Reply to the response to Entry 14

"Like the paradox of existence, exactly what is and isn’t meaningful is a matter of intense debate. As with the rest of your argument, you can distort the common uses of words in natural language beyond all normal possibility of recognition and still not address this central issue in any manner demonstrably more reasonable or meaningful than others. At the end of the day we are still left with the simple fact that each of us must either assign meaning to life in an ad hoc manner, whether it is considered reasonable or otherwise, or accept life as it presents itself to us and see if meaning emerges from such an act of surrender.

I do not think or assume, as far as I can tell, that my feelings and heart are clear on this issue. I merely relate my experience as I perceive it. To quote that immortal philosopher, Popeye, ‘I am what I am and that’s all that I am’ to which I would add, ‘And that seems to be more than enough.’ To assume otherwise is presumptuous to say the least, including the possibility that all human thought is possible. Best still to simply accept life as it presents itself.

Again, if it is unclear to you how one might get outside one’s mind and yet still appreciate and know who one is, it is demonstrably because either you have not done so or you are merely arguing the point for some particular self-serving purpose. I can no more prove or communicate abstractly how this is possible than I can describe color fully and accurately to blind man. All I can do is demonstrate the pragmatic utility of such an assertion and document the statements of people who have had such an experience. To insist I do more is absurd and childish.

Thus, the human heart trumps the abstract, unobservable, and strained extension of the vague concept of infinity. When reasoning becomes so abstract, strained, and divorced from observation its conclusion is self-evident and unavoidable. What is required is a new paradigm that is more inclusive and natural. As Einstein said, creating a new theory is not like bulldozing an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is more like climbing a mountain and gain new and broader insights. The place from which we started is still visible and still makes sense, but the more inclusive view we gain on our adventurous way up the mountain makes even more sense."

Wu Li June 26 2003

Response:

In the context of the Challenge the Philosophy Competitions, arguments are evaluated based on their reasons in relation to the reasons for antagonistic arguments, and according to comparative soundness and consistency (the concept of more reasonableness simplified) which translates into more and less soundness, and more and less consistency. Hence, what is at "debate" in these Competitions is not the question of what is "meaningful" (though the question may be relevant), but what is more reasonable. (Note, it is our contention, based on human consciousness being the focal point of what we (i.e. humanity) knows, that the more reasonable arguments tend to be more meaningful than less reasonable arguments.)

In terms of your claim that individuals can get outside of their minds and know that they are (or consciously know without their own minds), we would like to know how anyone whether in a deep state of meditation or not, can consciously know without their minds? What is it about meditation or any other so-called "act of acceptance or surrender" (or act of focusing on a single object), that allows individuals to consciously know outside of their minds? Are you implying that there is a consciousness separate from humanity that acts as the consciousness of individuals, for instance, at a high level of meditation? If so, what theoretical evidence do you have to support this position? If you do not have theoretical evidence, as you appear to imply ("to insist I do more is absurd and childish"), how can you rely primarily on the assertions and documentations of individuals who claim to experience a knowing outside of their own minds?

Also, it does not make sense to us how any individual could know who they are except from their own consciousness, and yet you implicitly claim there is some other consciousness that allows them to do so. Please explain how this external consciousness becomes our own, and yet at the same time is not our own consciousness?

Further, it does not make sense what "pragmatic utility" has to do with more reasonably proving individuals can get outside of their minds and know that they are, just as the pragmatic utility of being able to survive without water indefinitely does not more reasonably prove this feat.

In regard to another issue, it is unclear to us why you still view the concept of infinity as "vague" and exclusive, when in the response to Entry 11, we clearly define from our limited perspective infinity as a state of no beginning or end, and illustrate the concept through an inquiry into the origin of a table in which you respond in Entry 12,

I do not have any more difficulty understanding the concept of infinity than I have difficulty understanding what a table is. When is a table not a table? When you use it as a bed. When is infinity not infinite? When it is finite.

Finally, your claim that the contention that all human thought is possible is "presumptuous" because it is inconsistent with the normative view of human thought, overlooks that the possibility of all human thought, from a theoretical standpoint, follows from our apparent and more reasonable inability to completely know and know that we do. In other words, since from our perspective no epistemological completion is attainable, it follows that all human thought is possibility. {viz., possibility derives from incompletion.}

Note, as partly alluded to, we think you are overlooking that the concept of causal infinity, which proposes an interconnected relationship between things, is theoretically inclusive. Though we disagree that there has to be a strict linearity to human knowledge. As an example, Feyerabend in Against Method (1975) outlines using various examples the non-linearity of science, and more important by maintaining an adherence to strict linearity, you are excluding other positions outside of the linearity, thereby contradicting your inclusive position.

