We disagree fundamentally here, and I see no route to compromise. I think a description is necessarily confined to something observed, and I see no need for a description to relate one 4d structure to another. You hold the opposite to this. — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you recognise a distinction between observation, perception and apperception? Observation is unconscious sensory interaction, perception is a process of consciousness that integrates sensory information, and apperception is an awareness of this process of consciousness. Surely you’re not suggesting that all of these refer to an act of ‘observation’? When we describe a subjective perception (‘Half an hour ago, I ate crab sticks over there’), we are relating one 4D structure (the act of perceiving) to another (the act of eating crab sticks). There are two temporal structures here.

We are thrown here. You cannot rhetoric your way out of this stste of affairs. — schopenhauer1

The way I see it, this notion of ‘thrown-ness’ assumes the ‘self’ or ‘individual’ as a prime substance in relation to ‘here’. It’s a matter of perspective that ignores the construction of the ‘individual’.

The ‘self’ or ‘individual’ is a consolidation process of relational structures that exist regardless of consolidation. This consolidation relies on a) the awareness, connection and collaboration between integrated relational structures; and b) the existence of an overarching relational structure (self-consciousness), in relation to which it is necessarily incomplete.

Suppose there was a boy who was born and raised in a secluded family in which they used no form of language both spoken and written to communicate. How would that boy think?? In my meditations much of my thoughts come in the form of words and usually speaking them to myself with my own voice. Perhaps that boy would think in terms of images?
An example would be "I like to eat doughnuts" rather than the boy thinking of those words associated to that statement he would think of an image of himself enjoying his doughnut. Answer these questions below. — Thinking

Well, the first question would be, how would they communicate? The human organism is structured in a way that relies on communication to balance its resource requirements. A parent would need to communicate with their child to know when the boy is hungry, thirsty, tired or in pain, and when he has enough or too much. If not words, then any expression of movement and sound would soon form its own ‘language’, and the boy would ‘think’ in terms of these conceptual or predictive patterns.

With regard to your example, the boy’s thoughts might gravitate toward any patterns in his relation to the environment that relate to past experiences of eating doughnuts, such as a packet of cinnamon from the cupboard, a thick circular shape, or the action of licking sugar off his fingers.

As an aside, in your meditation it seems like you’re still processing your thoughts if they’re coming to you verbally, and in your own voice. You’re still clinging to a sense of ‘self’. Remember, you are not your thoughts.

I beg to differ. By default living requires survival, usually in a cultural milieu. Unless you practice suicide by asceticism (pace Schopenhauer)..thats what youre doing, along with seeking comfort, and forms of entertainment (which religion and studying philosophy as a hobby fall into). People dont like to hear this reduction, but its true. — schopenhauer1

Still, life is not necessarily about survival, or comfort or entertainment - that’s a matter of perspective, one that prioritises the individual. When someone focuses on risking their life on a daily basis, you can’t tell me their life is all about survival. And just because you may be able to interpret their actions to fit your own perspective, does not mean that’s what they’re doing. This reduction may be ‘true’ for you, but the reason people argue against this is not because they don’t like to hear it, but because it ignores the choices they make to deliberately invite risk, discomfort or boredom into their lives in pursuit of something bigger than their individual limitations.

Creativity is increasing awareness, connection and collaboration.

What is meaningful then is not an individual identity or life, but everything and nothing, without prejudice.
— Possibility

Yes, this is right. Which means that life does not have to be competition. — Brett

Agreed. Nor does it have to be about survival.

I believe a description is just an extension of observation, it is to recount what has been observed. The two are not "opposed". — Metaphysician Undercover

An observation is a process of relating one 4D structure to another; what has been observed is a 4D structure of difference between them.

A description is a linguistic rendering of information, not necessarily confined to what has been observed. It includes linguistic structures, probabilistic patterns of prediction and concepts that enable what has been observed to make sense in a conceptual system.

I realise this seems unnecessarily complicated. If you assume a ‘fixed’ point of conscious observation, then of course what has been observed is all an observation is, and the description simply renders what has been observed. But you’ve already agreed that a point of observation cannot be ‘fixed’ in reality, so an observation is not just what has been observed, but by whom, at what point(s) and under what conditions.

A description that recounts only what has been observed assumes both a ‘fixed’ observer and conceptual system. Someone reading this description needs to be aware of the assumed position of the observer and structure of the conceptual system, in relation to their own perspective of the ‘event’, in order to make sense of the description in relation to reality. In most situations, we can deduce this, or we don’t need to be so precise, so this is being pedantic - but hopefully it illustrates the extent to which we can take for granted the difference between an observation and a description of an event.

How can this make sense to you? If "your position of observation is an ongoing event that changes in relation to the event you describe", then it is contradictory to say that you have a "fixed perspective". What could possibly indicate that your perspective is "fixed" if it is an ongoing change? — Metaphysician Undercover

Complicated, but not contradictory. Having described an event, your perspective of it may have changed. ‘Half an hour ago, I ate crab sticks over there’ describes an event from a perspective which is ‘fixed’ within the description. You would need to describe that same event differently a week later, because the description has a fixed perspective, but NOT the observer.

So this variability that I’m talking about is in a relation not between two events that have actually occurred in relation to an observation, but between the event and an ongoing observation.
— Possibility

Perhaps I can make sense of this statement. You have posited an ongoing observation which you say is itself an event. Now you say that the variability is not between two events, but between an event and the ongoing observation. The ongoing observation is an event though. See why I can't get anywhere in trying to understand what you are saying? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well of course not, if you’re only going to read half the sentence. This is difficult enough to explain without you skim-reading. Yes, the ongoing observation is an event, but not an observed “event that has actually occurred”, as you were arguing.

But where an ‘event’ or ‘time’ appears infinite, it is really bound by the perceived potentiality of the conscious observer. And where potential appears infinite, it is bound by imagined possibility.
— Possibility

Here again, I have a hard time understanding your use of words. How could something appear to be infinite? I don't think "infinite has any sort of appearance at all, because no one has ever sensed it. I think what we do is designate something as infinite, like the natural numbers. We say something like, let's make the natural number infinite, so that we have the capacity to count any magnitude we come across. But mathematics uses "infinite" in strange ways, so that sometimes when they apply mathematics to a problem, infinity will pop up, and people will say that it appears like the thing referred to is infinite. But that's just faulty mathematics, making the thing which the math is being applied to appear as infinite, when in reality the thing just cannot be understood by those mathematics. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have a definitive approach to language that I find restrictive, but bear with me. Considering that we don’t really sense ‘time’, I don’t think ‘time’ has any sort of appearance, either. What I’m referring to is thinking of ‘time’ as boundless. I used the term ‘infinite’ in reference to Kant’s categories of Quality: as a limitation, or horizon, impossible to measure or quantify. I agree that it’s faulty mathematics, though - in reality it denotes a dimensional shift.

Time exists as a four-dimensional structure, but passes only in relation to a conscious observer
— Possibility

This I completely disagree with. I think that geology demonstrates to us that time was passing before there were conscious observers on earth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Geology demonstrates to conscious observers that a certain amount of time has passed, but I think it’s a bit like Schrödinger’s cat. I guess it depends on what you understand ‘time’ to be.

This is quite patronising. You’re suggesting that having the philosophical position that life has no purpose, that it is meaningless (and I think that creates confusion) that those people are lacking courage to experience particular aspects of life, or disinterested in learning about themselves, as if they spend their life locked in their room.

And yet Zen Master Shunryu Suzuki said “I discovered that it is necessary , absolutely necessary, to believe in nothing ... no matter what god or doctrine you believe in, if you become attached to it, your belief will be based more or less on a self- centred idea ... But I do not mean voidness ... This is called Buddha nature, or Buddha himself.” — Brett

It was not my intention to patronise, or to suggest that you specifically lacked the courage to experience boredom, discomfort or risk. The argument presented is that by being born we are necessarily forced as an individual into constantly pursuing entertainment, comfort and survival - but I think this is just a consequence of attributing all meaning to the ‘self’.

We are commonly taught not only that being an individual is meaningful, but also that life itself has some pre-ordained meaning or purpose. I think recognising that there exists no inherent meaning to life, but that we are confronted instead with the overwhelming noise of potentiality beyond imagination, is a key development in our awareness, but it can seem like abandonment or ‘thrown-ness’ by comparison. From this position of a meaningful ‘self’, it’s no surprise that we perceive everything we relate to as meaningless.

Buddha flips this perspective, and instead relates from a sense of ‘self’ that is fundamentally indistinguishable from that to which it relates. What is meaningful then is not an individual identity or life, but everything and nothing, without prejudice. How we distinguish a relational position to this reality with each interaction is to live meaningfully - but not as a meaningful individual.

I don’t believe I’m contradicting Suzuki. There is a difference between believing something with an awareness of uncertainty, and believing IN something to the point of attachment, where it becomes integral to a consolidation or identity of ‘self’.

FWIW, we are not all that far from each other’s perspectives, I think.

It is not a fixed point of observation, the present is not fixed. And the present is not an event itself. It is contradictory to call a fixed point an event, as you do here, "event" is incompatible with "fixed point". Clearly, what we are discussing is whether or not it is true that relations are variable, as in your definition.

In my understanding of "event" as something in the past, the relations of any event are necessarily fixed, invariable, so it makes no sense to say that there is a variability which transcends the description. The opposite is the case. There is variability in description, but no variability in what has actually occurred, therefore no variability in the relations between the events which actually occurred. — Metaphysician Undercover

You’re missing my point here, which is about describing an event, as opposed to observing it. ‘The present’ is not a universal perspective, but a subjective one. When you describe an event from the past, you are describing it from your position as observer - a ‘present’ that is ‘fixed’ only in that statement. In reality, your position of observation is an ongoing event that changes in relation to the event you describe. So each time you describe that event, it is from a different ‘fixed’ perspective.

But the ‘event’ is not an isolated set of relations - this consolidation is conceptual. There is no line of separation in reality between the relations that constitute an ‘event’ and the variability in relations that enable us to describe it as such. Each description is inclusive of a fixed point of observation, to which we relate as ongoing events. But each ‘event’ consists of four-dimensional relations, not all of which we are aware of from our perspective at any moment of observation, let alone render in our description. So this variability that I’m talking about is in a relation not between two events that have actually occurred in relation to an observation, but between the event and an ongoing observation.

Talking about an event in the future cannot properly be called a "description" because that refers to observation, there is nothing observed in the future. Talking about a supposed future event is a projection, not a description. — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet we describe objects of our imagination - a ‘description’ is just using words to render information, and doesn’t necessitate observation, only perception. But I understand the need to distinguish between imagined possibility, perceived potentiality and observed actuality. I’m not talking about a ‘projection’ as a specifically described event from some future observation point. A description of perceived potentiality is more wave-like: it describes the relational structure between the event and an ongoing observation. In this way it is less definitive, but more accurate.

Time is bound by materialisation - and events ‘fixed’ - only in relation to a point of observation.
— Possibility

I disagree with this too. Materialization is bound by time. And the point of observation is also bound by time. — Metaphysician Undercover

I agree with you here. What I was trying to say was that it is only when we describe ‘events’ from a point of observation that they appear ‘fixed’; and only when we try to describe ‘time’ from a point of observation that it appears bound by materialisation. But where an ‘event’ or ‘time’ appears infinite, it is really bound by the perceived potentiality of the conscious observer. And where potential appears infinite, it is bound by imagined possibility.

So an event can only be observed in matter as time passes, but it exists regardless of the observer’s position as a four-dimensional structure.
— Possibility

An event can only occur as time passes, regardless of observation. The occurrence of an event requires the passing of time, whether or not there is an observer. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time exists as a four-dimensional structure, but passes only in relation to a conscious observer - a point of experience within a five-dimensional conceptualisation. Any event, too, exists as a four-dimensional structure of relations, regardless of the passing of time, but ‘occurs’ only in relation to a conscious observer, and can be ‘described’ only in relation to a point of observation.

and to accept our individual existence as fundamentally unnecessary.
— Possibility

How is that different from;
Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless.
— Brett — Brett

This all comes from a view that the individual doesn't "count" in some way. But as I stated earlier, whether or not there is really such thing as "individuals" metaphysically, we live our lives as if we are individuals, which is effectively the same thing. You cannot be taught to not be an individual, I'm sorry. Identity comes with the linguistic minds we operate from. So, that being the epistemic reality, it goes back to dealing with life for each individual. — schopenhauer1

It isn’t that the individual doesn’t ‘count’, but rather isn’t necessary. And it isn’t necessary to live our life as if we are individuals, but the fact that we often consider it so important to do so is what renders our individual life meaningless overall.

It is identity that holds us back. Living our lives as if we are individuals is part of our conscious development, but it needn’t restrict us. You CAN be taught to transcend individual limitations with a focus on increasing awareness, connection and collaboration. Our capacity to relate to reality, and to each other, goes beyond linguistics, and beyond our sense of ‘self’.

‘Epistemic reality’ is just the horizon. The fear of ‘falling off the edge’ is real, but it’s unfounded. If you have the courage to regularly experience individual boredom, discomfort or risk, you may be surprised at what you learn about yourself and your relation to the world. Those discoveries, to me, are what life is all about - at this level of awareness, anyway.

What’s a “prediction error”? — Brett

Prediction error is an interpretation of experiencing pain, humiliation, loss and lack - suffering. It describes the extent to which a prediction of reality (and its subsequent allocation of resources, capacity and value) does not align with an observable relation to reality, without assuming the fault must lie with the state of reality itself.

In the meantime we have to live this life. And I don’t see that what schopenhauer1 and I are saying is halting all attempts to relate to what we don’t understand. In fact I see it as looking straight into the eyes of what we don’t understand — Brett

Well, you don’t HAVE to LIVE this life. You’re living this life because you don’t perceive the value or potential in any other option. But options are available - there is more variability in how we live ‘this life’ than most of us are willing to admit.

The difference is that you (or at least @schopenhauer1) seem to perceive what we don’t understand as conditions we’re forced to ‘deal with’, whereas I see it as aspects of reality that we relate to in ways which can inform our understanding long before these conditions are determined. It’s not something we need to fight or compete with - if we’re willing to learn from prediction error, to contribute our resources, capacity and value towards understanding mutually beneficial methods of relating, and to accept our individual existence as fundamentally unnecessary.

I don't see how there could be variability in such relations. An event is something which has occurred in the past, therefore its relations are fixed, invariable, as the facts about the past. There might be variability in our descriptions of these relations, but there is no variability in the actual relations. As for the future, there is no such thing as events in the future, because the future has not occurred yet, so there is only possibilities for events in our understanding of the future. — Metaphysician Undercover

When you describe an event in the past, this is relative to a fixed point of observation: a relating event in itself. So the ‘actual relations’ you’re referring to as invariable are a relation between these two events, not the relations of the event itself - the variability of which transcends this description.

An event in the classical sense is a changing of relations between things. — Metaphysician Undercover

Right - so describing an ‘event in the future’ is not just a mere possibility, but can more specifically be a calculated probability or potentiality wave that maps changing relations between observables.

An event only occurs, or unfolds, at the present, as time passes. It doesn't make sense to speak of past events as occurring or unfolding, because they've already occurred, nor does it make sense to speak of future events as occurring. If we say that the present necessarily has temporal extension, then we can extend the present as far as we want into the past, and say that all time until now is the present, but we can't extend it this way into the future. The future has not materialized yet, so there really is no time on that side of the present. So as much as we can extend the present into the past, by understanding the real fixed relations of real past events, we cannot extend the present into the future this way because there are no real fixed events, only what is imagined, predicted, or inferred. — Metaphysician Undercover

Time is bound by materialisation - and events ‘fixed’ - only in relation to a point of observation. So an event can only be observed in matter as time passes, but it exists regardless of the observer’s position as a four-dimensional structure. Time may not be observable on that side of the present, but it is predictable - and our predictions have become increasingly more accurate. This is just as well, because it is not our observations that determine and initiate action, but our predictions.

As opposed to your structured concept of being, I don’t see that Schopenhauer is dictating his own terms, if anything there are no terms, and those you do choose are existential acts. Then the question is are those actions authentic? Many are not, many are made to fence off the abyss. Many actions are carried out to justify previous actions. Many actions bolster cultural norms.

Somehow we have to face the possibility that life is meaningless. That to me seems to require constant effort, or conflict, which is a battle against this threat, which is, in my view, competition. The alternative is to just “be” in the Buddhist sense of the Will creates suffering. If not then in a way you are competing with yourself, against the knowledge reason gives you, that there is nothing. — Brett

I don’t see facing the possibility that life is meaningless as such a battle - unless this conflict is with your own terms, that you are necessarily meaningful.

Huh? How are we not thrust into the "real world"? I don't deny other people are in the world, also thus thrown and having to deal with in their own way. Just because we interact with each other to get stuff accomplished, doesn't diminish the dealing with that each individual does. — schopenhauer1

I’m not trying to diminish the ‘dealing with’ - I’m only putting it into a perspective that isn’t so hung up on the primacy of the individual imagination. You can complain that you didn’t choose to exist in this way, and therefore life in itself is an act of cruelty inflicted upon your apparent entitlement to choose the terms of your own existence (as if that’s the case) - but it doesn’t fix the problem. The problem is that we are not yet in a position to choose the full terms of our existence, because we are not yet sufficiently aware, connected or collaborating with existence to accomplish this. And we won’t get there by halting all attempts to relate to what we don’t understand. Suffering - prediction error - is how we improve relations overall, by learning from them. When we focus on the primacy of the individual, we lose sight of the bigger picture. All of this takes time, energy and resources that the ‘individual’ doesn’t have enough of to accomplish anything meaningful for their own benefit. Except to wage a constant and ultimately losing battle for survival, comfort and entertainment.

Something has to account for the state of humanity. I don’t see that your awareness, connection and collaboration comes anywhere close to this. — Brett

The state of humanity is a result of the extent to which we oppose this: by justifying ignorance, isolation and exclusion.

The problem with process philosophy and assuming "events" as fundamental, is that traditionally relations would be inherent within the classical description of an event. An event in the classical sense is a changing of relations between things. Now, as the fundamental element, the "event" is the thing. So we have two new problems. How do we describe what is internal to the fundamental "event", so as to make it consistent with the traditional "event"? What is changing inside that fundamental event to justify calling it an event? And the second problem is on what principles do we relate one event to another, to represent the passing of time. At this point, since we do not have any real understanding of the passing of time, and science turns it into something subjective, the trend is to appeal to panpsychism to justify the apparent continuity of the passing of time. — Metaphysician Undercover

Process philosophy is a starting point - I don’t see ‘events’ as fundamental, rather I see the capacity to describe reality in terms of a variability of relations between 4D ‘events’ rather than a changing of relations between 3D ‘objects’ as simply a step towards a more accurate perspective. This term ‘thing’ refers to an indeterminate concept - neither particularly three, four or five-dimensional, rather whatever is being related to.

The unfolding universe is commonly viewed as one all-encompassing event: a temporal duration of changing relations between physical matter, from the ‘Big Bang’ to heat death (or some other predicted future end). But if physics is understood as a set of interrelated events with no universally linear progression of time, then what is fundamental cannot be an ‘event’ in itself, but is more like the concept of a ‘block universe’, in which all energy/entropy is structured according to value/potentiality, as determined from the perspective of a particular event/observer - a moveable 4D relation point within a conceptual block universe.

Don’t get me wrong, though - I’m not subscribing to Eternalism. We also have the capacity to understand reality in terms of a variability of relations between conceptual ‘block universes’ or minds, shifting the fundamental ‘thing’ once again from concepts in a 5D structure of mind to meaningful relations in a 6D structure of possibility.

The issue of subjectivity is nothing new - science just struggles to apply it to itself, is all. Panpsychism is one way to describe this variability of relations between conceptual structures, by consolidating all five-dimensional relations into ‘things with minds’. So the idea is that anything that WE can consolidate into a ‘thing’ (like a rock) must have a ‘mind’. I don’t agree with this - the consolidation of a ‘rock’ is based on our own conceptual structures. A rock has no internal structural consolidation beyond the molecular level - if it breaks in half, the extent to which it may be ‘aware’ of this is confined to individual molecules suddenly relating to oxygen molecules instead, for instance.

If awareness, connection, and collaboration was some sort of overarching principle, then trying to achieve this consciously would be simply the naturalistic fallacy. My argument is that we are in fact "thrown" in situations of "dealing with" by being born at all. My evaluation is that the wrong thing to do is to put more people into situations of dealing with. Whether or not collaboration is or is not taking place, makes no difference to this evaluation. — schopenhauer1

Your evaluation of the ‘wrong’ thing to do is based on your priority of individual capacity, and the assumption that this is the ONLY capacity with any objective value or meaning. My view is that you’re expending so much effort trying to reject the underlying principle, arguing against the situation of being born, as if what matters most to existence is how an individual feels about it. To me this doesn’t make sense - mainly because I believe the primacy of the ‘individual’ is an illusion of five-dimensional perspective, and ‘being born’ is already a collaborative effort.

