You are making a category mistake. You state that change is a property. but then you make change the thing, the actor. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes. Because energy is (actor) and does (property). The two are united as a singular entity. It "is doing-ness".

So it is the actor and the acted upon. What else can energy act on other than itself? Could you give an example?

Matter is also energy. It is energy that has been acted upon (converted into the material) by energy (itself). It's just more stable, existing at a slower rate, bonded, pent up - ie changing at a slower pace (object permanence) relative to the fastest pace (speed of light) E=mc^2.

And this matter can be converted back to its non pent up energy form again (nuclear physics).

There is no categorical mistake. The 2 categories are synonymous with one another. We split them apart for convenience, to isolate /investigate specificities and individual characteristics unique to every form energy can take/ every state it can occupy. In other words, we define.

Question: would such a progression of linear time to a conscious being allow them to understand its infinite nature though not being able experience infinity itself due to their limited timespan or would the experience of time standing still as it were during it’s progression constitute an understanding of infinity anyway of the infinite nature of time ? — invicta

The only way someone could experience and thus appreciate the "infinity" of time is to have infinite memory/recall and perfect prediction of future events. To have infinite memory one must have infinite matter to code it into, infinite space to store that coded info, exist in infinite places at infinite times to observe and collect the data for storage. Not even the universe has infinite matter nor energy as these are finite (cannot be created nor destroyed) but they can change. And change they do. It can condense it's processing. Improve efficiency (put more memorising ability in a smaller entity) by natural selection of phenomena. Trial and error.

If all matter can store the secrets of time and what happened to it with the passage of time (which I believe it does - rings of trees, geology, plate tectonics, the rotation of galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, then the only thing with just enough memory to store the whole universe, is the whole universe.

But I'll level with you on a more pragmatic and achievable alternative to infinite memory, or existing forever to witness and memorise all of time.

Condensation. Intelligence. Cramming as much density of information, knowledge, memory and awareness into the smallest package possible (a brain perhaps).

You don't need all the minute details and permutations at every moment/instant, they are implicit in your existence already. You don't need to have been there to "witness" in the minds eye these things that have come to pass.
You merely need the formula. A refined logical paradigm of relationships, dynamics, rules, laws and constants that reveal an accurate prediction of both the past and future as it was and will be. Something to connect the self to the past and future. This is what brains are specialised at doing.

After all, the present is the only time one can exist as a material object in this exact momentary state of arrangement. The past no longer exists for ones body, though it remembers when it did. The future also doesn't exist for ones body, although it can anticipate certain parts of it with varying degree of accuracy (climate change for example).

The arrangement of one's matter, the quality of its structure, in essence, it's efficiency in establishing correct relationship to the rest of the world, is it's awareness of the world/reality, of time. The big picture.

I don't think a God cares who dies if whoever dies merely is reborn as something else.
Matter and energy don't just disappear into nothingness. They get recycled.

Identity (memory and unique relationship to everything else) is lost. That is not to say that the capacity to become another living being (matter and energy) is lost.

guns kill. No guns doesn't kill. End of discussion.

There is one monism: "the truth". It remains the same regardless of what we make of it. As its the truth - it doesn't change. Science is not equal to the truth as ethics, spirituality, consciousness, art, religion and philosophy also exist and aren't explicable by scientific method (one tool out of many).

However they all have overlap, and the overlap portends to the truth.

a truly autonomous AI creates it's it's own prompts spontaneously and then reasons them in a self enclosed cycle while absorbing additional external stimuli.

consciousness for me is fundamental. As in a non conscious universe, spacetime is not a factor. Because consciousness experiences location and Time from the pov of matter. (stored/pent up energy).

Actually, there is one substance in the world with the consistent property of causing change. That universal Substance (Aristotle's essence)*1 functions like an enzyme in the world : it causes Change, but does not itself change. That substance is what we call "Energy". It is invisible & intangible & immaterial, but it's what makes the world go 'round. — Gnomon

Agreed.

Which is why physicists refer to the opposite of negative Entropy as positive Negentropy. — Gnomon

Bit confused here. Negative entropy is what life does. From What I understand Positive negentropy is "moreness" of negentropy. Negative negentropy (double negative) is entropy (disorder).

So for me your "what physicists refer to the opposite of negative entropy as positive negentropy" are one and the same.

