| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home |
|
|
inexpressible.com |
|
| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | | |
| Challenge the Contention - Ignorant Exertion Theory (Entries 12-14) |
"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"
Reply to the response to Entry 11
“The situation is like this - Imagine a virtual reality program on a computer screen using some hardware and software. The player sees it all and events of all sorts may happen, and it may be ended and started all over again at will. In such a game if the characters appearing on the screen are virtual, but they are also real in a fundamental sense that electrons are moving in bits and bytes to create forms colors and actions and so on. Electrons may or may not bother to think. If only such a thing occurs it is not far off for the electron to realize that it belongs to the source of all electrons and all characters on the screen are essentially the same. Until this realization happens the stream of electrons encased in the particular form or shape or character may be deemed to be in the domain of ignorance. This however does NOT mean that its fundamental consciousness that it is alive is void. What is false here is only its false identification to be restricted to a particular form or shape or character. Obviously is outside the domain in which all such virtual play occurs. Remove the player there is no display or game or appearance. The inherent restrictions by notions like space-time-mass can be transcended only through the single truth of individual electrons each identifying to be something belonging to the source rather than the individual. All questions and pointers appear only to the entities in the imperfect state owing to infinite perceptions and coloration due obscurities and distortions caused by something called mind, which always remains elusive!! The moment the true state of affairs is known the single electron also can watch the play as the player.”
R. Rangan May 28 2004
It is unclear to us from your entry how you more reasonably know there is a “source” for all things (i.e. a oneness with dimensional forms)? Also, it is unclear to us how you more reasonably know this proposed “source” is a “true state of affairs”?
If you refer from Entries 476, 477, 479, 480, 481 to Competition 1 to the childhood state of purity and innocence, stillness of the human mind, or the state of rapture, then how through either of these things can you more reasonably completely know?
In addition, how do you respond to our contention that from our comparative and apparently incomplete perspective, something from something else ad infinitum is more reasonable than something from nothing (i.e. source of all things)?
“Whether or not the origin of human conscious meaning is as you say, it is not necessarily the case that a new? form of conscious existence guarantees extinction. Many have commented that it is unusual that biology has only been able to evolve apparently ‘sophisticated intelligence’ (ability to make radio telescopes for example) once in 4.5 billion years or so (on this planet), however it is not entirely clear whether this ability ultimately has species-wide survival value (eg the ability to make weapons of mass destruction might mean the eventual inevitability of false use of them, the same goes for biological technology). However I disagree with your assertion that something entirely new was ‘created’ in the human mind, because ultimately all aspects of human existance are biological, and ALL derives from what was before. Human cities are really the same as ant nests, writing on this computer is the same as a tiger marking its territory, or an ape using symbols. It appears that all we do, whether music, language, art, or discussion, or any other ability of the mind/body is an extension or modification of what was before, therefore ‘human conscious meaning’ must also have pre-existed in some form. If it did not cause species extinction in other organisms, it may not necessarily cause it in ours.
I do not really want into an argument about what constitutes conscious meaning (yet), however whatever you are referring to, it must also be part of the biological realm, and therefore ultimately part of unconscious nature. All conscious nature ultimately derives from unconscious nature, and it is not clear that ‘false’ assertions of meaning derived from this unconscious nature are non-adaptive in the long term. I would say rather that ‘false assertions’ are the same as partially adaptive biological creations, which may also evolve into other more reasonable adaptations.”
Roger McEvilly January 31 2005
We agree with your entry, barring some clarifications of our position.
We do not assert that something "entirely" new was created in the human mind. Of course, what the human species consciously creates is connected to what was before. The important point from our standpoint is our assertion that the human species (originally) created conscious meaning, in relation to other factors like its survivability in its environment.
It is unclear to us that just because conscious meaning is connected to what was before, conscious meaning existed before. If you accept that the human species (originally) created conscious meaning, then before the existence of the human species (or at least the human species existing at the conscious level), conscious meaning did not exist. Therefore, it cannot be said that conscious meaning existed before the human species. Though it can be said that conscious meaning did not cause species extinction in prior species to the human species, because it did not exist in prior species. (If you content that conscious meaning did exist in prior species, then we request more reasonable demonstration of its existence in prior species.)
We agree with you that false assertions appear to be adaptive in the short and long term. However, our contention centers on not the falsity of assertions, but on the nature of assertions themselves. Viz., assertions and the conscious meanings behind them are empty of who we are... thus through our minds we are gradually replacing life with non-life. A practical example is the empty, lifeless nature of a modern/post-modern western city (with all its concrete structures) versus the vibrancy of a tropical rainforest. The city itself, an extension of our minds is unsustaining of life except particular adaptable microorganisms, insects, rodents etc., whereas the tropical rainforest itself, not an extension of our minds, supports a vast array of life.
“‘Unconscious exertion by a human being which is manifested in the form of an unconscious assertion that there is conscious meaning.’ *Your assertion is incoherent. An unconscious being cannot make assertions. An unconscious being cannot assert a conscious premise because an assertion requires conscious intent by a conscious being. This is self evident, coherent and verifiable. ‘Unconscious’ refers to human consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. *Your definition is incoherent unless you equate ‘Unconscious’ to ‘Ignorant.’ If restated as: ‘’Ignorant’ refers to human consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols and forms and which is defined by comparison,’ I would agree with this observation. It has been verified that human consciousness does not become unconscious when void of symbols or forms. Brain damaged individuals and even children deprived of parental interactions manage little more than integrated sensory patterns yet remain conscious. Brain damaged individuals who lost their symbolic and formal acquisitions are often conscious. This statement is empirically verifiable; your statement is not nor is it self-evident. If you insist that there are a priori forms and symbols and their interactions, then it must be self evident as in newborns. It follows that you see ‘unconscious newborns’ where there are none because they lack symbolic and formal operations. The evidence is overwhelming that symbols and forms occupy specific parts of the brain and are learned. When these areas are damaged or undeveloped, consciousness does not disappear and suddenly emerge when present. Formal and symbolic manipulation is not the definition of consciousness. Your definition is unacceptable and for you to continue, you must provide empirical evidence without speculation that your premise is true.”
Jack Ferguson February 26 2005
We concede both your criticisms on our usage of “unconscious” in relation to our usage of “consciousness”. Viz., it does not make sense (or is “incoherent” as you say) how consciousness can only refer to knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. Consequently as you recommend, we have changed “unconscious” to “ignorant”, whereby ignorant refers to a state of being conscious and yet devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. So the only clarification of our position is that prior to the (ignorant) original assertion of conscious meaning, human beings were conscious and yet devoid of knowledge in the form or symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. Please note, since your (more reasonable) criticisms clarify our position while leaving the thrust of our position intact, your criticisms do not overcome our position.
The revised challenge reads as follows:
The Ignorant Exertion Theory:
The origin of knowledge appears to stem from an inability of the human species, as ignorant 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 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.)
| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | |