Here is the original work[1]. And not only the hierarchy is never mentioned. Also, the whole publication is just an essay that lacks any kind or form of research.
Thank you for the link, but I'm curious why you didn't read it yourself before you made your assertion?
"But what happens to man's desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?
At once other (and 'higher') needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still 'higher') needs emerge and so on. This is what we mean by saying that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency. "
It's possible it's supposed to be normative though, obviously people don't run decision theory directly on the output of Solomonoff induction using a pre-programmed or learned utility function, but it's what they should do (but they can't, because it's not even computable). It's the theoretical perfection that all practical systems should attempt to approximate.
Same here. I find it relevant because it creates an awareness of where I am in my current state of mind. I also think I can derive a morality from it, or at least some personal values of mine. I don’t know how to describe it properly, though.
That pretty much describes all the social sciences. A morass of non-reproducibility, lack of controls, cherry picked data, bias, and subjective conclusions.
I don't think I'm a materialist, but I downvoted you because "bag of electric meat" just radiates a silly smugness that overrides whatever other value your comment offered. Can't say why others might be downvoting though
I appreciate your followup comment. Perhaps I misread your tone. As someone else said, it just sounded so silly that it seemed to lampoon the perspective of those who supposedly hold it.
It felt like caricature -- like the written equivalent of me doing an impression of a Christian while crossing my eyes and saying in a doofy voice "I believe in the magic sky-man", where obviously their conception of god could be given a more charitable viewing :)
The recognition of emergent properties can exist even in materialism. Reducing to a sum-of-parts with "bag of electric meat" is essentially a strawman ad hominem.
> emergent properties can exist even in materialism
How would the material as such be aware of these properties?
I'm sincerely questioning here. The accusation of "smugness" up the thread seems a cop-out. The dirt needs to explain its awareness of its dirt-state.
Conversely, any theistic interpretation I could offer is going to have some hand-wavy aspects to it. I freely admit that there is no closed-form, mathematical expression for existence that falls within the scope of human intellect.
To the extent that I have a point, the rejection of the human mind as the measure of all things is my point.
The simple answer is that we don't know yet. We don't know at what level of complexity a nervous system starts to have subjective experience (qualia), or even how to detect the condition. However, constructing a computer program that's aware of its own programmedness, or a robot that can tell itself apart in (for example) a reflection from other robots is not terribly difficult. Do such machines have qualia? How could we know? How can I know you have qualia?
What we do know is that doing purely physical things to the brain has very apparent effects on the person. People with brain damage have suffered effects as varied as changes in personality, to defects in information processing, to loss of abilities and memories. Less extremely, psychoactive drugs operate physically on the brain and cause changes in behavior, mood, and perception.
If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, these effects remain to be accounted for. And that aside, I've never heard any reason to accept dualism, besides an appeal to incredulity that the mind could be caused purely by physical processes.
> If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body,
This seems backwards to me. It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain).
Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.
>It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain).
Processes are abstract concepts. They can't interact with concrete objects, except through the concrete objects that support them. Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If it can be said to "interact" with the brain, what's happening ultimately is the brain interacting with itself.
>Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.
Cars exist because the need for faster and better movement exists. The process of movement created the need for the invention of the car.
> Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain.
If we follow this logic then "movement is a process that's running on the car."
Cars are a result of multiple conditions, including movement and the necessary material conditions to employ movement in a specific way.
Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind and the necessary biological conditions to employ mental factors in a specific way.
You're fine to view it that way, it's a reasonable view. My point is to highlight that there's other views.
What I mean is that mind is to consciousness what matter is to the brain. It is a property of the universe, that manifests itself in ways that can form memories, identities, self awareness. But underlying these systems there is pure awareness, in the same way that all matter can be reduced to the same fundamental particles.
In the same way that something like a car or a brain can be made from these same fundamental building blocks, an identity and a self can be made from fundamental mind-properties that are just inherent parts of the universe. They become identifiable as "a person" at a certain scale in the same way that a group of particles becomes "a car" at a certain scale and distance.
So where are the mind particles? You know, physics and chemistry are quite solid fields. They can explain why cars work almost all the way down, including why only certain materials work for the engine block to why the fuel burns so energetically. If mind is a fundamental property of the universe it seems odd that we haven't been able to study it to the same level of effectiveness, and that it doesn't seem to appear anywhere in either physics or chemistry. There is no psychon, it would seem.
It also seems odd that a mind independent of a brain has never been observed. If minds are fundamental to the universe it's something that would have to happen. At the very least when a person dies their mind should be a physical process that's still detectable and goes on independent of the body, because it's fundamental to the universe and not reducible to interactions between ordinary matter particles; that's what it means for something to be fundamental or inherent. For all the world it seems as if a mind without a brain makes as much sense as a car without matter.
Where are the gravity particles? Gravity is a fundamental process, yet the graviton remains hypothetical.
> It also seems odd that a mind independent of a brain has never been observed.
Has a mind dependent of a brain been observed? You can observe a brain, a body, a face, and hear speech, and you can take it upon faith that this is all guided by a mind, but you can't observe that mind unless it's your own. Same applies to your mention of the process of death.
Science is limited to phenomena that can be verified and measured objectively. So it is not odd that it would not be the right tool to examine something that is not entirely subject to matter. At most it can examine its interaction with matter, but to draw conclusive theories from that will carry on to those theories the limitations fundamental to science, and you will confuse those limitations with truth about nature.
The way to observe this is direct experience, but the issue there is that conceptualization and intellect get in the way, because what you know and assume about the world will bias direct observation.
> Where are the gravity particles? Gravity is a fundamental process, yet the graviton remains hypothetical.
Gravity can be detected by its effects, even if there's no particle that propagates it. We've been able to detect not just the strength of gravity (by weight) but also its propagation through space (see LIGO).
>Has a mind dependent of a brain been observed?
Um, obviously? What distinguishes a person from a braindead patient is that one of the two has a mind. Are you saying that the fact that you talk to a person and have them recall facts is not enough to say that they have a mind? Also, to say that a mind has never been observed either dependent or independent of a brain would mean that the idea of mind has no basis in reality at all.
>At most it can examine its interaction with matter
Well, ultimately yes, because any instrument we are able to construct will necessarily have to be made of matter. The upside of this is that if there's a phenomenon that does not interact with matter in any way whatsover, even indirectly, then that phenomenon cannot possibly have any relevance to human life. If minds are an inherent physical phenomenon that can interact with brains, then we should be able to construct a device that's able to interact with them. If this is not possible even in principle, then I don't see how minds can be said to be fundamental. What aspect of reality informs that belief of yours?
> Um, obviously? What distinguishes a person from a braindead patient is that one of the two has a mind. Are you saying that the fact that you talk to a person and have them recall facts is not enough to say that they have a mind? Also, to say that a mind has never been observed either dependent or independent of a brain would mean that the idea of mind has no basis in reality at all.
You're observing communication, which like the gravity example, is one effect that's discernible and understandable to us. Much like the effects of gravity could be observed by people of the past but without sufficient measurements and tools, they did not attribute the orbit of the planets and what glues us to the earth as the same principle.
> The upside of this is that if there's a phenomenon that does not interact with matter in any way whatsover, even indirectly, then that phenomenon cannot possibly have any relevance to human life.
First, whether it has relevance to human life had nothing to do with something being true or not. Secondly, clearly mind does interact with matter, it does so through the brain. We can already construct devices that interact with mind, by making babies.
But we cannot construct devices that can peer into your mind and perceive experience in the way that you do. You might theorize that we should or that science will, someday, but this is a promise not unlike religious ones.
> What aspect of reality informs that belief of yours?
The most fundamental aspect of reality is that which perceives reality in the first place, aka. your experience. Without this awareness, there is no perception, no memory, no intellect. Without these, there is nothing to construct and hold the theory of how mind came to be out of matter.
Fundamentally, I can posit that it is all a dream, the matrix, plato's cave, etc, but whether the contents of experience are illusory or not, it can't be denied that there is the fact of experiencing taking place.
The scientific fundamentals are posited on the premise of "if we didn't exist, what would we agree on is true about the universe". And that's a valid endeavor, but it rests on a hypothetical because we do exist as sentient beings.
If you can imagine an AI system that records some approximate representation of its own thinking, and can play that back, and can record its thinking during the playback, and play that back, and then 2-ish times more at decreasing fidelity, you've got one. That's it. In actual humans most of the processing is done during the remembering, and remembering is a destructive process, so the brain is pretty good at papering over various issues and maintaining appearances.
> To the extent that I have a point, the rejection of the human mind as the measure of all things is my point.
I see life in general, but yes humans as well, as the makers of value judgements. Measuring is a judgement. Without a person to deem it worthy and implement it, even a holy text is just words on a page.
To me Platonic ideals such as gods and souls are things to aspire to, not things which already exist.
>The materialists will reject this answer, yet fall short of offering an explanation for life beside "bag of electric meat".
That's not an explanation of life, that's a description (perhaps a characterization) of life. What explanation does faith offer besides what's effectively an audible shrug?
> Maslow felt we needed to transcend thoughts of ourselves as islands. We had to see ourselves as part of the broader universe to develop the common priorities that can allow humankind to survive as a species.
Don't people transcend themselves at all levels of Maslow's hierarchy? E.g. when starving people portion out food among themselves instead of hoarding it.
This doesn't belong at the top of such a pyramid as it too has debased forms (e.g. paternalism or savior complexes). And more importantly has a focus on each of the levels, with some people transcending to meet physiological needs of all, others safety needs of all, yet others focusing on belonging or esteem needs, and other trying to enable people to self-actualize or transcend.
Self-transcendence is on the side of the hierarchy of needs, though admittedly a person isn't going to be very good at self-transcendence if they are starving or aren't educated. I think this drive of self-transcendence guides many people whenever they are at the various levels. Though admittedly some people get all the way through a Ph.D. without really having a sense of meaning or purpose, I think this kind of trajectory is in the minority and most of us mix it up a bit.
I think if you view the pyramid as blocks you're being a bit simplistic.
All aspects of the pyramid are present at all levels, what the pyramid represents is what you have to free yourself of in order to truly and wholly endeavor in each stage.
You can act with self-transcendence even if you're starving, but you can't direct as much thought, time and energy towards it unless you cover the underlying needs.
This is all well and good, by my psychological need for esteem, and to a lesser extent love/belonging, is so much less that I ignore its pull to large extents (and have even been viscerally repulsed by praise through portions of my life). Maybe that's why I've not been all that facile at Captaining my own destiny in this world.
It isn't possible to exist as an ego without some form of spiritual belief. Existing as some sort of 'happy' ego, insofar as that is possible, requires that to be developed. Even if it is as simple as we float along responding to instincts - sometimes we have to make choices about what instincts to enable and to make such a decision we need faith-based assumptions.
If a model like Maslow's hierarchy is useful, it is reasonable to add in a spiritual layer. However, anything related to faith is automatically controversial.
---
This comment does not assume an organised religion is involved.
Well, I can't think of a theoretical way to do it and I've never met or heard of anyone where a good argument doesn't eventually reveal some incompatible value judgements that are not based on objective truth. So I'm going out on a limb and saying it is probably not possible to have opinions or make choices without having arbitrary values and beliefs.
If nothing else, we clearly don't physically exist for most of eternity and any action taken to delay inevitable death is so logically futile doesn't make any sense to do so without some sort of faith-based leap. You'll notice in most religions the conversation is some variant of: "don't commit suicide" "why not?" "God said so. Live.".
> If nothing else, we clearly don't physically exist for most of eternity and any action taken to delay inevitable death is so logically futile doesn't make any sense to do so without some sort of faith-based leap.
Then congratulations; you've started to tease out the framework that makes up your own personal faith. Based on what you've said so far you aren't a committed Buddhist (their official answer afaik is "to reduce the suffering of others" and they view "because I like living" as a misguided justification).
If any justification for living is a faith, and your argument is that you can’t exist as ego without a justification for living, then using words like “spiritual belief” or “faith” just alienates people who are atheists.
I'm an atheist. I assure you I'm not alienated by the concept of faith. There are entire religious orders based on atheist beliefs (I'm thinking of buddhists, again - they make for good counterexamples on religious topics).
> Why not just say “justification for living”
Because we have several perfectly good words for it. Faith. Beliefs.
Are you suggesting that there are words which do not have a specific meaning?
If you want to break out a different dictionary be my guest, but faith means, and I quote [0] the first entry in the Cambridge dictionary, "great trust or confidence in something or someone". Spiritual, FYI, is "relating to deep feelings and beliefs, especially religious beliefs".
Nobody gives a shit about the dictionary. Framing other people’s worldview as one of faith and spirituality because you think you have a clever semantic argument is not wisdom. If you can’t tell that this line of reasoning is likely to induce annoyance and misunderstanding, then you’re demonstrating social ineptitude more than anything.
If you ever have to explain that the words you’re using don’t mean what others think they mean in order to maintain your points validity, you’re not discussing anything of worth. You are discussing semantics. like I said, your view is just porno. Which is a perfectly cromulent descriptor for some definitions that I don’t care to explain.
And no, don’t bring up the authority of the dictionary. Because we are now here discussing definitions rather than actual concepts so any rightness you had is forfeit to the fact that people don’t agree with your semantics.
If it makes you feel any better, the Buddhist monks take vows of celebacy and swear not to discharge semen. They really are the best for counterexamples. Unless you have very odd tastes in porn.
Of course, a lot of serious spiritual types do similar things. I'm not as sure what the specific vows of the Catholics are.
So far you've argued that the dictionary is an invalid tool for determining what words mean and now you're in the awkward position of arguing about how pornos don't involve sex.
