And a "bit" is a binary digit, expressed as a mathematical ratio*2. Which, incidentally is the root of "Reason" and "Rational". :nerd: — Gnomon
I suppose you are also not persuaded by Max Tegmark's thesis of a Mathematical Universe. Besides being anathema to the worldview of Materialism, that notion is counter-intuitive to the matter/energy sensing human brain. I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?). However, mathematics is not a physical substance out there in the world, but a way of modeling the world in the human Mind. My notion of Causal Information is similar, except that it is not just inert statistics, but dynamic ever-changing physics.I'm sorry, if my equation of Energy & Mind annoys you — Gnomon
It doesn’t annoy me, but I’m not persuaded by it. — Wayfarer
I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?) — Gnomon
For me the Source of all power in the universe remains a mystery, beyond the scope of empirical Science. — Gnomon
Thanks for the clarification. However, I was not making a statement about the Latin language, but about the modern usage of the term "ratio". Synonyms range from fraction, quotient, & percentage to proportion, balance, & relationship. It's also the root of "Rational", pertaining to Logic & Reason. All of those terms, and many more, convey particular aspects of the general concept of "Information" (the power to enform ; to create novel knowable things). And they are also related to "Logic" & "Reason" as functional features of human Consciousness. Anyway, I was just trying to make a point about the ubiquity of universal Information (bits) : from Math to Meaning to Physics (it from bit). :smile:As such, the Latin term “ratio” does not pivot on maths and computations – it certainly doesn’t equate to mathematical ratios in the modern sense of "ratio". Instead, this Latin term's meaning pivots on something far closer to discernment and, thereby, all that can result from and is implied by faculties of discernment (to include judgments, awareness of purpose(s), plans, and mathematical properties and relations, among many other possibilities). — javra
I too, am cautious about speaking of philosophical Ultimate postulations on a mostly proximate-minded Materialistic forum. But in discussions about Mind & Consciousness, the question of Origins frequently comes up. So, I have used a variety of wiggle-words to describe a concept that is literally out-of-this-world : pre-Big-Bang & Pre-Space-Time. At first, I merely added an ambiguous asterisk to the common word for The Ultimate : G*D. But I also occasionally use some traditional philosophical terms, such as LOGOS & TAO, to describe the ineffable enforming-organizing power behind the scenes of this organic-orderly world, that somehow produces meaningful Order (patterns) out of random Chaos (noise).I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?) — Gnomon
I am very wary of the attempt to identify some putative ultimate in objective terms. But those terms do make sense in the context of the cultures and traditions in which they were meaningful. I suppose in terms of an ostensible ultimate, I could assent to 'dharma', which is from the Indic root meaning 'what holds together'. There are convergences between 'dharma' and 'logos'. — Wayfarer
As an aside, I'll mention that both of us seem to take broad moderate positions on the Realism vs Idealism and Materialism vs Spiritualism spectrum. Yet, we have crossed an invisible line in the sand, drawn by adherents of the non-religious belief system known as Scientism. Hence, any mention of woo-words like "spirit" can tag you with attributed beliefs that are associated with the "wrong" end of that spectrum. That's because those with polarized views of "ultimates", often see moderates as tending toward the opposite side.I'm not sure what term you would prefer, to refer to the fundamental element/essence/substance of the universe (Mind ; Spirit ?) — Gnomon
I am very wary of the attempt to identify some putative ultimate in objective terms. — Wayfarer
Unfortunately, any metaphysical worldview (an -ism, like Materialism) can be turned into a dogmatic cult/religion by gurus who are motivated to gather admiring followers, who don't think for themselves. — Gnomon
According to Pierre Hadot, twentieth- and twenty-first-century academic philosophy has largely lost sight of its ancient origin in a set of spiritual practices that range from forms of dialogue, via species of meditative reflection, to theoretical contemplation. These philosophical practices, as well as the philosophical discourses the different ancient schools developed in conjunction with them, aimed primarily to form, rather than only to inform, the philosophical student. The goal of the ancient philosophies, Hadot argued, was to cultivate a specific, constant attitude toward existence, by way of the rational comprehension of the nature of humanity and its place in the cosmos. This cultivation required, specifically, that students learn to combat their passions and the illusory evaluative beliefs instilled by their passions, habits, and upbringing. ...
