Different disciplines, different perspectives, is there a solution?

[Veritas Aequitas]

I see your point on its merits, however, there is a shade of difference. The knowing, knower, and known are triune. The ego between sense perception (sense mind) and intelligence uses inference, through reason, to connect sense perception and abstract thought to gain information; a refined form of data that is useful to understand the meaning of things. Knowledge means awareness, intuitive understanding of things, the subjective and objective as different aspects of one unit.

Your triune concept also has its necessity and merits but only at a certain perspective of reality. Ultimately they are inter-related and interdependent.

Knowledge emerged from the continuum which proceeds from opinion [subjective conjectures] to beliefs to objectified knowledge via a specific framework and system of knowledge.
E.g. scientific knowledge start with a conjecture [opinions, hypothesis] then it is a strong belief by the scientist[s] and only becomes knowledge when verified and justified by the scientific framework [scientific method, peer review, intersubjective consensus].

If you have arrived at complete knowledge (completeness) through Reason a framework and a system; a critiquing of it (skepticism) and “have come upon it in your own self” then kudos to you. It is a process that the West uses to acquire knowledge. In the East, the Buddha, as an example, did not struggle with interpreting or classifying inferences in order to know what was real or how to act. That obviously is not the common lot. The Eastern hemisphere and Western hemisphere play out their dual roles, mutually sharing the insights of both.

Maybe that is the way it is supposed to be. The Buddha used the mind to transcend the mind. Zen Buddhism and other practices do likewise to bypass the limitations of the ego with its reliance on inferences, a limited, and not always accurate, way of knowing.

Btw in the above context 'complete knowledge' means complete in terms of the overall system of principles in relation to metaphysics and not every detail of reality.
For example when there is 'complete knowledge' of reality, in this case, one is confident there is nothing else in reality which is non-realistic, e.g. theists insisting a God exists as real in reality.

I note Buddhism is using the same basis of 'completeness' i.e. reality is so complete that there is nothing beyond the human mind.
Yes, it is using the mind to transcend the mind or using Reason itself to monitor [subjugate] reason to ensure Reason reasons only within its own limit, e.g. not to reason out something that is unrealistic like an entity of God or an independent soul.

[owl of Minerva]

I see your point on its merits, however, there is a shade of difference. The knowing, knower, and known are triune. The ego between sense perception (sense mind) and intelligence uses inference, through reason, to connect sense perception and abstract thought to gain information; a refined form of data that is useful to understand the meaning of things. Knowledge means awareness, intuitive understanding of things, the subjective and objective as different aspects of one unit.

Your triune concept also has its necessity and merits but only at a certain perspective of reality. Ultimately they are inter-related and interdependent.

Knowledge emerged from the continuum which proceeds from opinion [subjective conjectures] to beliefs to objectified knowledge via a specific framework and system of knowledge.
E.g. scientific knowledge start with a conjecture [opinions, hypothesis] then it is a strong belief by the scientist[s] and only becomes knowledge when verified and justified by the scientific framework [scientific method, peer review, intersubjective consensus].

If you have arrived at complete knowledge (completeness) through Reason a framework and a system; a critiquing of it (skepticism) and “have come upon it in your own self” then kudos to you. It is a process that the West uses to acquire knowledge. In the East, the Buddha, as an example, did not struggle with interpreting or classifying inferences in order to know what was real or how to act. That obviously is not the common lot. The Eastern hemisphere and Western hemisphere play out their dual roles, mutually sharing the insights of both.

Maybe that is the way it is supposed to be. The Buddha used the mind to transcend the mind. Zen Buddhism and other practices do likewise to bypass the limitations of the ego with its reliance on inferences, a limited, and not always accurate, way of knowing.

Btw in the above context 'complete knowledge' means complete in terms of the overall system of principles in relation to metaphysics and not every detail of reality.
For example when there is 'complete knowledge' of reality, in this case, one is confident there is nothing else in reality which is non-realistic, e.g. theists insisting a God exists as real in reality.

I note Buddhism is using the same basis of 'completeness' i.e. reality is so complete that there is nothing beyond the human mind.
Yes, it is using the mind to transcend the mind or using Reason itself to monitor [subjugate] reason to ensure Reason reasons only within its own limit, e.g. not to reason out something that is unrealistic like an entity of God or an independent soul.

We are generally in agreement on the meaning of the physical and metaphysical and even what transcendental means, as a philosophical term. We are not in agreement with a Transcendental that is beyond the preview of physics or metaphysics; of sensory perception, of qualities; of reason or abstract thought. We do not have to agree on everything, just respect each other’s viewpoints.

The new telescope being launched will add more information. It is unlikely it will, or can, probe hyperspace. if it could hyperspace would have to be within the range of our three dimensions; what is accessible to sense experience and to abstract thought, via the inferences made from both. It will likely be another portion of external space; the outer universe.

I will be posting a new topic soon, as time allows.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We are generally in agreement on the meaning of the physical and metaphysical and even what transcendental means, as a philosophical term. We are not in agreement with a Transcendental that is beyond the preview of physics or metaphysics; of sensory perception, of qualities; of reason or abstract thought. We do not have to agree on everything, just respect each other’s viewpoints.

Humans are multi-variate and not all are the same, so yes I agree not everyone will agree to the same thing and I respect their beliefs relative to their circumstances, BUT not if the beliefs are of evil nature.

The new telescope being launched will add more information. It is unlikely it will, or can, probe hyperspace. if it could hyperspace would have to be within the range of our three dimensions; what is accessible to sense experience and to abstract thought, via the inferences made from both. It will likely be another portion of external space; the outer universe.

I will be posting a new topic soon, as time allows.

Here is another point from Kant;

• We shall entitle the Principles [e.g. transcendental] whose application is confined entirely within the Limits of Possible Experience, Immanent;
  and those [Principles], on the other hand, which profess to pass beyond these Limits [of possible experience], Transcendent. CPR B352

The critical variable is 'limits of possible experience'.

For example I can speculate it is possible for human-liked aliens to exists as real in a galaxy one light year away, because all the variables here are possible to be experienced. It is just a matter of producing the relevant empirical evidence for verification via a new telescope or whatever means.
But to speculate square-circles [contradictions] exist in another galaxy would be 'transcendent' i.e. that is beyond possible experience whether it is within us or in another galaxy.

[owl of Minerva]

We are generally in agreement on the meaning of the physical and metaphysical and even what transcendental means, as a philosophical term. We are not in agreement with a Transcendental that is beyond the preview of physics or metaphysics; of sensory perception, of qualities; of reason or abstract thought. We do not have to agree on everything, just respect each other’s viewpoints.

Humans are multi-variate and not all are the same, so yes I agree not everyone will agree to the same thing and I respect their beliefs relative to their circumstances, BUT not if the beliefs are of evil nature.

The new telescope being launched will add more information. It is unlikely it will, or can, probe hyperspace. if it could hyperspace would have to be within the range of our three dimensions; what is accessible to sense experience and to abstract thought, via the inferences made from both. It will likely be another portion of external space; the outer universe.

I will be posting a new topic soon, as time allows.

Here is another point from Kant;

• We shall entitle the Principles [e.g. transcendental] whose application is confined entirely within the Limits of Possible Experience, Immanent;
  and those [Principles], on the other hand, which profess to pass beyond these Limits [of possible experience], Transcendent. CPR B352

The critical variable is 'limits of possible experience'.

