(Apologies for the long read, I'm convoluted and I refrained from posting on a whim and worked on it for a while. Though this is mostly a subjective interpretation on life, I value criticism).

I guess my view is largely naturalistic when it comes to the value of empirical knowledge, meaning I'm inclined to take biology, physics, etc as decent enough axioms to build from. I'm also somewhat of a psychological pragmatist so my view is very skewed towards how a human capacity to value has serious implications on human behaviour. Metaphysically I guess I'm an existentialist because I have been using heuristics similar to those found in existentialism to try and make sense of my social environment before I was familiar with the term "existentialism". I hope this gives a framework for the following:

If we look at a topic frequently discussed here, namely free will, the question of the reality of mental causation might be the thing to which many discussions boil down. Though I have my own inclinations about mental causation (which mainly have to do with entanglement, entropy and how I see the past as deterministic and the future as increasingly constrained, yet "unknown" to a large extent), I feel taking on the subject of mental causation is taking things to far for our current knowledge, at least empirically. Rather I would focus on what might be "acted upon" if there is such a thing as mental causation and how / if this "what" can be objectively valued (!) as information.


My naturalistic tendencies make me refrain from making a distinction between mind and body, though I could be accused of believing: "there are more things in heaven and earth", I'd view such contemplations as a mental extension into the future / unknown. I feel the concept of a soul is the oldest way of formulating the mind / body problem and that a capacity for existential wonder has made people come up with such a conceptualisation. Basically it seems to me that a capacity to abstract linguistically has made us capable of valuing this very capacity as a form of self preservation with which it is possible to deny death and impose additional meaning to our own existence.


By stating the above I have already presupposed on the information part where I can only guess as to the when and where our capacity for abstract thought came into being but where it is my hunch that; becoming able to contemplate not existing might have been for human cognition what zero has been for mathematics. I feel it is not unfounded to assume we all "know" what I'm talking about here when it concerns information. The topic about how we are able to impose symbolic meaning to our environment is worthy of it's own thread, the fact that these sentences can be read somewhat coherently should suffice to assert we are all capable of valuing sensory stimulus as information.


To me, the place or space where this happens is something we call consciousness. I see this particular trait of human beings as the top layer of interaction between a living entity and it's environment. It's probably not a good definition of life but I feel that: "What we (!) can recognize as adaptive / goal oriented behaviour in response to an environment suffices to assume there is a internal distinction, or valuation made ...with the capacity to make a distinction between inner and outer. Things like natural selection can only apply once such a distinction between organism and environment is made and there appears to be some kind of "chicken and egg" conundrum going on here which I'm not inclined to address further. It might also be noted that it is a human trait to bicker about what constitutes life, I see a striking parallel here between what we call "deterministic" and what we call "dead matter". Though quantum mechanical theories might have given people the justification to impose more explanatory power to the unknown then is practically, well... practical; it is my belief that the way we are capable of discerning between dead and alive matter based on the degree of empirical knowledge / practical information we are able to extract out of our environment, and which makes us able to "determine" something, is more essential / pragmatic in a broader human sense.


To be able to take the scientific method seriously we have to assume we are capable of interpreting our environment as information. If a scientific viewpoint is used to draw metaphysical claims about our current existence I would assert that there's a value judgement being made about the relevance of what people are able to entertain as information. I find it off base to make statements which implicitly value what is currently information for people based on knowledge we have yet to gain in the future. Statements like “free will doesn't exist”, “life has no inherent meaning”, “we're here only to procreate”, etc. try to frame the human experience within a deterministic or materialistic metaphysical viewpoint. I find it very valuable / practical to use such an explanatory framework to constrain the possible causes of human behaviour and to give direction to where we extend our minds in the future but the relevance of doing so has limits. We might find hints towards this “existential limit” when we observe people using scientific principles as an absolute answer to existential wonder, this resembles a modes operandi in which information is interpreted in a religious way, not a scientific way (where I feel it's not unfounded to assume existential wonder and a desire to gain knowledge about- / get a handle on- the environment account for a self serving bias which I see as more likely to motivate behaviour then a self rapport of someone who claims to be free from existential wonder and is able to objectively see themselves as a deterministic robot made from flesh). Using scientific principles to advocate nihilism also raises questions towards the motivation of behaviour which is often characterized by a need to justify holding one's own preferences as a moral value (hedonism), the opposite is evident when people become distressed by a lack of moral values (I'm using the term “moral value” to indicate that these values are relevant in the context of human social interactions). Similar practical implication can also be evoked by making a caricature of post modernism and implementing it metaphysically, the main difference here would lie in assuming the constraints of the past are more or less irrelevant and that the information which is important to us has no characteristics which are shared commonly among a broad population. Solipsism might relate to post modernism as nihilism relates to determinism where I feel it's crucial to observe the physical effects such philosophical positions can have on human behaviour.


