(no subject)

[sophiaserpentia]

I made this comment in challenging_god yesterday and wanted to record it here for posterity, and perhaps discussion.

It regards what I am calling "the Neoplatonist Fallacy."

The Neoplatonists believed that the things in the cosmos are like thoughts in the Mind of God. In their view, Mind is the most real substance; manifest form follows from Ideal (or Mental) form.

This is a fallacy, though, because of the way the human brain processes sensory input. Of course things when examined begin to take on the properties of mind, because that is the way the perceptual faculties in the brain break down sensory input.

For example, we have neural pathways that represent the cardinal numbers; a neuron for "one," an neuron for "two," a neuron for "three," and so on. We have neurons for recognizing circles, squares, triangles, etc. These things therefore seem "eternal" because they precede thought; they are central to our experience of the universe.

So naturally when we examine the universe, things appear to be patterned in intelligent ways. We have NO OTHER WAY of perceiving the universe.

Edit. What makes this so difficult to realize is the fact that sensory data is edited so that things seen or heard which do not fit easily into our pre-developed conceptualization pathways is discarded or ignored. Our mind overlooks a great deal of raw input from the outside world in order to quickly develop a real-time sense of the immediate surrounding. It can take a great deal of effort and conscious concentration to learn how to see outside of the neural censor.

Comments

not to be a total bish

[delascabezas.livejournal.com]

For example, we have neural pathways that represent the cardinal numbers; a neuron for "one," an neuron for "two," a neuron for "three," and so on. We have neurons for recognizing circles, squares, triangles, etc. These things therefore seem "eternal" because they precede thought; they are central to our experience of the universe.

That is a bit of an exaggertaion - we have brain centers that fire neurons (in pathways) when certain stimuli are offered - this can be tracked in a myriad of ways. However, recording that activity, IMO, is not a de-facto "proof" that the concept of the idea triggering the activity resides in the physical pathway. In the endless debates on the mind/body issue - i proposed a concept of Platonic "ideas" which are an ethereal plastic mold for all the realities we pervieve. That brain activity might not be our brains wrapping itself around the idea, rather, it is an energy connection tapping the limitless potential of those ethereal plastic forms.

A little too thin for most seeped hard in science, but, until I see nails in the coffins of mind/body, then it is just as legit as assuming that the ideas themself reside within the physical brain.

I agree in the observations of your edit - but I believe human perception is an evolved sense, the way our sense of spemm has dulled, and our sense of touch has specialized (especially in the hand) - the way our brains process information has evolved to a state which is nearly disassociated with our reality, hence the proclivity on the part of our species to label, organize, name, and "know" everything.

Re: not to be a total bish

[sophiaserpentia.livejournal.com]

Thank you for clarifying the incomplete physiological information I conveyed.


However, recording that activity, IMO, is not a de-facto "proof" that the concept of the idea triggering the activity resides in the physical pathway.

Sure. But it is extremely suggestive, suggestive enough that in my opinion it "trumps" the alternate view -- that numbers, geometric shapes, and other Platonic "Ideals" affect the formation of our conceptual strategies.

Of course, I could be wrong. But until recently I was actually a Neoplatonist and a Structuralist. Learning about the strategies the brain uses to handle sensory input forced me to re-evaluate my beliefs.


A little too thin for most seeped hard in science, but, until I see nails in the coffins of mind/body, then it is just as legit as assuming that the ideas themself reside within the physical brain.

Certainly. I am actually rooting for the materialists to lose the debate, even while feeling forced to concede that they have the more compelling arguments.


hence the proclivity on the part of our species to label, organize, name, and "know" everything.

Yes, an acutely prudent observation on the part of the authors of Genesis...

i am going to follow up in my journal on this

[delascabezas.livejournal.com]

just so i don't leave you hanging