For example I can speculate it is possible for human-liked aliens to exists as real in a galaxy one light year away, because all the variables here are possible to be experienced. It is just a matter of producing the relevant empirical evidence for verification via a new telescope or whatever means.
But to speculate square-circles [contradictions] exist in another galaxy would be 'transcendent' i.e. that is beyond possible experience whether it is within us or in another galaxy.

Kant was right in his understanding of what is apprehended by reason; abstract thought and sensory perception. He was correct that the truly Transcendent is beyond qualities and thought, inaccessible to either mode. His understanding of the qualities of nature and thought in no way diminished his faith or adherence to religious principles or belief in a Deity.

He understood that while abstract thought had its own transcendent principles: transcendent to sensory experience, accessing the nature of unseen forces and their relationships to each other and to mind and matter. These principles of nature could by rationalization or sensory habits be opposed. Whether these principles have morality in themselves and guide us in fulling our duty or whether that lies in a supreme principle of morality that supersedes their limitations as qualities and thought is the question. Kant appears to have chosen the supreme principle.

In his day he may have taken right relationship of the mind to earth and environment as a given and outside the scope of philosophy. Although Christianity had lost the early Pagan religion’s perspective of it. Should it be as DaVinci and predecessors saw it, a relationship from where man is both the measure of all things and hence the center of all things or from a periphery of subject and object, similar to a schizoid personality disorder.

When science knows all that can be known about a thing it goes to the next step; the thing’s relationship to other things. Philosophy is starting to focus on environmental ethics; healing the Greek division, where Western Philosophy separated mind from matter.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant was right in his understanding of what is apprehended by reason; abstract thought and sensory perception. He was correct that the truly Transcendent is beyond qualities and thought, inaccessible to either mode. His understanding of the qualities of nature and thought in no way diminished his faith or adherence to religious principles or belief in a Deity.

He understood that while abstract thought had its own transcendent principles: transcendent to sensory experience, accessing the nature of unseen forces and their relationships to each other and to mind and matter. These principles of nature could by rationalization or sensory habits be opposed. Whether these principles have morality in themselves and guide us in fulling our duty or whether that lies in a supreme principle of morality that supersedes their limitations as qualities and thought is the question. Kant appears to have chosen the supreme principle.

In his day he may have taken right relationship of the mind to earth and environment as a given and outside the scope of philosophy. Although Christianity had lost the early Pagan religion’s perspective of it. Should it be as DaVinci and predecessors saw it, a relationship from where man is both the measure of all things and hence the center of all things or from a periphery of subject and object, similar to a schizoid personality disorder.

When science knows all that can be known about a thing it goes to the next step; the thing’s relationship to other things. Philosophy is starting to focus on environmental ethics; healing the Greek division, where Western Philosophy separated mind from matter.

Kant was a very famous and popular professor during his time.
When he wrote and condemned religion and God in very bad light he was severely reprimanded and threatened by the King [instigated by the Church]; his tenure of professorship was at risk, so he toned down his criticism of religions and God.

So Kant was not religious at all but he did claim to be a deist, i.e. he believed in a reasoned-God not any personal-God who promise salvation. However from the writings of Kant, he was more likely a closet-atheist. His claim of being a deist was more likely a disguise to protect his tenure from the King.

On his question of 'What should I do' re Morality & Ethics, Kant need to rely on some sort of supreme element, thus his 'I have to deny knowledge to make room for faith' CPR Bxxx. [this cannot be interpreted literally]

So Kant brought in the idea of God [regulatively not constitutively nor reified] into his work on Morality so to avoid the threat of his tenure. He could have easily replaced 'God' with his other often used term 'Ens Realissimum' without any divine association at all.

It not possible for Science to know all there is to know and note,
Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34063

When Science has dug deep into a much greater % of what is there to know of the human brain and human nature, then there will be a significant positive turning point in the evolution of humanity.
Are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project?
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

[owl of Minerva]

Kant was right in his understanding of what is apprehended by reason; abstract thought and sensory perception. He was correct that the truly Transcendent is beyond qualities and thought, inaccessible to either mode. His understanding of the qualities of nature and thought in no way diminished his faith or adherence to religious principles or belief in a Deity.

He understood that while abstract thought had its own transcendent principles: transcendent to sensory experience, accessing the nature of unseen forces and their relationships to each other and to mind and matter. These principles of nature could by rationalization or sensory habits be opposed. Whether these principles have morality in themselves and guide us in fulling our duty or whether that lies in a supreme principle of morality that supersedes their limitations as qualities and thought is the question. Kant appears to have chosen the supreme principle.

In his day he may have taken right relationship of the mind to earth and environment as a given and outside the scope of philosophy. Although Christianity had lost the early Pagan religion’s perspective of it. Should it be as DaVinci and predecessors saw it, a relationship from where man is both the measure of all things and hence the center of all things or from a periphery of subject and object, similar to a schizoid personality disorder.

When science knows all that can be known about a thing it goes to the next step; the thing’s relationship to other things. Philosophy is starting to focus on environmental ethics; healing the Greek division, where Western Philosophy separated mind from matter.

Kant was a very famous and popular professor during his time.
When he wrote and condemned religion and God in very bad light he was severely reprimanded and threatened by the King [instigated by the Church]; his tenure of professorship was at risk, so he toned down his criticism of religions and God.

So Kant was not religious at all but he did claim to be a deist, i.e. he believed in a reasoned-God not any personal-God who promise salvation. However from the writings of Kant, he was more likely a closet-atheist. His claim of being a deist was more likely a disguise to protect his tenure from the King.

On his question of 'What should I do' re Morality & Ethics, Kant need to rely on some sort of supreme element, thus his 'I have to deny knowledge to make room for faith' CPR Bxxx. [this cannot be interpreted literally]

So Kant brought in the idea of God [regulatively not constitutively nor reified] into his work on Morality so to avoid the threat of his tenure. He could have easily replaced 'God' with his other often used term 'Ens Realissimum' without any divine association at all.

It not possible for Science to know all there is to know and note,
Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34063

When Science has dug deep into a much greater % of what is there to know of the human brain and human nature, then there will be a significant positive turning point in the evolution of humanity.
Are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project?
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Kant being reprimanded for augmenting personal conscience over religious tradition does not mean he was anti-religion, a non-believer, or a closet atheist or that he, in today’s vernacular kept a low profile or went under the radar to stay out of trouble. That may underestimate him. He appears to have been a realist, knowing that like everything else religion evolves with time. From the letter of the law, to the spirit of the law, to human conscience and discrimination as applied to each circumstance which tradition would not have answers for, although some ground rules and guidelines may apply. Morality like everything else is relative, there are no absolutes in a world or relativities. That does not mean there is no overarching truth or justice, still morality is relative and is time sensitive in that respect.

The ‘Has Science Killed Philosophy Debate’ is very interesting and worth listening to more than once or twice. A lot to agree with and a lot to disagree with here. Rovelli did say: “Mystery of life has disappeared, in that sense science has killed philosophy.” I could not at all agree with that. Physics is in space now analyzing its elements and their relationships to each other and what the implications are for physical life (forces and matter). For some that is life and when it is all known there will be no more to be known. For others it is not the end unless there is just three dimensions or just one universe or space is the end; the last frontier. There is nothing behind it. I am surprised they did not raise these issues. They stayed within their boxes.

