all human history. also it seems an inevitable trait of human psychology, for a large group to split into multiple sub-groups that compete against each other. — stoicHoneyBadger

No, that’s a limitation of social animals that our minds have potentially evolved beyond, but we keep falling back to it for an illusion of safety.

And plenty of girls have naturally broad shoulders - does this make them less of a girl?
— Possibility

Yes. You wouldn't want o date a girl that looks like a dude. As weightlifting certainly gives you broader shoulders, be it your main goal or just a side effect. — stoicHoneyBadger

No, YOU wouldn’t. You don’t get to answer for all men. Broad shoulders does not necessarily mean someone ‘looks like a dude’ - what a narrow-minded, discriminatory expectation!

I gave you the benefit of the doubt, initially, but it seems clearer to me now that you plan to teach your son these traits are for men only, and that a girl just needs to look pretty. You need to wake up, mate - this is the 21st century, and that shit’s not gonna fly anymore.

Either the awareness is there or it is not. Consciousness is also present in a dampened state. It is like numbers, a number is either zero or not zero. There is nothing in between. — SolarWind

Zero is not a number; it’s a limit.

There’s a distinction between unconscious and non-conscious that is all about potential. Unconscious retains the potential for consciousness, even when empirical evidence is insufficient; Non-conscious doesn’t have that potential.

Not sure I get it. I mean the whole idea of a group is that there also in an out-group, so you can not include all and everyone. — stoicHoneyBadger

Where does it say there has to be definitive group?

Broad shoulders and a broken nose would not look good on a girl. :D jk — stoicHoneyBadger

Are you suggesting a broken nose ‘looks good’ on a guy? I would dispute that. And plenty of girls have naturally broad shoulders - does this make them less of a girl? Why so focused on appearances?

The merits of boxing have nothing to do with broken noses - it’s about the disciplined use of power: knowing when NOT to strike, when to block, etc.

And the merits of weightlifting have nothing to do with broad shoulders - it has to do with developing strength, understanding how to maximise and extend your physical limitations.

Well, genders clearly have their differences, such as you wouldn't want to take your daughter to boxing and weightlifting. :) — stoicHoneyBadger

I don’t see why not, if she showed an interest. I certainly wouldn’t push my son to do boxing, if he’d rather do karate. But then, I took the sports you indicated as figurative, rather than literal.

Be willing to increase awareness over ignorance, connection over isolation and collaboration over exclusion, at every opportunity.
— Possibility

I guess it is very situation dependent and probably should be goal orientated. i.e. you don't want to include random people just for the sake of it. — stoicHoneyBadger

First of all, I said nothing about random inclusion. ‘Random’ implies ignorance and isolation. If you’re willing to increase awareness and connection, then there’d be no reason to exclude. ‘You must be courageous, especially when facing reality.’

Possible! I, nevertheless, like my interpretation which, to my reckoning, is literal and so not open to multiple interpretation which would, I feel, open up a giant can of worms. Let's not get too creative, oui? — Agent Smith

Literal interpretation of biblical text is proven to be an ignorant route, either way. I’ll not go down that road with you, if that’s your aim.

God didn't evict/banish Adam & Eve from the Garden of Eden because A & E wanted/gained power, not because A & E wanted/gained knowledge per se, but because A & E now had knowledge of ethics (good & evil). That means, God doesn't have an issue with humans being omnipotent or omniscient but he draws the line with omnibenevolence. What gives? — Agent Smith

Knowledge of good and evil is not knowledge of ethics - it’s simply awareness of their own capacity for judgement, without any experience or subsequent understanding of the world. It’s like crowning a two year old as king.

After reading Kipling's "if" and thinking about the best way to raise my son, I made a list of what traits one should have to be able to call himself a Man. What would you add to it? — stoicHoneyBadger

I will be charitable here and assume you didn’t just mean this as a guide for masculinity. I think your son needs to recognise these qualities in both genders, for starters.

With due respect to Kipling, I think we need to bring some of this out of the colonialist attitudes of the 19th century. Much of this is about recognising your own limitations in view of the potentiality of humanity as a whole. I would suggest striving for a clearer understanding of ‘the things you would be willing to kill for’, as part of ‘re-evaluating all your axioms’.

I think there is also a key aspect missing here: recognising the interconnectedness and interdependence of all life and the universe, despite the sense that we often stand alone and vulnerable against the world. Be willing to increase awareness over ignorance, connection over isolation and collaboration over exclusion, at every opportunity.

When you say 'choice I make.' Could you have chosen otherwise or was the compulsion too strong to pursue wisdom? I think I NEED to pursue such to give meaning and purpose to my life. Is that what you mean by 'forego any final sense of satisfaction until I die.' Do you think others can be equally satisfied by prioritising family/love/power/wealth and possessions/fame over seeking profundity?
I know that's a very subjective question but I have never been convinced by anyone who I would say has one or more of the list I suggest above and claims to be 'content.' I could list my reasons for that opinion but I am more interested in the opinions of others as to what they think could make them more or as content as the pursuit of new knowledge/wisdom/profundity. — universeness

I feel like the option is always there for me to sink into the joy of my current situation, and ask no more questions in this march towards an inevitable death. And I’ve done that for a time, afraid to ask for more in case the asking risked what I already had. But I’m done living in fear, and I think the option is always there to seek something more, no matter what you acquire. I have found that seeking wisdom puts all these other pursuits into perspective: I am conscious that pursuing family/interconnectedness masks a yearning for ‘me’ time, focusing on wealth ignores a craving for the simple things in life, and seeking power disguises a longing for interconnectedness.

I do think that deliberate ignorance is at the heart of any claim to be content pursuing nothing from life. I think we all seek something, even if it’s the status quo in a world of flux, or some level of non-existence. Maslow said ‘you will either step forward into growth or backward into safety’ - it seems the majority of existence will choose safety when it comes down to it, and that can keep them busy enough to maintain, in itself.

I think there are also many who, in prioritising profundity, have settled for the safety of simply being the smartest person in the room.

Which leads me to ask: when you say that a person has family/love/power/wealth/fame, how are you making that assessment? Is it through self-comparison, part of their own claims, or is there some objective status they’ve attained? In my own pursuit of wisdom, I would say I’m ‘content’ with the level of family, love, power, wealth and fame I currently have, simply because these are not my focus.

There certainly is risk involved in posing the two questions at yourself constantly, especially if your answers don't self-satisfy. You risk mental instability I think but the two questions seem so vital to me.
I have never achieved certainty when trying to answer them for myself but I have been able (so far) to use them as 'personal positive measures of meaning/purpose,' in my life. — universeness

I think I get what you’re saying now - I do think it is essential to be aware of my localised situation, and to orient it in the broader context of reality as I determine and initiate ongoing action, but I don’t think the answers are for anyone else’s benefit. In fact, I think that putting them into words, even for ourselves, limits the focus of our potentiality in the next moment. Our existence, even simply in this moment, is so much more than any ‘I am...’ statement could describe, and we have so much more potential than any ‘I want...’ statement could articulate moving forward. But the process of asking does keep bringing us back to our actual interaction with the world - which is sometimes neglected in this pursuit of profundity. Wisdom is more about the accurate application of understanding in relation to the world, than simply possessing knowledge.

I am convinced that I will die happier due to my pursuit of profundity/wisdom than I would if I died as a 'happy clappy hippy.' Do you see it quite differently?

I love the two questions 'who are you?' and 'what do you want?' I enjoy listening to people trying to answer them without referencing anything outside of them. I am the father/mother/son/brother of.....
My name is......, my job is......, I want to be a.....
I have yet to find anyone who can answer those questions to their own satisfaction, even when they claim they can do exactly that, my follow-up questions normally make them edit their previous responses.
Do you think that it's possible for any human being to currently claim the following at the end of their life:
I did it my way!
I die truly happy!
Will you be able to make such claims and would your claims stand up if your 'main life events,' were viewed by others in 'true story,' movie format? — universeness

I think that my pursuit of profundity/wisdom is a choice I make to forego any final sense of satisfaction until I die. I’m content with that, at least, and I consider it more of a risk to eudamonia to try and protect any illusion of constant happiness in life.

I also think that if we believe we can answer ‘who are you?’ and ‘what do you want?’ with any certainty, then we’re setting ourselves up for a rude shock at some point down the track. From the moment we make such definitive statements about ourselves, the truth of them has already altered to some extent.

I don’t think we ever manage to do things entirely our own way - intersubjectivity is an unavoidable aspect of self-consciousness that leads us to these questions in the first place. But I think it’s possible to reach the end of our life satisfied with its uniqueness and fullness, and whether anyone agrees with us is out of our hands, and no longer our concern.

How could you choose what one likes and dislikes? These are, as far as I can tell, formed way before one is even conscious about them. I, for example, didn't opt for heterosexuality, but, from what I can gather, I have. The same goes for homo/bisexuals. This proves my point to my satisfaction. — Agent Smith

I said you had a hand in it - not that you consciously chose them. You seem determined to absolve responsibility for changing behaviours, based on some supposedly unbridgeable gap between imagined choice and actualising preferences. I have already suggested there are limitations to what we can change. It’s not a matter of choosing, but rather re-conceptualising what it is we like or dislike.

There are people who have developed a sexual preference for young children - do you believe them inherently incapable of a healthy adult relationship? Or do you think it’s possible for them to reconfigure their preferences in an alternative direction?

Our dark history of suppressing homosexual behaviour has shown us that it’s not a matter of choosing or judging preferences, but rather understanding them. In some cases, it is society’s conceptualisation that needs to change. In other cases, it is our own.

On a less controversial note, I grew up as a fussy eater, developing a strong dislike for most vegetables. As an adult, I eventually recognised that this aspect of my ‘personality’ was inhibiting my quality of life. There are always more options available than we’re initially aware of - we just need to seek them out, to get creative. I soon learned that it wasn’t the vegetables I didn’t like in most cases, but often the way they were cooked. After considerable experimentation, I will now eat most vegetables, although for some I remain particular about the cooking process.

Please bear in mind that there are two stages when it comes to making a choice:

Stage 1. Deliberation on the available options
Stage 2. Actually making a selection

It's an incontrovertible fact that in stage 1, we ponder upon all options and we imagine what each one leads to, as best as we can given what we know and what we don't. This is what I've termed virtual choice. For n options, we can make n virtual choices.

In stage 2, all the choices have been processed and the one that we like is selected. It's in this stage, our preferences come into play, preferences we had no hand in determining i.e. we're not free now. — Agent Smith

But you have had a hand in determining your preferences. You just haven’t been paying attention.

Freedom is a quality of variability. Our imagination has a high degree of variability, our potentiality less so, and our actuality is less variable again. You can imagine a choice, but it isn’t just what it leads to that’s important in making the selection. It’s also what making that choice requires from us in terms of available time, effort and attention. This needs to be part of the processing.

