If we pivot toward acting to secure the well-being of the global biosphere, what would that look like? What would we have to become in order to do that? — frank

Since the "well-being of the global biosphere" is synonymous with the healthy balanced operation of its component systems, of which we are one, I can only surmise that it would look like an improvement.

Seriously, capitalism functions on the principle "maximize profit." How much worse off can we be if we decide to operate on the principle "maximize ecological harmony"?

see capitalism as a force of good and the planet as a morally neutral entity. — Hanover

There's the rub. Capitalism isn't the defining feature of humanity, it is one feature of human life. Unfortunately, capitalism functions not only to maximize concentration of capital, as Marx describes it, it maximizes concentration on capital. That is, it strives to assimilate everything into an economic viewpoint. However not every value can be effectively understood in economic terms. Attempting to put a price on human dignity, for example, can seem unreasonably expensive, from a capitalistic perspective. In fact, what is unreasonable is reducing human dignity to economic terms. Likewise for the planet. The planet may be morally neutral, but humans are not; and they rely on the planet as part of their ongoing well-being.

An great idea there. You have nicely tied up ontology with epistemology. Which makes perfect sense as you can’t have one without the other, especially to the grander idea of meta verse. — simplyG

Thanks! I just got back from a road trip (to see the iconic Canadian band "Lighthouse - they rocked the roof off) where I found some excellent used books. Michael Polanyi's Personal Knowledge looks relevant to this topic, per the cover notes: "Even in the exact sciences, "knowing" is an art, of which the skill of the knower, guided by his personal commitment and his passionate sense of increasing contact with reality, is a logically necessary part."

This holistic view of knowledge and "increasing contact with reality" exemplifies the metaphysical project; it's also similar to the Cassirer I'm currently reading. I also picked up a book on the metaphysics of R.G. Collingwood (Collingwood and the Reform of Metaphysics) that I hope will also prove edifying.

"Objective consciousness is the observation and logical conclusion that the other being is observing"

Objective consciousness is logical conclusion. How can it not be conscious? Logical conclusions don't think themselves.

In fact, you even talk explicitly about "an objectively conscious being."

"Isn't this then an example of an objectively conscious being that lacks subjective consciousness?"

It's unsinn. If the objectively conscious being is making observations and logical conclusions then it is conscious. The entire point of a p-zombie is that it is not-conscious. Calling it "objectively conscious" has no meaning.

Correct. Meaning that if you are observing and identifying, that experience you are having of observing and identifying is your subjective consciousness. — Philosophim

Except that you keep saying objective consciousness is not conscious. Ascribing these properties to objective consciousness contradicts this. Your demarcation isn't working.

You agreed with me on this. You cannot know what it is like for another being to be conscious. You cannot know another beings subjective consciousness. You can of course know your own subjective consciousness. But because I can never know your subjective consciousness, I cannot make any claims to the experience of your subjective consciousness objectively. I can't know what its like when you see green. You can't know what its like that I see green. We can objectively know that we both see the wavelength we call green. But we cannot objectively know what the subjective experience of seeing green is like. — Philosophim

And even if I just ignore the self-contradictions of "objective consciousness," there are senses in which we are co-conscious. Mirror-neurons function through identification with the observed cognitive state of others in certain circumstances. Empathy is a co-awareness of the subjective plight of another. And it is a critical developmental stage in conscious development.

Objective consciousness is not subjective consciousness. Objective consciousness is the observation and logical conclusion that the other being is observing a — Philosophim

If it is an observation and a logical conclusion then it is subjective consciousness. These are both elements of subjective consciousness.

So I am not ascribing any inner experience of consciousness when I am describing objective consciousness. — Philosophim

Nevertheless, as I mentioned, you say objective consciousness should not "try to ascertain that it can know." Ascertaining and knowing are also operations of subjective consciousness.

It's a meaningless characterization.

I'm not interested in discussing with someone who is not making good faith efforts to address and understand the OP. — Philosophim

No, I'm going straight from your OP.

"Objective consciousness occurs when we can know that something that is not our subjective consciousness is also observing and identifying. The problem in knowing whether something is objectively conscious is that we cannot experience their subjective consciousness."

and

"On the other end, objective consciousness shouldn't try to ascertain that it can know what subjective consciousness is like."

