Beyond Pandora

[Amorphos]

Beyond Pandora

Basically here I am asking if the vehicle of information necessarily has to be perfect in order to facilitate the transit of information expediently? For example; if you wish to tell me there is a cube drawn upon the paper, then you need only show me the paper and I will get the message perfectly, even though my eyes are imperfect and the way they carry info to the brain is imperfect and my interpretation subjective. If we accept that we cannot know anything then are we not left in Pandora’s box?

We often speak of subjectivity as if it cancels out any ‘true’ representation of reality, and we are left with a vacuous Pandora’s box where we don’t know anything within the vessel of the mind [pandoras box was originally a vessel sometimes large enough to contain a human, so I am using both the original and the modern meaning here]. However if we reach into that confused state, I do believe it is possible to extrapolate ’true’ information from it.

Do we need perfect instrumentation to gain knowledge? I remember watching Richard Dawkins [on tv] show how the eye is imperfect, and expect the brain has its imperfections too. Yet I am wondering if you need a perfect or just an adequate transport of information in order to gain ‘truths’ from a given source? if for example we see an image of a blonde girl on the TV, we see an imperfect representation of what she looks like, and indeed if she stood before us we still do, and yet the knowledge in our minds are perfect items of knowledge, a cube is a cube and girl is a girl etc, and we only need to marry a rather more vague representation of that to know what it is. If we see a box we know it is a cube even though we can never see a perfect cube in the real world ~ but we can see one in the minds eye.

So lets do a bit of ‘shotgun philosophy’ on this; we don’t get all the information we need from a given source, but we do get some information [probably all we need]. We see the girl and most of her attributes, we know what these things are so we can attest to the idea that we have seen the girl because the image fits into our bank of knowledge. We only get small amounts of correct information, but with everything we observe we get some more grains [or pellets of the shotgun] of info, eventually from simple forms and ideas we build up a vast collection of verified information ~ even though every part of it is only ever partially true in transit.

“What makes the most sense to me is that the brain forms an archetype of objects after it acquires a small collection of experiences of them. It builds sort of an 'average' and then uses and refines this average with more and more experiences of the same object. To know that we see a woman is for the brain to identify the sight of one with the archetype of 'women' it has formed from past experiences of them. We feel fairly certain when the archetype has been fortified by means of numerous experiences and when the next instance of one in experience bears similar enough features“.

The universe needs to know how to be a universe. It started as a singularity rather than chaos, so I would think something made it that way ~ it formed a singularity by the given principles and archetypes.
To form a thing like e.g. a particle, you need the principle of balance which itself is composed of many archetypal ideas, and you need the archetypes of positive, negative, neutral, then sphere [kinda] centre epicentre etc. once you have these ideas then the thing can take shape, this is how I would define the original causal relationship of things.

Having archetypes in the mind allows us to compare a worldly object with the archetype, which it would seam impossible to otherwise decipher Pandora’s box ~ where it contains a reality we cannot read.?

Without archetypes would we not be blind?

[Space Thug]

Theory of cognition and jungian archetypoi that's a Quetzalcoatl-Ummon classic.

The universe needs to know how to be a universe.

It would require a teleology at work.
´

Without archetypes would we not be blind?

The question implies a teleology as well.
´
I assume there are some basic routines around in cognition. My assumption comes from theories about natural languages which concern of course not really a comparable situation to cognition, perception. It may be possible that bio-physics can be described in mathematical models of cognitive rountines one day. Archetyps are maybe more as simple analogy to take. If you talk about grammar, then the rountines are easier to test, mostly, easier in fact as bio-electric brain states.

[Amorphos]

Theory of cognition and jungian archetypoi that's a Quetzalcoatl-Ummon classic

Yea shame he’s not around anymore. I presume you have ben around for sometime despite your post count lols

I am more thinking of the ancient greek archetype rather than the Jungian.

It would require a teleology at work.

Would it? I would think they need to be fundamental and hence prior to the teleology [see my other new thread].

I assume there are some basic routines around in cognition. My assumption comes from theories about natural languages which concern of course not really a comparable situation to cognition, perception. It may be possible that bio-physics can be described in mathematical models of cognitive rountines one day. Archetyps are maybe more as simple analogy to take. If you talk about grammar, then the rountines are easier to test, mostly, easier in fact as bio-electric brain states.

Indeed, though I think it goes deeper than that.

In the main I am using this argument to get us out of pandoras box and past subjectivity, that we can ‘get it’ without the need for objective perfection and absolutes.

[Vizsla]

Why do you need the concept of the perfect archetype of a thing to be able to describe it? If I can come up with a simple set of rules that accurately describe a cube or a blonde women then I don’t need to store an archetype.


The Universe doesn’t need to know how to be anything. It just is.

[Amorphos]

Why do you need the concept of the perfect archetype of a thing to be able to describe it?

Well, you need a description and that would be the archetype. If we cannot make the description then we cannot know what a thing is, such is implied by our subjectivity and the physical imperfect vehicle for the transit of info [that by such means we cannot know a thing properly or even at all ~ unless we have some manner of idea of the thing already].

If I can come up with a simple set of rules that accurately describe a cube or a blonde women then I don’t need to store an archetype.

What would the rules be composed of if not archetypes and principles [which may in turn be composed of archetypal meaning]?

The Universe doesn’t need to know how to be anything. It just is.

Well that’s just the problem, nothing 'just is'! I could accept that [to some degree] if there was a primordial chaos and the universe grew from that, yet we know it did not. The universe began as a singularity which is a highly organised majestic entity - if you will, it would take a whole mass of principles and archetypes to facilitate its existence. I feel we need to address this or people will just add an absolute god into the gap.

[Space Thug]

Would it? I would think they need to be fundamental and hence prior to the teleology.

Yes, it would because principles and archetypes determine the state of order in your model of the universe. The universe as a cosmos (your model universe) would from the moment of the singularity on be in a progressive move to comply its "cosmosness" (the order). The initial state would not need to be thought as a chaos. It can be a lesser or minor state of order. The teleology could be tought as a potential future development as if the principles and archetypes moved from state A (the singularity) to state B (the fully developped cosmos). An analogy would be Newton's apple metaphor. The apple falls from the tree in a determine direction because of the gravity. Gravity and mass can be seen in a substance ontological jargon (all greek cosmos models are bascially substance ontological jargons) as a teleological quality.

[Ragabash]

Well that’s just the problem, nothing 'just is'! I could accept that [to some degree] if there was a primordial chaos and the universe grew from that, yet we know it did not. The universe began as a singularity which is a highly organised majestic entity - if you will, it would take a whole mass of principles and archetypes to facilitate its existence. I feel we need to address this or people will just add an absolute god into the gap.

But doesn't there has to be some sort of primordial chaos to cause such highly majestic entity as "singular universe" to a breaking point, causing Big Bang and change its form to what we call universe today. Wouldn't such a theory rather indicate that singularity is indeed unstable, unorganized and bound to collapse due to its chaotic nature?

Do we need perfect instrumentation to gain knowledge? I remember watching Richard Dawkins [on tv] show how the eye is imperfect, and expect the brain has its imperfections too. Yet I am wondering if you need a perfect or just an adequate transport of information in order to gain ‘truths’ from a given source? if for example we see an image of a blonde girl on the TV, we see an imperfect representation of what she looks like, and indeed if she stood before us we still do, and yet the knowledge in our minds are perfect items of knowledge, a cube is a cube and girl is a girl etc, and we only need to marry a rather more vague representation of that to know what it is. If we see a box we know it is a cube even though we can never see a perfect cube in the real world ~ but we can see one in the minds eye.

I suppose it's our ability to imagine/fill the missing parts which causes us unconsciously create ever more perfect image in our minds. And the more information we receive, the different the image mold itself to. Therefore I'd dare to say that even inadequate information can create a perfect image, but only as much true as the we receive that information.

For an example, when you see a dinosaur bones you immediately fill the missing parts and imagine a live dinosaur. However, while the image in your mind is perfect, the true form of dinosaur could be far from that.

Pandora's box being only what we make of it in our heads.

[Space Thug]

In the main I am using this argument to get us out of pandoras box and past subjectivity, that we can ‘get it’ without the need for objective perfection and absolutes.

How about (just to support your project) instead of treating Pandora's box as a question of cognition to transform it in a question of argument and episteme like in Aristoteles Analytic Posterior? The reason for this idea coming me to mind is, Aristoteles speaks about pre-existing knowledge just at the begin of Analytic Posterior. What is pre-existing knowledge (archetypes, principles) for Aristoteles?

Part I

All instruction given or received by way of argument proceeds from pre-existent knowledge. This becomes evident upon a survey of all the species of such instruction. The mathematical sciences and all other speculative disciplines are acquired in this way, and so are the two forms of dialectical reasoning, syllogistic and inductive; for each of these latter make use of old knowledge to impart new, the syllogism assuming an audience that accepts its premisses, induction exhibiting the universal as implicit in the clearly known particular. Again, the persuasion exerted by rhetorical arguments is in principle the same, since they use either example, a kind of induction, or enthymeme, a form of syllogism.


The pre-existent knowledge required is of two kinds. In some cases admission of the fact must be assumed, in others comprehension of the meaning of the term used, and sometimes both assumptions are essential. Thus, we assume that every predicate can be either truly affirmed or truly denied of any subject, and that 'triangle' means so and so; as regards 'unit' we have to make the double assumption of the meaning of the word and the existence of the thing. The reason is that these several objects are not equally obvious to us. Recognition of a truth may in some cases contain as factors both previous knowledge and also knowledge acquired simultaneously with that recognition-knowledge, this latter, of the particulars actually falling under the universal and therein already virtually known. For example, the student knew beforehand that the angles of every triangle are equal to two right angles; but it was only at the actual moment at which he was being led on to recognize this as true in the instance before him that he came to know 'this figure inscribed in the semicircle' to be a triangle. For some things (viz. the singulars finally reached which are not predicable of anything else as subject) are only learnt in this way, i.e. there is here no recognition through a middle of a minor term as subject to a major. Before he was led on to recognition or before he actually drew a conclusion, we should perhaps say that in a manner he knew, in a manner not.


If he did not in an unqualified sense of the term know the existence of this triangle, how could he know without qualification that its angles were equal to two right angles? No: clearly he knows not without qualification but only in the sense that he knows universally. If this distinction is not drawn, we are faced with the dilemma in the Meno: either a man will learn nothing or what he already knows; for we cannot accept the solution which some people offer. A man is asked, 'Do you, or do you not, know that every pair is even?' He says he does know it. The questioner then produces a particular pair, of the existence, and so a fortiori of the evenness, of which he was unaware. The solution which some people offer is to assert that they do not know that every pair is even, but only that everything which they know to be a pair is even: yet what they know to be even is that of which they have demonstrated evenness, i.e. what they made the subject of their premiss, viz. not merely every triangle or number which they know to be such, but any and every number or triangle without reservation. For no premiss is ever couched in the form 'every number which you know to be such', or 'every rectilinear figure which you know to be such': the predicate is always construed as applicable to any and every instance of the thing. On the other hand, I imagine there is nothing to prevent a man in one sense knowing what he is learning, in another not knowing it. The strange thing would be, not if in some sense he knew what he was learning, but if he were to know it in that precise sense and manner in which he was learning it.

[Amorphos]

Space thug

Yes, it would because principles and archetypes determine the state of order in your model of the universe. The universe as a cosmos (your model universe) would from the moment of the singularity on be in a progressive move to comply its "cosmosness" (the order).

Yes but they are ever-present ~ not being physical. The teleology belongs to the existent element of it, in short they come before it [pre singularity ~ infinity].

How about (just to support your project) instead of treating Pandora's box as a question of cognition to transform it in a question of argument and episteme like in Aristoteles Analytic Posterior? The reason for this idea coming me to mind is, Aristoteles speaks about pre-existing knowledge just at the begin of Analytic Posterior. What is pre-existing knowledge (archetypes, principles) for Aristoteles?

Yes that’s how I was thinking of it [see my rubiks thread], it seams to me that we have to have at least some archetypes to build from or else we really could not know anything at all.

Ragabash

But doesn't there has to be some sort of primordial chaos to cause such highly majestic entity as "singular universe" to a breaking point, causing Big Bang and change its form to what we call universe today. Wouldn't such a theory rather indicate that singularity is indeed unstable, unorganized and bound to collapse due to its chaotic nature?

What would begin the chaos? The singularity is a perfect primary nature of infinity being expressed [see my rubiks cube reality map thread], you take the whole [infinity] and it is logical that it would have a singular expression at first.

I suppose it's our ability to imagine/fill the missing parts which causes us unconsciously create ever more perfect image in our minds. And the more information we receive, the different the image mold itself to. Therefore I'd dare to say that even inadequate information can create a perfect image, but only as much true as the we receive that information.

Agreed. I would think we get millions of info every moment and billions over time, not to mention that the brain is of course an incredible computer, and once its operating system is built and it has developed its software then it would have no problem building a huge database of knowledge. Equally it would be able to resolve many problems even though we the consciousness don’t realise all this is going on in the background.

[Ragabash]

Ragabash

What would begin the chaos? The singularity is a perfect primary nature of infinity being expressed [see my rubiks cube reality map thread], you take the whole [infinity] and it is logical that it would have a singular expression at first.

But there had to be some sort of "violent", "chaotic" element which caused the birth of our universe. The singular "pre-universal matter" must have been incapable of holding itself together in it's previous form. It's evident for our universe exist. This "chaos" factor could had been gravity if we are to assume singular theory is indeed correct (I really should familiarize myself with Hawkin's most recent "gravitational theory for the birth of universe), as there is no other force which could cause total collapse of perfectly singular materia and body. It cannot have been "chemical reaction" unless this singular element has been consisted more than one sort of matter, which would not actually make it singular.

If we are truly to assume our universe came to existence of singular matter, the interesting question is did the birth of our universe broke that singularity?

Just as we can split atoms, did "The Big Bang" split this singularity into pieces.

[Amorphos]

I presume reality to be a continuum [as nothing else makes sense], so if you have let us say a perfect state of singularity, then given time there must follow something. I presume that the singularity duplicates itself as this is the simplest plausible change from singular [as you said; 'Just as we can split atoms, did "The Big Bang" split this singularity into pieces'.], and with that single action begins a causal chain which rapidly increases into the ‘bang’.

so is the causality within time or matter?