Neoplatonism - Science topic

I propose a discussion on my PDF-PowerPoint "Common perspectives between Neoplatonism and Indian Philosophy". I used this PowerPoint for the Online Lecture held on 4th March 2025 at the International Conference "Reimagining and Reclaiming the Knowledge Traditions of Bharat: Beyond Boundaries and Definitions" organised by the Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India, from 3rd to 4th March 2025. The content of the PowerPoint is an initial analysis of aspects of analogies between Indian Philosophy and Neoplatonism. I am working on a text corresponding to ideas mentioned in the PowerPoint. In my inquiry, I would like to expose some aspects of Plotinus’ thought which have, in my opinion, analogies with aspects of Indian Philosophy. I shall therefore concentrate my attention on Plotinus’ conception of the One, on the relations between One and multiplicity, on the separation of the individual from the One and on the return to the One. I shall then investigate the opposition expressed in the Upaniṣads between inauthentic reality and authentic reality, the initial position of the individual in the darkness and the return of the individual to the true dimension of reality. The individual’s ascent to the One in Plotinus and the liberation of the individual from the dimension of multiplicity will be a central theme of my exposition since it constitutes one of the analogies with some passages of the Upaniṣads in which the process of liberation of the individual from the ties of the average sense reality are described: the initial position of the individual as a position of decadence of the individual will be exposed by resorting to different passages of Plotinus’ Enneads. The opposition between knowledge and opinion, on the one hand, and between intellect and sense perception, on the other hand, will be investigated in order to see the similarities with passages from the Upaniṣads in which the opportunity of a progressive detachment from the sense dimension is insisted on. The common ground between Plotinus and the Upaniṣads proves to be the conception of philosophy as the revelation that the average way of living is inauthentic, that there is an authentic dimension of reality, that the individual ought to reach the authentic dimension of reality, and that a long process of training is needed for the individual to be able to reach the authentic dimension of reality. Furthermore, the description of the position of the One as an entity which is beyond all predicates can be analysed, in my opinion, with particular attention to the analogies which this subject can have with the descriptions of the nature of Brahman. The main texts on which I shall base my inquiry will be Plotinus’ Enneads, on the one hand, and the Upaniṣads, on the other hand.

Unlike📷1

I'm studying Ploclus'approach to dialectics. I need works on this subject.

While many modern causal models do not seem to adhere to Laplace's demon (strict determinism) which treated error factors as merely unknown causes, they do not also always address the issue of freedom and responsibility sufficiently. While it is acknowledged that the human element (as far as intervention) is concerned might involve an exogenous factor (perhaps, "transcendent cause" in neoplatonic terms), posing problem to the equilibrium of an otherwise deterministic system, the models themselves might seem relevant for systems that are independent of human intervention, e.g. artificial intelligence. But, that evokes ethical questions, especially regarding whether formalism of such models can totally ignore the question of responsibility or should they really be resolving them. In more practical terms, can such a machine be constructed based on a causal model that can correctly predict and make right moral decisions for humans?

I am trying to understand the CRITERIA to be used to assess the plausibility or otherwise of a metaphysical theory. 

To apply  "scientific method"  mutatis mutandis doesn't seem to cut it...

NB - A description of the (important!) Neoplatonistic system formulated by the 3rd Century (CE) Syrian Iamblichus can be found in Wikipedia. 

"Basically, Iamblichus greatly multiplied the ranks of being and divine entities in the universe, the number at each level relating to various mathematical proportions. The world is thus peopled by a crowd of superhuman beings influencing natural events and possessing and communicating knowledge of the future, and who are all accessible to prayers and offerings." From Wikipedia article on Iamblichus, as at 1800 hrs, April 21st, 2017. (My italics)

For "Gillian's Hoop" see my associated project here on RG.

Bernhard of Chartres says in his Glosses on Plato, that such an ideal state cannot exist in this world. Is this now his own opinion, or does he refer to Republic IX 592ab? Because: As far as I know there was no copy of the Republic in his time, only Calcidius' Timaeus. So how could he refer to the Republic in such a detailed way?