Posts by BrainToBeing

Quote from Cassius

BraintoBeing I apologize for not being able to follow this thread more closely - I have been traveling on business and extremely short of time. Here's a place where I will hop back in:

Cassius Missed you. Glad you are back! More fun with you here.

Quote from Cassius

...And if that position works for you, and you feel no stress or strain in your life by "leaving the issue as undecided," then I say more power to you!

Yeah, maybe again because of medicine or just my "brain wiring", I have no problem leaving the issue undecided. When practicing it was typical (not unusual) to have fragmentary information requiring an acceptance - "at this time there is not enough information, and we don't know". So, I got used to it.

Quote from Cassius

in the end "science" is not the same as "philosophy." I'm not sure I can adequately define the difference, but maybe that is something that needs to be addressed in this conversation.

I'm really enjoying the conversation with you all and it is not my intent to be a gadfly/iconoclast. So, I'm happy to leave this issue alone. (And, the difference can be defined.)

Quote from Don

But a search for some universal Truth isn't going to make that better.

Don Your comments in the section relating to this quote are all quite welcome. You are absolutely right, healthcare is about human beings and being human. During that practice I did not intend to use science to devalue the human experience or individual preference. However, I did seek to rely on something that was reliable. It would be extremely easy for healthcare, and doctors, to be nothing more than a shill for economic benefit and hidden agendas. In fact that is the path to easiest medicine and highest "reward" from practice. Yet, I didn't think that was the agenda.

Don In regard to prolepsis you and your colleagues here are certainly much more the experts on that subject than I am. However, to use the word as I did I reference the following definitions:

"the anticipation and answering of possible objections in rhetorical speech." (Oxford Languages dictionary)

"Prolepsis (rhetoric), a figure of speech in which the speaker raises an objection and then immediately answers it." (Wikipedia)

Prolepsis, a figure of speech in which a future act or development is represented as if already accomplished or existing. (Britannica)

If that is not how the word is used here in EpicureanFriends then I'm happy to hear an alternative definition.

Quote from Don

Epicureans accept that the material universe exists "independent of our perspective on it." In fact, the universe existed before we were born and will exist after we cease to exist. That aspect of what you're calling "Truth" doesn't seem to be that big of a deal from my perspective.

Don Thanks Don. It might be that our use of the word "truth" is different. For example, it might be that you use the word "truth" to mean "accurate perspective". In that case we could take the view that "Truth" ("T") is "fully accurate or unassailable perspective". If that is the way Epicurus and you use the word that is fine with me. This is then just semantic differences in our use of the word truth.

In the life I have lived in medicine there was a different problem: opinion versus objective accuracy. For example, during the opioid epidemic I would have people come to me claiming 10/10 pain and "needing" opioids while they would sit in the waiting room chatting with family, eating munchies, and watching television. The claim did not match the objective data. In many examples of medicine there was marked differences between claims and what objectively might be called truth. In another kind of example I would see people claiming complete disability from back pain while fraud investigators had videos of them out playing golf with friends, moving in a perfectly normal fashion. And, we can't forget the doctors who were handing out opioids like candy claiming their patients needed them. So, in the journey of healthcare it became clear there was opinion or claim and there was objective truth. Where they were consonant that was wonderful and gave opportunity for classical professional care to proceed. Where there were marked disparities then decisions needed to be made: do we respond to opinion and claim, or do we respond to what is objective? In the "opioid epidemic" between about 1999 and 2010 half a million people died of opioid overdoses, a significant portion from prescribed opioids. So, you can decide what criteria should be used in such circumstances.

I found it useful to think of "Truth" ("T") as objective and independent of opinion.

Quote from Don

You're simply describing "the way things are," as Lucretius' takes the title of his work. If that's what you're calling "Truth with a Capital T" that's like a physicist saying the sum total of all laws of physics can be called "God."

This is, of course, unfair at a number of levels. The concept of "God" (whether true or not) is based on the hypothesis of a supernatural sentience that controls the happenings of the planet. The laws of physics are not supernatural nor are they a sentience. Rather, as far as science and objectivity can tell, they are fact.

Anticipating your possible question (prolepsis) "Does a supernatural 'God' exist?" I don't know. I operate under the presumption that there is no God because I see no evidence of same - at least not one that I can affirm taking an active role in shaping our lives. However, cosmologists now advocate for the majority of the universe consisting of dark matter and dark energy - based on objective facts. So, there seems to be plenty of place to put other sentience. Therefore, I'm smart enough to know I don't know everything and cannot exclude the possibility of God. In my journey I simply leave the issue as undecided.

In my view, Truth (with a capital T) is that which exists independent of our perspective of it. We are not the authors of truth, only at best its revealers and/or messengers. For example, the laws of physics existed long before we attempted to discover them. They existed independent of our perspectives.

So, I do think there is Truth, though we certainly may not know what it is. For example, the universe in its entirety either exists or it doesn't. It does not matter what we think about it. One of those is true, the other is not (again, "the whole enchalada" being taken as a whole). All of the great scientists have pursued discovering parts of the perspectives of Truth. We now run this planet based upon the elements of Truth they discovered. For example, the machine I now use to have this fun conversation with you was not invented by a religion, a philosophy, or anyone's personal opinion. It was invented by the discovery of parts of the big "T" Truth.

At least, this is how I see it.

Again, none of this is of any disrespect to the great sages of the past, nor to any of you intelligent folks who can so easily quote their texts. This website and these threads are in pursuit of philosophy for living. It is useful to conjecture about many things in the interests of forming our own personal philosophies, just as those greats did so many years ago. And, we must never forget that brilliant voices derived different fundamental conclusions at these philosophical levels. So, certainly these topics allow room for varying perspectives, and always have.

The fun part is in the journey to our philosophies, for certainly truth will exist regardless of our perspectives of it.

Godfrey Yes, I do get the satisfaction that I did the right thing; yet, it feels incomplete. The dilemmas of psychosocial "hidden" agendas in medicine drove me to leave neurology. I then decided I would try to approach the topic with - hopefully - the "cards on the table". So, I went on to get board certification in addiction. Then I found other problems. The surprising one was the difficulty of getting on to insurance panels as a doctor board certified in neurology and addiction. The insurance companies couldn't understand it. They could understand a psychiatrist or family practitioner practicing addiction treatment, but they couldn't understand that addiction is run by the brain. So, I entered a prolonged thrash trying to get onto insurance company panels. Further, the addiction treatment arena was afraid of the neurological mindset. They were afraid of a focus on gathering truly objective data of function and illness. They wanted to wash around in the bathwater of opinion and symptoms. They seemed to be satisfied saying "we did great" in treatment even when the patient immediately relapsed after a month of inpatient treatment. To me, as a neurologist, such immediate relapse may have been an understandable derivative of the nature of the illness; but, it doesn't translate to "we did great", in my opinion.

The relevance of this "venting" in EpicureanFriends is the commentary on objectivity, particularly in reference to Don "The Canon Epicurus affirms that our sensations and preconceptions and our feelings are the standards of truth". Are they really? 2000 years ago it made perfect sense to argue as Epicurus did on this point. There was no other objective tool for assessment. Yet, is that still true? Are these still to be presumed as the standards of truth? At least in my experience I don't think so. They may be a method of assessment for a personal view of truth. However, I hold that as different from "Truth" (with a capital "T", a universal truth). And the reason for that disparity is information processing in the human brain - which is not evolved to discover Truth, but rather to discover a personalize response for future actions. At least, this is how I see it (and how objective neurobiology sees it).

Yet, the discussion can go on with other views!

Quote from Don

Since this is an Epicurean philosophy forum, I thought it might be helpful look at whether your interpretations of those words line up with Epicurus's interpretation of those words. Here one the relevant passage from Diogenes Laertius, The Live of the Eminent Philosophers, Book 10.31-34:

What a wonderful group you are! Thanks Don for the perspective. While there are interesting discussions derived, perhaps it is best to just appreciate how very insightful those elders were! (At least for the moment.)

Once again, it is certainly not my intent to detour any of the agendas extant in this wonderful and scholarly group. So, rather than directly respond to the wonderful quote, let me just ask a question: given that the wisdom of the sages has been known for 2000+ years, and that in spite of this we still find ourselves in this era of rancorous divisions, rampant drug addiction, and philosophical dissolution, what do you scholars think is the path forward?

Perhaps because of my background treating serious illness, I am very interested in practical responses to difficult situations. I make a diagnosis. I understand the patient with the diagnosis. Then the patient and I seek to determine an appropriate course of therapy. So, how would you, Don or any others, diagnose the current situation? How would you understand "the patient"? How would you determine an appropriate course of treatment that the patient can accept and manage?

Quote from Godfrey

Epicurean Canon: sensations, anticipations and feelings. First, are there any new faculties in addition to these three that have arisen in the last 2000 years

Godfrey In my opinion, yes. Before explaining I admit that people can define these three any way they like. So, these three terms can be defined in such a way that, by definition, they are totally inclusive. Thus, by definition, no cognition is outside of them. However, in the current era we would not define these terms with that obligation.

I would interpret sensations to reference derivatives of the senses and sensory information. I would interpret anticipations to reference expectations derived from experience. And, I would interpret feelings to reference emotions derived from sensations, interpretations and thought.

With those perspectives then I don't think those three cover beliefs or values. Beliefs are, IMO, overarching views of how the world works and how we work within it. Values are, IMO, constraints on perspectives and actions. Values entice certain behaviors within the framework of personal values, and restrict actions that are inconsistent with personal values. Both of these cognitive frameworks are very important guides of behavior. And, I do not see them as included within sensations, anticipations, or values - as framed above. I do note that we use the word "anticipate" to frame an expectation - a preconceived notion of what might occur. If "anticipations" is broadened to mean "something derived from thought, or even genetics" then the above discussion may not apply.

Please note that I essentially never dive into these philosophical points to this depth in any other conversations. I only do it here because you all are up to the task; and, by your involvement here, you demonstrate that you have interest in such depth of conjecture.

Rebuttal always welcome!

Quote from Godfrey

I think that the mind, being physical, exists in the body. And I'd say that the mind probably exists in the body outside of the skull

Godfrey I like your post #21. So, as you alluded, stimulus-response processing does occur throughout the body, via the nervous system that exists throughout the body. However, I have not seen evidence that the mind exists outside of the skull. I've seen an endless variety of illnesses; and, unquestionably, serious illness of the "soma" (physical body) does produce secondary impacts on the brain via a variety of mechanisms (toxins, metabolic abnormalities, infections, reduction in blood flow to the brain, etc). However, those produce changes in cognition via what they deliver to the brain, or don't deliver to it - secondary consequences. Alternatively, in my medical career experience changes in "the mind" has required changes directly in the brain. Stoke, brain trauma, tumors, encephalitis, neurodegenerative disease, genetic neurological disorders, toxins and the rest do change the mind by directly changing the brain.

At a very different level someone could choose to include all of the impacts we have on life outside of ourself as part of our "mind". For example, an author could chose to feel that all of the author's extant writings were part of his/her "mind". This becomes semantics - and, in my opinion, an obfuscation in the discussion of "mind".

Quote from Don

I would argue Epicurus and the ancient Epicureans advocated a form of proto-science in their insistence of holding off on rigid opinions of the causes of phenomena until sufficient evidence was acquired

Agree, Don. However, the issue is that the "sages of old" were the top less-than-one-percent of the population. Indeed, they understood the concepts (within the foundations of information available to them). But, now we need to have the whole population understand how to think with science, and be willing to work with "inconvenient science".

Quote from Don

I'd be curious what you mean by "preferred belief systems,"

Yes, it is what you said. The desire to see the world according to personal wishes and preferences, rather than with incorporation of what objective information (beyond opinion) would advocate.

Quote from Don

Epicurus looked at both animals and baby humans to arrive at the idea of pleasure being the supreme good

The pivotal issue here is the interpretation of "pleasure". I do many things that are ethically appropriate but do not derive to my personal pleasure. For example, in my medical career I could have made a boatload more money if I practiced for my "pleasure". But, I didn't. I did what I thought was ethically appropriate for patients, illness, and the healthcare system. Many, many times this made my life harder. And, it also resulted in very unpleasant confrontations with people who wanted me to say or do what was convenient to their desires but not medically reasonable.

For example, I was not one of the guys who handed out opioids to pander to whims or "hidden" addiction during the prescription opioid epidemic. But, I assure you, resistance to these agendas did not derive to my personal pleasure.

If the word "pleasure" is interpreted to mean "consistent with personal ethics, beliefs, values, expectations, attitudes, goals and habits" then I guess doing what I did could be claimed to be consistent with my "pleasure". However, I guarantee you it did not feel like pleasure.

Quote from Don

Again, we're just better at gathering information with more sophisticated instruments.

I actually don't agree with this one. Quantum mechanics has been recurrently proven to be consistent with objective tests of predictions. Yet, quantum mechanics changes our views of the way things work in the Universe. The sages of the past were wonderfully insightful, but we do now have concepts and intellectual frameworks that are beyond what they could propose. For example, quantum entanglement works and is actually used in quantum computers; yet, it makes no sense to our Newtonian view of the world.

Quote from Don

He saw the mind as inextricably linked to the physical body and composed of fine atoms.

Yes, Epicurus and Lucretius (among others) were remarkably (even dramatically) insightful. Yet, 1600 years later we still got to Descartes and his "duality" which still infuses thinking at this time.

Quote from Don

LOL! That remains to be seen! I have certain issues calling cleverly-constructed algorithms "intelligence."

See, this is precisely the problem. You apparently want to grant "intelligence" as something transcendent - something which cannot be explained as the result of our 86 billion neurons interacting or reproduced by adequately sophisticated non-biological systems. However, my entire career clearly demonstrated to my satisfaction that our intelligence does derive from those physical components. I saw all manner of losses of intelligence due to defined physical/structural brain illnesses.

Thus, if our intelligence derives from a highly sophisticated system of interacting components then it is not beyond reason to predict that similar intelligence could be derived from some non-biological system of similar level of complexity.

Even at this very early stage, answers I get from ChatGPT are very commonly better than answers I can get from discussion with anyone (including all my university colleagues). And, this is only the beginning.

We need to be careful that we don't define "intelligence" within some purely anthropocentric construct. So, I define intelligence as the ability to integrate information into useful or potentially useful constructs. This "working definition" allows not only for varying levels of intelligence but also varying kinds of intelligence. And, it excludes simple rote regurgitation of facts or simple "stimulus-response" reactions. If these were not excluded then computers would already be vastly smarter than we are based on fund of information, or the cheetah would be smarter than we are based on reaction pattern capabilities.

Okay, I did want to respond to your thoughts (to keep the discussion a discussion); but, this is becoming greatly too long. So, I'll stop here.

Cheers.

Quote from Martin

I guess this perspective is quite common among scientists now.

Martin Hi! I don't know how common this idea is. My wife tells me not to talk about it - too challenging for most people. However, the folks here, like you and the others I'm interacting with at EpicureanFriends, are not only smart but also interested in the philosophies of life. So, here I went out on a limb to bring up the idea. It is a challenging idea that most people reject out of either fear or the feeling that "this will just be like another industrial revolution and we will do fine going through it". However, it is not like another industrial revolution.

Anyway. Those of us that can need to think about this issue in order to figure out how H. sapiens will get through this challenging "rough patch" of the evolutionary hike.

In #12 I said: "So, it is my personal perspective that we are running up against the limits of the human brain."

You responded:

Quote from Godfrey

This is an interesting perspective that I don't think that I've heard before in this context.

Quote from Godfrey

could theories of extended cognition be useful in this regard as well

Godfrey In response to the issue of "running up against the limits of the human brain" I offer two perspectives, for the moment, that speak to the issue:

1) While we have invented science, and it has brought us endless technical advancements, look how many people willingly throw its data out when it is not convenient (recent examples: global warming, use of immunizations, and various political issues [not otherwise mentioned]).

2) The evolution of our technology has, broadly, proceeded from hunter-gatherer (simple tools), to agrarian revolution (largely use of hands with progressively more sophisticated tools), to industrial revolution (still use of hands with more tools), to electronic age (shifting to more use of brain and tools), to a service society (even more use of brain), and now to the coming era of AI. And, in this era of AI our brains are going to be surpassed for many functions. However, we don't have another, higher level, function to offer.

There are other evolutionary perspective supporting the notion of "running up against the limits of the human brain" but hopefully the above two will suffice.

The next topic, "extended cognition", probably requires some discussion on its own, depending upon what we think this actually means. The Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy says, "Extended cognition takes the idea that your mind is ‘on’ your smartphone literally. It says that human cognitive states and processes sometimes spill outside our heads and into objects in our environment." So, is this the foundation you are considering? That is, do you think "the mind" exists, in part, outside of the skull?

Quote from Don

We have more information, but I wouldn't say we necessarily have more wisdom.

Don Yes. Yet, we do now have science. We do now believe there is some way to understand the world other than by preferred belief systems. We do now recognize the relationships of the species. We do now understand far more about the universe in which we live. We do now know that consciousness is inside the brain rather than floating around as a mist, or a spirit outside of it. We do now even know how to create intelligence. So, there are reasons for optimism.

Certainly not every human has adopted these wisdoms. Yet, that is just simply the statement of evolution. Just as we are more insightful than Homo erectus or Australopithecus, the next iteration of the human lineage will be more insightful than we are (presuming we allow such evolution to occur).

I choose to remain optimistic.

Thanks Don. Oh yes, if we are considering the whole line of hominid evolution then certainly brain size has markedly increased. I thought we were just talking about our species. And, 300K is outside of what I have generally seen advocated for our species in specific. However, maybe there is still discussion of this.

And, yes, it is right to be cautious about politics. Yet, they are, directly or indirectly, commentaries on human cognition, and its limits. But, advice accepted.

Don, though I appreciate the insightfulness of your perspective (brain hasn't changed since species began) I hope you are wrong.

Just for perspective, I would point out that the image you have is misleading, as I'm sure your know, since it represents the idea of a great change in volume, which is not correct. And, at least what I read puts our species at about 200,000 years old. Further, as we know, elephant brains are much larger than ours. So, size is only one issue of brain function.

But, the real problem for human brains in this era is intellectual sophistication. In the last approximately 5000 thousand years we have created science. And, science has taken our species far, far beyond personalized beliefs. Yet, there are still large portions of the human population that are quite willing to discount and discredit science when it runs counter to their personal preferences or "hidden" agendas. In the U.S. we have seen this recurrently in the recent era.

So, it is my personal perspective that we are running up against the limits of the human brain. We evolved for a very different life circumstance and we are failing to intellectually keep up with the perspectives applicable to today. Rejection of science, diversion into "alternative facts", and unfounded intellectual belief systems, based on preference rather than any objective data, are getting us into trouble. In this era of planetary perspective we need to be objective, but many reject that simply out of preference.

AI will push the issue. If we allow it to go forward then it will demonstrate what science would advocate. Then humans will either destroy it (go to war with it, which is our penchant), or many humans will be made obsolete by it (creating huge social upheaval).

The only graceful way forward is to hope the human brain will be capable of adapting to now. That, unfortunately, remains a pertinent question.

Wow, you all really jumped into this! Fabulous, and thank you. With your permission I have copied all of the answers since the question of #13 so that I may study the extensive and interesting answers from you. There is plenty of food for thought in all of those.

First, I need to acknowledge due respects to you Kalosyni.

Quote from Kalosyni

The goal for this EpicureanFriends forum is to study the extant texts and to apply the philosophy as presented by Epicurus

It is certainly not my intention to divert you or this group from your intended goal. So, if questions such as the one in my entry, #13, are uncomfortable then I will not inquire similarly again.

Yet, I'm delighted to see the answers that have derived. You all have a wealth of knowledge about the classical philosophers. Kudos to you all!

What interests me is this overview: In regard to humans "being" is 'then' different from 'now'? I am interested in this question because of another question: "Has the human brain changed in the last couple of thousand years?" So, all of you, so steeped in the history and works of the classical philosophers, provide a fascinating reflection on those questions.

In my view, I don't live then. I live now. And, my philosophy reflects my current "now". Indeed, it is built from a history of perspectives that go back to some very, very insightful people of "then" - the great philosophers that you all recognize so well (and can quote with authority!). And, I think we are all impressed by what those greats knew then (else Epicureanfriends would not exist). Further, I think we are all aware that in many respects the insights of "then" still apply to "now". Thus we reference Godfrey:

Quote from Godfrey

"So, to all you smart, interesting neurobilogists I ask a question: since the classical authors referenced here lived 2000+ years ago, has anything changed? What, if anything, is new in the understanding of the functioning of life (contrasted to these classical perspectives)?"

And, to answer IMO, the human brain has changed little in the ensuing 2000+ years. And that is an issue. The world has changed greatly in certain ways (obvious to all). Yet, human beings, and being human, have not changed greatly. Thus, we sit at this fascinating time. It is not just a time when we may consider philosophy of how to live. It is the time when AI will bring a new "player" to the arena and to those discussions. We will, and do, struggle with questions about how the interactions with our new player will go.

So, ultimately, I ask questions such as in entry #13 to see what perspectives we bring to this era. If the admonitions/instructions/advocacies of 2000 year ago apply without change to this era then that will lead to one set of conclusions about this era. If there are changes, then what changes? I think you all have added greatly to those considerations. Thanks again.

So, to all you smart, interesting people (all of you) I ask a question: since the classical authors referenced here lived 2000+ years ago, has anything changed? What, if anything, is new in the philosophy of life (contrasted to these classical perspectives)?

Excellent thoughts, Don and Nate. Thank you. Nate: the "keep your head low and mouth shut" perspective is particularly helpful as a succinct translation.

Thanks Don. So then we struggle with why that "should" be a goal. How is that beneficial to the journey of the individual, the society, the species, or the planet?

Or, is that covert language for the separation that characterizes depression? Is it withdrawal?

Thoughts?

What happens if you interpret "Live Unnoticed" within the framework of life experience of Epicurus? Is it to live like the wild flower of the meadow that strives to grow gracefully, a source of pollen for a visiting bee? Is it to live like a tree of the forest that gathers sun, gives shade to its neighbors, and nurtures a place for growth? Is it to live like the quiet craftsman who builds a home for a family? We can imagine many ways where being unnoticed was quiet strength. Could he have meant that?

Quote from Godfrey

However I'm wondering if the second quote is suggesting that there's a way in which the external becomes internal.

Certainly, in these philosophical discussions, a dilemma is variations of concepts and vocabulary definitions. With that acknowledged...

In my view the external becomes internal from at least the moment of birth. We learn about the outside world, and the other beings of the outside world. We begin the process of weaving our inside (me-we) relationships to all of these outside influences.

About age 2 things begin to "come to a head" (pun intended) as we begin developing in earnest our perspectives of relationship between "them" and "us" (group/tribal) and "they" and "me" (individual).

Many emotional illnesses develop when the balance points of these relationships are not good. For example, narcissism is "too much me, not enough we" in the balance of responsibilities. Neurosis develops when personal control and responsibility is "too much you, not enough me".

Of course, none of this is surprising since we are a social species. We have evolved with a group orientation. And, in group dynamics we individually work out the balance points of control and responsibility between self and other (what I call "the self-other dynamic"). All of this is "internal" even though the data for building these internal systems is predominantly based on external information and feedback.

Fun discussion. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.