Compared with our imagination, our actions are not free. They depend on the energy made available to muscles and other bodily systems at any one time. This is determined by affect, an ongoing distribution of changes in effort and attention, which is determined by a prediction of what we probably need based on sensory data in relation to past experiences. We have more freedom here than most of us are aware of. Our imagination can be utilised in constructing simulations and scenarios to determine what our bodily systems would probably require in order to effect a particular change. From this, we can construct a conceptual prediction of affect most likely to be preferred, which can then be applied to our bodily systems over the time required.

It’s like an internal system of marketing. It’s not just about the attractive packaging - it’s about making it relevant to your current situation, easy to access and ultimately beneficial.

If you say so. But then your inclusion of affect or observers makes even less sense to me. — apokrisis

Affect refers to a four-dimensional structure of relation. Conscious observers are five-dimensional. Non-conscious observers are four-dimensional. I tend to lose people when I start talking this way.

I don’t really subscribe to this Peircean sequencing as such.
— Possibility

So you don’t really subscribe to his naturalistic view of a developmental cosmos and thus not really to Peirceanism at all? Ah, well. — apokrisis

I think it has merit as a philosophy that is grounded in an affected preference for mathematical logic. I don’t disagree with it, as such, I just think there’s a more objective position. One that takes into account the (hidden?) symmetry of an interchangeable triadic grounding: logic, quality and form.

Subjective idealism rather than objective idealism? Ah, well. — apokrisis

Leaning more towards ontic structural realism, if we have to label it.

No - the point of metaphysics is to extract the holistic simplicity of existence, which I think you and I can agree is triadic.
— Possibility

Sure. Out of the monism of unconstrained potential (Firstness) comes the mutually constraining reciprocity of the dichotomy (secondness). And from there arises the triadic relation which is a hierarchical structure (thirdness). — apokrisis

I don’t really subscribe to this Peircean sequencing as such. Firstness, Secondness and Thirdness suggest ordinality as a fundamental assumption, but quantum non-individuality disputes this. I consider ‘unconstrained potentiality’ to reflect the possibility/impossibility of pure relation - the ‘alpha-omega’, so to speak. So, there is no one-way relation of identifying reciprocity that would suggest ‘secondness’ at all here, objectively speaking. And a triad exists a priori in this variable potentiality of relational possibility/impossibility.

What matters is that the observer has some concept in mind that feels measurable - such as some spectrum of possibility defined by its dichotomous bounds, like whether the observable tends more towards the discrete or the continuous. — apokrisis

Which is arbitrary, subjective. The grounding here is feeling, affect. This is the identity element: the inaccuracy or fuzziness of any genuine question, the scarcity of a scientist’s resources (attention, effort, time). Not merely 1, but 1/ and-or /1.

Err, extracting the qualitative simplicity of existence would be the entire point of metaphysics.

Some folk just reduce it to unmeasurable momisms - god, mind, spirit, whatever - rather than the reciprocal relations that justify some scheme of measurement or observation. — apokrisis

No - the point of metaphysics is to extract the holistic simplicity of existence, which I think you and I can agree is triadic.

We talk about energy as if it’s continuous, but it’s not really. We talk about protons as if they’re discrete, but they’re not really.
— Possibility

Yes. And how do we know that? Our measurements have told us at energy is not continuous except as a bulk view that doesn’t see the Planck grain, and protons are merely hadronic blobs confined by their strong force. — apokrisis

They’re just different ways to describe or configure reality in relation to a limited observer. What matters is the qualitative structure of the observer in relation to the measurement, not so much the measurement itself, which doesn’t speak.

Yin-yang is not about ‘dark’ and ‘light’, ultimate qualities, but about the indivisible whole:
— Possibility

And yet the indivisible whole is also divided in some dichotomous fashion at every available turn. — apokrisis

Heuristically, sure.

Same Wiki (further down): In Taoist metaphysics, distinctions between good and bad, along with other dichotomous moral judgments, are perceptual, not real; so, the duality of yin and yang is an indivisible whole.

And Peirce draws attention to the third aspect of any linear continuum: a reflection of the observer as the source of any limitations in the system.
— Possibility

Being the modeller with the pragmatic purpose certainly imposes limitations on how the world gets modelled. But also science is human inquiry doing its level best to transcend the limits of this subjectivism.

It can’t of course remove itself from the world entirely. But it has been making exponential progress for some time now. — apokrisis

Not without serious ethical missteps. Removing oneself from the world seems to me a self-destructive purpose...but, that has been the trajectory of science as a whole for some time now...I think human inquiry has to reconsider aspects of its methodology if it wants to succeed in transcending the limits of subjectivism without annihilating itself. That’s my humble view.

I think we can more accurately ground an act of measurement in the limitations of the device/observer.
— Possibility

Again, if you think this is “Peircean”, you would have to explain what the heck he was doing when employed in tasks like producing a better working definition of the standard yard for the US weights and measure service. He came up with the diffraction grating approach that could provide accuracy to parts in a million — apokrisis

No, I don’t necessarily think this is Peircean (hence ‘I think’). I consider Peircean metaphysics to be a useful and logical starting point, and a meaningful space for our discussion, but I don’t consider my own approach to be limited by Peirce’s view. I think his approach enabled him to recognise the limitations and then improve on the accuracy of measurement systems - to change the device on which we ground an act of measurement.

In a triadic relation, there is no need for ‘ground’ as such. It is the triadic interchangeability of ground that ensures the accuracy and stability of the system. That’s what symmetry is, after all.

Coming from a science and not philosophy background, my first reaction is that in order to truly understand something, you must first extract yourself from within it and observe it objectively.

This is obviously very difficult, perhaps even impossible, in the case of consciousness. We can only really understand consciousness when inhibiting that consciousness, leading to my doubt that we can objectively figure out what that consciousness is.

