To be conscious is to unite conceptions in thought, an activity with a vast plurality of representations; consciousness is that by which conceptions can be so united, all under one singular, irreducible representation. — Mww

I think this is somewhat too specific. IMO, I would more or less equate 'being conscious' as 'having a subjective/private experience', without necessarily being aware of that (this would rather be 'self-consciousness', a specific kind of consciousness).
But maybe even 'having a (subjective/private) experience' is too much. Maybe 'consciousness is experiencing' or even only 'consciosness is a synonym of (subjective/private) experience' is better (and maybe we can drop the qualifier subjective/private...after all, I am not sure it makes sense to speak of an experience which is not private).

Sorry for the 'maybes' but it is notoriously difficult to define what is most immediate to us, after all.

I found a good website where are presented the definitions and the axioms of Spinoza's Ethics, which I think you'll like to read. For instance:

By substance, I mean that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception.
...
By attribute, I mean that which the intellect perceives as constituting the essence of substance.
....
By mode, I mean the modifications ["Affectiones"] of substance, or that which exists in, and is conceived through, something other than itself.

Ok, I see. But I would not say that 'consciousness' is a capacity, but an activity.

You can IMO say that 'sentient being' are those beings that can be conscious even if they are not in a given moment (for instance, if one consider someone in a state of general anesthesia...). Of course, the term 'sentient' taken literally would imply that someone unconscious is not sentient, even if alive. But IMO, we can take the liberty to use the phrases 'conscious beings' or 'sentient beings' to indicate all those beings that are conscious or can be conscious.

>>Consciousness is the capacity for experience<< — Wayfarer

What about 'consciousness is the activity of having an experiece' or 'consciousness is the activity of having experiences'?

Well, that is unfortunately not completely up to us. If perfection is boundless then we suffer eternally since we cannot possibly achieve it. If perfection is bounded then we can achieve it hence there will be an end to our sufferings. — MoK

Ok, I see. But if suffering is literally endless, how can such an endless effort be something desirable to us?
For instance, IIRC, Kant's view was that the progress to ethical perfection is endless but I don't think that after a certain point, it involves suffering.

This leads to me to another question. Do you think that any kind of 'dynamic progress', so to speak, necessarily involves suffering? If so, why?

Well, if we achieve perfection we won't suffer anymore. That is the goal of our lives! — MoK

But if such a goal is utterly unachievable and suffering cannot be eliminated, why we should seek it?

That is of interest to me. Especially because, on this forum, the harshest critic of my personal worldview, Enformationism, also claims to be a Spinozist. I wouldn't call myself a Spinozist, since I only know of his ideas via second hand accounts. I told him (the critic) that my philosophical world model is, like Spinoza's, more akin to Science than Religion, but it also assumes that cosmic Evolution is not aimless & accidental, but governed & directed by logical/mathematical internally-coded laws similar to a computer program. — Gnomon

Ok, I think that your view shares some similarities with Spinoza's but isn't compatible with it. After all, there is no 'real' cosmic evolution in Spinoza's view. Change is an illusory appearance that we percieve because of our limited perspective. In the highest way of seeing the world, there is no change.

Since at least one species of gradually evolved creatures has developed a somewhat objective & rational understanding of world events, I conclude that A> the ability to stand outside our emotion-driven animal nature, and B> the power to generate unique personal ideas (abstract representations, images, models, goals) of our own, allows us to become local centers of Will within the universal "Willpower" (motive force) of the universal thermodynamic system, otherwise dominated by destructive Entropy. Which, in effect, makes us humans the "little gods" of the world. Hence, we have begun to create sub-human creatures of our own, such as complex machines and artificial intelligence, that execute the will of their programmers. — Gnomon

I see your point here. But Spinoza would deny any kind of autonomy for human beings. He would say that if we have free will, we would have some kind of independence from God and, therefore, we would be individual substances (after all, a 'substance' in classical metaphysics means something like 'a truly existing individual/entity'). But he would argue that if we were substances, we would be totally independent and therefore be like God, which is absurd. Our ontological dependence forbids our free will, according to him.
He would ask you to prove how we can be autonomous if we are 'modes' of the One Substance. He would only grant an illusion of free will, not a true free will.

In brief, how can be free will in human beings, if human beings are not separately existing entities?

How do you think Spinoza would judge such a 21st century update of his own 17th century worldview? :smile: — Gnomon

See above.

There is another contrary claim about God that deletes the "omni" prefixes, leaving God with only some power, some knowledge, and some, limited, presence. This God is still a creator, but not the manager of the expanding universe. This God is profoundly loving, but doesn't have perpetual patience and isn't above getting very angry with us paragons of animals, us crowns of creation, and smiting us when He just can't stand us any longer. — BC

I think that this view would, in a way, solve many philosophical conundrums of the traditional picture of God. For instance, if God is not omniscent and not omnipotent, it is easier to accept that God might intend to save everyone but, at the same time, his wish is not realized, despite his best efforts.
But the 'price to be paid', so to speak, is that this kind of God seems to be in a way limited and too much 'human'.

The ultimate expression of this very loving God is that He became man in Christ. God ceased being God.

This theogony hasn't been very popular, because among other things, if God isn't God anymore, Who is in charge and to Whom have we been praying to for the last 2000 years? What about the Holy Ghost? Is the Holy Ghost the ghost of God, hovers over the world? — BC

I think that the main problem here is that if God ceased to be God, it cannot save anymore.

So, God didn't create a perfect world — BC

Yeah, Ok. But what if we could not exist in a perfect world?

, @BC,

I am not sure how this response relates to Christian Universalism. Please, do not get me wrong, it was a very interesting. The first part was very informative about the Jewish background.
But, as I said, I am not sure how is relevant to Christian Universalism. Did you intend to show that it is inconsistent as a view?*

That is to say, God is STILL suspiciously all too human. He wants suffering so that "holiness" (himself basically in material form) can be revealed to his own creation. It reads too much like a game designer that wants to see his cool creation play out. It is especially odd when adding in elements like "reward and punishment" for these players.. wiping people out, condemning them, exiling them, cursing them, rebuking them.. etc. etc. This seems again all too human...To WANT punishment and reward, let alone meeting it out as divine dispensation. YOU get the World to Come, YOU get the World to Come, not YOU though.. The little creations ENDURE the negatives, because I'm curious to see how you overcome them... All too human. Obstacle course for the piddling creations. A game. Is it divine boredom then? Does BOREDOM, yet again rear its ugly head? — schopenhauer1

I see, but note that Christian Universalism has a quite peculiar 'take' on this. As I understand it, these thinkers see the whole history as a sort of educative process and the whole creation is seen as a pure act of love. Punishments are not seen as retributive but as remedial, educative, purifying, i.e. a corrective punishments. So, the suffering that human beings endure is seen as having a purpose, a particular aim.
Also, human beings are rational creatures and choose what they think is good for them. The 'corrective punishments' are, as far as I understand, seen as a way to learn what is really good for them (i.e. that God is what is really good).
Considering that the aim is an 'eternal blessedness' and that we finite creatures cannot have it by our own efforts and merits, according to these christians (on this point they agree with the traditional view), suffering, endurance etc have all an ultimately good purpose for all human beings (although the 'corrections' can be very long, hard etc according to them). Also, in my understanding, they see Jesus' (and therefore God's) own suffering as a necessary step for salvation.

Of course, I guess that you can retort that God may have chosen to create human beings in an even different way, where even these corrections are not necessary. But, again, how can we know that it is even possible to do that?

Finally, regarding the whole thing being being 'all to human', I don't know. On the one hand, I do understand why you would think so. On the other hand, I think that, after all, if one accepts a Personal God, the relation between he/she and God must have some kind of analogy with the relation with another human being. So, the spiritual 'journey' and the relation between humans and God might necessarily be framed in an apparently 'too human' way in order to be useful to humans.

*Regarding this point, as an aside, I think that the universalist position can be argued for from a scriptural basis (again, I am saying this because I am not sure if your point was that the universalist view is completely incompatible with the Bible). For instance, 1 Timothy 2:1-6 and 2 Peter 3:9 say that God 'wants all people to be saved' and does not want 'anyone to perish, but everyone come to repentance'. If one assumes that God's will will be realized, these two passages support the universalist view. Of course, for instance, the Catholic view accepts the eternal hell doctrine, despite agreeing that God doesnt want anyone to perish (e.g. here) - I cannot see how this wish can be realized if the fate of human beings is 'sealed' at the end of this brief earthly life (after all, putting such a brief time limit seems to me quite an obstacle to that wish, especially when we consider that during this life our knowledge is limited, as Saint Paul says).
But, again, this is not a discussion forum about Christianity and I think I'll end my digression here.

Mainlander has a darker version of this. The boredom leads to creation, but not so that it plays out in some game-like fashion, but because of a sort of the need to break out of its own boring unity.. He had to individuate himself to carry out a sort of suicide, akin to the "Heat Death of the Universe". Oddly, the ideas of entropy play much more into that notion. — schopenhauer1

Well, I have no arguments against this view. If suffering is intrinsic to any kinds of 'existence', clearly seeking a total end to suffering leads to an end of existence. But, honestly, while I can agree that it can be argued for, I think in us there is also a deep desire, a deep hope that existence is not so meaningless, that suffering is not so intrinsic to existence etc... now it would be quite a paradoxical desire/hope if the best we can desire/hope is pure non-existence (while the desire/hope itself is also an intimate hope to be 'free from' death). Of course, I reckon that this is not a compelling philosophical argument, but our existence would be very absurd if the best we can hope is non-existence. (BTW, I do respect philosophical pessimism. I agree, for instance, with Schopenhauer's view that a true satisfaction/happiness cannot be achieved by seeking satisfaction in the 'pleasures of the world'. But IMO it is incomplete...also, it could be argued that Schopenhauer's pessimism doesn't invalidate the hope that we can transcend suffering - after all, in the Part IV of the World as Will and Representation, he does argue for that, albeit in a bleak way. Mainlander's pessimism, on the other hand, simply leaves no room for any kind of 'freedom from suffering' that is not non-existence as I understand it. He is more radical than Schopenhauer)

Thanks for the response. I'll answer you tomorrow.

It depends on what the state of perfection is. If the state of perfection is boundless we will ever suffer. If the state of perfection is bounded then we will soon find peace. — MoK

I don't think that it is necessary that a 'boundless' state of perfection contains suffering. But IMO, why seek it if suffering is literally endless? Seeking an end to suffering seems to be the most natural thing to seek (even if it would be impossible).

Fortunately or unfortunately, suffering is an inseparable feature of life! Fortunately, because we have a way to evolve. Unfortunately, because we have to suffer. — MoK

I see your point, but IMO everyone desires to be from suffering in a very intimate level. Why should I seek a state of perfection if I will still suffer?

I saw your response as I was typing. I'll answer tomorrow to you too!

A God who wants evolution in life. Suffering is an inseparable feature of life, without it we don't learn many things, and without it we don't evolve. — MoK

Do you think that this 'evolution' has an 'end'? Or is endless?

Yes, suffering can teach many things but I would hope that life is not an inseparable feature of life. Why should I want to suffer if I have no chance to somehow find an escape from it?

Then back to my points earlier about a god that can’t create a universe where joy and no suffering exist. God wants this universe to have suffering. And he could make a universe without it. That’s all the info you need. — schopenhauer1

What if, something like Christian universalism is true? Do you think that in this case suffering is still unacceptable if God exists?

I like to drop in a Latin phrase every now and then too, but it's helpful to provide a translation or English definition, especially when one's Latin gem is NOT common knowledge (like et cetera). — BC

'Sub specie aeternitatis' is a technical phrase coined by Spinoza and it can be translated as "under the perspective of eternity". According to him, the 'world' could be contemplated in two ways:

- sub specie temporis (under the aspect of time): this is the 'usual' way we contemplate the world, from our limited perspective. Our perspective is, however, partial and our knowledge is incomplete. This 'partiality', according to Spinoza, causes feelings of anxiety, grief, loss (i.e. mental suffering) etc because we do not understand the 'great scheme'. We also believe that the events are not inevitable, according to him.

-sub specie aeternitatis (under the aspect of eternity): this is the 'higher' way of contemplating the world. According to Spinoza, this kind of way of 'seeing' the world could be attained by philosophical reflection*. Once this insight is obtained, everything in the world is seen in relation to the whole and, instead of interpreting the world as a collection of separately existing entities (substances), the 'world' is actually seen as an unique substance, an unique entity, which is absolute and eternal. All particular things in the world are seen as 'modes' of the Substance (i.e. God), not individual substances themselves (in the first Part of the 'Ethics' he argued that a 'substance' must be eternal, ontologically and conceptually independent). At the same time, all the 'modes', our finite mind included, are seen in a way eternal, not because they are eternal in themselves but they participate in the eternal Being of God/The Substance - that's why he says: "The mind is eternal in so far as it conceives things from the standpoint of eternity" in Part V of the 'Ethics'. Since the mind is seen as eternal, it is also in a sense free from death and therefore, and for a mind that understands this, it becomes fearless and free from suffering (i.e. 'salvation' as he understood it). Also, any kind of judgement that arise from the 'lower' perspective is transcended. So the world is neither just or injust, neither imperfect nor perfect (at least as we usually understand the terms)

*This kind of thought that a 'higher' way of contemplating/knowing/understanding the world wasn't introduced by Spinoza. Nor Spinoza was particularly 'original' in his metaphysics. Parmenides for instance IMO argued for more or less the same metaphysics and the same view that a 'higher perspective' is salvific/liberating. Spinoza, however, was maybe original in his conviction that philosophical reflection could lead to 'salvation'.

Anyway, as I said, I was presenting Spinoza's thought (as I understood it). I was actually a Spinozist in 2011-2013, but now my views are quite different. For instance I am neither convinced by his metaphysics (especially I quite disagree with his complete denial of any kind of free will) nor by his convinction that philosophy is 'liberating'. I do find his views fascinating and they did left a strong impression in me.

edit: @Gnomon, I think that this post might be of your interest too.

I was not familiar with Spinoza's concept of a "Sage". Apparently it's a human who "participates" in the divine nature. Is that something like the "wisdom" that philosophers seek? Does such wisdom allow a Sage to find ways to work around fatalistic Determinism, in order to exercise Free Will? Does that semi-divine willpower make us the "little gods" of this world, who break free from physical limits and animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon

To be fair, I think that more than 10 years passed since I last read his 'Ethics' (but he did have a strong influence in my life) and right now I don't have his work available. By 'sage' I meant a person that contemplates sub specie aeternitatis.
Anyway, no the 'liberation' of the 'sage' doesn't lead to some kind of autonomy of the will but 'simply' an understanding that leads to the cessation of any kind of suffering, according to Spinoza. For instance, if one sees things 'sub specie aeternitatis', one cannot grieve for any kind of loss because he understands that such an event is part of the necessary expression of God (and this 'understanding' is not simply an 'intellectual understanding' of the doctrine). This 'insight' brings peace and serenity, according to him.

Yes. The hypothetical all-encompassing source of all possibilities is assumed to be transcendent and Holistic : more than the sum of its parts. This is in contrast to the immanent deity of reductive PanTheism. Moreover, the notion of PanEnDeism, although metaphorical, is intended to be amenable to rational science & philosophy, although its transcendence makes it inaccessible to empirical evidence. :halo: — Gnomon

Ok. But if its parts are totally depenent on the Whole - and not distinct to it - and the viceversa is not true, how can we say that they are not 'illusions'? I mean, if the Whole exists and it is ontologically independent and there is absolutely nothing 'outside' it, the 'parts' seem more like an useful abstraction of our intellect. If ultimately, there is only 'the Whole/God', I cannot see how this isn't acosmism.
If 'reductive pantheism' affirms that 'God' is 'nothing more' than its parts, then 'God' is dependent. Being dependent, it cannot be called 'God'.

So, from God's timeless perspective, human suffering is inconsequential? The Christian "solution" to suffering is to give some humans a remedial do-over (second life) in a timeless heavenly Paradise. For non-Christians though, maybe Stoic acceptance is the best we can hope for? :cool: — Gnomon

As I interpret Spinoza, in a sense yes, it is 'inconsequential'. The world appears to be 'injust', we get frustrated by the 'unfairness' that we see etc, but all these judgments are transcended in the highest perspective (and the same is valid for their opposites). They simply do not apply.
BTW, Spinoza has been dubbed 'the Stoic of the 1600s' by some, so yeah there are some similarities.

Anyway, what's the 'solution' in your view? And, also, what is the problem about which we should seek a solution?

IIRC, Spinoza's 'solution' was a state of blessedness/peace of mind that according to him came with the 'understanding' of the 'sub specie aeternitatis' perspective. The 'problem' was 'mental suffering', i.e. the suffering due to fear, grief, despair etc which he believed we could solve by 'adopting' the aformentioned 'transcendent perspective'.

I may have to add Causa Sui to my lexicon of First Causes and Prime Movers. Some Forum posters don't believe in ultimate causes or principles ; preferring to think in terms of observable serial Effects rather than a hypothetical (imaginary) unique self-existent Ultimate Cause. I guess that's the main distinction between the worldviews of practical Science and theoretical Philosophy. :nerd: — Gnomon

I am somewhat conflicted about the idea of a 'First Cause'. I don't believe that it is something that is amenable to empirical research.

Hmmm. That sounds like Fatalism --- or as Spinoza might put it : Necessitarianism. If so, did he also deny that introspective rational philosophical humans have some degree of FreeWill, not completely driven by innate animal urges? :chin: — Gnomon

I don't think so. But he would not say that a 'sage' is like someone 'driven by innate animal urges', for obvious reasons.

There is another version of Cosmic Holism --- PanEnDeism : all in god --- which views what humans call "God" as merely the Whole of which we humans are minuscule moving parts — Gnomon

Is this Whole eternal and not dependent from its parts?

For instance, a dog's body is composed of cells. Even if one adopts a 'holistic' view of the 'dog', the dog is still dependent on its cells. But this cannot be the case for the 'Whole' if it is to be called 'God', even in the most liberaly way. Otherwise, why use the word 'God' in the first place?

If you feel & act as-if you are morally free, then you have some degree of FreeWill. But that's a whole n'other thread. :nerd: — Gnomon

Actually, the denial of free will is quite pertinent for the thread, at least with respect to the 'moral' evils. If there is no 'free will', can we still speak about moral evils?

Also, IMO Spinoza's 'solution' to the problem of suffering is to see everything sub specie aeternitatis and thus transcend every individual perspective. In the distorted individual perspective the world might appear 'unfair' but when the world is seen sub specie aeternitatis, such a judgment is transcended.

The philosophers of his time were just beginning to depart from the party line of Catholic theologians. So Spinoza's deistic deity must have seemed radical to many fellow philosophers. Was his causa sui not deemed to be the First Cause of all material things? :smile: — Gnomon

'Causa sui' means uncaused and yes it is deemed the ultimate 'cause' of all material things like everything else, as said in other posts.

So God is a concept to define temporal existence, not a mundane material creature like ourselves. — Gnomon

? I would say that Spinoza is far more closer to classical theism than this kind of view.

But Holistic philosophers find such concepts necessary for their quest to probe the limits of reality : the General, the Principle, the Whole, of which all real things are mere specks of dust. — Gnomon

Yes, but note that for Spinoza and for many of the 'holists' the 'Whole' is, in fact, ontologically independent and its existence does not depend on its 'parts'. This is why IMO a fully consistent pantheism might necessarily lead to some kind of acosmism, where the 'parts' are merely illusions.

BTW, Spinoza also, if I recall correctly, believed that absolutely everything was inevitable. This is a form of 'determinism' which is stronger than Laplace: Laplace's determinism doesn't fix the initial conditions. In Spinoza's way it is even impossible to think that things could have been different, even in principle. When I was a sort of committed 'spinozist' (back in 2011-13), for a while it lead me to have a sort of calm acceptance of the events in my life. But then I couldn't deny the appearance of my own 'free will' and I accepted that my choices weren't all 'inevitable'.
To return to the topic of the thread, Spinoza's surely believed that justice and fairness were human constructs and the world could only appear 'unfair' or 'imperfect' due to a deluded perspective (a perspective which according to him was to be understood in order to be transcended, paradoxically).

Do you think Spinoza would agree with the label : "god of the philosophers", as contrasted with the God of theologians, and the godless-but-fecund Material World of scientists? :chin: — Gnomon

Yes. But note that he viewed his God as a refinement of the 'God' of the philosophers and theologians of his time. Certainly not a 'material source' of everything.

:up:

Ok, I now read your link. I think I am understanding better also your position.

The assumption here is that there is a sort of law/principle that treats the transition between 'non-life' and 'life', abiogenesis, as a sort of phase transition - i.e. a 'regularity' that, in principle, can allow us to build a predective model that predicts under which conditions life can arise. I think that it is reasonable. But of course, the details are not clear and only a theoretical approach might not be able to construct such a model.

Do you believe that such a model could be expressed as a mathematical theory, like in theoretical physics?

Also: are there some books that you would suggest to explore this topic?

BTW, thanks for the discussion, it has been very productive and insightful!

Regarding Bohm's views, IMO you might find this interesting: https://paricenter.com/library-new/david-bohm/active-information-meaning-and-form/ (it is written by one of his students)

Thanks! I'll read the link before answering.

I agree that Spinoza's notion of "Eternity" is not to be interpreted in a space-time sense. But modern interpreters might conclude that a transcendent or supramundane God (beyond space-time) could only be known/imagined via speculation or Faith : like the infinite-eternal Multiverse hypothesis. :smile: — Gnomon

Fine, but those 'modern interpreters' have no ground to assume that Spinoza had a world-view like theirs. It is a mere arbitrary assumption. It makes much more sense that Spinoza was actually closer to the classical metaphysical tradition of his time rather than, say, Laplacian materialistic and mechanicistic determinism (Spinoza's determinism was actually probably even stronger but of a completely different kind).
And when one consider the letter I quoted, it would be quite striking that a crypto-materialist would say that he thinks he agree with Saint Paul. Nowhere, as far I can say, he says that he thinks his views are closer to, say, Democritus.