The Human Connectome Project appears to be about the physical brain and its connections. I am not too interested in the nuts and bolts of things. A lot will be learned about the physical brain and that is a good thing so long as they are not reductive with it and think it explains mind or consciousness but they probably will be reductive. I would not agree with this statement “You are your connections” meaning physical brain connections. Oh no, I am not. But that is where they will go with it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Kant being reprimanded for augmenting personal conscience over religious tradition does not mean he was anti-religion, a non-believer, or a closet atheist or that he, in today’s vernacular kept a low profile or went under the radar to stay out of trouble. That may underestimate him. He appears to have been a realist, knowing that like everything else religion evolves with time. From the letter of the law, to the spirit of the law, to human conscience and discrimination as applied to each circumstance which tradition would not have answers for, although some ground rules and guidelines may apply. Morality like everything else is relative, there are no absolutes in a world or relativities. That does not mean there is no overarching truth or justice, still morality is relative and is time sensitive in that respect.

Have you read Kant's
Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... are_Reason
In the above, Kant did severely bash religion [re default definition] into pieces to the ground.

Kant was reprimanded for this action of insubordination. When he nevertheless published a second edition in 1794, the censor was so irate that he arranged for a royal order that required Kant never to publish or even speak publicly about religion.
ibid

The ‘Has Science Killed Philosophy Debate’ is very interesting and worth listening to more than once or twice. A lot to agree with and a lot to disagree with here. Rovelli did say: “Mystery of life has disappeared, in that sense science has killed philosophy.” I could not at all agree with that. Physics is in space now analyzing its elements and their relationships to each other and what the implications are for physical life (forces and matter). For some that is life and when it is all known there will be no more to be known. For others it is not the end unless there is just three dimensions or just one universe or space is the end; the last frontier. There is nothing behind it. I am surprised they did not raise these issues. They stayed within their boxes.

You were supposed to provide me the reference on where did Rovelli state the above. I had a look at the end of the video and I don't think he meant it literally. You have to take that in the full context of his statement in the whole video.

The Human Connectome Project appears to be about the physical brain and its connections. I am not too interested in the nuts and bolts of things. A lot will be learned about the physical brain and that is a good thing so long as they are not reductive with it and think it explains mind or consciousness but they probably will be reductive. I would not agree with this statement “You are your connections” meaning physical brain connections. Oh no, I am not. But that is where they will go with it.

You will missing a lot if that is your views of the The Human Connectome Project.
When the The Human Connectome Project [HCP] achieves its critical point [sufficient but not yet fully], humanity will be able to understand most of their behaviors and why they are acting & thinking as such in relation to their neural connectivity.

At present the average person is relying on the 'black box,' trial and error, hit and miss methods for improvements in their well being, i.e. without understanding the complex mechanics and processes that produce the final behaviors and thinking.

Note, other than autonomic responses, all other humans responses are conditioned upon the brain.

With sufficient progress from the HCP, there will be potentials for humans to target and change the specific neural sets to enable good and positive behaviors. This will enable the average person to inhibit and modulate their evil impulses.

Personally, then you or one [or the next generations of your likes] will be able to understand why you/one is thinking and acting the way you/one in the past, present and in the future, and thus will be able to take corrective steps via changes to the specific targeted neural sets.

• For example, a person might be the highly sensitive worrying type at the slightest issues and thus is full of anxieties and stress. At present, we do not know the detailed mechanics how that came about. So to improve upon this problem, people resort to various trial and error, hit and miss approaches of self-development, mental exercises, meditations, drugs [highly detrimental], etc. without understanding what is really and precisely going on inside their brain or body.

With sufficient progress of the HCP, humans will be able to understand the actual and details mechanics of the neural processes that caused the highly sensitive worrying. From that they will able to be effective in targeting the specific neural connections [provided not damaged] to train the respective inhibitors and activators to manage and module one worrying state.

Since, other than autonomic responses, all other humans responses are conditioned upon the brain, there will be a lot of potential for improvements is all mental issues faced by humanities.

There is definitely the potential to understand the hard problem of consciousness more closely than before using the 'black box' approach.

As such, you will missing a lot if you ignore the The Human Connectome Project and its potentials.

[owl of Minerva]

Kant was right in his understanding of what is apprehended by reason; abstract thought and sensory perception. He was correct that the truly Transcendent is beyond qualities and thought, inaccessible to either mode. His understanding of the qualities of nature and thought in no way diminished his faith or adherence to religious principles or belief in a Deity.

He understood that while abstract thought had its own transcendent principles: transcendent to sensory experience, accessing the nature of unseen forces and their relationships to each other and to mind and matter. These principles of nature could by rationalization or sensory habits be opposed. Whether these principles have morality in themselves and guide us in fulling our duty or whether that lies in a supreme principle of morality that supersedes their limitations as qualities and thought is the question. Kant appears to have chosen the supreme principle.

In his day he may have taken right relationship of the mind to earth and environment as a given and outside the scope of philosophy. Although Christianity had lost the early Pagan religion’s perspective of it. Should it be as DaVinci and predecessors saw it, a relationship from where man is both the measure of all things and hence the center of all things or from a periphery of subject and object, similar to a schizoid personality disorder.

When science knows all that can be known about a thing it goes to the next step; the thing’s relationship to other things. Philosophy is starting to focus on environmental ethics; healing the Greek division, where Western Philosophy separated mind from matter.

Kant was a very famous and popular professor during his time.
When he wrote and condemned religion and God in very bad light he was severely reprimanded and threatened by the King [instigated by the Church]; his tenure of professorship was at risk, so he toned down his criticism of religions and God.

So Kant was not religious at all but he did claim to be a deist, i.e. he believed in a reasoned-God not any personal-God who promise salvation. However from the writings of Kant, he was more likely a closet-atheist. His claim of being a deist was more likely a disguise to protect his tenure from the King.

On his question of 'What should I do' re Morality & Ethics, Kant need to rely on some sort of supreme element, thus his 'I have to deny knowledge to make room for faith' CPR Bxxx. [this cannot be interpreted literally]

So Kant brought in the idea of God [regulatively not constitutively nor reified] into his work on Morality so to avoid the threat of his tenure. He could have easily replaced 'God' with his other often used term 'Ens Realissimum' without any divine association at all.

It not possible for Science to know all there is to know and note,
Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34063

When Science has dug deep into a much greater % of what is there to know of the human brain and human nature, then there will be a significant positive turning point in the evolution of humanity.
Are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project?
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Kant being reprimanded for augmenting personal conscience over religious tradition does not mean he was anti-religion, a non-believer, or a closet atheist or that he, in today’s vernacular kept a low profile or went under the radar to stay out of trouble. That may underestimate him. He appears to have been a realist, knowing that like everything else religion evolves with time. From the letter of the law, to the spirit of the law, to human conscience and discrimination as applied to each circumstance which tradition would not have answers for, although some ground rules and guidelines may apply. Morality like everything else is relative, there are no absolutes in a world or relativities. That does not mean there is no overarching truth or justice, still morality is relative and is time sensitive in that respect.

The ‘Has Science Killed Philosophy Debate’ is very interesting and worth listening to more than once or twice. A lot to agree with and a lot to disagree with here. Rovelli did say: “Mystery of life has disappeared, in that sense science has killed philosophy.” I could not at all agree with that. Physics is in space now analyzing its elements and their relationships to each other and what the implications are for physical life (forces and matter). For some that is life and when it is all known there will be no more to be known. For others it is not the end unless there is just three dimensions or just one universe or space is the end; the last frontier. There is nothing behind it. I am surprised they did not raise these issues. They stayed within their boxes.

