Philosophy Now Forum

Jaded Sage wrote: So it is possible to perceive without being influenced by a theory?

No. A perception is an act of cognition. We imagine that we see with our eyes but this assumption is false. In fact all our eyes are capable of perceiving is electromagnetic radiation within a narrow bandwidth and it is our minds which construct this light information into a coherent narrative of reality. (or an incoherent one, as the case may be.) Our minds do this on the basis of prior information which has already been processed in order to provide a context. For example it was once thought that human infants were born blind but this has now been shown not to be the case. Human infants are not born blind but they are born without the ability to see because seeing is something which must be learned. In cognitive neuroscience this process is known as generating a cognitive map. When we think we're observing the external world what we're actually doing is MAPPING it and every single human on the planet has their own exclusive and personal map which differs from that of every other. The loneliest place on the planet to be is within the confines of your own mind.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: It's not a contradiction. The system has to be open to energy, and it is the passing of the energy from a high state (light) to a disorganised low state (heat) , which enables evolution to occur.

Whilst this is to true for all subsystems of the physical world it does not hold true for the universe as a whole. It evolves from the simple to the complex whilst remaining thermodynamically closed, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.

"All things come from one another and vanish into one another according to necessity and in conformity with the order of time"...Anaximander.

Anaximander beat Charles Darwin to the punch by 2400 years.

Walker wrote:Evolution moves from simple to complex.

Entropy moves from complex to simple.

Do you use “closed system” to explain away the contradiction?

No. It has nothing to do with stuff like that. Honestly, it might not be the best name. I call it "closed" because it doesn't tell us much, like an unsolved variable. It almost kinda uses a word to define itself.

Cool that those things are kinda antithetical.

HC, are you counting a-rational perception as theory based. I assume you saw the post about the stove. Implicit theory is kinda playing loose with the term, but I guess it counts. So there are impressions and ideas, and ideas about impressions. I think the burning stove involves an impression followed by an immediate idea about the impression: "Shit, that hurt!" We'll call that a theory that involves the concept of pain, among other things, but I still think there is an experience of the pain that happens a-rationally, an impression without an idea. Thoughts, good sir?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Jaded Sage wrote: So it is possible to perceive without being influenced by a theory?

No. A perception is an act of cognition. We imagine that we see with our eyes but this assumption is false. In fact all our eyes are capable of perceiving is electromagnetic radiation within a narrow bandwidth and it is our minds which construct this light information into a coherent narrative of reality. (or an incoherent one, as the case may be.) Our minds do this on the basis of prior information which has already been processed in order to provide a context. For example it was once thought that human infants were born blind but this has now been shown not to be the case. Human infants are not born blind but they are born without the ability to see because seeing is something which must be learned. In cognitive neuroscience this process is known as generating a cognitive map. When we think we're observing the external world what we're actually doing is MAPPING it and every single human on the planet has their own exclusive and personal map which differs from that of every other. The loneliest place on the planet to be is within the confines of your own mind.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: It's not a contradiction. The system has to be open to energy, and it is the passing of the energy from a high state (light) to a disorganised low state (heat) , which enables evolution to occur.

Whilst this is to true for all subsystems of the physical world it does not hold true for the universe as a whole. It evolves from the simple to the complex whilst remaining thermodynamically closed, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.

"All things come from one another and vanish into one another according to necessity and in conformity with the order of time"...Anaximander.

Anaximander beat Charles Darwin to the punch by 2400 years.

Dude, I'm glad to have you around.

But, I mean, while that is extremely convincing, do we have an explanation of how the first impression occurs? I realize that's kind of a weak point. But still, an important one.

Also, can't we then say there are two experiences then, the impression itself and the idea itself which it always comes with (except maybe the first one)?

It doesn't seem right to say that my experience of a hot stove is influenced by my experiences of other hot or painful things, at least not my impression of it, the idea, much more likely, like, "Shit. I should watch out for those things." And if the impression, as opposed to the idea, is influenced by a 'theory' on some technicality, which appears totally legit, isn't it in some negligible way that might as well be discounted?

