/lit/ - Literature

>>15695132
Computational neuroscience is a cancer that will destroy society

>>15695132
read thomas nagel

>Le schizophrenic animé posteur

>>15695142
Any books in particular?
I read the bat lecture and this doesn't disprove anything here as much as some people claim it does

>>15695149
try mind and cosmos or the view from nowhere

>>15695132
Yes, consciousness is an inherent property of the Universe.

>>15695132
>the matter I currently am
There's no bound on there this starts or ends. Even if you want to throw the down the no-creation card on consciousness, there's no reason to think consciousness comes from every last atom.

>inherent potential
necessarily-possibly only goes so far

>showing therefore that consciousness is an inherent property of [at least one thing in] the universe, [a thing which might not be most well summed up as matter]
that's saying more than nothing, but it's limiting

>>15695159
A potential, and perhaps abundant, perhaps not, property.

>>15695174
>there
where

>>15695174
I'll grant you the grouping argument is the strongest criticism panpsychism has.
It really depends on what is the most fundemental level of matter. If there is simply one substance (whatever word you want to use) that all matter is formed from, than conciousness has to be a potential part of that if it can exist within any part of what is created from it.
If there is a separate substance that the particles that create a human come from than is that conscious (it has to be at some fundamental level if it is able to be turned into something that is intelligent conciseness, even if it resembles nothing like our consciousness that awareness must lie in it somewhere.) How is that substance seperate from others? What separates an atom that has that potenetial of awareness from one that doesn't? Is there a vast aray of conscious particles to pull from, kinda sounds like God.
Sorry i'm drunk so this argument might be shit.

>>15695132
is a machine's coherent function and result an inherent property of its material?
that's the jump you make. there is no property at the base level. nothing is an inherent property.

>>15695234
Yes?
when I press T on my keyboard and it types T it is because of electrical signals moving across expensive metal.

How is that not a property of its material?

>>15695200
>It really depends on what is the most fundemental level of matter.
How would something that is simultaneously immaterial depend entirely on matter? Matter may be organized into such systems that they are capable of making organic computers(brains) but the information is itself immaterial. The "I" of consciousness is not material property. There is more to this equation than what you can see and touch.

>>15695132
>Ceci n'est pas un schizo

is 'being a pie' a property of a bunch of apples?

>>15695281
No, being an apple is a property of the contents of an apple pie.

>>15695240
The letter T means nothing without a conscious observer to give it meaning.

>>15695240
The metal, like all matter, is a universe of itself, it may appear one organized and whole system, but in fact, from the perspective of an atom - it is filled with void and its form unrecognizable. The current of electricity too travels across this void and not strictly and solely across material receptors.

>>15695132
>>so therefore matter has the inherent potential to become self-aware and intelligent
matter itself does not become self aware and intelligent. especially not out of nowhere, you brainlet. go read your fiction books, its your place.

If consciousness were an inherent property of matter, why won't my coffee table answer me, dammit

>>15695328
Because you can only see the table, and not the entirety of the organic system it is part of.

>>15695324
where does is become self aware from?

>>15695346
If what you are suggesting cannot be experienced or detected, there is no distinction between it existing and non-existing. It shouldn't surprise you, then, that people disbelieve what you are saying.
It's an unverifiable claim, and a very steep one that relies on a grand leap of logic.

>>15695256
The thing is I agree with you so I don't know how to argue against this.
This is simply my argument against materialism, it has nothing to do with what I believe .
What is the I in consciousness then? Information?
But how is information not a property of matter in a system where only matter and its properties can exist where does the immaterial fit in?

>>15695132
>consciousness is an inherent property of the universe
That has to be true or else consciousness simply doesn't exist in the universe, and nothing can be conscious inside of it at all. You can't have something in the universe that...isn't inside it, or part of it. It either exists or it does not. Either there is life in the universe or there is not.

People who invoke the name of science randomly to avoid a hard metaphysical truth are hyper brainlet tier. People love to use science as a buzzword to claim intellectual credit they haven't earned, and to pretend a problem outside of their ability is not worth looking at. Just invoke the name of science and claim it's beneath them instead. They don't like the blatant obviousness of consciousness because it sits in some vague way near religious ideas like spirit, or something pop culture like ghosts. Well tough shit.
These same people are happy to fanatically support extreme sci fi memes with zero evidence, like simulation theory. Alternate universes, teleportation, light speed travel, and time travel are put forward as realistic technologies based on nothing but episodes of star trek or some hollywood movie. There is zero science behind any of these things, literally bible fables tier. People who claim to be hard gay for science produce some of the purest manchild daydream brainlet garbage the world has ever seen. Totally selective commitment to these beliefs they treasure so deeply. Simulation theory is 10x worse than believing in heaven, hell, limbo and whatever.

>>15695359
>cannot be experienced
I believe it can, though experience does not necessarily entail understanding. There may be the innermost sensation of absolute unity and wholeness which speaks to you that things are not merely as they appear.
And this is absolutely true regardless of how far you want to hypothetically run with it.
You are limited by your organic sensory perception in how much of the image you are granted. This is a fact, no matter what.
>there is no distinction between it existing and non-existing
Well, there is - the table at its simplest level certainly does exist, but how much more is there to it - and everything else? If we identify that in the realm of the Unknown, it is real the second you identified it. We know that the unknown is there, but we cannot quantify what that is because we don't know it. And that is the biggest struggle that human consciousness has ever had to deal with - the submission to unknowing.
>It shouldn't surprise you, then, that people disbelieve what you are saying.
No, of course not. No one can ever really know true Justice or Beauty in their mortal life. Even truth itself. He can make it his life to search for it. This is what it means to be a philosopher in the truest sense.

>>15695363
>in a system where only matter and its properties can exist
This just can't be so. Although we understand very little about it, the concept of 'antimatter' arises. It would seem that this Universe is operated by polarity - two seemingly different aspects of one singular system. If there is matter, there must also be a facet to the Universe in near equal proportion which isn't.