The Human Connectome Project appears to be about the physical brain and its connections. I am not too interested in the nuts and bolts of things. A lot will be learned about the physical brain and that is a good thing so long as they are not reductive with it and think it explains mind or consciousness but they probably will be reductive. I would not agree with this statement “You are your connections” meaning physical brain connections. Oh no, I am not. But that is where they will go with it.

I do not have an opinion or assume in relation to Kant’s faith. I go with what the consensus is as I do when I do not personally know, or as applies to disciplines I have neither trained for nor work within I also go with the general consensus on the topic. I will review what you referenced but the consensus still stands and likely will in my view.

The onus is on you to let me know if what Rovelli plainly said is taken out of context in my assessment of it.

My opinion of The Human Conectome Project has not changed and will not change. I am not influenced by a perspective on what it means to be human that makes it the equivalent of understanding a computer program. And not even that, focusing on the hardware; the brain while ignoring, or denying, the software: identity, agency, mind; perceptual and conceptual, all underlaid by consciousness.

Dysfunctions are helped by Cognitive Psychology that involves changing the thoughts when a compulsion or fear arises. If the Project can treat anomalies mild or severe, alleviate the suffering if severe, if mild, return the person to normal functioning that is a plus. In relation to the normal person it has no other role to play. This view is based on the reductionist and just plain wrong perspective of the quote: “You are your connections.”

Big Pharma is probably watching this Project, salivating in the wings, as with government sanction they may have a role to play and anticipate a big pay day. Once the anomalies are known and matched with the areas they emerge from, there must be a pill for that.

In contrast “As a man thinks in his heart” so is he or “Thought is act in fancy.” Is intelligence. Perception, heart, sends a signal to the brain, the cognitive center evaluates it and with heart and brain alignment action is taken or not. Will plays a role here, it is not just processing mindlessly due to neurons firing or chemical interactions; there is agency. The second quote highlights that thought is action and the lapse between the event, and the processing may be viewed by neuroscience as choice being made by the processing.

What can be said about all of this, if a relative joined a cult the strategy for an intervention could be assessed in a family gathering. In the case of the mindlessness, no pun intended, of brain science people have to assess what makes sense and what does not. No one else can do it for them.

[owl of Minerva]

Kant was right in his understanding of what is apprehended by reason; abstract thought and sensory perception. He was correct that the truly Transcendent is beyond qualities and thought, inaccessible to either mode. His understanding of the qualities of nature and thought in no way diminished his faith or adherence to religious principles or belief in a Deity.

He understood that while abstract thought had its own transcendent principles: transcendent to sensory experience, accessing the nature of unseen forces and their relationships to each other and to mind and matter. These principles of nature could by rationalization or sensory habits be opposed. Whether these principles have morality in themselves and guide us in fulling our duty or whether that lies in a supreme principle of morality that supersedes their limitations as qualities and thought is the question. Kant appears to have chosen the supreme principle.

In his day he may have taken right relationship of the mind to earth and environment as a given and outside the scope of philosophy. Although Christianity had lost the early Pagan religion’s perspective of it. Should it be as DaVinci and predecessors saw it, a relationship from where man is both the measure of all things and hence the center of all things or from a periphery of subject and object, similar to a schizoid personality disorder.

When science knows all that can be known about a thing it goes to the next step; the thing’s relationship to other things. Philosophy is starting to focus on environmental ethics; healing the Greek division, where Western Philosophy separated mind from matter.

Kant was a very famous and popular professor during his time.
When he wrote and condemned religion and God in very bad light he was severely reprimanded and threatened by the King [instigated by the Church]; his tenure of professorship was at risk, so he toned down his criticism of religions and God.

So Kant was not religious at all but he did claim to be a deist, i.e. he believed in a reasoned-God not any personal-God who promise salvation. However from the writings of Kant, he was more likely a closet-atheist. His claim of being a deist was more likely a disguise to protect his tenure from the King.

On his question of 'What should I do' re Morality & Ethics, Kant need to rely on some sort of supreme element, thus his 'I have to deny knowledge to make room for faith' CPR Bxxx. [this cannot be interpreted literally]

So Kant brought in the idea of God [regulatively not constitutively nor reified] into his work on Morality so to avoid the threat of his tenure. He could have easily replaced 'God' with his other often used term 'Ens Realissimum' without any divine association at all.

It not possible for Science to know all there is to know and note,
Has Science Killed Philosophy? Debate
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=34063

When Science has dug deep into a much greater % of what is there to know of the human brain and human nature, then there will be a significant positive turning point in the evolution of humanity.
Are you familiar with the Human Connectome Project?
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/

Kant being reprimanded for augmenting personal conscience over religious tradition does not mean he was anti-religion, a non-believer, or a closet atheist or that he, in today’s vernacular kept a low profile or went under the radar to stay out of trouble. That may underestimate him. He appears to have been a realist, knowing that like everything else religion evolves with time. From the letter of the law, to the spirit of the law, to human conscience and discrimination as applied to each circumstance which tradition would not have answers for, although some ground rules and guidelines may apply. Morality like everything else is relative, there are no absolutes in a world or relativities. That does not mean there is no overarching truth or justice, still morality is relative and is time sensitive in that respect.

The ‘Has Science Killed Philosophy Debate’ is very interesting and worth listening to more than once or twice. A lot to agree with and a lot to disagree with here. Rovelli did say: “Mystery of life has disappeared, in that sense science has killed philosophy.” I could not at all agree with that. Physics is in space now analyzing its elements and their relationships to each other and what the implications are for physical life (forces and matter). For some that is life and when it is all known there will be no more to be known. For others it is not the end unless there is just three dimensions or just one universe or space is the end; the last frontier. There is nothing behind it. I am surprised they did not raise these issues. They stayed within their boxes.

The Human Connectome Project appears to be about the physical brain and its connections. I am not too interested in the nuts and bolts of things. A lot will be learned about the physical brain and that is a good thing so long as they are not reductive with it and think it explains mind or consciousness but they probably will be reductive. I would not agree with this statement “You are your connections” meaning physical brain connections. Oh no, I am not. But that is where they will go with it.

I do not have an opinion or assume in relation to Kant’s faith. I go with what the consensus is as I do when I do not personally know, or as applies to disciplines I have neither trained for nor work within I also go with the general consensus on the topic. I will review what you referenced but the consensus still stands and likely will in my view.

The onus is on you to let me know if what Rovelli plainly said is taken out of context in my assessment of it.

My opinion of The Human Conectome Project has not changed and will not change. I am not influenced by a perspective on what it means to be human that makes it the equivalent of understanding a computer program. And not even that, focusing on the hardware; the brain while ignoring, or denying, the software: identity, agency, mind; perceptual and conceptual, all underlaid by consciousness.

Dysfunctions are helped by Cognitive Psychology that involves changing the thoughts when a compulsion or fear arises. If the Project can treat anomalies mild or severe, alleviate the suffering if severe, if mild, return the person to normal functioning that is a plus. In relation to the normal person it has no other role to play. This view is based on the reductionist and just plain wrong perspective of the quote: “You are your connections.”

Big Pharma is probably watching this Project, salivating in the wings, as with government sanction they may have a role to play and anticipate a big pay day. Once the anomalies are known and matched with the areas they emerge from, there must be a tablet or pill for that.

In contrast “As a man thinks in his heart” so is he or “Thought is act in fancy.” Is intelligence. Perception, heart, sends a signal to the brain, the cognitive center evaluates it and with heart and brain alignment action is taken or not. Will plays a role here, it is not just processing mindlessly due to neurons firing or chemical interactions; there is agency. The second quote highlights that thought is action and the lapse between the event and the processing may be viewed by neuroscience as choice being made by the processing.