So, if you can accept that shape-shifting Information is also the essence of Consciousness, then the so-called "Hard Problem" becomes simpler. You do the math. :smile: — Gnomon

Information shape shifts in the general universe. Energy transforms from one form to another at a very basic level. So if this is consciousness it is at its lowest state of awareness in the general universe. I believe complexity leads to greater awareness. As complexity is an acknowledgement of more control, and control requires awareness/imbedded knowledge.

All in all I like your "enformy" description. I actually think we are singing from similar hymn books. We are merely describing the same thing from different backgrounds/povs.

But bravo. I like your consolidation of information, entropy and energy.

However I'm inclined to believe that space and time are perceptions of the matter-energy dynamic. Perceptions meaning that the conversion of energy to matter (e=mc2) is consciousness. That consciousness is born from relativity.

As two objects cannot be relative to one another without an observer. Space and time is a product of physical memory.

Why aren't we talking about the behavior of neurotransmitters and dopamine? Why is hippocampus not mentioned here? I'm at a loss for how to argue about this because we have gone so far away from the true source. We criticize and shun neuroscience, yet we're willing to turn to physics to make our point. Did we sign an exclusive contract with physics? Or do we think that we're taken more seriously if we use physics instead of neuroscience? — L'éléphant

The true source being the human brain according to you? A rather large assumption to make I believe.

There is a lot at play here. Physics, chemistry, biochemistry, neurochemistry, the human brain. The system is built from the ground up.

Consciousness deriving from physics does not preclude or deny the applicability of neuroscience as being built upon it.

What I was saying is that consciousness may not be human centric. Ie that the human brain is very good at exemplifying and refining consciousness through evolution, but that consciousness itself derives from fundamental principle's that go further back than the human brain and is more inclusive of other lifeforms that also exhibit aspects of consciousness on varying levels.

Taking abiogenesis as an example, who's to say consciousness is not operating on all levels of self organisation (negentropy)?

The transition from non living chemical cycles and systems to "living ones" is likely a steady, graduating, linear progressive development and nothing sudden/abrupt.

Which propones that agency, self, and consciousness is more like a wave than something discrete and particular. That sentience is something that slowly emerges and advances than something that "suddenly switches on" and even less likely something that only human brains do. Primates are very similar to us (99%). To say that consciousness is conferred by that 1% difference doesn't seem cohesive.

I believe apes have emotion and experience like fear, anger, joy, sadness, curiosity and playfulness etc. Like many other animals. Plants are probably conscious in their own way, communicating with one another, experiencing acute stress, sending warning signals to other plants. Just because we don't understand it well doesn't mean it's an impossibility.

My suggestion (trying not to sound condescending or. dismissive here) is to really open your mind up to at least contemplating (for funzies) how consciousness could be more basic (time and space perception from matter experiencing energetic impulses/catalytic processes).

But for the sake of argument, suppose "change" is a property which is stable and constant, then we would have to say that the changing thing is unchanging — Metaphysician Undercover

Not true from my personal perspective/rationalisation. The changing thing is changing. The constant it abides by in doing so - change - is permanent in its phenomenonology.

In this case your statement would be a conflation of the actor (change) with the acted upon (the changed) - they are a dichotomy. "Everything" material/physical - ie that with matter and mass is not as potent/doesn't carry the same potential as pure potential (energy travelling at the speed of light).

The changer (energy) can convert into the changed (matter), yes, I agree, but in doing so it loses "potential" (capacity to exert change, by forming byproducts in the process - space and time - this being entropy - the deceleration or loss of power/potency that comes with energy becoming matter) according to E=mc2.

This is where the confusion lies. Potential is the sum of all things. But not all things have ultimate potential (as products/the subset of it).

In other words, the substrate is a product of a previous substrate, the product is a substrate for ongoing products.
The whole process is change - the law that governs transformation.

Imagine "change" as a central constant point/axis around which all things are changed by it/respective to it. Like how the circumference of a circle is "constantly changing" velocity/direction whilst the center of the circle is static (unchanging) - the constant being the relationship - Pi between something unchanging (the center) and something ever-changing (the circumferences velocity).

Pi is defined (numerically) and undefined (irrational and infinite) simultaneously. Like the energy (change) - mass (changed) -spacetime (relationship) dynamic.

I hope i am articulating the concept well. Forgive me if it isn't unclear I'm happy to further elaborate if need be. It's a tricky subject one I've been thinking about for years now

BTW, "interdisciplinarity" gets ~6.5 million results in Google. And "interdisciplinary" ... ~405 million! — Alkis Piskas

Haha! I would expect as much :)

So, you must have a different idea of "change" than I. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do. For me change is a property of potential. Potential wouldn't be potential without a capacity to change into lesser potent products following the gradient if entropy.

