• Wayfarer
    6.5k
    If we apply the PSR from the point of view of the abstract realm, no need for particulars, so no particulars.jkg20

    I don't know about that. If you go back to the early tradition, the relationship between abstract universals and particulars was a major theme. The whole idea of abstraction was related to the question of the intelligibility of particulars.

    In any case, what interests me about the Frege essay was his acceptance of the reality of number - Frege believed that number is real in the sense that it is independent of thought: 'thought content exists independently of thinking "in the same way", he said "that a pencil exists independently of grasping it. Thought contents are true and bear their relations to one another (and presumably to what they are about) independently of anyone's thinking these thought contents - "just as a planet, even before anyone saw it, was in interaction with other planets."

    That which emanates these cosmic ideas/forms, as in its sapient analog, i.e. us, is more like how one's imaginative mind conceives of a language, or even a poem -- it is an entirely cognitive event.snowleopard

    That is the philosophy of Vijñānavāda, translated as 'mind-only Buddhism' which forms a major part of the monastic curriculum in Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese schools of Buddhism. It is considered a very advanced subject of study.
  • snowleopard
    128
    That is the philosophy of Vijñānavāda, translated as 'mind-only Buddhism' which forms a major part of the monastic curriculum in Tibetan, Chinese and Japanese schools of Buddhism. It is considered a very advanced subject of study.Wayfarer

    @Wayfarer ... Interesting ... This no doubt explains why I’ve always resonated with those metaphysical/spiritual expressions, even before being inclined to interpret and articulate them in terms of Idealism.

    Be that as it may, I’m no longer even sure that I can give voice to an ultimate expression, as here again I must bow to the opening lines of the Tao Te Ching. And once more I must concede that the most appropriate name for what I’m positing here may be ‘mystical Idealism’. As such it may well even be unspeakable, unrelatable, and incomprehensible to the physicalist or substance-dualism mindset. It often feels as if I grok something I cannot quite convey, and which at best can only ever be an insufficient translation of some immanent, noumenal ‘language’ that must forever elude the gasp and expression of one’s finite, maya-bound locus of mind. Thus, perhaps poetry, metaphor and paradoxical allusions may be as good as it gets. Nevertheless, it also seems to be one’s creative imperative to try.
  • Wayfarer
    6.5k
    even before being inclined to interpret and articulate them in terms of Idealism.snowleopard

    Have a read of What Is and Isn't Yogācāra (which is another name for the Vijñānavāda school.) This is by a Western scholar of Buddhism and compares the similarities and differences between it and Western idealism. The passage on how Cartesian dualism gave rise to the opposing positions of idealism and materialism is especially useful, I think.
  • jkg20
    220
    Frege certainly appears to have been a realist about all kinds of mathematical objects: numbers, functions, sets.... What I'm not clear about from the Burge essay is that he appears early on to make some distinction (on Frege's behalf) between thought contents, on the one hand, and mathematical objects on the other: what's that distinction supposed to be? Obviously not every thought we have is going to be about mathematical objects, but when we do think about maths, for instance, when we consider whether some function is a derivate of another function, does the distinction between thought contents and mathematical objects dissolve?
  • Wayfarer
    6.5k
    I understand it as referring to the idea that the act of thinking is personal or subjective, but by 'thought contents' in such cases as number, he is referring to something which he assumes is independent of the act of thinking but are intellectual as distinct from material. And that's why it's the 'third realm'!