What can be said about all of this, if a relative joined a cult the strategy for an intervention could be assessed in a family gathering. In the case of the mindlessness, no pun intended, of brain science people have to assess what makes sense and what does not. No one else can do it for them.

[Sculptor]

There are no solutions for situations which are not problems

[Veritas Aequitas]

I do not have an opinion or assume in relation to Kant’s faith. I go with what the consensus is as I do when I do not personally know, or as applies to disciplines I have neither trained for nor work within I also go with the general consensus on the topic. I will review what you referenced but the consensus still stands and likely will in my view.

After extensive research on Kant, I noted the majority who commented on Kant have had the wrong view of his major theories. For example, most view Kant's Morality & Ethics as a deontological, but fundamentally it is not.
When you have the time, hope you will read Kant's
Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... are_Reason

The onus is on you to let me know if what Rovelli plainly said is taken out of context in my assessment of it.

It is not a critical issue to me at present.
Will do that when I happen to refresh on that video again.

My opinion of The Human Conectome Project has not changed and will not change. I am not influenced by a perspective on what it means to be human that makes it the equivalent of understanding a computer program. And not even that, focusing on the hardware; the brain while ignoring, or denying, the software: identity, agency, mind; perceptual and conceptual, all underlaid by consciousness.

You seem to get it wrong.
Neuro-anatomy has already covered almost everything that is to know about the 'hardware' contents of the brain.
The Human Connectome Project is more about the neural-connections' linkage with human activities and thus ultimately the critical concern is with the software [the neural algorithm], i.e. including how consciousness came about within the human brain.

The human brain crudely operate like a computer but it is more sophisticated than that. If it is almost like a computer, scientists would have created artificial human brains, but that is not the case.

Dysfunctions are helped by Cognitive Psychology that involves changing the thoughts when a compulsion or fear arises. If the Project can treat anomalies mild or severe, alleviate the suffering if severe, if mild, return the person to normal functioning that is a plus. In relation to the normal person it has no other role to play. This view is based on the reductionist and just plain wrong perspective of the quote: “You are your connections.”

In relation to the "normal" person the HCP can contribute to expeditiously raise the various quotients of the average person in future generations [not possible at present], e.g. IQ. Moral Quotient, Wisdom, scientific, mathematics, rationality etc. Obviously such moves must be done voluntarily and within fool proofs [no possible evil elements] process.

Big Pharma is probably watching this Project, salivating in the wings, as with government sanction they may have a role to play and anticipate a big pay day. Once the anomalies are known and matched with the areas they emerge from, there must be a tablet or pill for that.

Normally when there is something new everyone will be looking for opportunities to exploit for good, bad or ugly interests.
But in the above development, the wisdom, rationality and intelligence, etc. quotient of the majority will be raised simultaneously, thus there is much less room for any big exploiter to commit their evil 'crime'.

Btw, even at present with minimal knowledge of the brain, there are already 'smart' pills to make one smarter.

The concept of neuroenhancement and the use of substances to improve cognitive functioning in healthy individuals is certainly not a new one.
In fact, one of the first cognitive enhancement drugs, Piracetam, was developed over fifty years ago by psychologist and chemist C.C. Giurgea.2 Although he did not know the exact mechanism, Giurgea believed the drug boosted brain power and so began his exploration into "smart pills", or nootropics, a term he coined from the Greek nous, meaning "mind," and trepein, meaning "to bend.
https://www.verywellmind.com/can-smart- ... er-4164623

However I believe the above may have side-effects.
But with the HCP the side effects can be reduced or avoided.

In contrast “As a man thinks in his heart” so is he or “Thought is act in fancy.” Is intelligence. Perception, heart, sends a signal to the brain, the cognitive center evaluates it and with heart and brain alignment action is taken or not. Will plays a role here, it is not just processing mindlessly due to neurons firing or chemical interactions; there is agency. The second quote highlights that thought is action and the lapse between the event and the processing may be viewed by neuroscience as choice being made by the processing.

Re 'agency' that has to be the self or individual self?
But the state of the self is conditioned upon the neural connectivities.
For example in the case of severe dementia, Alzheimer's disease or Coma the sense of self can be lost.

• Coma is caused by dysfunction of the reticular activating system (RAS) in the brain stem or both cerebral hemispheres.
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/coma

Thus a sense of self or agency is conditioned upon the specific neural connections in the human brain.

Note the view of Kant, Hume, Parfit on the self.
According to Hume, the self is merely a bundle of activities, which in modern term is grounded primary to the neural activities and that of the body, heart, etc.

If otherwise, are you alluding there is agency as in the case of an independent soul that can survive physical death with consciousness intact?

What can be said about all of this, if a relative joined a cult the strategy for an intervention could be assessed in a family gathering. In the case of the mindlessness, no pun intended, of brain science people have to assess what makes sense and what does not. No one else can do it for them.

The fundamental is philosophy-proper.
Regardless of brain science people or whoever, their resultant activities re the HCP must be empirically and philosophically sound which has to take into account moral and ethical considerations.
With the HCP, the inherent moral function within the average person can be made more active in future that the current state.

Note the positive trend of humanity attitude towards chattel slavery since 10,000 years ago compared the present [2021] where chattel slavery is illegal is all sovereign nations. With the HCP there is potential to expedite the moral quotient of the average person to counter all sort of other evil impulses.

As with the evil of slavery, all other inherent evil impulses will be inhibited and modulated with the potentials from the HCP and elsewhere in the future [not present].

[owl of Minerva]

I do not have an opinion or assume in relation to Kant’s faith. I go with what the consensus is as I do when I do not personally know, or as applies to disciplines I have neither trained for nor work within I also go with the general consensus on the topic. I will review what you referenced but the consensus still stands and likely will in my view.

After extensive research on Kant, I noted the majority who commented on Kant have had the wrong view of his major theories. For example, most view Kant's Morality & Ethics as a deontological, but fundamentally it is not.
When you have the time, hope you will read Kant's
Religion Within the Bounds of Bare Reason
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_ ... are_Reason

The onus is on you to let me know if what Rovelli plainly said is taken out of context in my assessment of it.

It is not a critical issue to me at present.
Will do that when I happen to refresh on that video again.

My opinion of The Human Conectome Project has not changed and will not change. I am not influenced by a perspective on what it means to be human that makes it the equivalent of understanding a computer program. And not even that, focusing on the hardware; the brain while ignoring, or denying, the software: identity, agency, mind; perceptual and conceptual, all underlaid by consciousness.

You seem to get it wrong.
Neuro-anatomy has already covered almost everything that is to know about the 'hardware' contents of the brain.
The Human Connectome Project is more about the neural-connections' linkage with human activities and thus ultimately the critical concern is with the software [the neural algorithm], i.e. including how consciousness came about within the human brain.

The human brain crudely operate like a computer but it is more sophisticated than that. If it is almost like a computer, scientists would have created artificial human brains, but that is not the case.

Dysfunctions are helped by Cognitive Psychology that involves changing the thoughts when a compulsion or fear arises. If the Project can treat anomalies mild or severe, alleviate the suffering if severe, if mild, return the person to normal functioning that is a plus. In relation to the normal person it has no other role to play. This view is based on the reductionist and just plain wrong perspective of the quote: “You are your connections.”