For as I have noted, Spinoza there defines eternity as existence conceived “to follow necessarily from the definition alone of the eternal thing” (E1d8), and he adds the explication that eternal existence “cannot be explained by duration or time, even if the duration is conceived to be without beginning or end.” — Gnomon

Yes! Spinoza's eternity is timelessness, not infinite duration.

But, since my amateur philosophical perspective is similar in some ways to Spinoza's, I'm still trying to learn where his 17th century model and my 21st century worldview differ. — Gnomon

Ok!

But my worldview attempts to explain the apparent --- dare I say "obvious"? --- creativity of nature in philosophical terms that go back to Plato. So, it seems that my Panendeistic Nature God*4 explains the progressive "arrow of time", while Spinoza's might better define the orderless background of Chaos from which Plato's orderly Cosmos, including Life & Mind, emerges. Am I missing something here? — Gnomon

I think that it is an interesting endeavour but I am not sure how Spinoza's philosophy helps here (David Bohm's* is far more interesting for this kind of questions). Spinoza's wasn't interested in such kind of questions as far as I can tell.

*I would suggest to consider the views of David Bohm, especially the one found in his later books. I think that you might like his concept of 'active information', his views on creativity, his views about the implicate and explicate orders etc (I may share some useful links later, via PMs if you prefer).
Or also Schopenhauer. In his main book lays out a 'proto-evolutionary' theory so to speak, according to which the 'struggle for existence' between living organism is seen as an expression of the conflicts of different ways in which the thing-in-itself 'Will' manifests. IMO I think you'll find both thinkers interesting for your philosophical search.

Spinoza's Deus is more like a blind erratic force of Nature than a traditional creative God. — Gnomon

No, Spinoza's claim was that God does not have a 'telos', an aim, because it is already perfect so God doesn't need to 'do' anything (interestingly, most Christians philosophers agree that God is perfect but this doesn't imply that God cannot act). It's also part of the reason why temporal change is ultimately illusory in his views. Your reading is much closer to Schopenhauer's conception of the purposes, blindless 'Will' (but also he criptically says that the 'Will is the thing-in-itself for us', so it is possible that he meant that it is only a 'blind Will' in our distorted perspective...note that Schopenhauer's philosophy deals with the notion of salvation/liberation found in both western and eastern religions and tries to explain them in the context of his philosophical position).

Why can’t it have appeared “by accident”? In the usual evolutionary fashion. — apokrisis

Well, I put it badly. I meant that the 'appearance' of 'proto-intentionality' must have been a possibility and the possibility of such an appearance must be IMO to be accounted for in order to have an explanation.

We see a lot of behaviors in living organism (and near-living 'organisms' like viruses) that simply are completely different from what one see in 'non-living things'. This of course doesn't deny the 'radomness' that is present in evolution.

So I guess that my question can be formulated as: how can we explain the possibility of the appearance of the 'behaviors' seen in living organism if before that those kind are simply not present?

Even an enzyme is proto-intentional. A kinesin or any other molecular motor is proto-intentional. They exist to make things happen in preferred directions.
... — apokrisis

I wasn't denying that. I was just asking how does this 'proto-intentionality' appear in the first place.
I am not sure if its appearance is enough to explain self-consciousness but explaining that appearance would be an impressive move.

Btw, I read Pattee's article. Quite interesting, yes, but I do not have found the explanation of how the epistemic cut and/or the 'proto-intentionality' appear in the first place. In other words, I think the article explains where it appears, how it behaves but I didn't see an explanation of how it appeared in the first place (but maybe I misunderstood...).

Semiotics tries to move us along to a more physically rooted view of life and mind as an informational structure/entropic process - the modelling relation. A kind of dualism if you like. But unmystical as it is closed for causality under its triadic connection. — apokrisis

Ok, I do respect that, even if it will be found that this approach won't explain everything about life and mind. I think that it has lead and will lead to many good insights.

↪boundless In this case, I would favour Nāgārjuna over Buddhaghosa, but this is not the forum for Buddhist doctrinal disputes. But, long and short is, realising Nirvāṇa is also realising what has always already been true, nothing comes into being except for a transformation of the understanding. ‘Saṃsāra is Nirvāṇa grasped, Nirvāṇa is Saṃsāra released.’ — Wayfarer

Ok!

(By way of footnote - the question of what is eternal and/or persists in Buddhism is a very interesting one, against the background assumption of the impermanence (anicca) of all dharmas (moments of existence). The way I understand it is that 'eternalism' is very much the view that *I* will persist forever, and so it is criticized by the Buddha as basically a self-oriented attitude. — Wayfarer

I agree here!

That was in the context of a culture which accepted the reality of continued re-birth - the critique was of those who believed that the goal of the path was to be forever re-born in favourable states of being, distinct from the complete cessation (nibbana) of re-birth. — Wayfarer

I think that 'eternalism'* means any kind of view that posits the existence of an eternal substantial self (so a view that posits that the 'cessation of rebirth' implies a sort of 'static' eternal bliss enjoed by such a self would be considered eternalism).

However, as you point out, I don't think any of that ought to be taken to imply that nibbana itself is something transient. 'Ignorance has no beginning but it has an end. Nirvāṇa has a beginning but it has no end' ~ traditional aphorism.) — Wayfarer

Regarding this aphorism:

In this work, in Chapter XVI on the Faculties and Truths, in the section dealing with the
third noble truth, we find a lengthy disquisition on Nibbāna. It is striking that the polemic
part of it is exclusively directed against what we have called the “nihilistic-negative
extreme” in the interpretation of Nibbāna.
..
As to the positive-metaphysical view, the Venerable Buddhaghosa perhaps thought it
sufficiently covered by the numerous passages in the Visuddhimagga dealing with the
rejection of the eternity-view and of a transcendental self.
...
The adversary then proposes that Nibbāna consists solely in
the destruction of all defilements, quoting in support of his contention the sutta passage:
“That, friend, which is the destruction of greed, hate and delusion that is Nibbāna” (SN
38:1). Buddhaghosa rejects this view too, pointing out that it leads to certain undesirable
consequences: it would make Nibbāna temporal, since the destruction of the defilements is
an event that occurs in time; and it makes Nibbāna conditioned, since the actual destruction
of the defilements occurs through conditions. He points out that Nibbāna is called the
destruction of greed, hate and delusion in a metaphorical sense: because the unconditioned
reality, Nibbāna, is the basis or support for the complete destruction of those defilements.
Venerable Buddhaghosa next deals with the negative terminology the Buddha uses to
describe Nibbāna. He explains that such terminology is used because of Nibbāna’s extreme
subtlety. The opponent argues that since Nibbāna is attained by following the path, it cannot
be uncreated. Buddhaghosa answers that Nibbāna is only reached by the path, but not
produced by it; thus it is uncreated, without beginning, and free from aging and death.

(edit: I forgot to link the source of the quote: 'Nibbana and Anatta' by Nyanaponika Thera, found e.g. here: https://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh011_Nyanaponika_Anatta-and-nibbana--Egolessness-and-Deliverance.html)

After all, if one accepts that 'Whatever is subject to arising is all subject to cessation' (sutta reference), if Nibbana had a beginning it would mean that it also has an end.