I dunno, man. I think the mind is the happiest place on earth. You get to be God, and God is not lonely.

Holy shit, does that mean there is such a thing as an a-rational theory? Awesome!

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote: It's not a contradiction. The system has to be open to energy, and it is the passing of the energy from a high state (light) to a disorganised low state (heat) , which enables evolution to occur.

Whilst this is to true for all subsystems of the physical world it does not hold true for the universe as a whole. It evolves from the simple to the complex whilst remaining thermodynamically closed, in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.

"All things come from one another and vanish into one another according to necessity and in conformity with the order of time"...Anaximander.

Anaximander beat Charles Darwin to the punch by 2400 years.

However. "Evolution" is a word that is meaningless when it comes to non living systems.
This quote from Anaximander does not come close to Darwin. All it does is express a kind of determinism. It says nothing about evolution.
However, in the final edition of Origin of Species (1870), darwin gives credit to Aristotle for hitting on the idea of natural selection, though he never developed it to its full extent.

"Aristotle, in his 'Physicæ Auscultationes' (lib. 2, cap. 8, s. 2), after remarking that rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow, any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed out of doors, applies the same argument to organisation; and adds (as translated by Mr. Clair Grece, who first pointed out the passage to me), "So what hinders the different parts [of the body] from having this merely accidental relation in nature? as the teeth, for example, grow by necessity, the front ones sharp, adapted for dividing, and the grinders flat, and serviceable for masticating the food; since they were not made for the sake of this, but it was the result of accident. And in like manner as to the other parts in which there appears to exist an adaptation to an end. Wheresoever, therefore, all things together (that is all the parts of one whole) happened like as if they were made for the sake of something, these were preserved, having been appropriately constituted by an internal spontaneity; and whatsoever things were not thus constituted, perished, and still perish." We here see the principle of natural selection shadowed forth, but how little Aristotle fully comprehended the principle, is shown by his remarks on the formation of the teeth."

Jaded Sage wrote: do we have an explanation of how the first impression occurs?

I doubt that this is a valid question other than in a strictly technical sense. The evolution of mind begins in utero and I guess this technically means from when the brain and central nervous system first begin to develop. Fetuses begin to respond to their external environment immediately after gestation begins but at what stage our central nervous system activity might be called "cognition" is probably very much a question of definition. In the Santiago school of cognition which I adhere to cognition is defined very broadly but in some schools of the philosophy of mind it is defined far more specifically to refer to conscious and self-aware mental processes. By such a tight definition an infant could not be said to be a cognising being until quite some time after birth because a baby becomes aware of the existence of other human beings long before it becomes aware of its own existence. Once again self-awareness is something which must be learned.

Jaded Sage wrote:Also, can't we then say there are two experiences then, the impression itself and the idea itself which it always comes with

I think this is probably right and it's something we've possibly all experienced in the notion of an idea which is lurking just beyond the limits of our conscious awareness. If we're in close tune with our own mental processes this is quite a common experience related to the idea of the "word on the tip of your tongue". You can similarly be hatching a thought which is just out of your conceptual reach, a phenomenon known in neuroscience as "presque vue". (Almost seen")

Jaded Sage wrote:It doesn't seem right to say that my experience of a hot stove is influenced by my experiences of other hot or painful things, at least not my impression of it, the idea, much more likely, like, "Shit. I should watch out for those things." And if the impression, as opposed to the idea, is influenced by a 'theory' on some technicality, which appears totally legit, isn't it in some negligible way that might as well be discounted?

I wouldn't dwell too much on the hot stove analogy if I were you. You don't need a theory of stoves or a grasp of statistical thermodynamics to get your hand the fuck out of there. Even an earthworm has got enough sense to do that. However in the Santiago school of cognition it would be perfectly correct to say that the earthworm cognises heat even though he doesn't endure sleepless nights wondering what it is.