>>15695380
You are taking a special case - the complex consciousness at it developed in human beings - and applying it to all of matter in the universe.
I don't quite understand why you are doing this and not seeing the flaw here. Just because life has managed to organize on this planet and human consciousness developed doesn't me it must naturally occur with everything else.
If we follow the logic of your assignment, somethings are blue. So blue is a property of matter, and therefore everything is blue.
You should rather rephrase your statement and say that matter inherently has THE POTENTIAL to develop life/consciousness, which no one should disagree with. It is extraordinarily rare that it does so, however.

>>15695349
i couldnt summarize it well if my life depended on it, but its a combination of matter, that happens over the course of millions of years. matter itself does not become 'aware' of itself, it creates 'awareness' (consciousness)

>>15695404
>though experience does not necessarily entail understanding
So we experience it constantly yet just don't know and can never know; in other words, we don't experience it and can't verify it through intermediary means. That is just the same as it being nonexistent.
And do please spare me the new thought lingo. A 'feeling' does not make a fact.
If it is wholly indistinguishable from imagination, then the odds are that it is imagination.
That we rely on our limited perception of the world around us doesn't mean we have to accept the limitless possibilities of the land of 'could' at face value. This is not much more than a rephrased ontological argument.

>>15695421
>has THE POTENTIAL to develop life/consciousness, which no one should disagree with
I'd say it's a bit semantic, if it has that potential then it is still a fundamental condition that where life can exist, it does. Not him though.

>>15695455
This is very different from what he is saying though.
He is saying that the universe is one unity possessing a consciousness.
Matter has the potential to assemble a consciousness, but that doesn't mean all matter is conscious or all matter is used in assembling consciousness.

>>15695452
>So we experience it constantly yet just don't know and can never know
Not fully, anyway. Our understanding is extremely limited.
>can't verify it
Why should you expect to?
>That is just the same as it being nonexistent.
You can't verify how the Universe came to be, but it is - that which we cannot ever understand so greatly outweighs that which we do that we are constantly operating in indemonstrable axioms.
>If it is wholly indistinguishable from imagination, then the odds are that it is imagination.
Some products of our imagination are more reasonable than others. Quantum physics is entirely theoretical, it doesn't mean it's just schizophrenia.
>we have to accept the limitless possibilities
Not individually, but if you refuse to believe in anything other than what you can see, touch, or understand, then I hate to break it to you but you're only intellectually interested in but a tiny fraction of the infinitismal universe.

>>15695486
I'm actually getting a feeling of unity from the universe right now. It's telling me to warn you not to drink the kool aid. It said you would know what that means.

>>15695509
It's okay anon, I already knew you were way out of your depth trying to enter this conversation while not properly equipped with either the reading or intelligence.

>>15695474
>the universe is one unity
Are you fucking retarded?
You just expressed it as one unity in your statement, THE UNIVERSE. Dumbfuck.
>possessing a consciousness.
Does consciousness not dwell within it? Then it goes without saying that concsciousness most certainly is a property of the Universe. Just like the dirt inside your head is a property of the universe.
Dumbfuck.

Materialists disgust me

>>15695558
As they rightly should, but they should also be pitied as small-souled simpletons forever entrapped by their ignorance to the cave of perception.

>>15695518
I gave up when you abandoned all forms of empirical knowledge because it's 'incomplete'. We are left with nothing to discuss but your fantasy, which you admit it to be.
'Quantum physics' isn't just made up nonsense on par with your imagination, it is rooted in mathematical and physical observations and can be reduplicated and verified in that manner. You have already admitted what you suggest cannot be verified in any manner.
I refuse to believe what is unproven to me. You happen to believe whatever you feel like, but that doesn't make it any different from utter nonsense.
Talking like a schizophrenic is not 'philosophy', and you shouldn't be surprised when you are treated like a mental patient.
It's not hard to ape your /x/tier gibberish. It doesn't make you more enlightened or far out, man.

>>15695413
So is antimatter conscious then?
There is still no argument here for what awareness rises from if it is immaterial.

>>15695542
If there were one unity, there would be no possible motion, time, or any multiplicity at all. Not even the appearances of these things would be possible.
Read Parmenides you insufferable retard.
Next you are going to say that the brain is not the seat of consciousness. Please direct me to a conscious atom, or a conscious rock. Shut the fuck up and go back to waving your cardboard doomsday sign on street corners you ashram reject.

>>15695576
>abandoned all forms of empirical knowledge
Not going to read past this. I clearly never did this, I merely stated the absolute FACT that our knowledge is incomplete. If you're too stupid to follow then you should have gave up before you ever began.
>>15695580
>So is antimatter conscious then?
If we are accepting a Universe of polarity, what would be the "antimatter" of conscious. I believe you have your answer. What is not conscious must also exist.

>>15695602
You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and still have no proof from your claims.
What if I said there were a giant eel wrapped around your head, but you just can't see him because your senses are incomplete, man. This claim has the same exact authority as yours.

>>15695596
>Read Parmenides
Pseud alert. You are too ignorant to even know why this is retarded. First off, we only possess a fragmentary work of Parmenides, so one does not go buy a book written by Parmenides. You'd know this, if you read about Parmenides.
Second, in that fragmentary work he agrees with my assertion entirely, that reality is whole, and one, and changeless, and that we exist in the realm of opinion, that our sensory perception is false.
You'd know this if you read Parmenides.
Which is why its real fuckin' funny when you say
>If there were one unity, there would be no possible motion, time, or any multiplicity at all
then
>Read Parmenides
When that is exactly his argument.

>>15695611
I'm sure you will go on thinking your crippling mental retardation is as valid as logical hypothesis'.

>>15695625
Double psued alert, I obviously was referring to the dialogue Parmenides.
>inb4 uhhh yeah I read that
You clearly have read nothing and are just some /x/ crossposter.

>>15695631
Actually I'm getting the feeling that the universe is your big empty headed coiling itself up your asshole.

>>15695132
"conscious" and "self-aware" are not special properties. It's like saying a computer can show text and play games, therefore matter has the inherent potential to show text and play games, showing therefore they text and video games are an inherent property of the universe

>>15695639
>I-I was o-o-obviously talking about Plato, who says the same thing
Yeah, you are a double pseud.
Plato's view is exactly that of Parmenides and myself.
Why would you tell me to read something that is entirely supporting of my own worldview if you weren't a retard?

>>15695643
You really must be a 60 IQ mongoloid.
Only a real fuckin retard would get this mad over this discussion. Thread was fun to read until you got angry because you are incapable of understanding.

>>15695661
It's obvious anon is insecure about his intelligence so he comes to /lit/ to list off books he never read to sound smart and argue with people so he doesn't feel as dumb as he is.
It was a fun thread, but he's probably not going to stop since his fragile ego won't cope with him getting called out as illiterate and knowing nothing about Plato.

>>15695652
You clearly have not read it, or any Plato, if you sincerely believe this to be the case.
You can probably just read it right now. Please do so, and save ourselves the useless shitflinging.

>>15695661
How is that any different from your thoughts though? You cannot disprove it, and it is a FACT that our knowledge is incomplete.
I have the complete feeling of unity from the universe that your big, universally empty head is coiled inside your universal asshole.

>>15695672
>he has never heard of the realm of being and becoming
Stop pretending to have read Plato anon. Projecting your ignorance on others whole being wrong about the subject is a bad look

>>15695677
>being this mad because he was I intellectually destroyed
Must be hard watching your delusional estimation of your own intelligence crumble around you. You being a stupid illiterate is forgivable, but being a repugnant faggot sperging out like you have is what you should really be ashamed of.

>>15695692
>Then the one does not exist in such way as to be one; for if it were and partook of being, it would already be; but if the argument is to be trusted, the one neither is nor is one?
>True.

>>15695696
Actually it seems like your have no rebuttal.
Maybe we are at last uncovering the truth about the universe here. Who knew it would be so ass-headed?
But hey, a feeling is a feeling.

>>15695672
Not him but he is right, Plato is on his side of this argument

>>15695709
Not really. Plato is ultimately inconclusive in his argument, and in following it dismantles both his theory of forms and Parmenides' sphere of being.

>>15695700
You do know Plato was a monist, right?(rhetorical question is obvious you are in over your head)

>>15695722
Ah, so you haven't read the dialogue then? If you did perhaps we could have talked about it, that's a shame.

>>15695714
This is like high school level distinction between Aristotle and Plato anon. Plato was an idealist that theorized about the perfect forms beyond space and time. You are wrong about the most basic philosophic distinction of thought that all other Western philosophy follows.

>>15695729
I'll give you the benefit of a doubt here, from assuming you've ever actually read Plato to miscategorize his philosophy so egregiously. Maybe you did read it and just didnt understand anything in it. Maybe you should find something written for simpletons in a way you'll understand it. Maybe watch a YouTube video or something, because you dont clearly are confused and reading the text yourself is far above your level of comprehending.

>>15695750
You should read the Parmenides dialogue, then anon.
Plato writes directly about the theory of forms and oneness of being.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/parmenides.html
That he argues for the theory of forms in his other work has no bearing on what I said because I am specifically talking about Parmenides.

>>15695766
You appear to misunderstand me. I am asking about the dialogue I mentioned. You haven't read it.

>>15695421
>You are taking a special case - the complex consciousness at it developed in human beings - and applying it to all of matter in the universe.
Yes, and not just matter, but the actual universe itself holistically and fundamentally. If it isn't there in the first place, it means you can not have it, fact. You wouldn't be able to walk around moving your consciousness around from your bedroom to your kitchen to your garden etc, because the space you enter wouldn't compatible with the process. Whatever is happening in the human head is just a more realised or denser form of it.
>I don't quite understand why you are doing this and not seeing the flaw here. Just because life has managed to organize on this planet and human consciousness developed doesn't me it must naturally occur with everything else.
Everywhere at once, either part of the universe or it is not.
>If we follow the logic of your assignment, somethings are blue. So blue is a property of matter, and therefore everything is blue.
Yes, to some degree, again not just in matter, but everywhere. You keep specifying matter. If this property of blue isn't present at once and at all times everywhere holistically and fundamentally then blue light would not be able to travel from it's start point into another 2nd point of empty space. This destination point in empty space would have no compatibility with this function of 'blue' and the light beam would have to freeze in mid air.
>You should rather rephrase your statement and say that matter inherently has THE POTENTIAL to develop life/consciousness, which no one should disagree with. It is extraordinarily rare that it does so, however.
Again with the matter. What is this substance of POTENTIAL that you speak of, fundamentally? Not just in the context of consciousness, but fundamentally? Is potential a property of matter? Or is potential a property of the universe itself, allowing it to take the form of any matter possible
This would be true of all potential forms that exist, including the substance of consciousness. Anywhere, at any point, in space and/or time.
It would have to be, or else an object would not be able to move forward in time if that future point had no prior awareness of what it was supposed to become. An object would not be able to have a shape, and move across space to a new destination, unless that new space was prepared with the blueprint of it's own transformation.
The potential is the same as the actual substance itself, merely displaced between two time periods.

>>15695714
I'm not referring to the text in question, but Plato's philosophy in general.

Are you basing your discussion on wikipedia summaries?

>>15695772
>Are you basing your discussion on wikipedia summaries?
I'm basing it on an intimate understanding of Plato's entire philosophy.
I have to say, it's awfully hilarious to watch you sperg out trying to tell people to read Plato while showing you know nothing about him.
>>15695767
I don't need MIT classics, I have better editions and already intimately understand the understand of Heraclitus on Plato's perception on the material world as flux, change, and opinion as the world of Becoming, and the influence of Parmenides on his view of the Good - the highest form, the subject of all knowledge - the realm of Being.

