I just went in to our local library and offered my technical and other skills as a volunteer, so I'll be doing that in the coming year too.

haven't read Weber but I learned a little about Calvinism in history. One aspect which I do think comes into play is the context of values related to the basic economic structure of social life. — Jack Cummins

As you mention social life, there is also the whole competing sociological traditions of Rousseau and Hobbes to consider in this context. Society as separating man from his fundamental goodness versus society as the source of order, controlling man's destructive and selfish urges.

Karma presupposes supernatural record keeping and judgment. — creativesoul

Why can it not simply be natural cause and effect? Very few (if any) actions absolutely terminate in their intended consequences. Anything you do continues on, past, and through what you intend.

Interesting. If you would like to read about the idea of the "calling" it was important in Calvinism, where it reached a very material form. Weber looks at it closely in the third chapter ofProtestantism and the Spirit of Capitalism.

How can it be considered as "true"? As opposed or compared to what? False, fake, divided, imagined, idealized? — Alkis Piskas

Yes, I'd agree with this. If your true self is in bad faith, that is still your true self. Maybe what @Jack Cummins is describing is the best self?

Academic writing aside, where the term is (I won't say arbitrarily but) specifically defined, I think that ego is a pretty nebulous concept, and, in my opinion, not the best one to use, for that reason. If ego is going to be used in the (most common) negative sense, it indicates an overinvolvement of self at the expense of other and often truth. Then I would say it is just self-deception and self-aggrandizement. On the other hand, if it means the sum total of what takes place at the conscious level (ala Freud) then really, it is just synonymous with consciousness (I would personally unite id/ego/superego under that heading). I'm just not sure it is a productive term.

Or it may mean your ego* is completely satisfied. — ArielAssante

If living in accord with the constraints of external reality without any kind of internal or external deception or equivocation is egoistic. In the pejorative context you suggest, doesn't ego usually imply some kind of falsity or error?

I think that you have already answered your own question: authenticity. This is both an intuitively and comprehensively satisfying concept. If your thoughts and actions are in perfect accord, then you live authentically, and in so doing, can be said to be your true self. Of course, there are innumerable twists and turns to being actually able to do this. Self-knowledge, self-deception, knowledge in general. Still, it would be my chosen port of embarkation.

I don't think it's a problem when scientists do philosophy, only when they conflate philosophy and science.

Fermi's paradox is an example of trying to force an explanation on a description. In a quantitative study of abiogenesis, it was observed that, rather than the 90 or so precursor elements being randomly distributed among a large number of seed sites (of artificial membranes) some seed sites contained zero elements whereas a small number contained all the elements to produce biotic chemicals from prebiotic. Although the statistical probability of abiogenesis occurring in the context of the experiment was infinitesimally small, it did in fact occur.

So it is an observable feature of nature that its stochastic nature seems to break down or be superseded by more localized or focal effects where life (or perhaps negentropy itself) is concerned. Which makes sense, insamuch as negentropy is really a contradiction of the most basic law governing mechanics.

Keep the Aspidistra Flying
by George Orwell

:yikes:

There isn't any such comparable scientific circumstantial evidence of "cosmic consciousness" — 180 Proof

Unless you place any validity at all on subjective experience. Which is essentially what any humanistic science from history to sociology to anthropology to, dare I say, philosophy, does.

It isn't a common word, and your online sources are just someone clunking something together. I have encountered the word in texts, a quick survey of citations on google scholar will produce some of those. In particular, one includes a characterization of the word in the context of future architecture and the transphysical city:

As the prefix trans- implies, it will be at once a
transmutation and a transgression of the known, but it will also stand alongside and be interwoven
into that very matrix.
http://cast.b-ap.net/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/2014/09/Novak.pdf

So your metacognitive strategy of looking up a word you don't know is valid, but you need to maintain an awareness of the true reliability of your reference source.

You wasted your own time.

By the way, with all respect to your prestigious online internet sources, the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, which is 2 volumes and 7000 pages and is in my library, defines trans- as a freely productive prefix, which is how it was used. It does not contain the word transphysical. I am quite content that context of the usage accurately reflects the sense I am conveying.

AI are in the news again, and it got me wondering what the most common sense way to seeing these machines was. Animals have consciousness but not reasoning like we do. Artificial intelligence does or may someday have the reasoning we have, but does this mean they are conscious? I mean, we can imagine consciousness without reason, so why not reasoning without consciousness? I haven't seen this considered before, so I thought I'd throw it out there — Gregory

Right now so called AI can perform specific tasks based on extensive programming. At the height of its complexity, these tasks can be generalized to what may be called "abilities": carry on a conversation, for example. So the question is, if we think of AI as being conscious, is this a specific ability which we confer on it? That only begs the question of what consciousness is. In that case, if we think of AI as attaining consciousness, it must be in the context of us conferring more and more task specific capabilities such that, in a cumulative fashion, new generalized abilities emerge, at the apex of which emerges consciousness, the ultimate general ability. And if it is an emergent property then we would no more have created that consciousness than we created the matter out of which the computer was formed.