It's a little hazardous to form an analogy outside physics with a concept or result in physics — jgill

It's a little hazardous to assume that an interdisciplinary approach is not one that often leads to novel insights. If we had a world where every discipline was strictly confined and not permitted to borrow from others, we would still be in the dark ages.

If I use a physics analogy outside of physics it may describe another phenomenon/ have explanatory power despite substituting of the individual physical elements with ones outside of physics.

Can we not use natural selection for example (from biology) in sociology, neuroscience, AI language models, social media algorithms etc and still get the same effects of "fitness" and "spread" that we see in biological evolution.

I think the single most useless thing one can do is to convince themselves they're not allowed to reformulate or change how they use concepts from "other disciplines" which refer to the "same subject of study" - reality jist for the sake of someone saying "but thats physics you can't do that!".

Can you use relativity and QM to describe Metabolism or Mitosis — Nickolasgaspar

Yes. But it would likely be taken as an analogy by most people rather than something literal.

Quantum biology is an emerging field of study if you care to Google.

You do understand that Conscious States are a biological phenomenon? — Nickolasgaspar

According to what? It's an assumption. And yet we have a hard problem of consciousness that we haven't yet reconciled using biology alone.

So, I understand that conscious states "might" be a biological phenomenon. But I'm inclined to believe consciousness is not restricted only to biological things.

"Change" is incompatible with "stable property" — Metaphysician Undercover

If change was not a stable or constant property then change would stop.

Change changes everything else but it's own ability/property to cause change. The quality is preserved, the subject upon which the quality is exerted, is not.

So treating substance as if it could loose it's stability is to take the substance out of substance — Metaphysician Undercover

There only has to be one substance with the "stable property" of "change". That is to say it consistently, or constantly transforms.

Perhaps instead of substance a better word would be phemenona or something but honestly that whatever word we use to refer to it I mean an "existant" - whether it's a field, or a thing, or a stuff or a substance. It's property is that it "always" changes.

Your "will" is not a thing either; you are free to pick your words if you like, you are then fated to them (the implications of having said them). — Antony Nickles

If my will is not a thing then how could I be free to pick my words? Again contradiction.

Sure, you're correct, the judgement/interpretation of the words I say are up to other people, that's outside my control. That is the fate aspect you speak of.

There is interplay between free-will, fate and the degree of control (conscious awareness between 2 individuals). What of it?

consciousness is a thing in order to make our part in the world more under our control than it is, more certain. It — Antony Nickles

That is part of its role yes. Being aware of (having knowledge) or being aware how to (having a skill) certainly means you have the option for more control over the environment around you. However being able to take control and actually taking control are two separate things.

This is a choice within consciousness.
For example I could take control of tidying my room or I can go "oh well" and leave it to gain entropy. I have the awareness and thus capability to do so. But I don't have to.

That's free will

People also have the choice to use their awareness to delude, misguide, uneducate others and then manipulate them, to gain power while disempowering others. They obviously shouldn't. It's immoral to reduce the autonomy of another human being. But unfortunately it happens.

Hence the importance of philosophy, contemplation or meditation. All time to reflect and sharpen the senses/awareness (ones power/ability) and re-establish or ensure good will/good intentions towards others (rectify mistakes/ take responsibility etc).

. In which case, how I am supposed to interpret a speaker as referring to my experiences? — sime

You can't. Language may be shared but meaning is not. Each word has different and nuanced meaning and associations depending on who you ask.

So the same sentence is conceptualised/interpreted differently to different people. That is subjectivity.

Therefore any communication between minds is an approximation. Perfect communication (Thought, articulation, receipt and interpretation) could only ever occur between 2 identical minds following the same perfect logic/coding. And even then the distance (external environment) between the speaker and the listener may interfere with the information.

I'm not talking about you being sure that you exist (though being self-aware is a pretty low bar to say you're not a sheep, or a puppet, or a dupe, or a "ghost of your former self". You "exist"?; if you are here but it wouldn't matter if it were someone else just as much as you, do "you" really exist? — Antony Nickles

You just contradicted yourself from start to finish. Not talking about being sure I exist and ending with do you really exist.

The difficulty is discerning "self identity" or "human consciousness", "goat consciousness" "dog consciousness etc" from fundamental consciousness (the "I am" sensation). Don't conflate the 2.

