Eudaimonic

Why can't awareness be aware of itself? To be aware means to be aware of something, therefore there must be something which exists before something is aware. For awareness to come about in the first place some sort of existent would have to be present for that awareness to be aware of. Sure, awareness can be aware of itself (we are aware of our awareness) but the awareness that we are aware of first must need something to be aware of to arise. Sense perception and logic (which arises from sense perception) are our only means to knowledge, to invalidate these is to invalid any posit at knowledge, including the one that claims the senses are invalid. Qualities are not something which are imagined but which are objective to existents. This is essentially identity, everything has a nature which differentiates it from everything else but at the same time can be qualified universally as existing. If a cherry is green then you're eyesight is failing you, simply measure the light waves which bounce off a cherry to measure its color more objectively. The senses have the capacity for accuracy, but they're not infallible, luckily they can be confirmed by the other senses. Individuals can be defined mechanistically as universal matter and energy with differentiated qulia. Time and space are also packaged in this qulia, as in that person is here and another is there at this time or that time is a part of it's nature (as well as it's interactions with other existents.) You have to say that Existence Exists for you to be able to say that you exist.To exist implies that there is an objective physical existence outside of yourself, because awareness can't give rise to existence. There is no phenomenal existence, you are experiencing what is objective and real, to say otherwise is to invalidate knowledge (as you would be seeing it through, perhaps, kantian categories, which would mean you're not perceiving anything which is real i.e. true.) I don't see why matter can't both obay universal principles while simultaneously choosing between potentialities within those universals. If it's physically possible for one to both run and walk, within the universal laws of physics, why can't I chose one or the other, if I have that capacity?

It may be helpful to try and treat Donnadogsoth a little kinder, he really has a lot of interesting things to say and you might miss out on them if you call him a troll, I don't mean to dismiss your feelings here, but often we get more with honey than with bile, as the bromide goes. The fundamental problem with Buddhism, in my thought, is that you can't really ever get rid of the ego or of desire. In fact, the desire to get rid of desire is itself a desire and so the whole premise seems refuted just in the act. You can certainly shift your desire to the desire to help others and preoccupy yourself with others, but this is still a desire and it is still you desiring this. In terms of individual awareness, A is A seems to still apply, unless you're willing to say that right now you're both arguing for and against this dichotomy of me and you, in which case, and with no disrespect, perhaps you should stop debating yourself? In fact, the very act of debating assumes that there is an 'other' which you can convince.

The primacy of mind, it seems to me, is impossible as to be aware is to be aware of something. Awareness requires something to be aware of first, which would indicate the primacy of Existence. (One of the disproofs of God actually relies on this axiom; God is awareness without Existence and therefore violates the primacy of Existence.) I would say that a material object is not composed of predicates (I'm not really sure what you mean here completely though, like words?) but of existents. The concepts red, stem and pit all relate to existents with their measurements omitted (see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology) and all these are either more specific or broader measurements of existents. If you remove your experience of existents from the equation, the sufficient reason could simply be the axiom Existence Exists. Perception is not required for Existence, Existence is required for Perception as to perceive is to perceive something. Free Will is compatible with monism because the existence of a universal doesn't exclude potentialities within that universal. Existence is universal, the choice to post this or not is a potential within Existence. Souls still require a dulistic or Platonic view of metaphysics, which both invalidate any knowledge one could posit, because Souls wouldn't be held down to the monistic universal laws they operated in. Either free will is compatible with monism or there is no such thing as free will (which I don't believe) but a soul could never be a solution, if it's apart of the monistic universal then it operates within it.

Can it be monism if it's only 90%? I guess I'm confused confused by that. I think individually can come through the qulia within a set of universals (similarly with free will; but I think that can be assumed as determinism seems to have the burden of proof there) and Ethics is something that I have, I believe, a unique answer to but am too afraid to share on the internet as of yet...I'd rather have some physical proof that the theory is mine first, but perhaps that too vain...

Hey, you caught me on lunch so I have plenty if time to respond! So, then we agree? Im not sure about time and space collapsing, but you have to assume the law of identity to posit any theory anyway, including that A is A is invalid and this only comes from what we can assume about metaphysics (namely: Existence Exists, A is A and the Primacy of Existence) all the rest of metaphysical theory is pure speculation (observe monads) because we are not objective to reality, we are reality. Two identical peices of matter occupying the same space is just another way of saying a singularity and relates to a description of reality except for the fact that reality IS space. There is only what is real and nothing else, the concept nothing is not something, it's something we can only express because we experience something, but it's not an antithesis to reality because it doesn't exist; it's nothing. Monism only relates to that which is universal about reality, it does not say that everything is one thing but that everything relates to a set of universals, things are able to be differentiated due to their qualia within that set of universals. Living organisms developed senses in order to live, but I'm not sure I'm answering you question with that. Just by the by I've always though Ludwig was cracked; who writes entire books claiming language is invalid...? Anyway... Concepts are existents with the measurement omitted. "Rational number" is simply a more specific measurement than "number" which is a more specific measurement than "unit" and on and on until you get back to axiomatic fundementals (Existence Exists.) Rand's 'Introduction to Objectivism Epistemology' gives a much better explanation than I can, Wiki has a good summation. It doesn't seem to me that existence and reality are a dichotomy, just synonyms. As well, if something is, the it is bound by limits at the very least in the fact that it is bound to be is and not not is. If something is non-reality (something) I don't think it's "not bound by anything" it just doesn't exist. Something can't be nothing. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding this?

Sorry if I'm not being clear enough, I thank you for responding kindly I take my metaphysics from Objectivism, which I suppose is a form of metaphysical naturalism, if I understand the term correctly. At the very least it supposes a metaphysical monism with a universal and objective identity and laws (universals.) The objection consists, essentially, in the dichotomy I believe you're setting up between free will and "determinism" (unchanging universals.) I object to the dichotomy. Free will can be compatible with determinism in the sense that potentialities (choice; originating of cause) can exist within a set if universals (review again the seafood metaphor.) I reject that there is a dichotomy here. I also reject the idea that in any case a soul could be the cause of free will, as setting up a soul sets up dulistic metaphysics which sets up subjective epistemology which invalidates any theory or sets up the "reality" that we're perceiving as non-real and therefore invalidates any theory you can posit, including a soul.

I'm not sure that free will is the opposite of a mechanistic universal. Free will, in my conception, is the ability to originate cause. This only requires potentialities and one's ability to manifest a specific potential via volitional action. Universals don't nesseccarily exclude potentialities so long as they can exists withing the context of the universals. (A simplified metaphor: If you go to a seafood restaurant for dinner, you're going to eat seafood, but you can choose between the cod, haddock, salmon, some combination, etc.) How free will arises in humans is still something with is up for debate (though we can assume it; I think determinism probably holds the burden of proof) though my own theory, which I haven't though much on it, posits that it arises through internal value-conflict, Rand made a convincing argument that 'to think or not to think' was the primary source of choice. However it does arises, it doesn't seem to me that it could be a soul, as this either split reality dulistic, eliminating the source of the universal methodology you've used to posit a soul or put the reality we perceive as something non-real with also invalidate the methodology you've used to posit a soul.

Well I've never heard of eliminativist naturalism before so don't mind me if I'm mixing up something and I applaud you for the vocab, but if I get the concept right (no mind i.e. no conceptual awareness) I can't see why there is nesseccarily a dichotomy between one mind and no minds. Mind arises from conceptual awareness which arises from prefrontal brain development (as far as we know) and this seems universal across the human species (compare pre-conceptual babies or mentally disabled/brain dead) which at the very least implies a strong cooralation between the physical brain and awareness. In fact, I believe surgeons can disconnect specific areas of the brain which disable conceptual awareness (brain dead,) but I could be wrong on that. Each person's genetic code seems unique, so it seems quite possible to me that ones awareness at least in qulia could be individually distinct from another's. If not, how do we differentiate between two human bodies? The same principle may just as well apply to ones awareness, I think. As well, the uniqueness of each mind could arises from physical causes (evolution) rather than a God (which, to my knowledge, has less if not none at all, emperically basis than evolution.) The mind could've arisen to give an individual the greatest level of control of it's environment. I don't see why free will implies freedom from physics, if this is the case and we do have free will, wouldn't we be able to defy the laws if physics? Free Will, it seems to me, would simply mean the ability to originate cause, which could come through something like Rand's 'think or not think' choice. Could are through value-conflict, where two things are values equally but you must act which forces choice (seeing as though value arises from conceptual awareness.) What I'm saying is that there seems to be other ways to look at free will which have more of a sense basis than souls or God. Free will and the physical nature of reality must be connected because they share the same metaphysical base. Without such a universal metaphysical base we can't form a universal methodology (epistemology) to truth which would devolve into subjectivism which would invalidate any theory proposed. Either free will arises from reality or there isn't free will because a free will derived from anything but what is real would be something non-real. Let me know if this makes sense, love the discussion so far.

I think the distinction between yourself and "others" denotes the objective experience that you are you and not another person. Objectively speaking, everyone is themselves, ea h persona has an individual mind and body which, in some way differentiates them from another human. In terms of perspective, I am the subject and everything else the object, but I think this is different from what the term 'us' and 'other' denote. As well, the fact that I have a perspective that's is not anothers and that other people have a perspective that is not mine is an objective reality, so I don't see how it cancels each other out. Plus, with out distinction there is no identity which refutes A is A. The fact that you can differentiate between my post and your post implies that there is something which distingishes us, I believe. Let me know what you think!

First I want to say that, for me, this was a clear, positive and curious response. I really thank you for that, it makes the whole discuss a lot more enjoyable for me, not that you nesseccarily care, but I wanted to compliment you on your presentation here, it impressed me. I'll try to take these comments in turn (still not sure how to quote things separately in the same post): Great! I'm glad we agree, that solves a lot of problems now I don't have to respond to anything and...haha never mind of course I do! I'm not sure this represents a universal therory. You yourself point out that classical mechanics is needed for one and quantum mechanics, ethics and the like are needed for the other. Furthermore, both of these fields (and therefore I would assume their respective topics) are subjective to emperically testing and logical consistency, which implies something universal (monistic) underlying mind and matter which connect them. "All knowledge is connected" sort of thing. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting this. It seems to make sense to me that to make sense of anything you've written here, you'd have to assume that you can know truth (and primarily that there is a methodology for discovering that truth.) To experience, in a way, is to know. Though of course you must verify it logically (which is itself based in really and "experienced") as well as assume some axioms (existence exists, A is A, Aristotle 101...) Ethics is based only on things we can experience and to be aware means to be aware of something which exists and that you are experiencing, I believe. It sees to me that all truth arises from a 1-2 combo of experience and logical consistency which are only sensible within monistic (or universal) metaphysical theory. I think if they overlapped we wouldn't know anyway because we could only have knowledge where these two methodologies overlapped each other. If knowledge exits where these overlapped, where and how would we be able to know the two methodologies which overlapped? Secondly, I don't think that if these two do overlapped, that that means they still remain distinct, if they have the capacity to overlap, there must be something universal which can combine them, sort of like thesis + antithesis = synthesis. I don't think science (and definitely not I) have even a relative clue to how the universe arose or the entire function/origins of black holes and white holes, so I'll have to stay ignorant in explaining those points, but I don't think it would be possible to get something from nothing, that seems to be the eternal problem here. If reality gives rise to mind (awareness) then mind can't give rise to something which is non-reality because mind IS a part of reality so reality encompasses mind, it works on the same universals. Secondly, I think, a mind can't give rise to anything because the mind doesn't have primacy over existence. To be aware is to be aware of something, as Rand would endlessly point out in fascinatingly annoying futility. That the mind is a product of reality implies that it can never give rise to non-reality, it seems to me at any rate. I think to ignore the third (or pretend it isn't there) may be dangerous, dulism often leads to all sorts of life destroying mysticism, secular or otherwise. It seems to me that to ignore this third element is similar to one of ignoring gravity because we live before Newton. Anyway, again, thank you for the response, this is really enjoyable and insightful for me!

Wow, that's a pretty unique argument, I mean this sincerely, and maybe it's just because I'm sometimes ignorant, but I've not heard that argument for souls before, so definitely thank you for that, really interesting to mentally munch on. Do I smell Schopenhauer...? Maybe not... Anyway, not sure if this is nesseccarily an argument, but could it be that we simply haven't found the reason for it's existence (though I think something like the idea that freewill may have an evolutionary benefit of some sort and needed a conceptually aware brain to be able to obtain that could stand as an example of a possible reason, though I have no proof for the validity of that idea) but the fact that it does exist implies that it has a reason for existing? Perhaps we don't know how mind arises from the brain, but perhaps "mind" is an effect of the unique human brain rather than something separate and that this "mind" serves an evolutionary purpose. In short, I guess I don't see how just because we haven't found a reason for it's existence or just because we don't know the connection between mind and "body" so to speak, that this necessarily means that the two are different. Is there emperically evidence for that? I definitely be curious to find out. Thought provoking though, let me know what you think!

Ditto, very interested to hear your thoughts on souls, maybe move this to a different thread? Or perhaps that not nesseccary...

It would make sense to me that there is existence and there is consciousness at the very least. The fact that I can differentiate between the two implies the concept of identity or A is A, something cannot be itself and something else at the same time. The fact that you can differentiate between me and you means that we are essentially different. This is implied in all definition. Basically identity is caused by existence and existence is the ultimate given. Not sure if that answers your question, but let me know what you think!

I think ethics can only apply to those beings which can conceptually value something. An animal can't value it's own life or even the food it chases because it has no conception of itself (sort of what the Buddhists try to obtain.) It is like the computer or phone you might be making this post with, an input output machine with no conception of itself or value. Is it wrong to use a computer? I don't think so. Why? Because it's not aware and it can value nothing, therefore, if I smash it (or use it) what does it matter to the computer? I think nothing. This is of course a double edged sword as we can kill non-moral creatures/organisms (trees/plants/bacteria) and this provides us with a lot of benefits, but at the same time we become morally responsible for Evil against other moral creatures.

It's a good point to clarify between 'might makes right' and evolutionary adaptability as such, it amazes me the degree to which humans can survive and adapt to their environment compared to even our closest cousin, the ape. If life and survival of the fittest is an objective value, does this mean it's immoral not to strive to live and/or not strive to have evolutionary superiority over other humans? Also, death is an objective process predicated on the opposite of the survival of the fittest. For the same reasons, can we say death is an objective value because it is an objective process and is predicated on something? If so, how can death and life both be objectively valuable at the same time? I could also just be missing your point here, so don't mind my ignorance as I try to parce these out.

That's definitely an interesting argument, I've heard about the fire ants and they've always fascinated me, it's definitely something we need to consider in reference to evolutionary superiority. I wonder though how superiority can be analyzed here. Could we say humans are evolutionarily superior on the aggregate? And I'm assuming that at some point they were able to contain the fire ants to a reasonable level, otherwise they would've killed off Africa or at least a majority of it, doesn't this elude to our superiority, our uncanny adaptability? At the very least, the ants are contained now, which means if we didn't have the advantage within that context, on the whole we have gained it, I think. Haven't we also populated the entire planet including Ant (lol ironic) artica? We have people living in space and we're able to adapt to the climate of the moon. I don't think fire ants could achieve that level of adaptability.

Though I agree that Human life is the most valuable (because it's the only thing the term, in my opinion, 'value' could reference to here) I am curious at a further explanation of how our evolutionary superiority makes us more valuable objectively, wouldn't this requires Life or Survival of the Fittest as an objective value?

I can appreciate that kind of view, I definitely don't want to become pompous towards or violate the moral rights of animals if in fact they are emperically and logically assertable. I'd be curious to know those reasons so I could correct my assumptions on the basis that these arguments are indeed valid, but can't in good conscience change my views until such is shown and proved. I'm not sure that because we can be classified biologically with the concept animal, that this means there is a nesseccary moral equivalent between us and animals as though we can be grouped together in the animal respect, there are other attributes that, I believe, differentiate us morally. I didn't know there were animals like us (perhaps beyond apes, but that's a different discussion) and am very curious to see how our similarities match up.

I believe the concept of 'worth' can only apply to a being which is conceptually aware and therefore can conceptually value. I believe it must be aware of something of value to it and aware that it is aware that something is of value to it. Any animal I can think of is only the former never the latter (except humans.) Fundamentally, animals are not aware of their own existence and only perceptually aware of stimuli they operate on (like a computer.) Therefore that can't 'value' their own lives (or anything else) because they don't conceive of their own lives (which makes any action against them technically moral.) What an animal is worth to you is subjective, and though it may have value to you or me, objectively I believe it's worthless. Though anyone comfortable abusing animals is obviously showing signs of psychopathology. If there were an 'advanced' sentient machine or being with conceptual awareness, like us, it would be able to value it's own life as we do and therefore it's life 'worth' would be equally valid to our own. Please let me know if I didn't explain this clearly enough (I have trouble with that)and let me know what you think!