How can we exit a casual loop of consciousness, where our understanding of consciousness is biased by requiring consciousness? — PhilosophyRunner

How did we extract ourselves from the description of a planetary system, where our understanding of the system was biased by our position within it?

The first step to understanding something from which you cannot extract yourself is to get a sense your limitations and variability with regard to understanding it. Then use your imagination to hypothesise alternatives to ‘consciousness’ as an anthropocentric perspective, and find a logical reconfiguration of reality that would include consciousness as a limited, variable structure within it - like Copernicus did with our planetary system.

But mathematics models the relation.

Metaphysics arrives as its ultimate qualities via the dialectic or dichotomy, which is a reciprocal or inverse relation. So in Yin-Yang fashion, this is a self-quantifying approach to qualities. Thesis and antithesis meet synthesis in the degree to which each it’s not its “other”.

To be discrete is not to be continuous. And vice versa. And this dichotomisation of possibility is mathematically expressed as a reciprocal relation. Discrete = 1/continuous. And continuous = 1/discrete.

Each is the limit on its other. Each is the unit which is thus the basis of measurement or quantification in regard to that other.

I can measure discreteness in the world to the degree I can measure no continuity. And vice versa. And that is expressible as the simplest mathematical relation. — apokrisis

No, mathematics reduces the relation. It aims to reduce any relation to one dimension: a numerical order. And measurement is an act of quantification that reduces the complexity of experience to this linear relation. Which is fine, as long as you recognise the qualitative complexity of the relation you started with.

These ‘ultimate qualities’ are limited by the finite time, effort and attention of an observation/measurement event. We talk about energy as if it’s continuous, but it’s not really. We talk about protons as if they’re discrete, but they’re not really. The variable quality of an event is relative to the limitations of the observer: the event horizon is no more than a reflection of ourselves.

Yin-yang is not about ‘dark’ and ‘light’, ultimate qualities, but about the indivisible whole: the potential/apparent lightness in dark and darkness in light that reflects the conscious observer. It’s about recognising our own perceptual limitations in relation to quality, rather than imposing them as limitations on reality.

Time is how one event measures change in relation to another. It’s a linear relation of variable change. The qualitative structure of time, however, is four-dimensional. Whenever you go from the maths to application, you need to reconfigure it as an event or act: a four-dimensional distribution of effort and attention.

Numerical order is a linear relation of variable significance, or how one structure of potentiality measures value in relation to another. But now we’re talking about five-dimensional structures. In application you’re reconfiguring predictions, measurement devices, conceptual systems, languages, ideologies, etc.

This linear relation of value - like the linear relation of time - is an heuristic device, a simplistic, mathematical model. And Peirce draws attention to the third aspect of any linear continuum: a reflection of the observer as the source of any limitations in the system.

So the limit of each ‘ultimate quality’ is not the other, but the qualitative structure of the identity element, the unit or symmetry breaking point. It represents the lack of symmetry in any dual relation - the missing third aspect.

It is the universal trick that allows measurement. We can only ever ground an act of measurement in terms of a claim of what is, within the context of all that it is thus not. — apokrisis

I think we can more accurately ground an act of measurement in the limitations of the device/observer.

I noticed no response. I guess my points landed. — schopenhauer1

No - I just have better things to do with my time than arguing with someone who so aggressively rejects open-mindedness and charitable discussion. I’m done here.

There’s no reason we can’t do the same with the order of ‘value’.
— Possibility

But there is a very obvious reason.

Any claims about quality have to be qualified by quantification. And that is both the scientific method and Peircean pragmatism.

We can’t ignore the fact that theory and measurement go together as a system of mutual constraint. That is the basis of universal reasonableness which Peirce recognised himself. — apokrisis

The last person you could cite in support of an unmoored metaphysics of value, quality or idea would be Peirce. His whole thing was about how any claim about qualities hat to be, in practice, supported by acts of quantification. — apokrisis

In practice, sure, and likewise with claims about quantity to be supported by acts of qualification, ie. observation. And yet theoretical physics. Objectively, there is no primacy here: there is quality, logic and form. And whether we quantify quality by measurement or qualify a quantity by observation, potential information is subject to the same level of constraint in practice.

But prior to quantifying quality (applying it to reality), we can consider it as potentiality in the form of a paradoxical relation. Quality in a formal relation to logic. We’re not ignoring anything here. Qualitative potentiality, prior to application, is no less reasonable than quantum potentiality.

Eventually, yes, it does interact with a logical form, just as quantum potentiality interacts with a qualitative form, a measurement device. This doesn’t preclude theoretical physicists from generating unqualifiable theories about the logic of reality. So speculation on unquantifiable theories about quality would be no less reasonable, despite the sense of it being ‘unmoored’. The key is to find a logical system that supports variable quality without constraining potentiality. Mathematics is not that system.

The Tao Te Ching is an example of what I’m thinking of. The extent of quantification is in the individual Chinese characters as qualities, ideas, which have a variable meaning in relation to each other within the language. To a self-conscious observer in formal relation to the language as a logical structure, the ideas make sense and the theory is supported in practice. But it’s quantifiable ONLY in this linguistic configuration. When we try to translate the text into English, the theory becomes uncertain and subjective. It is no longer configured as quality in potential relation to a logical form. There are parallels to be drawn here with the many interpretations of quantum physics.

It is Peirce’s triadism that can help to ground what may seem ‘unmoored’, by insisting on a relational structure of three aspects where only one or two are argued.

Getting the first punch in can just mean you are faster and more sober than the idiot getting in your face for no reason with clear intent to cause you physical harm. — I like sushi

How we interpret the situation and their intent is never as ‘clear’ or objective as we might assume. I think your brother’s approach is reasonable in the circumstances - no ill will in putting an end to the conflict, but also no self-righteous interpretation of ‘faster and more sober’ against an ‘idiot with no reason’. Which is why I appreciate your ‘Riggs’ approach, and I get the sense it may work more often than not. Fighting an idiot clearly lacking reason is never a good idea.

At the point when people take for granted that it is morally right to hate and despise others. — baker

How can you be certain of that, and how is your own response not to be interpreted as equally self-righteous by them?

The thing is, is "Free love" a problem when it is practiced massively? Maybe we are creating a sightly pathological/weak community. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

As I said, the problem with ‘free love’ is the freedom to withdraw or deny love without compunction, and the moral justification to then withdraw or deny love in response. A focus only on ‘free love’, without the motivation to develop foundations as well as an ongoing dialectic, will always be a weak community. It’s only one third of the picture.

I’m not sure I understand what form you think this extra dimension takes. It sounds like a larger embedding dimension for GR - such as a brane. Or it could be a compactified internal one. Or even a fractal internal one.

That is to say, the whole Euclidean/Newtonian conception of a dimension is up for grabs once we get to the bleeding edge of physics these days. — apokrisis

As I’ve said before, my approach to this is qualitative, so I agree that classical conceptions of ‘dimension’ don’t work at this level, but the quality or idea of dimensionality does rationally subsist, regardless of form. So, in all honesty, I don’t think it matters.

Well my view is that the thermodynamic finality driving the show is what needs to be built into the physics. And quantum decoherence is one of the ways that is being done, as is the de Sitter cosmology that builds in a conformal spacetime geometry - a holographic closure that brings an end to effective space, time and energy.

So Peirce can be said to have envisioned the Cosmos as a dissipative structure. And Big Bang cosmology is cashing out that metaphysics as physics.

The difference is obviously that the Heat Death does not seem such a triumphant cosmic achievement from a human self-centred view.

It would be puzzling that all of history would be so marvellously organised to eventually result in … us. But now the future only holds the relentless onwards project of finishing off the infinite nothingness of a cosmos that is its fully matured condition as a universalised heat sink. — apokrisis

This view is still constrained by a linear, anthropocentric relation to a four-dimensional universe. So it’s effectively a similar heuristic reduction to the one we made in forming our initial, naive understanding of time. The future of Heat Death you describe IS the most probable - mathematically speaking and given an essential perspective of cosmology that renders itself invariable.

But the truth is that our perspective as such is neither essential, nor invariable, and this numerical order we rely on is a value structure we have only arbitrarily applied to our statistically variable measurements/observation of the world. It’s a paradigm shift the likes of which we haven’t encountered since Copernicus - and he at least had mathematical values to rely on.

In The Order of Time, Carlo Rovelli documented the dismantling of our assumptions in relation to what we call ‘time’, and reconfigured this four-dimensional reality, not as objects in a linear relation to time, but more accurately as interacting events. There’s no reason we can’t do the same with the order of ‘value’. Particularly if we differentiate it as a triadic relational structure: value, significance and potentiality. But I get that physics doesn’t venture this far without a lifeline that assumes, for instance, that value IS significant... to us.

Sure. I agree that 4D spacetime is just advanced accountancy. But then that applies to the three spatial dimensions as much as the one temporal dimension. If time is reduced to a numerical sequence that represents Planck units of change, then space likewise is a numerical sequence of Planck unit of location. I don't see that leading anywhere for the usual reason - one has to include Planck energy in this picture as well. — apokrisis

I agree that this accountancy is applied to all four dimensions - that’s kind of my point. These three aspects (location, change and energy), all reduced to number sequences, presents a prediction at the Planck scale - a mathematical variation to be applied from one four-dimensional structure to another. That application, in my understanding, relies on a five-dimensional structure.

I agree with you that the fourth dimension is change, structured according to time/effort/attention, and is all about energy/entropy, the direction of temperature, etc. What I’m suggesting is that what enables us to explore and understand this four-dimensional structure at all is by reconfiguring reality according to value/significance/potentiality.

Whenever you rely on somebody else that person has authority over you. An advantage of being independent is that you're not giving people power of you, you're not giving people authority over you. This is something to realize if you do plan to rely on others and if you do plan to not be a recluse. — HardWorker

Given that we’re born dependent, and that we rely on so many systems, manufacturers and suppliers in our day-to-day lives, at what point can you claim to be ‘independent’ - relying on no one at all? It seems to me that anyone who claims to be independent is demonstrating ignorance to some extent.

Interdependence is an important aspect of being human, if you do plan to not be a recluse. The thing about giving people authority is that it doesn’t detract from your own. If it’s authority over you or aspects of your life that you’re giving, then you still have the authority to take it back.

But even without the collective power, even if you've got just one person working for you, you've still got to pay them enough so that they will work for you. So they've got authority over you in that sense. — HardWorker

I’m not entirely sure you understand what authority is: the power to give orders, make decisions and enforce obedience. If I pay someone enough so that they agree to work for me, I haven’t given them authority in that sense. We’ve entered into an agreement, and we both retain authority over our own part in that agreement. I give them an agreed sum of money, they give me an agreed allocation of their time, effort and attention. Anything outside of this agreement is subject to further negotiation.

nevertheless the awareness of the temporal duration between events seems always to be brought to the picture by the observing mind, because it requires memory and expectation, which can only be provided by the mind
— Wayfarer

The alternative to Panpsychism is pansemiosis. So all we really require for time to have temporal structure is that physical reality boils down to a Peircean story of constraints on possibilities.

