Does having the capacity for existential self-awareness imply anything further than this fact? — schopenhauer1

By definition it implies everything else? So, yes.

That is to say, does a species of animal(s) that has the ability to conceptually "know" that it exists, entail anything further, in any axiological way? — schopenhauer1

If concepts are created then this implies Values are concepts that have been created. This is all skirting around ineffable territory though.

But, is there something axiologically entailed for a being with self-awareness of existence? — schopenhauer1

What does this mean? To guess at what you are asking, all existential beings operate under a system of values - in some form or another.

A subsidiary role at best I would say. The whole "opiate of the masses" idea is dubious, but not without effect. Undoubtedly anything that falls into the realm of politics will be bent to serve some means of controlling others - it is hardly specific to religion nor any more significant.

Stories are not just stories. They are meant to teach not necessarily comfort.

Literacy is a relatively recent invention. This is something I do not believe the OP addresses nor sees as significant?

If you don't dig deeper you miss the entire point. "Religion" is not a solid concept. If you wish not to engage in my point no need to.

Why religion exists (as per evolutionary explication) has been examined in numerous ways. I mentioned a book that covers a lot of it, and have rad some of Dunbar's ideas too.

The underlying point as to why it exists is because it has developed from useful functions that were not necessarily about woo woo, but more or less about passing on knowledge effectively and reinvigorating the conventions of social groups to allow for adaptation through playing with taboos and generally seeking out novel experiences (exploratory drives).

While this theory remains speculative, it offers a compelling perspective on the intertwined evolution of religion and science. I think further research should investigate correlations between intelligence, existential awareness, and religious/scientific development. — ContextThinker

I think a helluva has already been looked into. Undoubtedly people will look to this or that idea to fortify their sense of reality. Modern religious traditions can offer this by steering away from cold hard facts that serve little to no purpose to those who care more about things like beauty or love. Science is useful.

You might be interested in reading a book called "In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion," by Scott Atran. It offers a reasonable survey of many common ideas put forward about how religion has developed.

This is a super simplistic view. All 'religions' stem from specific instances of alter states of consciousness. Experiences in these states are felt as being more real than what was previously regarded as reality.

It is from exposure to these experiences that all religions developed. The question of why religion exists now in its current state has clearly branched off into many areas. The fundamental features of all religions orbit these experiences though.

What they are and how they alter out perception of reality is a more important question for me personally. Although it is interesting looking into the various lines of inquiry into how religion has manifested in different environments and how it has adapted to social needs.

What we call 'religion' today has inevitably sprung forth for a variety of reasons including animism, memory, literacy, population explosion, etc.,. The list is almost unending. The very concept of God is of no real significance to some 'religions' whilst being at the heart of others (eg. Islam and Daoism/Taoism). Confucianism is also loosely defined as a 'religion' in modern parlance, yet God is irrelevant. Many traditions in Buddhism have no concern with Gods either.

Also, some cares more about 'souls' and other far less so. The same goes for a whole array of views surrounding religion, such as afterlife, rebirth, scripture, ancestors and connections to nature in general.

The only common feature I have found is in traditions that involve altered states of consciousness, initiation and mnemonics (lost mostly through the advent of literacy).

You therefore believe in the axial revolution as coming about due to cognitive development? If yes, why? If not, why not?

Scientific inquiry offers a methodical approach to understanding the world, reducing uncertainty and anxiety. — ContextThinker

Understanding can undermine meaning. Lack of meaning can cause anxiety.

For starters, just because the Western traditions are obsessed with an existential threat (death) it does not mean other traditions are. They are not. The Japanese and Chinese cultures had to invent a term to refer to the Abrahamic traditions because they had no equivalent word for "religion" - this was in the latter part of the 19th Century.

When faced with existential threats our sense of individuality is brought into sharp focus usually because unconscious mechanism begin to rise into conscious awareness in a rather unfiltered manner (eg. NDEs and other general ASCs).

I was just stating that newborns are often overwhelmed by stimuli because they lack the ability to filter. There are parallels with cases of autism. That is all I am saying.

I think whether you see it as an adaptation depends upon how you read adaptation. Whether a given person stims or does not stim seems relatively innate, as do the senses which the person stims with, but the specific stims used are unlikely to be predetermined. — fdrake

Infants do this to understand their environment. Infants are hypersensitive.

Every creature does this to some degree. The sensations are painted onto the experiential landscape in splashes and dabs. We just happen to be able to paint our pictures more vividly and with attunement specifically to temporal projections.

One dab is a 'train whistle' and another is 'a table'. For a child 'a table' is not 'a table'. It is a hidden place upon which object are placed out of eyeshot and grasping reach - in most cases.

I am by no means autistic but I do stim to some degree. Many people see it as a form of comforting oneself (and some evidence backs this up), but it is more or less about a need to process and interact with the environment I believe. Primarily stemming from early childhood adaptation and learning regarding items like cause and effect, and the need to focus on specific actions over others (to enable walking and talking).

I crawl around on the floor, and lie on the floor wriggling around, at least once a month. It absolutely makes you look at the world differently and allows you to tap into perspectives you have neglected since childhood.

Look at Lynne Kelly. That is a major part of how religion developed.

There is a lot more to mnemonic techniques that people realise because literacy changed things and the internet more so.

In this thread I was speculating about another possible factor. The oneupmanship is more or less an idea that could have also had a wider effect on theological and ethical discussions. If I am looking at a particular point where it was most significant I guess it would be pre axial revolution maybe? Because theological debate did not really exist - I mean it as a significant factor as possible precursor to true theological discourse.

It is speculative, but not blindly. Make sense?

Like I said. They can decide.

Children who are deaf will, if put together in groups, develop sign language just as they would regular language, in the same way, along the same developmental axis, and with the same resulting richness of potential expression. — Baden

This is also speculation. No one has been cruel enough to test this out. The one comparable instance in Nicaragua has since been looked at more closely and showed that many of the children had already been exposed to sign languages and simply passed on their knowledge.

I guess people can either believe me or you.

Or they can just look it up and see that I am correct :D

Just look. It is not hard. There is some disagreement, but many linguists are fine with it.

See above. Some linguists are happy to use the term more broadly. I see no real problem with this if it is made explicit.

Some linguists are happy to say bees have a language. I guess others insist on this or that definition. Even Wittgenstein fell prey to saying there can be no private language, after defining language as not being private. For some reason people took that hook line and sinker.

I think the application of Logic to language has perhaps made ideas about it more rigid.

I would suggest not bothering if you are young. Just go and think about stuff then come back to it in a few years.

I say this because it can be easy to fall prey to this or that idea from this or that person. Just try and figure out stuff on your own by asking questions. Mull them over, leave them alone, come back to them, throw them away, pick them up again, think what else may be true, explore your world and life.

In the meantime, paint some pictures, make music, learn some mathematics and science and explore in general. :)

And it's plain to me this is thinking behavior we're talking about. When I gaze up at the night sky, I'm surely engaging with what I see thinkingly, but it's not always accompanied by thoughts in words, or even by specific feelings. Sometimes there's a definite "sense of wonder," but sometimes I just look and it doesn't have to be anything else, but it's still a sort of thinking. — Srap Tasmaner

I would call this "language" it is just not as prominent and familiar to many because we are told what "language" is and what "grammar" is. I can absolutely think without words and form ideas and images in my head that play out without any need for worded thought.

People can communicate extremely complex ideas in other forms than worded language. It just so happens that worded language is extremely efficient. Writing is something we learn, but we do not really 'think' about it once the skill is acquired.

It seems to me that some people who are more sensitive are simply more directly tapped into sensory input others have filtered out since childhood. Ironically, in some ways, it is the 'normal' people that are more narrowly tuned into the world than those we often regard as fixated. I think in many cases they can just 'see' what we no longer can.

I have not watched it yet for a reason ;)

To what extent is an immediate relationship with our non-human surroundings a language? — Joshs

I have not watched the video. The answer is it is massively important. We live in the world not apart from it. The reason many feral children cannot develop language to the same degree is because they do not see the world like other humans - they see it from a wolves perspective if raised by wolves.

The Man with No Language grew up around humans, travelled across an international border and got a job gardening before he learned what a language was. He did this because he had exposure to the human-lived-world.

What is in the video?

Hence "fantastical nonsense" and not "fantastical"?

Mystery Cults in the Ancient World by Hugh Bowden: https://youtu.be/GMXgb2EIi7o

Pretty good reference book packed with information covering ancient Greece and Rome. Not recommended if you are seeking some fantastical nonsense. It just provides facts.

Thus in my opinion their origin story is more likely to explain unexplainable natural phenomena such as sickness and say, lightning. — LuckyR

A common theory. Maybe there is something in this, but I am not convinced it is as big a deal as some make out. We know for a fact that stories were told to pas on knowledge and that mnemonics with fantastical beings helped retain such memories. For this reason I think the heart of the matter of the God concept is due to a break in the means of passing on knowledge and/or uninitiated people misconstruing the stories - basically mistaking the map for the landscape.

Yes. I remember reading this and wondering about his mental health. What with his daimonion and now this odd behaviour; his absence being described as a 'fit'. — Amity

It is a completely normal thing to have. Just shunned in modern society. Plenty of people hear voices and live perfectly normal lives benefiting from these voices too.

Read Philosophy of the Home: Domestic Spaces and Happiness recently, by Emanuele Coccia.

I reviewed it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXRGXX6y-fM&t=2s

It is a very easy read with a few nice little thoughts to play with.

Write. Let questions come out. Try to answer them as best you can.

People often suggest starting with Plato too. There is a good reason for that. The Republic is a pretty solid piece of work that covers a variety of topics AND it is also important to understand the historical context and learn something of ancient history so as not to be dismissive.

I've also heard people suggesting Hume as he wrote in English.

If you have literally no idea I honestly think writing and having a 'discussion' on paper with yourself. Maybe just start by asking "Why am I interested in Philosophy?" and then just write and write and write. Undoubtedly some interesting thoughts and ideas will pop up, then you just have to follow them with other questions.

Doing that for a few months will give you some grounding in your own thoughts before sullying them with those of others. Plus, it will allow you to better choose from the other suggestions offered probably.

Anyway, have fun and suffer ;)

These changes are generally adaptive to support the growing fetus and prepare the mother's body for childbirth. — punos

Did you know that mammalian pregnancy evolved from a virus combining with our DNA? The body's adaptation is partially an adaptation to this virus.

I have not looked into it but I would assume any immunological reaction to pregnancy in birds and reptiles would be much lower (if not absent entirely?).

Just checked for Platypus and it seems to be the obvious case that immunological responses are much more limited when animals lay eggs compared to in utero genesis.

Little reboot of this topic in a way. Some other ideas and research attached to how religions evolved from Robin Dunbar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_BRofevrCw&t=1s

Have FINALLY managed to get a copy of his book too :)

Papers here:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joscha-Bach

https://link.springer.com/search?new-search=true&query=Joscha+Bach&dateFrom=&dateTo=&sortBy=relevance

Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkhuDqK1_MU

It really starts by directly sensing your own consciousness. Be aware of the fact that everything you know happens in your consciousness. There are other theories that go to the other extreme: everything is just in your mind. That is crazy and can easily be disproven. — Carlo Roosen

That makes no sense. Write more clearly.

Aren't you contradicting yourself? If it really starts contributing to new insights, you don't call it consciousness? And yet you don't see intelligence without consciousness? Please explain. — Carlo Roosen

No. What is there to explain? Either you understand the words used or you do not.