For Hadot...the means for the philosophical student to achieve the “complete reversal of our usual ways of looking at things” epitomized by the Sage were a series of spiritual exercises. These exercises encompassed all of those practices still associated with philosophical teaching and study: reading, listening, dialogue, inquiry, and research. However, they also included practices deliberately aimed at addressing the student’s larger way of life, and demanding daily or continuous repetition: practices of attention (prosoche), meditations (meletai), memorizations of dogmata, self-mastery (enkrateia), the therapy of the passions, the remembrance of good things, the accomplishment of duties, and the cultivation of indifference towards indifferent things...
Plotinus wishes to speak of a thinking that is not discursive but intuitive, i.e. that it is knowing and what it is knowing are immediately evident to it. There is no gap, then, between thinking and what is thought--they come together in the same moment, which is no longer a moment among other consecutive moments, one following upon the other. Rather, the moment in which such a thinking takes place is immediately present and without difference from any other moment, i.e. its thought is no longer chronological but eternal.
I suppose my philosophical journey is also focused more on the abstract "nature of being" than on "Reality", in the usual materialistic sense. But it's mostly a bloodless intellectual search for meaning, deficient in passionate pursuit. And that dispassionate quest is lacking any formal Praxis. I was never directly exposed to Hinduism or Buddhism in my youth. And while others of my generation were experiencing the joys of Hippie virtues, I was in southeast Asia "killing the little yellow man". I never personally killed anyone, but I suppose I had the cloaks of killers "laid at my feet". Philosophy was not part of my "being" until I retired from Reality, and had time to spare for Ideal pointless pursuits. :smile:There's something else, though. To truly penetrate or understand the nature of being (I prefer 'being' to 'reality' in this context) requires a re-orientation or a change to one's way of being - walking the walk. That is what philosophical praxis (distinct from theoria) requires. — Wayfarer
How did you add the "Reveals" to your post? — Gnomon
Most religions are also grounded on Praxis (Works), especially repetitive activities. For example, Islam's primary communal practice is synchronized prayer. Praxis may be the tie that binds individuals into social organisms. Christianity is unusual (in theory), due to its focus on private internal intellectual Faith, instead of public, communal, oxytosin-enhancing, activities. However, some Christians seem to use private prayer as a form of meditation, for self-improvement (e.g. gaining merit), as contrasted with social improvement, or collective bonding (belonging).philosophy in the classical sense was a matter of practice — Wayfarer
More seriously, I suppose my Practice of writing down my philosophical thoughts, and subjecting them to criticism, is a form of Praxis. — Gnomon
That passage about Pierre Hadot makes the point that philosophy in the classical sense was a matter of practice and (I suppose) self improvement (although I don't like that term much) rather than just arguments about concepts. — Quixodian
The Stoics made a distinction between philosophy, defined as the lived practice of the virtues of logic, physics, and ethics, and "discourse according to philosophy;" which was theoretical instruction in philosophy. The latter was in turn divided into the theory of physics, the theory of logic, and the theory of ethics. This distinction had a quite specific meaning within the Stoic system, and it could be used in a more general way to describe the phenomenon of "philosophy" in antiquity. Throughout this investigation, we have recognized the existence of a philosophical life—more precisely, a way of life—which can be characterized as philosophical and which is radically opposed to the way of life of nonphilosophers. On the other hand, we have identified the existence of a philosophical discourse, which justifies, motivates, and influences this choice of life. Philosophy and philosophical discourse thus appear to be simultaneously incommensurable and inseparable. — Pierre Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy?, p. 172
Consciousness theory slammed as ‘pseudoscience’ — sparking uproar
A letter, signed by 124 scholars and posted online last week, has caused an uproar in the consciousness research community. It claims that a prominent theory describing what makes someone or something conscious — called the integrated information theory (IIT) — should be labelled “pseudoscience”. Since its publication on 15 September in the preprint repository PsyArXiv, the letter has some researchers arguing over the label and others worried it will increase polarization in a field that has grappled with issues of credibility in the past. — Nature
how flimsy scientific theories of consciousness are — RogueAI
I subscribed to the Journal of Consciousness Studies for three years and was disgusted by the poor quality of the work. It's not an area of study but a club for people who need to get published. — FrancisRay
There is a matter of perspective here. You should have seen the state of things 36 years ago, when I started looking into the subject. The progress in understanding since then has been substanantial. Considering the complexity of the subject under study, the technological difficulties in gathering detailed information, and the (IMO) warranted ethical restrictions faced by researchers, I'd say we social primates are doing pretty good. — wonderer1
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.