As we stated at the beginning our response, we are interested only in reasons and their comparison based on more soundness and consistency. The status quo or normative (viz., majority) is only relevant if its reasons are meaningful to the comparative framework, just as an individual or organization’s status, experience, and professional background (whether Einstein or the American Medical Association which you referenced) is relevant only if the reasons of the individual or organization are relevant to the comparative framework. Also in your case, the Mystical and Pantheistic theories are relevant only if their reasons are meaningful to the framework. It does not matter from who the reasons come from, whether a tribesman from a remote jungle in Papua New Guinea, an uneducated, homeless woman from the streets of London, or a stonecutter from the Middle Ages, or what organization the reasons come from whether the Girl Guides of Cuba or the Hong Kong Badminton Association.

17. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 16

"To speak of what is more reasonable outside the context of meaning is, of course, irrational and meaningless by definition. No matter how much humanity values reason, its value itself is dependent upon its meaningfulness.

Experientially and demonstrably, acceptance is how we most effortlessly and effectively find or create meaning in anything. Without the acceptance that makes working towards objectivity possible in the first place, including most pointedly the calm and peaceful acceptance of our existence, objectivity can become a mindless and uninsightful mechanical process essentially no different from the way my computer crunches numbers. If we adopt a contentious unaccepting approach, the meaning and import of any answers we might find can be lost amidst our emotional turmoil. Whichever way we might pursue leads inexorably back to the central issue of acceptance and meaning. Thus, acceptance of our own acceptance itself (i.e. surrender) is ultimately the way in which we can possibly more reasonably know who we are.

Whether or not there exists a consciousness or awareness separate from humanity is debatable. Likewise, whether or not humanity possesses its own separate and distinct consciousness from everything else is debatable. These debates predate civilization and have found renewed import in modern times with the advent of Quantum Mechanics and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, all of which I have already alluded to previously. Even without reference to Indeterminacy, consciousness without environment is an absurdity and vice versa. If such a thing exists, no one has been able to communicate rationally or substantiate its existence in any manner that has withstood the test of time.

Therefore a reasonable pragmatic recourse, for the present at least, is to construct a theory of consciousness, which allows for both possibilities and describes what we can observe. This includes not least of all the subjective claims of schools of meditation that have a long and rich history. Again, what makes meditation or any act of surrender convincing evidence to non-practitioners is attitude and the meaning and relevance this creates or illuminates. Specifically, it is the attitude of acceptance, which one either experiences and understands or, evidently, denies or is largely bereft of (along with the capacity to reason) due to brain damage.

Hence the pragmatic utility of such practices is confirmed in countless ways. From the ability to reason and work towards objectivity, to the cultivation of personal happiness, and artistic and spiritual expression, acceptance plays an irreplaceable role. Whether or not such experiences of surrender indicate some sort of reality behind the phenomenon is irrelevant until proven otherwise. Again, the many benefits of meditation and surrender in general are undeniable.

Moving on, infinity is vague and exclusive by your own definition. For example, on the one hand you declare your perspective is limited, yet continue to assert that infinity means without beginning or end. In other words, infinity implies that which cannot be fully perceived or is vague and excludes that which is clearly perceptible. In addition, you have consistently redefined the natural language definitions of words to the point of absurdity in order to support your concept of infinity within these limited observations, and have now asserted it is reasonable but not necessarily meaningful. If infinity cannot be perceived en toto and cannot be given a clear meaningful definition, it is a consummately vague concept. That your causal infinity excludes the possibility existence is finite goes without saying.

Theoretically your causal infinity may be inclusive to a significant extent, but it has its limitations (sic) by definition. Paradox and the ineffable have fewer if any limitations. That you cannot recognize the meaning behind these words is, perhaps, an indication of the extremes to which you have redefined the words cause, infinity, and existence."

Wu Li June 29 2003

Response:

It is unclear to us how more reasonably the "attitude of acceptance" (or surrender) through meditation or similar acts is "convincing evidence" of the ability to get outside of one’s mind and know that one is. (i.e. know without one’s mind.) Viz., what is it about the attitude of acceptance that it is convincing evidence of an external consciousness to our own? What convincing grounds do you have that "attitude" is evidence of an accessible external consciousness?