So going back to the theme of this thread...
Even though it isn't competition proper as I define it (consciously competing with others for resources, points, objectives, etc.), in an abstract sense, people are competing against life itself. This takes three major forms- survival, comfort-seeking, finding entertainment to keep one occupied (which ironically, is one reason people consciously enter into competition proper like sports, games, etc.). — schopenhauer1

What you’re competing for is the capacity to exist on your own terms, according to a relational structure of meaning and value that prioritises your consolidated individual ‘self’ as the only existence that matters. It seems to me like you were led to believe you were the centre of the universe, and then unceremoniously thrust into the real world. I don’t envy your perspective.

This is where we have to be careful to differentiate the two distinct ways that "form" is used, one referring to our description of the thing, which is posterior to the thing, and the other referring to the creation of the thing, which is prior to the thing. So we have a "formula" or blueprint, by which we create a thing, and a "form" which is a description of a thing, and each is a distinct sense of "form". — Metaphysician Undercover

What are ‘things’? This is where the assumption of a self-conscious system, in recognising concepts or things, distorts the way we understand the structure of reality. If it were not for our temporal relation to the ‘thing’, then there is no other distinction between its description and creation. This ‘thing’ we create is conceptual, in relation to what is real, and so the blueprint is a rendering of relational structure, the limited perception of which consolidates that particular form within the mind. Existentially prior to the ‘thing’ is only a relation to what is real: pure possibility structured by the limited perception of the observer (who consolidates) and the limited expression of the observed.

Now, our subject of inquiry is the rules or laws which apply to forms being responsible for invariability. In describing a form, the rules are descriptive, in creating a form, the rules are prescriptive. Notice that both refer to what "ought" to be done, therefore the two types are reducible to a single type rule, as prescriptive rules. So the rules and laws, which are responsible for the creation of forms, of both types, are of the prescriptive type, rules of how things ought to be done. "Ought" implies the activity of intention, final cause. — Metaphysician Undercover

And again, this assumption of intentionality in time turns creativity into specific rules of how events ought to be done, rather than a variability in how events can be done, limited by awareness, connection and collaboration. ‘Ought’ implies a priori knowledge, an illusion created by the temporal shift of conscious perception, constrained to a logical structure of time. But the structure of time in reality is relative - so the notion of ‘final cause’ or ‘activity of intention’, and the temporal distinction between descriptive and prescriptive ‘form’, don’t even make sense in relation to reality.

We can apply this back against the dilemma of variable (indefinite) relations, and consolidated (definite) forms. We see that a "relation" implies members, elements, particles, or some form of a multitude, distinct differences which are related in that condition of variability. And, there is some form of "ought" which is applied to these relations which converts the existence from variable to invariable, creating a form. The existence of human beings provides our example of individual members, with intention, acting with final cause. We see that the final cause and intention inheres within the particulars, who produce principles from within their own minds, as rules to act by, each person attempting to constrain one's own acts with personal principles which they adhere to. Therefore from this example, we can see that the invariance required to produce a form comes from within the individual members, as final cause, so that all forms are bottom-up. — Metaphysician Undercover

‘Relation’ does imply difference, but not necessarily existence, so any difference need not be so distinct. This ‘ought’ which converts an assumed existence from variable to invariable is a function of consciousness. The invariance required to describe a ‘thing’ is an internal relation of perceived potentiality, but no such invariance is required to create the ‘thing’ prior to describing its form, and no such existence need be assumed. Creativity derives from a relation to non-existent possibility, limited by awareness, connection and collaboration. It is the perceived variability in this relation that enables creativity, intentionality and the determination of ‘personal principles’.

You don't seem to understand, logic is necessity. What is logically so is necessarily so. What is logically impossible is necessarily impossible. How can you introduce a form of necessity which is outside of logic? You could appeal to a "need" in the sense of pragmatism, and final cause, as the means to an end, what you call "usefulness", but then your proposed end needs to be justified. This justification is a process of logic. So you say, mathematics is "useful" for understanding, but to use mathematics which produces conclusions which are unintelligible is misunderstanding. That is the position we're in with quantum mechanics. Imaginary numbers, infinities, and such, are used for the sake of prediction, so they are useful, but the result can in no way be described as understanding. If we apply good principles of logic, and rid ourselves pragmatic necessity in favour of logical necessity, we have a true course toward understanding. When your pragmatic end must be justified, on what would you pretend to base any other form of true necessity on, other than logic? — Metaphysician Undercover

You’re assuming that necessity must be logical because it needs to be justified, but I’m not under any illusion that I can justify the necessity of illogical possibility - because I recognise that it is as unnecessary as it is necessary. I’m not saying that mathematics produces conclusions that are unintelligible, but that they make use of imaginary numbers and infinities - allowing for their illogical possibility - to produce intelligible conclusions from what would otherwise remain unintelligible. This is not misunderstanding - rather, it enables understanding unbound by logic. When we apply good principles of logic, we are not ridding ourselves of pragmatic necessity, but exploring beyond its bounds, to enable a more accurate understanding of the ‘rules and laws’ of pragmatism. When we act, we are still bound by pragmatic necessity. And when we communicate (ie. when we attempt to justify), we are still bound by logical necessity. But when we relate, we are bound by neither.

I am limited with time this week, but I hope to get to the rest of your post soon.

Is it what life is about here or what brings about "these actions"? I believe it the latter. Knowledge would be a strategy for survival. You can make an argument that anything is what life is about. Maybe it's about making plastic. — schopenhauer1

I agree. It’s a matter of perspective. If (for argument’s sake) existence was about increasing awareness, connection and collaboration, then ‘survival’ would be a strategy for living systems: continue to live. And if this was perceived to be the only available strategy for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration - if all a living system perceived was resources, capacity and value to be consumed/absorbed/possessed - then, as you say, it’s not so much about competition as differential survival rates and maladaptation.

With an awareness of differentiated systems (entities) in relation to these resources, etc., then competition is perceived as the key strategy for those whose only way to increase awareness, connection and collaboration has been to continue to live. Even though other strategies may be available, they may not be apparent, except by chance.

But I’m not trying to assert that all actions are about survival, but these actions we engage in come about because we have survived.

How could anything we do or know be passed on to us if the originators of that knowledge had not looked after our survival long enough for us to comprehend it then act on it? — Brett

This could also be understood as life being about passing on knowledge, with survival a strategy.

I’ve watched a national level sporting team lose more than they won and fail to make more than the first game of finals for years under the same coach. Despite intense pressure from their supporters and critics, the players and the club continued to back that coach season after season, well beyond reason. It was apparent that their focus was not to win, but something else.
— Possibility

Does the exception prove the rule? — Brett

Sure - in the scientific sense that it shows the ‘rule’ needs to be clarified, or understood more precisely.

