1. Ideas are categories.
  2. Categories are simply tools of the mind.
  3. These tools are used to manipulate the information of the flow of events, more simply called experience.


at first glance, i like it! i’ll AGREE.

i want to think about it more though.


1:I don’t think every idea is a category. In fact, I don’t see how they are related at all. Explain.
2:You could say any objectified concept is a ‘tool of the mind’.
3: What? That doesn’t make a lot of sense.

So until you clarify wtf it is you are trying to say, I’m going with disagree.

Dr. Satanical, furnish me with an idea, of any type you like, and I’ll explain what I’m talking about. The reason I don’t want to go ahead and say what I’m thinking is because I’m afraid that I’d present a ready made argument and I’d like to step outside of my self for this one.

  1. Yes
  2. Yes
  3. Yeah,… I guess

Human perceptions distinguish the indistinguishable. We see what we need to see from the everything so that we may survive, and somehow manage to break down the everythingness of everything into ‘somethings’. Or ideas. The way we see it seems to flow, although this might just be a symptom of our need for order to apply our logical understand to everything - the only way we are able to understand anything. Our experience (and inperience).

Idea=I am looking at a cecada right now.

  1. Disagree
  2. Agree
  3. Agree

re #1: ideas are just categories? or things that fit into categories, because, we make them fit.

i don’t think our idea can be that much different from the reality, because, we wouldn’t manage well if it was.

Ok, here’s an idea to use for an example.
“let’s go to the store”
How could that idea in itself be a category?
And if you can not translate this into a category, just explain your original scenario.

What’s interesting is the responses I got for “give me an idea”. Perhaps I should have said give me A simple idea. I was thinking things like adjectives and such. So an idea would be “blue”. “Blue” is just a box you can fit things into - Blue(sky), Blue(car), Blue(berry) just like in Symbolic Logic. Now, a category is also just A box, ie a holder of items. These boxes have a variety of manufacturers - Nature, Inc; El Shaddai, a sole proprietorship of the state of Utah; Culture, LLC; Psyche, a sole proprietorship; whatever… These boxes come in a variety of shapes and sizes and are called upon to do a variety of things - some hold stuff, others are used to prop up Other boxes, some are ripped up to be burnt for warmth or energy. It all depends on what comes through the box factory that day.

Finally Monooq, I am … bemused. How do you disagree with the major premise but agree with the minor and the conclusion?

i was thinking an idea isn’t a category.
but not thinking that there weren’t categories.

because i thought idea meant, for example, my computer screen right now that i’m looking at… i have an idea of it, if i look away, i don’t (unless i recall it). i thought thats how kant used it.

and ‘computer screens’ - in general - are a category.

Let noone enter here who has not studied mathematics

I don’t know but those things that have no material existence except in our minds, which perhaps may be virtually everything, but which certainly are “ideas”. I would suppose that one mght distinquish such things from material things that we percieve not to be ourselves but to be something other than ourselves. We can have an idea of material things, perceived with our senses, seperate from ourselves, and do cateogrize those things. But, one might put a certain sort of idea, intangible concepts, perceived only with our mind and not with our senses. Such as math. Which is why the ancient masters wanted their students to study math, as training the mind for Philosophy. Isn’t this where the confusion lies? What did I experience, and what did I only think? Can I know the difference? Psuedo-memories versus real memories. Imagined worlds versus real worlds. What is the matrix? Am I a man dreaming I am a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming I am a man. Which is dream and which is real. Am I awake? I don’t know but to me there is a clear distinction based upon source. Where did this idea or concept come from? Was it from my senses or from my mind? If from my senses, then yes, I might be decieved as to the true nature of it, but I know the source was external and not internal. I don’t know but it seems I can clearly distinguish between me and not me as the source of the idea or concept. I also would make a distinciton between original concepts and ideas versus those I learned. It is the highest form of human intelligence to have original thoughts, to create original concepts, original constructs. To rearrange things into new orders and new forms and thereby create something new is the second highest order of human intelligence. Such ideas and concepts that first have their life within me, that are created by me, are clearly and distinctly in a class and category of their own, and again it is the source that distinquishes them.

Certainly, I agree since what I’m doing here is little more than third generation work influenced By the Principia Mathematica and Russell’s Theory Of Logical Types

I have to tell you to take care with Zhuangzi’s butterflies. He’s a Zhou era Chinese Philosopher, not a Platonist, not a skeptic. The idea that the world might be false to him would be laughable to him. The idea behind the butterfly-dreaming man story is to illustrate the power of Perspective, not that we are trapped in some sort of sema/soma.

yet, tying to auto-examine one’s thought processes would be damned difficult at the level of the body-without-organs, no? I’m aware that neural networks operate much LIKE (analogy time here) water over a plain, where ruts, paths and channels are worn in because of use. (Mind I’m only a little familiar with neural nets - I’m referencing Hebbian networks and I know that this shit Is fifty years old and A lot’s changed since then), but this serves as an explanation for an unconscious process.

I know that categories are a bit outdated. I’d like to clarify your statement.
Do you mean categories as Forms/ideas/The whole floating happy wonderful mystical Origin of all goodness type of category? Or do you mean category as a logical tool? By category, I meant class.

so that the original statement should read (hopefully more clearly now)

  1. Ideas are classes.
  2. Classes are simply tools of the mind.
  3. These tools are used to manipulate the information of the flow of events, more simply called experience.

Whitelotus, what you are saying sounds exiting (honestly). What according to you do ‘neural networks’ add or show that wasn’t known before the invention/discovery of neural networks? Aren’t they described, implemented, applied and understood in terms of the things you list (language, propositions, categories)? I view them as an interesting mechanism that perhaps can take us beyond a Turing machine so we can reformulate the most liberal philosphical version of Church’s thesis to state that any mechanism (the universe, the thinkable etc.) is equivalent to a neural network. Is that what you are suggesting or am I way off. (I hope so,…oh goodie… :stuck_out_tongue:

1. Ideas are categories. Disagree.
2. Categories are simply tools of the mind. Disagree.
3. These tools are used to manipulate the information of the flow of events, more simply called experience. Disagree.

Where Is this stated? Is church the fella who wrote Neurophilosophy? If this is correct that fucking rocks!!! The body without organs finds a new application

Church proposes that the notion of an algorithmically/mechanically computable function coincides with that of a recursive function.

There have been various on the surface very different approaches to characterizing computable functions like; Turing Machines, Recursive functions, Church’s Lambda calculus, Post systems. All these have been shown to be equivalent (i.e. compute the same class of functions). I don’t think there are examples of functions that would be generally accepted as computable that are not recursive (hence Church’s claim).

Now, some forms of neural nets have been shown to be able to compute at least the same class of functions as Turing machines can. Some have been shown to be equivalent to Turing machines (I think I remember seeing that anyway). But there are those of which it is not known whether they are actually able to compute more then Turing machines can. I’m pretty sure the answer to whether neural nets are equivalent to Turing machines is still not found. So they might provide a more generalized notion of computability.

Now back to Church, there is an interpretation of Church’s thesis called the strong version of Church’s thesis (I think you can find something about this in most encyclopedia’s on the web.) This works on the assumption that the Universe is a Turing machine and thus computing anything but recursive-functions is physically impossible. There are all kinds of other things you can speculate about then. One that obviously springs to mind is that what is thinkable is confined by what is possible with a Turing machine.

If neural nets are more general then Turing machines then to me that would mean that the strong version of Church’s thesis should become:
The universe is a neural net.

Whether that should become ones gospel, I dunno, it is certainly fun to play with. I don’t know whether Church wrote ‘neurophilosophy’.

Note that I’m making most of my claims on the basis of skim reads of articles that are out there on the web. Especially around the limits of neural nets. The little bit of expertise that I have lies in the theory of recursive functions.