Here's some better ones if you ever get around to actually trying to learn about it.
https://mega.nz/file/7tM3xKqA#-CmU3OEZfJM_j9bhHbdIVwGsO0f3XSGUabp9LYnkXKY

https://mega.nz/file/G81lnYwB#23jwMSDT3V-C2C_RZ-iKMGILcrabKjX1bqqqJmPMkxE

Search Results
Featured snippet from the web
Plato's Theory of Forms can be understood as a synthesis of the views of Heraclitus and Parmenides. He explains that the physical world is inconstant and always changing, as Heraclitus supposed, but that above the physical world is a world of Forms that is constant and unchanging, as Parmenides supposed.

For being dumb you sure lack humility.

>>15695773
>If it isn't there in the first place, it means you can not have it, fact.
I disagree. Take death for instance. I can say that you and I haven't been dead. And yet I will bet with you that you and I will die. The constant progression of time is a series of new things coming about. If what is always there is there, and nothing new can occur, then there will be no occurrences at all.
>Everywhere at once, either part of the universe or it is not.
Then to go back to the example of death, everything is dead and gone because entropy is a property of matter and so is death. So the universe is essentially dead, which cannot accommodate consciousness.
>Yes, to some degree, again not just in matter, but everywhere.
So to you, everything is blue? That obviously is not true.
>What is this substance of POTENTIAL
What is the substance of your substance? Of course potential does not exist as a physical thing, but is rather a concept that is convenient for us to use when talking about occurrences. The same with consciousness. I am not convinced that consciousness is some great different phantasm. We already are grasping how perception is maintained in lower life forms as a series of bio-electrical impulses. What we perceive as consciousness is just responses to stimuli.
>It would have to be, or else an object would not be able to move forward in time if that future point had no prior awareness of what it was supposed to become.
This is not true. Time is not planned like you are imagining.

>>15695767
>>15695830
>understand the understand of
My bad, I understand the influence of Heraclitus.
Not paying enough attention because I shouldn't have to play the role of a freshman grade history teacher to educate you about basic philosophy. We should already assume you know about the subject before you even entered it.

>>15695830
If you studied up on the dialogue you would find that if you follow the theory of forms, the realm of knowledge/divine would have to be completely divorced from the world of men. This is a tension that is unresolved in the rest of Plato's work.

>>15695845
>would have to be completely divorced from the world of men.
Only in the sense that, EXACTLY AS I SAID, knowledge of true BEAUTY, TRUTH, AND JUSTICE in their perfect forms are unobtainable - and that we should strive toward IDEALS of them in life even if they are only accessible in death.

You really fucked up trying to use Plato to debunk my worldview. If you knew anything about Plato, you'd have already recognized that I was using his language in explaining how I think.

Not only are you a retarded emotional faggot who gets irrationally angry over people simply thinking thoughts you can't comprehend, you're also a base pseudointellectual who doesn't understand any of the literature he tries to talk about.
Get fucked idiot.

>>15695869
>Only in the sense that, EXACTLY AS I SAID, knowledge of true BEAUTY, TRUTH, AND JUSTICE in their perfect forms are unobtainable - and that we should strive toward IDEALS of them in life even if they are only accessible in death.
>The theory, then that other things participate in the ideas by resemblance, has to be given up, and some other mode of participation devised?
>It would seem so.
Just read the dialogue loser.

>>15695869
You first.
>We must turn ourselves from here to there, my friends, and make our minds like the mind of the world.
>Now the place beyond heaven, no earthly poet has sung truly, still, this is the way it is. >Risky as it may be, I must attempt to speak the truth.
>Even the most beautiful physical motions fall far short of the true motions beyond the heavens, which trace out the true mathematical equations of the Universe. >Intelligible, beautiful, and just.
>What is in this place is without color, without shape, and without solidity, a being that really is what it is, the subject of all true knowledge. >Visible ONLY to the eye of the mind, the pilot of the soul delighted at last to be seeing what is real, and watching what is true.
>And this is where we find true beauty, justice, knowledge, being and courage, the meadow of the truth which only the mind can see.
-All Plato

>>15695898
>But the ideas themselves, as you admit, we have not, and cannot have?
>No, we cannot.
>And the absolute natures or kinds are known severally by the absolute idea of knowledge?
>Yes.
>And we have not got the idea of knowledge?
>No.
>Then none of the ideas are known to us, because we have no share in absolute knowledge?
>I suppose not.
>Then the nature of the beautiful in itself, and of the good in itself, and all other ideas which we suppose to exist absolutely, are unknown to us?
>It would seem so.
I'm not going to spoonfeed you any more nigger. Just read the damn free book.

>>15695898
Meant for, >>15695876
Like, if you dont want to actually read this stuff maybe you can just wikipedia it so you wont look so stupid. Calling Plato a materialist like you is beyond ignorant.

>>15695834
>>If it isn't there in the first place, it means you can not have it, fact.
>I disagree. Take death for instance. I can say that you and I haven't been dead. And yet I will bet with you that you and I will die. The constant progression of time is a series of new things coming about. If what is always there is there, and nothing new can occur, then there will be no occurrences at all.
But you can die in any location, and so the concept of death must already be there before your arrival, or mine. That doesn't mean a personal death isn't a new occurence from your perspective. Time is a factor of seperation, which I mentioned before. I also mentioned the importance of consciousness, which would be a factor in giving a personal death local context and significance. Nonetheless, potential death is everywhere.
>>Everywhere at once, either part of the universe or it is not.
>Then to go back to the example of death, everything is dead and gone because entropy is a property of matter and so is death. So the universe is essentially dead, which cannot accommodate consciousness.
It can accommodate the potential for anything, all at once, death, consciousness, entropy, etc, or else these events would not be able to take place. How could a conscious being die after living it's life if the universe doesn't contain these things simultaneously?