In relation to the "normal" person the HCP can contribute to expeditiously raise the various quotients of the average person in future generations [not possible at present], e.g. IQ. Moral Quotient, Wisdom, scientific, mathematics, rationality etc. Obviously such moves must be done voluntarily and within fool proofs [no possible evil elements] process.

Big Pharma is probably watching this Project, salivating in the wings, as with government sanction they may have a role to play and anticipate a big pay day. Once the anomalies are known and matched with the areas they emerge from, there must be a tablet or pill for that.

Normally when there is something new everyone will be looking for opportunities to exploit for good, bad or ugly interests.
But in the above development, the wisdom, rationality and intelligence, etc. quotient of the majority will be raised simultaneously, thus there is much less room for any big exploiter to commit their evil 'crime'.

Btw, even at present with minimal knowledge of the brain, there are already 'smart' pills to make one smarter.

The concept of neuroenhancement and the use of substances to improve cognitive functioning in healthy individuals is certainly not a new one.
In fact, one of the first cognitive enhancement drugs, Piracetam, was developed over fifty years ago by psychologist and chemist C.C. Giurgea.2 Although he did not know the exact mechanism, Giurgea believed the drug boosted brain power and so began his exploration into "smart pills", or nootropics, a term he coined from the Greek nous, meaning "mind," and trepein, meaning "to bend.
https://www.verywellmind.com/can-smart- ... er-4164623

However I believe the above may have side-effects.
But with the HCP the side effects can be reduced or avoided.

In contrast “As a man thinks in his heart” so is he or “Thought is act in fancy.” Is intelligence. Perception, heart, sends a signal to the brain, the cognitive center evaluates it and with heart and brain alignment action is taken or not. Will plays a role here, it is not just processing mindlessly due to neurons firing or chemical interactions; there is agency. The second quote highlights that thought is action and the lapse between the event and the processing may be viewed by neuroscience as choice being made by the processing.

Re 'agency' that has to be the self or individual self?
But the state of the self is conditioned upon the neural connectivities.
For example in the case of severe dementia, Alzheimer's disease or Coma the sense of self can be lost.

• Coma is caused by dysfunction of the reticular activating system (RAS) in the brain stem or both cerebral hemispheres.
  https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/coma

Thus a sense of self or agency is conditioned upon the specific neural connections in the human brain.

Note the view of Kant, Hume, Parfit on the self.
According to Hume, the self is merely a bundle of activities, which in modern term is grounded primary to the neural activities and that of the body, heart, etc.

If otherwise, are you alluding there is agency as in the case of an independent soul that can survive physical death with consciousness intact?

What can be said about all of this, if a relative joined a cult the strategy for an intervention could be assessed in a family gathering. In the case of the mindlessness, no pun intended, of brain science people have to assess what makes sense and what does not. No one else can do it for them.

The fundamental is philosophy-proper.
Regardless of brain science people or whoever, their resultant activities re the HCP must be empirically and philosophically sound which has to take into account moral and ethical considerations.
With the HCP, the inherent moral function within the average person can be made more active in future that the current state.

Note the positive trend of humanity attitude towards chattel slavery since 10,000 years ago compared the present [2021] where chattel slavery is illegal is all sovereign nations. With the HCP there is potential to expedite the moral quotient of the average person to counter all sort of other evil impulses.

As with the evil of slavery, all other inherent evil impulses will be inhibited and modulated with the potentials from the HCP and elsewhere in the future [not present].

Science has the right to investigate anything it wants, in any way it deems necessary. What is objectionable is it making philosophical or ‘this is who you are’ statements from the limitations of nascent research into brain functions. It may be necessary to comprehend a part first before the next step is taken of relating the findings to the whole organism or to the cosmos. The truth is in the whole not in the parts. The gut neurons or heart neurons or transmitters are not taken into account. Interestingly the term schizophrenia comes from the Greek and means split at the diaphragm. We could question why being split at the diaphragm would result in mental illness.

Big Pharma is already involved and any prescribed drug can have side effects or even kill. The point is, other than serious anomalies, people should not find prescription drugs necessary especially not for enhancement of faculties as there are better ways to enhance faculties and the brain is plastic. As habit grooves can be made so also they can be unmade, going the drug route, legal or illegal is a bad idea.

The lack of resilience in in today’s crises is an example of people who fold when stymied, when there is not an apparent solution to a crises. They are looking for a tablet or pill to save them. Building up physical resilience through the biofeedback of applied kinesiology and targeted nutrition to increase the energy of each organ, including the brain would be a better choice. In addition exercising will power would automatically strengthen the mind. Looking for solutions via pharmaceuticals is not the right way to go.

It is more likely the sense of self comes from thought that precedes any neural activity than brain activity leading to a sense of self. The self (ego] can be strong, weak, or tenuous. Psychologists ramp it up in their clients or temper it down as necessary. In doing this they do not activate neurons directly. The person learns to think differently changing grooves through the thought process.

The sense of self can be lost as a broken lamp will not transmit light, that does not mean that light does not exist independently of the lamp or wiring. Everything has individuality. The external macro elements and the many external micro elements are acknowledged to exist, they are obvious. Still the micro elements are new to science and understanding where the elemental ends is for the future. As the weak force is a conduit to the other forces so what is not obviously elemental will in the same way be accessible. Hume was an empirical reductionist. Kant at least acknowledged the metaphysical which though not obvious or sensory accessible exists. Many things have been found to exist since the 1600s.

I would prefer to rely on the Precession of the Equinoxes to increase human intelligence and moral insight than on HCP. The Precession knows what it is doing, as it has from the higher to lower Bronze Age, through the Greek period and the Dark Ages, up to the Electrical Age we are now in. I am not at all confident that HCP knows what it is doing.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Science has the right to investigate anything it wants, in any way it deems necessary. What is objectionable is it making philosophical or ‘this is who you are’ statements from the limitations of nascent research into brain functions. It may be necessary to comprehend a part first before the next step is taken of relating the findings to the whole organism or to the cosmos. The truth is in the whole not in the parts. The gut neurons or heart neurons or transmitters are not taken into account. Interestingly the term schizophrenia comes from the Greek and means split at the diaphragm. We could question why being split at the diaphragm would result in mental illness.

Science-proper is very humble.
Re Popper, scientific knowledge as the most credible is at best merely 'polished conjectures'.
What we need to guard against in science is scientism, the claim that "science is the only way to sure knowledge"

Big Pharma is already involved and any prescribed drug can have side effects or even kill. The point is, other than serious anomalies, people should not find prescription drugs necessary especially not for enhancement of faculties as there are better ways to enhance faculties and the brain is plastic. As habit grooves can be made so also they can be unmade, going the drug route, legal or illegal is a bad idea.

While I mentioned about smart drugs, I do not agree with the dependence on it and sold by Big Pharma.
With the potential of the HCP we will find fool proofs methods that do not have side effects at all [except the rare occassion].

The lack of resilience in in today’s crises is an example of people who fold when stymied, when there is not an apparent solution to a crises. They are looking for a tablet or pill to save them. Building up physical resilience through the biofeedback of applied kinesiology and targeted nutrition to increase the energy of each organ, including the brain would be a better choice. In addition exercising will power would automatically strengthen the mind. Looking for solutions via pharmaceuticals is not the right way to go.

As I had stated, whatever the progress with knowledge from the HCP, it has to be voluntarily and fool proof.
Btw, the progress is on a long term basis, i.e. a few generations.
Note how the Sherpa of Nepal/Tibet developed a super constitution to face the cold and high altitude, that took >500 years from the time they took refuge in the high mountains.
This is evidence of human evolution with positive results with no side effects and we can rely on the HCP and the Human Genomic Project to expedite other progress of human nature.

