Challenge the Claim - Unconscious Exertion Theory (Entries 6-)

"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."

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 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 unconscious nature, guaranteed in the long-term its extinction.

Definition of principle terms:

"Unconscious" refers to human 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 Unconscious 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.)

Send challenges to "the origin of human knowledge"

6. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 5

“The definition: ‘human consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms’ is an impossible epistemological position to maintain. It requires another consciousness to symbolically apprehend it and represent it, or worse, to apprehend itself. It is beyond experience and a speculative state of consciousness. It is an unnecessary entity interjected into conscious experience in order to explain it. One can infer that an injured or malformed brain, i.e., essentially ‘brain dead,’ ‘wolf children’ or ‘newborns’ are examples of this state. However, this remains an inference on your part. Sleep does not qualify because symbolic pattern formations are ever present. Again, your terms contradict by defining human ‘unconscious extension’ as equally ‘conscious extension devoid of symbols or forms.’ When combined, this forms an oxymoron: ‘unconscious conscious extension devoid of symbols or forms.’

There is absolutely no evidence of a priori symbolic or formative consciousness in newborns or brain dead individuals. Neurological patterns are very different from those observing these representations on electron equipment. Symbols and forms are learned, and the evidence is overwhelming else we would not need schools, universities, etc. Symbols and forms are combinations of patterns into tools. Mathematical or orthographic symbols are arbitrary patterns, combined. For example, the symbol ‘8’ is a combination of two patterns ‘o+o’ in a horizontal pattern. The bindings of these arbitrary patterns are the laws of association, namely contiguity. The symbol ‘8’ is a set of associations bound through learning to other sets of patterns. Repetition of these associations forms another pattern, i.e., the association of a ‘container’ of other patterns: 8=(11111111). This association can be seen in the pattern of our fingers. There is no limit to these combined sets be it a pool ball, satanic symbol, periodic table, TV show or whatever. This adequately explains the origin of symbolic consciousness and does not multiply explanatory entities unnecessarily as with ‘unconsciousness.’ To explain symbols such as ‘8’ as a product of the ‘unconscious’ is conjecture and meaningless. One could substitute any unrelated, imaginative symbolic entity such as ‘god, karma, fate, love, devils, chemicals,’ etc., for ‘unconsciousness.’ Symbols are learned through simple pattern detection. The edge of any pattern is detected and associated through the mediation of a teacher directing the associations or through trial and error ending in the association of one pattern to another. This accounts for errors such as ‘sunrise’ or ‘post hoc ergo proctor hoc’ formations or successes such as ‘bacteria.’

‘Unconscious’ is simply and adequately explained as ‘off’ brain that has shut down and unable to assimilate patterns into instruments. This is an inference supported by neurological instrumentation. The patterns derived from such instruments are associated to electronic patterns given off by this equipment, i.e., the conscious formation of patterns associated to symbolic patterns by the designers of these experiments. They would not associate these patterns to any pattern outside these sets such as "devils, angels, fire gods, street lights, Pacific ocean," or whatever without cause. The origin of symbols taken from an environment devoid of symbols is adequately explained as conscious observation and trial and error of natural patterns, be it activities, natural objects, events, economically associated to other ‘conscious’ patterns, be it termed ‘cause, effect, evidence,’ or such. The inference that these patterns are ‘unconscious formations’ goes beyond conscious experience into speculation that such a substance exists and informs consciousness. Again, consciousness is economically explained as the formation and association of patterns into sets bound by the laws of association. This conforms to experience exactly.”

Jack Ferguson March 20 2004

Response:

Your contention that “human consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms” is an impossible epistemological position to maintain because it is “speculative” and “unnecessary” to explain the origin of knowledge in the form of symbols and forms, overlooks that all human knowledge is more reasonably speculative due to its apparent incompleteness. Viz., since there is more reasonably no complete answer on the origin of human consciousness or anything else for that matter, all proposed answers, regardless of empirical evidence, would be fundamentally speculative.

Regarding the apparent unnecessary explanation of knowledge with symbols and forms using consciousness devoid of knowledge with symbols and forms, you have yet to provide a clear and relatively complete explanation of the origin of knowledge with symbols and forms. Instead, you refer to “trial and error of natural patterns” and “laws of association” in the form of “cause, effect, [empirical] evidence etc.”

What are these so-called natural patterns? How do these patterns connect to our (indirect) sensory relationship with the external world? How are these patterns connected to the relatively progressive nature of human knowledge from less knowledge to more knowledge?

In consideration of human evolution and the finite existence of the human species, how does the first human pattern association, thereby first human knowledge with symbols or forms, begin?

Isn’t there an evolved process from conscious devoid of knowledge with symbols and forms to consciousness with knowledge in the form of symbols and forms, otherwise how do you account for the apparent fact that not all life-forms and perhaps only the human species, have knowledge in the form of symbols and forms, and can independently reason associations through those symbols and forms?

For your argument on the a priori nature of human consciousness with knowledge in the form of symbols and forms to more reasonably stand, you need to more reasonably demonstrate that the first human beings came into existence with knowledge in the form of symbols and forms, and thereby establish knowledge in the form of symbols and forms outside of human existence.

Entries 1-5

| | Inquiries | Entries | Edit Entries-3 | Investigations | Disputes | | Mailto: Replies&Disputes | Comp 1 Summary (359-366) | Inquiry:01 | Comp 1 Summary (239-358) | Reasons Accepted: 1-6 | Dispute Draft | | MessageBoard | Books | Author Submissions | Contact Us | Home | LID 9