Relationship between AI/LLMs and prolepsis

Quote from TauPhi

Cassius , please don't take my post as an attempt to pick a fight - I'm just presenting my opinions about the concep

Fully understood and no problem. And we will go merrily along our way because I know you understand that I disagree with every significant statement of fact you have made in that post as to Epicurus having been "proven wrong." Out terminology is not his terminology but the ultimate logical conclusions he reached have not in my opinion been proven wrong on any significant issue, including that of "images."

We've discussed many of these issues many times in many plaves, but Just for the sake of having fun with the last post here is an example of how I would push back at the contention that Epicurean physics is obsolete. Ironically I would also expect that an AI engine would probably do a better job of laying out both sides of these arguments and how they might be reconciled than some of us are able to do.

These are several of the most fundamental issues on which I contend Epicurus can and should be defended:

1. It cannot be true that matter and space are "infinitely" divisible. If that were true then movement would truly be impossible, because you would always have to traverse infinite distances of space to move at all. Further, dividing bodies infinitely would amount to their ceasing to have any real existence. If all things were infinitely divisible then all things would have long since ceased to exist, because they could not have been replaced (as our experience tells us that things do not come from nothing). Epicurus makes no specific claim about any step along the way other than that there is an ending point to divisibility. "Atom" means nothing other than that end-point - uncuttable. Whether we today call that point some kind of subatomic particles makes no difference - the only issue is that division cannot be continued without end. At some point division must stop and you must arrive at a particle that has size, shape, and weight (motion).
2. The empty space in the universe and the part of the universe that is material and not empty are both infinite in extent. If bodies were infinite in number but space was limited, everything would be filled up with bodies. If space were infinite but bodies were not infinite in number, bodies would never come together to form combinations, just as the wreckage of a ship drifts further and further apart and does not reassemble itself into a ship.
3. The universe as a whole had no beginning because nothing can come from nothing. The universe as a whole will never have an end because no thing can go to nothing. These are logical positions that make perfect sense and require nothing specific about how the matter and space are arranged in any locality within the universe as a whole.
4. Epicurus' essential claim about images is that we do not perceive the world around us through some kind of magical or divine communication, but because particles flow constantly in all directions. Our senses react to contact with those particles. Call those particles photons or waves of electromagnetic emissions or whatever, the information we receive comes through particles interacting with each other between us and the object of our attention.
5. Epicurus' only specific claims about gods are that we should think of them as blessed and imperishable. This is an opinion, and like all opinions they originate from our minds processing our contacts with the outside world. Our five senses and two feelings receive stimulations from outside us (including non-visual images, and our anticipations pick out patterns from among them from which our minds generate opinions. Among the concepts we form from those patterns are "blessedness" and "imperishableness." These conceptions are formed from real patterns, but we are often mistaken when apply those conceptions to specific phenomena. Many of these errors arise because we presume that a blessed and imperishable being would be like us and reward friends and punish enemies, but we can correct these false opinions by rejecting opinions that are inconsistent with true blessedness and imperishableness. (I am using "imperishableness" rather than "imperishability" because I am convinced DeWitt is correct that Epicurus held that gods are not by necessity deathless, but that they must act (and do act) to maintain their continued existence.)

Also for kicks, this is what Claude did with those five points.

Here are my personal opinions on all three points. Please mind they are just that - personal opinions. Nothing else but food for thought, if someone is interested in reading them.

Quote from Titus

1.) As Patrikios said, the Gods symbolise ultimate excellence. They are something to orientate to as personifications of the highest state a being can possibly achieve. They give an idea what the happy life is.

Ultimate excellence does not exist. It's nothing more but a turn into idealism. Epicurean philosophy is a turn away from idealism so the claim that this imagined ideal can be a guide towards happy life is a contradiction to the goal of the philosophy. Even to ancient Epicureans their gods were material beings, not some kind of symbols. On top of that, Epicurean gods are completely removed from human existence. Their existence couldn't be more alien to us even if we tried. Treating them as symbols of human potential excellence is like taking someone whose only language is English and asking them to translate from Chinese.