Jaded Sage wrote: I think the mind is the happiest place on earth.

Whether it is or not is not particularly germane to the fact. The fact is that we're all alone in there, and that we'll always be all alone in there, so it would be a wise precaution to get accustomed to the idea and learn to live with it.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:However. "Evolution" is a word that is meaningless when it comes to non living systems.

Nonsense. The whole universe is evolving. Stars and galaxies evolve into being. Governments evolve. Societies evolve. Economies evolve. Ideas evolve. Evolution is simply a generic word which applies to self-causal systems and ALL self-causal systems evolve from the simple to the complex, whether we call them living or non-living. Biologists certainly don't make the distinction which you seem to be making between living and non-living matter. The matter and energy in the universe has been evolving from the simple to the complex ever since the big bang and we have 13.8 billion years worth of evidence to support this proposition.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:This quote from Anaximander does not come close to Darwin. All it does is express a kind of determinism. It says nothing about evolution.

It says EVERYTHING about evolution precisely BECAUSE it is a statement about the nature of determinism. Anaximander defines reality as self-causal, which is exactly the opposite of what Newton did. Self-causal systems are determined by necessity whereas Newtonian ones are determined by transcendent law and sitting on the fence is not an option in this case. Our universe is either one or the other but it can't possibly be both. I'm going with Anaximander and Plato can shove his Forms up his arse.

Jaded Sage wrote:HC, are you counting a-rational perception as theory based. I assume you saw the post about the stove. Implicit theory is kinda playing lose with the term, but I guess it counts. So there are impressions and ideas, and ideas about impressions. I think the burning stove involves an impression followed by an immediate idea about the impression: "Shit, that hurt!" We'll call that a theory that involves the concept of pain, among other things, but I still think there is an experience of the pain that happens a-rationally, an impression without an idea. Thoughts, good sir?

Sorry I did not see the post about the stove, and I do not know what you mean by a-rational. Do you mean non-rational?
The point I was making earlier is that we can, and do, have formal and explicit theories; but also implicit theories, but most of our perception is mediated by unconscious anticipation.
All of these forms, however feed the monster of selective bias which continues to build a world for us that we most expect to find. Each warm day in the winter feeds the Global warming theory; each terrorist act feeds the racial prejudice theory; each "wrong number" on the phone feeds the paranoid obsession with being surveilled (if you have that paranoia); and each medical success feeds the god does miracle myth.
But these are easy to spot.
Witness studies show that 80% of the picture we have of traffic incidents are just made up. When we recall we can recall some of the big incidents (usually unreliably) but the brain fills in the unobserved blanks, like the colour of hair, eyes, of bystanders. The memory will even clothe people jeans who were not wearing them, and many other things hat complete a picture that we just do not have.
Anticipation is the key. Long haired men have faded jeans, and the memory can exchange the plain black trousers for jeans. Cold stoves can feel hot. Phantom hands can feel pain.
The psychology of perception is a complex field.
Faces, and fiends in the clouds; green men in the trees. The brain has a dedicated face recognition system and can find that pattern anywhere. It's thought mammals have had this for millions of years, and has been selected from the ability to see a face stalking you from the bush.

I think the perception precedes the idea of it, yet the brain stands in preparation to accept and adduce things that fit a theory. It takes extreme effort to be able to unpack your anticipation.

I do a lot of portraiture. When we see a face we see more that the physical structure - we first see a person, and tend to focus what is unique and individual about that person. Their face is no longer just a face, but a whole person. To sculpt a likeness we have to undo the person to see the physicality of the structure, as if to duplicate with millimeter accuracy what is actually there. Eyes are always more pressing in the perception than their size suggests. Hands and feet tend to be rendered too small, faces too large, but heads too small. We never see what is really there. The artists brain does not give an even value to the parts.
But once you have made your sculpture to within a hairs-breadth you then have to undo some of what is a life-less representation and give it character.