. In an attempt to impose certainty on our knowledge of ourselves and others--to try to have control over who we think we are and what we say—philosophy created the idea of "consciousness" (along with subjectivity, internal intention—“my” meaning, qualia, etc.) — Antony Nickles

Certainty of the knowledge of ourselves doesn't have to be imposed. On the contrary, it's readily available and knowable. Uncertainty is the imposition. Allow me to elaborate:

"I am."

This is a knowable statement, a certainty, something true.
And it's certain because it's the most circular one can get with logic - "self fulfilling" - literally "self defining/satisfying". For me that is the property of consciousness. It only requires 1 premise (I am) and the proof is also the premise (I am because I am or "I am that I am") . That is not a flawed logic. That's conscious awareness.

Who, what, why, when, where and how "I am" is another series/set of "knowledge" entirely and one that is much less certain because they are variables that are constantly varying/changing (time - when, space - why, matter - what, energy - why and logic/reason - how).

What's "imposed" on the "I" that everyone experiences is the rest of the "I"s (everyone else respectively).

Self is created mutually by the" direct imposition" of other self on/against one another - that is to say multiples imposing their own awareness (intellect/mind - beliefs, ideas, thoughts, values, even perceptions etc) on one another defines their mutual and interdependent character or "persona" relativistically.

And in a physical sense, direct imposition of the self against/into one another ("union of selves" or sex), leads to new self (reproduction).

There are many "I ams" and they're all equally certain to exist. Equals. The issue is the nature of consciousness means that we only have certainty regarding ourself so we can always attempt to justify not treating other "I ams" equally, assuming they fundamentally feel the same as we do (empathy) despite our idiosyncrasies. But of course, not treating them the same as you do yourself (inflating ones ego) is never logically/rationally or morally/ethically justifiable.

from what I understood the context for the "break from nature" was that the human mind is too sophisticated for its own good and that we thus navigate this with the creation of narratives and motivational notions.

Am I still in the ball-park here?

If so I maintain what I said earlier. With questioning everything/curiosity (the break from a nature of "simply be")
We have constructed a society off radical reasoning instead.

My conclusions was that with a lack of the "simply be" we invariable replace it with "simply ought to be" - some form of principle for direction.

That principle must be both morally and rationally sound. Because reason without moral alone is not sound, nor is moral without a good foundational reasoning as its basis.

If we can't simply be we must define what we ought to be (an ideal state). And thus we construct ideologies unlike our animal counterparts.

What I was saying is that such an ideology woukd require knowledge (reason) and benevolence (ethics/moral imperative) to be workable, and both motions must satisfy one another, in essence be unioned.

"it's moral to reason and it's reasonable to be moral" thus concepts like "truth" must be the foundation of both reason and morality as it is an integral part of both.

No no, your end goal "simply be" description there is off. That is not what I meant. — schopenhauer1

It may not be what you meant/are searching for/expecting but that doesn't neccesarily mean the description is "off".

It just means that the premises you hold as a basis for expectation of a certain result didn't lead to the same outcome as the outcome/result I provided.

One of us is likely more correct than the other. But we are inherently biased towards the belief that we are correct and the other is wrong.

All i was arguing for is the use of knowledge for moral means. To combat the abuse of knowledge for immoral means. I don't see how this can be "off" but wait patiently for your rebuttal as to why this is not the case.

B is under no moral (or legal, for that matter) obligation to bring legal action — Ciceronianus

It's an interesting dynamic in that while B is under no moral/legal obligation to press charges, pressing charges obliges them on a legal/moral incentive to collect what is owed to them.

They are pretty much guarenteed a win in the eyes of the law, but are not obligated to agree with the law and pursue such charges.

is not necessarily justice, because the court operates on a monetarist civil law, rather than karmic principle. And it is certainly not restorative, because now we have other persons involved, who need to be paid for their time and effort, and both litigants have spent extra money, time and effort on the court case. What began as a simple one-to-one transaction has snowballed into a societal issue. — Vera Mont

Very true. Excellent elaboration and identification of the flaw in my logic. It can never be identical (justice) to simply playing the amount owed in the first place. Other people with their own needs require compensation also. So if anything the matter is inflated by mere conflict of interest.

Why is it necessary to blame? What purpose does it serve? — Vera Mont

For me it's somewhat rhetorical. Everyone has their own reasons and justifications for doing soemthing. Be it paying or not paying.

In a monetary sense it's mathematical. And blame is based on simply satisfying equations. But human experience and thus adversity and justification is never as reductive as "I owe you". It is a complex interplay between attitudes, previous experience and personal struggle.

Perhaps person A is ordered to pay the 200 dollars and is disproportionately financially ruined. Is that justice? Depends on who's perspective one takes. It can be re-written a million times with a million different justifications for the outcome between the 2 individuals

If two people have headaches there is no way of comparing whether both of them are having the same type of pain. — Andrew4Handel

You're correct. There is no way of comparing. Because there are genetic components (pain receptors and endorphin production), anatomical components, the source of the headache (tension, migraine, meningitis, subarachnoid hemorrhage, dehydration etc) and your psychology/mood/attitudes towards pain/suffering to factor in before we can qualify the perception of a headache and whether it's the same as another's.

The variables there are massive alone. And that list is influences is not exhaustive.

So is the is this a resolvable problem? Does this mean we are closed off from others in some kind of profound way? — Andrew4Handel

We are closed in a profound way. We are spatiotemporal points of conscious awareness. No one else can occupy the same space as you at the same time as you without you both being in one another.

Thus, conscious perception is always a unique perspective on the external environment as referenced to your spatiotemporal location. In other words, your consciousness awareness is fundamentally unique by you being a physical object from which such an object experiences.

Furthermore, in order to "calculate you" - ie gain access to your private experience non-consentually, using universal laws of physics, chemistry and biology, with computation, we would have to account for every variable of your existence from birth to your present moment - genes, every atom of food you eat, every gram of shit you produced and when. Every person you ever met (which requires calculating an entire other individual) as well as the full interaction, every memory you ever formed and why.

Everything about you, and thus everything that isn't you by proxy.

This degree of information processing is simply not possible to emulate as it would be a duplication of the entire universe from within the universe.

No calculation from within the universe can formulate an algorithm for everything, everywhere, all at once without being identical to the real thing. There is no algorithm for reality.

So you are truly private in nature. No one has access to your mind without you allowing them "in" and even then, their interpretation of you is not you hit an approximation.

However all is not lost. This does not mean love and intimacy is not possible between 2 people that can never fully "know" eachother in entirety. A couple in love cannot show eachother their entire life from start to finish and yet are still in love nonetheless. Because relationships don't require full knowledge to work, they require trust. Vulnerability. Love despite uncertainty.

So is the is this a resolvable problem? Does this mean we are closed off from others in some kind of profound way?
I think it is all a problem form brain correlations because if you can't define something accurately how can you correlate it? — Andrew4Handel

We are closed in a profound way. Our perceptions and awareness develop with reference to our individual environment. Our individual relationship with everything else.

What I mean by that is none of us occupy the same temporospatial point. So the environment we experience is never the same/perceived from the same perspective as another object (person) in the environment.

So we always have unique relationships with the remainder (external reality - which includes others). Therefore our conscious experience can never be the same and so the sensations we feel are inherently subjective/unique.

Every experience, interaction and memory you form is yours alone. No one is identical in this respect not even identical twins.

This doesn't mean we aren't all fundamentally based on the same physical laws that determine interactions. It's just that the interactions rely on 2 separate or distinct things at 2 separate points in 4 dimensional reality, and those 2 things are inherently different by nature due to this.

So to calculate "you" - ie to make a perfect simulation of you and your experience and behavior (and thus predict your entire life, thoughts and choices) - we require identical environmental variables, identical genetic variables, and identical interaction between the 2 for how ever many years you have existed this far. And we need to calculate them faster than you are experiencing real time, to keep up with your current state of being or ever predict your future.

To reproduce the same phenomenon (you). This is a level of computation that is simply not possible and may never be. The amount of data and control required would be essentially trying to duplicate the entirety of realities information from within said reality. A condensation - but condensing things (number crunching) invariable loses informationnalong the way.

Every atom, every synapse, every single piece of of you at every single moment in your lifetime. That level of information is not possible to calculate in real time die to the limitations of information transfer (speed of light) .

If two people have headaches there is no way of comparing whether both of them are having the same type of pain. — Andrew4Handel

I would say from a physical perspective that the genes that encode pain receptors and endorphin release mechanisms determine how "sensitive" someone is to pain stimulus.

But that is very reductive. Genes aren't the only thing that determines our pain perception. For example a headache has dozens of different causes and pathways that all lead to the same "head pain" experience: for example muscle tension, migraines, dehydration, meningitis and concussion (trauma) all of which influence the severity of the headache. For example a subarachnoid hematoma causes a "thunderclap headache" which is described as "the worst headache one can ever have" (my career is medicine).

Furthermore psychology and mental state also influences pain perception. A person who experiences a headache during something highly negative in emotional aspect - like a cancer diagnosis or divorce tend to have enhanced pain perception while someone who experiences the same headache source while just having great news, falling in love or getting a big reward experience the pain at a lower degree.

