These - mind, soul, spirit, self - are topics in the philosophy of mind/religion, identity (broadly metaphysics), ethics, thanatology, and are significant insofar as knowledge of who we are and what our fate is are important questions for us. Who am I and what happens to me (postmortem)?

You have indeed captured the way in which the ideas of mind, soul, spirit and self are at the core of so many aspects of philosophy, including the philosophy of religion and the whole query of who am I? These concepts are involved in how we frame our own autobiographical sense of identity in relation to others and the wider scheme of existence. In previous worldviews, especially the religious ones people often saw themselves in relation to 'the divine'. In a more secular outlook, and one based on social sciences and psychology, there is far more of an emphasis on the intersubjective as opposed to the objective, as in the idea of any 'being' as a spiritual reality 'out there'.

This juxtaposition is captured in Martin Buber's, 'I and Thou', which contrasts the idea of 'thou' as being God, or the 'divine' with the focus being on other human beings. The sense of human identity may fluctuate according to how the ideas, such as mind, spirit, soul and self is concerned and whether we define ourselves by these terms. For example, it may be so different how one views one's being in the cosmos. It may be connected to a sense of the finite and the infinite. In particular, it could be asked to what extent is the mind finite or infinite?

If mind is seen in conjunction with the idea of soul or spirit it is more likely to be seen as something which transcends the body; the connection with self is far more based on the link between the physical seat of consciousness. In this way, the nature of identity and what it means to be a human person may be at stake in the usage of terms to describe the inner aspects of human identity.

There is a danger of summaries leading to overgeneralisations of ideas. There are intricate aspects of different systems or frameworks which may be glossed over in synthetic understanding and, for this reason, while comparisons of concepts may be useful that is not to the point where subtle differences and details are cast aside, because such details may be essential in getting a clear picture in the search for a general map for trying to navigate the various possibilities.

A stable platform, especially in the solidity of a personal sense of self, may be important for philosophical clarity. A deflated or inflated sense of self may be deficits of fragility, which obscure a clear sense of who one is, as an aspect of personal identity, and trying to see one's role and existential existence in the wider social and cosmic sense. In that way, the idea of self may be a safe philosophical concept because it is neither grandiose or diminishing in its basis for a foundation for personal human identity.

I am aware that there are possible clear attempts at definitions of soul, mind, spirit and self. However, while these may be interesting and useful, I am interested more in how such definitions and concepts inform the understanding of consciousness on a philosophical level. What do you think about the various concepts in the understanding of consciousness? Which of these concepts are more helpful or unhelpful in the twentieth first century climate of philosophical thought, especially in relation to the mind-body problem? — Jack Cummins

FWIW, I have explored that same question in several posts on the BothAnd Blog. The traditional terms you listed go back thousands of years. Which indicates that the Mind/Body distinction has always been important to philosophical thinkers. Until recently, that is. Modern materialists smugly simply the problem by asserting that the Mind is just the function of the Brain.

But then, what material is that "function" made of? My answer is that the fundamental element/substance of the real world is not solid Matter, but aethereal Information. It's not an empirical/physical solution, but a theoretical/metaphysical answer to the ancient conundrum of "how does Matter think & feel"? If you are interested in such enformed musings, I can provide some links for perusal. Here's a sample. :smile:

Self/Soul :
On the Thoughts Explained Blog*, “The Moral Skeptic” discusses a split-brain experiment that seemed to show that the human neural system can generate two separate minds. Thus, proving that there is no unique Soul existing apart from brain functions. That empirical evidence would indeed cast doubt on traditional notions of a spiritual Soul.
But it demonstrates what you would expect if the Enformationism concept of the emergent "Self" is correct : the Mind is merely an operational function of brain processes, a behavior, not a thing. As an essential part of the mind’s operations, the Self is an imaginary symbol, like an Avatar, to represent the system in its inter-actions with the outside world.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page67.html
Note -- The Enformationism thesis postulates that Generic Information (power to enform ; causation ; energy/mass) is the essence of both Matter & Mind ; both Brain & Function.

