The biophysicist Jacques Monod hypothesized that man will never understand itself due to that a logical system could not be higher than itself !
Dear Dr. Marcos Celio De Almeida
Yes, I am agree with Jacques Monod. Because sometimes we can not understand ourselves. So, the logical system could not be higher than ourselves.
Shuker Khalil Thank you Dr Shuker Khalil. Just extending our discussion : I think science has to question our accepted now present limits, but we have also to be humble and cautious. One example, are the climates changes predictable?
Should not we stop now changing our environment ? Could we subvert and change the complex natural laws based in our ideologies and believes?
From a nature's laws( point of view ) are we superior to any being?
In the more exact and well defined of our sciences, mathematics, Has not Godel proved that are theorems that will never proved right or false?
There are many mathematicians try to study and solve this problem. So, in 1999 the soft sets theory is introduced by Molodtsov to solve problems in logical systems and decision making. For simple example in mathematical if Mr. X has opinion about the best car, then by soft sets theory, we can find the soft set (F,A) which is describing the Mr.X opinion to buy the best car. Also, there are many problems are solved by soft sets theory in medical , engineering and other fields in our life.
Shuker Khalil From the proposition that we will never know ourselves completely does not follow that we have reached, or are near, our upper bond.
I have previous known advances in human logic, as fuzzy logic (L Zadeh) and paraconsistent logics ( N C Da costa) this last admits inclusive contradiction. This certainly expands the frontier from classical aristotelian logic. Thanks for this reference on Molodtsov soft sets. In which way Do they differ from fuzzy sets?
Humility, how to: panpsychism.
Problematic: Watzlawick's pragmatic attitude, and more:
Point of view: §40 Kant Judgement Critic cited by Hannah Arendt, and more:
ΙΕΡΉ ΦΡΉΝ the Global Mind of Empedocles.
Ourselves: Understanding our belongingness (not just as individual to humanity, but has human beings to the Big Being) could enlarge Logic and spread it allover back to its roots: Logos as the extrahuman quality, pertaining to the whole.
Until we look for mind's secrets into our single skulls we'll be not able to be Humbles.
First epistemological step: finding intelligence everywhere in everything as pre-existent to our watching.
(Sorry for my synthetic-paradogmatic-paradygmatic unperfect english exposing)
Angelo Mazzei
I agree with you that intelligence is everywhere. Otherwise we could not understand world. If think that it is a strong argument for a a Big Being as you say or an intelligent world design.
That we perceive this is also a reason for humility.
The second part of your argument otherwise is not clear to me:
I understand that we could mystically integrate in this BIG BEING but it is an individual experience, not rational not scientifically transmitted .
There is nothing mystic in it. It is in a dialectical aufhebung of the opposition mystic vs rational. The way into the upcoming paradygm should be postlogical. I mean, logic in a totally different way: do you know the last researches of Jung? The mysterium coniunctionis show the first step to get out the batesonian condition of schizophrenic culture we are overwhelmed by our white or black Weltanschauung.
If anything is always metaphoric (cfr. White Mythology in Marges de la Philosophie by Derrida) so what Leibniz have thought about mathemathics become more clear: when you wash an axiom or a proposition of it phenomenal implication you'll get only numbers and shapes, mathematics and geometry. So, at the end, there are no contradiction, as paradox is a system error of our language, going deeply into what I call here Logos (a cleaned language where opposites are not irreconcilable - but a teamwork, a couple of parents, eraclitean polemic stocheioi), we will find the future version of our big Operating System. In this 2.0 up to date, individually and collectively, mystically and rationally, ethically and scientifically, will be not arts (ways, modalities) anymore.
Angelo Mazzei
Bravo! Poetic!
I agree with many your affirmations, for example, that many paradoxes are just system errors of language. I extract that you criticize also the schematic way of thinking we have.
Imagination and big ideas certainly come from outside the simple logic or are obtained illogically but paradoxically once a big idea is born it has to be explained and it will need the logic. See for example Relativity theory, it is a paradigm break but logically, mathematically formulated! There are several other examples!