I've gone over the word count so I'll post the rest in a little while.

>>15695917
I have read it, I understand it very intimately.
For instance, the usage of "idea" in this sense is the very description of the theory of forms, which are the perfect ideal state beyond the sensory perception.
As Socrates states in Phaedo, what we see is merely an imitation of the Perfect Forms, or Ideas.

You are posting quotes that agree with me, when I posted,
>>15695404
That we cannot know the perfect form.
You sure are fuckin' stupid.

>>15695132
That argument is beyond retarded, read a fucking logic 101 book ffs

>>15695576
At first I was like
>I gave up when you abandoned all forms of empirical knowledge because it's 'incomplete'.
But then I was all
>>Then none of the ideas are known to us, because we have no share in absolute knowledge?
You sure fucked yourself retard.

>>15695132
>>so intelligent consciousnesses is a property of the matter I currently am
>>ok, yes
Nice, your strawman agreed with you at that one point they're suppose to interject with a contrary opinion. You're a n i g g e r.

>>15695983
It's what happens when a child wanders into /lit/ and wants to fit in. Guy was trying to use Plato to argue against my metaphysical worldview and had no idea hes my biggest influence. I warned him he was out of his depth

>>15695983
Plato's ideas are explicitly not bound in empirical knowledge.

>>15695993
>teaches geometry
>not bound in empirical knowledge.
It is both. I never denied empirical knowledge to begin with, Spergy was just misrepresenting the argument because I said absolute knowledge is not possible. My exact words were,
>our understanding is limited
And he immediately went to shitposting because his fragile tiny intellect cant handle that. Then he went on to post Plato quotes that say the same thing.

>>15696015
That quote in Parmenides pretty clearly severs the world of forms and the ideas from our world of perception. It's not a Pro-Forms argument, and Parmenides in the dialogue gets Plato to admit that nothing has any participation in forms, and that the divine and man have no possible knowledge of one another.
(Parmenides then interjects with his own philosophy about the sphere of being and argues against multiplicities but in doing so also demonstrates flaws with his own monism that lead to absurdities but that is besides the point for the current subject).
That our perception is incomplete doesn't mean we are free to believe in whatever lunacy we can cook up.

>>15695834
>>Yes, to some degree, again not just in matter, but everywhere.
>So to you, everything is blue? That obviously is not true.
But it could be. The potential to shine a blue bulb where you please is always there. There is nothing stopping you. The function to turn blue, the potential for blue, is omnipresent.

>>What is this substance of POTENTIAL
>What is the substance of your substance? Of course potential does not exist as a physical thing, but is rather a concept that is convenient for us to use when talking about occurrences.
It seems to be a physical thing and a concept. How would potential ever be realised if not? It seems to be a fundamental property of the universe.
>The same with consciousness. I am not convinced that consciousness is some great different phantasm. We already are grasping how perception is maintained in lower life forms as a series of bio-electrical impulses. What we perceive as consciousness is just responses to stimuli.
Im not saying consciousness is different, I'm saying it's everywhere at once. So is everything else.
If you say consciousness is just repsonses to stimuli, does that mean you believe consciousness occurs in other forms outside of a body in some specific way? Certain crystals under pressure produce a piezoelectric charge, is that stimulation a type of consciousness in the earth?

>>It would have to be, or else an object would not be able to move forward in time if that future point had no prior awareness of what it was supposed to become.
>This is not true. Time is not planned like you are imagining.
It's not neccasarily a plan. If you have a lump of iron, you can place it anywhere in your room you would like. The potential for all of those locations to become the piece of iron is equal. The potential form of iron, that element of the periodic table, is everywhere at once. If you place the iron on the floor, you have realised the iron potential of that specific location. You could have placed a cup of water there just as easily.
Time is planned as I imagine it when I make the choice.
The potential of both materials was there the entire time, and is the same thing as the explicit materials themselves, seperated only by time. I now replace the iron with the water, and now the potential water is actually water. The potential iron still exists within in the same location, hidden by the water. So are the potentials for any other element of the periodic table.
I now move the water and place the iron in the location again. It doesn't overwhelm the space to keep changing it into different objects, it doesn't have a limited potential to become only one material permanently. It can become anything. Now I move the iron, and place my head on the same spot. Now my memories are occupying the space, how strange. How did that previously material space become my mind suddenly? How can a person move their head into a new space without dying If there is no potential consciousness ahead of them?

>>15696033
>ideas from our world of perception.
LMFAO retard.
I already fucking told you "IDEA" as used in that fucking quote IS the FORM. It is a translation of the word from which the whole theory derives.
The dialogue goes as follows, simplified like you're a 1st grader.
>Our knowledge and truth exists with us
>But the "ideas," we cannot know
Allow me to substantiate this.
In English:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0174%3Atext%3DParm.%3Asection%3D134b
In Greek:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Plat.+Parm.+134b&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0173
The word used in Greek is εἴδους, which means "that which is seen: form, shape"
You can also verify this on that site, if you don't believe me.
>That our perception is incomplete doesn't mean we are free to believe in whatever lunacy we can cook up.
I happen to subscribe to exactly the same view as Plato.
You just didn't recognize it because you don't know what you're talking about.

>>15696033
>>15696092
Now, if you even just did a basic bitch Wikipedia search, which you probably should have since clearly comprehension is way too fuckin' hard for you.
>Plato used the terms eidos and ideas interchangeably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms
At least verify some of the stupid shit you're saying. I've read this stuff across many different editions - you're misinterpreting what "ideas" meant.

>>15696033
>It's not a Pro-Forms argument
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA holy shit. If you were even a tenth as smart as you think you are youd apologize for the misunderstanding and wasting peoples time. This is what happens when people grow up without a father, they become spiteful angry malicious little pseuds like you.