We agree that meaning is essential to the notion of reason, and obviously the concept of more reasonableness is dependent on the meanings of thoughts. Though it can also be said that meaning (and "meaningful") are dependent on reason in terms of comparative dynamic. Viz., to separate meaning from its comparative framework is to render meaning void. So as mentioned the concept of more reasonableness is contingent on the meanings of thoughts, but the focus of Competition 2 and 1 are not general meaningfulness or usefulness of thoughts. Rather, the focus is on more reasonableness or more soundness and consistency. (If you wish to argue that meaningfulness in terms of usefulness trumps more reasonableness then we would like to know how meaningfulness is determined without relying on reason through the comparison of different thoughts? Note, also the meaning of meaningfulness is contingent on individual perspective so it does not necessarily follow that meaningfulness will equate to the more sound and consistent position.)

Your criticism that our use of infinity "cannot fully be perceived" and excludes what is "clearly perceptible", and therefore infinity is "vague", overlooks that no concept can be fully perceived, and that the concept of infinity can be explained through things that are so-called clearly perceptible like a table as in the response to Entry 11.

Also, it is less reasonable of you to expect a conception to directly refer to something "clearly perceptible". What may be confusing you as mentioned is that infinity refers to all things clearly perceptible, (and unclearly perceptible), and their relationship to each other.

Further, your argument that we have "redefined [so-called] natural language definitions of words to the point of absurdity" is unsupported by example, and you overlook that the notion of natural is relative, and that what matters in the Competition is the more soundness and consistency of reasons. The status quo or your so-called "natural" as mentioned in the response to Entry 16 is only relevant if its reasons are relevant. (Incidently, if you think the notion that all human thought is possible is absurd, then you are in denial of the apparent incompleteness of all human thought, and perhaps you give more meaning to the notion of possibility than there is. (i.e. possibility in the context of Proposition 2 is merely identifying our inability to completely prove or disprove something, which then acts as the ground for the chance that everything we are consciously aware of, no matter how farfetched, exists. The main way to overcome this theoretical position is to establish completeness.)

Finally, your criticism that causal infinity excludes that existence is possibly finite is incorrect, because the notion of causal infinity is asserted from our limited perspective, and therefore there is a possibility through the notion that existence is finite in part or in whole, or not at all.

Note, it is unclear to us how "paradox and ineffable" have fewer limitations than causal infinity because they like causal infinity are not fully perceivable, and as mentioned in the response to Entry 10 they only touch on the notion of incompleteness of existence from our perspective instead of including the apparent causal aspect of existence as well. However, even if paradox and ineffable are more reasonably shown to have fewer limitations than causal infinity, Competition 2 is not asking for a more reasonable conception of existence, but for a more reasonable refutation of causal infinity as a description of existence. Merely identifying other views of existence which possibly have less limitations, but are consistent with causal infinity is off target.

18. Entry:

"The human existence in the world is not merely a casual part of the casual infinity of existence because of the human brains capacity to think beyond instinct and survival. It is irrelevant whether or not there is an after world for the human soul, given that it exists, because it is truly the plain fact that we ponder this question that makes us special and unique. No other life form that we know of marks its history and passes on its worldly accomplishments to the next generation for purposes of advancement and betterment of that species. To simply say that human beings are part of the casual infinity of existence and that all of us are bound by this limitation is counter-productive and blasphemous in the eyes of social and cognitive development. These tendencies to see ourselves as helpless and hopeless in the eyes of the infinite are what stifle us as paranoid creatures, but our ability to see past these feelings is what separates us from the animals in our backyards. The very thought of human insignificance is the brooding ground of the evils in this world. Let it not be forgotten that you would not be reading this, and I would not have written this, if these words were not intended to be passed. This single fact makes this moment, and every moment, of human existence special and definitive within time."

Dan Mahnks July 2 2003

Response:

Based on the concepts of causality and interconnectedness, how do you more reasonably, in a theoretical sense, separate human existence from all other existence?

Even if the concept of infinity gives humanity a "helpless and hopeless" feeling, stifles humanity with "paranoid" feelings, and is the "brooding ground of the evils of the world", these consequences do not more reasonably refute that infinity defines human existence. (Viz., the problem, if you are correct, appears to be with humanity’s perception of itself in relation to infinity, rather than the concept of infinity itself.)

