Sunday June 22 - Topic: Prolepsis

This would be helpful and greatly appreciated!

I probably won't be able to join this Sunday but in case prolepsis is being discussed, I think this can help new people to understand the idea of Epicurean prolepsis. There's a book called 'Thinking, Fast and Slow' by Daniel Kahneman. Disclaimer: I haven't read the book and I don't know how scientifically sound the book is. System 1 presented in the book, however, is pretty close to describing what Epicurus might have in mind with his prolepsis description. Maybe it's something worth talking about.

Here are relevant excerpts from Wikipedia:

Quote

The book's main thesis is a differentiation between two modes of thought: "System 1" is fast, instinctive and emotional; "System 2" is slower, more deliberative, and more logical.

Quote

In the book's first section, Kahneman describes two different ways the brain forms thoughts:

• System 1: Fast, automatic, frequent, emotional, stereotypic, unconscious. Examples (in order of complexity) of things system 1 can do:
  • determine that an object is at a greater distance than another
  • localize the source of a specific sound
  • complete the phrase "war and ..."
  • display disgust when seeing a gruesome image
  • solve 2 + 2 = ?
  • read text on a billboard
  • drive a car on an empty road
  • think of a good chess move (if you're a chess master)
  • understand simple sentences
• System 2: Slow, effortful, infrequent, logical, calculating, conscious. Examples of things system 2 can do:
  • prepare yourself for the start of a sprint
  • direct your attention towards the clowns at the circus
  • direct your attention towards someone at a loud party
  • look for the woman with the grey hair
  • try to recognize a sound
  • sustain a faster-than-normal walking rate
  • determine the appropriateness of a particular behavior in a social setting
  • count the number of A's in a certain text
  • give someone your telephone number
  • park into a tight parking space
  • determine the price/quality ratio of two washing machines
  • determine the validity of a complex logical reasoning
  • solve 17 × 24

I am still drawn to the idea that prolepsis is the subconscious faculty of "pattern recognition" or the mental faculty of discerning significant patterns within the cacophony of sensation. Over time, similar patterns are recognized and fine tuned. Sensations flood our minds constantly. Prolepsis allows us to make sense of sensations, then once patterns are identified within the sensations, we can begin to assign concepts to those patterns cognitively/consciously.

For example, let's use an infant. Her visual senses pick up sensory stimulation. Prolepsis allows her to identify a pattern. She has no language to attach a word to the pattern, but she can pull a recurring pattern from the sensations of lights, shapes, colors, shadows flooding her visual field. The pattern comes and goes. Leaves and returns. Pleasurable feelings accompany this pattern. Later, she will be reinforced to accompany this visual pattern with the sound "mama." The sensations come first, prolepsis comes next, rational assignment of concepts follows after that.

That's where my head is at right now; however, I'm still not wed to a dogmatic acceptance of Epicurean categories and concepts of how the mind works. Epicurus was brilliant in some of his ideas with very little empirical evidence available to him. But his ideas are 2,000+ years old. That's one reason I like to read about modern cognitive science, and I still think the most intriguing research is the work of Dr. Lisa Feldman Barrett and others about the minds using prediction as a means of dealing with the world. That prediction to me smells a lot like prolepsis, too.

Theory of constructed emotion - Wikipedia

Predictive coding - Wikipedia

I think that Cassius doesn't necessarily like endorsing one scientific view too much or trying to shoehorn Epicurean philosophy into a modern theory, and I agree somewhat. For me, modern science - investigations into nature - is a way to update Epicurus' spirit if not the letter of his physics.