Quote from Titus

2.a) The correct prolepsis of the Gods works as armour to save from wrong assumptions. Usually, these are the human ideas of ultimate power and this ulimate power being obsessed with moral behaviour. All of that is grounded in human projections rather than what ultimate excellence really is.

The prolepsis of the Gods and ultimate excellence are as much wrong assumptions as ultimate power is. They are based on wishful thinking, nothing more. You're trying to fight fire with fire here.

Quote from Titus

2.b) Human ideas on otherworldly powers are real. Religion is all around and structuring the lives of people. This is something we have to react to and interact with. Personally, I like the idea of imperishable and blessed beings around because this states a direct counterpart to human superstitions. Otherwise, we are in great danger of becoming overwhelmed by false opinions.

Imperishable and blessed beings are as much human superstitions as any other ultimately powerful friends used as pillars for religions. Again, it looks like you're trying to fight fire with fire. You're just switching one type of imaginary friends to another.

On each of these points I agree with Titus and completely see it differently from Tau Phi. We are not talking idealism, we are talking about recognizing scales of measure just as we would see longer living as better than shorter living. There's no specific definition of how long is ultimate outside of a context, but we can still recognize some attributes as better than others.

I meant to say this previously but I believe I got cut short of time and deleted it.

In general I often find it surprising how much I agree with Tau Phi's perspective on Epicurean philosophy despite the fact that he is very clear that he differs with Epicurus on certain key issues (such as issues of skepticism and as we see in this thread, physics).

I think I understand where he is coming from on those and I respect his opinion as a matter of disagreement.

On the issue of "gods" the subject is loaded like a nuclear bomb. I understand that here it is particularly hard to put away preconceived notions of what the term "god" must necessarily mean. I think those terminology issues lead to 90% of the disagreement that people in general have about Epicurus' views of gods.

But on Tau Phi's comments on Titus' post as to "ultimates" I think we may eventually be able to close the gap.

To me it's pretty clear that seeing things "on a spectrum," and seeing that there are clear differences between the higher end of the spectrum and the lower end, does not constitute "idealism." As I am reading Tau Phi's view he is arguing outside of BOTH the "idealist" and "realist" perspectives, even though most readers of Epicurus find themselves gravitating towards one or the other.

So I am thinking that talking through this further will be helpful and does not need to end with just a statement that the views are irreconcilable.

Quote from Cassius

In general I often find it surprising how much I agree with Tau Phi's perspective on Epicurean philosophy despite the fact that he is very clear that he differs with Epicurus on certain key issues (such as issues of skepticism and as we see in this thread, physics).

I do differ in some areas but I also love Epicurean philosophy. It has benefited my life enormously and it still does. Even if I don't accept the philosophy in its entirety, I agree with most of it. It may look sometimes that I'm picking a fight but I really, really don't. I don't argue because I want to become the Internet troll of the month. I hope exchanging ideas is beneficial to all parties involved. And the truth is, I agree a lot with you Cassius as well. It's just we usually don't discuss things we agree upon.

Quote from Cassius

To me it's pretty clear that seeing things "on a spectrum," and seeing that there are clear differences between the higher end of the spectrum and the lower end, does not constitute "idealism."

Seeing things "on a spectrum" is usually the healthiest way to see things. It gets dangerous when people aim at the end of it looking for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow or something like that. That's why I object when someone tries to talk in "ultimate" terms or seeks "ultimate" creatures hoping for some sort of reward in doing so.

Quote from Cassius

As I am reading Tau Phi's view he is arguing outside of BOTH the "idealist" and "realist" perspectives, even though most readers of Epicurus find themselves gravitating towards one or the other.