    Thought contents are true and bear their relations to one another (and presumably to what they are about) independently of anyone's thinking these thought contents - "just as a planet, even before anyone saw it, was in interaction with other planets." '

    Gödel believed something similar. Both were some sense mathematical Platonists:

    Gödel was a mathematical realist, a Platonist. He believed that what makes mathematics true is that it's descriptive—not of empirical reality, of course, but of an abstract reality. Mathematical intuition is something analogous to a kind of sense perception. In his essay "What Is Cantor's Continuum Hypothesis?", Gödel wrote that we're not seeing things that just happen to be true, we're seeing things that must be true. The world of abstract entities is a necessary world—that's why we can deduce our descriptions of it through pure reason. — Rebecca Goldstein

    when we do think about maths, for instance, when we consider whether some function is a derivate of another function, does the distinction between thought contents and mathematical objects dissolve?jkg20

    Are you familiar with Platonic epistemology? There's a very useful Wikipedia summary in an article on the analogy of the divided line. Plato distinguishes dianoia (mathematical and geometric knowledge) from pistis, opinions or beliefs. And that is because he thought mathematical proofs (and the like) possess an intuitive certainty that is not possessed by sensible objects. And that's even reflected in Galileo - 'the book of nature is written in mathematics'. But, Platonism is highly unfashionable nowadays, because it speaks of innate knowledge and inherent ideas, which goes against the grain of current empiricism.
  • SteveKlinko
    261
    Just because Causal Processes can happen over time doesn't mean you don't need a C Realm. Any Causal Process of the C Realm must deal with Physical Realm Activity and translate that to Conscious Realm Activity. Maybe these Causal Processes are in Realm A and Realm B but somehow a Bridge between Realm A and B must be constructed. — SteveKlinko
    As I explained above, the "Bridge", which is realm C is not necessary. The realm C is only required to prove a causal relation. Realm A and realm B be may be causally interactive without any realm C. The so-called "Bridge" is just needed to understand the causal relation. However, since understanding is already a property of the one realm, let's say realm A, the Bridge would be entirely within realm A, principles of understanding, and not a real bridge, nor a realm C, at all.

    This is the real problem of consciousness. We assume a material, physical, world, a realm which is outside the realm of consciousness. But we have no real way to understand it because everything which we understand is within the realm of consciousness. So we poke and prod at this material world, observing how it behaves in response, but we can only make conclusions based on a supposed causal relation, because we haven't discovered any real Bridge. There may not actually be a Bridge, and any constructed Bridge would just be within realm A, and only a false Bridge
    Metaphysician Undercover

    I basically agree. I said that there needs to be a Realm C but that was probably a little too strong. I think the Bridge is still needed even though it doesn't have to be a whole new Realm. I don't think you can just assume that it is all in Realm A or Realm B. If we can all agree that there are at least the two distinct Realms, Physical and Conscious, then we need to understand how things that happen in the Physical Realm can cause things to happen in the Conscious Realm. If the answer is that it is all in the Physical Realm then that's good too. But Science is nowhere near making that determination. This is the Hard Problem of Consciousness. There is a Huge Explanatory Gap here.
  • Metaphysician Undercover
    4.3k
    If we can all agree that there are at least the two distinct Realms, Physical and Conscious, then we need to understand how things that happen in the Physical Realm can cause things to happen in the Conscious Realm.SteveKlinko

    The best approach, I find, is to reverse this position, and look at how things in the conscious realm cause things in the physical realm. The evidence of a temporal priority is much clearer this way, and we can proceed toward understanding this priority through concepts such as final cause and free will.
  • SteveKlinko
    261
    If we can all agree that there are at least the two distinct Realms, Physical and Conscious, then we need to understand how things that happen in the Physical Realm can cause things to happen in the Conscious Realm. — SteveKlinko
    The best approach, I find, is to reverse this position, and look at how things in the conscious realm cause things in the physical realm. The evidence of a temporal priority is much clearer this way, and we can proceed toward understanding this priority through concepts such as final cause and free will.
    Metaphysician Undercover

    Yes I think it must work both ways. I would call the Interaction from the Conscious Realm to the Physical Realm: Conscious Volition.
  • JupiterJess
    108
    This is awkward for me since I'm secretly a determinist with a predilection for bottom-up explanation wherever possible (Occam's razor etc.). Yet, no Zombies for me!Kym

    sorry to get back late,

    so what's your answer to Leibniz's gap?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%27s_gap
12345Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment