another great interview- your channel feels like a crash course introduction to thinkers i’ve been craving to find. i love bonnie’s point that developmental models of society should mirror biological evolution, and that the apex of one era lacks the resilience to dominate the next. it reminds me how the roman empire’s collapse left room for its outlying isle colony to eventually rise and conquer much of the world. with this frame, it seems impossible to speculate on what the future may look like, that keeping alive the best of our dying order is the best we can do i also appreciate her insight in returning to the wisdom of nature - rationality is the thin top layer over deeper ways of knowing, such as affect and the imaginal. it speaks to why play and enchantment are so key to a metamodern project.
I love the distinction between pure and categorical abstractions. I love the idea that we made/make a mistake thinking with thoughts. I don't think Bonnie properly considers thinking as a process and this in the end leads out to her own categorical abstractions that are as if pure abstractions, to an at once inflated notion of the self and an underdetermined self in a similar way that Fichte unintentionally self limited. This also sets up a false dichotomy between human development and evolution. We are not going to solve the problems of our own self demise if we don't figure that one out. She beautifully asks the question how are we in nature while using a categorical abstraction of the concepts mind and mental in a sort of wish fulfillment move of embodiment to answer. If one examines the role of thinking in the epistemological process the physiological become gestures of that inherent pre-embodied intelligence/process at work in the cosmos. Not the other way around where a linear complexification up and into human self and cognition out of "mutations" (categorical abstraction) as some recursive feedback loop. What can be discovered when avoiding presumptions, fixed postulates and preconceived evolutionary narratives is that we as self determined selves think through (think windows) transparent concepts and the cognitive process. As long as this process is tied to thinking observation reality is realized (as vervaeke uses the latter term). That is, our cognition wins real knowledge and participates in the extending of the evolutionary reality. You can check out our series on similar content. This episode is particularly relevant. czcams.com/video/FIxYRjpRiHc/video.html I think we make a solid distinction between thinking and cognition.
I do not see so clearly the distinction between categorical and abstract, where the symbolic is also ignored. The bee with its dance makes a symbolic abstraction, where certain turns refer to existences such as the sun or distance. The distance in the human can be an abstract fact (diffuse, since each culture treats it differently: far, near) or categorical (the one established by scientific measures: meters, kilometers), but at the level of embodied cognition, to which Bonnie refers without naming it, with the fact that speech is the movement of the vocal cords the tongue and lips..., bees refer to the distance, perhaps, by the number and cost of fluttering (tiredness, energy expenditure). What I want to see is that the categorical is born of the interpretation or agreement of humans to refer to far or near, but as such a kilometer in my mind remains abstract, because I do not have a rod that exemplifies that kilometer, as it does with a meter. I watch the video you refer to, and I read about John Vervaeke
@@deyanirasaez9540 Thank you for the thoughtful response. If I am understanding you correctly you are agreeing with Bonnie. If not this will be useful to explore in any case. The movement of a bee can't be reduced to distance let alone a reference to distance. The problem here comes when the models used as first principles are an original sin of categorical abstraction. This is where the abstractions as category error deep in the recesses of evolutionary theory are repeated as-if pure rather than the representational cognitive device that they are. Example: both of these lovely folks anchor human behavior and cognition in a physicalist preconception of complexification. Gregg starting with the big bang (I assume Bonnies leans there too). Obviously, now that theory is falling apart. Yet it has been the originating point for 'big history" narratives as a fact and informs all the ways concepts are used out of chemism and mechanics into neo-darwinian narratives and physicalist notions of extension. I agree with her that there is a difference in pure and categorical. I love that you bring in the word "symbol". Which when it truly functions symbolically is both the representation of reality and the reality. You use the language example. One can talk in categorical abstractions unwittingly and I would guess the devices would pick up the same signal no matter the intention. You see for me thinking is the only epistemological starting point. It is beyond categories (opaque) and pure concepts (transparent) for it creates them. Whether we are conscious of this creation decides which kind of concept will be employed. Language utilized without thinking that is tied to observation is by default a categorical abstraction. Part of that observation is a self that is transparently altered by this cognitive process which has the potential to reach into physiological processes but is by no means a given until we make it so. Bonnie beautifully concludes in this razors edge dance between theory and reality that the self is the universal center that is the unicity within the multiplicity. I would argue that in order for that to be true that unicity has to be created and as such we see an emergent ligament (bound by neither time nor space) stretched tenaciously between evolution and human development.
Interesting and thought provoking conversation and interesting differences she makes. About evolution and complexity and not-adequate maps I want to say though, that the eradication of species did´nt just happen because of maladaptation to surroundings or habitat because of increasing complexity and false perceptions( like with the geocentric worldview,) but because of too quick and radical change of the environment. So this is a totally different category. And IMO we are in some similar situation now, and I dont think we will die out because of too complex maps and interpretation, though some might have a too heady and not- whole body based view. But most people , esp. the decision makers and also the interpreters of our situation on a public scale dont even see the stage of complexity; They still answer with linear and simplistic and narrow and one sided interpretations and solutions Which in this case we created unintended through the technical revolution, globalization and the explosion of the population ( 8 times as many people as 120 years ago, no territory can handle that without problems). And the addition of all culture and man made effects in the lower Quadrants of Wilbers AQAL.. So its not just natural complexity and chaos , we forgot about in our cosy world, but the addition to that that makes our territory unknown and unforeseeable in a totally new way. So Bonnittas claim, that we are out of touch with the basis is right, but the answer doenst seem to be less complexity competent , but to add all kinds of variables from the „ right brain“ to it and also body perception to get a fuller and nature based picture. As to becoming simpler again, and that the next step in evolution and the adequate answer to this change will come from nature and not our intellect ( which of course is nature as well, just maybe a too tiny aspect in an ecological crisis...and more...) I always thought and still think that our brains might evolve and what now seems to be overwhelming, for the few who even get it, answering with too complex maps and views, the interpretation and understanding might become easier and simple again on a more integrated and integrative level of evolution of brain and consciousness. And easy and elegant, Hopefully, if we make it. PS: and as most people ( even when they arent directly involved or affected ) cant take a both-and position re absolutely any urgent question which needs solutions, but are stuck in just one position or an either-or stage of complexity, I dont think we have too much cognitive complexity in our world, but most people are on tribal eradication of the other mode, or in a moral and one truth ethnocentric either -or stage , we definitely need evolution and development of consciousness to even think of any kind of peaceful solution which at least needs both-and capacities and beyond.And we better start to teach people because otherwise they always will be prey for explitation of their ignorance and can be divided and ignited to killl each other in some way. SO maybe the problem exists in academia, but even there not even the menatl and rational stage hold water in the eye of divide and one-sided „ truth“ claims as we could see in the last 3,5 years. So even in the educated West there are not enough deeply embedded Enlightenment capacities in most people. Still an interesting conversation and many points to think about.
Your question around the 60 minute concerning a holistic vision of the evolutionary process is something we have talked about on our channel. You might find something useful there :)
Great presentation by Bonnitta Roy. At minute 41:37 he names an author or philosopher: "Sean" but it cannot be searched as such (another author and book is "We were never modern" by Bruno Latour, which I will buy, since I find his thesis interesting) . I connect with Bonnitta Roy's ideas, especially with the idea of the teleological. When major extinctions occur, all the most complex and/or specialized animals are the most susceptible to becoming extinct. What remains is the most basic, the least complex of life. And then the "cycle" begins again toward complexity. I'm not even sure it's towards intelligence. Dinosaurs were not particularly so and lived between 160 and 180 million years ago. Homo sapiens has only been on earth for about 200 or 250 thousand years, and the way we are going I don't think we will survive for long. The urbanite, for example, would no longer know how to survive in nature, and most of us don't even know how to farm, in case we had to do it (we would have to learn as we go, it would be done relatively quickly, I know). At no point have they been in tune with each other in the conversation, as Brendan has finally acknowledged, since he is always on land and Bonnitta lets herself be carried away by the strong waves of a rough sea; Brendan tries to bring her to land, to her land (which is anthropocentric), but Bonnitta never takes her up, because perhaps she is not a land that he completely likes. My thesis is that complexity does not lead to freedom, a concept that is too anthropocentric, but rather leads to multipossibilities (instinctive animals do not play with several options), where such a multiplicity of options is taken by humans as freedom. We are not free, we play with more possibilities than other animals, but in many cases these multipossibilities only occur in language (as is the case of paradoxes, which are not "real", but only "language games" as Wittgenstein would say). ). Some people carry out these mental "events" through language - never disconnected from reality, of course - about reality, but in many cases as human "errors", as was the case of "cannibalism for love". They are the "hypothetical environments" as Bonnitta Roy calls them, which when we think about them we are tempted to make them possible. In the case of art this "hypothetical environment" is deployed in a different way and in science in another. From my point of view, conscience is born as courage - it connects with the concept of freedom of Sartre or Eric Fromm, as well as "dare to know" or being - but it does not have to be a virtue at all times or be analyzed teleologically. , because as the case of "cannibalism for love" demonstrates, it can lead to human errors - the idea of not playing at being gods, turned into a myth in Icarus' desire to fly. I courageously refer to what has come to be called leaving the "comfort zone" or even "thinking outside the box." From my point of view, the functions of the prefrontal, as a level of learning, being a timeless distance from reality, was born for infants, for the learning of animals at birth and until they reach adulthood. As the human has become "infantilized", he tried to maintain infantile traits phenotypically (clearer in women) and in behavioral traits such as trying to maintain play, fun and jokes, the prefrontal was maintained for more and more years. (The basis of the game, fun and jokes is creativity, not only of creating it, but also of understanding it). Until the current situation. In old age one moves by habits, no longer by the capacities towards innovation and novelty, more typical of the new areas of the brain. Under another way of analyzing the same thing, fear makes us withdrawn and conservative, which means we have a lower level of multipossibilities, of options in which to "move." Another way to call multipossibilities in my language is multisign. The same phrase will not be interpreted in the same way by all brains. The same happens with words, where many of them mean different things depending on the context of the phrase. What in theory could seem to be positive, is partly negative, since it leads us to not always understanding each other, and therefore isolates us (the loneliness of the intellectual) or leads humans to incomprehension (as in the current cultural wars).
a little misogyny in between....I think as long as komplex multipossiblities cant be contextualized and translated into behavior and experience, it doesnt lesad to more freedom, if so , it does. And this is so often missing, also in sc. Integral; Flex-flow Yellow etc. thinking, interestingly, though its really about that. and this - and only this - will make complexity manageable ( not controllable ) to some degree. To differentiate mere mental and symbolic possibilities ( and many sc. possibilties esp. young people think they have are potentially existing in 3 D , just not for everybody and often for most people NOT) and dance between limits and freedom/ possibility ) in a constant dance, inspired by mind/ map/ imagination and fact-checked by social and factual reality / " nature/ territory. And to differentiate all this will be part of the answer to the questions of human survival IMO. Though I ´m not as attached to that outcome, as many seem to be.
@47:00 you guys seem confused. Do you not use the information/communication theory definition of information, à la Shannon? At base information is a difference, 0's and 1's baby. Pure abstraction is relation, and is a much deeper concept, because relations go as deep as you like, and then deeper (the unknown). As regards red qualia being somehow unreal, that's dopey of Bonnitta. Red is a category, but red qualia are not, they're an inner attribute of a conscious mind that is in one of a class of kinds of states or processes (states that have in part a fuzzy redness qualae associated in them). Frankly no one knows what qualia really are, but there's no denying they are real. Objective reality external to the subjective mind is another level of reality, that's all. it is not that one side is real and the other not, for heavens sake. Didn't a sage once say, "The reality of Man [sic.] is His [sic.] thought?" Whoever it was said that was right. Also, because your deeds and actions betray your inner thoughts, rather than your words, the same sage I think wrote, "Let deeds not words be your adorning." People are known more by their deeds than their words.