That is correct. When I do that, I'm not trying to hijack Epicurean philosophy to fit my own agenda. I try to be as clear as possible when I'm not expressing Epicurean ideas. I do that because many of us (me included) come from religious upbringing and it is tempting to gravitate towards safe, known waters. People brake free from religions, find Epicurean philosophy but still think in religious categories. They reject Jesus but they try to make Epicurus yet another saviour. They think they are free from a burden of eternal life but flirt with the idea of prolonging their life indefinitely. They reject the perfection of god almighty and try to find a replacement in ultimate blessedness and incorruptibility. I do understand that people have different needs and I don't want to steer anyone from their "idealist" or "realist" perspectives if such perspectives work for them. I only try to show the dangers of such perspectives.

Quote from TauPhi

I do differ in some areas but I also love Epicurean philosophy. It has benefited my life enormously and it still does. Even if I don't accept the philosophy in its entirety, I agree with most of it. It may look sometimes that I'm picking a fight but I really, really don't. I don't argue because I want to become the Internet troll of the month. I hope exchanging ideas is beneficial to all parties involved. And the truth is, I agree a lot with you Cassius as well. It's just we usually don't discuss things we agree upon.

If this keeps up we're going to have to appoint Tau Phi as Moderator-Pro-Tem of the SUAVITY forum!

Quote from Cassius

If this keeps up we're going to have to appoint Tau Phi as Moderator-Pro-Tem of the SUAVITY forum!

To supplement my brilliant humor, I am hoping that some of our "idealists" like Don will weigh in on the objection Tau Phi is raising to what Titus has suggested. I personally don't consider that the two camps on this topic are really in conflict, as I think Epicurus thought "both" were correct. But very possibly someone coming more from the psychological perspective (ie Don or others) might have something more to say on how to separate the good uses of "aiming for the best" from the "bad uses" of idealism.

Quote from Cassius

If this keeps up we're going to have to appoint Tau Phi as Moderator-Pro-Tem of the SUAVITY forum!

Spledid idea! Almost as good as appointing Lucifer as a gatekeeper at St. Peter's gates of heaven. It should be fine.

I appreciate all the comments made on my original questions and observations. I often look for similarities in teachings before and after Epicurus.

I hope this doesn't stir up a hornets nest from this thread (which everyone is probably fatigued over) But, I've begun learning about Plotinus' birthing of Neoplatonism; the eternal One, the Intellect, and the Nous. It seems like some of the arguments made here, supporting Epicurus' righteous belief in the existence of any or all gods got a bad rap from Plotinus who rejected Epicureans.

Quote from Bryan

false are those contested and not attested by evident reality"

Just as an aside: the Pyrrhonians would not call those “false” but indeterminate or undecidable (ἀνεπίκριτα).

One might take Epicurus’ arguments for a “realist” view of the gods as suggestive, rather than “dogmatic.” I don’t know if that’s too much of a wrenching of what he said, but he was, in part, deconstructing any sort of Platonic idealism throughout.

For myself – though I dislike the term – I would have to hold to the “idealist” view of the gods: viz., mental projections that may or may not be helpful (like visualizing pitching “the perfect game,” to borrow from sports psychology – although pitching a “perfect game” is possible in baseball ).

Note: I view prolepsis as a kind of intuitive construct from experiences.

Quote from Pacatus

Quote from Bryan

false are those contested and not attested by evident reality"

Just as an aside: the Pyrrhonians would not call those “false” but indeterminate or undecidable (ἀνεπίκριτα).

We have the category "pending (προσμένον)" for things which are simultaneously not attested (μὴ ἐπιμαρτυρούμενον) and not contested (μὴ ἀντιμαρτυρούμενον), because indeed in that case there is no evidence either way.

We also have "pending" for phenomena that are apparently both attested and contested, because in that case there is conflicting evidence about the original source (the hypokeimenon) and more observation is needed.

The idealist position would have to argue there is no original source (no hypokeimenon). But according to Epicurus, if there is no original source, the object is not real -- and the proposition that it is real, is necessarily false (such as the proposition "minotaurs exist").