The past is the Cosmos’s memory in being everything that has definitely happened and so a history of all the possibilities eliminated. That is very mind-like - for any neuroscientist - in that it accounts for the past as an accumulation of behavioural habits.

Then the future, by definition, is all the possibilities that remain. The future is the continuously updated space of the possible - what can happen next given all that has happened already.

This is George Ellis’s evolving block universe theory, for example.

It is mind-like in a general pansemiotic way, but - like a biosemiotic view of consciousness - doesn’t then dive headlong into Cartesian substance dualism and all the confusion that results from doing that. — apokrisis

I can see how temporal structure rendered as a linear continuum would simplify the ideas you’re navigating here.

But there’s a more complex dimensional structure to block universe, panpsychism and other ‘universal consciousness’ theories that often either gets reduced relative to temporal events, or extended to the notion of unconstrained possibility, with ‘mind’ as an unexplained mediating factor. But few venture to suggest what this mind consists of. Peirce talks about a habit-taking tendency to events, and the interaction of actualising qualities into facts, after somehow transitioning from dimensionless to determined potentiality.

This article explores the idea of a numerical order to events in space, regardless of time. It fits with the idea that mind, consciousness, a block universe, semiotics (even the quantum realm) are all composed according to perceived or calculated value/significance/potentiality - as five dimensions of relational structure.

So, my question is, how is (real, healthy, affectionate) family feasible with this "Free love" philosophy in place, which I share? — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Perhaps a healthy and affectionate family with a ‘free love’ philosophy is theoretically possible, but it’s by no means easy to structure with the aim of prioritising the needs of the child. A ‘free love’ philosophy is very much a selfish attitude in most cases, which is incompatible with the concept of ‘family’.

The problem I see with ‘free love’ is the freedom to withdraw or deny love - ‘love’ being an actualising perception of value, potential and significance in another. Ideas such as the importance of both a mother and father figure, and ‘it takes a village to raise a child’, stem from the allostasis of parenting a human being: providing that ideal balance between a stable foundation and variable experiences to maximise brain development.

That’s not to say that ‘free love’ can’t be framed as a broader, more inclusive and variable attitude towards the notion of ‘family’, but this comes at the cost of stability. You would need to demonstrate a stable foundation of love for the child in some other way. This challenge may also be encountered to some extent if a parent dies, is incapacitated or disfigured, during a divorce, adoption, fostering, etc.

A point I want to make is that a traditional nuclear family in no way guarantees the kind of balance between a stable foundation of actualising love and variable informative experiences that a child needs to thrive. It’s arguably more likely to occur naturally (efficiently) in this format, but I think it’s more important that the ‘family’ understands their responsibility of actualising love towards the child permanently precludes a certain degree of freedom, which is to be dictated by the child’s needs.

Nice ! That makes sense. I like the emphasis on 4D and time. I acknowledge that the brain/non-brain distinction is an abstraction. I think it was appropriate in the context you quoted, but I don't take it seriously. Even the organism/world boundary is an abstraction/approximation. If light from distance stars is tickling my retina... — jas0n

The distinction/boundary is heuristic.

Only when you look at it as an object. In practice, the brain is never an object, unless you're a neurologist or some such.
— Wayfarer

I still think your not seeing/addressing the issue I'm raising. You and I both believe that the brain evolved, so this seems to require a stage (space and time and molecules) for the composition and interaction of lifeforms (call it 'physical' or whatever.) That only makes sense as 'outside' the dream of such brains (or better yet the mediated environment of such brains.)

If 'the subject' or 'consciousness' lives in healthy human brains, then what are they made of and where do they exist? An indirect realist might say (1) some kind of non-mental stuff and (2) in some kind of substrate. — jas0n

In practice, the brain is inseparable from the lifeform as an integrated event, and has evolved with a high degree of variability within its protective casing. It is this integrated variability that enables a relational structure of ‘mind’ to develop through the ongoing interoception of affect. It’s effectively a DNA-style structure in 4D, a variable biochemical prediction of this lifeform’s ongoing interaction with the world.

non-conceptual awareness
— Possibility

Would you say that's phenomenology in a loose sense? I heard phenomenology is about dumping all conceptual schema that exist and we employ to make sense of the world and focusing our attention on phenomena (appearances). — Agent Smith

Phenomenology is one way to approach it, sure. But this non-conceptual awareness is arguably indicative of qualitative variability at every dimensional level of awareness, not just at this human level of consciousness. I don’t think Phenomenology goes as far as dumping ALL conceptual schema - not to the extent that Structural Realism does, for instance.

Kinda sorta makes sense; after all noumena will forever remain beyond, on the other side of, our event horizon. — Agent Smith

Our event horizon is just a barrier to certainty, which has never constrained our capacity to relate, let alone to act.

So it is, the world or the self (two things we can become conscious of) can induce, chemistry-wise, a one-to-one corresponding chemical reaction that is then understood as awareness/consciousness. I call this an image. Perhaps you have in your possession a better concept and the right word to go with it. This is best exemplified by the eyes - the rods and cones undergo what's known as photochemical reactions, very much like in old camera films, and the end result of that is an image that forms on our retinas, the totality of which is then relayed to our visual cortex and that's vision in a nutshell.

No such system ("variation in its structural arrangement") is apparent in a stone, but we have to be careful here: maybe this is a lacuna in our knowledge rather than a fact about stones.

