't have the wetware that gives them the capacity to GAIN what you call intellect. This is a different statement from the thing you keep asserting but can't prove.
>im glad you finally made a statement, but i don't think you actually have anything substantial to say
Wouldn't it be somewhat substantial for you to find out that your entire worldview revolves around some pseud idea that we already know is wrong?
>philosophers in several traditions
>philosophers in several traditions
Still not an argument. Do you think water has ideas? How about air?
>moral situations have higher cardinality than moral discretions
thats unironically a neat little proof
I don't get it. All you've proven is that consequentialism is gay. "You shall not do X, period" is immune to this.
I think the point is its impossible to follow Moral commands of infinite informational capacity. But like you said you can easily follow moral commands of finite capacity.
Also, it proves nothing about the existence of moral commands, only the perfect implementation of following an infinite moral code. And most philosophers and theologians already agree that humans fall short of this perfect moral code, which is what the proof shows
>The main properties these sorts of objects have is identity, difference, and relation.
Reminds me of Plato's categories of sameness, being, and difference from the Late Dialogues.
I think that is because aristotle generally considered the rational intellect separate from the soul ad intra.
The motions of the logistikon and the thinking of pure intellect separate from soul and body are without the phantasy.
"soul" in the general sense without the qualification "rational" can very well mean irrational animal souls. For Aristotle and the philosophers agree that animal is predicated of man and beast, but the differentia qua rational only to man. A cat or a dog is no less ensouled as we, and "thinks using images" for it is demonstrated they have imagination of some kind.
How would the rational intellect think without the body? And I guess the real question is, what exactly is thinking, as an action moving from point A to point B?
>>The soul never thinks without an image.“
, De Anima
Jung agrees with this message.
You're probably closer than anyone ITT.
The collective consciousness is fascinating though the fear of snakes and spiders, the meaning and symbolism of so many primordial symbols. Embedded so back in the causal chain we all have them
I consider the soul real in the sense of being that it is that which quantum states effected by our brain that is in or a places outside the corporeal or existing entirely outside this dimension. It is. For example. The Prime Mover is and executes the software initiating time within the singularity and causal chains universe eventually our process spawns and is observed and a note is made. See?
I always think of math as an emergent low consciousness approximation to the true nature of the universe.
I think its irrelevant to the universe, its our brains and how they work voicing themselves as statistical computation and quantum computational organs.
Why are putting credit on something some dude said 2000 years ago ? Even you are smarter than Arrestotle
I consider myself fairly intelligent, I have a big imagination, big vocabulary, I am able to grasp large pictures, large and complex concepts/systems.
But holy fuck I suck at math. (It might be the way they're trying to teach though)
nobody cares about your opinion brainlet, you're the dumbest person in this thread by far, and nothing you could possibly say could change this fact.
Sounds like impotent chest pounding. Would you like if I patted you on the head and called you a "good boy," or would you rather a ribbon to pin on your backpack? You haven't provided any argument as to why you're right and I am wrong. Refute my post or find another board to bother, like
or
.
There's nothing to refute. All you said was "lol" and "ur wrong." That's not an argument, therefore it does not deserve a refutation. Actually, since most of those posters know something about the topic, it's evidence against you knowing anything at all, since you didn't pick up on it.
I made a claim; the burden of proof is on you to convince the world that I am wrong. Obviously, you haven't, which is why you haven't used any logic or reason in your replies to me. You are never going to be able to convince me that I am wrong (i.e., that the people I am replying to are right) despite being forced to if you want to dispute my points.
Anything else, hotshot?
>You are never going to be able to convince me that I am wrong
That's fine. You can be a retard forever. It doesn't bother me.
Resorting to childish name-calling? How very adult of you. How does it feel to have been bested in public? This could've been a private discussion, but I suppose to the victor belongs the spoils, right?
>
The motions of the logistikon and the thinking of pure intellect separate from soul and body are without the phantasy. (You)
>Incorrect.
Aristotle does not identify soul with intellect. Please show me where he does in De Anima or anywhere else.
>Please show me where he does
Literally not my job. The burden of poof is on you to defend your position and convince the planet that you're right. You obviously can't -- just like
-- and into the "bad thinkers" pile you go.
Would you like an apple pie with that?
>into the "bad thinkers" pile you go.
Badthinkerbros, do we accept this new member into our pile?
So you instead resort to ad hominem, ad hoc, strawman, and post hoc ergo propter hoc instead of refuting my logic?
>ad hominem, ad hoc, strawman, and post hoc ergo propter hoc
Fallacy fallacy.
Good job adding a non sequitur on top of that. Are you trying for a high score?
>Good job
Thanks.
People have been saying for decades that what string theory needs is a unifying conceptual component. Conceptualization usually refers to illustration, and that's exactly what it meant in the string theory context, and if my enemies had a scientific bone in their bodies, which they don't despite calling themselves "scientologists," they would not have discounted the illustrative work did so quickly.
Another wildly incorrect assumption in this thread. Is this board actually full of people with an IQ less than 165?
Heisenberg (paraphrasing pic) said, "The fact that we can't draw a simple picture of what's going on in quantum mechanics shows that we aren't doing what physicists usually do when we're doing quantum theory." The implication is that if we're ever going to unify classical and quantum theories, which is the accepted purpose in modern physics, then first we need to get someone to draw a nice picture of what is really happening. Physicists that aren't shit-tier all know this, and most of the shit-tier ones know this too.
what do you propose we call the intellect instead of the traditional name?
>Tu quoque
I have a professional education. Try harder.
Nice example of:
>Irrelevant conclusion
>Appeal to emotion
>Appeal to tradition
>Multiple non sequiturs
>Circular reasoning at its core
>no counterargument
>only fallacy fallacy
Keep bumping my thread for me. I appreciate it.
I am not compelled to provide an argument when in "debate" with anyone with a minimal IQ. Do you debate with your air conditioner whether or not it should be running? If I see a flaw with its operation, I am going to address it. The most efficient way I can address your malfunction is by simply pointing out the logical fallacies within your elementary and rather pedestrian conclusions. Until you remediate these issues, I will not be engaging in any dialogue that requires more effort, or reveals more of my intellect to you.
I received a professional education. Can you say the same?
Is this your "I'm 16 years old manchild and I just discovered the thesaurus and the Wikipedia list of informal fallacies" character? Because it's genuinely a good bit. You'll have people bumping my thread all night.
>Concerned about bumps on a dead board
And with that, we've confirmed that you're about as smart as my Samsung refrigerator. You still haven't addressed any of my points, refuted my logic, or made any substantial reply that wasn't riddled with name calling and other logical fallacies.
So long.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out. You wouldn't want to lose any precious IQ points now, would you?
>new techniques are disqualified by virtue of their newness
This is basically what I have to say about scientology. Does it mean the chimp is smart that you can teach it to do this? It's just a monkey trick, so the answer is no.
>Is this true?
No, the body feels and the mind translates it into an image. I use "feeling" to calculate Geometry, not visualize it first, that comes after I construct it internally and projects it hyperdimensionally, hence why "vision" cannot calculate it, it approximates hyperbolically at best using absolute.
>6 bumps since I left the thread
Pathetic. This is why you should have to pass an IQ test in the 97% percentile to post here. All I see is a mountain of flawed sophomoric reasoning born of people who do not have a professional education. Pitiful.
trump bump
I wish I could be a philosopher and just say profound things based on nothing
t. NPC
he was unknowingly exposing his limitations. like all those philosophers insisting that thinking must involve language, or even that thinking is equivalent to inner monologue. try doing any serious math that way.
why, what happens?
can't be done at all. took me a long time to figure out why some of my students kept struggling to no avail with algebra: they were trying to do it via textual substitutions, and as the human capacity for that is limited, so were they.
how does it work instead? btw, have you seen the discussion in the thread about things like
bump
your personal vanity thread that nobody except for yourself was ever interested in seeing is on page 10 again, you'd better bump it again soon
>111 posts
>30 IPs