Challenge the Philosophy Competition 3 - Ignorant Exertion Theory (Entries 6-11)

"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 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.)

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

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.

7. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 6

“‘Speculative’ is incompatible with ‘incomplete knowledge.’ They are not the same and cannot be equated. There is incomplete knowledge about viruses and atoms, yet there is predictable certainty about these objects. The point is that there is no evidence of ‘unconscious’ entities or processes within consciousness. How would consciousness identify and becomes conscious of its unconsciousness when it is conscious of every object within its field? Just because some object was not present in consciousness does not mean it is a product of an entity termed ‘unconsciousness.’ There is no way to prove or disprove this ‘noumenon’ and it is an imaginative entity projected into the explanation of consciousness.

In answer to your other questions, please follow the thread:

Experiential Consciousness…”

Jack Ferguson March 24 2004

Response:

Your notion of “predictable certainty” about particular objects does not negate the apparent fundamental uncertainty/incompleteness of all conceivable objects from our (human) perspective. It is this fundamental uncertainty/incompleteness which makes all human knowledge inherently speculative (in a broad sense). Though we concede that some knowledge is less speculative than other knowledge. However, your claim that there is no evidence of unconscious entities or processes overlooks that there is evidence from our limited perspective no different for any other object. Although again we concede that by definition the unconscious is outside of our conscious awareness, but the mere fact that we are conscious of the unconscious (i.e. we need to be conscious of the unconscious at some level to assert that it is outside of our conscious awareness), establishes the limited ground to prove or disprove it. Ironically, one example of such proof is your views on conscious pattern association, in which from your article, “Experiential Consciousness as Pattern Generator”, you suggest that there is “a priori separation and segregation of patterns”, and that there are “sensory patterns ‘potentially’ embedded within each perceptual pattern as subsets.” What you are saying is that knowledge in the form of symbols and forms originate from our sensory receptors where specific mechanisms are in place to interpret our sensory interaction with the external world. In essence, according to your view, we are the creators of our knowledge in the form of symbols and forms, and that if we consider the first human knowledge in the form of symbols and forms, we must conclude that they came from a sensory mechanism(s) (i.e. embedded sensory patterns or similar conception), or what we call the unconscious domain. So your view of consciousness (and unconsciousness) is consistent with our claim that knowledge in the form of symbols and forms originates from the unconscious or what you call embedded sensory patterns. If you retort that the sensory patterns are in the conscious domain, then you overlook that these embedded patterns precede what we interactively consciously know in the form of symbols and forms. Also, if you retort that the embedded sensory patterns are only a potentiality, then you still you face the problem that knowledge in the form of symbols and forms originates (from our perspective) from the unconscious of sensory receptors. Viz., we cannot consciously know at the sensory level; rather, we can only infer through our imaginative and rational faculties.

8. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 7

“How can ‘speculation’ be considered a form of ‘knowledge’? Knowledge is a body of connected certainties. Speculations about the origin of the universe, god or whatever are interesting but hardly qualify as ‘knowledge.’ Speculation is important to formulate hypotheses for testing and confirmation, but remains outside the body of knowledge because of it lacks certainty-’certainty’ being experimental/experiential confirmation. It was speculated that disease was caused by vapors and wind, but this is hardly knowledge taught in medical schools, except as disproved theories. Secondly, you have not answered my question as to the field of consciousness. You postulate the entity ‘unconsciousness’ without examples or any way to confirm its existence other than your ‘say so.’ This is a clear violation of Occam's Razor when the most economical explanation is to admit that the unconscious is simply consciousness turned off as exemplified in brain injury. By your standard, to be conscious of something be it imagined or concrete is ground to prove or disprove it, but this violates a standard of knowledge, that is, to understand the difference between imagined and unimagined entities and to remove imagined entities from matters of fact. There is no evidence to posit angels or devils other than personal imagination, and without evidence ‘unconsciousness’ belongs therein. Simply to posit its existence does not mean it exists: I can imagine I have a million dollars, but that does not bring it into existence. Thirdly, I define consciousness specifically as the production of patterns and the unconsciousness as the inability to produce patterns as found in brain injury. There is no unconscious ‘domain,’ rather an ‘off’ or nonfunctional brain. To clarify my argument, there are three thresholds:

I. consciousness, the integration of patterns.
II. subconsciousness, the generation of patterns.
III. unconsciousness, the inability to generate patterns (brain injury)

This explains the difference between a newborn and a brain-injured person. A newborn is at level II because she can generate patterns but cannot yet integrate them. This discussion has helped me clarified these issues, and my argument has moved towards these distinctions. I still cannot accept the origins of consciousness within the ‘domain’ of the ‘unconscious’ that is an ‘off’ physical condition until proven otherwise. Again, I confine my argument to the limitation of experience with concrete examples, and you have not managed to produce concrete examples of this being you term ‘unconsciousness.’ By drawing on my argument does not help your case because you missed an essential point, namely, that the generation of patterns is dependent on empirical data. Without empirical data, the generation of patterns is that of fractals which is easily proven especially in the sense of sight by simply shutting off the data by closing one's eyes in a dark room. Therein, it is not a ‘black screen’ rather fractal generations are buzzing in indescribable manners with sparks, colors, arrays, etc. If you decide to term this process ‘unconsciousness’ you cannot reconcile the fact that they're are brain injured people where this generation does not take place as measured by instruments of neurology, and ignoring such states are universally accepted as ‘unconscious.’ The only experience of unconsciousness that anyone can have is to be rendered such by drugs, etc., and recover consciousness (Stage I) allowing one to gather evidence to infer that ‘I must have been unconscious’ which means 'my brain was injured and recovered.' By denying this universally accepted condition or state, your burden is to demonstrate beyond doubt that such an entity has ontological and causal status upon or within consciousness.”

Jack Ferguson March 31 2004

Response:

Your argument that experimental/experiential confirmation, due to its “certainty”, is the only basis for knowledge, inconsistently overlooks that experimental/experiential confirmation is fundamentally subject to uncertainty no different from any other system of thought. Or as Wittgenstein from On Certainty says,

“At the foundation of well-founded belief lies belief that is not founded.” “At some point one has to pass from explanation to mere description.” “The difficulty is to realize the groundlessness of our believing.” “We use judgments as principles of judgment.”

“53. Because all thoughts are defined by conscious meaning at some level, and I can only perceive thoughts rather than see them as they really are, all thoughts from my perspective are reasonable. However, by comparing thoughts, I can distinguish one thought from another based on their level of comparative reasonableness. (i.e. more or less reasonable.)”

Supplementary comment:

Regarding your unconscious threshold, it is unclear to us that a severe traumatic brain injury, for example, results in an individual’s inability to generate patterns on any level. It appears to us that an inability to generate patterns on any conceivable level equates with physical death.

9. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 8

“I agree with Wittgenstein's assertion that beliefs are unfounded and at some arbitrary point we are left with an unopened phenomenological parachute. The theoretical assertion that ‘uncertainty is a possibility at any point in knowledge’ leaves only the principle that ‘uncertainty is the only certainty.’ This is interesting but irrelevant in human affairs when atomic bombs and anthrax clouds result in certain injury while no amount of phenomenological analysis improves our lot. Beliefs make great theology but poor science. Judgments without evidence are worthless. Certainty terminates in empirical confirmation, or if not, we run down the problem and correct it. Your odd premise that 'uncertainty of all human knowledge establishes the ground that all human knowledge is possible' is mystic. Accordingly, your premise now is 'description is the foundation of knowledge.' Description is nothing more than a post facto report of events from a singular perspective. Although interesting, a personal testimony is hardly the foundation of science and technology. In so far as defining ‘unconsciousness’ as ‘subconsciousness,’ and apparently rejecting its most common meaning because there are no 'absolutes' leaves a bewildering semantic trail to follow. Again your thesis shifts, and you cover the waterfront: ‘we are the unconscious [subconscious] inventors of our [uncertain beliefs/descriptions or more or less reasonable] knowledge in the form of symbols and forms.’

I find it implausible that anyone can invent a symbol, form or anything outside of consciousness. Invention requires consciousness to recognize it as a function or connection or solution to a problem. As I said, consciousness is the integration of patterns or subconscious pattern processes. This integration is driven by a need, purpose, or problem in survival.

Per your request: ‘depending upon the genetic interaction with an environment, symbols are integrated arbitrary pattern templates, paradigms and cognitive tools associated to other patterns for control of that environment while forms are integrated pattern paradigms or gestalts derived from perceptual sets often associated to symbols.’