Furthermore, there's this idea of pure awareness, the raw sense data itself sans the processing (thinking). This is old news in the philosophy of mind, perhaps more well-known and included in meditative practices in the orient. An ordinary camera is the best inanimate object that typifies this concept. An image forms inside the camera after light traverses ite lenses. That's pure awareness and does involve "variation in its strutctural arrangement", there's nothing in a camera that examines the image formed inside it. In my book, that's proto-consciousness, one step away from true human-level consciousness and we've already made progress in that department with robots and AI (image processing). Is that rudimentary, simple consciousness? I dunno. — Agent Smith

This is what we’ve been taught to assume: that consciousness is image-based, rather than chemical-based. What forms inside an ordinary camera is a photochemical arrangement of shapes and colours. It is our mind that associates this with an ‘image’ of the world. In that sense, the camera is a few steps short of human-level self-consciousness, as are robots and AI. They still rely on the human mind to determine any relation between the data and experience, no matter how detailed.

Most of what forms on our retinas or gets relayed to our visual cortex from one moment to the next is fuzzy and incomplete. Any notion that a total, detailed ‘image’ is continually formed and transmitted like a video camera to consciousness is overestimating our ongoing visual attention, and underestimating the amount of energy such a process would require.

The vast majority of our ongoing conscious experience consists of conceptualised predictions based on past experiences. This is why when most of us try to draw what’s directly in front of us, it looks stylised and cartoonish. It takes practice and deliberate attention to create a detailed ‘image’ even in our minds close to what a camera can produce, let alone re-create it on paper. Most of the time we’re only paying attention to what’s changing unpredictably from one moment to the next, and what information we feel to be in our best interests with regard to our intentions. The rest is filled in conceptually as determined from predictions as well as all our other senses.

As for the idea of ‘pure awareness’, this starts by paying attention and being ‘in the moment’ rather than experiencing the world conceptually. But it’s more than raw sense data - it’s also about developing non-conceptual awareness of qualitative potential, value and significance, as further variability in consciousness.

Both to think up possibilities and eliminating them requires talent and expertise. I'm but a beginner in these methods and so cum grano salis with regard to what I have to say. Panpsychism is possible if only there's an image of the exterior (the world at large) and the interior (the self). I recall looking at a rock and contemplating consciousness. A rock doesn't possess eyes nor is it smooth enough to act as a mirror. In what sense, how, can it be conscious (of anything) then? Perhaps there are other ways via which it can construct an image of the world and itself. Limited as we are to our 5 senses, we can't conceive of other means of creating an image of the world or the self, but it isn't beyond the realm of possibility that a rock could, in principle. hold and image of the world and of itself, we just don't know how that's done. — Agent Smith

What we consolidate as a ‘rock’ consists of individual molecular structures in an arrangement of which they are obviously unaware. If you broke a rock in half, it is not integrated at this level to respond as a rock. But some molecular structures on the newly exposed surface will begin to oxidise - to create a variation in their structural arrangements in relation to the world.

I don’t think basic awareness is about creating an ‘image’. Consciousness is a complex awareness in which an integrated life event creates a variation in its structural arrangement (of interacting molecular change) in relation to an ‘other’ event with which it interacts - ie. the world. Each variation relates to the next to gradually build and rebuild a conceptual structure of the world as a predictive reference for the brain, in much the same way as DNA builds an updated blueprint for the organism. This integrated structure of predictions about the world is then able to create an ‘image’ of the world or the self as it develops self-consciousness - creating potential or simulated variations to test how such an arrangement might affect the organism’s ongoing structural arrangements of molecular change.

When theist people believe in a God or Gods responsible for everything in existence they very often give them human characteristics for the obvious reason that what else could one imagine beings of consciousness to be like.

But for those that either believe strictly in science or a more cosmic force like karma or some type of balance don't they also add human virtue when thinking of that scenario? At least I assume most aren't content with chaos. — TiredThinker

When theists describe a God or Gods they give them human characteristics as a matter of relatability.

Those who believe in science/karma/balance prefer to keep some emotional distance, in an attempt to ‘control’ the relationship, as it were.

The problem for both is in attributing intentionality - and with that, moral judgement. Because we tend to relate to both as one structure of moral potential to another. It’s easier to take the moral high ground against science or Karma. More difficult against a sense of higher consciousness or balance.

Your post sounds intriguing. I can't really make any sense of it though. Would you mind simplifying all that please? Try to make as simple as you possibly can, as though you were trying to explain it to a 6 year old. — Watchmaker

A six year old is never going to grasp this, and any attempt to reduce it so that they can would be analogous at best.

The foundation of existence consists of three aspects, and it doesn’t really matter what you name them. Take away one leg of a tripod, and there is no stable configuration to place one of the remaining legs in relation to the other. We’re not really looking for something ‘fundamental’, so much as a stable, concrete foundation. And we won’t find that kind of stability as a monism or dualism.

There is no central, immoveable aspect to be found, either - we can only assume (without foundation) the potential of our existence in relation to a paradox: the possibility/impossibility of some absolute (logic, goodness, power, etc). And yet, to differentiate this possibility and/or impossibility as complementary in relation to our own mind enables the formation of a stable, triadic relation of reality, inclusive of self.

There is a symmetry here in physics: any ‘real’ object has three (spatial) aspects, and anything less than this is potential or virtual - which is not to say it doesn’t exist at all, or is imaginary, just undefined, unstable as such. An electron is defined by its orbit, or a localised energy potential relative to a nucleus. It is the atom, as a stable triadic structure of electron, proton and neutron (differentiated potentials), which forms a concrete foundation to three-dimensional reality.

A similarly stable, triadic relation can be found at every dimensional level. Ignore one of the three aspects, and the system is uncertain, inaccurate. Give one primacy, and the structure is unstable.

To say that ‘consciousness is fundamental’ would be inaccurate. Consciousness is A) a triadic system in itself with three fundamental aspects to it, and/or B) one of three equally fundamental aspects of a broader system.

