I think you are missing information from your fundamentals. Information gives energy and matter form. Once something has form, it becomes integrated information :nerd: so consciousness. Human consciousness, in the moment, is a very complicated instance of integrated information. It has enormous complexity, but it is still an instance of integrated information, enabled by energy, and embedded in matter. — Pop

:up:

Popper gave me my most profound redirection in thirty years. I was a staunch existentialist, then an idealist (are these really different?) then a pragmatist. Popper just showed me everything through a new lens.

But the problem is that they are catastrophically unstable. They fail to sustain residue of their original form in the long run — simeonz

I don't see that this is necessarily so. Pragmatics can be more or less self-aware, like anything. On the other hand, instability is not necessarily a bad thing. Systems frequently evolve because of inherent instabilities, or meta-stabilities.

The truth becomes value-based and not rooted in empirical reality and any mechanical explanations are consequently disrupted. — simeonz

Exactly. And that...is...life. Not the portion we intellectually amputate, the whole thing. It's why social scientists like to use the term "irrational" when what they are really talking about is "supra-rational" in my opinion. Everything that isn't reducible to causal descriptions, art, ethics, teleology.

Physics is actually a prime example of the intention dependence of the cause and effect relationship. As you said, holistically speaking, the task to define laws that determine whether an event is admissible presently in our universe with respect to the complete knowledge of its full historical state isn't ill posed, at least probabilistically. But we can never infer such colossal cause dependence, operate with it, and we would never find occasion to reproduce it. But given only the precursor events that have been witnessed locally in the recent past, various laws define constraints on the possible near future outcome. — simeonz

Yes, Popper's refutation of the possibility of a "causally complete" omniscience (Laplace's demon) is based on such laws and the "event-horizon" of the light-cone you mentioned earlier.

So that leads me to wonder whether life can be viewed as an experiment. Do you think this is a fair approach to life? — Jack Cummins

I think life is exactly of the nature of an experiment in the way that conscious volition formulates choices that result in real consequences. I call it Experimental Consciousness. I think it perfectly augments Popper's brand of Scientific Realism.

What I meant was that there are definitely two distinct questions, when it comes to the causes of an event. One is about the ordinary causes and another about the particular causes. I tried to define probabilistically what a particular cause would look like. — simeonz

Yes, I followed that. My contention is that there is always a why somewhere. And that the notion of a purely objective how is always an abstraction from the holistic natural context.

I can't say that I know that much about animal communities because I don't come into much contact with animals but the aspect of communication which is beyond language is non verbal communication.

In daily interaction, this is central. Of course, we don't use it when we write but in actual conversation it can say so much. The smile, the frown and even the pauses can say more than words in many ways. Even on the telephone, we can hear emotions, such as the raised voice of anger or laughter with humour. So, I would say that understanding languages is about being able to go beyond words into the realm of the non verbal. — Jack Cummins

I would go even further, and suggest that, in intellectualizing communication, we have actually introduced barriers to communication, wherein our sometimes faulty logic can lead us astray, sometimes we can end up in bad faith with ourselves. I think, at least within a species, animals cannot lie.

I would imagine that consciousness does exist before birth and that is not just a state of nothing, but just of a different nature to the one we are familiar with. — Jack Cummins

:up: :up:

One of the most remarkable traits of consciousness is that it actively self-perpetuates, creating artefacts housing information, which information transcends the limits of its medium of storage and transmission. Even at a purely mechanical level DNA does this. If this transcendence of physical media is manifest to us after a few paltry million years of evolution, who is to say what are the limits of the evolution of consciousness in the context of billions of years? Perhaps billions of iterations of universe-lifetimes?

Philosophers have too long concerned themselves with their own thinking. When they wrote of thought, they had in mind primarily their own history, the history of philosophy, or quite
special fields of knowledge such as mathematics or physics. This type of thinking is applicable only under quite special circumstances, and what can be learned by analysing it is not directly transferable to other spheres of life. Even when it is applicable, it refers only to a specific dimension of existence
which does not suffice for living human beings who are seeking to comprehend and to mould their world.

Mannheim, Ideology and Utopia, Ch1, part 1

I think that the purpose of science is realized with the 'top-level' context which is the natural purpose of existence. As such, 'scientific objectivity' (including causal explanation) is subordinate to its integration into purposive human existence.

This excerpt from the Preface to Mannheim's Ideology and Utopia sums up it perfectly:

the object emerges for the subject when,
in the course of experience, the interest of the subject is focused
upon that particular aspect of the world. Objeciivity thus
appears in a two-fold aspect: one^ in which object and subject
are discrete and separate entities, the other in which the interplay
between them is emphasized. Whereas objectivity in the
first sense refers to the reliability of our data and the validity
of our conclusions, objectivity in the second sense is concerned
with relevance to our interests. In the realm of the social,
particularly, truth is not merely a matter of a simple correspondence
between thought and existence, but is tinged with
the investigator's interest in his subject matter, his standpoint,
his evaluations, in short the definition of his object of attention.

Meaningful information theoretic way of describing causes exists, I suspect. — simeonz

I'd agree with this.

PS__What was the source of your Spencer's quote above? — Gnomon

It's the concluding paragraph of the second edition of his book First Principles.

It's good to attempt an overarching theory - that's Spencer's position too.

Ideology and Utopia by Karl Mannheim

Yes, Spencer definitely anticipated and, in some cases, confused some modern scientific concepts. His assessment of the significance of various manifestations of "spiral structures" in nature is eerily prescient of fractals and chaos theory. His goal was to outline a comprehensive philosophical knowledge. His conclusion:

Manifestly, the establishment of correlation and equivalence between the forces of the
outer and the inner worlds, may be used to assimilate either to the other; according as
we set out with one or other term. But he who rightly interprets the doctrine contained
in this work, will see that neither of these terms can be taken as ultimate. He will see
that though the relation of subject and object renders necessary to us these antithetical
conceptions of Spirit and Matter; the one is no less than the other to be regarded as
but a sign of the Unknown Reality which underlies both.

I like the energy in the Lounge.

Yeah, not that part. ;) Let's not forget the state of medical science, science in general, at that time.

But utilizing radical metaphysical doubt to eliminate everything that is not cogito. I just read some Max Scheler and he also had a kind of eliminative project, very much like Husserl's phenomenological reduction but of a more transcendental bent.

Yes, except that it isn't really "missing," is it? It's right here. That's why I stand by many of Descartes' fundamental insights.

Hmmm. I'm thinking it is evident from the general principles I outlined. I mean, it's either matter, or energy, or...something else. It's that "something else" that has been causing grief for centuries now. I'm not sure why it should. As complex systems evolve, the nature of the energy that they manifest changes, but, fundamentally, it is still energy. I don't see any reason in principle to doubt that, whatever may be the actual nature of psycho-social mechanisms, whatever dynamisms they involve must ultimately be energy of some kind.

You mean "over-mind" isn't accepted clinical usage?

In any case, I wanted to ask people here what they thought of such a general question. What is the value of a human life for you? — Manuel

I believe that consciousness itself is subject to a special type of reciprocity relationship, such that its own nature is ultimately determined by the nature of the rights it ascribes to others. So for me, it is only by ascribing an ultimate value to the sacrosanct quality of the life of the other that I realize the value of my own life. i.e. view others as ends in themselves, never as means.

Nice! I'm very much interested in reintegrating empiricism into a more holistic perspective. Spencer's First Principles, as dated as it is, still presents a remarkably cohesive integration of evolution as a universal process across all theoretical domains, from physical to organic to social.

Nicholas Nickleby by Charles Dickens

If religious faith is reasonable, then how can it be "potentially a vice" unless it is potentially unreasonable? A little observation serves to show us that religious faith is indeed potentially unreasonable; it is unreasonable when it turns into fundamentalism, that is when it takes itself to be knowledge. — Janus

Is scientific belief when it promotes itself to the status of scientism subject to the same criticism?

Conflating these interrogatives does – has always done – much mischief in/with philosophy (e.g. theology, idealism, antirealism, psychologism, etc). — 180 Proof

Mischief keeps philosophy interesting.

Yes, I'm definitely exploring the theory-ladeness of the observational viewpoint, and suggesting this contains an embedded teleology. Kind of a 'natural experimentalism' perspective.

I don't think it's circular. The cultural "milieux" precedes and is not dependent on the minds which it subsequently affects.....

Right, so we can't really differentiate between our personal use of concepts and the cultural-collective heritage within which those concepts evolved and were transmitted.

But isn't that a puzzle about reading, rather than thinking? — Banno

Is thinking mental reading, or is reading verbalized thinking?

I have long known that if I read aloud, or at least mouth the words, I comprehend almost effortlessly, and far faster and better than if I have to read and re-read a paragraph mentally.

Interestingly, I was on Unemployment insurance in 1990, just after I graduated from university, and they paid for me to take a test to enter a Systems Analysis program, which was a pretty new field at the time. It was a three-hour test that I finished after an hour. Early the next day, Saturday, they called me, and told me I had gotten the second highest score in verbal reasoning they had ever seen.

Spoken words definitely possess a magic all their own.

The reason why 'other' is sometimes used on forms is to give room to anyone, who, for whatever reason, does not feel that they fit into a binary distinction of the two gender categories. — Jack Cummins

I'm actually right now updating our provincial AEFI (Adverse Event Following Immunization) form for special tracking of Covid - it now includes a gender category: Unknown.

Yes, I agree that equal opportunities are important for enabling equality. Unfortunately, I have seen situations where people pay lip service to this while the whole spirit of it is ignored. For example, if people try to make the statistics show that gay or disabled people are being employed in certain professions and the reality is that those people go on to get bullied so much that they leave the job.It is not good if the translation of policy into practice becomes one of empty rhetoric and, unfortunately, from what I have seen, this can be what happens in some organisations. — Jack Cummins

Yes, unfortunately operating in bad-faith has become almost a sub-culture in our society.

What the statistics show is not a "demonstration of lack of representativeness" of both sexes, but rather, that both sexes prefer, when given freedom of choice, completely different academic sides. — Gus Lamarch

Just out of curiosity, how exactly do you know for certain whether a given statistical trend is representative of an individual choice or a cultural influence?

Equal rights mean nothing without equal opportunities to exercise them.

I guess you could view Kant's antinomies as evidence of the paradoxical nature of the relationship between the subjective and the objective....

Ironically, the chapter I read this morning, immediately after posting here, was called "Ultimate Religious Ideas" in Spencer's book First Principles.... :lol:

Devil's advocate, maybe it's not as important whether there are bad posts as whether there are any good ones? Digital real estate is cheap, and it provides a place for people to work things out. I never stick my face in there, but I'm someone who firmly believes that religion has historically played an important socio-cultural role in collective normative validation and legitimation. And that its complete expulsion from modern life is more of a harm than a good. If it is making some people happy why take it away?

And I reserve the privilege of meddling in any conversation here — Banno

:lol:

The point is that no historical period was ever embraced in its totality by anyone, contemporaries included. — Olivier5

I think that living in a world constitutes "embracing it in its totality," to the extent that is possible. Whether there are a multiplicity of partially overlapping Weltanschauung or if there is some definitive Weltanschauung is another question. Perhaps some people do happen to embody the Zeitgeist of a particular time by being the right person in the right place though?

We can't read texts with 1st, 2nd, or 3rd century eyes. I know ancient texts mean much to many people in various spiritual traditions. I'm saying though that it seems reasonable to say that the living only truly know their own time — Gregory

To a certain extent this is obviously true. As Ernst Cassirer describes it

In a certain sense the historian is much more of a linguist than a scientist....he tries to penetrate into the sense of all the various symbolic idioms. He finds his texts not merely in books, in annals or memoirs. He has to read hieroglyphs or cuneiform inscriptions, look at colors on a canvas, at statues in marble or bronze, at cathedrals or temples, at coins or gems, But he does not consider all these things simply with the mind of an antiquary who wishes to collect and preserve the treasures of olden times. What the historian is in search of is rather the materialization of the spirit of a former age.
(Essay on Man, Ch 10, History)

And yet this decay of meaning into history takes place by degrees. The "living cultural history" (what Cassirer calls the "materialization of the spirit of a former age") of the 1960's is much more accessible right now than it will be one hundred years from now.

Perhaps part of what culture is is creating a blueprint for its own future interpretation?

I am not a good business person because I give away my service. I love to be needed but don't love taking money for what I do. — Athena

Story of my life.