Good post, Hobbes. Don't get the shits with me because I don't agree with every word you say because I certainly agree with everything you've said here.

Obvious Leo wrote: It says EVERYTHING about evolution precisely BECAUSE it is a statement about the nature of determinism. Anaximander defines reality as self-causal, which is exactly the opposite of what Newton did. Self-causal systems are determined by necessity whereas Newtonian ones are determined by transcendent law and sitting on the fence is not an option in this case. Our universe is either one or the other but it can't possibly be both. I'm going with Anaximander and Plato can shove his Forms up his arse.

Just no. Anaximander had a crazy idea that fish turned into animals then the rivers dried up. This was little more than a rationalization. It had no basis in evidence. It was not a scientific theory. It does not represent a theory of evolution in any sense. It was a myth, and served the purposes of myths.
Given an large enough number of Greek thinkers, and enough time, you will find similarities with mature thoroughly researched and empirically supported modern scientific theories.
That does not mean Anaximander beat Darwin to the punch.
Aristotle has an atomic theory too,considering that matter could be cut to a point beyond which it could be cut no more. That does not mean he beat the proponents of modern atomic theory.

I was being facetious when I said that Anaximander beat Darwin to the punch because quite obviously he didn't actually have a true theory of biological evolution. The point I was seeking to make is that he unravelled the principles of non-linear determinism which underpin the theory of evolution. Anaximander understood that determinism in the natural world is driven by necessity and not by law, a fact of nature which was undermined by Plato and not rediscovered until Darwin. However Darwin never actually understood the full implications of his own theory because that both linear and non-linear determinism can co-exist in the physical world is a metaphysical absurdity, a point which has yet to penetrate the canonical orthodoxy of modern physics.

The atomic theory is more generally attributed to Democritus and in the modern day can be translated as the philosophy of the quantum. Once again his was not a scientific theory either but rather a statement of metaphysical first principle. In order for something to be definable as physically real it cannot be infinitely divisible. Newton ignored this metaphysical first principle in his formulation of classical mathematics but in his work on black body radiation Max Planck ultimately proved it to be true in a more conventional scientific sense.

Obvious Leo wrote:I was being facetious when I said that Anaximander beat Darwin to the punch because quite obviously he didn't actually have a true theory of biological evolution. The point I was seeking to make is that he unravelled the principles of non-linear determinism which underpin the theory of evolution. Anaximander understood that determinism in the natural world is driven by necessity and not by law, a fact of nature which was undermined by Plato and not rediscovered until Darwin. However Darwin never actually understood the full implications of his own theory because that both linear and non-linear determinism can co-exist in the physical world is a metaphysical absurdity, a point which has yet to penetrate the canonical orthodoxy of modern physics. .

Both determinism and atomism do not rest and fall with Anaximander and Democritus in the ancient world and Darwinism in the modern world.
Both ideas are closely associated and have a long tradition encompassing Epicurus, Lucretius, then to Hobbes, Descartes, Gasendi, Hume, and many, many others too numerous to mention, and with variations and exceptions too complex to bring to bear on this Forum.
The idea that is was "not rediscovered until Darwin" is just not accurate.

I shrink to ask what you think you mean by this; "However Darwin never actually understood the full implications of his own theory because that both linear and non-linear determinism can co-exist in the physical world is a metaphysical absurdity."

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I shrink to ask what you think you mean by this; "However Darwin never actually understood the full implications of his own theory because that both linear and non-linear determinism can co-exist in the physical world is a metaphysical absurdity."

What part of it are you having difficulty with? The statement simply means that causation can be either transcendent or immanent but not both. Do you disagree?

Obvious Leo wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:I shrink to ask what you think you mean by this; "However Darwin never actually understood the full implications of his own theory because that both linear and non-linear determinism can co-exist in the physical world is a metaphysical absurdity."

What part of it are you having difficulty with? The statement simply means that causation can be either transcendent or immanent but not both. Do you disagree?

Give an example of transcendent causality.