In terms of the former, what we consider to be ‘consciousness’ is contingent upon: 1) an ongoing, integrated event, such as life; 2) a differentiated event or consolidation of ‘other’ events; 3) an ongoing, variable structure of relation (ie. interaction, observation, measurement) between 1 and 2. So consciousness is fundamentally irreducible to a measurement or event.

In terms of the latter, ‘consciousness’ exists in necessary relation with ‘non-consciousness’ as perceived limitations relative to a third, variable potentiality. The question is, where does one perceive their own potentiality? As absolute consciousness, or as this third variable? And IF this third variable, then what can we do about that? How do we attain stability at the level of potentiality? The answer is to re-configure conceptual structures until they are reducible to a stable triadic relation inclusive of self, rather than a linear continuum (a la Peirce).

Which also renders the ‘one punch’ such a despicable act.

But consider a verbal exchange that deteriorates/escalates into a physical one. At what point is this deterioration/escalation justifiable? Is it when one predicts mere words to be an insufficient response - given the intention here is to overwhelm, intimidate or dominate one’s opponent?

The error, as I see it, is in the intention, rather than the initiation.

"I find it interesting that information is suggested as being fundamental. In Computing, information is a composite of the labels data and meaning. Raw data has no meaning. 25 is raw data, 25 apples, is data with meaning, and is therefore information. Data is unlabeled, so how can information be fundamental if it is made up of 'parts.'
Perhaps 'data' is fundamental and 'meaning' is fundamental" - Universeness

How about meaningful data is fundamental?

If meaning is fundamental, wouldn't that imply a mind? — Watchmaker

Fundamental implies ‘mind’ all on its own. But ‘mind’ is just relative potentiality, a conceptual structure or prediction. Meaning as existential relation to paradox is fundamental, and data is what is given (as relative value or potential) in any such relation. This paradox or dichotomy in itself could be existentially prior to any meaningful relation, yet this isn’t given. Assumed or denied, its existence is relative to our own.

We keep looking for some kind of singular foundation of certainty or substance to existence, but it could only possibly or relatively exist as such. Any certainty or substance is necessarily triadic.

Women along with most of society go with the flow, misguided by the myths of male domination & income disparity feminism perpetuates. A new generation appearing every 25 years, born primitive (naked) now near devoid of carry over conservative values, conservatives themselves in decline due to natural attrition, all combining to exacerbate a situation. And you blame me? — Gregory A

Feminist intentionality is to draw attention to the conservative patriarchal myth that all power is quantitatively determined. It is predictable that those who would identify with this myth feel threatened by a growing awareness that what is quantifiable or consolidated into a localised ignorance is not as essentially powerful or significant in itself as we once assumed. As these myths of ‘essential patriarchy’, ‘might makes right’, etc dissolve into an amorphous system consisting of non-commutative variables of potentiality, the opportunity arises for a more conscious, connected and collaborative system of value to be developed.

This ‘situation’ only appears dire to those who would define themselves by such localised quantities of measurable and observable ‘power’ as income, physical strength or dominance. Males, as a loosely defined category, are not facing ‘elimination’ - except perhaps by this stretch of imagination that isolates the ‘Y chromosome’ as some symbolic male ‘force’ in opposition to the very system on which it depends...

But this not about blame - the only fault here is ignorance.

The 'X-Male', a predictable occurence, turning on his fellow males as a display of self-serving chivalry decides what otherwise was once a balanced team. But regardless it is something metaphysical, mysterious even, that decides the so many factors that are involved in what will be the eventual elimination of the male. — Gregory A

Not so mysterious - just difficult to quantify - and with an entirely different intentionality to this supposed ‘elimination of the male’. It is not possible for qualitative potential to entirely eliminate quantitative power - given there is no actualising anything without it (including elimination), and vice versa. By the same token, it has never been possible for males to entirely dominate females.

Any kind of balance to be achieved between XX and XY - even in this simplest of configurations - cannot be determined merely quantitatively. This should be obvious, but you might need to think about it for a bit...

Most women understand this? Feminism itself doesn't have as much as an inkling of how close to power it is. Needless to say women including feminists don't want something they have no idea is going to happen. — Gregory A

You really do have no clue about women at all, do you? You’re just projecting your patriarchal perspective of ‘power’ onto a narrow oppositional perspective of feminism. Power is not about conquering, but about variable potential. If anything, this apparent ‘conspiracy to eliminate males’ is patriarchy’s own doing - a narrow view that ‘only one can survive’ at the top.

The past doesn't exist, it's gone; the future too doesn't exist, it is yet to come; the now is an instant, it is nothing! Existence is an activity, and like all activities, requires a non-zero length of time. How can anything exist? — Agent Smith

It’s all relative.

In a hostile world patriarchies have been essential, hence the difference in male and female physiques. We look for examples of matriarchies and find none for the simple reason they don't exist. All attempts failing too much at odds with a harsh reality. It follows that with a rapidly changing environment, the coming matriarchy will happen at the expense of men, all males in fact. At 67% the strength of the male, the female is easily compensated by mechanization. Machinery allowing even the heaviest work to be carried out by the most fragile of females. With artificial wombs on the distant horizon, artificial insemination available now, male obsolescence nears, the processes of gendercide already underway. There will be no males left in one hundred years this is inevitable. — Gregory A

Ridiculous fear-mongering. From someone who has lived and worked with mostly females a lot, the world is not better off without males. That they may soon no longer be physically essential doesn’t change that, and most women understand this (deep down) - although they’re not going to give men that reassurance at this point, for obvious reasons.