I see our consciousness as an internal abstract representation of our environment to which our own biological mechanism are able to respond emotionally, we're able to value the content and this content includes a degree of our own "selves" which can be valued as if it were an external environment. I see sentience, awareness, subconsciousness as definitions for different "levels" of the same capacity where it's easy to become occupied with chasing ghosts when efforts are made to make an abstract representation of the very mechanism which is inherently always the highest level to which we're able to abstract. It can be an aim to gain more insight but it's futile to try and understand understanding, you can know when you know something and you can know that your knowledge is not absolute apart from knowing it's what you know at a current moment. A prominent feature of being able to learn and respond adaptively to an environment is characterized by integrating information in a dynamical way, as soon as the past is able to constrain the future you cannot go back to the point where your perception wasn't formed in the way your perception makes you able to see things now (where you could make a case for amnesia and trivialities like that).


The mechanism with which I have become capable to drive a car might suffice as an example. Due to numerous perceived future benefits I've become able to direct efforts to gather the resources to entice another person gathering resources to instruct me as to how I would become best capable of manning a vehicle. Aside from the dependency on an enormously complex infrastructure to make this happen, a striking feature has been how I have been consciously focussing my attention on my body to constrain it in a manner which made me able to operate a vehicle. My instructor was there not only to instruct me, but also to pay attention to the environment I was traversing, mainly because my attention did not suffice to do that 'and' keep track of my bodily movements at the same time. I have now gained so much experience that I'm able to drive while my conscious attention drifts away from this very act of driving and I would argue that I'm a better driver when I'm able to outsource the driving to my automatic behaviours then I would be if I would be focussing on every (irrelevant !) detail.


Being able to understand one's own adaptive behaviour is, to me, one of the main feats which distinguishes humans from most other mammals and it seems to be our level of consciousness which enables us to distinguish ourselves. This brings me to existentialism, though there appears to be a large gap between what is very evident when it concerns human goal oriented behaviour and the way we currently assert ourselves in a social environment, our capacity for existential wonder might be one reason for such an apparent gap. The search for what matters to us can become quite the driving factor in what governs our behaviour and the information we use to decide upon that has become something which is, to a large extent, empirically non existent. To ignore a capacity for existentialist thought, to rationalize it or making great efforts to “reduce self consciousness” seems to me to be a form of self inflicted personal devaluation. Though I would not deem it mandatory to reflect existentially or judge someone who is preoccupied with meeting the conditions for a decent human existence (a bit akin to Maslow's hierarchy of needs), I feel that those who are “wilfully blind” deserve to be seen from a perspective which sways towards behaviourism. I would like to wave away any hint of dehumanisation by stating that it's very hard to assert if someone is wilfully blind, in which regard they might be wilfully blind and which specific part of someone's behaviour might be treated in a behaviourist manner. The properties of existentialism which resonate with me and which I have been acting out as long as I can remember are personal responsibility and authenticity. The personal responsibility comes from not ignoring what is evidently information to you and the authenticity comes from a willingness to embody what you think you've learned. Information might appear valuable abstractly but if it cannot be put into practice it's somewhat dysfunctional and you deny the physical environment the opportunity to “correct errors” so to speak.


I cannot state any absolute truth yet I am somewhat able to notice when I'm being false / inauthentic. Using that principle as a guideline has led me to become conscious of some of my blind spots, some of my more automatic behaviours and has made parts of my sub conscious conscious. To my detriment this also loaded me with “the burden of self consciousness”, something which can easily lead to pessimism ...if not because most people do not appreciate someone who points out the flaws in their thinking, posits idea's which do not necessarily lead to positive value judgements / emotions and has trouble relating through “superficialities”. I might be acting out some truth hero myth and it does not help in that regard that the responses I've gotten from my peers have provided a lot of affirmation concerning self-deception, cognitive dissonance, dishonesty, etc. I am starting to notice this does little for my social interactions but I seem unable to become inauthentic so there's that. The other part which might lead to pessimism, the burden of self consciousness, can be seen as something which should be negated, if not by those who've 'outgrown' such a phase and have found new personal needs to preoccupy themselves with, but I guess I'm immature. The capacity for existential wonder is also a vulnerability, if not solely by being able to be burdened by entertaining concepts mentally. To me this indicates that one's biological valuing systems / emotions are able to respond to a specific kind of (existential) information ...it matters.


Though I've long passed the station which could still have some resemblance with objectivity, I do feel we might be able to become a bit more objective about our subjectivity. I might still be out for vindication and in need for a justification of my own imposed meaning to life but if I don't practice what I preach I'll never know if the information I hold dear has any practical value so here goes... If it becomes evident (usually in an interpersonal relationship) that someone is willingly refraining from incorporating certain information, the least which might be concluded is that the capacity for a certain form of information processing is there, it can matter to them There is no wrong here but such an unwillingness to expose oneself fully to life (!) makes 'me' conclude that, at certain levels of interaction, automatic behaviours (like self preservation) will take prominence (a debatable example would be a religious person denying evolutionary principles). This is what might justify treating people under certain circumstances in a behaviouristic manner, there's only so much of themselves they are willing to expose and this can make their behaviour predictable to a degree. People do not seem to take offence if they hear that fluid dynamics suffices to predict the behaviour of large masses of people yet they might very well take offence if they're accused of a form of self governing incapacity (though some might rejoice). A similar tendency can become evident in vehement discussions about free will. Again, for me this mainly comes up in interpersonal relationships but there are instances where just observing behaviour shows more about true intentions then any self rapport might indicate. I could go on to concoct some reason as to why I feel it might be necessary for everyone to become an existentialist, where I could assert that if people won't take responsibility for their capacities they become susceptible to manipulation, suffering and might contribute to naturalistic tendencies we find repulsive when humans carry them out, especially en masse, but that's a step to far. It would be the same error I accuse hard determinism of making in prepossessing on future knowledge and it's tyrannical to expect the same capacity from everyone. The least 'I' can do with looking at people this way is to make it easier not to fault them for their behaviour, expect too much, or expect some absolute truth to be respected; we don't lay personal blame on earthquakes, we do not bicker about the morality of the weather and we usually don't feel wronged by the changing of the seasons. Seeing parts of another human as purely deterministic or as capricious as the weather isn't necessarily amoral to me, it usually takes quite some interaction and attention to get an inkling as to where I might be wary if a specific relationship becomes more intimate (co dependent). Morality is something which is relevant in our social world and you need social feedback to see what flies and what doesn't. Though I'm advocating that we could become more scientific about how to use our consciousness / subjective experience and how we might aid the circumstances / environment in which morality can apply, I'm not a fan of Sam Harris' idea of a scientific morality. It's through socializing that we can say what morality is (afterwards), laying it out in advance and expecting people to adhere to it is a form of totalitarianism. Maybe we could aid the flourishing of conscious beings and see what they come up when it concerns morality instead of making a value judgement and concern ourselves with others' well being. This includes the animals we're able to interact with to a degree we might call it social interactions and the animals where we're able to establish they have social interaction among each other. (I won't go into the topic of animal rights but, similar to how we (!) are able to judge between alive and dead matter, things become quite subjective when parts of our environment appear to escape empirical enquiry and cannot be treated fully deterministically).


When free will is considered though (in the sense of consciously acting upon coherent information), do people consider if they would actually want such a responsibility, especially if it makes them vulnerable because all their emotional systems would then respond to interactions which where previously superficial but have now become intensely meaningful? I'm accused of being a pessimist quite a lot and I endure some hardship but I feel the ability to endure a hardship which is far from evident for some is worth something (“First world problems matter!”). I really hope (and maybe I should wonder why) I am not merely acting out some martyr hero myth while I will try to make myself an example and contribute to an environment which might become a bit more conducive for consciousness to flourish. Fortunately this appears to happen even without much conscious dedication, life for humans is objectively getting better anyway but I would find it “wrong” to use such an assertion to refrain from taking any responsibility if you know you are capable of doing so, even if life is so fragile that it could be wiped out easily by some natural occurrence. A willingness to face such potential utter futility isn't absurdism, it merely shows what we're capable of. We also don't live in a hostile environment, it's quite conducive actually seeing we exist, fragile might be a better term for this sentiment when people judge their environment (on a natural scale).A lot of philosophies (nihilism, pessimism, solipsism) seem like an excuse not to care or bother.