@20:00 nah. It is in the nature of conscious intelligence (only conscious) to seek purpose and meaning (meaning finding aids purpose, but they're somewhat a feed back loop too). In other words, once there are conscious beings who have found purpose and meaning, regardless of whether some Universal Mind or supreme divinity (or whatever) would validate their particular found purpose, you have purpose nonetheless, hence a telos. That is not to say it is a universal constant and unevolving and uncorrecting (correcting towards the Divine) since it probably is all that, and in any case, who are you to say you know that's not the case?.
1:02:59 Release complexity thru simplicity - what if IIIΞ returned to first abstractions;: 々iteration·•ϕunderstand IIIΞ Ж(live) ≒approx equal to or a picture of ⩇ intersection over union, ie everything's (¬⁊∔)not and or "nothing‴⦳spin〆. There is no minus, there is no zero, there is nothing but spin;:. what is. Feels like you could learn everything summed up by human thought and still be none the wiser. IIIΞꝚ°ꝛ•⧴reset the rules of understanding. 1:08:00 we all learn how to speak, and that's neither true nor not true. We all learnt how to count, and in general that includes an awful lot of complex math∫ that follows on, yet the nature of growth·•ϕ embeds (not•doubt•surprise) as not-nothing⦳'volves, thru 1-1-2 relationships…onwards. There are no real numbers that can't be expressed with fib, and yet somehow¿&? we may also arrive at pi and GR. 1:08:50 raising a state to a higher octave sounds exact•precise•correct ¬unknown⁊unknowable∔state "above as below‴ ·¬)>• 1:10:36 may Îsuggest mettā-modern might-doubt get Ûs there? IIIΞ /.\IIIΞ
Manipulating abstractions versus perceiving their meaning. This moment grabbed me. Thank you two for this.
another great interview- your channel feels like a crash course introduction to thinkers i’ve been craving to find.
i love bonnie’s point that developmental models of society should mirror biological evolution, and that the apex of one era lacks the resilience to dominate the next. it reminds me how the roman empire’s collapse left room for its outlying isle colony to eventually rise and conquer much of the world. with this frame, it seems impossible to speculate on what the future may look like, that keeping alive the best of our dying order is the best we can do
i also appreciate her insight in returning to the wisdom of nature - rationality is the thin top layer over deeper ways of knowing, such as affect and the imaginal. it speaks to why play and enchantment are so key to a metamodern project.
I love the distinction between pure and categorical abstractions. I love the idea that we made/make a mistake thinking with thoughts. I don't think Bonnie properly considers thinking as a process and this in the end leads out to her own categorical abstractions that are as if pure abstractions, to an at once inflated notion of the self and an underdetermined self in a similar way that Fichte unintentionally self limited. This also sets up a false dichotomy between human development and evolution. We are not going to solve the problems of our own self demise if we don't figure that one out. She beautifully asks the question how are we in nature while using a categorical abstraction of the concepts mind and mental in a sort of wish fulfillment move of embodiment to answer. If one examines the role of thinking in the epistemological process the physiological become gestures of that inherent pre-embodied intelligence/process at work in the cosmos. Not the other way around where a linear complexification up and into human self and cognition out of "mutations" (categorical abstraction) as some recursive feedback loop. What can be discovered when avoiding presumptions, fixed postulates and preconceived evolutionary narratives is that we as self determined selves think through (think windows) transparent concepts and the cognitive process. As long as this process is tied to thinking observation reality is realized (as vervaeke uses the latter term). That is, our cognition wins real knowledge and participates in the extending of the evolutionary reality. You can check out our series on similar content. This episode is particularly relevant. czcams.com/video/FIxYRjpRiHc/video.html I think we make a solid distinction between thinking and cognition.
