We dont need a platonic abstract plane of ideas to explain multiple discovery events. There is an objective space of ideas that scientists coinhabit, via. the contemporary scientific literature. Most discoveries involve standing on then shoulders of giants and involve connecting together ideas that are already present in the scientific zeitgeist. The idea of natural selection is a great example of this. Using modern data mining techniques we can track and visualise the research fronts of a discipline - see eg Chen (2006). It is these abstract spaces in the literature that explain independent but simultaneous scientific discoveries such as Wallace/Darwin newton/liebnitz. We do not need to invoke anything supernatural. Yes lots of our cognition is subconscious, and much of our learning happens during rem sleep. Again, qe do not need to invoke the supernatural to explain why some discoveries perhaps correlate with intense dreaming.
Chen, C. (2006), CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 57: 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317
You've articulated the standard empirical model beautifully, and I agree that subconscious cognition and the "shoulders of giants" are indeed mechanisms of discovery.
This essay, however, is asking a slightly different question: what is the ultimate source?
You describe an "objective space of ideas" and "abstract spaces in the literature" that scientists inhabit. To my ears, that sounds remarkably like a more technical, modern description of Plato's "Realm of Ideals".
Is the scientific zeitgeist something we build brick by brick, or is it something we tune into? The history of these strange visitations suggests the latter might be just as likely.
Introspection is not reliable. While it may *seem* to the observers that their ideas arrived fully formed from another realm, this is simply an illusion. See
Entities in the Platonic realm are reified. That is, if you are a Platonist, you believe in a separate, non-material, realm of existence . On the other hand, the abstract realm of latent scientific discoveries that I posit supervenes directly on the material world. Consider a chair. Chairs are not fundamental entities in the standard model.of physics. A materialist would say that a chair is an emergent abstract object that supervenes on its material constituents. Despite its abstract nature it is real because although it's properties are entirely determined by the behaviour of its underlying fundamental.l particles, it still has causal explanatory power in its own right; explanations of events involving chairs hold up, eg I didnt fall down because the chair held me up. A Platonist, on the hand, would explain the properties of chairs as deriving from an idealised abstract object that had a sepealrate existence in the third realm. If you are a materialist then this is basically a supernatural explanation. It is also completely unnecessary since the properties of chairs can, in principle,, be derived from quantum field theory. Sean Carrol gives clear explanations on the contrast between emergence (materialist explanation of chairs) versus the Platonic view. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2024/11/11/295-solo-emergence-and-layers-of-reality/
Thanks again, Steve; great clarification. The distinction you draw between an emergent reality that supervenes on the material world and a reified Platonic realm is a good one.
It brings me back to the central mystery of this essay. An explanation of a chair emerging from its particles feels intuitive. But what about Kekulé's ouroboros or Descartes' angel? These aren't abstract ideas but specific, archetypal images and felt "visitations" that arrived fully formed. The question is: what, exactly, are these visionary states supervening on? Is it purely subconscious cognition churning through the material of the scientific literature? Does that explanation fully account for the sheer strangeness of the experience as reported by the discoverers themselves?
We dont need a platonic abstract plane of ideas to explain multiple discovery events. There is an objective space of ideas that scientists coinhabit, via. the contemporary scientific literature. Most discoveries involve standing on then shoulders of giants and involve connecting together ideas that are already present in the scientific zeitgeist. The idea of natural selection is a great example of this. Using modern data mining techniques we can track and visualise the research fronts of a discipline - see eg Chen (2006). It is these abstract spaces in the literature that explain independent but simultaneous scientific discoveries such as Wallace/Darwin newton/liebnitz. We do not need to invoke anything supernatural. Yes lots of our cognition is subconscious, and much of our learning happens during rem sleep. Again, qe do not need to invoke the supernatural to explain why some discoveries perhaps correlate with intense dreaming.
Chen, C. (2006), CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 57: 359-377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317
Wow, Steve, thanks for this thoughtful comment!
You've articulated the standard empirical model beautifully, and I agree that subconscious cognition and the "shoulders of giants" are indeed mechanisms of discovery.
This essay, however, is asking a slightly different question: what is the ultimate source?
You describe an "objective space of ideas" and "abstract spaces in the literature" that scientists inhabit. To my ears, that sounds remarkably like a more technical, modern description of Plato's "Realm of Ideals".
Is the scientific zeitgeist something we build brick by brick, or is it something we tune into? The history of these strange visitations suggests the latter might be just as likely.
Introspection is not reliable. While it may *seem* to the observers that their ideas arrived fully formed from another realm, this is simply an illusion. See
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262525220/perplexities-of-consciousness/
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/do-something-different/201505/the-thinking-trap
https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141954
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1978-00295-001
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/K2JBqDeETX2yEgyyZ/the-limits-of-introspection
Entities in the Platonic realm are reified. That is, if you are a Platonist, you believe in a separate, non-material, realm of existence . On the other hand, the abstract realm of latent scientific discoveries that I posit supervenes directly on the material world. Consider a chair. Chairs are not fundamental entities in the standard model.of physics. A materialist would say that a chair is an emergent abstract object that supervenes on its material constituents. Despite its abstract nature it is real because although it's properties are entirely determined by the behaviour of its underlying fundamental.l particles, it still has causal explanatory power in its own right; explanations of events involving chairs hold up, eg I didnt fall down because the chair held me up. A Platonist, on the hand, would explain the properties of chairs as deriving from an idealised abstract object that had a sepealrate existence in the third realm. If you are a materialist then this is basically a supernatural explanation. It is also completely unnecessary since the properties of chairs can, in principle,, be derived from quantum field theory. Sean Carrol gives clear explanations on the contrast between emergence (materialist explanation of chairs) versus the Platonic view. https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2024/11/11/295-solo-emergence-and-layers-of-reality/
Forrl clarification, this is what i mean by "supervenes" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supervenience
Thanks again, Steve; great clarification. The distinction you draw between an emergent reality that supervenes on the material world and a reified Platonic realm is a good one.
It brings me back to the central mystery of this essay. An explanation of a chair emerging from its particles feels intuitive. But what about Kekulé's ouroboros or Descartes' angel? These aren't abstract ideas but specific, archetypal images and felt "visitations" that arrived fully formed. The question is: what, exactly, are these visionary states supervening on? Is it purely subconscious cognition churning through the material of the scientific literature? Does that explanation fully account for the sheer strangeness of the experience as reported by the discoverers themselves?
Lot more respect for Plato - I was going to bring up Newton as well. He was trying to prove God's existence but came up short 😔
Hi there, EJ, thanks for the comment!
As mentioned, I've got an essay about Newton up my sleeve for next week; I think he's a fascinating figure. I hope you enjoy it!