I really can't see this distinction. A "form" is an arrangement of parts. A "relation" is the way in which one thing is connected to another. The only difference appears to be that "relation" implies distinct things, related to each other, whereas "form" implies that those things which are related to each other compose a whole, a form. So the matter of whether a relation is simply a relation, or whether it is a part of a whole, is just a matter of perspective.

Now, your top-down/bottom-up distinction is just a matter of perspective. If you apprehend the whole (form) which the related things are parts of, it appears as top-down, and if you do not, the relations appear to be bottom-up. But as I explained already, the whole is just an unsubstantiated Ideal, so all such relations are really bottom-up, as the whole which would validate any top-down relations is just an imaginary ideal which cannot actually be found. — Metaphysician Undercover

A ‘form’ is a consolidated arrangement, whereas ‘relation’ refers to the variability in arrangement: the structural potential that informs any consolidation. It is very much a matter of perspective (that is what we’re talking about). Relation does not necessarily imply ‘distinct things’ but the existence of rules and laws that structure consolidation at each dimensional level. While I agree that a consolidation of form would validate top-down relational structure, its insubstantiality does not preclude its possible existence.

How do you think quantum mechanics began, except from mathematical arguments regarding the possible relational structure of insubstantiated ideals?

Oh yes, quite definitely. It is possible to imagine all sorts of impossible things, but that does not make them possible. But with logic we can assess imagined things, which people might claim as possible, and designate some as impossible, and this is the epistemic basis for certainty. — Metaphysician Undercover

That also doesn’t make them necessarily impossible - only logically so. Don’t get me wrong - what I’m referring to is along the lines of the usefulness of imaginary numbers in mathematics. I’m not arguing for the necessary validation of imaginary, illogical possibilities - only their possible existence and therefore usefulness to us in informing a more accurate understanding of reality.

The reality is that the self-conscious perspective is central, and placing it anywhere else would be a false premise. Notice that Copernicus did not remove self-consciousness as central, but just found the means to account for the illusions created by this position. These illusions are the false Ideals, "the global position", which lead to the idea of top-down causation. Self-consciousness being at the center of reality is constrained by the forms that surround it, and this creates the illusion of top-down acting constraints, what you call relations. But in reality, all these other constraints are just bottom-up forms produced from other points which are equally the center of reality.

That is the difficult part to grasp, there is not one particular "center of reality", but each point is equally a center of reality, just like each self-conscious being is equally a center of reality. We attempt to build "relations" between these points of self-consciousness, with our intellectual powers, so we assume an overriding whole, the Ideal external world, and model the points with a spatial-temporal reference. But these top-down relations are all artificial, imaginary relations, while the real relations are internal to these points which are each equally the center of reality. This is what the study of genetics indicates, the real relations are internal, and from within these internally related points the bottom up causation is active. Now each point of self-consciousness has its own bottom-up formal structure, and to build a true model of reality requires relating them one to another, each as the center of reality. This is why the principles of physics cannot model the true reality, because it hasn't developed the principles required to relate individual points to each other, when each is the center of the universe. As the center of the universe, they are each the same, but as individual points, they are each different. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your approach is different to mine, but I have no real argument with what you’re saying here. To clarify, by relations, I don’t mean top-down causation or acting constraints. I’m talking about all possible relations existing both between all ‘forms’ and within them, informing their respective consolidation (ie. their bottom-up formal structure) as well as that of any being that consolidates them as such.

My approach is developed partly from Carlo Rovelli’s deconstruction of time, and his resulting description of physical reality not as objects in time, but as ‘correlated events’. As individual points they are each different (and ‘move’ in relation to each other), but when each is the centre of an unfolding universe of spacetime, they are the same.

The main problem that physics has, in my view, is the purely quantitative structure of its relations. It is a self-conscious process that excludes illogical, qualitative relations from what is effectively a five-dimensional model. Even consciousness as the centre of the universe has an unconsolidated, qualitative relation to it.

I’m not saying that either. I’m saying that you want to survive. — Brett

I can’t say that I do want to survive in every circumstance, though. As a parent, I know there would be circumstances where I would not hesitate to choose otherwise.

This is where, intentionally or unintentionally, I think you play games. Or maybe it’s just splitting hairs.

Anyone can have an idea. I have them all the time. But ideas must be proven in the world. The ideas that we have on families, love, sharing and collaboration evolved, developed in a healthy, secure environment. These are the ideas that have made us what we are and from that we develop further. — Brett

You don’t think that ideas can be proven in an environment that is insecure or unhealthy? Victor Frankl, for instance?

Perhaps I am splitting hairs, but only to challenge assumptions you seem to have about how the world is supposed to work. You can’t just dismiss anomalies and then claim to understand reality as a whole - your understanding must be able to explain those anomalies as well.

That’s just silly. True, players on a team may communicate and collaborate with each other, but in an effort to win.
— Brett

Are you certain of this?
— Possibility

Why do you think they’re there? — Brett

Any number of reasons, really - from a paycheck to personal development. I’m not saying their reason isn’t to win, but it should not be assumed as such.

Or do they use the game to focus on developing their resources, capacity and value for future interactions? There is no right answer here - suffice to say, it is not all about winning.
— Possibility

If they don’t win, for instance, they don’t go into the next round. What’s the point of developing resources, etc, if it’s not to win? — Brett

That’s a for instance, not a definitive reason. I’ve watched a national level sporting team lose more than they won and fail to make more than the first game of finals for years under the same coach. Despite intense pressure from their supporters and critics, the players and the club continued to back that coach season after season, well beyond reason. It was apparent that their focus was not to win, but something else. It certainly doesn’t seem logical to develop resources in a national sporting fixture if not to win, but people do it all the time. They were making effective use of the resources, capacity and value available in the competition to achieve something other than the competition itself.

I dispute that only a healthy, secure being can develop intellectual faculties to play with ideas. There are countless examples through history of chronically ill, crippled, disabled, imprisoned and threatened human beings who have written or dictated evidence of highly developed intellectual faculties and ideas.
— Possibility

Of course, but I think you’re now playing games.

So in time that allowed other aspects of our nature to develop and our intellectual faculties to play with ideas. Only a healthy, secure being can indulge in this.
— Brett

You neglected to include a “secure being”. — Brett

My intention is not to play games, but to point out the assumptions in your thinking. An imprisoned or threatened being would be ‘insecure’ as such.

I’m not going to argue about luck. Yes it plays a part but if you think you can live day to day based on luck then good luck to you. — Brett

That’s not what I said. My point is that continuing to live may not be up to me, but how I interact with the world in the time I have is entirely my own doing. I’m not saying that at some point I won’t make the choice to compete for survival if it comes to that, but I’m under no illusions that it’s my only choice under any circumstance.

It is within the capacity of any football player or team to focus more on building communication or collaborative capacity and value than on competition.
— Possibility

That’s just silly. True, players on a team may communicate and collaborate with each other, but in an effort to win. — Brett

Are you certain of this? What if they know that their injuries and ability are such that there is little to no chance of winning? Do they give up? Do they convince themselves beyond all evidence that there is a still a chance? Or do they use the game to focus on developing their resources, capacity and value for future interactions? There is no right answer here - suffice to say, it is not all about winning.

