Posts by Godfrey

I've been reading the book Breath, by James Nestor, and came across this description of an idea by Albert Szent-Györgyi. I've actually never heard of him before, but in 1937 he won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.

"Szent-Györgyi wanted to understand the process of breathing, but not in the physical or mental sense, or even at the molecular level. He wanted to know how the breath we take into our bodies interacts with our tissues, organs, and muscles on a subatomic level. He wanted to know how life gained energy from air.

"Everything around us is composed of molecules, which are composed of atoms, which are composed of subatomic bits called protons (which have a positive charge), neutrons (no charge), and electrons (negative charge). All matter is, at its most basic level, energy. 'We can not separate life from living matter,' Szent-Györgyi wrote. 'Inevitably, studying living matter and its reactions, we study life itself.'

"What distinguishes inanimate objects like rocks from birds and bees and leaves is the level of energy, or the 'excitability' of electrons within those atoms that make up the molecules in matter. The more easily and often electrons can be transferred between molecules, the more 'desaturated' matter becomes, the more alive it is."

Seems like Epicurus would agree: no god of the gaps here.

Excellent thread! In a less scholarly vein regarding perceptions of the mind...

So I was just eating tortilla chips with my lunch. I picked up a chip and looked at it. I noticed a spontaneous memory of eating chips in the past, and also noticed a spontaneous anticipation of the pleasure I was about to experience. Eating the chip confirmed the truth of that pleasure.

In other words my sensations (vision, touch, smell) stimulated mental perceptions, in this case a spontaneous memory and anticipation of pleasure which served as a guide to action.

In reference to the fact that we may have multiple senses (up to 20?) senses and two feelings, it seems probable that we have several types of prolepses, of which this description is just one.

Just some food for thought. (ouch)

Thanks Don ! Lots to think about. I'm particularly intrigued by the "true perceptions of the mind." Hmmm....

Quote from timrobbe

Interestingly, they also explain this doesnt mean seemingly random events cant lead to complex results. If there would be forces at work penalizing monkeys for not typing correctly and rewarding them for typing correctly, this would greatly increase the odds.

I think that this is the key point. Without the laws of physics (represented by forces penalizing the monkeys), the odds of evolution and the cosmos happening would be pretty astronomical. Further, as atoms combine, the compound bodies get emergent properties which increase the odds of something coherent happening... and so on.

Hi Tim,

I'm finding that, for me, following EP has become largely an attitude. But an important practice, again for me, is to regularly participate in this forum (I don't use Facebook, but that's another option). Interacting with others here is one of the best ways to deepen my understanding of the philosophy, and it takes me in directions that I would probably never go on my own. (Kudos to Cassius for maintaining this forum!) Also, listening to the Lucretius podcast in helpful in a similar regard.

Another practice that I've recently begun to tinker with involves revisiting the personal outline (if you're not familiar with it, there's a thread on the forum). I've been compiling a list of "one-liners": short phrases or sentences that express a key element of the philosophy in my own words. Then each day I pick one at random as sort of a daily "theme." Compiling the list is a helpful method of study, the daily phrase is a way to live with one narrow aspect and let it soak in. Sometimes the daily phrase motivates me to dig deeper as well. It's kind of like principle doctrines for the short attention spans of us moderns.

Yes the three-legged stool is a great illustration of it!

This thread is pointing out to me the idea of balance between the three faculties.

For instance if our feelings are particularly strong regarding something, that may suggest a need for gathering more information (sensations, input). Thinking in these terms, self-interested agents gain power through disrupting the balance of the faculties. For instance religion minimizes (undermines) the sensations and perhaps the prolepses by insisting on "faith." All that leaves is feelings with which to measure truth. And reason, which is ineffective without proper input. The same goes with filter bubbles. Or Platonists: look at the society Plato proposed in the Republic.

No wonder we have to struggle so much to understand our natural faculties....

Maybe this is too simplistic, but Don in #11 you asked a question because you were feeling unease (pain) regarding an idea. By asking the question you were able to gather more data, and based on that data and the background activity of your prolepses you were able to "assuage your pain." That, in a nutshell, is one example of how I understand the process of the Canon to work.

Yes. Another good one!

A few thoughts....

I'm not sure about Lucretius' era, but in ancient Greece everyone was speculating beyond the evidence. Which just reinforces the point that the methods of inference are perhaps more important than the actual conclusions reached.

When using the feelings as a measurement of truth it's extremely important that the "input" (sensations, data, facts, etc) is as extensive and accurate as possible. With pure reason this doesn't seem to be the case, which can be rather dangerous.

So it's only natural that as input improves over time, so will the conclusions. But during the podcast I kept thinking of the implications of this in terms of our fractured society and the plethora of "alternative facts" circulating. Without getting into politics (!!!) I think that this may illustrate how EP can and should apply on a societal level in addition to being *just* a personal philosophy.

This translation by Strodach seems clearer to me, although not any shorter:

"24. If you summarily rule out any single sensation and do not make a distinction between the element of belief that is superimposed on a percept that awaits verification and what is actually present in sensation or in the feelings or some percept of the mind itself, you will cast doubt on all other sensations by your unfounded interpretation and consequently abandon all the criteria of truth. On the other hand, in cases of interpreted data, if you accept as true those that need verification as well as those that do not, you will still be in error, since the whole question at issue in every judgment of what is true or not true will be left intact."

We're very grateful for nerdiness here!

Quote

Regarding gratitude, I don't agree that this emotion in the subject implies or requires an object.

Well put Joshua! A key word that you used is "emotion."

I would add that one can be grateful for without being grateful to. Religion teaches that a person should give thanks, but what is important is to feel thankful. The emotions are central to being human; the more we are in touch with them the better. Unlike the Stoics.

Great link Don. I'm out of my depth on that as well, which is why I asked the question.

A further thought on "necessary and sufficient" is that that is a logical exercise where DeLacey 2b seems to be a Canonic exercise. So I'm curious if considering the two might shed some light on the extent of reason in determining truth using EP.

Cassius this is a fascinating and important topic and I look forward to episode 33! I actually listened to 32 twice. Between the podcasts and the forum l, for one, am getting a lot more clarity on the topic. Even if it's not *resolved*.

Is there any relevance of the idea of "necessary and sufficient" for items in category 2b? (Full disclosure: not being a philosopher, I'm unaware of the detailed ramifications of the necessary and sufficient argument. So I'm definitely asking a question and not proposing an argument.)

It seems like 2b describes a "sufficient" condition for truth. However I think there may be many instances where "necessary" is implied. For instance with the void it seems that part of the argument of Lucretius is that the void is necessary for motion. Likewise, and I guess where I'm going with this, is an atomist universe "necessary" to describe a world in which things don't appear out of nothing, at random, or disappear into nothing?

"Necessary and sufficient" is different from verification and lack of evidence to the contrary. I'm curious if it has a place in the Epicurean methods of inference or if verification and evidence completely supercede it.

Well done Joshua! You present a remarkable amount of information which brings far more to the poem than I would have gleaned.

This is meandering somewhat in that this doesn't directly discuss philosophy. About midway through this podcast there is a discussion of the reasons rulers embraced monotheistic religions instead of local gods. Simply put: to consolidate power.

http://blogs.getty.edu/iris/podcast-g…-the-year-1000/

It's been a while and I don't recall the details of the Santayana essay. What's interesting to me in this discussion is the connection between excellent scholarship in some aspects of the essay combined with the total dismissal of Epicurus in other parts. It seems as though one devoted to excelling in scholarship just can't comprehend or stomach the ultimate simplicity and obviousness of Epicurus' insights.

Of course part of Epicurus' project was to show the futility of over-reliance on the intellect. So the intellectual probably feels compelled to demean and discredit Epicurus. The tragedy, to me, is how over the millennia those who make a fancy argument can blind so many to basic truths.

Yes I made it through the whole thing. I kept expecting it to get better but it never did.

I'd suggest bailing on reading it and wait for what Joshua has to say. I imagine he'll be able to discover some nuance in the piece, at least more than I could!

Quote

...his depiction of Epicurus won't win him any friends here.

That would be me. I read this essay a few months ago and was extremely put off by it. That being said, I'm interested to hear your take on it Joshua.

This made me quite happy!