If you like, I'll send you some other quotes via PM (to avoid to derail the thread even more, unless someone else is also interested).

*and annihilationism is the view of the destuction of an impermanent self.

Forgot to say that Neumaier indeed argues the same position I take, down to the biosemiotic point about measurement being a matter of imposing metastable mechanical switches on larger patterns of thermal decoherence. — apokrisis

Ok, I see thanks!

Obviously, Spinoza's identification of God with Nature, sounds like both Pantheism and Immanentism. But, I interpret his deus sive natura as more like Plato's Logos : an essential principle, not a material thing ; an amorphous Ideal, not a space-time Object. That essence could be interpreted as the immaterial Whole of which all material things are parts ; or the unbounded Aristotelian Potential of which all physical objects are Actualizations. — Gnomon

The modes are not parts of the substance! If they were, the Substance would not be an absolute. As @180 Proof correctly said 'our physical universe' itself is merely a mode of the substance. Modes are just 'aspects' of the natura naturata which from our 'point of view' seem discrete objects or 'parts'.
Regarding the 'actualization'... maybe the whole 'natura naturata' can be thought to be an actualization of 'natura naturans'. There is absolutely nothing outside God in his metaphysics. So IMO saying that God is a 'Potential' misses this.

Regarding his 'immantenism' and the supposed identification between God and the physical universe (as some like to interpret him), he said in a letter to his friend Henry Oldenburg in 1675:

My opinion concerning God differs widely from that which is ordinarily defended by modern Christians. For I hold that God is of all things the cause immanent, as the phrase is, not transient. I say that all things are in God and move in God, thus agreeing with Paul, and, perhaps, with all the ancient philosophers, though the phraseology may be different ; I will even venture to affirm that I agree with all the ancient Hebrews, in so far as one may judge from their traditions, though these are in many ways corrupted. The supposition of some, that I endeavour to prove in the Tractatus Theologico-Politicus the unity of God and Nature (meaning by the latter a certain mass or corporeal matter), is wholly erroneous.

(italics mine)

Note two things here: first he seemed to agree with - or at least seemed to be very close to - the scholastic Christian tradition that God is the sustainer of all creatures (God always sustains their beings and the creatures exist by participation) and this amounts of being the 'immanent cause' and second he explicitly rejects a materialist/physicalist interpretation of his views. Of course, he was no traditional theist but he accepted many elements of the 'traditional' Christian metaphysics.

:monkey: Sub species aeternitatis, "where or when was" and "before" do not pertain to natura naturans (only to natura naturata (e.g. finite modes) sub speccie durationis). — 180 Proof

To elaborate on this, IMO 'sub specie aeternitatis' was also the correct way of seeing natura naturata, which transcends time. In this perspective one must see all the past, present and future, all times and all phenomena as aspects of an 'undivided unity' which has an ontological priority over them.
As a hopefully not too misleading analogy, natura naturata is like, say, the book 'the Lord of the Rings'. Each 'event' in the book is a 'mode' and the plot is the temporal relation between them. So, the plot itself is an aspect of the book and the 'story as a whole' transcends its plot, so to speak.

The best “law” would be Pattee’s notion of the epistemic cut. It sets the divide down at the atomistic level of when a molecule becomes a message. It roots things in the logic of a mechanical switch that regulates an entropy flow for some organismic purpose. — apokrisis

Thanks for the reference! Will read!

What is not actually algorithmic about any of this is that all the “computation” is about the end outcome of regulating some self-constructing entropy flow. We are turning matter into bodies. And that is not something you associate with computers. That is what makes us organisms and them machines. Or rather our tools, as computers only have use for us when they are woven into our general entropy regulation projects. — apokrisis

Ok, I see. That's more or less what was I getting at. I can understand that some or even most biological activity is alghoritmic/machine-like (like the one in the video you showed). But at some point, when life 'appeared' something changed, so to speak, where some composite physical objects began to 'operate' as you say as '(living) bodies' (or even like viruses or some complex single biomolecules), i.e. undivided wholes whose 'higher level' 'aims' determine (at least to some extent) the operation of their parts (I hope that the word 'aim' is not misleading here, I am not suggesting that, say, a bacterium has a conscious 'purpose').
And IMO that 'something' is crucial. How these kinds of 'proto-intentionalities' appeared in the first places?

Maybe your reference addresses this question, so I'll read!

A complex system of switches was imposed on the river. And that served a holistic entropy-harnessing purpose. This is the self-organising and self-sustaining kind of state of affairs that we would recognise as being organismic. It speaks to the presence of life and mind. — apokrisis

Exactly. While the whole operation might be simulated/repeated by a computer, I do not think it can be done by it in the first place (I guess that one might say it can happen with an extremely low probability... but the same can be said that it is possible to a computer to write the 'Lord of the Rings'...)

The mistake here is to speak of awareness as a stuff rather than a process. An inherent property of “mentation” rather than a relational structure that is semiotic. Mind as simply what it is like to be in a regulating modelling relation with the world. — apokrisis

However, I don't think that it is by itself enough. If the appearance of that 'relational structure' is still unexplained as an emergent feature, then IMO it doesn't change much. I am not saying that you are wrong or anything, but I think that seeing mind (especially self-consciousness) as a relation structure/process is not enough to 'prove' physicalism so to speak.

Very nice video, indeed!

Anyway, while I see the 'machinery' of it. I also see that all those 'mechanical operations' are done in virtue of a 'larger goal' of the whole organism, so to speak. I am not sure there is no 'finality' here, as I would expect in a machine.

Also, even if all of this is machine-like, their 'programming' seem spontaneous. Why such a programming is there in the first place?

Yep. Once you are stuck with the Cartesian metaphysical division into a mind stuff vs a world stuff, then this kind of wooly Panpsychism is where you must logically end up. It is built into the premises. You can’t think your way beyond the casual trap you have prepared for yourself. — apokrisis

I sort of agree about panpsychism but I do not see as a necessary implication.

A first person vs third person contrast is what must arise for the modeling of the world to even function. This is the enactive or embodied argument. This is the trick that is generic to any notion of sentience or intelligent in an organism. Does it subtract its own actions in a way that makes “objective” the state of the world as it is sensed beyond. This is the basic semiotic algorithm that defines an organism with some kind of mind, some level of mentality. — apokrisis

I see. As the complexity of an organism rises, the more that organism can differentiate itself from its environment. In this view of things, self-awareness is so to speak, the pinnacle of this complexity. A cell has a very rudimentary 'notion' of a distinction between itself and its environment.

I think that in the simplest living organisms we can also see a sort of 'finalism' in their actions. After all, even a cell operates toward the goal of preservation of itself and, above all, of the species (with reproduction). Of course, it is not conscious but nevertheless there is a sort of 'finalism' in biological organisms that is not found in 'non-living' natural things. Same goes for a 'basic awareness' (for a lack of a better word) of being 'something distinct' from its environment.

I personally am not sure that there is only a 'quantitative' distinction between us and the simplest living organisms. There is IMO a qualitative difference... but let's not digress here.

However as I argued, biosemiosis now clears up the life and mind side of the equation, leaving the dissipative structure and topological order side much more plainly seen. The new holistic view of fundamental physics. The cosmological view that has to be fundamental as after all, it is all about dissipative structure if reality is that trajectory from a Big Bang to a Heat Death. — apokrisis

I think that 'holism' was actually present even in Newtonian mechanics. For instance, one can 'derive' the conservation of momentum of an isolated system from newtonian laws of dynamics. But such a derivation is best seen IMO as pragmatic. On the other hand, if one sees the 'conservation law' as a property of the whole isolated system the newtonian laws make much more sense. So it's not surprising to see that, gradually, holism becomes even more important in contemporary physics (I mean Noether's theorem, spontaneous symmetry breaking etc are holistic concepts after all). IMO, contemporary physics seems to suggest that the 'building blocks of the universe' are not ontologically primitive. On the other hand, imo it suggests more the reverse (albeit not in a conclusive way).

Friston’s Bayesian Brain now takes this to the point where the predictive world modelling is expressed in dissipative structure terms and as the differential equations of a new Bayesian mechanics. The semiotic approach has become mathematically formalised as a theory both in terms of life/mind and also - in the de Sitter holographic view - in cosmology. — apokrisis

Ok, thanks for the reference. I'll look.

Anyway, I wanted to ask you some questions, if you do not mind.

• The way I see it, as I said, living organisms, even the most basic ones, seem 'aware' of that they are distinct to their environment, that they are a 'whole', so to speak. Is there a 'global law' (spontaneous symmetry breaking) that describes the emergence of these 'individuals'?
• Do you think that our mind is algorithmic? If not, how 'machine-like' entities can 'give rise' to a non-algorithmic mind shall have an explanation. I think that our mind are not algorithmic but I don't think that I can make a rationally compelling argument of this point.
• Do you think that a 'proto-proto-awareness' of sorts is there in anything else besides living organisms and biomolecules?

. Are you familiar with that book, or the concept of Holism? — Gnomon

No, I never heard of Jan Smuts and I am not familar with his work. But I am familiar with the concept of holism, though. Not sure if Spinoza's philosophy can be said to be 'holistic'. After all, the modes are not the Substance's parts (the Substance is IMO partless in his philosophy...if it had parts, after all, it would be ontologically dependent from them).

In my previous post, I asked you "I'm not a Spinoza expert, but regarding unbounded space-time, he seemed to assume that the material world, and his Nature God, was Eternal & Infinite*1. So how would he deal with modern Cosmology, which says that the universe had a sudden & inexplicable beginning of Space-Time-Matter-Energy? Where or when was boundless Natura Naturans before the Bang?" Do you have an opinion about Spinoza's opinion on that vexing modern question? — Gnomon

Lol, sorry for my short attention span :sweat: I missed your question

Anyway, IMO Spinoza's philosophy is unaffected by the beginning of our universe. In fact, maybe Spinoza would said that our 'universe' is merely a mode and therefore it can have a beginning.

But that sounds too close to traditional god-concepts for some of us. :smile: — Gnomon

Some interpreters seem to think that Spinoza was a modern 'scientific pantheism' who identified 'God' with our physical world. I am not saying that they cannot be defended somehow, but IMO they are implausible because Spinoza did not see himself as an 'innovator' and used in a different ways the concepts of 'classical philosophy' (derived mainly from Plato and Arisotle). Also, Spinoza's substance had infinite attributes. Only one of them was extension (the analogue of our 'phyicality' at this time) and another attribute of the Substance was actually mind. Also, he endorsed the view of psychophyical parallelism*, so mind could not be generated by matter (in his terms 'extension') in any way.

So, yeah, while not a Personal God like the one present in classical Theism, Spinoza's God was quite incompatible with a merely 'physical wholeness'.

PS___ For all practical purposes, I am in a space-time box. But, for philosophical purposes, I try to think outside the box. — Gnomon

Yeah, I think that the same goes for me

:up:

Personally, I think that this kind of 'search for the eternal' is probably what differentiates a 'spiritual' than a 'secular' search. Of course, what the 'eternal' is, is something that is debated among traditions, even within them (is it a metaphysical Absolute that is the source of all things? some other kind of transcendence of transiency and suffering?). As your quote says, pursuing 'perishable' things worsens the situation (the dependency IMO might be rooted in a fear of losing them...maybe this is in turn based in a sub-conscious intuition of their transiency).

Anyway, despite some claims that I have read about 'early Theravada Buddhism' where some argued that Nibbana is never said to be 'permanent' or 'eternal', in the Kathavatthu, a book inclueded in the Abhidhamma in the Pali Canon (so quite early), one can found this quote:

Nibbāna does not abandon its state as Nibbāna—by this we mean Nibbāna is permanent, persistent, eternal, not subject to change. And you ought to mean this, too, in the case of material-aggregate, if you say that the latter does not abandon its materiality.

(source: https://suttacentral.net/kv1.6/en/aung-rhysdavids?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false)
curiously, the string of adjectives 'permanent...eternal...' is the same as that used by the 'eternalists' views criticized in the Buddhist scriptures

Of course, I am not proposing a 'perennialist' view here and I am not saying that the authors of the passage were 'eternalists'. But I would say that such a 'search for the eternal' is IMO compatible even with Theravada Buddhism, a tradition which is quite adamant in deny the existence of a 'true self'.

Wow, thank you very much for the response, again. I am sorry if I do not answer in a comprehensive way which is also because admidettly I don't know enough or reflected enough* in the past about various topics you addressed . I think that your view may have many merits and I think it points to the 'right direction': I think that it might be right explanation of the emergence of life but I am not sure about consciousness as such - by this I mean a consistent 'first-person perspective' (I think that the 'first' and 'third' person perspecive are complementary and one cannot be reduced to the other...but I treat this as a working hypothesis, so to speak)

Sort of the same. Everyone is feeling the same elephant once they get fed up enough with reductionism. — apokrisis

:up:

Anyway, I cited Bohm because he noted that his own interpretation of QM, depsite being realist or even physicalist, treated the (universal) wave-function/quantum pontential as a unique field that has no source and its 'influence' mathematically does not depend on the magnitude of the field but rather on its form. This, especially in the 80's, lead him to think that this 'field' is actually a 'pool of information' available to everything. So, according to him, even the most simple physical objects have a 'mental aspect' so to speak, a very very rudimental ability to 'read' information and meaning, so to speak. Note that the 'very very rudimental ability' in Bohm's is present even in the most basic level of physical reality, so no concept of 'emergence' is needed! Based on what I understood of your position, it seems that you agree with him.
While I am not sure that it can explain consciousness, I do think that it can explain the emergence of life. On the other hand, conventional physicalism is reductionistic, matter is seen as inert.

I sort of agree but I would put it in a different way.

The 'box' refers to the condition of everyone that is not saved/liberated from death, pain, illnesses, cruelty etc - let's call all the negatives as 'evil'. This does not mean that the 'box' is wholly evil - at least not necessarily. In our natural world, for instance, there are pleasant states of course. But evil is an undeniable aspect of it.

Now, I think we could say that according to most religions we not only are in a 'box' but that we do not know its extension, its 'depth', so to speak. For instance, Buddhism teaches the doctrine of rebirth and all realms of rebirth are subject to at least death, even the most lofty ones (whereas the 'lower realms' are seen as pervaded by an evil greater or much, much greater than the 'human realm').

Clearly, the conception that one has of the 'box' clearly influences the conception of the 'outside the box' and the way of escaping the box. To continue with Buddhism*, not only one must escape of the 'human box', so to speak, but to be 'fully liberated' one must escape from the incredibly larger 'box' of the 'whole samsara', so to speak (but since human are seen as potentially being trapped in samsara forever, if not liberated at some point, the 'human condition/predicament' in Buddhism refers to the whole samsara).