Players on a team don’t just communicate with each other, either - they are also informed by their opponent’s behaviour, the movement of the ball and other conditions of the game. All of this information contributes to their capacity, as individuals and as a team, for future interactions. Collaboration is also not just about two people agreeing to work together, but also about making use of certain conditions to achieve something, whether or not those conditions are intended specifically to help you. Think outside the box.

But, suppose a small collective live together in a small village. Circumstance destroy their usual supply of food. What do they do? Do nothing and die and with it the potential of their genes and all the knowledge they have, or do something. — Brett

It is the extent to which that small village is in communication and collaboration beyond their collective that they have the capacity to do something in this circumstance.

Not necessarily. It’s because we have learned to survive so well that we have managed to survive the brutality of evolution. So in time that allowed other aspects of our nature to develop and our intellectual faculties to play with ideas. Only a healthy, secure being can indulge in this. Of course there are other things of value in life, otherwise we would not be chatting. But we have to be here to act. — Brett

That may be your reasoning, but it’s a matter of perspective. The criteria by which you define ‘survival’ is limited to the transmission of genetic code. It is a consequence of what we have learned about life that the information in our genetic code matters to others as expressed.

I dispute that only a healthy, secure being can develop intellectual faculties to play with ideas. There are countless examples through history of chronically ill, crippled, disabled, imprisoned and threatened human beings who have written or dictated evidence of highly developed intellectual faculties and ideas.

Survival may be a consequence of being here, but being here is not the same as surviving - the intentionality and awareness behind the act is assumed without evidence. I had a brush with death a few years ago that put this in perspective. I am not here because I chose or fought to survive. I am here by chance, blind luck, and I’m making the most of the opportunity - not for my own survival, but in pursuit of understanding reality. My ‘survival’ thus far is a bonus, too often out of my hands.

Sport is competition. Even a mountain climber on his own competes with the mountain. My point was that I don’t think competition only occurs in times of scarcity. It may be part of our nature to compete. — Brett

Sport need not be only about competition, though. It is competition only because we collaborate to arbitrarily limit access to a certain resource, capacity or value, creating conditions of scarcity. Those conditions are agreed upon for the purpose of the game. It is within the capacity of any football player or team to focus more on building communication or collaborative capacity and value than on competition. A mountain climber, too, collaborates with the mountain more than he competes with it.

That’s true. It’s how we have evolved as social creatures creating communities. My position is that life is not about competition but about survival. Presumably that’s why we carry out collaborative efforts, because we’ve learned that survival depends on collaboration, awareness and connection. Because we are reasoning creatures we can create better futures.

Life might have some greater purpose, but that’s an end, and as you said a perpetual revolution, so there is no end. So then life is about being, but that’s synonymous with survival, you can’t have one without the other.

Edit: but competition is how we survived, it’s the nature of life at ground level. That doesn’t mean it’s necessarily violent, but it’s about holding onto something or gaining something that another has the same desire for. That seems to be the history of life whether we like it or not. You and I are here because those that carried our genes survived the competition. — Brett

You’re basing your reasoning upon an assumption that life is all about survival. You presume it’s why we carry out our collaborative efforts. I disagree with this, but I think we’ve had this discussion before. My basic argument is that if life is all about survival, then it ultimately fails, and we have not evolved equipped for the task. Reproduction is not about the survival of genes or gene carriers, but about the information they contain with regard to life. You and I are here because the information we have mattered to others as expressed. It’s not about surviving, but about relating the information we have to other information. And the information we have is about so much more than just life. Our genetic code is such a small part of it. The communities and culture we create are an expression of the relational structures between information that matters, regardless of our survival.

Life in totality - as the only one - is about consuming/possessing/absorbing resources, capacity and value. It may seem to be only about being or surviving, but no life exists in isolation. Life in plurality - inclusive of those that fail to survive long enough to reproduce - is about communicating variable access to resources, capacity and value. Life in unity - across all of existence - is about informative temporal interaction, collaboration for efficient and effective distribution of resources, capacity and value.

If you want to attribute survival as the ultimate quality of life, and competition as its process, then that’s your choice. Just keep in mind that it isn’t your only choice, or necessarily your best one, at that.

Right, so the supposed top-down forms are really, fundamentally bottom-up. So we hit the Kantian problem, the supposed top-down forms, the independent, intelligible forms, the noumena, are inaccessible to us, as independent. We assume top-down forms, we assume that they are inaccessible, and this makes these supposed top-down forms fundamentally unknowable. In reality though, this assumption is unsubstantiated and unwarranted because all forms are fundamentally bottom-up, and this is what Plato described as apprehending "the good". When all forms are apprehended as bottom-up, we dissolve the division which makes some forms appear to be fundamentally unintelligible. That any forms could be unintelligible is itself a basic contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

Kant’s aesthetics suggest that the noumena does not consist only of independent, intelligible forms but of qualitative relations that transcend logical construction - accessible to us through the ‘free play’ of our faculties of understanding, imagination and judgement in relation to experience.

In my view, the structure of reality has an aspect duality that renders it both bottom-up apprehensible and top-down accessible - so long as we do not arbitrarily limit this accessibility by dismissing the possible existence (and information) of illogical relations. I agree that all consolidation of forms are fundamentally bottom-up, but I would add that all relations are fundamentally top-down, and that their structure prevails over form, regardless of logic. It will require both to render our existence fully intelligible.

This ideal is fundamentally incoherent. To remove the self-conscious perspective from the self-conscious perspective makes no sense. If we could do such a thing, we would not be left with an "ideal", we would be left with a non-ideal. So anything presented as an absolute, as an ideal, produced from removing the self-conscious perspective, is fundamentally wrong. We can see this in your phrase "...what matters when we remove the assumptions of a self-conscious perspective". Clearly, without that self-conscious perspective, nothing matters, therefore there cannot be an ideal here. — Metaphysician Undercover

And yet, despite all logic, it remains possible to imagine such an ideal. To clarify, I’m not saying that we should remove the self-conscious perspective itself, only the assumptions that centre it. This was Kant’s aim: to dislodge the anthropocentric perspective, in the same way that Copernicus dislodged the geocentric one. Copernicus didn’t remove our perspective, but rather the assumptions that centred it - he imagined a broader perspective in which ours is moveable, variable, one of - and from there determined a more accurate structure of the solar system. The way I see it, Kant’s own efforts were missing the shift in perspective that Darwin’s work provided - he was trying to effect two consecutive ‘Copernican Turns’ in one.

In a reality filled with variable self-conscious perspectives, everything matters and nothing matters. I recognise that this transcends logic, but it is the possibility of relational structure at the level of reality in which self-conscious entities interact. I’m not suggesting that we take leave of our senses and reside there - only that we acknowledge this incoherent contradiction, the irreducible binary, as fundamental to reality. Logic is one possible relational structure, and its appeal is undeniable. But it will never enable us to understand existence fully at a relational level. Despite our best efforts, we continue to act contrary to logic when it suits us to do so. Reality is not a purely logical structure. It must be understood as inclusive of illogical relations, or we will remain ignorant of its possibilities, and continue to be blindsided by suffering.