A basic tenet in psychotherapy appears to be to come to terms with certain experiences where a form of wilful blindness (even if it's done automatically) makes specific personal information “unprocessed”. I wouldn't advocate becoming stuck in the past but it seems only natural to see how one's personal historic / deterministic experience is able to inform, specifically when there are new insights / new understanding. I can only speak for myself but I've gone through periods where a lot of past experiences came hurdling back to my conscious attention after I'd gained some sort of insight, it can be quite the experience. As this post shows, there's probably something still off with me by deeming my own personal views important enough to share but I sometimes get the sense that people mainly just talk the talk without walking the walk. It can be one thing to have a lot of noble idea's but it's in interactions with peers where you might be able see if you actually have some practical information guiding you. Having the capacity to suffer emotionally purely on the abstract plane without any obvious misconduct from anyone going on seems to be key to discerning what matters when it concerns an absolute reality in the sense that it 'is' the reality which is hardest to deny. And maybe in a few decades / centuries we'll be able to look back and see this as some natural law which teleology is to increase information processing, who knows. I don't know if it's a fallacy, a reality or a desire for hero stories but a bit of strife makes one capable of appreciating. Gaining false security by claiming to know the future isn't wrong per se, I just don't think we're that god-like. The most we might be able to do is see what isn't possible any more in the future and learn from it. Learning increases functionality yet decreases freedom, we can moan about that as petulant children but even doing that shows we've gained functionality.


There's this transient moment where we stop adoring little children for everything they do, suddenly they become spoiled brats and we expect more from them because we can see they're capable of controlling themselves to a degree and they are starting to try and manipulate their environment to get what they want 'abstractly'; natural instincts which made sure primary needs like food and shelter were provided are now acting out to provide more attention then needed, specific toys or whatnot. The next step is learning that there are other humans who also have desires and needs which form a very peculiar habitat when compared to the rest of one's natural environment, it takes a lot of skill to interact in a productive way with this part of the environment. Fast forward a few years and child like intimacy is forever gone when sexual thoughts start to arise, there's an innocence lost which cannot be regained. Then we get to the point we're supposed to be somewhat self-sufficient and basically this means that those who would always provide a safety net can no longer be counted on, you're now dependent on an environment which is a lot less biased when it concerns your well-being. Then relationships, maybe children, etc, all pesky constraints. All while living in an environment which is always at the forefront of putting information into practice to see if it's indeed valuable, the atom bombs on Japan being a prime example. Not long after science gained theoretic knowledge this knowledge was put into practice and the morality which informed this decision was forever changed hereafter. We're now wondering if we are messing up our environment with our behaviour, we're wondering if we should be able to “command” natural selection, we're wondering if values can be universal and if we should impose them globally, etc. Me, I'm wondering if what's going on inside individual minds makes a difference when it concerns the behaviour of the human organism as a whole, the least I might conclude is that we're going somewhere anyway and that I have no way of discerning cause, effect or relevance other then how I respond to the information I'm able to receive.


The cue's I take are not of my own volition (overall) and neither is the way I respond, even this whole “I” thingy is dubious at best. I can't deny what matters though and it does, at this moment, seem to be my own volition to investigate whence I get an inkling. The concept that it takes enormous effort (in my experience anyway) to subdue such inklings is another cue. Just taking a general glance at the people I'm surrounded with makes me think that there's basically one aim which most strive towards, I think most call it happiness. I would translate that in “not being burdened by one's own self-consciousness”; this can be done through reducing the capacity or through being convinced you're currently on the way to achieve a goal, which makes your life meaningful. The former is done through overwhelming the negative with positive emotions, fleeing in rationality, making the search for peak experiences a goal, etc. The latter can take many forms and I don't think there's a limit to what people can deem 'meaningful', where I'm not that naïve to think that pure evil cannot be very meaningful, if not for those having it as a goal. Basically if you're enjoying a movie, you're not that self-conscious and you're able to have your complete attention absorbed by your environment. This would be different if you're a professional film critic where you would always look at movies in a particular way where you don't get so absorbed any more, some of us seem to be in a similar situation with life itself. If we're talking about the concept of “flow”, where you seem to be gliding through life without much worries and a clear focus (on the present moment or on a particular goal, maybe both at times) I would almost say it's a prolonged peak experience, though there might be a caveat. In the example of driving a car, there's a form of mastery in operating a vehicle and attention can be outsourced so that you can focus on other things. So, just as 'I' would be judgemental of those who seem unwilling to face their own capacities and treat them in a behaviouristic manner, how about ourselves? Can you flow through life if you've picked up al sorts of dubious automatic behaviours which will rain free if you don't pay attention? I wouldn't advocate to go on a path of self mastery but it hasn't gone unnoticed to me that a lot of people seem stuck in the same circle without ever learning, including myself. It just seems easier to see what you can do about yourself then expecting or manipulating your environment to conform to your own desires.To finish of somewhat esoterically and reiterate what I already implied; maybe the environment, or the universe, has some sort of expectancy which can only become clear at the individual level for now where embodying what one has learnt authentically / truly is the way to manipulate the environment (including the inner) to get what you need instead of what you desire. I really feel as if there's some sort of principle at work here which is hard to articulate or trap in an empirical framework, but maybe it's all in my head.