Just to mention an extreme real case in field of mathematics Ramanujan. His theorems were dreamed and born finished. He mentions that an indian Goddess gave his theorems in dreams.
Many times in dreams we have a symbolization of reality with archetype symbols: snakes, Lions, water etc I have experimented it several times and several others related me the same.
Why does our brain "speak" with us in this way is yet a mystery.
I BELIEVE that is a mental process based in ou evolutive biological heritage.
You wrote "Why does our brain speak with us in this way". Let me tell you how this question could illuminate the subliminal truth acting in its inner spacing.
I agree with your dream's consideration, but I suggest you a logic solution: what if it was not "our brain" to speak, but an intelligence that is not "our" and not "included" in our skulls?
The "Mind" speaking through dreams could also be a kind of spreaded extracerebral mind, and our individual brain could be a gate between the spirit of the whole and our single consciousness. No mystery.
Angelo Mazzei
I think if exist that BEING . The BEING has to be unique, omnipotent and omniscient.
If so the theologians have reason, we can not understand fully the BEING and we can only achieve HIM by his will to contact us.
Why Does He not speak with us clearly????
Although I saw evidences of an intelligent design that not necessary indicates that the only possibility is the BEING.
I really can't believe or believe in HIM.
I prefer to follow the explanation, scientifically proved, that we have cerebral structures inherited from our ancestors selected to work with our most archetypal contacts: enemies or friends.
It could appear vague but we have clearly kinds of inherited behaviours and also
in immune system we have inherited genes able to recognize the pathogens human species has lived together.
Why do not an archaic symbologic language?
You moved the subject of our developping dialogue on the field of theology speaking about a BEING (GOD), in my honest opinion this is a misunderstanding.
I've talked in the previous comment about a MIND that is EXTRACEREBRAL, I meant a NOT SUBJECTIVE mind, a kind of NOT IN OUR PROPERTY mind.
This is always in a scientifical encoding, it is not my need to speak here about theology at all.
The mind I'm talking about is not something closed in a box, but with a constitutively-dynamic process; a kind of metabolism, but not a metabolism of bodies into bigger bodies, instead the metabolism of communicating images - as I said: Logos Exchange.
So, for me it' s scientifically wrong to affirm that WE possess a MIND. I would wait for a new paradygm with its particular vocabulary to say something more like: WE are a sharing part - a topology of connections - of a Mind that we don't possess. WE HAVEN'T A MIND, A MIND HAS US.
Angelo Mazzei
I think I understand your point now.
The nature show us that some societies are programmed to have a collective intelligence higher than its members : ants , termites, bees.
That is clearly a biological fact although not completely understood how it was programmed and operates.
We human could eventually have this superior intelligence/programm ( what you call MIND) that was pre programmed for us as a society ( in something similar to your sense could HAVE US). That could be called Mind?
Right! So, if we are subordinated to a common mind - in wich our single mind is a biological emergence - and we keep it as a paradygmatic foundation of our scientific system, we get as a result that we must be HUMBLE as SINGLE scholars compared to COMMUNITY of scholars, and HUMBLE as COMMUNITY of scientist compared to COMMUNITY of humans, and so to community of biological beings, at the end - HUMBLE in front of what Empedocles and some pythagorean called the Sacred Mind, that is the evident INTELLIGENCE OF THE PLANET.
Angelo Mazzei
Interestingly, we are near a question I have proposed in RG:
Could we organize collective human intelligence to achieve and surpass the breakthroughs obtained or crystallized by individual human geniuses?
Apparently you are proposing that this Mind yet exist and we are part of it.
Why in this case has this MIND not manifested to us HIS conscience and drove us to better directions we gone? You will probably say that IT manifests by dreams. I have also manifested my argument to that answer.
I agree otherwise with you intermediate argument about being humble.