The problem is that you come up with the opposite conclusion of what is logical. You cannot render the self-conscious mind as non-existent in a thought experiment, and then use that self-conscious mind which is supposed to not be there, to come up with an ideal which represents existence without the self-conscious mind. That is illogical, as contradictory. Therefore it is just fundamentally illogical to propose the removal of the self-conscious perspective, and we must accept the absolute reality of the self-conscious perspective. If we deny the reality of the self-conscious perspective we rob ourselves of the capacity to access reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

Not deny the reality of the self-conscious perspective, but deny its necessity - dislodge its central, immovable position.

Yes it does. That something is illogical is very good reason to reject it from the realm of possibility, as impossible. This is fundamental to epistemology, and the only means for obtaining true certainty, the process of eliminating the impossible. — Metaphysician Undercover

I would have thought my continual reference to existence and understanding, rather than certainty and knowledge, made it clear that my perspective is ontological. You’re referring to logical, not absolute, possibility, here. I understand that what we can know with any true certainty will always be relative to a particular value structure - such as logic. But I also understand that this is not reality. So eliminating the impossible, while it enables us to articulate what we know, deliberately excludes accessible information about reality.

Understanding that if it is illogical, it is therefore impossible, is of the highest priority. This is falsification, it is how we reject falsehood. And, "understanding the system" which has been rejected as false, is what guides us away from falsity in our quest for truth. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, you’re after truth in a logical structure - what you can claim to know with certainty, not what you can understand or relate to. When I talk about ‘understanding the system’, I mean access to information that enables us to improve predictions about future interactions with reality. That includes not just recognising falsehood in order to reject it, but understanding the relational conditions under which such falsehoods arise.

Though it’s my feeling that features of organisms don’t evolve because they served some particular function. That would be intentionality. It’s complete chance that the evolving feature benefits the organism in the future. — Brett

Agreed.

therefore all resources, capacity and value we perceive beyond our own potential for awareness, connection and collaboration, we are motivated to either absorb/possess/consume or ignore/isolate/exclude.
— Possibility

Right, that’s competition in whatever language you want to put it. — Brett

Yes. My point being that competition is only an arbitrary perspective of interaction, not ‘what life is all about’.

Two people enter a discussion: one perceives the exchange as purely competition, the other with the capacity to choose from compete, communicate or collaborate with each interaction. Regardless of the outcome, which of them do you think would suffer more from pain, humiliation and loss over the course of the discussion?

“ Competition is just a matter of quantitative perspective - it’s an arbitrary choice that we continually make ... to compete... “
— Possibility — Brett

So what is compete?[/quote]

It’s a quantitative perception of our existence as ‘the only one’, and therefore all resources, capacity and value we perceive beyond our own potential for awareness, connection and collaboration, we are motivated to either absorb/possess/consume or ignore/isolate/exclude. Experiences of pain, humiliation and loss are indicative of errors in our perception: either in attributing potential, or in our choice of quantitative existence in this interaction.

But if that’s the case, then where did this focus on maximising individual wealth, influence and recognition come from? It’s a reductionist consolidation of natural selection from a limited self-conscious perspective, giving primacy to the individual.
— Possibility

“Evolutionary biologists define exaptations as features of organisms that evolved because they served some function but are later co-opted to serve an additional or different function, which was not originally the target of natural selection. The new function may replace the older function or coexist together with it.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210003/

I think this is interesting in regard to your post about evolution. That an exaptation can serve an additional or different function does not mean it is necessarily beneficial in the long term. — Brett

Personally, I think the claim that features of organisms evolved because they served some particular function attributes more intentionality to natural selection than can be reasonably assumed. ‘Exaptation’ seems to then be a way to explain the change in functionality from its originally attributed ‘intent’. Intentionality is a realisation of purpose - of meaning attributed by a self-conscious observer.

But each of those words “ perceived potential” even on their own sound very insubstantial. Perceived by who and potential of what? I’m guessing it would have to be something inherent in all people and apparent in all cultures. And is a means or an end, is it like permanent revolution? — Brett

Perceived by the observer, and potential of their relation to the observed. Given that it will always be relative in this sense, does it need to be substantial? What kind of substance are you looking for?

Perceived potential is a process: strictly neither means nor end, or perhaps both-and. I think ‘permanent revolution’ is a contradiction - ‘perpetual’ seems more fitting.

If we observe life in its many forms is there anything consistent in them? — Brett

This perpetual revolution of realising potential as perceived in relation to the dissipative state of the organism. That’s not to say the organism necessarily perceives this potential (let alone apperceives it), only that we do as a self-conscious observer.

‘Success’ is a realisation of perceived potential.

Life is not all about competition, although it can seem that way. People see what they want to see.

Human achievement is not an individual effort - everything we do is contingent upon the collaborative efforts of others, from the moment we are born. The more awareness, connection and collaboration, the greater our success.

But if that’s the case, then where did this focus on maximising individual wealth, influence and recognition come from? It’s a reductionist consolidation of natural selection from a limited self-conscious perspective, giving primacy to the individual. It’s an impossible goal, by the way, a house of cards: those who appear to be getting there are actively maintaining a facade in at least one area by exploiting the other two. The rest of us are making daily sacrifices to maintain a tolerable balance in relation to those around us. It all seems so pointless from this perspective: an ongoing experience of individual pain, humiliation and loss, inflicted either on ourselves or on others.

Kant says that we can view existence as one, as one of or as the only one - this alters how we experience pain, humiliation and loss. It also alters how we view wealth (resources), influence (capacity) and recognition (value). Competition is just a matter of quantitative perspective - it’s an arbitrary choice that we continually make and re-make in terms of awareness/ignorance, connection/isolation and collaboration/exclusion: to compete, to communicate, or to collaborate.

I have been reading through this thread, trying to keep up (I keep running out of time and falling behind). Despite the tendency so far to ignore my questions, I’m going to make a couple points here from my perspective, because MU and @apokrisis seem to be arguing from positions that are misunderstanding their relation to each other. I don’t pretend to have a solution, mind you - only opinion. I appreciate that your discussion is informing my own understanding from both perspectives...

As I said above, to say that forms are "emergent" is simply a way of saying that where they come from, how they come into existence, and why they come into existence, is unknown. So let's be clear here, science does not show that forms are emergent. Science leaves these aspects of the understanding of forms as unknown. Then speculators such as yourself will apply some metaphysical principles, and conclude "forms are emergent". But these speculations completely ignore the well respected metaphysics based in the evidence that final cause, intention, creates forms. Therefore the claim that forms are emergent (where they come from, how they come into existence, and why they come into existence, is unknown) is completely unwarranted, because we already know very well, that intention creates forms. — Metaphysician Undercover

Forms can be either emergent (bottom-up) or intentional (top-down). An intentionally-created form is contingent upon a conscious system that perceives the potential form. An emergent form is contingent upon a conditional relation between components, such that the form’s potential is realised. The difference between these two descriptions appears to be the perception of potential. But it isn’t. The difference is the assumption of a self-conscious system that apperceives the form’s potential.