Wouldn't you have to suppose it's monism to maintain any universal theory? Any epistemological theory (which I think you would need to posit and prove a metaphysical theory like this) relies, I believe, on universally consistent laws of reality. If the fundamental substance(s) of reality we're dulistic, pluralistic or a hegelian 'becoming,' then wouldn't this rule out any universal epistemological theories that you could you to posit these theories in the first place? For instance, if it's dulistic, then we have Fundamental of Existence A and Fundamental of Existence B (I'll refer to them now as FOE A and FOE B.) By definition FOE A and FOE B would have to be different in their essential nature's or they could simply be grouped together as having SOME universal property (therefore devolving back into monism.) If FOE A and B are different in their essential nature's, then it makes sense to me that you'd need two different epistemological theories to deal with each reality. These theories would then also (according to their metaphysical base) be different in their essential nature. But, if you have two epistemological theories, completely different in their essential nature, how could you know truth? If I propose dulism, and am consistent with it, which epistemological theory am I basing that knowledge off of, FOE A or B? And why is that one more valid than the other FOE? It seems to me that you'd have two methodologies to 'truth' both equally valid, which devolved into, essentially, subjectivism, which can't claim knowledge which therefore invalidates the dulistic position. Pluralism seems to me refuted in the same fashion. I believe you'd have to have some fundamental 'nature' or 'essence' to reality (monism) to make any sort of epistemological claim I believe Aristotle and Rand said something similar to this effect. Becoming I believe also devolves into subjectivism, which Neitzsche pointed out thoroughly in The Will to Power, if I remember correctly. Perhaps I'm way off the mark, but these were my thoughts, let me know what you think!

1. Yay! 2. Defined creation means the act of making or producing something that did not exist before. Well if you think about it, things must of at one point *poof*ed into existence. How could things have always existed? Yes it is true that the lumber for my house and the rocks for my roads existed previously, but the house did not exist previously and neither did the roads. 3. You conceded at the beginning that consciousness exists and that it is an invariable truth that you must think consciously subconsciously before preforming an action. Even breathing we are subconsciously controlling. 4. Because to say otherwise is illogical. You did not exist a certain amount of years ago, neither did the earth or the universe. Everything that has been created must of been created by something else. Consciousness itself must too have been created, I would say by itself by becoming aware of nothing. We only understand that certain things come from other things but we do not understand where originally everything comes from, if we did religion would not exists or be debated. What I am saying is that the source of all creation must be consciousness because we are not able to create without consciousness. The idea of the "self creating robots" you talked about earlier came from the conscious mind of an individual who created them by first think about them. 5. This is then valid 6. I'm not saying the effects of the natural world as they are now are directed by a consciousness but that they were the indirect cause of creation. 7. This is then valid 8. The point does get explained below Again at some point it would have to have been *poof* magic, though it was probably a little more complex than that. I do think that last bit was just a weeee bit offensive, I'm simply throwing out ideas and trying to answer the rejections. Again, what I am proposing, is that In the beginning there was nothing. Nothing became aware that it was nothing. The awareness that it was nothing created consciousness in a very very simplistic way. This original consciousness expanded its knowledge (or consciousness) as well as it's ability to create, however simplistically the knowledge started out, which lead to all other creation, whether directly or indirectly, including our own consciousness which we use now also use to create and effect out environment. Sorry for all that multiquoting there...

Because for something to exist is must of been created. Since we cannot create without consciousness you can say consciousness is needed to create. So what exist must of been made through consciousness in some way shape or form whether directly or indirectly. The source of the original consciousness which lead to the creation of all things is "god".

I'm saying evolution is the indirect creation of consciousness. So if I build a factory and it creates pollution, I indirectly created that pollution so if I had not created the factory through my consciousness, the pollution would of never existed. The seemingly random acts of evolution can only come from living organisms reproducing but would not of existed without the original creation of living organisms.

I would argue that this source consciousness or "god" created the water cycle as well as anything that "naturally" occurs. As far as the Law of thermodynamics is concerned, at some point what exists now must have been created. To say otherwise would be illogical and could confirm the christian belief that god has always existed but was never created. That's where I talk about vastness becoming conscious of itself. If vastness became conscious of itself, however minute the conscious awareness was, consciousness could therefor create consciousness and then expand to eventually create everything else. The fact that in our current conscious state we can't add or subtract matter to the universe doesn't mean this source of consciousness could not because in our current state we would not be able to image how we could do it such as the toddler couldn't imagine how to create the atom smasher without first becoming more conscious. We still, through consciousness, create. The fact that we did not create the "natural world" suggests that there has to be some other source of consciousness that did. This may be the source of all creation, otherwise defined as "god".

Well I mean when you're "unconscious" you're still thinking in a way, directing your body to do something. I think I meant to use the term subconscious there. Apologies.