It is more likely the sense of self comes from thought that precedes any neural activity than brain activity leading to a sense of self. The self (ego] can be strong, weak, or tenuous. Psychologists ramp it up in their clients or temper it down as necessary. In doing this they do not activate neurons directly. The person learns to think differently changing grooves through the thought process.

My views differ from yours.

The first one-cell living things up to the more advance animals [except primates, dolphins, elephants and a few others] has neural activities but do not have a 'sense of self' i.e. self-awareness or consciousness.
Therefore the sense of self is more likely to be an emergent from the neural activities.

The sense of self can be lost as a broken lamp will not transmit light, that does not mean that light does not exist independently of the lamp or wiring. Everything has individuality. The external macro elements and the many external micro elements are acknowledged to exist, they are obvious. Still the micro elements are new to science and understanding where the elemental ends is for the future. As the weak force is a conduit to the other forces so what is not obviously elemental will in the same way be accessible. Hume was an empirical reductionist. Kant at least acknowledged the metaphysical which though not obvious or sensory accessible exists. Many things have been found to exist since the 1600s.

Again I do not agree with the above.
'Light' is the resultant of the process of the whole lamp.
Thus if the lamp is broken, there is no lamp-light.

While there is still light existing without the lamp, such light[s] are conditioned by other processes and things, e.g. burning candle-light, firewood-light, sun-light, moonlight[reflected from sunlight, etc.
There is no independent 'light-in-itself' note we are back with Kant on this.

I would prefer to rely on the Precession of the Equinoxes to increase human intelligence and moral insight than on HCP. The Precession knows what it is doing, as it has from the higher to lower Bronze Age, through the Greek period and the Dark Ages, up to the Electrical Age we are now in. I am not at all confident that HCP knows what it is doing.

'Precession of the Equinoxes' to increase human intelligence and moral insight?
This is way off tangent for me.

Once the HCP has established the neural networks of the inherent moral functions, humanity can find steps to expedite this moral function.

Btw, humans has been doing that via various spiritual techniques, e.g. meditation, mindfulness, impulse controls, etc. since thousands of years ago, but unfortunately progress at present is slow with the majority because they rely on the black-box, hit and miss, & trial and error method.

With knowledge from the HCP we can establish and improve on the existing meditative methods [& others] to make it more effective and easy to practice. I don't see why you are that pessimistic with the HCP if this is the path to improvements.

[owl of Minerva]

Science has the right to investigate anything it wants, in any way it deems necessary. What is objectionable is it making philosophical or ‘this is who you are’ statements from the limitations of nascent research into brain functions. It may be necessary to comprehend a part first before the next step is taken of relating the findings to the whole organism or to the cosmos. The truth is in the whole not in the parts. The gut neurons or heart neurons or transmitters are not taken into account. Interestingly the term schizophrenia comes from the Greek and means split at the diaphragm. We could question why being split at the diaphragm would result in mental illness.

Science-proper is very humble.
Re Popper, scientific knowledge as the most credible is at best merely 'polished conjectures'.
What we need to guard against in science is scientism, the claim that "science is the only way to sure knowledge"

Big Pharma is already involved and any prescribed drug can have side effects or even kill. The point is, other than serious anomalies, people should not find prescription drugs necessary especially not for enhancement of faculties as there are better ways to enhance faculties and the brain is plastic. As habit grooves can be made so also they can be unmade, going the drug route, legal or illegal is a bad idea.

While I mentioned about smart drugs, I do not agree with the dependence on it and sold by Big Pharma.
With the potential of the HCP we will find fool proofs methods that do not have side effects at all [except the rare occassion].

The lack of resilience in in today’s crises is an example of people who fold when stymied, when there is not an apparent solution to a crises. They are looking for a tablet or pill to save them. Building up physical resilience through the biofeedback of applied kinesiology and targeted nutrition to increase the energy of each organ, including the brain would be a better choice. In addition exercising will power would automatically strengthen the mind. Looking for solutions via pharmaceuticals is not the right way to go.

As I had stated, whatever the progress with knowledge from the HCP, it has to be voluntarily and fool proof.
Btw, the progress is on a long term basis, i.e. a few generations.
Note how the Sherpa of Nepal/Tibet developed a super constitution to face the cold and high altitude, that took >500 years from the time they took refuge in the high mountains.
This is evidence of human evolution with positive results with no side effects and we can rely on the HCP and the Human Genomic Project to expedite other progress of human nature.

It is more likely the sense of self comes from thought that precedes any neural activity than brain activity leading to a sense of self. The self (ego] can be strong, weak, or tenuous. Psychologists ramp it up in their clients or temper it down as necessary. In doing this they do not activate neurons directly. The person learns to think differently changing grooves through the thought process.

My views differ from yours.

The first one-cell living things up to the more advance animals [except primates, dolphins, elephants and a few others] has neural activities but do not have a 'sense of self' i.e. self-awareness or consciousness.
Therefore the sense of self is more likely to be an emergent from the neural activities.

The sense of self can be lost as a broken lamp will not transmit light, that does not mean that light does not exist independently of the lamp or wiring. Everything has individuality. The external macro elements and the many external micro elements are acknowledged to exist, they are obvious. Still the micro elements are new to science and understanding where the elemental ends is for the future. As the weak force is a conduit to the other forces so what is not obviously elemental will in the same way be accessible. Hume was an empirical reductionist. Kant at least acknowledged the metaphysical which though not obvious or sensory accessible exists. Many things have been found to exist since the 1600s.

Again I do not agree with the above.
'Light' is the resultant of the process of the whole lamp.
Thus if the lamp is broken, there is no lamp-light.

While there is still light existing without the lamp, such light[s] are conditioned by other processes and things, e.g. burning candle-light, firewood-light, sun-light, moonlight[reflected from sunlight, etc.
There is no independent 'light-in-itself' note we are back with Kant on this.

I would prefer to rely on the Precession of the Equinoxes to increase human intelligence and moral insight than on HCP. The Precession knows what it is doing, as it has from the higher to lower Bronze Age, through the Greek period and the Dark Ages, up to the Electrical Age we are now in. I am not at all confident that HCP knows what it is doing.

'Precession of the Equinoxes' to increase human intelligence and moral insight?
This is way off tangent for me.

Once the HCP has established the neural networks of the inherent moral functions, humanity can find steps to expedite this moral function.

Btw, humans has been doing that via various spiritual techniques, e.g. meditation, mindfulness, impulse controls, etc. since thousands of years ago, but unfortunately progress at present is slow with the majority because they rely on the black-box, hit and miss, & trial and error method.

With knowledge from the HCP we can establish and improve on the existing meditative methods [& others] to make it more effective and easy to practice. I don't see why you are that pessimistic with the HCP if this is the path to improvements.

We do need to guard against scientism, especially its reductiveness.

There are no foolproof methods in science, it is like all else, subject to the dualities of a dual system. Anything science enables will have both good and bad outcomes. That is the way it is for everything in a dual system, science is not exempt.

Becoming adapted to cold is a good thing, it is very different from interfering with brain processing, especially when brain processing is equated with mind: “you are your processing.” Although not true, such interference would be striking at the heart of human autonomy because interfering with processing would be interfering with agency.