So in summary considering headaches: they have different sources, different genetic influence, and different psychological influences that combine to determine the qualitative difference in experience of the pain.

. They are not facts, they are ways of thinking about something. As I see it, they are not useful ways of thinking, but that is certainly opinion, not fact. — T Clark

And what is a "fact" verses "belief". I believe facts. That belief is a fact. See what I did there? So there is a connection and interplay.

Or I believe a cat can be ginger. Cue fact that ginger cats exist and are empirical. Therefore my belief that they can be ginger runs parallel to the fact that they can be. Both statements are equally valid/logical despite interchanging the word believe for know/are (fact).

If everyone unanimously believed in something objectively untestable. And no one was there to contradict such a belief. It would be agreed unanimously to be fact (because everyone believes it so) .

Historical facts are now beliefs. Historical beliefs are now "proven objectively" as facts. Current beliefs may become facts and current facts may become beliefs. They interchange status with paradigm shift (change in societal awareness) during our education and application of meaning to reality/new theories and discoveries.

Climate change was once a mere belief of a select few that went against the grain of collectively assumed fact. It is now fact and anyone who "doesn't believe it", well, that's just a belief isn't it?

Science believes in energy as a fact underlying physics.

But we run into the problem of true objective non-testability as in scientific method cannot be applied to the question of the existence of energy as fact.

Because we can only observe the action of energy indirectly by perception (which is subjective and thus subject to debate). Furthermore you cannot see energy that doesn't enter your eyes (light) nor can you fully objectify it as not all energy is in the state of being matter/objects otherwise no action/time could occur, and no one could observe (as this also requires energy - specifically that which is not manifest as matter).

Thus there is a certain irony that scientific dogma is based on something untestable and unobservable as a standard singular entity. Unstandardisable. Non objectifiable. Only indirectly observed (what it gives rise to).

Spiritual and theistic views also begin with an entity that cannot directly be seen/observed in its true form but rather it's multiplicity of manifestations/iterations.

Taoist philosophy states that whatever you know of the tao (force vital or primary existant) is not the fundamental tao, only one facet of its total ability to be/do.

Something that has possibility to be something else (as energy does) can only every be in a state of constant possibility/change/transformation and thus never definitive nor static "fact".

Jesus often spoke with the authority of someone who had direct knowledge of God, whereas the rabbis tended to rely on the authority of the Torah and the interpretations of previous rabbis. — Wayfarer

We have no knowledge of how he spoke or what he said. — Fooloso4

I think it's possible that, supposing there was some fundamental truth, or logos, a prime "Logic" or reason that underpins the true nature of reality and the true basis for actual knowledge, and Jesus was a man who encountered/came face to face with that notion...

... Then he was an ordinary man with extraordinary insight. Empowered by pure precision reasoning ability.

Id imagine it as a bit like having a tongue that could cut through basically anyone and everyone's BS and separate delusion/false justifications from pure unadulterated truth.

This extraordinary or super rare ability could easily be misinterpreted as miracles through the centuries of exaggeration of his character, translation of scripture and evolution of language use/semantics. Perhaps "raising the dead" is akin to something like revealing a lack of true "death" of self, only death of current identity. Or perhaps "multiplying bread" was adding profundity or "a delicious zest/taste" to even the most common or basic staples, enhancing the sensorium/joy of awareness.

If that's the case then we can understand where the holy trinity would come from. The father (Logos) is mirrored or perfectly parallelled by the sons action: behaviour and voice (a regular man speaking and behaving of pure knowledge of logos).

In that way it would be sort of like if the universe had a voice and could communicate directly to people through a conduit (jesus).

The holy spirit then is the link between logos and the son (Man), something like "state of mind" or "consciousness" or "free will" to know and speak of the logos or not.

Finally, if such a man like Jesus was indeed of incredible insight, this would scare the living sh*t out of anyone who's trying to hide something. It would be like judgement day - imagine an acute clarity of reasoning (wave of elevated awareness) rippling out from mind to mind, person to person.

"A spreading of the word (logos)"

Where all the books are balanced. Grand accountancy.
Seeing as lying relies on deception, having some truth bearer around does not bode well for deceptors.
So naturally he was in mortal danger. But I would suspect he already knew this. It's logical.

Any great leader (truth speaker - knowledgeable because they know the truth and moral because they speak the truth to empower others) faces the prospect of assassination/martyrdom.

They don't neccesarily want to be leaders because they know what responsibility that truly carries. Meanwhile immoral people are "leader wannabes" because they love power but aren't prepared to bear the responsability.

. Just me and a whole bunch of nothing. I'd probably flip out — Vera Mont

Haha well true if its just you where do you even begin creating something "else". Really you could only create "elseness" from yourself. Reform or reshape what you are into distinguishable "things" that are quantitatively and qualitatively different - ie fractions.

I wonder about this hypothetical state of being sometimes also hence the OP, but I think if one is "aware" , even in the most primitive/primordial sense, and lonely, or wanting, or just get bored, I imagine you'd have an "imagination" of some form, and a way to qualify what's missing (what loneliness is and how to reduce it relativistically).

Make 2 objects and now they are "together". Advance/evolve that complexity of "couples" and eventually you have "couples" and reproduction, sex, community, all the stuff that might make one at least "feel" less lonely or at least distracted from it/preoccupied.

But one we can't follow, by definition of our human operation, hence my OP. — schopenhauer1

Well. We can. Some people can go through life uneducated, not curious, never questioning, like other animals do, and they are content/happy.

What drives our demand for reason instead of "simply be" is a need for control. Because control can prevent you from suffering as you can understand, anticipate and mitigate those effects on you.
Also we are in an "arms race" with one another - the weapon? Knowledge. Awareness. And that comes from the doubt that it will be used wisely or benevolently.

So if one is unsure if the smart kid is good or bad, then they had better become smarter themselves. Assume control of the narrative. Eat or face the possibility you may be eaten.

In an ideal world, a paradise, we have a benevolent God. As such a god would take away our inherent need to be smarter or more omniscient than them knowing that they act as a parent, with our best interests at heart.

And that, is the underlying fact that causes religions to come into being. Trust. Trust or a hope or optimism that the universe/mother nature isn't out to get you, out for blood.

Ideology is thus a cornerstone of a peaceful society. Democracy is our answer to balance that we see in nature. Equality. Imbalance always starts with someone behaving as a malevolent God. Arrogant, self interested and lacking empathy or desire to cooperate with others.

We must always use our knowledge to combat immorality not propagate it (propaganda) . Otherwise no one can ever "simply be". Which is a human right (food, water, habitat, medicine, love and entertainment. All of these things are what it is to simply be happy).

This unique characteristic of human cognition has been the subject of much discussion among philosophers and academics. — schopenhauer1

True. Our awareness of our capabilities and options are seemingly more advanced than the basic instincts of other animals. The realm of human thinking - reflected by the complexity of our language - is not likely accesible to other species. Which are more restrained to basic emotions like fear of death, joy of eating and sex and aggression against competitors. Of course we can also do these things. But we have another layer on top of this layer cake of awareness and capability.

This is a tragic break in nature — schopenhauer1

Yes the "missing link" or "original sin" where humans depart from the rest of nature. We don't have the "just do it and don't ask questions" gene despite Nike's motto haha. Put on some shoes and just do it - such is life.

It is both what sets our mind apart but also throws us off in a desperate search for a "why?" - a reason to do anything at all.

This we are obsessed with an origin story. Be it religious or scientific. We want to know what makes us tick. And the best place we reason as the source us the beginning of it all.

Nature lives in a self fulfilling argument. A circular notion. Be born, mature, have sex, propagate your young. Why? Coz existence. This is how existing works.

Humans developed linear argument in contrast to the self satisfying argument, the cycles and frequencies underlying evolution, time and life. We unravelled the circle and took the line as straight from A to B. But that takes away an original reason. A beginning. A first cause. And so we write our narratives and motivations, we work to inspire ourselves to keep progressing ever since.

You are confusing different properties of mind with Consciousness. Consciousness, according to Neuroscience is the third basic mental property.
Consciousness is the brain's ability to connect stimuli with the rest of our mind properties allowing the emergence of content in our experiences. — Nickolasgaspar

I disagree on what I am confusing.

For me there is no confusion; the brain is basically the product of evolutionarily compounded/refined intelligence..

Consciousness involves this ability to be intelligent but in the context that it refers to how it is applied to the beholder/self.

In simple terms then consciousness is intelligences awareness of self - it's specific appearance, definition and this it's limitations. Ie humanness. Human consciousness is the awareness of what it feels like to be Human (limited in ability but unlimited in imagination/creativity).

I think consciousness is awareness/intelligence from the point of view of ones individual identity.

