What Is Consciousness?

I don’t remember when or how I became interested in consciousness. My reading has included some titles by neuroscientists (like David Eagleman) but I tend to lean toward the philosophical or contemplative (metaphysical?). Most of which has been excerpted here (110 posts!) For my money, David Eagleman explains (discusses) this slippery subject better than anyone.

I struggled with how to describe my interest in the non-scientific approaches to consciousness so I asked ChatGPT:


A good term that bridges the gap between the scientific and the mystical without leaning too far in either direction might be “philosophical” or “phenomenological.”

  • Philosophical – This captures the deep inquiry into consciousness that isn’t bound by empirical science but also doesn’t necessarily invoke mysticism. Thinkers like Descartes, Husserl, and Chalmers explore consciousness through reason, introspection, and logic.
  • Phenomenological – A term used to describe the study of subjective experience, focusing on how consciousness feels from the inside. This is rooted in philosophy but can also align with contemplative practices.
  • Existential – A term often associated with the nature of experience, selfhood, and the human condition, which naturally touches on consciousness.
  • Contemplative – While sometimes associated with spiritual traditions, it can be neutral enough to imply deep, reflective examination of awareness without invoking religious connotations.

If you’re looking for something even broader, “metaphysical” works, though it might feel too abstract. 

Money Is A Religion

Everything I think about religion can be found here (75 posts). But I don’t think any of these posts explain money as a religion. Which is clearly is.

“Money is valuable because we believe in it. The more we reflect on this, the more we realize religion is far from gone from today’s ‘secular society’. We’re just calling our religion ‘the economy’. Here we follow philosopher Ernest Becker in his book Escape From Evil on a quest to discover the religious origins of money.”

Virality

The terms “algorithmic engagement” and “organic search” pertain to how content is delivered and discovered online, each involving distinct mechanisms:

Algorithmic Engagement: This concept refers to the use of algorithms by platforms—such as social media networks, streaming services, and news aggregators—to curate and present content tailored to individual users. These algorithms analyze user behavior, preferences, and interactions to prioritize content that is likely to engage the user. For instance, Facebook’s News Feed and Twitter’s timeline utilize algorithms to display posts that align with a user’s interests, aiming to enhance engagement and time spent on the platform. This approach can lead to personalized experiences but may also result in echo chambers or filter bubbles, where users are predominantly exposed to content that reinforces their existing views.

Organic Search: In contrast, organic search involves users actively seeking information by entering queries into search engines like Google or Bing. The search engine then returns a list of results ranked based on relevance to the query, as determined by complex algorithms considering factors such as keyword usage, content quality, and website authority. These results are unpaid and are often referred to as “natural” or “organic” results. Websites can improve their visibility in these results through search engine optimization (SEO) practices, which aim to align content with the ranking criteria of search engines. Unlike algorithmic engagement, organic search is driven by user intent and provides a broader range of information sources, potentially offering a more diverse perspective.

In summary, while algorithmic engagement involves platforms proactively presenting content based on user behavior to maximize engagement, organic search is a user-initiated process where individuals seek out information, with search engines delivering results based on relevance to the query.

The term “viral,” in the context of content rapidly spreading online, began gaining traction in the late 1990s. By 1999, it was notably used in reference to marketing strategies that leveraged the internet’s capacity for swift information dissemination. This usage drew parallels to the rapid spread of biological viruses, highlighting how certain content could quickly propagate across digital platforms.

The phrase “went viral” became more prevalent in the early 2000s, coinciding with the rise of social media platforms and video-sharing sites like YouTube. These platforms facilitated the rapid sharing and widespread reach of content, leading to the common use of “viral” to describe popular online phenomena.