On the other hand, Epicurean philosophy and its related practice was clearly influenced by the belief that death is an annihilation for all and while it can be said that annihilation is a negative for all, one at least does not have to be preoccupied with 'what might happen after death', in the Epicurean view. And not just that, but Epicurus clearly saw IMO pain as the 'box', so to speak, to which one might want to escape. So, coherently with his view of the 'human condition', he tried to find a way to minimize the pain, the 'evil'. I might say that this 'minimization' is actually an evidence that his solution is not really a 'true escape' from the 'evil'.
As I said, what I found interesting is that even ancient 'secular' perspectives on the human conditions actually had a way of 'dealing with' the human condition ('the box') that had spiritual overtones, so to speak. And despite being seen as a 'symbol' of hedonism, Epicirus was quite 'moderate' in it and in fact compared to many 'hedonists' today he was certainly not one.

Anyway, I think that the religious/spiritual search of liberation/salvation is actually one of the most impressive forms of human creativity ('thinking outside the box') and the more 'radical' the 'search' is the more 'creative' the searcher is, so to speak (this doesn't mean he/she is necessarily right, of course). That's why to all 'conventional purposes', say, the Buddha's choice of 'becoming homeless' was seen as a 'foolish choice'. Consider the buddhist Epic 'Buddhacarita':

[the Buddha/prince:] "Promise me that my life will not end in death, that sickness will not impair my health, that age will not follow my youth, that misfortune will not destroy my prosperity."

"You are asking too much," replied the king. "Give up this idea. It is not well to act on a foolish impulse."

Solemn as Meru mountain, the prince said to his father:

"If you can not promise me these four things, do not hold me back, O father. When some one is trying to escape from a burning house, we should not hinder him. The day comes, inevitably, when we must leave this world, but what merits is there in a forced separation? A voluntary separation is far better. Death would carry me out of the world before I had reached my goal, before I had satisfied my ardor. The world is a prison: would that I could free those beings who are prisoners of desire! The world is a deep pit wherein wander the ignorant and the blind: would that I could light the lamp of knowledge, would that I could remove the film that hides the light of wisdom! The world has raised the wrong banner, it has raised the banner of pride: would that I could pull it down, would that I could tear to pieces the banner of pride! The world is troubled, the world is in a turmoil, the world is a wheel of fire: would that I could, with the true law, bring peace to all men!"

(source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Life_of_Buddha/Part_One/11._Siddhartha_is_Eager_to_Know_the_Great_Truths)

I would say that a strong amount of 'creative impulse' is present here.

Note that I used Buddhism as an example. I would say that an analogous 'argument' could be said in relation to other spiritual/religious schools (and subschools).

To return back to what I said earlier, the perception of the 'unfairness/imperfection' is the perception of being trapped in the 'box', which IMO also is itself a creative type of thinking.

*I personally think that 'Buddhism without rebirth' is nonsense. If nothing happens after death, I do not see why a person would actually have to choose Buddhism, why seeking the 'liberation from suffering' would be of paramount importance and so on. Of course one can make argument for Buddhist practice being still relevant, but IMO it would be completely arbitrary.

As I interpret Spinoza, there are two ways of 'seeing' the 'world'. First, there is the usual perspective, 'sub specie temporis' which does not contemplate 'Reality' as a whole. This perspective, for Spinoza, has the unfortunate 'side effect' that it suggests that the 'modes' are actually distinct entities, substances.

However, when the world is seen rigthly, Reality is seen as an 'undivided Whole', the only One Substance, God, in a way that is actually reminiscent of Parmenides IMO or indian advaita Vedanta. He says that the human mind is eternal, but only when seen as a mode, not a substance. It's a bit like saying that a particular ocean wave belongs to the whole history of the ocean, which is seen as a single undivided entity.

Of course, we can guess, assume a belief, we can even speak of knowledge in some sense, but it's not certainty. Empirical knowledge doesn't seem to be able to give us certainty. Yet, logical necessity seems to demand it. — boundless

I want to stress that what I am saying is more like a skeptical position. I am suspending my belief on what the ground, if any, of logic (and mathematics) is. Why? Because I think we can't be certain of any view about this.

Many thanks for the informative and very interesting response. To be fair, I am not really familar with biosemiosis and Peirce's philosophy. So, I am sorry if some of my questions are 'trivial'.

Thus there is a ground. But it is neither something of the world or even of our minds. It is a propositional attitude that arose from a semiotic modelling relation with the world. It is neither a pure realism or a pure idealism. It is something that cognitively worked. A tool using hominid could structure its world with a hierarchical order. A grammatical sapiens could impose a further level of still more consciously-distancing narrative structure, — apokrisis

Let's take a broad definition of 'ontological idealism' and a somewhat restricted one of 'ontological realism', here (I think that you are using here). Let's say that 'ontological idealism' means that fundamental reality is mental and every other kind of 'realities' are dependent on that ultimate reality. On the other hand, 'ontological realism' as the view that there is an ultimate reality, which is of a non-mental kind and minds ontologically depend on it.

Now, I think that it can be argued, like I think you do, that all living organisms (and maybe even some of their components and non-living things like viruses) do have a 'semiotic modelling' of the world, as you say. But it this is true, then at least some aspect of their 'being' can be rightly said to be 'mental' (a very, very primitive kind of 'mentality', not a truly sentient one...).

In your view, is 'mentality' there in all 'levels' of 'physical reality' or does it emerge at some point? Or are you endorsing a form of 'panpsychism', where mentality is 'there' at the fundamental level of 'reality' (as one aspect of it)?
I ask you this because, unless your view is a sort of 'panpsychism' it should be called 'realism' as defined above. Of course, this is not a problem 'in itself', so to speak, but it is a problem if this kind of 'realism' assumes intelligibility. If intelligibility is assumed, then such an assumption remains an arbitrary feature of the 'world-view' because the 'emergent minds' are not in a position to know if their claim of intelligibility is sound or is mistaken. On the other end, if your view is 'panpsychist', then this problem does not really arise because intelligibility is an intrinsic feature of the world so to speak.

We hazard a guess, take the risk of assuming a belief, and then discover the pragmatic consequences of doing that. We systematically doubt what we have assumed until we reach a point that further doubt has become useless. Moot. A difference that no longer could make a difference in practice. — apokrisis

At which point does a belief, though, acquire the status of 'knowledge'?

For instance, we both agreeded in the other thread that newtonian mechanics is best understood as an useful 'fictional model' that give us the possibility to make predicitions, applications and so on. We know e.g. that a 'realistic' interpretation of 'newtonian force' as a physical entity is inappropriate.
But for a long time, an ontological interpretation of newtonian physics seemed to be supported by experiments.

Of course, we can guess, assume a belief, we can even speak of knowledge in some sense, but it's not certainty. Empirical knowledge doesn't seem to be able to give us certainty. Yet, logical necessity seems to demand it.

I am not saying that your view is wrong but IMO grounding logic in an uncertain knowledge doesn't seem a real 'grounding'. Logic reamains 'groundless' or at best 'grounded' as are empirical sciences. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but seems to IMO contrast the 'necessity' of logic. But maybe it's not an important point. IMO it is but I can understand why you do not think it is.

Neither I believe that, say, platonism grounds logic. It proposes a ground, tries to give a justification of logic. But that's not enough.