Usually I'd ask you to explain yourself, but in this case I don't think you can. So instead I'll just close off with the observation that you probably would benefit from sitting down, relaxing a bit and thinking a little bit about your beliefs. Life is pretty good, but you don't want to get old and then have big spiritual revelations - it is too late to do much with them. It is worth talking about this sort of thing seriously rather than just pushing nonsense.
No, you just don’t get it. You don’t understand. You’re so pronographically limited in your understanding that you can’t see the framework. Your spirituality is just one bit of money shot prelude. If you don’t get it, you really risk going limp and messing up the big finish before you die. Spirituality and faith is important but just a piece of your porno.
You sure invented a funny definition for faith, that you seem to conveniently fit anything to. Things are much simpler than you imagine - maybe in your mental framework, life is impossible without superstition. Doesn’t mean it is - it certainly isn’t for many.
Faith does not mean superstition. I swear youtube atheism debates have confused many to knee jerk react to specific words.
Faith can operate on low levels such as: You arrange to meet with a friend at the park tomorrow.
You don't know for a fact that you will still be alive, or that your friend will, or that an accident won't befall either of you, etc. You operate on faith that your and their word will be made reality.
This is faith. It doesn't need to involve god, it doesn't have anything to do with superstition. You just take a belief and you act as if it will pan out.
no, that's not faith, by any definition of the word (religious, secular or etymological).
You _can_ have non-religious faith on _people or institutions_ (not necessarily religious, but faith isn't the same as _any set of arbitrary assumptions_ (which is your example). Basic assumptions (in particular those you have evidence for or don't require an internal justification to exist) aren't faith.
Most definitions of the word also require _commitment_ to something or someone, as part of the definition of faith - so someone who blindly trusts a specific car manufacturer and always buys that brand has faith in it, whereas someone who just expects their brakes to work does _not_ have "faith on the brakes".
Trusting someone's word over something trivial isn't faith, it's just trust.
Trust is what makes you believe your friend is not lying, it's cast upon them specifically, it is related to their history and integrity.
Faith is believing that all the other conditions, the ones that we do not think about, will align. It is important to highlight that it is working on a low level, because we take this for granted all the time. Actually it might not be until you lack this low level of faith that you see its presence (through its absence).
Either way, your linking of faith to superstition remains completely bogus.
Just so happens I started following a fitness youtuber this week, that appears to be a "Born again Christian". Seemingly unrelated pursuits. Yet having watched a few of his videos, he's made some astute observations ... ideas he's taken from being a Christian and integrated them into his fitness journey. Things like the idea of Logos, and the "power of words" and their translation into direct action. The importance of Love, etc. I mean there's some powerful core ideas in Christianity. Many religious ideas have been refined over thousands of years. It's basically wisdom on how to work on your mental state, and how to orientate and integrate yourself into a social hierarchy. How to delay gratification, and restrict and reflect on your actions.
Makes his videos more interesting, and cohesive, since there's at least some philosophy behind it, and it's more than just trying to look good.
> At the end, she came away convinced that the most serious problems facing humanity aren’t technical: Although engineering our way out of trouble is possible, it can’t happen until we transcend ourselves, seeing beyond our own individual well-being to the needs of us all.
Hasn't this been obvious and practiced in various ways by many/most people, for millennia?
As an example, I remember a friend of mine started working on cars with his buddy. They finally got to an old vehicle they took all the way apart and put it together. He had gotten to the point where he could pull the engine and put it on a stand, weld things, paint, redo the wiring harness, and more.
I recall one day I went and looked at it and he sort of casually said, "I can do anything".
He wasn't bragging, or deluded. He had just sort of reached somewhere or something and was sort of balanced.
Neither have you met someone who can move 50% of the probability mass in their world model probability distribution with every bit of information they receive, but that's theoretical perfection. There are things that provably can't be achieved, but are still worth approximating in the best way that you can.
Is there an alternative model of human psychology? Would be nice if science could tell us something even if Maslow, or Freud, or cognitive-behavioral therapy each have theoretical deficiencies.
It's been a while since I listened to it, but if I remember rightly they spend some time talking about a model of human psychology that doesn't depend on any concept of an actual 'self'. Instead, they talk about competing motivations and how they give rise to an illusion of a self.
The hierarchy isn't a series of steps to be achieved sequentially, it's a hierarchy of needs everyone has at all times that are more or less fulfilled. Nobody goes to therapy because they lack self-actualization, they choose a more fulfilling job, have hobbies or have other forms of self-expression.
i have difficulty seeing the hierarchy.
to me self transcendence is closely linked to belonging. i can't have family, friends or a community unless i care about them and not only about myself.
moreso, caring about others is what creates that belonging in the first place.
so while basic needs are kind of a foundation, it seems that the other needs are more or less in parallel on top of that.
also, another thought is to look at needs not from an individual perspective, but from a community perspective.
once you have achived belonging, it is the belonging and the community that ensures your basic needs.
when i am homeless and hungry, i don't automatically ignore the needs of my family and community in order to get food and shelter.
in fact losing family and community is part of what causes me to be homeless and hungry in the first place.
so i can't have food, shelter and protection unless i transcend and care about my community, or, in reverse i care about family and community because they provide food and shelter
I'd disagree a bit. Family and friends are centered around a self. There's millions of people who are super generous towards their circle yet assholes towards strangers. I think seeing strangers with more generosity is transcendent.
In fact I'd say this concept is strongly related to how you behave precisely when there's no belonging: to those that don't belong in your perceived group and when you don't feel like you belong in a group.
true, that's a good point. i didn't grow up with much of a supportive family myself, on the other hand i come from a country with strong social support, so i tend to focus more on the outer society myself, also my social network depends on the openness of strangers.
you are right, transcendence of self needs to reach everyone, and especially the outsiders.
Kind of religion, just thousand of years later. Modernity runs in circles imo and loves to label old things in modern terms. Mankind cannot continue to sell itself to short term careers. Thankfully farmers (I think) and others that choose to live outside the grind are on the right path. We can pretend in the modern world that we don't need anything with the soul or religion. But in the end we will find it.
Noreligion practitioners conduct themselves similar to people with trad religions. They developed their own cultures and communities. They have new gods. Their enemies are everyone else worshipping old gods.
Well atheists say they have no gods but behave in ways that is similar to pagan worship. Like their property, technologies, celebrities, CEOs, identitties, wealth, fictional characters, themselves...
Technology, materialism, science. The currents of thought that move us based on perceived value and belief, and where myths and assumptions stem from.
A popular creation myth at the moment is simulation theory.
Reducing consciousness to material data-processing is a way to believe there's a possibility of life after body-death.
A popular "promised-land" myth is that technology will save us.
The assumption that mind stems from matter is so commonly beheld that people take it as fact, in the same way some people take god as a fact, unquestioningly.
Farming is the ultimate grind. Have you ever been a farmer? The work never really stops. And they have to continue learning and staying current on technological innovations in order to maintain profit margins in the face of stiff competition.
Maslow never described his needs hierarchically. The whole "pyramid" thing came from some consultants in the 1960s who misinterpreted Maslow's writings.
He never followed any scientific method or tried to do a good job either. The Maslow's hierarchy of needs is literally just some random dude's harshly biased opinion that somehow became a huge part of our popculture, and this peeves me no end. It's not even good.
He never drew them in a pyramid but he absolutely described them hierarchically. A quote from his 1943 paper: "Human needs arrange themselves in hierarchies of pre-potency. That is to say, the appearance of one need usually rests on the prior satisfaction of another, more pre-potent need"
But drawing a hierarchy in the shape of a pyramid is a perfectly natural thing to do and not, as you stated, misinterpreting his writings. You used this as a basis to discredit the article!
The whole thing is best summed as 'whatever you have, you will always want something else.' Even if you have self-actualization, which a psychotherapist in here say isn't even really achieveable.
Ultimately you'll realize that you want something that is impossible, like changing the immutable aspects of you ('transcendence').
There is no real shift between self-actualization and transcendence. Just wanting more to be above your peers, from being at the top of the hill (self-actualization) to being at the top of the world, for all time (transcendence). It's all still in the framework of competition.
I take your point about feelings of communion being a kind of self-preservation, but I think it is taking it too far to extrapolate competition into that realm. That's per definition not self-transcendence according to how it is described in the article.
There's no immutable aspects of you. Everything is constant change. The illusion, the impossibility that you speak of, is this belief in immutability and the craving for it.
119 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 182 ms ] thread[1] https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Maslow/motivation.htm
That's absurd. The entire essay describes the hierarchy.
"But what happens to man's desires when there is plenty of bread and when his belly is chronically filled?
At once other (and 'higher') needs emerge and these, rather than physiological hungers, dominate the organism. And when these in turn are satisfied, again new (and still 'higher') needs emerge and so on. This is what we mean by saying that the basic human needs are organized into a hierarchy of relative prepotency. "
https://ndisisnd.medium.com/maslow-didnt-create-the-pyramid-...
- Zarathustra
For WHAT is it then--the highest time?"--
Thus spake Zarathustra.
[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/003050...
[1] https://larrybridwell.com/Maslo.pdf
Transcendence is what one obtains via the community of faith.
The materialists will reject this answer, yet fall short of offering an explanation for life beside "bag of electric meat".
