Challenge the Philosophy Competition 3 - Ignorant Exertion Theory (Disputes 1-2)

"The origin of human conscious knowledge in the moment of creation is from an ignorant exertion by a human being which is manifested in the form of an ignorant assertion that there is conscious meaning."

Ignorant Exertion Theory:

The origin of knowledge appears to stem from an inability of the human species, as unconscious beings and from thousands of years ago, to survive any longer in ecosystems. So instead of perishing from for example animals stronger and faster, the species exerted that there is conscious meaning, and from there, it used its exerted knowledge to plan and invent, thereby thrive in ecosystems. However, by exerting meaning to its thoughts, the species gave meaning to what did not have it, thus overtime the species has gradually absorbed itself and the natural world into the emptiness of its thoughts and their material extensions. So by exerting conscious meaning and existing through it, the species had only, barring a successful return to ignorant nature, guaranteed in the long-term its extinction.

Definition of principle terms:

"Ignorant" refers to consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison.

"Challenge" refers to more reasonable refutation of the Ignorant Exertion Theory as outlined. "More reasonable refutation" entails using reason in the most objective manner possible, and includes the arguments stated in the entries submitted to this "Challenge the Claim" competition, and the arguments stated in the responses to them. Also, one idea or position is deemed more reasonable than another idea or position if it is more sound and consistent. (Overcoming the claim can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them, if the meaning of the contention itself is significantly altered through the incorporation of new terms and concepts.)

Submit challenges (and other submissions) using the "Entry Form"

1. Dispute:

Dispute of the response to Entry 14

“Your stated condition: ‘(Overcoming the claim can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them)’ has been met. Because of my entry, your initial claim: (1) ‘the origin of human conscious knowledge in the moment of creation is from an unconscious exertion by a human being which is manifested in the form of an unconscious assertion that there is conscious meaning.’ has been modified to read: (2) ‘the origin of human conscious knowledge in the moment of invention is from an ignorant exertion by a human being which is manifested in the form of an ignorant assertion that there is conscious meaning.’ By my entry, you admitted your assertion was incoherence due your misapplication and misunderstanding of terms, and by your stated conditions, my argument resulted in ‘refuting its terms and concepts behind them’ and resulted in (A) a restatement of your premise (B) a change in the ‘thrust’ of your argument. There is no other way for you to account for your inconsistency than to admit that any incoherent argument altered to become coherent is not the same argument, as stipulated under the law of identity:[ A=A] (1=1) is true while[ A=~A] (1=2) is false. No only did you move from incoherence into coherence, but you are illogical in your modification of your rules. No one cannot make substantial changes to their arguments with ad hoc rules and conditions in order to justify their changes and claim they are logical, hence equitable. The term ‘thrust’ was not a stated condition nor was it defined, hence it is an ad hoc modification to allow you to substantially alter your premise. A substantial change in your premise is a change in ‘thrust’ of the argument.”

Jack Ferguson February 27 2005

Response:

Unlike your Entry 14, in which we conceded your two criticisms, we do not agree with your position of claiming to overcome Contention 1 (Challenge the Philosophy Competition 3). These are our reasons:

1. Though it states in the Conditions for Competition 3 that “overcoming the claim [or in this case, contention], can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them”, it does not necessarily follow that more reasonable refutation of the terms and the concepts behind them results in overcoming the contention. Viz., “can” is not equatable to “necessarily results in”.

To clarify what we mean by “can”, we have added the following subordinate clause to the definition of “challenge”:

"Challenge" refers to more reasonable refutation of the contention as stated above. "More reasonable refutation" entails using reason in the most objective manner possible, and includes the arguments stated in the entries submitted to Competition 3, and the arguments stated in the responses to them. Also, one idea or position is deemed more reasonable than another idea or position if it is more sound and consistent. (Overcoming the contention can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them, if the meaning of the contention itself is significantly altered through the incorporation of new terms and the concepts behind them.)

2. Now the issue which we eluded to in our response to Entry 14, is whether or not the new term, “ignorant” significantly alters Contention 1.

The unaltered contention was “the origin of human conscious knowledge in the moment of *invention is from an unconscious exertion by a human being which is manifested in the form of an unconscious assertion that there is conscious meaning.” Also, unconscious referred “to consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison”.

* “Creation” was replaced with “invention” for the sake of clarity.

In Entry 14, you criticized our usage of conscious and unconscious on empirical grounds that consciousness exists without knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. As an example, you referred to “[severely] brain damaged individuals”. In addition, you criticized on logical grounds that our usage of unconscious paradoxically includes consciousness without knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison.
As mentioned, we conceded your criticism, and as a result, we changed our usage of “unconscious” to “ignorant” as recommended by you. So now the altered contention is “the origin of human conscious knowledge in the moment of invention is from an ignorant exertion by a human being which is manifested in the form of an ignorant assertion that there is conscious meaning.” Ignorant refers “to consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison”.

Note, the definitions of “unconscious” and “ignorant” are the same in both contentions, with the only difference in the contentions being that the semantic paradox from our usage of unconscious and conscious has been eliminated in the altered contention. So the difference in the positions is a semantic paradox. In other words, the two contentions are both contending that the origin of human knowledge is human invention from a mental state devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. Therefore, in our view, the meaning of the altered contention itself is not significantly different from the meaning of the unaltered contention itself.