>>15696084
>>15695932
>>15695773
>>15695380

I'm only these posts by the way. I'm not sure who's battling who in the rest of the thread.

>>15696142
People who value intelligence and wisdom will always appreciate an opportunity to learn and grow in understanding. Anon will not apologize because he is not intelligent and doesnt value knowledge, he is an overstimulated little materialist monkey who just wanted e-rep for being a pseudointellectual little asshole on 4chan. It must be a sad life, to be sure.

>>15696092
>It is a translation of the word from which the whole theory derives.
It is specialized terminology, you agree, so it reflects such. It doesn't mean simply 'how a thing looks', but the idea of the form in itself. I think you are the one who is a bit confused here.
I will boil it down for you
"We cannot truly know the 'ideas' behind the form, because one thing cannot partially take place in an absolute, or else the absolute would be rendered partial and thus no longer be absolute"
Read a bit further "these difficulties and many more besides are inseparable from the ideas, if these ideas of things exist and we declare that each of them is an absolute idea", that is to say, if we follow Plato's theory.
Just to double check myself, I did a quick search and found this overview
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-parmenides/
Most of scholarly consesus agrees with me that this is against Plato's theory. To be fair to you, it says there is another view that " The point of the dialogue, on this view, is to help the discerning reader see the forms for what they really are, transcendent beings that should be accessed by reason rather than with the help of categories drawn from sense experience." However, this would again sever it from empirical knowledge and it again agrees with me in saying "One of the problems with such an interpretation is a problem that is common to esoteric readings in general: once one has left the surface of the text, there are no interpretive constraints on what one might find beneath the surface. Virtually any interpretation will turn out to be justified by the text. Another problem with this approach is that it pays insufficient attention to the logical interconnections among individual criticisms of the theory of forms, and between the criticisms as a whole and the Deductions."

>>15696174
>cannot partially take place in an absolute
take part*

>>15696174
>the idea of the form in itself
They are synonymous, like I said.
The language is direct, and super simple in Parmenides, our knowledge is incomplete knowledge because we cannot know their true Forms.
>Most of scholarly consesus agrees with me
No, they dont, they agree that Eidos(Form) and Ideas are being used interchangeably as reference to the same thing.
I really dont know why you had to sperg out and derail the thread like a fafgot because you misread 'ideas.'
And dont try to pretend you d8dnt because you said,
>>ideas from our world of perception
They were not in any way, shape, or form, talking about human ideas. They were talking about the perfect form.
You read it wrong. Just admit it and salvage some dignity.

>>15696200
With this post, I'm too tired for any more of that guys. nonsense. It was a fun discussion at first until the other anon started screeching about his first readthrough of Parmenides on MIT classics(lol) and wanting to be applauded. The last thing I'll say to you, >>15696174 is this: read Aristotle. He is more of an empiricist rather than an idealist. Plato is not in line with your philosophy at all, he is an idealist who explicitly states from beginning to end that sense perception is inferior to the intangible ideal.

>>15695132
>therefore we don't know enough to say if your theory is true or false
What theory? You just said "maybe consciousness is, like, inherent, dude... lmao". That's not a theory.

>>15696174
>"We cannot truly know the 'ideas' behind the form, because one thing cannot partially take place in an absolute, or else the absolute would be rendered partial and thus no longer be absolute"
Sounds basically like the beginning of the discussion that set you off. What did you sayhw en someone tried saying that?
>We are left with nothing to discuss but your fantasy, which you admit it to be.
>Talking like a schizophrenic is not 'philosophy
Woops. RETARD ALERT.
You don't know what philosophy is.

>>15696200
>They are synonymous, like I said.
In his theory there are two separate states, the form "appearance" of a thing, and the idea - the absolute thing that the imperfect appearance represents. It's junior high philosophy anon, stop being disingenuous.

>>15696269
Yes, which is why we should dump your schizophrenic ramblings in the garbage.

>>15696282
>dumping Plato in the garbage
Your mom should have dumped you in the garbage
>It's junior high philosophy anon
That's true, which is why it's fucking hilarious that you didn't know what IDEA meant. People tried dumbing it down so that even a child could understand it but clearly you are hopeless.

Then you go and show you dont even know what philosophy is. Real yikes.

>>15696270
>In his theory there are two separate states, the form "appearance" of a thing, and the idea
RETARD ALERT.
Why would Plato say we can't know the appearance of a thing? That's stupid.
You're stupid. When he uses Eidos it isn't to describe something that can be seen, it is the theoretical form - which is also the ideal(idea).
"Modern English textbooks and translations prefer "theory of Form" to "theory of Ideas", but the latter has a long and respect tradition starting with Cicero and continuing in German philosophy until present, and some English philosophers prefer this in English too. See W. D. Ross, Plato's Theory of Ideas (1951)."
Moderns scholarship agrees you need to take your meds and stop posting, schizo.

>>15696033
>That quote in Parmenides pretty clearly severs the world of forms and the ideas from our world of perception
>>15696270
>In his theory there are two separate states, the form "appearance" of a thing, and the idea
> It's junior high philosophy anon
>>15696328
>"Modern English textbooks and translations prefer "theory of Form" to "theory of Ideas", but the latter has a long and respect tradition starting with Cicero and continuing in German philosophy until present, and some English philosophers prefer this in English too.

>It's junior high philosophy anon.
>>>accidentally admitting you are dumber than a 7th grader

>>15695132
t. pseud who reads pop science on askreddit and youtube.

>>15696328
>>15696309
Ah, so you are pea brained and haven't understood a word that I posted. That's a relief.
Hey autist, I explained it clearly he wasn't referring to the 'form' appearance of something, but the idea of it. You saying as much means I didn't misinterpret the passage, but in fact you twisted your interpretation
This I presume is you:
>>The word used in Greek is εἴδους, which means "that which is seen: form, shape"
>Why would Plato say we can't know the appearance of a thing? That's stupid.
I agree with you on that last point, which is why I never said such a thing.
>Our knowledge and truth exists with us
>But the "ideas," we cannot know
He doesn't say the first point in Parmenides. The spoonfed argument in the dialogue goes "if we follow the theory of ideas, we cannot partake in perfect knowledge nor in ideals as a means towards absolute knowledge".
That was the argument at hand, and it seems like you have painfully failed to grasp it in the slightest.
Your semantic autism makes me highly suspect you are ESL on top of having some type of disorder.

>>15696398
>the sub middle school intellect is still going
EIDOS LITERALLY IS THE IDEA.
THEY ARE THE SAME THING
IT IS YOU WHO DOESNT UNDERSTAND
HAHAHAHAHA
Modern English textbooks and translations prefer "theory of Form" to "theory of Ideas", but the latter has a long and respect tradition starting with Cicero and continuing in German philosophy until present, and some English philosophers prefer this in English too.

>>15696404
Jesus Christ stop embarrassing yourself and pick up a thesaurus

>>15696398
>going on /lit/ with the brain of a 7 year old
HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Plato uses many different words for what is traditionally called form in English translations and idea in German and Latin translations (Cicero). These include idéa, morphē, eîdos, and parádeigma, but also génos, phýsis, and ousía. He also uses expressions such as to x auto, "the x itself" or kath' auto "in itself". See Christian Schäfer:

>>15695132
>inherent property of the universe

What do you mean by 'inherent'? It's certainly a part of the Universe, yes. It also doesn't seem very complicated or strange to me. I think we have a pretty compelling understanding from evolution how consciousness (which is basically an internalising of the meta-structure of evolution as desire) filter for a Universe where such an occurrence is possible mind you - by merely formulating the question we presuppose our existence (Anthropic Principle).

As for whether you could say it's an inherent property of the Universe, that's almost a semantic problem more than anything - there exist too tabletops in the Universe, which have a property of smoothness - would it make sense to say that smoothness is a property of the Universe? Can that be maintained with some apparently contradictory property, like jaggedness? Perhaps, but of what consequence is it too point out that all the properties of objects of the Universe apply to the Universe too (if we decide they do)? It doesn't seem to me to forward anything.

>>15696414
>Forms (usually given a capital F) were properties or essences of things, treated as non-material abstract, but substantial, entities. They were eternal, changeless, supremely real, and independent of ordinary objects that had their being and properties by 'participating' in them.
>Chapter 28: Form" of The Great Ideas: A Syntopicon of Great Books of the Western World (Vol. II). Encyclopædia Britannica (1952), p. 526–542. This source states that Form or Idea get capitalized according to this convention when they refer "to that which is separate from the characteristics of material things and from the ideas in our mind."
>"Jesus Christ stop embarrassing yourself"
>"Its junior high philosophy"
It just keeps getting better

>>15695949
The universe isn't overly logical, it predates the human invention of logic by a long way. It's quite irrational.

Many things are the way they are just because they are.

>>15695132 (OP)
>inherent property of the universe

What do you mean by 'inherent'? It's certainly a part of the Universe, yes. It also doesn't seem very complicated or strange to me. I think we have a pretty compelling understanding from evolution how consciousness (which is basically an internalising of the meta-structure of evolution as desire) came to be. And self-consciousness or subjectivity, which your question is an expression of, is the product of a historical dialectical or evolutionary process. It is worth also bearing in mind that your asking the question actually filters for a Universe where such an occurrence is possible mind you - by merely formulating the question we presuppose our existence (Anthropic Principle).

As for whether you could say it's an inherent property of the Universe, that's almost a semantic problem more than anything - there exist too tabletops in the Universe, which have a property of smoothness - would it make sense to say that smoothness is a property of the Universe? Can that be maintained with some apparently contradictory property, like jaggedness? Perhaps, but of what consequence is it too point out that all the properties of objects of the Universe apply to the Universe too (if we decide they do)? It doesn't seem to me to forward anything.

>>15696174
>>15696174
>https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-parmenides/
>his own link refers to the theory of forms as ideas
>Ross, W. D., 1953, Plato’s Theory of Ideas, 2nd edition, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
>"its literally 5th grade philosophy anon"
>is dumber than a 5th grader

>>15696438
What makes you confident in suggesting this? Why is logic so effective as a tool for manipulating (technology) and understanding the world? Might logic not also be encoded into the mind itself, in the process of its formation in the world, according to the rules (logic) of that world? What does it mean to say "many things are the way they are just because they are"? How can you know this? What sort of things are you referring to, doesn't everything (we know of) have a prior cause?

>>15696437
Please cite where I failed to make the distinction between 'form; appearance of the object' with "idea". or are you suggesting Plato did not believe in physical objects at all? Is your grasp of English really that bad, or are you now clinging for just anything to shitpost with to cover your retardation?
This is probably the last post I am going to make unless you provide a legitimate answer.

>>15696481
>Jesus Christ stop embarrassing yourself and pick up a thesaurus
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato
1. Plato's Central Doctrines
Many people associate Plato with a few central doctrines that are advocated in his writings: The world that appears to our senses is in some way defective and filled with error, but there is a more real and perfect realm, populated by entities (called “forms” or “ideas”) that are eternal, changeless, and in some sense

My little anon can't be dumber than a 10 year old child can he? You were just pretending to be retarded right?

>>15696481
Maybe you should try reading Plato sometime in the future anon, you'll be a lot better arguing about it if you do.

>>15696507
I thought I made my point rather clearly, but I guess I made the unforgivable sin of using the under-case english word 'form' to refer to the physical object which is much more important than actually discussing plato.
He's just shitposting because he has no leg to stand on with Parmenides.

>>15696488
>there is a more real and perfect realm
Fucking dropped
So we experience it constantly yet just don't know and can never know; in other words, we don't experience it and can't verify it through intermediary means. That is just the same as it being nonexistent.
And do please spare me the new thought lingo. A 'feeling' does not make a fact.
If it is wholly indistinguishable from imagination, then the odds are that it is imagination.
I gave up when Plato abandoned all forms of empirical knowledge because it's 'incomplete'
I refuse to believe what is unproven to me.
Talking like a schizophrenic is not 'philosophy'
>>15696521
pic related

>>15696523
Nigger 2000 years of philosophy has passed since Plato.
Imagine being a ebin esoteric platonist today. It's retardation, which is what I am telling you, and why I brought up Parmenides in particular. Even Plato realized it was a flawed theory.

>>15696521
>th-thats not the kind of form I'm talking about
Oh, this is just getting pathetic...
Admitting you were mistaken because you only read excerpts of some outdated public domain HTML book with no footnotes to educate you better would have been the wiser play.
It is obvious that you were wrong.
>>15696534
>I-I don't even like Plato anyway
Haha, Jesus Christ, you're the one that brought him up because you wanted to look smart. Then it became abundantly obvious you didn't understand any of it.

>>15696540
You have done nothing to attack the substance of my argument, all you have done is convinced me of your own ignorance and how you like to pretend you are an enlightened master who really knows the universe.
/x/ is really your speed, you would be a saint there.

>>15696534
>Even Plato realized it was a flawed theory.
He never said that.
If you ever do actually get around to educating yourself to at least a middle school level, I recommend Inventing the Universe: Plato's Timaeus, the Big Bang, and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge
A quick description:
>The "irrational gap" between perception and explanation can be appraised historically and identified in three stages: Plato's Timaeus furnishes the first example of a scientific theory dealing with a realm of ideality that cannot be derived from immediate sensible perception
>the Big Bang model is constituted on the basis of the purely geometrical notion of symmetry; and in the more recent Algorithmic Theory of Information, the analysis of the purely symbolic language expressing physical reality reveals the level of complexity of any given theory formulated in this language. The result is that the probability of the universe actually conforming with simple mathematics is zero
The kind of knowledge called "scientific" ultimately rests on a set of irreducible and indemonstrable formulas, pure inventions of the human mind, retained solely through recourse to this simple operative argument: "it works."

Plato never said his idea was flawed, he pointed out that all scientific understanding of things we can't reproduce are flawed. That true and complete knowledge is impossible.
Isn't that what set you off on your sperg tantrum to begin with? So, what, you posted a book of Plato saying the same exact thing?
You are too retarded to even understand any of this or why you look so dumb.

>>15696550
>the substance of my argument
There is no substance, because it is fundamentally flawed.

First you didn't understand what "ideas" meant in your shitty MIT Classics HTML version.
Then you didn't understand what eidos' "forms" meant in the context of how Plato was using it in Parmenides when it was explained to you thats how he was using it.
Then you didn't understand that Forms and Ideas were the same thing.

You're just fucking stupid.
Your argument is wrong.

Things can think

>>15695380
the ultra-meme is that the government is funding NASA's and other research institutes' breakthrough propulsion physics and interstellar travel projects. Millions pumped into useless expensive research literally based on Star Trek (warping space-time, faster than light travel etc.). My uni's space tech department is lead by an insane professor who is trying to build a faster than light drive based on Mach's principle. It's like Pynchon

>>15696550
>pretend you are an enlightened master who really knows the universe.
Where did anyone but you pretend to do this?
The anon you spent over 5 hours in complete hysteria and meltdown over said this
>that which we cannot ever understand so greatly outweighs that which we do
All you did was attack him for accepting that he can't know everything. But no, your fragile little ego can't handle feeling like you aren't the center of attention and knower of all things - so you flipped the fuck out for hours and made yourself look stupid by even using Plato as an argument and misreading Plato.

>>15695404
>>15695413
>>15695486
>>15695830
>>15695898
>>15695938
>>15696092
>>15696109
>>15696328
>>15696437
>>15696464
>>15696488
>>15696564
Thoughtful discussion. Thomas Taylor and Complete Works edition PDFs, several citations and book recommendations. Adept understanding at content of material, including cross-reference translations over meanings of words and even references original Greek source material.
>>15695509
>>15695576
>>15695596
>>15695672
>>15695767
>>15695845
>>15695876
>>15695917
>>15696033
>>15696174
>>15696282
>>15696534
Brainless shitposting. Derailing thread.
No contribution to actual discussion, just being a faggot.
>uses MIT classics
Clearly doesn't understand material or concepts in the 1 book he attempts to strawman others as having not read.
Claims modern scholarship agrees with his view, provides no actual literature to validate that despite all evidence being contrary.

Great talk lads. Plato would be proud both to see intelligent people still utilizing the trivium, and that cock smoking faggot getting murdered.

>>15695132
>and while being made of this matter we are able to become fully conscious aware and intellegent
>so intelligent consciousnesses is a property of the matter I currently am
No, I don't understand this leap. Can you elaborate?

>>15696378
Embarrassing.

>>15696571
>Then you didn't understand that Forms and Ideas were the same thing
You don't seem to understand that I am using 'form' in the correct english language usage to refer to the physical object itself, and 'idea' to refer to the idea in which it mimics. I don't think you have the language capacity to have noticed that distinction, despite the fact that I made it perfectly clear and explained to you my word choice.
If you think Plato only believes there are only absolute ideas, and not physical objects that partake in them, you are fucking retarded and your semantic autism means you have no clue what the actual argument is here.
Parmenides argues that if there were Platonic ideas, no things can take part in ideas, and that ideas could not take any part in reality, without completely negating itself.
The whole theory hinges on this participation, that is what the allegory of the cave is.
You seem to be hung up on word choice alone despite the fact that this is completely negligible. If you somehow thing this is not what the theory of ideas is you are a fucking dunce, and should crawl back to whatever mental hospital you escaped from.