A stable platform, especially in the solidity of a personal sense of self, may be important for philosophical clarity... In that way, the idea of self may be a safe philosophical concept because it is neither grandiose or diminishing in its basis for a foundation for personal human identity. — Jack Cummins

I agree with this, but I don't think we only need a stable sense of self for philosophical purposes. We, at least I, need the platform of a consistent, reliable self to live our lives in a satisfying way.

The question of a stable sense of 'self' for philosophy or living is an interesting dilemma. It goes back to the idea of the 'examined life' of Socrates. There is the issue as to whether the lens of perception need to be clear as a basic prerequisite for clarity of thought? Or, do the wounded or traumatised philosophers go into a quest for self-awareness which is deeper in its pursuit? As for the actual aspects of living a solid sense of self may make living less complicated although it may be that fragility leads to a certain amount of innovation, possibility as ways of thinking about priorities, values and what is important.

My guess is that the fragility of self could go either way in leading to completely off-balance thinking and ways of thinking. It may be that being thrown off the tracks, or even falling apart, may lead to the wilderness. There may be chaos, and all kinds of attempts to find answers and solutions. It is a potential path for erroneous thinking but it may be a starting point for originality, spontaneity and authenticity. While it may be a pathway of hazards it may be a tightrope which once gone through may be about lived experience and creativity of thought as opposed to following convention, safety and the common place ideas and methods. In other words, it may lead away from the solutions of the herd to the primal creativity of philosophy.

Your reply is interesting, in regard to the divisions in the self, mind and matter. The emergent perspective does break down potential divisions, especially problematic in dualist perspectives. The idea of the self as an 'avatar' may make sense because it is like a unity, especially in the formation of autobiographical identity, which leads to an underlying continuity of identity. For example, I can remember my first day at school and the thoughts which I had, as well the essential experiences of my life in the construction of my sense of 'self'.

Those who have dissociative experiences may have disruptions but, on the whole it leads to inner experiences, as David Hume argued, as being more than 'a bundle of experiences. I wonder to what extent such continuity may have been what led Descartes and others the idea of the soul. The problem with the soul may not be how it works as a construct for thinking about the seat of consciousness, but the way in which certain thinkers, especially those within religious traditions, turned it into a mystical or supernatural construct, especially as a disembodied entity independent from embodied experiences in life.

The question of a stable sense of 'self' for philosophy or living is an interesting dilemma. — Jack Cummins

Isn't each one of us simultaneously and fluidly a 'past-self, present-self, future-self' imbedded in, or enabled and constrained by, some 'past-population, present-population, future-population' – a heteronomous rather than autonomous agent (i.e. existent)? Consider this old thread ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/344126

Who am I and what happens to me (postmortem)? — Agent Smith

"Who" you are is constituted by your personal and social relationships. Self-identity (ego) supervenes on self-continuity (embodiment). And, like an orchestra after the final encore of an evening's symphony performance, your (everyone's) identity's constitution dissipates due to entropy into oblivion "postmortem". Anicca —> anatta, no?

:death: :flower:

Who am I and what happens to me (postmortem)?
— Agent Smith
"Who" you are is constituted by your personal and social relationships. Self-identity (ego) supervenes on self-continuity (embodiment). And, like an orchestra after the final encore of an evening's symphony performance, your (everyone's) identity's constitution dissipates due to entropy into oblivion "postmortem". Anicca —> anatta, no? — 180 Proof

Yep, that's what I believe happens too, but from what I've heard the soul of Buddhism, like that of a cornered government official, is to neither affirm nor deny neither the existence nor the nonexistence of souls. This is clearly inconsistent with the anatta doctrine. What I suspect is going on is people have latched onto this belief in Buddhism because it tends to produce a Zen moment in us, and we all love that feeling don't we? The truth is Buddhism also neither affirms nor denies nihilism (anatta). These are all extremes which Buddhism attempts to avoid. So I'm afraid you're not entirely correct - the anatta doctrine is meant to refute eternalism and by itself is only half the story of Buddhism. What sayest thou? I would like to seek @Wayfarer' counsel on this matter.

Your rambling has lost me again.

Cancel my subscription to the
Resurrection ...

... moksha :fire:

Religion's origins can be retraced to uncertainties regarding the self and spawned the idea of souls in all cultures (the problem was/is/will be Thanatos).

Spirit is a related term, but is larger in scope, includes ethereal beings, usually powerful, and whom we must placate with prayers and sacrifices in order to gain their favor; the seed of god(s) is visible therein.

As for the mind, it has been equated with the soul, the self and the essence of what a person is.

Your rambling has lost me again. — 180 Proof

:lol: Buddhism is the middle path and so can't affirm anything; anatta, an affirmation, isn't Buddhism; however, it is a part, only one-half, of the refutation of two extreme positions, eternalism (there's an eternal soul), which the anatta doctrine is aimed at, and nihilism (there is no eternal soul) (the Buddhist argument against this position is not so popular or discussed often). As I tried to explain, the anatta doctrine appeals to us because it's very Zen (induces WTF? moments, which everybody likes to experience) i.e. there's a psychological element to the idea's popularity, but it comes at a great cost - misunderstanding the Buddha).

:smile:

Cancel my subscription to the
Resurrection ...
... moksha :fire: — 180 Proof

:up: Sorry for the double reply, but you seem to have updated your post with a comment on moksha. I don't know what it means exactly but I've seen it being interpreted as liberation/salvation; fits right in with The Matrix theme of freeing oneself from maya (the machine-generated virtual reality). @Gnomon, remember you said, quite a number of times, that your Enformationism doesn't offer any soteriological services. I see an opening here. How exactly you'll work the idea of moksha into your theory is currently beyond me.

from what I've heard the soul of Buddhism, like that of a cornered government official, is to neither affirm nor deny neither the existence nor the nonexistence of souls. — Agent Smith

'Soul' is very much a term from the lexicon of Greek and Hebrew religions. There's no direct equivalent in Buddhism. Buddhism denies that anything exists 'sui generis' in and of itself, but always as a consequence of causes and conditions. Nevertheless, there is, says the Buddha, an unconditioned, an unmade, an unfabricated - were there not, there would be no escape from the conditioned, the made, the fabricated. But crucially the unconditioned is never subordinated to conceptual classification in Buddhism.

As for 'what will become of me?' the Buddha describes such concerns as self-seeking or self-centred. In a way, you can say the very concern with oneself is what propogates itself through saṃsāra.

These are all extremes which Buddhism attempts to avoid. — Agent Smith

The 'two extreme views' - the first being 'eternalism', i.e. affirms that the world-and-self have a real non-perishing existence. Bear in mind, this was taught in the context of a culture which believed in re-birth, so that the aim of spiritual practice was conceived in terms of 'seeking a propitious re-birth' - that through correct conduct and ritual, one could be re-born in perpetuity, as it were. The opposite view was nihilism i.e. there are no moral consequences for actions in this life beyond death. This is what most modern people believe. Death is seen as a kind of 'global reset'.

Generally speaking, acceptance of the idea of the reality of re-birth or continued existence is the dividing line between traditional and secular western Buddhism. See Facing the Great Divide Bhikkhu Bodhi.

Précisément, mon ami, précisément.

The sleep awakening of reason imagination begets monsters. — Numerius Negedius

Minimize metaphysics (novacula Occami).

I had a look at your post on the idea of a 'future self' which is in itself an interesting concept and the nature of temporality of the self is important. That is because the sense of self develops in childhood with an important aspect considered to be the sense of separation from the mother. However, that is the internalised concept of self as a conscious process but there may a rudimentary self beginning in the womb. Memory itself may be the basic brain aspect of this, in the form of ego consciousness. Even during dreams the sense of ego differentiates and self is in a state of becoming.