The idea that existence must fall entirely within the scope of human existenceis the bugaboo.
[1] https://www.classicalstuff.net/episodes-1/2017/10/31/episode...
Not quite sure how one takes a euphemistic phrase and gets "smug" out of it. However, the reader has the right of it.
It felt like caricature -- like the written equivalent of me doing an impression of a Christian while crossing my eyes and saying in a doofy voice "I believe in the magic sky-man", where obviously their conception of god could be given a more charitable viewing :)
How would the material as such be aware of these properties?
I'm sincerely questioning here. The accusation of "smugness" up the thread seems a cop-out. The dirt needs to explain its awareness of its dirt-state.
Conversely, any theistic interpretation I could offer is going to have some hand-wavy aspects to it. I freely admit that there is no closed-form, mathematical expression for existence that falls within the scope of human intellect.
To the extent that I have a point, the rejection of the human mind as the measure of all things is my point.
What we do know is that doing purely physical things to the brain has very apparent effects on the person. People with brain damage have suffered effects as varied as changes in personality, to defects in information processing, to loss of abilities and memories. Less extremely, psychoactive drugs operate physically on the brain and cause changes in behavior, mood, and perception.
If the brain is not the seat of consciousness and the self is instead the result of some metaphysical process that's external to the body, these effects remain to be accounted for. And that aside, I've never heard any reason to accept dualism, besides an appeal to incredulity that the mind could be caused purely by physical processes.
This seems backwards to me. It is the self that is the result of processes from the interaction between consciousness and the body (including the brain).
Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.
Processes are abstract concepts. They can't interact with concrete objects, except through the concrete objects that support them. Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain. If it can be said to "interact" with the brain, what's happening ultimately is the brain interacting with itself.
>Analogy: the sea does not create the matter of the stone it hits against on the shore, that is already present. But it is the interaction between the sea and the rock that shapes the rock, and in doing so it can create a pattern that looks like a face.
Okay, now undo the analogy.
> Talking about consciousness interacting with the brain makes as much sense as talking about movement interacting with a car. It's a process that's running on the brain.
If we follow this logic then "movement is a process that's running on the car."
Cars are a result of multiple conditions, including movement and the necessary material conditions to employ movement in a specific way.
Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind and the necessary biological conditions to employ mental factors in a specific way.
>Consciousness is a result of multiple conditions, including mind
What do you mean by consciousness that's different from the mind? I see the two as synonymous.
What I mean is that mind is to consciousness what matter is to the brain. It is a property of the universe, that manifests itself in ways that can form memories, identities, self awareness. But underlying these systems there is pure awareness, in the same way that all matter can be reduced to the same fundamental particles.
In the same way that something like a car or a brain can be made from these same fundamental building blocks, an identity and a self can be made from fundamental mind-properties that are just inherent parts of the universe. They become identifiable as "a person" at a certain scale in the same way that a group of particles becomes "a car" at a certain scale and distance.
It also seems odd that a mind independent of a brain has never been observed. If minds are fundamental to the universe it's something that would have to happen. At the very least when a person dies their mind should be a physical process that's still detectable and goes on independent of the body, because it's fundamental to the universe and not reducible to interactions between ordinary matter particles; that's what it means for something to be fundamental or inherent. For all the world it seems as if a mind without a brain makes as much sense as a car without matter.
> It also seems odd that a mind independent of a brain has never been observed.
Has a mind dependent of a brain been observed? You can observe a brain, a body, a face, and hear speech, and you can take it upon faith that this is all guided by a mind, but you can't observe that mind unless it's your own. Same applies to your mention of the process of death.
Science is limited to phenomena that can be verified and measured objectively. So it is not odd that it would not be the right tool to examine something that is not entirely subject to matter. At most it can examine its interaction with matter, but to draw conclusive theories from that will carry on to those theories the limitations fundamental to science, and you will confuse those limitations with truth about nature.
The way to observe this is direct experience, but the issue there is that conceptualization and intellect get in the way, because what you know and assume about the world will bias direct observation.
Gravity can be detected by its effects, even if there's no particle that propagates it. We've been able to detect not just the strength of gravity (by weight) but also its propagation through space (see LIGO).
>Has a mind dependent of a brain been observed?
Um, obviously? What distinguishes a person from a braindead patient is that one of the two has a mind. Are you saying that the fact that you talk to a person and have them recall facts is not enough to say that they have a mind? Also, to say that a mind has never been observed either dependent or independent of a brain would mean that the idea of mind has no basis in reality at all.