I do not see so clearly the distinction between categorical and abstract, where the symbolic is also ignored. The bee with its dance makes a symbolic abstraction, where certain turns refer to existences such as the sun or distance. The distance in the human can be an abstract fact (diffuse, since each culture treats it differently: far, near) or categorical (the one established by scientific measures: meters, kilometers), but at the level of embodied cognition, to which Bonnie refers without naming it, with the fact that speech is the movement of the vocal cords the tongue and lips..., bees refer to the distance, perhaps, by the number and cost of fluttering (tiredness, energy expenditure). What I want to see is that the categorical is born of the interpretation or agreement of humans to refer to far or near, but as such a kilometer in my mind remains abstract, because I do not have a rod that exemplifies that kilometer, as it does with a meter. I watch the video you refer to, and I read about John Vervaeke
@@deyanirasaez9540 Thank you for the thoughtful response. If I am understanding you correctly you are agreeing with Bonnie. If not this will be useful to explore in any case. The movement of a bee can't be reduced to distance let alone a reference to distance. The problem here comes when the models used as first principles are an original sin of categorical abstraction. This is where the abstractions as category error deep in the recesses of evolutionary theory are repeated as-if pure rather than the representational cognitive device that they are. Example: both of these lovely folks anchor human behavior and cognition in a physicalist preconception of complexification. Gregg starting with the big bang (I assume Bonnies leans there too). Obviously, now that theory is falling apart. Yet it has been the originating point for 'big history" narratives as a fact and informs all the ways concepts are used out of chemism and mechanics into neo-darwinian narratives and physicalist notions of extension.
I agree with her that there is a difference in pure and categorical. I love that you bring in the word "symbol". Which when it truly functions symbolically is both the representation of reality and the reality. You use the language example. One can talk in categorical abstractions unwittingly and I would guess the devices would pick up the same signal no matter the intention. You see for me thinking is the only epistemological starting point. It is beyond categories (opaque) and pure concepts (transparent) for it creates them. Whether we are conscious of this creation decides which kind of concept will be employed. Language utilized without thinking that is tied to observation is by default a categorical abstraction. Part of that observation is a self that is transparently altered by this cognitive process which has the potential to reach into physiological processes but is by no means a given until we make it so. Bonnie beautifully concludes in this razors edge dance between theory and reality that the self is the universal center that is the unicity within the multiplicity. I would argue that in order for that to be true that unicity has to be created and as such we see an emergent ligament (bound by neither time nor space) stretched tenaciously between evolution and human development.
Interesting and thought provoking conversation and interesting differences she makes.
About evolution and complexity and not-adequate maps I want to say though, that the eradication of species did´nt just happen because of maladaptation to surroundings or habitat because of increasing complexity and false perceptions( like with the geocentric worldview,) but because of too quick and radical change of the environment. So this is a totally different category.
And IMO we are in some similar situation now, and I dont think we will die out because of too complex maps and interpretation, though some might have a too heady and not- whole body based view.
But most people , esp. the decision makers and also the interpreters of our situation on a public scale dont even see the stage of complexity; They still answer with linear and simplistic and narrow and one sided interpretations and solutions
Which in this case we created unintended through the technical revolution, globalization and the explosion of the population ( 8 times as many people as 120 years ago, no territory can handle that without problems).
And the addition of all culture and man made effects in the lower Quadrants of Wilbers AQAL.. So its not just natural complexity and chaos , we forgot about in our cosy world, but the addition to that that makes our territory unknown and unforeseeable in a totally new way.
So Bonnittas claim, that we are out of touch with the basis is right, but the answer doenst seem to be less complexity competent , but to add all kinds of variables from the „ right brain“ to it and also body perception to get a fuller and nature based picture.
As to becoming simpler again, and that the next step in evolution and the adequate answer to this change will come from nature and not our intellect ( which of course is nature as well, just maybe a too tiny aspect in an ecological crisis...and more...)
I always thought and still think that our brains might evolve and what now seems to be overwhelming, for the few who even get it, answering with too complex maps and views, the interpretation and understanding might become easier and simple again on a more integrated and integrative level of evolution of brain and consciousness. And easy and elegant, Hopefully, if we make it.