The self does appear to be about narrative identity and although embodied I wonder to what extent it is subject to linear time strictly. That is about potential becoming is a goal which determines its earliest course. In other words, does future self exist from the beginning as a blueprint? Also ego consciousness may end at death, and in some cases, especially in the form of dementia, the ego and sense of self may fragment. This may also happen in forms of psychosis, possibly as if the fragility of the self has been broken down, even if as only a temporary development.

The ideas of souls and spirits are more complicated than the self, especially as there is often a belief in some kind of disembodied form of consciousness. Spirits first developed in animism and I do wonder to what extent is the idea of panpsychism a return to the ideas of animism, with matter itself being seen as having some form of spirit.

I did go through a period of reading in the theosophical tradition. In that tradition there are believed to be different subtleties of souls and spirit beyond this. It is all a bit complicated. One idea which I came across in that tradition was the notion of aspects breaking down prior to death and afterwards. In particular, the idea of ghosts was not as the actual 'soul' of a person but as an aspect of a prior person affecting the energy fields. This would mean that those who witness ghosts or take part in seances experience this. I have never seen a ghost but I know many who claim to have done. When the ward where I worked on in the psychiatric hospital was temporarily moved to another one, a number of staff members claimed to sense the presence of a ghost of a baby in one particular room, to the point where some staff members felt uncomfortable going down one corridor.

Of course, in theosophy and some other spiritual traditions there is a belief that the soul goes through a period of purification, prior to rebirth, or reincarnation. This is the process described in 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead', and some people maintain that this is the beginning process of what some people encounter in the the descriptions of near death experiences.

Gnomon, remember you said, quite a number of times, that your Enformationism doesn't offer any soteriological services. I see an opening here. How exactly you'll work the idea of moksha into your theory is currently beyond me. — Agent Smith

Sorry, soteriological services are not on the menu for Enformationism. Instead, the default assumption, pending alternative evidence, is that this positive/negative world, this good/bad life is as good as it gets. As the semi-buddhist Stoics advised, all you have control over is your attitude (mind-set, philosophical framing) toward imperfect reality. Don't put your faith in a future Afterlife or Nirvana, just adapt your mind to your current situation. As Hamlet says to himself, as he contemplates self-salvation (suicide) : “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so”. Of course, a defeatist attitude is only going to allow the bad to get worse. Yet an optimistic attitude will allow you to maneuver around the potholes in life's road.

The notion of Moksha (release from rebirth) is based on the hypothesis of physical Reincarnation. However, endless cycles of life are just as much a Hindu myth (taken on faith) as the Christian hope for a heavenly hereafter, with new spiritual bodies. Proponents of both a one-time eternal-life in Heaven, and of multiple lifetimes on Earth, must interpret the rare evidential events (e.g. remembrances of past lives ; near-death scenarios) with a generous helping of hopeless hope for salvation from the generational cycles of Evolution. But if human lives are naturally "brief candles in the dark" then some outside savior would be necessary to re-light the flame. However, Atheist Buddhism assumes no deity to correct his own creation mistakes, including tedious never-ending Samsara. So, why should we expect Nature to provide emergency exits for the life/death cycle that has been going-on from the beginning of mortal Life?

The Enformationism thesis admits the arguable possibility that the information complex (pattern, code) that constitutes your Self/Soul could be recycled by the Enformer, just as you can copy & paste information on your computer*1. But as far as I can see, such a redo is not included in the overall plan of Evolution. Unfortunately, such a re-boot would only be required if there was something seriously wrong with the pattern (of unique-but-perishable Souls) that has been unfolding for the last 14 billion solar cycles.

Historically, human sages have postulated a variety of incompatible natural or super-natural Plans of Salvation. Therefore, if your life is unsatisfactory, the only way out is self-salvation via a no-return exit. Hence, even the recently-posited godless Technological Singularity is based on the mythical belief that humanity as a whole, not as individuals, can gain control over the ups & downs of Nature by learning how to adjust the thermostat, to eliminate radical up & down swings. Unfortunately, for Samsara seekers, creating a techno-utopia on this "third rock", or another planet circling an alien sun --- would on benefit our descendants, not us progenitors..