_{Sextus Empiricus (fl.c. 200 CE), Against the Logicians, 1.203 - 216}
"While outlining what is true and false, [Epicurus] says 'what is true is that which exists in such a way as it is said to exist -- and what is false is that which does not exist in such a way as it is said to exist. And sensation (existing as capable of taking hold in response to the things falling under it, and neither removing nor adding nor changing anything to it) is unreasoning -- yet it reports truly in every case and in this way comprehends what exists – just as that very thing exists by nature. But with all sensible things existing as true: the things able to be judged differ – and some of them are true -- but others false'"

Quote from Bryan

The idealist position would have to argue there is no original source (no hypokeimenon). But according to Epicurus, if there is no original source, the object is not real -- and the proposition that it is real, is necessarily false (such as the proposition "minotaurs exist").

This aspect of the "idealist" position as cited by Bryan reminds me to clarify: I think Epicurus' position on divinity served important goal-identifying and psychological purposes for Epicurus (which is a positive use of the term ideal), just as reverencing the sage is of great benefit to him who does the reverencing). IN ADDITION I think Epicurus thought such beings of such a class really exist in the universe, both because we receive "images" of them and because it makes sense that such beings do exist in an infinite and eternal universe. I think these "real" and "ideal" aspects go hand and hand and there's no conflict between them. To the extent that those that hold the "idealist" position also hold that these gods do *not* exist in reality, but solely as mental constructs, I don't agree with that aspect of the "idealist" view. Sorry to interrupt the flow of the discussion but this is for any lurkers who might be confused by my earlier comment.

Quote from Cassius

To supplement my brilliant humor, I am hoping that some of our "idealists" like Don will weigh in on the objection Tau Phi is raising to what Titus has suggested.

This may not turn out exactly as you thought it might...

I have the utmost respect for TauPhi 's perspective and insightful comments in this thread and through the forum. Some of my responses below may be a little provocative, but they're not meant to be combative... and I sincerely hope they don't come across like that. My thinking on this topic of the gods has evolved a little over time, but we've been over this innumerable times on the forum, for example, here and here and here and here and here...to name a few.

Quote from TauPhi

, Epicurean gods are completely removed from human existence. Their existence couldn't be more alien to us even if we tried.

I certainly agree with that. Even Diogenes Laertius says "Two sorts of happiness can be conceived, the one the highest possible, such as the gods enjoy, which cannot be augmented, the other admitting addition and subtraction of pleasures." As mortal beings, we will never ever - can never - achieve the happiness of the gods precisely because our existences are so different. So, what use do they serve for Epicurus? They didn't create the universe, they don't bestow blessings, they don't rain down curses, they don't respond to prayer or worship. Why does Epicurus consistently site a proper understanding of the gods as paramount to his philosophy AND vehemently deny that his philosophy is an atheistic philosophy? I wrestle with this idea and do NOT have a completely satisfactory response.

Quote from TauPhi

Ultimate excellence does not exist. It's nothing more but a turn into idealism. Epicurean philosophy is a turn away from idealism so the claim that this imagined ideal can be a guide towards happy life is a contradiction to the goal of the philosophy.

Ultimate excellence does not exist for humans in the universe. Plus I fully agree that Epicurus rejected Platonic idealism, some Ideal Realm removed from our plane of existence from which emanates the essences of material things. Horse-ness resides in that Realm, we see only pale reflections of that Horse-ness in the animals we see.

But I don't think that necessarily negates the possibility of imagining what it might be like to have a happiness that was complete, unceasing, and could neither diminish nor increased. No human is ever going to achieve that, but humans can extrapolate and image what this state of being permanently blissfully incorruptible might be like. So, I think there are Ideals (upper case) and ideals (lower case).

The bigger issue for me is talking about "gods" "living" in the "intermundia". The intermundia is a utopia in its literal sense: it is No-Place. There would be by definition no worlds in the intermundia upon which a "god" could plant their anthropomorphic feet. BY DEFINITION, the intermundia or metakosmos is between world-systems/kosmoi. I don't remember Epicurus talking about the intermundia. I find it hard to believe Epicurus would advocate for giant humans with quasi-blood floating in a no-place without a world to inhabit. That almost sounds like the Ideal Realm of Plato and I would think he would reject that entirely.

Quote from TauPhi

Imperishable and blessed beings are as much human superstitions as any other ultimately powerful friends used as pillars for religions. ... You're just switching one type of imaginary friends to another.

That brings up an interesting take for me. Epicurus didn't posit the "gods" as being imaginary friends. We can NEVER be friends with the gods. We can never ask the gods for help. We must never expect them to be mad at us. They don't know or care about us. That to me is one of the stickiest of wickets with Epicurean theology. If the gods don't care, don't have power over the universe or us, why bother with them at all?? Why does Epicurus place SO much importance on "getting it right"?

To me, ultimately, Epicurus primary concern is getting us to have a visceral gut-level unshakeable knowledge that (1) The universe was not constructed by the gods, (2) The gods have NO hand in governing the universe, (3) We have NOTHING to fear from the gods... in fact, less than nothing because "they" are not even aware of us.

So why attend the festivals, make sacrifices, and be concerned about piety toward the gods? Because it seems Epicurus did all these things. To me, one possible answer is that it gave him pleasure. He enjoyed the music, the dances, and taking part in the communal life of the city. He felt pleasure taking part in the Panathenaic procession to the Acropolis and gazing on the statue of Athena in the dimly lit Parthenon and feeling awe wash over him. I've felt this in religious settings (setting foot inside Saint-Chappelle in Paris was awe-inspiring, and I'm no longer Christian... although I also felt this even stronger when viewing Yosemite Valley from Tunnel View) If doing this somehow made it easier to think about the idea (not ideal) of being able to somehow experience total happiness that couldn't be augmented or diminished, of "bringing before his eyes" the idea of a completely blessed and incorruptible state of being, maybe that was enough. I've heard (Sedley I think) that maybe each of us constructs our own idea of "god." I'm basically thinking out loud here, so take it with a grain of salt.

Quote from TauPhi

I only try to show the dangers of such perspectives

THAT is a valuable contribution!

Quote from TauPhi

I do differ in some areas but I also love Epicurean philosophy. It has benefited my life enormously and it still does. Even if I don't accept the philosophy in its entirety, I agree with most of it. It may look sometimes that I'm picking a fight but I really, really don't. I don't argue because I want to become the Internet troll of the month. I hope exchanging ideas is beneficial to all parties involved. And the truth is, I agree a lot with you Cassius as well. It's just we usually don't discuss things we agree upon.

Amen (to use the religious term... still looking for a good Epicurean alternative).

I think I'm an atheist or at least agnostic nowadays. Epicurus tenets that gods don't bother with us makes me feel atheism is at least compatible with Epicurean philosophy even though Epicurus may differ. Epicurus isn't here to speak for himself, and we don't have enough texts to really understand his position. I can enjoy some hymns (I like Come Thou Fount of Every Blessing) and Christmas. But I see no need for the gods other than as historical curiosities... and some great stories!

The unifying factor with the ancients as to why I can still consider myself Epicurean is the first line of the Tetrapharmakos: Nothing to fear from the divine.

I have some thoughts on the initial topic of this thread. More on that later.... but it's late and I'm tired.

Quote from Don

I don't remember Epicurus talking about the intermundia.

Let me throw in some quotes as a jumping-off point, I may be misunderstanding.

