| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home |
|
|
inexpressible.com |
|
| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | | |
| Challenge the Philosophy Competition 3 - Ignorant Exertion Theory (Entries 17-18) |
"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"
“Definition of principle terms: ‘Ignorant’ refers to consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. By definition we are still Ignorant because everything we perceive is in comparison, even time is relative. So the whole problem collapses. The knowledge you describe is, by human standards unattainable. What is an atom but a name given to symbolize something, which has a recognizable form, properties and which are compared to those which do not exhibit these properties and or form. Conscious knowledge is therefore not based on an assertion subconscious or otherwise but the lack of one and the necessity to find one (why the need arose I do not know but is probably a worthier question). This would explain religion, science or any activity a human ever undertook to help define self and from there define his reality. The subconscious is also shaped by the consciousness and although can elude to things the conscious has repressed it can not manifest its own thoughts if the unconsciousness is the three tier system alluded to by Fraud then the subconscious is where the id resides. The id hasn’t the ability to comprehend something as profound as suggested (as it would require conscious deliberation and creativity since conscious and sentience are so abstract) and the lack of comprehension is not likely to spur on evolution to create the faculties to do so, otherwise we would not be the only species on this planet capable of what you assume we are.”
Kevin Fasusi December 5 2005
We disagree with you based on the comparative, thereby relative nature of human consciousness (“or everything we perceive”), that the problem of origin of conscious knowledge “collapses”. Our disagreement stems from the fact that to maintain internal consistency, the position of the comparative, thereby relative nature of human consciousness must itself be relative, thereby incomplete. Hence, the problem of the origin of the origin of human consciousness does not entirely collapse. Viz., it is held up by the possibility of it being answered.
Also, the problem is posed within the limits of what we know; so we are not asking for a complete answer to the problem of the origin of human consciousness, but an incomplete, more reasonable answer. Consequently, there is no assumption on our part that the human species is capable of completely knowing the origin of human conscious knowledge.
So the question remains: is origin of human conscious knowledge in the moment of invention (more reasonably) from an ignorant exertion by a human being which is manifested in the form of an ignorant assertion that there is conscious meaning, or not?
“Your contention appears to be this: that the very first idea anyone had was that ideas could be meaningful: and that afterwards, all other ideas somehow recursively bootstrapped out of that. That is, that 'the first idea' was in essence a meta-idea about ideas, to enable all subsequent ideas to be had. In order for this to be the case, you would require knowledge to have been defined in a very narrow, positivist way: a kind of shallow, computer-science/AI "knowledge", based around positivistic recursion. Epistemological niceties aside, my pragmatic definition of knowledge is "that which one remembers which one hopes to be useful later". Your contention would then be that the 'first idea' was that *things you remember might be useful later*... in other words, memory can be useful. But when just about all animals have memory, I fail to see what this has to do with humans. And so your contention should be just as true for most animals as for humans: which would seem to imply that animals require a philosophical basis (a 'first idea') in order to think at all. But baby animals are not born with a tiny Rene Descartes homunculus in their pineal gland (or wherever) to give them the philosophical justification they need to kickstart their lives - this is nonsensical. No: I suspect that this contention is actually less about knowledge than a thinly veiled critique on human culture - that because knowledge supplants ignorance, its use cannot somehow be justified unless the very first thought stands as a philosophical basis for all subsequent knowledge. However, I contend that knowledge is about (hopefully) useful memory, and that humans have no monopoly on (hopefully) useful memory. Memory is useful - that's why animals have it. Animals face problems too, and it is well-documented that they can be inventive in their efforts to solve those problems. So what are you assuming about knowledge here that raises it above the level of memory? Therefore, I contend that your contention can only be supported if knowledge is somehow predefined as "(hopefully) useful memories backed up by a philosophical foundation", with the idea that this enables 'knowledge' to be differentiated from 'memory': but this seems an untenably narrow definition. Even if true, this would make your contention tautologous, and hence worthless.”
Nick Pelling September 30 2007
Challenge Proposition 3 deals exclusively with the origin of human knowledge. The Proposition says that human knowledge (and conscious meaning) derive from human invention and the origin of human knowledge coincides with the origin of conscious meaning.
Your entry does not deal with origin of human knowledge, and therefore it is irrelevant to Competition 3. If you disagree, then what in your opinion is the origin of human knowledge, and how does your view of the origin contradict our view of the origin?
Other issues:
It is unclear to us why you think memory is central to human knowledge, without mentioning human reason. Also, memory as demonstrated in animals is not necessarily rooted in reason; it may be rooted in instinct. Hence, it does not necessarily follow that just because animals have memory, they think or reason.
The tautologous nature of Proposition 3 is offset by the tautologous nature of any other proposition. The apparent limited or relative nature of human knowledge makes tautology in some form or at some level, unavoidable.
| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | |