Notices
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: which philosopher said this? l know lts vague..

  1. #1 which philosopher said this? l know lts vague.. 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    18
    what phiLosopher said somethng about only a few things being real and the rest was our brains doing lt?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    No idea, but for some reason Bertrand Russel popped into my head.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    18
    thats what someone else l asked sald.. okay l'll go read hls stuff.

    any other suggestlons?

    thx
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by twoamspell
    thats what someone else l asked sald.. okay l'll go read hls stuff.

    any other suggestlons?

    thx
    Kant (in translation, or in precis), might also be good on this one, as the original philosopher who pointed out the difference between the 'real' and the constructions of reality based upon our imaginations/minds/brains.

    The epigrammatic nature of your quote, however, does seem to suggest Russell, who was quite good like that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    18
    so whats your opinion on what either of these men said?

    how could your memory or mine, ln lts limited condition produce such a world, and at the same time have millions upon millions of fibers, textures, smells, sounds for sooo many objects ln our brain?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    That concept is pretty ancient, though maybe not in the language you would recongnize, it has been explained in a variety of ways

    Socrates/Plato talked about "Forms" in which all things had a true "form" and all the things we see were reflections or shadows of that form. Reflections or shadows in our mind maybe?

    and Hinduism talks about the truth and soul being of the "divine world" society and mind is of the "passionate world" and wildness and body is of the "ignorant world"

    Those who devote their lives to divine service care not for the objects of this world.



    Also, Taoism and Buddhism, share the concept of no-mind as the path to path to enlightenment. Faith in other religions is also considered divine understanding.

    There are many explanations of this, but it is much deeper than just philosophy. The Mayans supposedly even had this concept.
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    18
    thats lt plato sald lt! do u agree? l dont thlnk l do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    he didn't say it quite as you said it, but I'm pretty sure he meant the same thing

    like I said though, it is a common belief, it can't be applied to one person... the actual quote though can be, but it is like the Pythagorean theorem, if you think Pythagoras came up with it you'd be wrong
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    18
    how could our minds do such a thing?

    would lt not have to be ln our memory?

    or do you think some other part of the brain would hold "other forms of the orglnal forms"
    ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor sunshinewarrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,526
    Quote Originally Posted by twoamspell
    how could our minds do such a thing?

    would lt not have to be ln our memory?

    or do you think some other part of the brain would hold "other forms of the orglnal forms"
    ?
    Start, perhaps, by thinking about infant development and learning.

    Tests seem to show that we are born with concepts like 'continuity' and 'conservation laws' already in place. That is, infants seem to show a 'surprise' reaction if a ball rolls behind a screen but not out the other side, or if the screen is removed and no ball is seen.

    This means that these infants are applying to the world concepts of which they are already in possession (think about Hume's Problem of Induction: why should we expect continuity in the existence of a ball in any case?).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    18
    could lt not be the lnfant belng born wlth curlsolty lnstead?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    "how could our minds do such a thing?"
    our mind isn't doing anything really, it is subject to the things we want to see. We notice differences and similarities. Take emotions for example, when you are happy a lot of the time, sadness is more extreme, this might be because of hormones and you developing a tolerance to endorphines so that smaller amounts don't do anything. This is how the senses work too, you block out the ticking of the clock because it is regular and never changes, you might notice it here and there, but you don't notice it all the time. Sight is a little different because it refreshes itself so you don't loose focus of what you are staring at, BUT you do tend to block out some things, for example, floaters in your eye, vague shadows and bright areas around the room and details about the things you are looking at. You are focusing on something, and by doing that you are blocking out something.

    "would lt not have to be ln our memory?"
    For us to be able to access the information, yes, I would think so. Unless the mind creates the information when it is needed.

    "or do you think some other part of the brain would hold "other forms of the orglnal forms" "

    memory isn't tied to any specific part of the brain
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    18
    you mean all thls tlme l thought memory was tled to a part, just Llke language and hearlng, tastlng? hmm..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    well, each memory IS tied to a specific part of the brain, but ALL memory is not tied to the same part
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Some research suggests memory is stored holistically.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Professor marcusclayman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    1,704
    are you talking about muscle memory?

    i know the holistic discription of body-mind, but was not aware of any research
    Dick, be Frank.

    Ambiguity Kills.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •