Blame is the "feedback" that ensues from those undesired/unintended consequences, and it does reflect responsibility for those consequences. We assume responsibility in a positive sense for the desired outcomes we produce, as "reward"; blame is the downside of that I think.

What function does blame achieve when it come to result or consequence? — Spirit12

Not exactly sure what you mean by function?

The 'ends' are all the consequences to all people over both the short term and the long term as a result of the action taken. — A Seagull

I think "ends" most properly does refer to "objectives", while "results" might better characterize the net consequences. The goal being that ends and results should be equal. Realistically, there usually are unintended consequences/results.

My perspective:
Most of the issues relating to climate change are in and of themselves undesirable. Excess CO2 emissions are pollution, and pollution should be minimized on general ecological principles. Desertification is significantly caused by industrial farming practices and these are demonstrably also intrinsically bad.

So we can address many of the underlying causes of climate change without having to dispute climate change itself.

Aldous Huxley wrote a book entitled "Ends and Means". Basically, he powerfully makes the point that the means become part of the end, so it is misleading to suggest that it is even possible to attain a good end through evil means. Ends are always constituted of the means whereby they are achieved.

I am with Huxley on this.

Definitely the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, as suggested. I would suggest getting the "Portable World Bible" and reviewing the source texts of the various major eastern religions there. Great book to own. The Bhagavad-gita is excellent. "Tibetan Yoga and Secret Doctrines" I found enjoyable. Also one called "Yoga and Psychotherapy". "Tibetan Book of the Dead".

If by "deserve" we mean "is entitled to" then I submit that no one is entitled to happiness. People are entitled to opportunities to make themselves happy through their actions (right actions I would argue). But happiness cannot be bestowed, only achieved.

Potentially, the internet has the capability to create a whole new set of polymaths, a re-renaissance of the "Renaissance Man" ideal which rapid advances in so many sciences made untenable.

Practically speaking, to me, the question is: Is the internet conducive to rigorous thought? Overwhelmingly, the answer is no. The internet is conducive to reinforcing pre-existing biases. But rooting out and understanding (and thereby mitigating) cognitive biases is a huge part of the philosophical attitude.

So for those who are already disciplined, it makes a formidable tool. Otherwise...

You really need to look at the whole science of Complex Adaptive Systems. It puts the whole concept of teleology in an entirely new light.

Hamlet tells Polonius to be sure and treat the actors well. Polonius says he will treat them as they deserve. To which Hamlet replies:

God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man
after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?
Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less
they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.
Take them in.

Then again, as Clint Eastwood says, "Deservings got nothing to do with it".

Huxley is careful to distinguish between the group and the crowd:
"Groups are capable of being as moral and intelligent as the individuals who form them; a crowd is chaotic, has no purpose of its own, and is capable of anything except intelligent action and realistic thinking. Assembled in a crowd, people lose their powers of reasoning and their capacity for moral choice."

I'm a strong believer in the role of collective consciousness.

If you pick a ball, you will get some result, and one result is as likely as any other. On the other hand, if you picked 3 in a row and got 22, 23, 24, that might be considered improbable.

Russell says that, if a theory predicts something very improbable, and the improbable thing is found to be true, the theory is proportionately validated. So if life is improbable, then it validates some equally improbable theory of life.....

Edit: if you look at experiments in creating artificial cells you can see that extremely improbable events occur; but these events fall within the explanatory reach of non-linear equations. Maybe improbability just represents....limited knowledge?

There is also interesting legal precedent around gaining ownership of someone else's property by virtue of making improvements to it.

So I would say that intuition is a function of innate capacity and knowledge. Some people are just born intuitive in certain domains. I liken this to being born with especially keen eyesight. Now, some things (in quantum mechanics) are "counter-intuitive." But this is more of a generalization. I see no reason why an intuitive person couldn't intuit such states of affairs. Quantum physicists must do.

More important, I think is the sense of intuition where one immerses oneself in a subject, and eventually pieces start falling into place. This is essentially the mystery of scientific discovery - where did the hypothesis come from? One must have at least an inkling of where one is going, a question to be answered.

:up:

For me the critical factor was social awareness. I do believe that fundamentally, both in terms of our humanity and our consciousness, we are part of a larger collective entity. As soon as I began to understand, then appreciate not only personal but social obligations, that's when I feel I really began to grow. And it was difficult, still is. But at least now I feel like I am part of the way up the hill, versus starting from the very bottom!

Yes, but you have to believe that can't be easy. I suspect some people are just morally more evolved than others.
Edit: you can practice morality, then it seems to get easier, as with anything.