If you argue that the meaning of the altered contention itself is significantly different than the meaning of the unaltered contention itself on grounds that the former contention is coherent and the latter contention is incoherent, then we retort that in the unaltered contention we distinguish two forms of consciousness: consciousness with knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison, and unconsciousness without knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. So we have two consciousnesses: one with conscious knowledge, and the other without conscious knowledge. Although both forms of consciousness are conscious states, we refer to the latter state as unconscious because it is without conscious knowledge. So we have a general “C”onscious state without knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison, and a “c”onscious state which includes consciousness (i.e. consciousness with knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison) and unconsciousness (i.e. consciousness without knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison). We acknowledge that our usage of unconsciousness (and consciousness) is convoluted, but we retract (from our response to Entry 14) that it is incoherent.

Moreover, whether or not our usage of unconsciousness (and consciousness) is convoluted or incoherent, the intent of the meaning of the unaltered contention is the same as the meaning of the altered contention, namely the origin of human conscious knowledge is from a human mental state devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison.

Please note, changes to the terms of Contention 1 on grounds of clarification are allowed, or as stated in the Conditions for Competition 3,

“The conditions of the competition may be subject to change for the sole purpose of improving the administration of the competition, thereby to better determine if the challenge proposition [or contention] can be overcome or not. The explanations of the proposition's terms may be subject to change, including further elaboration, solely to clarify the meanings of the terms.”

2. Dispute:

Dispute of the response to Entry 15

“Since you require Reason as the foundation of your ‘contest’, then it follows you require Logic as the standard of any entry—unless you deny logic is critical to reason. Fundamental to logic is the avoidance of fallacies, yet you consistently enter the Fallacy of Equivocation and Ambiguity where ‘an inference is invalid because of its dependence on ambiguous words or phrases.’(Layman, Hurley) You rely only on ad hoc semantics and arbitrary rules of usage to rehabilitate your arguments. Your arguments and definitions are built on semantic quicksand, and depending on your newest assertions, magically disappear or reappear according to your reinvented rules with paradoxes due to your misuse of language. It reminds me of a child who rewrites the rules of the game according to the problem. Your only way to reestablish your credibility is to allow a disinterested, well-known logician evaluate my charges.”

Jack Ferguson March 3 2005

Response:

It seems to us premature to consult a relevant third party about the merit of your dispute or set up a public deliberation on the merit of your dispute, since you have yet to reply directly to our response to your initial dispute (Entry 15). Instead we have received from you a litany of “charges”—“fallacy of equivocation”, “ambiguity”, “arbitrary rules”, “reinvented rules”, and “misuse of language”, with no evidence supporting them. Clearly, our “credibility” would be questioned if we were influenced by your unsupported charges. So we revisit our response to your Entry 15, in light of your litany of charges, and ask you the following questions:

1. One condition of Competition 3 states that “the explanations of the [contention’s] terms may be subject to change, including further elaboration, solely to clarify the meaning of the terms.” The purpose of this condition is not to allow us to “reinvent rules” or “rewrite the rules… according to [a] problem” as you charge, but to simply clarify our position for the sake of the competition itself. As mentioned, it is less reasonable for you or anyone else to expect us to have perfect/complete conditions and terms. (To impose that expectation on us, as you advocate, would make the competition into a mere “game” rather than a meaningful intellectual exercise/discussion.)
Moreover, the purpose of Competition 3 is to determine the soundness and consistency of a contention in relation to antagonistic positions. So it appears to us inconsistent to deny ourselves the right to clarify the meaning of the contention, rather than in your case, for instance, allow a technicality or semantic alteration overcome the contention. Viz., to allow for technicalities or insignificant semantic alterations overcome the contention would defeat the purpose of the competition itself. In other words, if the meaning of the contention itself stays the same, as it does in your case of replacing “unconscious” with “ignorant”*, it should not matter if we clarify the contention. (* For elaboration on this point see our response to Entry 15.)

1.1 How is our rule which allows us to “solely” clarify the contention “arbitrary” and inconsistent with the spirit of the intellectual competition?

2. What evidence do you that we “revinvent rules” rather than simply clarify rules? For example, how is our addition of the bolded subordinate clause below, a reinvention of the rule rather than a clarification of the word “can”?:
Overcoming the contention can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them, if the meaning of the contention itself is significantly altered through the incorporation of new terms and the concepts behind them.

3. How is the contention itself significantly changed in meaning by replacing “unconscious” with “ignorant”? Note, unconscious and ignorant have the same definitions and are in the same places in the contention.

4. Our previous term, unconscious refers to a “conscious state of devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. (i.e. consciousness without knowledge), and our definition of “c”onsciousness (implied by the contention) refers to a state with knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison (i.e. consciousness with knowledge). So we distinguish two types of consciousness: one with knowledge and the other without knowledge. How is this distinction “ambiguous” rather than convoluted? How is this distinction a fallacy of equivocation? (Note, your usage of “ignorant” and “conscious” also distinguishes two types of consciousness: one with knowledge and the other without knowledge.)

5. Though our usage of “unconscious” is not the norm does not invalidate our usage of the term. There is no necessity that the norm has to be adhered to.

Entries 12-15

| Competition 1 | Comp 1 Entries: 552- | Competition 2 | Competition 3 | US Pres. Deter. Process | MessageBoard | | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | LID 214