"...that Cosmoi such as this are also infinite in number is able to be thoroughly comprehended, and that such a Cosmos also has the force to be produced both in a cosmos and in the intermundia [μετακοσμίῳ] – which we say is the separation intervening between cosmoi"
^{[Epicurus to Pythocles, Lives 10.89a]}

"Acknowledging the divine to be eternal and incorruptible, [Epicurus] says that a god has providential care for nothing, and that there is no such thing at all as providence or fate, but that all things are made by chance. For the divine reposes in the intermundane spaces [ἐν τοῖς μετακοσμίοις], (as they) are thus styled by him (for outside the world he determined that there is a certain habitation of the divine denominated "the intermundane spaces [τὰ μετακόσμια]" and that the divine surrenders himself to pleasure, and takes his ease in the midst of supreme happiness) – and that neither has he any concerns of business, nor does he devote his attention to them."
^{Saint Hippolytus of Rome (fl.c. 210 CE), "Philosophical Questions" (Refutation of all Heresies) 22.3}

Quote from Don

I find it hard to believe Epicurus would advocate for giant humans with quasi-blood floating in a no-place without a world to inhabit.

Philodemus' On Piety makes a clear case for this -- the idea is that a process can be eternal -- just as if a waterfall was always fed it would never stop existing, and all waterfalls are impervious to bullets, swords, and other direct damage.

Worlds are closed systems, so the waterfalls in a world will eventually stop -- but between worlds there is no closed system and the flow of matter is infinite.

Are you saying that Philodemus was going his own direction with the statements in that work?

Also, I feel as though Cicero tracks well here and can be supported from other angles, are you saying Cicero is making this up?

"And since it is agreed that the gods are most blessed, and that no one can be blessed without virtue, nor can virtue exist without reason, nor can reason reside anywhere except in human form, it must be admitted that the gods are of human appearance–yet that form is not a body but as it were a body, and it does not have blood but as it were blood. Epicurus, however, who has not only seen with the mind but also handled, as it were with the hand, things hidden and deeply concealed, teaches that the power and nature of the gods are such that they are perceived not by sense but by mind, and not with any solidity nor as countable things, like those which he, because of their firmness, calls steremnia; but rather through images apprehended by likeness and succession, since an infinite series of similar images arises from innumerable indivisibles and flows toward us, while with the greatest delight the mind, fixed and intent upon those images, grasps by understanding what the nature is that is both blessed and eternal."
_{Cicero (fl. 66 BCE), De Natura Deorum, 1.16.43 - 20.56 (Velleius' monologue)}

Quote from Don

Amen (to use the religious term... still looking for a good Epicurean alternative).

I am being cheeky at this point -- you know the term better than most! The “religious-based” affirmative of choice was:

"νὴ Δία"
Philodemus quoting Epicurus, On Piety, 1.31.877-898

"νὴ Δία"
Plutarch quoting Epicurus, Non Posse, 1101A

"νὴ Δία"
Plutarch quoting Epicurus, Against Colotes, 1112E

"ἀλλὰ μὰ Δία"
Epicurus, On Nature, Book 28, P.Herc. 1479, fr. 13 (col. 2 sup.)

"νὴ Δία"
Eusebius of Caesarea quoting Epicurus, Preparation for the Gospel, 14.27.10, 779A

"νὴ Δία"
[unknown biographer], Life of Philonides, P.Herc. 1044, fr. 25 fin.

"νὴ Δία"
The Oxyrhynchus Consolation, P.Oxy. 2.215, col. 1, lines 1-11

Quote from Don

I think I'm an atheist or at least agnostic anymore.

This is probably what you meant as written but just to be clear - this is not missing a "don't" is it? (The "anymore" rather than "nowadays" at the end is the main reason i ask that.)

And thanks to Bryan for immediately weighing in with some texts - not many or any others here could do that so well! Who needs AI when you have that kind of memory?

Quote from Cassius

Quote from Don

I think I'm an atheist or at least agnostic anymore.

This is probably what you meant as written but just to be clear - this is not missing a "don't" is it? (The "anymore" rather than "nowadays" at the end is the main reason i ask that.)

Thanks! I've changed to nowadays to be clearer.