I think as soon as you ask yourself the moral question "what should I do" you have challenged yourself. I'd suggest that, most of the time, morality involves putting someone else's needs ahead of your wants. Or fulfilling an obligation even though it may not be convenient. Things we "ought" to do.

This is one of the most important points to raise in metaethics and ethics; Its called the Demandingness problem. It's a key question to ask of any moral philosophy, claim, prescription or argument "Is this possible? How demanding is carrying out the objective or goal here?". — Mark Dennis

Ok. But should demandingness be a positive or a negative criterion? Aristotle says "he who can learn things that are difficult, and not easy for man to know, is wise." I tend to view morality in a similar light. If morality was easy, everyone would already be moral.

I want the story of how non-conscious stuff interacting can end up with conscious stuff. — bert1

I just read von Bertalanffy's book on Systems Theory. Near the beginning he talks about how metaphysical theories are validated by their "elegance".

Any attempt to conflate systems of different hierarchical levels inevitably results in category confusion. Mental concepts are valid within mental realms. Experiments in sociology (which is pure human behaviour) validate the use of NDS analysis. If you are looking for the touchpoint of mind and matter well, I don't think that's out of the question. What it concerns, though, is the relationship of nested hierarchical systems. And, specifically, the appearance of "trigger" subsystems whose function is to focus interaction from a subsystem to its parent. Kind of like the study of encephalization, the development of the central nervous system and brain.

Can a person, for example, doubt the reliability of their own minds? — Wheatley

Personally, I constantly remind myself of the vast scope of "cognitive biases", mental prejudices to misinterpret data in specific ways, and make an extra effort towards self-awareness and objectivity. The deck is definitely stacked against unbiased thought.

(We really need a word for a proponent of scientism, because "scientist" obviously isn't it). — Pfhorrest

"Scientologist"? No, that's not quite right....

In it's most basic form, can one postulate that Anything that reacts to outward influence may be considered 'conscious' (of that influence)? Following that logic couldn't one consider all matter to be 'conscious'. — ovdtogt

Yes, this is one specific interpretation of some of the results of systems theory. Although the meaning of consciousness between contexts may not map directly. Moving from one level of system to another instances become like 'metaphors'.

The consciousness for me that seeks the optimal outcome, balance, the sense of well-being that comes from having helped another, perhaps that consciousness is just a whining conscience that keeps someone else from sleeping after a day of self-centered behaviours....I might not want to know more about that kind of consciousness either, if that were me.

Maybe not everyone is conscious in the same way. This would explain why some people so steadfastly refuse to abide by others' attempts to encapsulate the meaning of consciousness.

Actually it's not. I am not assuming that minds and consciousness are different things. I am simply pointing out that epistemologically we can track minds and what they do, but we cannot track consciousness. — Coben

As far as I can tell, your assertions about consciousness relegate it permanently to the status of a nescio quid. You affirm that there is a consciousness but aver that it cannot be measured or known in any way. I don't know what this mystery thing is, but the consciousness that is under investigation, which does include any and all qualia typically associated with conscious experience, is what I myself am speaking of when I use the term consciousness.

t seems to me you are writing about minds, not consciousness. Yes, we can look at what minds do, especially if they can talk and write. — Coben

There wouldn't be a distinction between minds and consciousness. That is just continuing to use the false-dichotomy from the material-mind paradigm. The systems paradigm doesn't reduce to either, but allows for each simultaneously to be true. Everything that emerges establishes functional systems at its own level. Consciousness qua consciousness is perfectly explicable and can be studied to the extent that its activities exhibit systematicity. Which the activities of consciousness certainly do.

If you do choose to arbitrarily sever some of those activities at a lower level (say brainstem) and say that those are "physical" that's fine too. I just finished "Chaos and Complexity in Psychology" and there is one essay on experiments studying the patterns of neural firings during specific types of thought. And indeed, there are patterns that model in non-linear terms. In fact, there are people designing neural nets now that don't solve a problem directly (the problem is coded at the level of the hidden neurons) but solve it by having the neurons link in a way that mimics neurons in the brain. So the physically-faithful neural net can solve the same problems as the concept-driven neural net, but the physical model is much larger and less efficient.

To be honest I used to be a stoic. And I can say it isn't even therapeutic from my personal experience. All it does is conceals emotions you're feeling without having an outlet to it. And just like a bubble, your emotions will burst. I truly think if something bothers you, address it head on. Life's too short to dodge negative things around you. Either embrace it or fight it. — Reverie

Exactly. Stoicism is not supposed to be an ongoing battle, but an acquiescence. You don't fight with your own expectations, you examine them and learn to let go the ones that aren't realistic, while making efforts at self-improvement. If that is a chore to you, then of course it isn't going to be pleasant, and it isn't going to work. As you have said, embrace it or fight it. :)

I think you are using "system" in a non-technical, everday usage kind of way, and it sounds like you are focussing mostly on the properties of a system in classical physics.