Alleviating human suffering would be different, if a person has a disease repairing the disfunction would be acceptable. That would enable agency not thwart it. It would be better to get at the source, eliminating the need for medications. Anything that helps physical or mental life to function with greater autonomy is good. Autonomy is key, lack of autonomy is bad. Communism appealed to some who did not see its flaws. Some older Russians felt nostalgic for the Stalin years, the lack of choice and anomalies was comforting, even though Stalin was a murderous monster.

That forms of life prior to humans did not have a sense of self is due to the fact that intelligence did not emerge until humans. In nature there is no similar spinal-cerebral axis in place for the expression of intelligence. Sensation emerged with animals, intelligence with man. We could consider what polarized electromagnetism, what enabled it to become a field, a vacuum, which in turn enabled the polarization of the strong and weak forces, modified by the neutral force. Emergent rightly means was unsheathed from, in this case from mass plus forces, not emerged as a creation of, without being innate from the beginning going back to the polarization of the electromagnetic field.

The sense of self is mostly identification with a form, a circumstance, and a set of perceptions. It is important, for without it there would be a psychosis. The mind which reductive scientism perceives as not independent of brain processing, not elemental in its own right, is responsible for a sense of self.

Precession of the Equinoxes is a very ancient perception often expressed as ‘as above so below.’ This is a perspective that has been lost which is why many are baffled by climate change and other issues that extends our environment beyond a humanistic, egocentric perspective.

The reason I brought the broken lamp up and its lack of ability to emit light was in response to your comment that without proper brain functioning there is no self. A damaged brain cannot express a self. Light is no thing, however it, unlike the brain or a lamp, functions with form and has been functioning since the beginning of time as packages of energy quanta. Artificial light was created by humans. Your “there is no independent light in itself’ is not the case, except in the aforementioned context.

So the HPC will “establish the neural networks of the inherent moral functions.” It will be very smart of the HPC to know what they are and reach a standard that is in sync with time, place, and circumstances over generations. Who would decide what the inherent moral functions are and in what circumstances, or even if in all circumstances, they are applicable. We are in a dual system, everything is relative, there are no absolutes. From my perspective moral codes are not cast in bronze. They are fluid, time and circumstance sensitive, and subject to human conscience and discrimination, soul searching, not neural processing which is mindlessness; not mind, or conscience, or intelligence, just a process.

HPC from the way you describe it, what it will achieve, appears to me as a communism not of society but of individual minds. This topic’s subject; the question to be answered is clear. Until we absolutely know the nature of reality different perspectives are good. Communism of the mind prior to knowing the nature of reality would be another ism that could turn into a nightmare. An interesting topic for a Science Fiction novel on a dark winter’s night, but not something we would ever want to experience in real time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

We do need to guard against scientism, especially its reductiveness.

There are no foolproof methods in science, it is like all else, subject to the dualities of a dual system. Anything science enables will have both good and bad outcomes. That is the way it is for everything in a dual system, science is not exempt.

Science is reductive in general.
The Problem is with the "ism" scientism and reductivism.

Becoming adapted to cold is a good thing, it is very different from interfering with brain processing, especially when brain processing is equated with mind: “you are your processing.” Although not true, such interference would be striking at the heart of human autonomy because interfering with processing would be interfering with agency.

You can't deny humans has evolved mentally in a positive manner for its well being since 200,000 years ago, e.g. wisdom, intelligence, emotional intelligence, impulse control, etc. The HCP will facilitate the various mental capabilities expeditiously.
NOTE: whatever the progress it must be voluntarily & fool proof. You seem to have missed out on this critical provision which I mentioned many times.

Alleviating human suffering would be different, if a person has a disease repairing the disfunction would be acceptable. That would enable agency not thwart it. It would be better to get at the source, eliminating the need for medications. Anything that helps physical or mental life to function with greater autonomy is good. Autonomy is key, lack of autonomy is bad. Communism appealed to some who did not see its flaws. Some older Russians felt nostalgic for the Stalin years, the lack of choice and anomalies was comforting, even though Stalin was a murderous monster.

As I highlighted, it must be fool proof and voluntarily, i.e. with autonomy and freewill [not absolute].

That forms of life prior to humans did not have a sense of self is due to the fact that intelligence did not emerge until humans. In nature there is no similar spinal-cerebral axis in place for the expression of intelligence. Sensation emerged with animals, intelligence with man. We could consider what polarized electromagnetism, what enabled it to become a field, a vacuum, which in turn enabled the polarization of the strong and weak forces, modified by the neutral force. Emergent rightly means was unsheathed from, in this case from mass plus forces, not emerged as a creation of, without being innate from the beginning going back to the polarization of the electromagnetic field.

Intelligence and sense of self is an evolving emergent related to mental activities [supported by the relevant physical neurons]. Re evolution, Human intelligence follow up from animals. Note some of the higher animals has a sense of self, e.g. apes, elephants, etc. Given another 100,000 years it is possible they could develop a sense of self like humans.

Precession of the Equinoxes is a very ancient perception often expressed as ‘as above so below.’ This is a perspective that has been lost which is why many are baffled by climate change and other issues that extends our environment beyond a humanistic, egocentric perspective.

The tilting of the equinoxes will definitely effect human nature but it is a matter of periods in terms of millions of years. So its impact is not as critical as what the HCP can do in a few generations to human change and human attitude to climate change.

The reason I brought the broken lamp up and its lack of ability to emit light was in response to your comment that without proper brain functioning there is no self. A damaged brain cannot express a self. Light is no thing, however it, unlike the brain or a lamp, functions with form and has been functioning since the beginning of time as packages of energy quanta. Artificial light was created by humans. Your “there is no independent light in itself’ is not the case, except in the aforementioned context.

btw, there is no "quanta-in-itself."
I don't think there is a difference between natural and artificial light. Light will manifest in various media and degrees, regardless there is no light-in-itself.

So the HPC will “establish the neural networks of the inherent moral functions.” It will be very smart of the HPC to know what they are and reach a standard that is in sync with time, place, and circumstances over generations. Who would decide what the inherent moral functions are and in what circumstances, or even if in all circumstances, they are applicable. We are in a dual system, everything is relative, there are no absolutes. From my perspective moral codes are not cast in bronze. They are fluid, time and circumstance sensitive, and subject to human conscience and discrimination, soul searching, not neural processing which is mindlessness; not mind, or conscience, or intelligence, just a process.

HPC from the way you describe it, what it will achieve, appears to me as a communism not of society but of individual minds. This topic’s subject; the question to be answered is clear. Until we absolutely know the nature of reality different perspectives are good. Communism of the mind prior to knowing the nature of reality would be another ism that could turn into a nightmare. An interesting topic for a Science Fiction novel on a dark winter’s night, but not something we would ever want to experience in real time.

The HCP does not establish but will uncover the detailed inherent moral algorithm which is dormant in the majority at present. This will enable humanity to expedite the increase in the average moral competency towards its moral norms and objectives naturally and spontaneously.

It is not the HCP itself but rather that its findings will facilitate the development of various faculties of cognition to understand the what and why of moral norms.
I have countered and raise a few OPs to argue why there are secular objective moral facts [not theistic ones].

I note you have a very narrow view and pessimistic of the HCP and its potentials.
Mastering the HCP is like understanding how bacteria and viruses cause diseases in detail or understanding how QM works, thus reaping the + potentials and avoiding the negatives.
Obviously like any knowledge there are pros and cons.
I am optimistic the pros will outweigh the cons.

Are you implying humanity should abandon the HCP NOW if say you are given the choice? so that we stay in the dark on understanding how the brain works in its complexity?