>At most it can examine its interaction with matter
Well, ultimately yes, because any instrument we are able to construct will necessarily have to be made of matter. The upside of this is that if there's a phenomenon that does not interact with matter in any way whatsover, even indirectly, then that phenomenon cannot possibly have any relevance to human life. If minds are an inherent physical phenomenon that can interact with brains, then we should be able to construct a device that's able to interact with them. If this is not possible even in principle, then I don't see how minds can be said to be fundamental. What aspect of reality informs that belief of yours?
You're observing communication, which like the gravity example, is one effect that's discernible and understandable to us. Much like the effects of gravity could be observed by people of the past but without sufficient measurements and tools, they did not attribute the orbit of the planets and what glues us to the earth as the same principle.
> The upside of this is that if there's a phenomenon that does not interact with matter in any way whatsover, even indirectly, then that phenomenon cannot possibly have any relevance to human life.
First, whether it has relevance to human life had nothing to do with something being true or not. Secondly, clearly mind does interact with matter, it does so through the brain. We can already construct devices that interact with mind, by making babies.
But we cannot construct devices that can peer into your mind and perceive experience in the way that you do. You might theorize that we should or that science will, someday, but this is a promise not unlike religious ones.
> What aspect of reality informs that belief of yours?
The most fundamental aspect of reality is that which perceives reality in the first place, aka. your experience. Without this awareness, there is no perception, no memory, no intellect. Without these, there is nothing to construct and hold the theory of how mind came to be out of matter.
Fundamentally, I can posit that it is all a dream, the matrix, plato's cave, etc, but whether the contents of experience are illusory or not, it can't be denied that there is the fact of experiencing taking place.
The scientific fundamentals are posited on the premise of "if we didn't exist, what would we agree on is true about the universe". And that's a valid endeavor, but it rests on a hypothetical because we do exist as sentient beings.
https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691145471/th...
I see life in general, but yes humans as well, as the makers of value judgements. Measuring is a judgement. Without a person to deem it worthy and implement it, even a holy text is just words on a page.
To me Platonic ideals such as gods and souls are things to aspire to, not things which already exist.
That's not an explanation of life, that's a description (perhaps a characterization) of life. What explanation does faith offer besides what's effectively an audible shrug?
If you'd prefer the 19th century's expression of this ideal to the 20th's, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humboldtian_model_of_higher_ed...
Even animals "self-trancend" for their family/herd. it is instinctual.
Most Humans "self-trancend" for their tribe/nation. it is emotional (+ instinctual).
But it is not really "self-transcendence" as posited here: universal and mindful (to not say "intellectual").
Self-transcendence is on the side of the hierarchy of needs, though admittedly a person isn't going to be very good at self-transcendence if they are starving or aren't educated. I think this drive of self-transcendence guides many people whenever they are at the various levels. Though admittedly some people get all the way through a Ph.D. without really having a sense of meaning or purpose, I think this kind of trajectory is in the minority and most of us mix it up a bit.
All aspects of the pyramid are present at all levels, what the pyramid represents is what you have to free yourself of in order to truly and wholly endeavor in each stage.
You can act with self-transcendence even if you're starving, but you can't direct as much thought, time and energy towards it unless you cover the underlying needs.
This is all well and good, by my psychological need for esteem, and to a lesser extent love/belonging, is so much less that I ignore its pull to large extents (and have even been viscerally repulsed by praise through portions of my life). Maybe that's why I've not been all that facile at Captaining my own destiny in this world.
I think the pyramid is a bad shape.
If a model like Maslow's hierarchy is useful, it is reasonable to add in a spiritual layer. However, anything related to faith is automatically controversial.
---
This comment does not assume an organised religion is involved.
If nothing else, we clearly don't physically exist for most of eternity and any action taken to delay inevitable death is so logically futile doesn't make any sense to do so without some sort of faith-based leap. You'll notice in most religions the conversation is some variant of: "don't commit suicide" "why not?" "God said so. Live.".
What about “I enjoy living”
Why not just say “justification for living”
> Why not just say “justification for living”
Because we have several perfectly good words for it. Faith. Beliefs.
If you want to break out a different dictionary be my guest, but faith means, and I quote [0] the first entry in the Cambridge dictionary, "great trust or confidence in something or someone". Spiritual, FYI, is "relating to deep feelings and beliefs, especially religious beliefs".
[0] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith
If you ever have to explain that the words you’re using don’t mean what others think they mean in order to maintain your points validity, you’re not discussing anything of worth. You are discussing semantics. like I said, your view is just porno. Which is a perfectly cromulent descriptor for some definitions that I don’t care to explain.
And no, don’t bring up the authority of the dictionary. Because we are now here discussing definitions rather than actual concepts so any rightness you had is forfeit to the fact that people don’t agree with your semantics.