Both Eastern reincarnation & Western heavenly hereafters are philosophical conjectures that seek to correct the imbalance & injustice of The Way It Is, via imaginary future scenarios. But, if God or Nature got it wrong in the first place, what hope do unruly humans have to expect a loop-hole that lets them out of the cosmic system. Besides, Divine Justice delayed is justice denied*3. As a middle path, the Tao is a dynamic balancing act, which allows us to move forward despite teetering between the abyss on left & right*3. The only salvation from fear of a disastrous fall, is in the calm Stoic mind of the tight-rope walker. This taut-wire we call Life is the only Path we have. So, don't look down. :smile: :joke:



*1. Technical Reincarnation :
The notion of downloading a person's definitive information into a computer, and then uploading the data to enform a new body (in a whirl of sparkles) in a new location was proposed as "The Transporter" in the Star Trek TV series. But the writers also philosophized about the negative effects of having your data accidentally scrambled : "is this new Self really me?" The downside of data errors was also dramatized in the movie "The Fly".

*2. Delayed Divine Justice :
Like the god of Job and the Stoics, the god of Neo-Deism is, for practical purposes, equivalent to implacable Nature, which has absolute power over all natural creatures. That's why humans gradually developed their own Culture, with man-made rules to suit their own needs and desires. Over the years, civilizations have become more & more estranged from Nature, in their attempts to escape its inhumane rewards & punishments. They have tried their best to create “Justice systems” that reward goodness, and punish bad behavior. The lesson here is to stop waiting for the impartial judge to impose justice from above, or for a Messiah or superhero to save us, but to work together toward a more ethical, stable and fair society. It’s up to us to level the playing field.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page60.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied

*3. Tao Balance :
Though often referred to as a religion, Taoism (or Daosim) isn’t similar to an organised religion whose tenants are based on a divine revelation for attaining a good afterlife. Instead Taoism, which expounds on the philosophy of the Tao – broadly translated as “way” or “path”, serves as a system of guidance for one to find balance and harmony with existence. This balance is summarised in Taoism’s Yin and Yang principle, which sees the world with complementary forces, such as light and dark, active and inert, or hot and cold.
https://asianinspirations.com.au/experiences/taoism-finding-balance/

In other words, does future self exist from the beginning as a blueprint? — Jack Cummins

I don't think so. 'Future self' is 'present self's' handiwork (or wreckage). Insofar as there's a "blueprint", it's the 'past self' that both enables and constrains the 'present self' – that genetic-existential hand each one of us is dealth at birth when "into this world we're thrown".

However, that is the internalised concept of self as a conscious process but there may a rudimentary self beginning in the womb. Memory itself may be the basic brain aspect of this, in the form of ego consciousness. Even during dreams the sense of ego differentiates and self is in a state of becoming. — Jack Cummins

That is what Lacan is talking about but he does not depict it as an either/or regarding ego seen as a capacity but a stage where it shapes all future experience. That is why he frames it as a prematurity that collides with the circumstances or situation that will be marked by the collision.

It is not there is no continuity between the potential and what emerges. But if you explore it as a decisive break, it is no longer a theory that can be set side by side with another theory of the same thing.

True, what you're talking about is part of the overall worldview that includes the existence of souls/spirits.

See, you do have the basic ingredients to weave some form of salvation into your Enformationism. Anyway, what I find intriguing is that in your theory the simulation is reality, making the idea of moksha moot. Your point seems to be that The Architect of The Matrix is your Enformer aka G*D. Remember what Agent Smith says to Morpheus - we rejected the first Matrix (no evil/paradise) for the current version of The Matrix (with evil)? That says a lot, oui? We're not actually interested in liberation/salvation. What then is the deal here? What exactly do we want?

As we have advanced in our knowledge of the world, our vocabularies change to reflect that change. Thus, what was once considered the soul, can now be called consciousness, though the concept soul was rather broader and obscure too, I haven't seen a clear definition from the classics I am currently studying - Descartes, Locke, Leibniz, etc.

The self is different and now refers to a subset of phenomena that fall under the scope of experience. What it is, or is not, is quite difficult. But it is useful - even in law.

This of course, does not mean that these words can't be used in another way, such as saying that "this music moved my soul", or saying "that was a spiritual journey".

But if we want to advance in understanding consciousness, we want to avoid as much ambiguity as is reasonable. And we can surely take ideas from people who belied in the soul or spirit and apply it in a modern setting. So they can be useful to some people, no doubt.

"into this world we're thrown". — 180 Proof

I don't like being thrown. Do you @schopenhauer1? A not-so-tangential point! Really? You want what?!

wut ...

"into this world we're thrown" (Heidegger)

:lol:

Choose your words carefully señor. — Mexican man with moustache and a gun

:smirk: :up:

See, you do have the basic ingredients to weave some form of salvation into your Enformationism. Anyway, what I find intriguing is that in your theory the simulation is reality, making the idea of moksha moot. Your point seems to be that The Architect of The Matrix is your Enformer aka G*D. Remember what Agent Smith says to Morpheus - we rejected the first Matrix (no evil/paradise) for the current version of The Matrix (with evil)? That says a lot, oui? We're not actually interested in liberation/salvation. What then is the deal here? What exactly do we want? — Agent Smith

What do we want? As teleological-thinking beings, we want what we do not have, but can imagine : Perfection. We can envision a new improved simulation of reality, and we can try to work together to make our imaginary future Utopia into a here & now real Reality*1. Unfortunately for us Idealists, only the Architect of the Matrix controls the whole complex system from a central Nexus (the program of evolution). All we humans can do is fiddle with peripheral levers & dials of Nature. Which is what pragmatic scientists attempt to do . . . . with mixed results. We are only interested in Salvation from the less-than-ideal results of natural & cultural changes.

Each of us humans is an architect of our own simulation of Reality : our personal imaginary worldviews. The only problem with living in a private subjective simulation of an abstract Ideality, is that Nature has constructed a material world that is not so easily modified by the personal Soul/Mind to suit our individual preferences. Moreover, that external world is populated with other Avatars (Souls) that are playing by their selfish internal values. Thus, creating obstacles to our own little plans.

Why does the second simulation of Matrix/World incorporate Evil into its design*2? Logically, Progress (growth & learning) are impossible without empty space in which to evolve. Morally, that undefined space in between fixed mandates is optional (neutral). Hence, our individual selfish choices can have good or bad effects on the overall (objective) system. Literature is full of examples of Evil results caused by short-sighted choices. The Enformationism world was also designed to be autonomous, to find its own way into the future via trial & error. The errors are what we call "Evil" or "Bad" depending on degree of severity*3. Nature, like any computation, must deal with internal errors of Syntax (rule violations). But complex Culture is faced with errors of Semantics (meanings : values)

Presumably, the evolving Universe, viewed as an autonomous computer program (sovereign, self-determining, independent), is running on schedule ; with internal error corrections ; not knocked off course by our insignificant human glitches ; and not requiring maintenance & repair interventions by the IT-tech/Programmer. For us Avatars/Earthlings inside the cosmic program, the ups & downs of Hegelian dialectic are perceived as Good or Evil : relative to our own personally-plotted course into the future*4. Fortunately, the program includes exit visas (limited lifespan) to terminate the agony & ecstasy. Another way out (salvation) of this on-course cruise through time is via the Escape pod (esc button) of voluntary death (suicide). Or, you could hit ctrl-alt-del and reboot. However, in order to go to Heaven or Samsara, you'd have to create it first. From scratch. As your personal simulation. :cool:


*1. True Reality :
On the other hand, all humans are constantly exposed to reminders that the world we experience is both Real and Ideal. Yet, we instinctively know the difference between the material things out there, and our immaterial thoughts in here. We can distinguish between physical sensations, and our feelings about those perceptions. We easily discern the difference between public phenomena, and the private meanings or values of those sensory experiences. For empirical scientific purposes, those ideal aspects of the world can be safely ignored. But for theoretical personal reasons we have no other choice but to deal with the unreal.
https://bothandblog.enformationism.info/page30.html