I have a personal experience of completely losing my memory, not even knowing my own name. Nothing to think, hence no sign of intelligence. Still, I was conscious. — Carlo Roosen

That is because "words" do not make you conscious. I would be surprised if there is anyone left in the field of cognitive neurosciences that still thinks worded language is required for consciousness. Note: I mean agency, first-person consciousness, not general conscious neural activity.

The moment we have a definition of 3rd person consciousness, it would appear inside the conceptual reality just like other things. The schematic would still be valid, but consciousness would be both outside our world and inside our world. Food for thought. — Carlo Roosen

I'm still hungry. You served an empty plate!

Here is some weird for you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9CeVo087Y

“fundamental reality” (The Future) → consciousness (The Now) → conceptual reality (The Past) — Carlo Roosen

Okay. I'll bite.

Predictions (Possible outcomes of projections) > Projections (How we directing towards future goals based on understanding of the Map) > Map (What is neurologically mapped out through experience)

And?

it will be impossible to prove or disprove that an AI is conscious, in the sense of “having a first-person experience — Carlo Roosen

I am starting to think you are not conscious and this is a weird experiment pout together by the owner of the site. Meaning, there are endless things that cannot be proven or disproven. So what?

But where does that feeling come from? Can I trust it? — Carlo Roosen

Your body, most likely (if you have one). Trust is not option. Experience is experience. People see and hear things that are not there all the time. Anyone who dreams understands the power our brains have to produce experiences that seem as real as waking ones. A computer being able to draw pictures and produce videos that look real does not mean it can think or that being able to do makes it somehow 'intelligent' anymore than a pocket calculator or a television.

What if a computer starts to express things you can relate to at a very personal level? What if it really starts contributing to new insights? I’d call that consciousness. — Carlo Roosen

I wouldn't. Your point, if there is one?

I’d like to keep intelligence and consciousness as two different terms. The first one, intelligence, we can define (with some debate) and measure. The second one we can really only infer. — Carlo Roosen

Well, no. There is something called 'g' that can vaguely be measured. By our human definitions I do not see how we can have intelligence without consciousness. AI means Artificial Intelligence (fake/simulated). If it does appropriate something more like human intelligence then it would be Alien Intelligence. Still, it is not necessarily conscious in any human sense of conscious.

Here is a general review of book: https://youtu.be/AXRGXX6y-fM

Yes, it is. I still recall the imagery of the waves as forest pines in my head.

No one is forcing a phone in front of them. — Samlw

The problem is no one is banning them. Children having access to these devices is fairly insane.

How has technology changed people being honest? — Samlw

I never said that.

From the way you have worded your response I can tell there is a significant age gap — Samlw

Maybe? I am 46 years old. I grew up without a phone in my pocket. I think I am in a reasonable crossover period to assess better than anyone significantly older or younger as the internet only really picked up decent momentum from when I was 16-18 yrs old.

And there are negatives to technology I am not saying that there isn't. But I think the benefits insanely outweighs the negatives and as technology gets better I believe we will get more connected and more respectful of other people that may not be from our way of life. — Samlw

Possibly. I just see it in classrooms and in the streets. People are hooked to their screens. I think the rate of change is so fast that there is little time to assess anything atm. Maybe it is just a perspective of age and how I noted the changes happening years ago and seeing how things have 'progressed' since then. I guess things could turn sour or sweet just as quickly.

I am certainly not a pessimist about it though, I just think it is going to be a messy transition. I am not entirely convinced by what people like Harari say, but there is some points that are worth paying attention to by the doomsayers.

In real life this is not the case, the amount of people I come in contact with every day that are civil and friendly completely outweigh the odd occasion someone is nasty to me. — Samlw

I do not honestly think being 'nice' or 'nasty' has anything to do with anything. I would rather meet people who are honest than 'nice'. That said, a certain degree of civil grace is no bad thing. I find incessant 'niceness' intolerable :D