Restated simply: ‘we are the conscious inventors of symbols and forms in a cognitive effort to control our environment.’

I quite agree that 0 pattern generation is death.”

Jack Ferguson April 3 2004

Response:

The point that “uncertainty is a possibility at any point in knowledge”, which you acknowledge, does not mean that “uncertainty is the only certainty”; rather, it means that from our limited perspective, all human knowledge is defined by uncertainty, including the assertion that all human knowledge is defined by uncertainty. By you discarding this fundamental idea, which apparently defines all human knowledge!, because of its apparent practical limitations, you overlook the broader, subtle implications of the idea on human perspective such as the necessity of reason in any belief or knowledge to allow for error/misjudgment. Moreover, in ignoring the apparent uncertainty of all human knowledge, you turn to “[experimental/experiential] evidence” as though it is somehow outside of the uncertainty of reality; yet being an extension of human consciousness, “[experimental/experiential] evidence” is firmly entrenched in human consciousness and its apparent uncertainty. Sorry empirical evidence no matter how certain it may appear is not gateway out of uncertainty. Further, your assertion that our premise, “the uncertainty of all human knowledge establishes the ground that all human knowledge is possible” is mystic, ignores that the premise is logically supported by the apparent uncertainty of all human knowledge, which you have already acknowledged. In simple terms, since all human knowledge is apparently uncertain, doesn’t it follow logically and not mystically that on a theoretical level, all human knowledge from our limited perspective is possible?! To refute this position, you will have to do more than make an inaccurate reference to mysticism by more reasonably demonstrating 100% certain human knowledge.

Regarding your claim that “we are the conscious inventors of symbols and forms in a cognitive effort to control our environment”, we agree that once conscious symbols and forms are invented, we use them to invent more. However, our claim is directed specifically at the origin of conscious symbols and forms, which we claim originate from an unconscious/subconscious exertion by our (primary) human ancestors. Our support for the claim, as mentioned in the response to Entry 8, partly derives from the apparent progressive nature of human knowledge, finiteness of human existence, and the more reasonableness of something from something else ad infinitum than something from nothing (ex nihlo) which rules out absolute innate/encoded knowledge and a thing-in-itself like a god or oneness of the universe. If you retort that according to Occam’s Razor it is not economically necessary to use unconsciousness/subconsciousness to explain the origin of conscious symbols and forms, then you will need to more reasonably establish conscious symbols and forms, including humanity or other conception, as a thing-in-itself. Viz., to merely stop at conscious symbols and forms to explain the origin of conscious symbols and forms results in an economically unsound, inexplicable position. Also, for you to retort that the unconscious/subconscious domain is outside of conscious awareness, and thereby is neither probable or disprovable, and therefore is irrelevant, is self-contradictory and inconsistent because you cannot know the unconscious/subconscious is outside of our conscious awareness without being consciously aware of it, and you use the unconscious/subconscious in your own explanation of human consciousness (e.g. “sensory patterns”). (Note, your contention that the unconscious/subconscious domain is outside of our conscious awareness is premised on the invalid assumption that there are things we are completely consciously aware of. However, as soon as you accept the uncertainty of all human knowledge, you must accept to maintain consistency, the incompleteness of all human conscious awareness.)

10. Entry:

“A human being cannot be a human being without knowledge. If you are asserting that the biological faculties of the human organism are the sole origin of all human knowledge you are correct in a sense. The human organism begins with the human organism (this is possible through the hierarchical structure evolution, and the nature of the eukaryotic cell created); yet a human can know something and also overcome the block of the possible failure of knowledge due to it being removed from the present through a variety of creative means. In fact I would challenge that knowledge's past form is the only one available to man. Are you challenging a claim that achieving objectively expressed oneness (i.e. knowing something directly) with the universe is impossible? I would argue that one can only know something in the present or future sense through 'unfiltered' awareness. Awareness without bounds will expand greatly, and only from such a perspective can one see the true nature of oneself and reality. This is letting the mind flow naturally (freely), but doing so is only the first step in understanding as the process will naturally build upon itself. (Viz., it is in the nature of the mind.) One must be most weary of deceptions of restrictive self-knowledge, for rarely does it serve for the greatest fitness of the self. Such illusions will disrupt the proper function of the creation of right mind, and one will not be aware of them without transcending them. Objectivity is the way to see the external condition of an object; subjectivity is the scope to the internal condition.”