In general systems theory, "forces" translates to relationships defined or at least represented by non-linear equations. "Properties" are combinations of variables related to one and other through salience.

No, again, the whole point is that the concept of a "system" is the most generic and fundamental. Properties are features and functions of systems.....It's a new vocabulary.

"Chaos and Complexity in Psychology" - finishing today
"Essay on Philosophical Method" - R.G. Collingwood, underway
"Analysis of Sensations and Relation of the Physical to the Psychical" - Ernst Mach - starting tomorrow

Wanted to start Popper's 3 volume "Postscript to the Logic of Scientific Discovery" but volume 1 is hung up from a tardy Amazon vendor. :(

So, all I can really say is that minimally understanding the theory is the explanation, per the synopsis I offered.

Hmmm. It is really about recasting the questions in a way that fits the best explanatory paradigm, essentially a paradigm shift. It's not that consciousness no longer requires explanation, however its essential reality is on par with everything else empirical, no longer a mystery. Likewise the mechanism of its operations. Social theories explaining social effects are adequate, especially when the effects are cast in a systems view. Consciousness is no less tangible than atoms. Yet it is also just as mysterious as the underlying laws governing universal forces. You just press forward using the systems paradigm, which will allow us to expand our body of knowledge. Just as the "new" Copernican paradigm did. And the new relativistic paradigm. Etc.

Edit: if you think about it in terms of coherence vs. correspondence theories of truth. Reductionism essentially relies upon some form of tangibility-correspondence. However quantum physics decisively eliminates this. What you are left with is a mass of equations, theories, which "hang together" without contradiction and form the basis for the 'best approximate world view'. Systems philosophy likewise emerges as the most comprehensive and coherent framework.

Wow. Very thorough, reasoned and clearly took a lot of effort. Merits sticky status. :ok:

The top level system is whichever system contains the entity being evaluated from an internal/operational perspective. Every entity is simultaneously itself a complex system, having an internal systemic nature, and a functioning element of a complex 'container' system.

Importantly, complex systems are not 'created' in the sense of A makes B. Complex Adaptive systems are that precisely because they arise spontaneously through the ongoing interaction of an initial set of elements.

It is all quite fascinating, and the role of chaotic/fractal mathematics (attractors) and non-linear equations is central to getting the big picture. Basically, these self-organizing emergent systems exhibit causal regularities which are not of a linear (B follows A) nature but are real and measurable nonetheless using complex (non-linear) modelling. Essentially it is like a self-caused a-causally connected mechanism. And a lot of traditionally stubborn problems in virtually every field you'd care to look at it turns out can be successfully modelled following this paradigm.

To that end, you would still be left with the metaphysical mystery of causation (or Will), right? — 3017amen

No. Simply another emergent phenomenon within a nested-hierarchical system of complex-adaptive systems (CAS). Explicable with respect to the properties of top-level system.

Thanks. The cardinal virtues don't really address good in a moral sense do they? They seem more behavior-oriented. Someone who is wise, courageous, just and lives a life of moderation is observably "good". The theoretical basis of these behaviors are being sidestepped. — TheMadFool

I would suggest that actual goodness is superior to theoretical goodness, in the sense that the purpose of goodness is exactly to be realized or enacted. So a practical ethic that realizes some good is superior to the practice of theoretical ethics. Exactly in this sense that Stoicism, yes it has many dimensions, but always the bottom line is that it guides personal development in a practical sense.

From your description in that other thread, that is exactly the same thing that I am talking about under the more traditional name of panpsychism. It says nothing at all about the "emergence" of things with "cognitive descriptions [...] appropriate for the internal/introspective perspective" (phenomenal consciousness) from things without one, which is the meaning of "emergence" used in philosophy of mind, in the sense that distinguishes it from panpsychism. — Pfhorrest

It is exactly about how in every sense the states you are describing are real and emergent, but, okay. Read the original if you want to be sure.

Consider molecules. Molecules exist...now. But in the early universe, not so much. So while the universe was a mish-mash of fundamental forces, did molecules exist? No, molecules "emerged" when the requisite set of systemic properties settled into a stable form. Likewise for...well pretty much everything really. Consciousness is no different. Systems philosophy is pretty slick.

It's in the Introduction to Systems Philosophy. That was the only one of the systems books I didn't buy - it was over $200! When I first read it I was amazed at how neatly it resolves the issue. Once you understand how emergence works, and that it is a ubiquitous feature of reality and quantifiable, the whole mind-body issue just doesn't seem like a real problem anymore. Which is I think the hallmark of a paradigm shift...