I would add that also we have to be patient with each other as one individual mind will probably never understand other, only partially. That indeed the reason we need to talk.
1) In biology (Haken's Synergetic) there's a key called Enslaving Principle.
2) The Mind system could be interpreted as a Fractal Network with dynamic structures repeating at different resolution degrees (Mandelbrot 1967).
3) Thinking fonctions of mind are working by jumps - their elements are learned by a consciousness and then moved into automatic (subconscious) where they can act using less energy.
1.1) Any single conscious mind is the "totality" of a community of many particles (more little single minds) they choose to enslave theirselves to a bigger project as long as dead come as a critical point (like in Chaos Dynamics in Gas Physics). Dead is only the End of a community of shared enslavement.
2.1) I think that for necessity this fractal structure as to work by secret. Imagine what should happen if a single cell of the human body would understand the TRUTH : if she (the cell in latin languages is feminine) would not accept to be enslaved by principle to a superior comprehensive unity (i.e. a human). The same system error if a man was illuminated at the point to understand that all is life is a slavery process working for planet Earth, he could stop to work or worst start to work in the opposite direction. But if he could assume the TRUTH and accept his Human Condition, he would maybe understand he was going as humanity in the wrong way destroying what he is made to work for. So, the genius as a partially illuminated, is a lead cell, but he is not enough to save the planet we are made of and made for.
Bateson's Ecology of Mind was right moving to what I call in Ancient Words ΙΕΡΉ ΦΡΉΝ (Iere Phren) the Sacred Mind, or Mind of Planet Earth.
3.1) So, Subliminality is not an exception. It is the main way for bigger Minds to communicate to included single minds. Something that could be usefull to understand many main questions in our scientific discourse.
CONCLUSION:
Using the SMP (Sacred Mind Paradygm - Fractal System with Enslaving Hidden Communicativity) we can approach in new ways many problems
I. E.
- What is somatization
- How into Mind Spatiotemporality rules do not work [Quantic Entanglement]
- Why Ecologism is not a choice but a necessity
- Why we must be absolutely and definetly humbles as human beings
- Why we should destroy our previous knowledge (Nietzsche's Destruktion)
- Why we have not to kill others for us to survive
- and many other apparently political or religious questions that in fact should be SCIENTIFICALLY APPROACHED when a new rising paradygm would start to be.
Angelo Mazzei
You mention several interesting points.
Lets go to a concrete example.
Think in an automata with no vision, not able to speak, no hearing, just provide of tactile sensation and a chemical sense ( like taste). No nervous system, no brain at all, no thoughts.
This automata is a metaphor of our cells.
We all are the development of just one of these automata that is committed to multiply and change itself leading to a being Thinking and having consciousness !
Most of these beings are also committed by the same program to associate in societies .
We could think as you propose these being societies will similarly to cell societies in a moment constitute a Mind, a consciousness that these beings are not aware. Yes some thing fractal.
The analogy is interesting but an organism like us has some characteristics, for example, our mind apparently is product of an organ: Brain, the cells of the Brain organize themselves in networks with a kind of configuration.
They are not exactly as us, we are wandering elements not necessarily having a physical connection. How could we , before internet , communicates to generate these networks? How the mind could be self conscious in time transition if these beings could change highly the configuration of the network?
Even not considering the possibility of brain society, we have to think about this program that is codified in our DNA . how was it done or evolved to lead an automata to a thinking human being to a society and permits its own self evolution?
To me it is a consideration that precedes all we are talking about because the programm precedes all minds we are taking about.
You are deriving your big mind from the sum of the small minds that compose it and they would precede it, according to your logic.
Instead, I speak of the ontological identity of the single soul as following its synergetic enslavement to the system for which it works and in function of which it exists.
So unlike you, I don't think that a mental community could become a mind - and even more - neither a consciousness.
About us humans - for example - individual thinking minds - what do we consist more then of material borrowed from other beings?
What are we more then assembled elements borrowed from water and planet Earth?