Eric Sutton April 18 2004

Response:

Since according to your position “any categorization and classification is in the domain of the ignorance”, it follows that your categorization or classification of the “SOURCE” is in the domain of the ignorance. (If you retort that your notion of the “SOURCE” is neither a categorization nor a classification, then we would like to more reasonably know how the notion is outside of the comparative nature of human consciousness? To merely assert that the “SOURCE” is all there is, does not more reasonably demonstrate how the notion of “SOURCE” is outside of the comparative nature of human consciousness. Viz., you must more reasonably demonstrate how your assertion is outside of human consciousness.)

Also, as mentioned in the response to Entry 22 (from Challenge the Philosophy Competition 2), from our comparative and (apparently) incomplete perspective your “SOURCE” (or thing-in-itself) is less reasonable than something from something else ad infinitum.

Finally, your entry is self-defeating because you claim there is “no real consciousness”, and yet you (apparently) use your consciousness to declare the fundamental nature of existence.

11. Entry:

“We may look at all forms of life as being somewhat like robotic biological computers. Consequently the body with limbs and expressions is like a display unit and processing mind is like CPU. While all forms of life come in different models to different capacities and versions, animals and plants seen to have only a pre-loaded software so to say, due to which instinctive response and basic functions like eating, sleeping, procreation, etc. Human beings alone have the mouse option so to say, in the sense that in addition to the basic mode (which functions even if one s in coma) we also can click site after site and corrupt/load/enhance ourselves by freewill. However, ALL forms of life are to remain energized in order to stay alive so long as the energizing principle finds unobstructed clear pathways inside the body-mind apparatus. If any junction or distribution network inside body-mind is clogged or shorted or open-circuited physical maladies may be the result. In sleep they go to screen-saver mode for rest and recovery and cleanup.

The basic energy path available in human body-mind apparatus through the chakras (network/distribution, junctions/centers) is in surplus of basic mode functions unlike other forms of life. That is probably why deeper meanings and inquiries into science, art and philosophy are restlessly pursued.

However, the majority of human beings just lead a life satisfying basic needs only eating, sleeping and procreating and if at all, pursuing activities boosting animal instincts like fights, territory markings, etc. in the name of religion, country, race, patriotism and may even thus glorify killing if done by a soldier or a judge or policeman, etc.!
A few still remain aware of the basic imperfection and strive to develop the extra sensitivity to know that the basic energizing principle in ALL life forms is essentially from the same SOURCE only sitting behind a firewall (Giant veil of ignorance). Since all are obviously connected to the same SOURCE (By WAP?) if only one is able to reach the SOURCE, one can know it all and be everywhere without having to have a personal identity which incidentally was an error to start with.

Hence there is no real consciousness but the single truth of the SOURCE sustaining it all and any categorization or classification is in the domain of the ignorance by falsely identifying and limiting oneself to be a single body-mind apparatus only.”

R. Rangan May 21 2004

Response:

Since according to your position “any categorization and classification is in the domain of the ignorance”, it follows that your categorization or classification of the “SOURCE” is in the domain of the ignorance. (If you retort that your notion of the “SOURCE” is neither a categorization nor a classification, then we would like to more reasonably know how the notion is outside of the comparative nature of human consciousness? To merely assert that the “SOURCE” is all there is, does not more reasonably demonstrate how the notion of “SOURCE” is outside of the comparative nature of human consciousness. Viz., you must more reasonably demonstrate how your assertion is outside of human consciousness.)

Also, as mentioned in the response to Entry 22 (from Challenge the Philosophy Competition 2), from our comparative and (apparently) incomplete perspective your “SOURCE” (or thing-in-itself) is less reasonable than something from something else ad infinitum.

Finally, your entry is self-defeating because you claim there is “no real consciousness”, and yet you (apparently) use your consciousness to declare the fundamental nature of existence.

Entries 1-5 Entries 12-16

| Competition 1 | Comp 1 Entries: 552- | Competition 2 | Competition 3 | US Pres. Deter. | US Pres. Deter. Process | | Reasons Accepted | Time Frame | MessageBoard | Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | | Home | LID 73