*2. Designer Universe :
Even so, they may wonder why an ideal divine designer, working from scratch, would make an imperfect world with ongoing conflicts between good & evil, vestigial organs, and eyeballs with light receptors behind a veil of veins. The only logical answer to the Evil conundrum is that imperfections are inherent in a space-time fragment of Enfernity (Eternity/Infinity), and that defects are to be expected in the incomplete on-going creative process of evolution. Only in a transcendent changeless state-of-being could you presume to find absolute perfection and categorical Holiness; to find G*D. And you can’t expect that perfect BEING to act like an imperfect human designer, who makes mistakes from ignorance. Instead, you’d expect any “defects” to be intentional and necessary to the ultimate goal of the system. Hence, that teleological purpose would be known only to the Great Intender.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page49.html

*3. Evil is the failure of Perfection :
Smith said that the first Matrix was built to ensure that the people who were plugged into it did not experience any negative emotion, there was no suffering, everything was perfect.
He said it was a disaster, and it ultimately failed. The Architect said this too in the 2nd movie.
Why though? What exactly happened with that version of the Matrix that caused it to fail? Did the people who were plugged into it, eventually realize that everything was fake because they thought it was too good to be real? . . . .
The problem was choice.
https://www.reddit.com/r/matrix/comments/b3ociq/why_did_the_first_matrix_fail/

*4. Evil is the cost of Choice :
Olson makes a surprising admission that I agree with, "There is no evidence from nature and reason alone that God is good. Nor is there any evidence from nature or reason alone that the good life includes care for others unless it benefits oneself " . Indeed, his Old Testament god intervened frequently and directly in the affairs of his chosen people. But elsewhere in the world other cultures blamed miracles & calamities on their local gods. And in all times & places, bad things happened to good people, and vice-versa — as-if the gods were randomly pushing buttons on the control panel of their little domains. So I have concluded, not that the G*D of Nature is erratic or impotent, but that the old pre-scientific notion of gods as specific material causes of natural events, was off the mark. Instead, I think the creation was intended to be autonomous, with no divine interventions necessary to correct either natural or cultural mistakes.
https://www.bothandblog.enformationism.info/page69.html

PS__Quote from Quora :
Q. If the universe is a simulation, why did our ''masters'', or the person who is running this simulation, allow us to become smart enough to wonder if the universe was a simulation?
A. If the universe (or our perception of it) is in fact just some giant simulation (and, for the record, I do not discount that possibility as wildly crazy), then there must be a very good chance the whole point of the simulation is to see how long it takes us to reach self awareness.
Note : others have speculated that the Teleology of this simulation is to create Demigods. But I have no idea about the end goal (telesis) ; only the inference that physical/mental Evolution is causing the emergence of more physical complexity, which allows nonphysical concepts to emerge, some of which are teleological. So, it's reasonable to infer that the Great Simulator had the Potential for end-directed programming.

PPS__
"Goal-Driven Software Development Process (GDP) is an iterative and incremental software development technique. Although similar to other modern process models, GDP is primarily focusing on identifying goals before setting the requirements and explicitly utilizing the bottom-up design approach."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal-Driven_Software_Development_Process
Note -- From an information-centric perspective, Natural Evolution seems to be a "bottom-up" design process, as contrasted to the "top-down" approach of Genesis.

Yes, the vocabulary of thinking changes so much. I guess the reason why I set up this thread was in order to think about the interplay of such concepts, and how these impact on philosophical thinking. The 'self' is definitely the one of consistent importance of the twentieth century, and I am not opposed to the preference. The issue which I am trying to think about is how these concepts emerged and inform thinking, especially in relation to human consciousness.

I have not read Lacan at present, but your reflection on his thinking is important, especially in the dialogue between psychoanalysis and philosophy.