In that case both humans, other animals and AI might be intelligent/aware, but not equally conscious as consciousness is characterised by the individuals subjective experience of their intelligence/awareness.

An intelligent being with arms and hands will not have a conscious experience of such the same as an equal intelligence without arms and hands. Both may be aware, but the quality of their awareness will differ (consciousness - human, animal or otherwise).

The complementary blue, rather than orange, is designed to undermine any suggestions of Irishness. — Jamal

Haha lol.

Well even despite it's lack of intended symbolism I like Green. It is balanced; being in the center of the visible colour spectrum and has the largest range/scope of wavelengths of any colour. It frequently has association with equilibrium and harmony - a notion I concord with balanced/even measured argument.

So I think it is fitting of the philosophical endeavour.

The proof is in the numbers, so explain how that comes about. — jgill

I'm not a mathematician. Haha. Numbers are not my strong suit.

We can crunch the numbers on intelligence for sure. How or to what degree something has the ability to predict, direct and influence it's environment. In essence to be aware of its environnement and how it functions.

We have been crunching these numbers for our entire evolution either directly (survival) or indirectly (who failed/died). We have also been crunching these numbers through science, mathematics, geometry, engineering to explain and predict everything from orbits to economic turmoil etc.

However, we can't crunch the numbers on being a subject. Because to do so, we must de-personalise them, dehumanise them, invade their personal privacy, make their entire subjective experience from birth to death public knowledge. And that is impossible for now.

We also can't crunch the numbers on subjective consciousness because one does it's own weightings and values of the information it receives and stores. Often irrationally. Based on bias that both the cause of personality and the product of personality.

What are all the weightings and values of your experiences, thoughts, beliefs and memories since birth, how did each moments "self evaluation/weighting" - your mood or self esteem at the time determine your behaviour and actions in the next moment?

So there is some distinction to be made between "intelligence/awareness" and "self consciousness/subjectivity" when it comes to calculatability. And that's temporality. It would take 26 years of calculations to derive my subjectivity from a basic starting point of raw, sponging, absorbing language acquiring intelligence. All variables factored in.

All conscious beings (those with an individual identity) are intelligent/aware. The difference is intelligence can be calculated in general. Objectively. Subjectivity can only be calculated by the subject or the subjects experience is the product of the calculation and that is unique to them.

So yes the proof is in the numbers. But the act of proving is problematic logistically.

So a change in speed/rate is the difference between thought and memory for such a conscious entity. — Benj96

Could you elaborate on that? — Daniel

Okay so I'll try to approach this with another analogy: imagine the mind or conscious awareness as some sort of "non-Newtonian fluid" that can be in both a crystalline phase (structured form) as well as a liquid/fluid one.

It's a singular "substance" that has the capacity to phase transition between stability (memory) and instability (active thought, imagination, creativity).

The threshold between phases is determined by the energy or activity introduced to that area of the mind/brain - probably reflected by blood flow in an fMRI series/study.

And this change in the location of activations could be referred to as "focus of attention" or "concentration".

Essentially when one revisits stored concepts, beliefs and thoughts encoded in bonded or crystalline memories - you would be overcoming the threshold of those bonds stability with one another (in other words shifting synapses) or "melting" and rearranging those structures by the mere fact that you're focusing on them. They become more "plastic".

So the parts of the mind at the slowest rate of change (with the least energy) confer memory or passive awareness (everything you "know" and have recorded from experience) and those parts that are at the opposite end confer attention or active awareness - what you are in this moment thinking about.

This model or theory of mind could perhaps parallel the axis between energy and matter and the temporosoatial dimension at a grander scale as I discussed in the OP. Where energy (change) or fluid intelligence is tied to/interdependent or works through matter (memory) or crystalline intelligence. As matter is pent up or stored energy.

Time and space are in this case "perceptions" of consciousness that emerge from the laws imbedded within E=mc2 - the axis between energy and matter as a singular substance with phase transition.

Thus time and space would not actually be physically "real", as 1). the sensation of time passing requires memories of the past (matter) as a reference point for establishing the present moment by comparison (what's changed) as well as the future (anticipation of further change)

2). And space is only perceivable as something "real" with reference to objects (matter - that by its nature is an occupant, matter occupies the dimension of space) and thus sets up "distances" between objects.
You can't make a measurement of space without objects. From where to where would you make your measurement in "pure emptiness"?

Interesting ideas thanks.

I do like the trinity, action potential (positive emptiness)-energy-matter — TheMadMan

Same I think it seems elegant. Ties energy and matter together nicely in an axis (action and acted upon)