If the semiotic modelling relation has been working for life and mind since its biological beginning, and a semiosis founded in number is merely the latest instantiation of this natural story, then that would be a pretty grounded tale I would have thought. — apokrisis

If 'semiotic modelling' - I am wrong to call it 'mentation'? - has only been working since a certain point of this universe history, doesn't it lead us to an emergentist view?

BTW, are you familiar to the late Bohm views on 'active information'. I think that you would find them akin to yours.

(i.e. void, anicca, dao, sunyata) — 180 Proof

Since you mentioned these concepts, in Indian/Far eastern philosophy, many religious traditions developed a version of a 'two truths doctrine', the 'conventional truth' (what we might call 'consensual reality') and the 'ultimate truth' (only known by the 'liberated'). Of course, they differ in their conception of what these two truths are, even among the same religion there are many versions (it would be simply to long to view them...).

The difference between the two truths is epistemic, i.e. the 'conventional truth' arises from a distorted perspective we have on 'what is real', whereas the 'ultimate truth' is seen by those who transcended this deceptive - even if useful in most contests - perspective. So an 'epistemic transcendence' is needed to overcome suffering/pain (and in some versions this leads to an 'ontological transcendence', but I digress...)

But IMO even if what is required to overcome 'pain/suffering' is a radical 'epistemic transcendence' I think that, maybe initially, what motivates this kind of search is actually that anguished awareness that I mentioned before.

Spinoza's 'sub specie temporis' seems the perspective of 'conventional truth', whereas his 'sub specie aeternitatis' is the perspective that 'reveals' the ultimate.

But even among the greeks, we actually find some versions of the two truths (IMO among the presocratics, the Eleatics are the best example...)

What I find fascinating is that in Ancient Greece even those who actually held a more 'materialistic' view employed something similar. Democritus for instance seems to have developed a philosophy which is structurally similar: on the one hand, composite objects which are seen as a whole because our understanding is incomplete and on the other hand, atoms and the void which can be seen as the 'ultimate truth'.

But this is not surprising if philosophy was, in the ancient times was combined with a practice as Pierre Hadot said.

@Wayfarer

Well, fwiw, I see no other way but to interpret Spinoza as both an immanentist and acosmist sub specie aeternitatis (though sub specie durationis also as a pandeist, which (for me) ontically relates him to that other great immanentist Epicurus). — 180 Proof

As an aside, now that I think about it, I realize that reading your posts (I think in the old forum?) convinced me that Spinoza was a kind of acosmist (I think it was you who compared Spinoza to Advaita Vedanta and used the wave/ocean analogy). So, kudos for that :up: and also for considering him a pandesit sub specie temporis (here he markedly differs I believe from Advaita Vedanta, where in the 'lower level' of truth, Advaita is theist I think...)!

I can see why you can call Spinoza an 'immanentist'. But at the same time it is a peculiar form of immanentism where the 'true reality' has an element of transcendence. Not in the sense that 'Natura Naturans' is something 'separate' from the modes but 'sub specie aeternitatis' only God is real (at this level the modes in some sense 'disappear', are transcended).

What else leaves us satisfied but that something works. It achieves some goal. It is consistent with our aims. — apokrisis

I think I understand what you mean, but IMO logic is prior than understanding that. In fact, some kind of intuition of logical principles might be innate. Maybe even animals.

Of course I am speculating here. But I think no matter one tries to define logic with respect to something else, one encounters difficulties, circularities and so on.

We routinely apply this constraint to physics. What makes it impossible in logics? Especially given as we do it routinely. To the point that we think we know what has practical bite and what is verging on abstract nonsense. — apokrisis

In a sense, I think I agree. After all, if logic was useless nobody would employ it. But, on the other hand, even understanding the concept of 'usefulness' relies on understanding logic. What do you think?

Physics might not be that physical, just as logic ain’t that unphysical when you get down to it. It is a bit of a social construction to claim that logic is some free choice abstract from reality, or indeed an inhabitant of Platonia. — apokrisis

Not sure what you are getting at here. I don't think that saying that logic is 'primitive', 'a groundless ground' so to speak, requires a platonic view (although, maybe, it can be used as an argument in favor for such a view... but again, I don't think that if one accept that logic is not grounded in anything, then one is forced to accept a platonic view).

Ironically, what I am saying is IMO consistent with a pragmatical view of logic, given that there is no compelling evidence for a view or another of the 'ontology' of logic. Keeping it groundless, primitive, allows us to use it without relying on a theory of a supposed ontological 'ground' of logic.

↪boundless Perhaps a sharper way to put it. If logic is meant to structure our thoughts and causality to structure the world, why should they not correspond in this way. Why not the pragmatic constraint that optimises the value of both? — apokrisis

Let's say that, indeed, logical principles are a 'reflection' of an intelligible structure of the world. How could one 'prove' this view?

If one cannot prove this view, is this view really more pragmatically significant than other philosophical positions about the 'ontology' of logic (or the position that building an ontology of logic is impossible)?

Let's say one is a platonist. Does platonism limit the activity of logic more than other views?

The definition of pragmatic is found in the limit of inquiry. When further refinement is agreed to be pointless. A difference that would make no difference. — apokrisis

Yeah, I think I agree.

Every hates effective theory. But what if that is just the nature of both physics and logic? As we discover in our own good time. — apokrisis

Ok. But in order to accept a view or another, it might be needed to be shown that such a view is better than others (or a skeptical approach on the issue).

I use the 'might' here because, after all, it may not be the only criterion to choose a view over another.

↪boundless On the contrary, with all due respect, perhaps the world (naively) seems "imperfect" to us only because each one of us is "imperfect" ... Philosophy can be a practice – "spiritual exercise" (Hadot) – for learning (again) to see the world as perfect and thereby, like Sisyphus, always striving to perfect our communities and ourselves (e.g. ethics-as-tikkun olam). — 180 Proof

Yeah, I might have worded it badly...

For example, Spinoza himself distingueshed two ways of contemplating reality: sub specie temporis and sub specie aeternitatis. To 'transcend' pain and suffering, one must contemplate reality sub specie aeternitatis.

So, I guess that, yeah, I might erred in implying that the 'world is unfair' (after all, 'unfair' cannot be something that is applied to something insentient and that has no moral agency) in my previous post. I was, in fact, trying to verbalize the 'instinctual' reaction to the pre-reflexive or reflexive awareness (unfortunate? delusional? maybe 'enlightenly delusional'*?) of the paradoxical predicament in which we are.

So, yeah, the 'feeling' that the world is imperfect or unfair might well be understood, in some ways as a delusion. But is IMO still the starting point of even an immanentist 'solution' of this problem a la Spinoza, at least in some interpretations (although, I actually interpret Spinoza as a sort of 'acosmist', so not sure I would call him an immanentist in the literal sense of the term). But IMO it can be also the starting point of diverse philosophers like Epicurus and Pyrrho, who seeked and thought they found a solution of the human predicament. So I don't think that this anguished reaction is actually found only in religious/spiritual thinkers but it is a reaction, a 'splinter' that motivates one to actually find some kind of solution. Yes, I think that it is most explicit in religious concepts of 'liberation/salvation' but not entirely absent in skeptic or even 'fully secular' thinkers. After all, I think it is something that be vivdly felt by anyone.

*By 'enlightenly delusional' I mean an intuition that is wrong but it is the starting point for a 'more enlightned perspective', so to speak. To borrow a famous metaphor from Wittgenstein and a certain (inappropriate) liberty to decontestualize it, it is like a 'ladder' that is to be taken seriously IMO.