As to reason without conscious, in abilities-centric characterization just offered, I think reason and consciousness must be synonymous. Viz, a computer that displays the general ability of "carrying on a conversation" (in the context of the Turing test say) is not really reasoning, just executing a whole lot of algorithms very quickly. You could not call that reasoning unless it were at the same time conscious.

Well then it's an unfalsifiable "hypothesis" – at most, (perennialist) poetry. And the "appeal to aesthetics" with respect to ontology, howecer, makes "cosmic consciousness" just another empty name like "god" :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Compare it with the search for extra-terrestrial life then. No evidence for life of any kind has ever been discovered anywhere in the universe beyond the confines of earth. Yet many people and organizations devote lots of resources searching for it in what is considered credible scientific research. And even more people than conduct the actual research believe that it exists, many with great passion.

This could itself be construed as a search for a cosmic intelligence. Which is indeed the theme presented at the conclusion of the Stargate Universe series, where the analysis of exceptionally detailed cosmological data reveals a message embedded in the deepest fabrics of reality. In a sense, isn't that what drives all inquiry, the search for a deeper meaning?

There is no definite determination what causes the global warming. — god must be atheist

This is misleading. Scientific consensus is measurable and quantifiable through the findings of accredited organizations, national and international. Based upon that accepted standard, consensus is extremely high (97-100%) that global warming is human-caused. Whether we solely caused it isn't really relevant. The earth is a system, what we have done is unbalanced it. If a huge rock is balanced precariously atop a hill, and I push the rock, and the rock rolls down and flattens a house, yes, the mass of the stone and the mass of the earth are what actually crush the house, but if I pushed it then I am even more responsible.

edit: Scientific Consensus on climate change

The prefix trans- means across, beyond, or on the other side. So transphysical encompasses and extends the physical.

Since 95% of the universe is dark matter and dark energy, which are characterized mostly by the properties that they do not share with ordinary matter and energy, the traditional bedrock concept of materialism has become pretty tenuous, I think. What does it mean to be substantial? Concreteness and tangibility have more substance in the context of logical reasoning than the description of reality.

Yes, I'm dropping to 3 days a week in February, I'm definitely going to up my reading time then. :up:

I am familiar with classical S-R theory, but nowhere have I ever encountered the concept of identification with respect to it. I googled, but couldn't find any references either??

I am absolutely embracing the view that there are different degrees of consciousness though, yes.

Well then it's an unfalsifiable "hypothesis" – at most, (perennialist) poetry. And the "appeal to aesthetics" with respect to ontology, howecer, makes "cosmic consciousness" just another empty name like "god" :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Precisely what my thread was not created to debate.

Going for round 2 here, to get a better understanding:
An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke — Manuel

Nice. I've been wanting to re-read this for some time. Enjoy.

The Philosophy of the Enlightenment
by Ernst Cassirer

Right now my current problem is deciding between Fichte's Foundations of Transcendental Philosophy and Cassirer's Philosophy of the Enlightenment. The pet project I've been bringing into focus is one of "reformation". The enlightenment is a well described socio-intellectual-historical phenomenon. The reformation is, I think, perceived as more of a political period, but it has significant intellectual content. I think that the idea of progress has grown to be sanctified to the extent where things are discarded just because they are not new, which is an obvious mistake. Dewey writes about the fact that what is modern is the most ephemeral thing of all.

As soon as the play, which was Hamlet, Prince of Denmark, began, Partridge was all attention, nor did he break silence till the entrance of the ghost; upon which he asked Jones, "What man that was in the strange dress; something," said he, "like what I have seen in a picture. Sure it is not armour, is it?" Jones answered, "That is the ghost." To which Partridge replied with a smile, "Persuade me to that, sir, if you can."

Henry Fielding, Tom Jones

So, you must then ask, is consiousness something physical, non-physical or both? Does this makes sense? (I hope yes! :smile:) — Alkis Piskas

I think this is your main question? I think that this has been an historical dividing line. However the trans-physical can encompass the physical, but not vice-versa. If you are a hard-materialist-cognitivist, my trans-physical conception of nature can incorporate any physicalist interpretation without conflict.

Isn't it quite apparent that inferring "the universe is conscious" from the universe is inhabited by at least one species of "conscious" beings is a compositional fallacy? — 180 Proof

It is an hypothesis, not a fallacy. It's only a fallacy if it is positively determined to be categorically false.

Isn't it quite apparent that inferring "the universe is conscious" from the universe is inhabited by at least one species of "conscious" beings is a compositional fallacy? — 180 Proof

As mentioned, you really can't teach someone to appreciate the beauty of something. If the idea of a cosmic consciousness doesn't simultaneously satisfy your intellectual and aesthetic intuitions then it doesn't. However it is certain that increased understanding can lead to an increase in the appreciation of beauty. As musicians, whose love of music leads them to devote energy to improving their theoretical and technical expertise, which in turn expands their awareness of the beauty of music.

If I felt as you do, I might follow the discussion and try to appreciate whether the energy being expended in characterizing the idea has merit. Rabbi's dispute fine points of the Torah, whether or not there is specifically a Hebrew God or any God. Does that mean all their mental efforts are worthless? Solving puzzles is a trivial pastime, but people who solve a lot of puzzles can become very good at...solving things.

edit: perhaps it is a question of which ideas can engender the most beautiful constructs? I have always felt eloquence to be one of the most valuable dimensions of philosophical argument. Witness Huxley, Dewey, and of course, Bergson.

That seems too basic a point to contest. The concept of universal mind is ubiquitous in the collection of writings on animism, panpsychism, the whole notion of embodied or embedded consciousness, the systems philosophy writings of Ernst Laszlo. I am reasoning from the standpoint of a person or people who have some intuitive understanding and agreement with the notion and are attempting to expand their understanding characterizing it further. So it wouldn't be the time for me to teach you to appreciate the intuitive beauty of panpsychism.

Maybe this is why some systems focus on identification. That is identification, a factor in conditioning, may preclude entrance to a higher level of consciousness. — ArielAssante

Can you clarify and expand on that a bit for me?

Yes, I'm all-in with peak-experiences Jack. I was an ultra-runner until I my knee gave out. Running 24 hours straight and finding yourself completely alone in primeval forest under an ink-black sky awash with stars on a moonless night 30 km from the nearest population centre is one of the more controlled peak-experiences I've pursued.

Thanks for the reading recommendations, appreciated as always my friend!

However, and unfortunately, I am a little confused with the use of "consciousness" and "awareness". It would be good if you started by offering a definition of both, and how they differ or resemble. — Alkis Piskas

I think, in the context of my post, the whole thing is about conceptualizing consciousness; I would say that is the point. Whatever we are experiencing as consciousness in our biologically constrained form, I think it is a mistake to think that we can authoritatively define it. We can authoritatively experience it, but the significance of cogito ergo sum may not be the same for me as for you.

So, for me, the common-sense or ordinary language usages of both consciousness and awareness are sufficient, for those reasons. Splitting hairs about what is or isn't conscious, if there are unconscious processes, etc., isn't the focus of my descriptions. I assume that everything which is constitutive of consciousness is consciousness, even if some people call it unconscious, or id, or superego.

Possible; I just feel we don't/can't do leaps; graduated progress is the usual deal. — Agent Smith

In the field of evolutionary biology progress by leaps is known as "saltation" - there are some interesting phenomena documented with respect to population genetics, but it is pretty technical/statistical so it requires some interpretation.

As I see it, our conception of cosmic consciousness (oooh!) is limited to only scaling up what is possible with human consciousness; leaps in consciousness - taking the mind to the next level - is, to my reckoning, beyond our ken. That is not to say we can't speculate; we can and we should. After all something's better than nothing, oui mes amies? — Agent Smith

But doesn't reason actually work in the direction of transcending one level towards another, as I attempted to describe? A highly trained musician can actually perceive elements in a performance that untrained listeners cannot. There is an experiment where a cat's brain does not even register a particular tone (that is within it's audible range) until the tone has been paired with an associated significant stimulus (like food). In A Neurocomputational Perspective Paul Churchland suggests that attaining a sufficient insight into the mechanics of the mind might generate an associated direct awareness thereof.

I think that to the extent that our understanding expands, our awareness likewise expands, in the direction of transcending the boundaries of the physical. And yes, I'm certain language is one of the tools that facilitates that expansion. The trick may be not to allow that expanding awareness to be bound to expectations or preconceptions that may no longer be applicable.

Your odds of becoming a millionaire/billionaire have just gone up mon ami! — Agent Smith

:rofl:

Yes, it is all going into GICs (which are the highest rate long-term deposits in Canada). I'm actually pleased to find that, other than expanding my library a little more aggressively, I'm not really motivated to make any impulsive purchases. I did buy a Mini Cooper (which I've always wanted) but it was time for a new car (my 2004 Ranger is getting up there and I don't need a truck anymore) and it wasn't outrageously expensive, fairly economical actually.

Ok, so in a sense you want to de-mystify mysticism without denying or contradicting it? That works for me as it is consistent with a naturalistic philosophy also.

In epistemology there isn't room for another source of knowledge besides empirical observation and rational thought, for those concepts are considered exhaustive by definition. So to relate mysticism to epistemology requires translating the methods, premises and conclusions of mysticism into the standard epistemological concepts people are already familiar with. — sime

Ok. But yours is the first mention of epistemology in the thread. Are you suggesting the mysticism isn't rational?

As I see it, spirituality/mysticism involves assigning significance to something that transcends what is generally experienced as empirical. Now, not to put to fine a point upon it, but consciousness itself meets this criterion. Which is a pretty common theme of spirituality. Consciousness is a bridge.

Karma is the law of cause and effect. I always thought it was a pretty straightforward concept.....

Clarence Williams - Ida.

I live for vintage jazz. And really smooth chamber, or baroque.