Discussions on Philosophy Group

A hangout where members can discuss their views on philosophy and life in general.

As per the neuroscientist Semir Zeki, the beauty that a mathematician perceives in numbers and the beauty that a painter perceives in colours are the same event. It is not possible to delineate mathematical beauty from the visual or musical kind. To him, it only means that in each case, the orbitofrontal cortex, the part of the brain that processes beauty, is over active. It also does not seem to be the case that only gifted mathematicians, scientists or artists are privileged with constant activity in this part of the brain. I think he implies that beauty is accessible to and enjoyed by every brain. His research also implies that it is possible that in future we could completely take over the activity of that part of the brain and artificially induce feelings of beauty in it -- not surprising considering our brains are able to record and transmit experiences of beauty through language (like music).

 

But what is interesting, he says, is that there is one particular notion of beauty that is not beauty in a biological sense. It is what is known as the sublime, or "sublime beauty." It triggers activity not in the orbitofrontal cortex of the brain but in the inferior medial frontal gyrus of the brain, a separate area that is primarily responsible for self-reference to create "I" or identity. Things that trigger activity of sublime beauty are sights of mountains, ranges, ocean and the cosmos. It seems that the self retreats or gets reduced to nothing when it tries to perceive itself in such a canvas.

 

Here are the video interviews of Semir Zeki in which he discusses the above: https://www.whyarewehere.tv/people/semir-zeki

Very interesting vid. Great idea to set up a philosophy group I’m enabling notifications. Will hopefully be able to contribute more when my cognitive function improves. I’m a philosohy graduate. I think philosophy, psychology and neuroscience are closely interconnected.

Nice one!

 

I did a degree and masters in Philosphy too.

 

Will check out the link when can.

 

Here's a fun talk  by one of my old  teachers who taught Phenomenology (Heidegger, Husserl etc,)

 

'To Philosophise is to Learn How to Die' 

 

Have you all watched 'The Examined Life' ?

 

If not I think you'll enjoy it. The  trailer is here : https://youtu.be/1zwmum5_ofU  The whole thing used to be in Youtube - it can only be watched in chunks there now but you should be able to find the interviews with each philospher from the trailer link.

But what is interesting, he says, is that there is one particular notion of beauty that is not beauty in a biological sense. It is what is known as the sublime, or "sublime beauty." It triggers activity not in the orbitofrontal cortex of the brain but in the inferior medial frontal gyrus of the brain, a separate area that is primarily responsible for self-reference to create "I" or identity. Things that trigger activity of sublime beauty are sights of mountains, ranges, ocean and the cosmos. It seems that the self retreats or gets reduced to nothing when it tries to perceive itself in such a canvas.

 

Very interesting video and thanks for introducing this topic! Here's my humble take on it.

 

Sublime beauty goes way beyond our (human) capacity to express the "it" factor which elevates something from beauty to sublime. It's  like comparing beauty (which Semir Zeki observes stimulating the orbitofrontal cortex), with magnificence (observed in the inferior medial frontal gyrus, perhaps demonstrating the sublime experience is required to be elevated to executive functioning). Beauty is something we can quite easily grasp and categorize as observed in the orbitofrontal cortex; whereby magnificence is subjective and goes beyond classification as such. The "I" factor is then not reduced;  it is integrated "within" the sublime experience, (elevated to an area of the brain to "interpret" at a higher functioning level). The sublime could be viewed as an experience of "recognition" or "recollection" of "self", as integrated "within" the sublime. So here endeth the sermon 

 

 

That's a nice take. The philosopher Kant was the first to distinguish beauty from sublime, and history, says Zeki, proved him right. You will be counted as the second philosopher who honed our definition of sublime. : )

 

That's a nice take. The philosopher Kant was the first to distinguish beauty from sublime, and history, says Zeki, proved him right. You will be counted as the second philosopher who honed our definition of sublime. : )

Lol, not sure about that, but such a compliment does seduce the ego  I wasn't really coming from that angle though. I've always felt René Descartes kind of got it a little "wrong" when he (apparently) said "I think therefore I am". I always felt "I experience therefore I am" is a little closer. One can only experience sublime; it is a connection or an integration thing, without objective thought or judgement, kind of a neutral observation but simultaneously a feeling of being in awe, as if you lose the "I" and become the experience.

This thread is becoming quite fun. In his famous proposition "Cogito ergo sum", Descartes was talking rather about knowledge than experience. Knowledge is of course the product of experience. Tbh, I didn’t follow the Semir Zeki vid to the end, so I cannot contribute much here. But I read your exchange with lots of interest, Harmonee and Kpin. Welcome Ajusta! Seems like you’re all quite knowledgable.

 

Ajusta, will check the links as soon as I can. And give you feedback. Heidegger is one of my fav philosophers. Also wanted to write a PhD thesis on philosophy. But had to leave the uni and start working elsewhere in order to earn more money.

 

Anyway, as to Descartes, I still would be inclined to say "I think, therefore I am" is more appropriate ("je pense donc je suis") than "I experience therefore I am." Experience being the first step here, knowledge the second.

 

Kant is one of my fav philosophers and his theory on the feeling of beautiful and sublime is quite interesting. As well as his theory on space and time. Being concepts à priori of the human experience.

 

I think we should keep this discussion as simple as possible, so that also laypeople will get interested and participate. I admit I have time constraints and cannot write much. I will also not be able to analyse lengthy links in depth. Besides, I’m not a native speaker of English.

 

So let’s just try to keep it simple and provide links which would be accessible to a larger audience. Or explain in our own words. I very much want to follow these discussions and see how they develop. Seems like the beginning is already fine.

 

I was also thinking we could concentrate on one particular theme for a time. What do you say? Like what is happiness? What is the meaning of life? What is the connection between philosophy and psychology? Sth that would be both interesting and helpful for our recovery from BZD.

 

What is your opinion? Just to make this discussion not only fun, but useful. I think Kpin should decide here, as he has started the thread. I cannot write much, but I can see this thread has already attracted some highly intelligent ppl. So I expect it to be both entertaining and educational

 

 

I was also thinking we could concentrate on one particular theme for a time. What do you say? Like what is happiness? What is the meaning of life? What is the connection between philosophy and psychology? Sth that would be both interesting and helpful for our recovery from BZD.

 

What is your opinion? Just to make this discussion not only fun, but useful. I think Kpin should decide here, as he has started the thread. I cannot write much, but I can see this thread has already attracted some highly intelligent ppl. So I expect it to be both entertaining and educational

 

I'm not sure if I want to be a regular contributor to this thread. I have had a tortured relationship with philosophy my whole life. If I wed myself to this thread, I would most certainly never return to it. I have always gravitated towards philosophy and then bolted. Having done this several times in my life, I now realize that I can neither run away nor stay, for both are in my mind, as is everything else. I'll post whenever I feel up to it.

Hey Kpin, you make this thread whatever you want. No problem I just had some ideas. Others may have different ideas how this thread should look like. I think ultimately you make all the decisions about it.

 

Philosophy is difficult. It can also be dangerous. Like existentialism. Even for BZD recovery. I’m drawn first of all towards psychology and neuroscience. Then towards philosophy. I think all three are interconnected.

 

IMO, whatever this thread might be, it would be great if it survived. Philosophy is sth the majority of ppl are not interested in nowadays. But it can teach us a lot. It can also destroy us. I want to take from philosophy what’s useful for me.

 

As my time is limited, I cannot take responsibility for running this thread. I would regret a lot if it went into oblivion, though. I was very happy to see such a thread appear on BB.

 

I hope you won’t give up on this thread. And continue it, in whatever form suits you. Have a peaceful day.

I’m drawn first of all towards psychology and neuroscience. Then towards philosophy. I think all three are interconnected.

Yes they are connected. At least this is the sense I got in the last few months that I spent time obsessing over the universe and the nature of reality. I'll explain in the next post.

 

I hope you won’t give up on this thread. And continue it, in whatever form suits you. Have a peaceful day.

 

Yes! I agree.

Hey Kpin, you make this thread whatever you want. No problem I just had some ideas. Others may have different ideas how this thread should look like. I think ultimately you make all the decisions about it.

 

Philosophy is difficult. It can also be dangerous. Like existentialism. Even for BZD recovery. I’m drawn first of all towards psychology and neuroscience. Then towards philosophy. I think all three are interconnected.

 

IMO, whatever this thread might be, it would be great if it survived. Philosophy is sth the majority of ppl are not interested in nowadays. But it can teach us a lot. It can also destroy us. I want to take from philosophy what’s useful for me.

 

As my time is limited, I cannot take responsibility for running this thread. I would regret a lot if it went into oblivion, though. I was very happy to see such a thread appear on BB.

 

I hope you won’t give up on this thread. And continue it, in whatever form suits you. Have a peaceful day.

 

Limited energy for thoughtful responses (I have,) but want to give this a 

My personal quest to study philosophy began last year in a thread about mathematics in this forum. Soon I was reading up theories in physics and then soon, I am not quite sure how, I was reading evolutionary science and finally neuroscience. In retrospect this means that the three must be interconnected. After I was done reading, I was in a bit of a daze for many days because I realized that spooky things that happen in the universe, stuff like multiple pasts, retrocausality, existence in two places at the same time, time travel and everything in the universe being fundamentally connected, and confusion about the origins of the universe, things that are owed to interpretations found in quantum mechanics, are things that are ritually happening with us in our brains in our daily lives and we find one spooky but not the other. I tried showing the eerie similarities to my friends but while they did understand what I was saying, it did not surprise them as much as it surprised me. So then I thought I must be in withdrawal and exaggerating things and there was nothing much to the similarities. It was towards the end of my quest that I saw the interviews of Semir Zeki. I saw him notice the similarities too and then I realized I was not the only one. Here is one of Zeki's blog entries on this puzzling aspect of reality  -- http://profzeki.blogspot.in/2016/09/the-macro-and-micro-worlds-in-physics_8.html

 

Zeki, because he is a scientist, cautions that not too much should be read into his blog entry for they are opinions and not science.

 

But we are poets and not scientists like Zeki.

 

Let’s take a recent incident to see if I  can make sense of what I am blabbering about.  Yesterday I was reading a thread here and I saw this comment:

 

 

This thread is a great example of the one of the nastier and more dysfunctional aspects of the BB board--people self-righteously piling on against a chosen scapegoat and trying to bond with each other in so doing.  It's never really about the chosen victim in a bullying situation--it's about people posturing and trying to jockey for position with the others.

 

and I stopped and thought to myself -- this is so profound. I read it over and over and realized that this is how all conversations, all bondings take place between human brains in the universe. It was a very raw and cruel thing to say about human brains because it insulted the thing that carried the brain, the human. But it was true. It was a description of things at a phenomenological level. It was possibly how quantum mechanics might try to explain human actions using jargon like probabilities and ensembles. Then, a few posts below, I saw this response to it,

 

It’s an aspect of any forum that allows a certain amount of robust discussion, IMO.

 

Now this was equally true. What this person was saying was that there was no need to freak out over such behaviour. She was underscoring that things were getting done in BB in spite of such behaviour. She was saying that since this behaviour existed everywhere, one could even say that things were getting done everywhere because of this behaviour and not in spite of this behaviour.

 

I knew both were right.

 

But how can they both be right?

 

In physics too there is a similar dilemma. Quantum mechanics and classical physics seem to contradict each other. But how do they still manage to be both right? Every particle in this universe is a quantum phenomenon first, and then at a larger scale, when it interacts with other particles, it becomes a classical phenomenon. But scientists are missing a piece in the puzzle here. They cannot quite reconcile quantum physics with classical physics as seamlessly as they would have liked to. (That is not to say they never will be able to  – but as of today they can’t.) Newton explains why the Earth revolves around the Sun and he is right, and that is classical physics, and then Heisenberg says that the Earth revolves around the Sun not just because Newton is right but also because we were there to affirm that Newton is right, and that is quantum physics. Physics became self-referential just like the formula of pi but on a much grander scale. And this is a problem that our brains have been grappling with since time Socrates (or Adam): How do you reconcile what LeslieAsh says with what FinallyJoining says if their arguments keep talking about brains obsessed not with objects that exist independent of the brains but exist entirely in the collective hallucination of the brains in conversation? Anyone who cannot hallucinate that object is barred from participation. But, regardless of this phenomena, that object does have independent existence and things do get done in accordance with set rules. It is just that we are not able to reconcile these two working perspectives satisfactorily.

 

(I’ll post rest later)

 

Not talking specific philosophers here as much as discussing the essence of philosophy. The foundation of "knowledge", what if anything is "reality", the nature and meaning of life, what is "truth", and what is it to "exist" or not "exist". Wondering if anyone here has read, or interested in the work of Dr. Dan Siegel and Dr. Kafatos? Here is a link which pretty well expresses a snippet of their insight https://drjennifertyoung.com/2016/01/01/consciousness-quantum-physics-and-psychotherapy/  Harmony

That is quite interesting. Perhaps it is not a coincidence that so many people are finding similarities or overlaps between quantum physics and the brain/mind. Meditation is also an activity that neuroscience finds highly intriguing.

Hey, did my last post about neuroscience and quantum mechanics make sense? I'm wondering whether i should continue. As Estee says, there is actually no point discussing philosophy if simplicity gets lost.

following...

I can't believe I used to be able go think about this stuff. I feel as if I have become retarded.

Have fun with it all. I find it too upsetting.

Not talking specific philosophers here as much as discussing the essence of philosophy. The foundation of "knowledge", what if anything is "reality", the nature and meaning of life, what is "truth", and what is it to "exist" or not "exist". Wondering if anyone here has read, or interested in the work of Dr. Dan Siegel and Dr. Kafatos? Here is a link which pretty well expresses a snippet of their insight https://drjennifertyoung.com/2016/01/01/consciousness-quantum-physics-and-psychotherapy/  Harmony

 

Great link, Harmonee. Thanks Will take some time to read it. But seems very interesting.

Hey, did my last post about neuroscience and quantum mechanics make sense? I'm wondering whether i should continue. As Estee says, there is actually no point discussing philosophy if simplicity gets lost.

 

Yeah, I only read it like three times. But it did make sense. I’d rather explain human behavior by psychology. In terms of human motives. Which are determined both by neurological and sociological factors. And by ethics. As far as philosophy is concerned. I guess we need to articulate our thoughts in a simple and concise manner. Trial and error. I hope we’ll work out some kind of effective method for discussing philosophy.

I can't believe I used to be able go think about this stuff. I feel as if I have become retarded.

Have fun with it all. I find it too upsetting.

 

Please don’t give up. You know more than you think. You have good academic background. Mental exercise really makes sense. I also feel as though I were retarded. No one expects you to be "wise" or "perfect" here. We are just contributing as much we can. And in whatever way we find it easiest.

I can't believe I used to be able go think about this stuff. I feel as if I have become retarded.

Have fun with it all. I find it too upsetting.

 

I feel this way right now.

I can't believe I used to be able go think about this stuff. I feel as if I have become retarded.

Have fun with it all. I find it too upsetting.

 

Please don’t give up. You know more than you think. You have good academic background. Mental exercise really makes sense. I also feel as though I were retarded. No one expects you to be "wise" or "perfect" here. We are just contributing as much we can. And in whatever way we find it easiest.

 

Very well said!

Hey, did my last post about neuroscience and quantum mechanics make sense? I'm wondering whether i should continue. As Estee says, there is actually no point discussing philosophy if simplicity gets lost.

 

Yeah, I only read it like three times. But it did make sense. I’d rather explain human behavior by psychology. In terms of human motives. Which are determined both by neurological and sociological factors. And by ethics. As far as philosophy is concerned. I guess we need to articulate our thoughts in a simple and concise manner. Trial and error. I hope we’ll work out some kind of effective method for discussing philosophy.

 

Thank you for responding. I agree with you. That concerned post of mine looked interesting but wasn't interesting. It was not even correct I later realized. That's what happens if one doesn't think through what one is saying and articulates in a hurry. But, anyway, a lesson learnt. Back to simplicity and sticking to trusted theories and experiments in psychology, philosophy and science!

What is the purpose of this ?

 

 

...