If it makes you feel any better, the Buddhist monks take vows of celebacy and swear not to discharge semen. They really are the best for counterexamples. Unless you have very odd tastes in porn.
Of course, a lot of serious spiritual types do similar things. I'm not as sure what the specific vows of the Catholics are.
Usually I'd ask you to explain yourself, but in this case I don't think you can. So instead I'll just close off with the observation that you probably would benefit from sitting down, relaxing a bit and thinking a little bit about your beliefs. Life is pretty good, but you don't want to get old and then have big spiritual revelations - it is too late to do much with them. It is worth talking about this sort of thing seriously rather than just pushing nonsense.
As for the “god said so” argument, that just demonstrates lack of understanding of the basic tenets of whatever culture or religion one follows.
Faith can operate on low levels such as: You arrange to meet with a friend at the park tomorrow.
You don't know for a fact that you will still be alive, or that your friend will, or that an accident won't befall either of you, etc. You operate on faith that your and their word will be made reality.
This is faith. It doesn't need to involve god, it doesn't have anything to do with superstition. You just take a belief and you act as if it will pan out.
You _can_ have non-religious faith on _people or institutions_ (not necessarily religious, but faith isn't the same as _any set of arbitrary assumptions_ (which is your example). Basic assumptions (in particular those you have evidence for or don't require an internal justification to exist) aren't faith.
Most definitions of the word also require _commitment_ to something or someone, as part of the definition of faith - so someone who blindly trusts a specific car manufacturer and always buys that brand has faith in it, whereas someone who just expects their brakes to work does _not_ have "faith on the brakes".
Trusting someone's word over something trivial isn't faith, it's just trust.
Faith is believing that all the other conditions, the ones that we do not think about, will align. It is important to highlight that it is working on a low level, because we take this for granted all the time. Actually it might not be until you lack this low level of faith that you see its presence (through its absence).
Either way, your linking of faith to superstition remains completely bogus.
If anyone is interested:
https://www.youtube.com/@BrianPruett/videos
Hasn't this been obvious and practiced in various ways by many/most people, for millennia?
Are they talking about something different?
I was a practising psychotherapist for over 25 years.
Never once have I seen a Self-Actualized person.
Self-Actualization is a goal that can never be achieved.
Having met our basic needs at the bottom of the pyramid, having worked on our emotional needs in its middle and worked at achieving our potential.
That statement does not represent any sample of human beings currently living on earth.
> Never once have I seen a Self-Actualized person.
Would a self-actualized person seek psychotherapy? This perception could be due to sampling bias.
As an example, I remember a friend of mine started working on cars with his buddy. They finally got to an old vehicle they took all the way apart and put it together. He had gotten to the point where he could pull the engine and put it on a stand, weld things, paint, redo the wiring harness, and more.
I recall one day I went and looked at it and he sort of casually said, "I can do anything".
He wasn't bragging, or deluded. He had just sort of reached somewhere or something and was sort of balanced.
It's been a while since I listened to it, but if I remember rightly they spend some time talking about a model of human psychology that doesn't depend on any concept of an actual 'self'. Instead, they talk about competing motivations and how they give rise to an illusion of a self.
moreso, caring about others is what creates that belonging in the first place.
so while basic needs are kind of a foundation, it seems that the other needs are more or less in parallel on top of that.
also, another thought is to look at needs not from an individual perspective, but from a community perspective.
once you have achived belonging, it is the belonging and the community that ensures your basic needs.
when i am homeless and hungry, i don't automatically ignore the needs of my family and community in order to get food and shelter.
in fact losing family and community is part of what causes me to be homeless and hungry in the first place.
so i can't have food, shelter and protection unless i transcend and care about my community, or, in reverse i care about family and community because they provide food and shelter
In fact I'd say this concept is strongly related to how you behave precisely when there's no belonging: to those that don't belong in your perceived group and when you don't feel like you belong in a group.
you are right, transcendence of self needs to reach everyone, and especially the outsiders.
Kind of contradictory, isn't it? By the way, who are they?
A popular creation myth at the moment is simulation theory.
Reducing consciousness to material data-processing is a way to believe there's a possibility of life after body-death.
A popular "promised-land" myth is that technology will save us.
The assumption that mind stems from matter is so commonly beheld that people take it as fact, in the same way some people take god as a fact, unquestioningly.
Makes it hard to take this article seriously.
Ultimately you'll realize that you want something that is impossible, like changing the immutable aspects of you ('transcendence').
There is no real shift between self-actualization and transcendence. Just wanting more to be above your peers, from being at the top of the hill (self-actualization) to being at the top of the world, for all time (transcendence). It's all still in the framework of competition.