You clearly say that objective consciousness occurs in the observing subject as a function of the awareness of another conscious being. Which is fine. Except you then also ascribe the property of being "objectively conscious" to theobserved being (see italicized in the above quote). Not only that, you then go on to ascribe an additional intentionality to objective consciousness (which is nothing more or less than specifically awareness of another consciousness by your own definitions) when you suggest that it "shouldn't try to ascertain" that it can know what subjective consciousness is like. Is it a mode of consciousness? Is it a specific instance of consciousness of something?

Ok, yes, when I see something which I believe to be conscious, I am conscious of an object that I deem to be conscious. You are absolutely correct. And I don't experience the contents of other minds. For sure.

As I said, the idea "objective consciousness" yokes together terms which are normally exclusive (consciousness is by definition subjective) in an equivocating fashion. You are describing either an object-consciousness (if it is the consciousness doing the observing of the other consciousness, ie. consciousness of consciousness as an object) or a conscious-object (if you are describing the observed consciousness qua observed by the other).

Isn't this whole idea of "objective consciousness" misleading? Aren't you just describing the external observation of consciousness?

I'm interested to see where this goes. I haven't read Chomsky, but I believe that science ultimately leads to metaphysics.

I. Chat GPT says Chomsky does not believe in the complete reductionism of consciousness to matter. Unfortunately, I have not been able to obtain any quote in this regard. Do you think Chat GPT gave me the right answer? If so, are there any citations? — Eugen

I've done some pretty extensive testing of ChatGPT's ability to analyze complex philosophical texts. I personally would not rely on it at all in this regard. I use it as a speculative foil to reveal any flaws in my own logic.

Ok. And you do note in your OP that one of the problems with the term consciousness is that it is "too generic." I'm not sure whether that is a problem or a feature. If you want to stipulate that when you use the term consciousness you are restricting that to mean "human consciousness" only that's your prerogative.

However, in that case, your statement, that minds emerge from brains " Its just what is considered fact at this time" is really either tautological or out of scope of your assumption. Human minds emerge from human brains. Minds, in general, perhaps do not necessarily.

I'm not really arguing for it. Its just what is considered fact at this time. If you want to prove that minds do not come from the brain feel free, but you'll need to challenge modern day neuroscience, psychology, and medicine. — Philosophim

Microbial colonies exhibit an awareness of and adaptation to their environment (eg. The Global Brain by Howard Bloom). Which demonstrates the most fundamental aspects of consciousness, perception and action. So the requirement isn't so much a "brain" as some form of physical medium. Ascribing consciousness to a brain is just anthropocentric prejudice. In which case, there is literally no limit to what could potentially instantiate a consciousness. Any kind of quantum-coherent system, for example. So if you want to argue for brain-dependence, it should be qualified as "human consciousness." If you are additionally claiming that human consciousness is the only kind of consciousness, I just offered a counter-example.

If there is evidence for anything, it is evident to someone who is conscious. Therefore, all and any evidence is evidence of consciousness. — unenlightened

Absolutely. All thinking is autological in this sense.

To suggest information or entropy are then "the real thing in itself" is to completely misrepresent the scientific enterprise. They are not new terms for substantial being. They are part of the journey away from that kind of naive realism which deals in matter or mind as the essential qualitative categories of nature. — apokrisis

This is where the Cassirer that I am currently reading starts. Being, as the original impetus of philosophical reflection, is actually "consciousness of the unity of being" - i.e. abstraction, what is common to all beings across all modalities of being. The universe is revealed in and through cognition itself.

The Gods of Mars
by Edgar Rice Burroughs

First Lensman
by E.E. "Doc" Smith

Most likely the law of supply and demand will dictate the future of medical research and treatment. Prudence would dictate extreme caution with respect to genetic modifications. But if the desire and dollars are there, research and treatment will probably be leaps and bounds ahead of regulation.

he best recent book on it, is Thomas Nagel’s Mind and Cosmos. — Wayfarer

On the list. Thanks!

All systems have to be in some sense localized. I thought you might be referring to the fact that entropy is conserved universally but then I thought, naw....

"Negentropy" only increases entropy. — 180 Proof

Negentropy decreases entropy.....

:up:

↪Pantagruel Are 'metaphysical statements' experimentally testable? Does any 'metaphysical system' entail predictions about matters of fact? If not, then metaphysics isn't modern science. — 180 Proof

Modern science is a methodology, whose primary result is knowledge. Obviously, knowledge predates modern science. Science has carved out a domain, but it is far from being universal. Indeed, modern science operates by way of abstractions and approximations, which is why its products are 'facts' whose accuracy is fundamentally limited by the physical constraints of instruments, and 'theories' which are only ever a 'currently best description' of something. So the question is really, is it legitimate to pursue knowledge in domains where science, for various reasons, is unable to operate? Where events transpire either too quickly or too slowly to be effectively observed and analyzed, for example. In fact, as I've mentioned elsewhere, the trend is precisely to expand science beyond such limits by means of modeling, a method which has been assimilated by science. At the end of a day, a scientific theory is a model. But so could a metaphysical theory be construed.

So, yes, metaphysics isn't modern science, because it attempts to go beyond some of the limits of modern science. Of which there are many. Certainly the metaphysics of consciousness springs to mind.

I've come to believe that the term metaphysics itself is the problem.

Inasmuch as metaphysics purports to examine the nature of being, and being necessarily exists, then the subject-matter of metaphysics is incontestably real. In which case metaphysics is not different in kind from science, but only degree. Metaphysics must be an attempt to conceptualize the nature of reality insofar as that is not yet well-captured by science. Which certainly covers a lot of ground. However the notion of metaphysics as somehow distinct or separate from physics is misleading, a strawman.

The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Volume 1: Language
Ernst Cassirer

Deleuze provided a concise picture of the various aspects of legislative-creative versus receptive-perceptive thought in Kant. A great preparation for Cassirer's four-volume opus on symbolicity and culture.

Kant’s Critical Philosophy: The Doctrine of the Faculties
Gilles Deleuze

Triplanetary
E.E. "Doc" Smith

Burroughs was charming, I'll read more. But I'm really liking the meta- nature of Triplanetary.

:roll: Low quality spam.

It's not overlooked, it's taboo to talk about it. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, which is unfathomable to me. Whatever the contributing factors to ecological damage are, they are magnified by the size of the population. If we can't at some point rise to the level of rational dialogue, I don't suppose we are as a species worthy of survival anyway.

I think the overlooked problem is the relationship between human impact on the ecosystem and population. Global population has tripled in the last 70 years. Anyone who thinks that there isn't a serious eco-crisis - however you want to classify and quantify it - must be living in their own world. Lucky for them.

Le Proust c'est fini. Some lighter fiction selections for a while I think.

A Princess of Mars
by Edgar Rice Burroughs

On my brand new Kindle.

Enlightenment, understood in the widest sense as the advance of thought, has always aimed at liberating human beings from fear and installing them as masters.
— Adorno & Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment — Jamal

To me this hearkens "masters and possessors of nature" which likewise suggests an invalid anthropocentric hierarchy. The truly enlightened perspective sees us as one aspect of an overarching meaningful whole. Whence the religious-mystical history and sentiment of mankind isn't something to be overturned, but rather comprehended in a new way.

Only legal operations/medical processes are allowed. Only legal medications can be used. — universeness

That goes without saying. But legality is not the basis of medical legitimacy. Medical legitimacy implies legality. Certainly as a general principle. I don't see the point of this reasoning at all, to be honest.

Or every future public toilet can be built as a series of individual lockable units, with a WC and a small sink and mirror. No more gender specific toilets. Would that not solve the problem? — universeness

It would, although you would sacrifice benefits of scale for larger venues where multi-stall common facilities can service much higher-volumes of people (and who are reflective of the demographic that legitimates both the need and the response to the need). I'd say keep the gender-dual installations where needed, and ensure there is a locking bathroom for those needing family bathrooms, and others with special needs.

I am a socialist/secular humanist, so accommodating the needs and wishes of as many people in a community as possible, remains the main goal. — universeness

The greatest unity is the one which supports the greatest diversity is my credo. And we are all asked to make personal sacrifices in deference to the public good at certain times or in certain respects. And what one person considers a sacrifice someone else may not. So even having the best of motivations doesn't simplify things.

I don't see how you can separate legal rights and 'medical treatments,' the latter is surely governed by the former. — universeness

Medical treatments are determined by medical need, not legal rights. How you manage to draw this inference is a complete mystery to me.