Is it possible that we - made of borrowing - are more minded, intelligent, conscious, as the planet, or its ocean, ground, underground, sky, they could be?
Angelo Mazzei
I am not necessarily a materialist but scientifically a prefer exhaust the materialistic explanations.
In this sense matter it is not itself intelligent but could amazenate information and then intelligence! For example, if you take a carbon and four hydrogen atoms they do not mean nothing but CH4 means a chemical compound. It has information in it! When we think in a computer it is completely material but has organization in its structure, it has information. A kind of information that permits it calculates and supers human mind in some tasks. Our bodies and Brain in this sense are not just collection of matter. We are matter with very high degree of information. Our brain circuits are designed to perform several complex tasks. But intelligence is everywhere in our body. From where comes this intelligence : from the program encrypted in DNA. We are then matter but something immaterial too : information. May be soul/consciousness not just a sensation of perceiving information by our own cerebral circuits ?
DNA is not working as matter but as form. Homer let understand in his poems that Soul (ΨΥΧΉ) is the "subject" forming the body. Aristotle underlines that Soul is Pure Form, so that matter with no (in) form (ation) is nothing meaningful. When we talk about matter are we talking about something opposite to form and devoid of form? Is that not a paradox, in the moment we can't see that couple matter/form into the infinitely little world of quantum mechanics?
It seems to me that the common sense of scientists is not assuming the discoveries of this very special reality as definetly true, but many logic elements of newtonian paradygm and determinism are still affecting their worldvisions. It is hard to remove and clean the plate of research from leftovers of the big epistemic dinner of modernity.
This is the "mystic" Call of Being of Being and Time, above all, the chapter where it is explained why to destroy "tradition" going back in time to the ancients to find old usefull comparable Knowledge's Systems.
(Doesn't) Matter, (in) Form.
Angelo Mazzei You make an interesting point that we could eventually exchange the modern concept of information with the classical aristotelian of form.
This is very interesting as we could revisit past masters and their knowledge with this new terminology.
Indeed, you and other philosophers could using the new ideas from biology for example, construct a very interesting new philosophy. They did not know at that time so much about information as we now. We have now much better biological knowledgement than Aristoteles . If think in this way the concept of form is now much more combinatory/monadic than Aristoteles thought and indeed, in biology could be transmitted.
We have also the new concept of entropy that could link energy and information then form and energy, consequently form independent of matter as Aristoteles proposed.
I have to say that my concepts of Aristotelian philosophy are from his intellectual disciple Thomas De Aquinas. I have yet to read his original writings.
Marcos Celio De Almeida "
Are there things we will never be able to know?"
Well, in this context, one often say about Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem.
Lukasz T. Stepien
In Godel's theorem we will know the theorems but will be UNABLE TO PROVE them if FALSE OR RIGHT.
The question here is about the IMPOSSIBILITY OF KNOWING something, (ourselves for example).
Marcos Celio De Almeida
Well, I have found this topic (the question: "Are there things we will never be able to know ?"), as associated with Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem. The reason is such that one can say that for example (in a nutshell), since Godel's First Incompleteness Theorem says about existence such theorems, which cannot be proved or disproved, then one cannot know, whether one can construct the proofs of such theorems or not.
By the way, it is better to distinguish Godel's Incompleteness Theorems: first and second one. One of the interesting historical facts here, is that Godel never proved so-called Godel's Second Incompleteness Theorem.
@Lukasz T Spienen
You are right. It is interesting that if could go extended to a moral decision it
will be dramatic, the impossibility of knowing if right or false?
What do you think?
Goedel, Hilbert and Gentzen are not helpful talking to humbleness.
The consistency of a system without internal contradictions would be its own annihilation. The traditional logic does not come to a complete knowledge of itself. The vitality of a system is based on its inner secret. Its dark side is the condition of every shining dynamic it could show.
And if we call my previous sentence #S the proof of its mysticism would turn immediately in its opposite: mathematical theorem.
This enantiodromic logic represents the way out from any logical impasse.