What is consistently overlooked in this discussion of consciousness is an assumption of self-consciousness inherent in top-down explanations. We can only distinguish between conscious and not-conscious, or between potential and actual, from the perspective of a self-conscious system. The properties of consciousness are considered emergent irrespective of a self-conscious system - but this doesn’t necessarily mean that where they come from, how or why they come into existence is unknown. What it means is that this information is understood as relative to the position of the self-conscious system.

Your singularity of "sameness" is just an Ideal which has not been substantiated, or sustained by any physical evidence. I say it's a perfection which is physically impossible, for very good reasons, just like Aristotle's eternal circular motion is physically impossible, and like any sort of perpetual motion is physically impossible, for very good reasons. You assume this Ideal sameness, for "good systems reason", but that's just a pragmatic reason, to facilitate the creation of your model. And since this Ideal has in no way been substantiated by physical evidence, and it actually appears to be most likely physically impossible, your good pragmatic reason turns out to be actually a very bad ontological reason. — Metaphysician Undercover

‘Sameness’ refers to absolute, not physical, possibility. It’s an ideal reference to what matters when we remove the assumptions of a self-conscious perspective. It is from our relation to this possibility/impossibility of ‘sameness’ that any potential for difference can be perceived - a binary relation that renders ‘the self’ either non-existent or as existence itself.

But ontology is not limited to physical possibility. Ignorance, isolation or exclusion of information is neither ‘good systems reason’, nor pragmatic in the long term. That proposing an ideal ‘sameness’ is illogical doesn’t give you cause to exclude the possibility as such, in an absolute sense. Illogical or not, it is a necessary part of understanding the system.

The ability to have an experience. I know this doesn't explain any more than the previous "definition". But that's because this can't be simplified. — khaled

What would you say is the distinction between the ability to have an experience and the ability to experience?

What we want is not a stating of the obvious that we experience dark and light, but the distinction between "experiencing dark and light" and "detecting dark and light". What can we point as a property in our experiences that goes beyond "this is light" or "this is dark". — Kenosha Kid

This is where Chalmers has looked to IIT: a camera detects light and dark, but photo-receptors experience it, in their own way. That is, they are re-structured by the interaction. Experience is a function of consciousness, but not a definition of ‘consciousness’. The extent to which a system distinguishes “this is light” and “this is dark” as distinct experiences without fully embodying them I see as a function of self-consciousness, in which ‘conscious’ can be distinguished from ‘not-conscious’.

But assuming complete knowledge of the componenets the structure is just simplification and adds no predictive powers. So if "consciousness" is a structure it has to arise out of some prooperty or other of its componenets. — khaled

When is there complete knowledge of the components without structure, and what would the predictive powers be in that case? Structure is not a simplification - it’s an understanding of the potentiality in relations between components. It is what enables us to complete our knowledge of the components, particularly when those components are not directly observable.

The way I see it, all the components of consciousness have relational properties, whether we acknowledge them as aspects of consolidated structures such as atoms, molecules, objects and organisms, or not.

Maybe the picture I'm presenting can be clarified by breaking it down into discrete variables (you won't have to analyze these equations to the last detail to get my point). Energy is correlated with mass and motion (E=mc2). Energy has a frequency (E=f) and also a rate of change or velocity in some sense correlated with wavelength (E=v/w). Velocity has mass correlated with wavelength and the velocity of light (v=mc2/w), and mass is conversely correlated with wavelength and velocity (m=vw/c2). Wavelength is correlated with velocity, mass and energy (w=v/E, w=v/mc2). The question then is the way these variables interrelate, what is directly or inversely proportional to what and how, as well as the way units align or integrate. I've got a qualitative impression of how it works, but could be in error as I'm not familiar with all the mathematical nuts and bolts. I'm not sure at this stage if it can be implemented quantitatively. — Enrique

For me to even attempt a critique on what you’ve written here would be a bit like the blind leading the blind, I’m afraid.

In many ways, I can relate to where you’re at - I have a qualitative impression of the relational structure of existence that seems, from my limited perspective, to dissolve many of the ‘hard’ problems: including those surrounding the origin of matter, abiogenesis, quantum gravity, consciousness, etc. But there is no current discourse sufficient to render it fully explainable. I can see you wrestling with how to connect the fifth dimension of quantum physics with the fifth dimension of consciousness in a way that is grounded in some kind of credible discourse. I don’t think we’re alone in this. If only we could collaborate with some brilliant physicist like Feynman, who may be intrigued enough not to completely dismiss our wild imaginings, but rather mould them into workable theories. I recommend reading ‘Quantum Enigma: physics encounters consciousness’, by Bruce Rosenblum and Fred Kuttner, as well as Carlo Rovelli’s ‘The Order of Time’ and ‘Reality Is Not What It Seems’ - mainly because the physicists who wrote them describe the qualitative aspects of what you and I are exploring here, without getting bogged down in equations. Many physicists will ‘leave it to the philosophers’, content that they don’t need to understand the implications for our understanding of reality in order to excel at the calculations. But this connection to a broader relational structure is precisely what I think is missing from quantum mechanics.

I think we have to keep in mind that quantum mechanics explores mathematical relations that are isolated from the observable reality in which we conventionally understand the qualitative aspects of mass, motion, velocity, light and energy. We can’t really refer to acceleration, velocity or speed in this same qualitative way at a quantum level.

This is nothing new. When we observe biology at a cellular level, it doesn’t have the same qualitative aspects (ie. colour, texture, transparency, etc) that we would expect by looking at it with the naked eye. Molecular biology isn’t void of any qualitative aspects - they’re just not usually relevant: either to our shared interpretation of the data or to our shared perspective of reality. In many cases, they’re so distorted by our observation methods that it can be a complicated process to determine what those qualitative aspects would be if seen directly with the human eye - and it hardly seems to matter.

The graph I described in my previous post is an image of relativity in the square of the wave function. Each point in the two dimensional plane has an energy associated with it, correlated with its mass, frequency, wavelength and velocity. Each point in the vertical plane corresponds to the velocity in space of that quantity relative to the energy at its horizontal position. — Enrique

The square of the wave function is a probability density of how one might locate or interact with this energy/mass by aligning a four-dimensional system with the relative spacetime position of an observer/measurement device. Whether you refer to velocity, mass, frequency or wavelength in relation to energy, whether you square it (for ease of calculation) or not, the wave function is a two-dimensional interpretation of one of a conjugate pair of variables. It’s meaningless without a self-conscious system within which it can be interpreted in relation to its conjugate pair - this is what it means to ‘square’ the wave function. This square of the wave function then becomes a prediction of effort and attention in relation to the potential four-dimensional positioning of a system.

Have a read of Lisa Feldman Barrett’s ‘How Emotions Are Made’ for a look at how this four-dimensional positioning of a system relates to our interoceptive network, experience and consciousness. It works on a higher dimensional level, but it’s in much the same way as DNA consists of a pair of three-dimensional molecular structures that require a four-dimensional (living) system within which mRNA code can be interpreted in relation to its structural ‘pair’...