It is where people start claiming the right to know what is best for someone else that is the problem.
— Pantagruel

Is that not exactly what you are doing in the case of trans folk? — universeness

Or is it the trans movement now seeking to impose standards on everyone else? I am just calling attention to the most fundamental underlying principle. Then it becomes a question of numbers. And the numbers just don't warrant the accommodations. Most of the world is okay with the functional constraints imposed by gender-duality. So maybe there needs to be at least one single-occupancy locking bathroom at every public facility. Whatever. There are 100 times as many smokers as trans folk, yet we don't provide special smoking rooms for them anymore, despite the fact that many of them "need" nicotine at regular intervals. Different people prioritize different aspects of their personal identity differently.

Based on the fact that, for any group, it is usually a radical-vocal minority that ends up speaking for the group, in this case if there are complaints, they are come from a minority of a very small minority. Which is to say they should be heard, evaluated, and treated in that exact context.

Ultimately, populations thrive in a society based upon their presence, not their publicity. If a group can be dispersed and maintain its identity, obviously it has strong foundations. If a group only represents one in a thousand people, then maybe there are lots of children who might never be aware of trans-identities. In fact, I suspect that a lot of trans people don't want to stand out, but rather to fit in, and not be noticed. So maybe we don't need to call extra attention to it. But of course, we do need to ensure that no other groups are preaching or practicing hate. That is the where public efforts should lie.

It might affect the type of medical treatment but are you saying that your biological sex should affect your legal right to a particular medical treatment you want. Are you anti-abortion for example? — universeness

People have a right to maximum say in what affects them personally. It is where people start claiming the right to know what is best for someone else that is the problem. I pointedly said that your sexual biology should not affect your legal rights, but it is a very important factor in treatment. I work in the medical industry and doctors have related this concern to me.

I think there is a much bigger, underlying issue that trans issue's feed into.
Is it your business what consenting adults choose to engage in sexually?
Should your sexual preferences affect you legal rights?
Should your sexual biology affect your legal rights? — universeness

It is not. Which is why it is equally not society's business to address such issues.
No your sexual preferences should not relate to your legal rights, which are universal human rights and general by nature, not specific.
No. Your sexual biology should affect your medical treatment. Which is why clarity around actual sexual biology is so important.

I cannot invalidate the youtube examples Andrew cites, they in fact exist, but they are outliers, and do not significantly challenge trans issues. — universeness

Is it not significant though? Granted, for the general population, the number of cases would have to be very large to be statistically significant. But how big is the trans population really? I'm talking about the true population, not just supporters. Like, if you are 'two-spirit' because you like to sleep with both men and women...ok, you are bi. Basically, you sleep with your own sex, the opposite sex, both sexes, or neither. Those are the choices. So if you are living your daily life dressed as the opposite sex, or you have had or are in the process of having a sex-change then, yes, you are part of the demographic in question. In the U.S, that's about 0.4 percent of the population. But 25% of those are 'gender non-conforming', so maybe those are 'outliers' who are just piggy-backing on the trans-identity. So say 0.25% of the population. Maybe for two out of every thousand people we owe awareness, but maybe not so much accommodation. Lots and lots of minority groups with much higher representation that that might by able to raise strong claims for accommodations, given a sympathetic public forum.

There are many w on YouTube now who talk about the regret and pain of being w and having their x removed due to internalised y and being caught up in z ideology and misled. — universeness

Right. So you are not invalidating Andrew's claim, merely asserting that there are in fact many cases of people misconstruing their own wants and needs. Emphasizing the general truth of his underlying point (of which there is certainly some element of truth, unless you do want to attack the legitimacy of the purported youtube videos).

Trans issues are not going to 'go away' because you and/or others have switched from having a more benevolent stance towards 'them.' The issues of all minority groups, remain, as long as they have existent members. I personally find the support that many Islamists have for child marriage and when it is acceptable to consummate such, far far more personally horrifying than any trans issue I am aware of. — universeness

And more important, since that is a question of protection of the vulnerable.

I wonder if the whole trans issue isn't just another rider on the entitlement bus. Everyone's got problems, doesn't make them social causes. The more I have to waste my time thinking about it the more I'm moving from being a passive to an active opponent.

Things get wound up pretty quickly, don't they?

So many people who think they know what is best. And some of them might even be right. But they can't all be right.

My point, I was initially friendly and supportive of this movement, and in a real world situation, I would have even have stuck my neck out to advocate for or defend someone I saw being discriminated against. Now, not so much. So the the way this gone has had the opposite effect intended for me. And that is a real social consequence, I'm sure I'm not the only one who has been alienated.