PS: and as most people ( even when they arent directly involved or affected ) cant take a both-and position re absolutely any urgent question which needs solutions, but are stuck in just one position or an either-or stage of complexity, I dont think we have too much cognitive complexity in our world, but most people are on tribal eradication of the other mode, or in a moral and one truth ethnocentric either -or stage , we definitely need evolution and development of consciousness to even think of any kind of peaceful solution which at least needs both-and capacities and beyond.And we better start to teach people because otherwise they always will be prey for explitation of their ignorance and can be divided and ignited to killl each other in some way.
SO maybe the problem exists in academia, but even there not even the menatl and rational stage hold water in the eye of divide and one-sided „ truth“ claims as we could see in the last 3,5 years.
So even in the educated West there are not enough deeply embedded Enlightenment capacities in most people.
Still an interesting conversation and many points to think about.
yes please please please more, this is such a relevant conversation to have visible, thank you so much, please more
Loved this. More please thankyou❤
Nice book on the desk there! A clear statement of the ability to think criticially
and the courage to do so
Your question around the 60 minute concerning a holistic vision of the evolutionary process is something we have talked about on our channel. You might find something useful there :)
Great presentation by Bonnitta Roy. At minute 41:37 he names an author or philosopher: "Sean" but it cannot be searched as such (another author and book is "We were never modern" by Bruno Latour, which I will buy, since I find his thesis interesting) . I connect with Bonnitta Roy's ideas, especially with the idea of the teleological. When major extinctions occur, all the most complex and/or specialized animals are the most susceptible to becoming extinct. What remains is the most basic, the least complex of life. And then the "cycle" begins again toward complexity. I'm not even sure it's towards intelligence. Dinosaurs were not particularly so and lived between 160 and 180 million years ago. Homo sapiens has only been on earth for about 200 or 250 thousand years, and the way we are going I don't think we will survive for long. The urbanite, for example, would no longer know how to survive in nature, and most of us don't even know how to farm, in case we had to do it (we would have to learn as we go, it would be done relatively quickly, I know).
At no point have they been in tune with each other in the conversation, as Brendan has finally acknowledged, since he is always on land and Bonnitta lets herself be carried away by the strong waves of a rough sea; Brendan tries to bring her to land, to her land (which is anthropocentric), but Bonnitta never takes her up, because perhaps she is not a land that he completely likes.
My thesis is that complexity does not lead to freedom, a concept that is too anthropocentric, but rather leads to multipossibilities (instinctive animals do not play with several options), where such a multiplicity of options is taken by humans as freedom. We are not free, we play with more possibilities than other animals, but in many cases these multipossibilities only occur in language (as is the case of paradoxes, which are not "real", but only "language games" as Wittgenstein would say). ). Some people carry out these mental "events" through language - never disconnected from reality, of course - about reality, but in many cases as human "errors", as was the case of "cannibalism for love". They are the "hypothetical environments" as Bonnitta Roy calls them, which when we think about them we are tempted to make them possible. In the case of art this "hypothetical environment" is deployed in a different way and in science in another. From my point of view, conscience is born as courage - it connects with the concept of freedom of Sartre or Eric Fromm, as well as "dare to know" or being - but it does not have to be a virtue at all times or be analyzed teleologically. , because as the case of "cannibalism for love" demonstrates, it can lead to human errors - the idea of not playing at being gods, turned into a myth in Icarus' desire to fly. I courageously refer to what has come to be called leaving the "comfort zone" or even "thinking outside the box." From my point of view, the functions of the prefrontal, as a level of learning, being a timeless distance from reality, was born for infants, for the learning of animals at birth and until they reach adulthood. As the human has become "infantilized", he tried to maintain infantile traits phenotypically (clearer in women) and in behavioral traits such as trying to maintain play, fun and jokes, the prefrontal was maintained for more and more years. (The basis of the game, fun and jokes is creativity, not only of creating it, but also of understanding it). Until the current situation. In old age one moves by habits, no longer by the capacities towards innovation and novelty, more typical of the new areas of the brain. Under another way of analyzing the same thing, fear makes us withdrawn and conservative, which means we have a lower level of multipossibilities, of options in which to "move."
Another way to call multipossibilities in my language is multisign. The same phrase will not be interpreted in the same way by all brains. The same happens with words, where many of them mean different things depending on the context of the phrase. What in theory could seem to be positive, is partly negative, since it leads us to not always understanding each other, and therefore isolates us (the loneliness of the intellectual) or leads humans to incomprehension (as in the current cultural wars).
a little misogyny in between....I think as long as komplex multipossiblities cant be contextualized and translated into behavior and experience, it doesnt lesad to more freedom, if so , it does. And this is so often missing, also in sc. Integral; Flex-flow Yellow etc. thinking, interestingly, though its really about that. and this - and only this - will make complexity manageable ( not controllable ) to some degree.
To differentiate mere mental and symbolic possibilities ( and many sc. possibilties esp. young people think they have are potentially existing in 3 D , just not for everybody and often for most people NOT) and dance between limits and freedom/ possibility ) in a constant dance, inspired by mind/ map/ imagination and fact-checked by social and factual reality / " nature/ territory.
And to differentiate all this will be part of the answer to the questions of human survival IMO. Though I ´m not as attached to that outcome, as many seem to be.
More please
@47:00 you guys seem confused. Do you not use the information/communication theory definition of information, à la Shannon? At base information is a difference, 0's and 1's baby. Pure abstraction is relation, and is a much deeper concept, because relations go as deep as you like, and then deeper (the unknown). As regards red qualia being somehow unreal, that's dopey of Bonnitta. Red is a category, but red qualia are not, they're an inner attribute of a conscious mind that is in one of a class of kinds of states or processes (states that have in part a fuzzy redness qualae associated in them).
Frankly no one knows what qualia really are, but there's no denying they are real. Objective reality external to the subjective mind is another level of reality, that's all. it is not that one side is real and the other not, for heavens sake.
Didn't a sage once say, "The reality of Man [sic.] is His [sic.] thought?" Whoever it was said that was right. Also, because your deeds and actions betray your inner thoughts, rather than your words, the same sage I think wrote, "Let deeds not words be your adorning." People are known more by their deeds than their words.
You seem confused. Consciousness is not "inside" an agent.
If you define a concept, you have already killed it.
❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤ THIS HELPS SO MUCH 🙏🏼❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤❤
@20:00 nah. It is in the nature of conscious intelligence (only conscious) to seek purpose and meaning (meaning finding aids purpose, but they're somewhat a feed back loop too). In other words, once there are conscious beings who have found purpose and meaning, regardless of whether some Universal Mind or supreme divinity (or whatever) would validate their particular found purpose, you have purpose nonetheless, hence a telos. That is not to say it is a universal constant and unevolving and uncorrecting (correcting towards the Divine) since it probably is all that, and in any case, who are you to say you know that's not the case?.
You might find my paper/presentation on this topic of interest: brendangrahamdempsey.substack.com/p/the-reality-of-meaning
information(/exformation)
1:02:59 Release complexity thru simplicity - what if IIIΞ returned to first abstractions;: 々iteration·•ϕunderstand IIIΞ Ж(live) ≒approx equal to or a picture of ⩇ intersection over union, ie everything's (¬⁊∔)not and or "nothing‴⦳spin〆. There is no minus, there is no zero, there is nothing but spin;:. what is. Feels like you could learn everything summed up by human thought and still be none the wiser.
IIIΞꝚ°ꝛ•⧴reset the rules of understanding.
1:08:00 we all learn how to speak, and that's neither true nor not true. We all learnt how to count, and in general that includes an awful lot of complex math∫ that follows on, yet the nature of growth·•ϕ embeds (not•doubt•surprise) as not-nothing⦳'volves, thru 1-1-2 relationships…onwards. There are no real numbers that can't be expressed with fib, and yet somehow¿&? we may also arrive at pi and GR.
1:08:50 raising a state to a higher octave sounds exact•precise•correct ¬unknown⁊unknowable∔state "above as below‴ ·¬)>•
1:10:36 may Îsuggest mettā-modern might-doubt get Ûs there? IIIΞ /.\IIIΞ