Also, it is unclear to us how humanity’s ability to "mark its history" and "pass on its worldly accomplishments" overcomes the concept of infinity as a defining aspect of human existence.

Note, Proposition 2 is only proposing that causal infinity is an aspect of human existence; it is not proposing that causal infinity is the only aspect of human existence. Though as you appear to understand, causal infinity does have a significant implication for humanity: as you stated, based on the concept of infinity we are in terms of control over our lives fundamentally helpless.

19. Entry:

"We may not be part of the causal infinity of existance, (interactions between matter), if we define ‘we’ as consciousness, and consciousness as exclusive of interactions between matter. If consciousness is a continuum within existance, then our consciousness (‘we’) may not be necessarily related to matter at all. Consciousness may be 'tapped into' by the brain, but not a part of matter. It may be exclusive of matter, and by extension, causal interactions.

I do not necessarily concur with this idea, but concede it is a possibility. The best evidence probably comes from quantum mechanics, including the relationship between the observer and the observed. If the two cannot be separated, as experimental evidence suggests, then it is plausible that materialistic interactions are subservient to observation/consciousness. It may be that matter is 'created' by consciousness (in one form or another), and by extension consciousness does not have to abide by classical Newtonian causal interactions, as the proposition suggests.

If this is remotely true, then causal infinity may be one way, but nevertheless not the best way, of describing our current existance.

(Note, I tend to think consciousness is an illusion (so to speak, but we will have to redefine what we mean by 'illusion'), formed by the brain, and not a quantum, or other ethereal phenomenon.)"

eif July 8 2003

Response:

We agree that it is more reasonably possible that human consciousness, which you propose is in a continuum with existence, creates matter, and therefore it is more reasonably possible that the oneness of existence (as in a continuum between consciousness and existence itself) precedes the causality of matter. However, the problem you face in taking this possibility further to more reasonableness is that from our perspective, which is defined by comparison and incompletion, something from something else (causality) is more reasonable than something from nothing (oneness). Also, your proposal that matter is created by human consciousness implies a causal relationship between matter and consciousness, and therefore the relationship contradicts the continuum of consciousness within existence. In other words, the oneness of the continuum is corrupted by the proposed causal relation between consciousness and matter. (Note, if consciousness is only in a continuum within existence, then you face the additional problem of a causal relation between consciousness and existence itself.)

20. Entry:

"‘Everything is random.’ He was a smart man that Aristotle but I have a far more simple explanation for the universe as it exists. Well to be honest it's not simpler and it is at times difficult to support, but in-general terms I find that it can be applied in moderation to most people be they religious or otherwise.

Essentially my theory defines us as a random occurrence, but when I think about it somewhere deep down I have a great need to understand. What is life really all about? This question is obviously impossible for me to answer in regards to everyone, but it isn't necessarily as complicated as we may believe. Life after all is only brief in the great entity known as time. But what is time? It is sometimes known as the fourth dimension but it is a strange thing time. Because primarily time does not exist and at the same ‘time’, it exists eternally. Because without time there is no universe, no consciousness and no world as we know it. But time cannot simply have begun with our perception of the universe, time must have existed eternally. Yet time cannot exist unless there is someone or some basis to measure it. So unless time is measured it cannot exist and thus the universe does not exist. It's like what came first time or the perception of time?

This is as I see it the most difficult thing for human beings to comprehend because naturally everything we know and love has a beginning and an end. So the idea of time is simply incomprehensible for most people outside the philosophical world. As I see it there are two possible ways for us to approach the idea of our own mortality and of time itself. They are that either we exist parallel to time and this will continue because we cannot perceive our own death or alternatively that we don't exist at all we merely perceive our own existence and time only exists whilst we perceive it. Thus we can never fully understand the existence to time for it will cease once we do. This of course characterizes the birth of religion as we know it.

The birth of religion is untraceable due to the sheer magnitude of the thing, but it is probably safe to assume that as with my own personality most people are either incapable of comprehending their own mortality or they are scared shitless by it. This is where I believe religion comes from. This is due primarily to the people I know and interact with. I see that when people are scared of something that they will subconsciously invent something which makes them feel better about the idea which makes them uncomfortable. For example if someone is intimidated by the people around him/her they will re-invent themselves possibly by embellishing the truth in order to feel less isolated. I liken this to religion in the sense that if a person has a general fear of death that even without a recognized religion, they may come to certain conclusions about mortality. Moreover they will simply try to answer this overpowering thought with the tools and knowledge available to them. This would explain the birth of different religions and at the same time different gods within those religions. I realize this view challenges almost every religion in the world, but realistically creationism is one of the most interesting things known to man. Because as is believed by most Bible based religions, ‘God created everything.’ This thought and indeed the very idea can be likened to time itself. As with time, God can only exist if there is someone to believe in him. It is in fact the opposite of everything the Christian religion teaches. Instead of God creating the earth and its people, people through their own fear of mortality have created God as a scapegoat for their own fear. Every piece of relevant proof I can muster for this theory has long since been argued, time and time again yet there can never, within reason, be any solution to the argument.

So does God exist or doesn't he? The only explanation I offer for this is that it depends on who you are and what you believe. For those of you who believe in creationism that's fine just try not to preach to people all the time; they will end up even ‘Further from God’ than they started. But, to those of you who consider themselves anti-religion try to consider or at least learn something about religion before you rule it out completely as it may be just what you are looking for. Time is of the essence people and unless you believe in an after life, you don't have long to go. Interesting, an afterlife you say? One of the most commonly argued points about Christianity and indeed about religion in general is the idea of an afterlife. Based on the Christian religion we are led to believe by different interpretations of the Bible that we will either go to Heaven or Hell. The only comment I will make on the idea is that it's ridiculous for one simple reason that there cannot be a Heaven or a Hell.

The idea of a place where everything is good is absurd, because if everything is good then nothing is different. The only way for something to appear ‘Good’ is for something else to be ‘Bad.’ So the idea of heaven is very nice but clearly there is no way it can be realistic, of course. However, there are those individuals who will say that the reason I cannot understand this idea is because I have not embraced God. To them I say ‘The idea of heaven is so anti-logic that no sane person would believe it.’ How can we experience everything that is good about life, if we have nothing to compare it with? Thus how can Hell exist at the same time? It's the same theory if everything is bad then likewise nothing is bad. It's such a simple thought. So why do intelligent people have to believe what is so clearly a mistaken identity? It is frustrating to think that some of the most prolific minds of the modern era have tried so hard to disprove everything that is commonly accepted as fact simply on the basis of some ancient writings. But I will stop right there because this is the point at which there will never be a resolution to the debate. Though time will eventually prove one camp right over the other. Such is the power of time: we have nothing, not religion, not scientology, nothing which will change the power of time to eventually envelope everything we know.

This essentially is what I believe. If time is a constant and we are simply a random occurrence then there is only one sensible explanation. That we will exist, or at least perceive our own existence until, we eventually become food for the worms. At this point our body and our soul will become part of the wider world. This is essentially what my theory is all about. We are either a part of the wider world and the entity, known as time. Or alternatively we only perceive that we exist as part of this world. Thus it is only a matter of interpretation as to how we exist. Believe what you will about your own mortality but I have only one last thing to say about it, I am confused."

Tim Howard September 24 2003

Response:

The notion of "random occurrence", which we assume means highly complex (unconscious) (indeterminate) interaction, implies an infinite causal process, and therefore the notion is consistent with our notion of causal infinity.

Your apparent difficulty with the concept of time can be resolved by more reasonably identifying the concept as a strictly human conscious phenomenon, and therefore unless it can be more reasonably shown that humanity is the center of the universe(s), time is not an inherent part of the universe(s), except through humanity’s creation and use of the concept, and thereby the concept’s interconnectedness with the rest of the universe(s).1

(Note, the main (inconsistency) problem you face with the notion of "random occurrence" is that random occurrence itself is not random. Rather, by imputing the notion on the universe(s), you are implying a set pattern, no matter how chaotic, which is inconsistent with the concept itself. Though in our view this problem is embedded in the circularity problem which all human thought succumbs to, and therefore the inconsistency problem can be cancelled out. * The notion of a determinate existence (i.e. an underlying thing-in-itself) is ruled out, because it is more reasonable from (comparative and incomplete) human perspective that something from something else ad infinitium is more reasonable than something from nothing (ex nihlo)).

______________________
1. The apparent interactive nature of existence suggests that humanity, regardless of encoded and so-called innate knowledge, creates what it knows.

Entries 12-15 Entries 21-25