| Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 9 (13-15) |
"The "stream of thought" model of cognition, although useful in deduction, restricts itself by it's own implicit causality. We can't get "outside of our minds" so long as we're thinking about them. The existance of self awareness can be deduced, but the experience of it cannot be. Another thing to consider is the definition of mind. Are we making a clear mind/brain distinction ? Are we confining mind to a set of deductions, and a priori assumptions? And more importantly, is there a real correspondence between the causality implied by rational deduction and the workings of the real universe?
In the example of the war story, I stated that the man was in a "unique state of being". In fact his "state" was not so unique when you consider that we all live in a state of ignorance. This sea of ignorance upon which we float is in fact the universe itself. Now the question remains, is mind a function of the universe? If it is not, then the burden of proof lies forever outside of our grasp. If it is however, we need working models that more accurately describe the interactions of mind/universe or more personally (self / not self). The superposition model, while being necessarly limited by it's basis, is none the less, unrestricted by causality, and offers a way out of rationalistic determinism.
In our little corner of the universe, through the collapse of superposition states (self / not self) we not only create new being states but in fact create the universe itself. Technology, ethics, culture, personal interactions, every word and every thought are products of a natural process.
Our being can be viewed as residing on a point along a fractal thermodynamic path whose resultant vector always points towards entropy. Since the direction of this path is determined by physical laws, our choices give us control over the shape and length. In a similar way, a downhill skier traversing an unknown course must use a combination of experience and awareness to make it to the bottom in one piece and, have a good time doing it.
What we don't know, our ignorance, is just as valid as what we do know, our knowledge. In fact one could go further to conclude that our ignorance is truer than our reason !
I would wish at this time to forgo further discussion regarding the term "be".
Since we can be nothing other than who we are, it seems irrelevant to persue
the matter further. The reason that I brought it up in the first place was to
demonstrate that concepts alienated by systemic context, from their foundations
can sometimes lead to false or directed conclusions."
Ken Bell January 13 2000
Regarding your point about not getting outside of our minds, we add that even if we are not thinking, we can't get outside of our minds and know that we are. So consciously, it appears that we have no way of getting outside of our minds.
In response to your point about "self-awareness", it appears that self-awareness of being itself, through intellect, cannot be deduced through the existence of self-awareness nor experience of it.
When we use "mind", we refer to our consciousness (ie. appearances or thoughts). For the sake of clarity, we don't distinguish the brain from mind, because in one sense, the brain is part of the mind as a thought (ie. invented label with invented meaning). Does the brain as we intellectualize it, really exist? It is uncertain).
Yes, we are "confining mind to a set of deductions, and a priori assumptions", namely the existence of mind, appearances, and conscious meaning. Though we concede that the meaning of labels, and labels themselves have been invented. (If we follow the idea of invention through, it appears that meaning itself came into existence through an unconscious assertion by us that there is conscious meaning. We show this by going back to our first thought, and past it).
From our perspective, the only "correspondence between the causality implied by rational deduction and the workings of the real universe" is our use of reason and the consequences for doing so. Even if there is no correspondence between causality and the workings of the universe, it would amount to the same end as the challenge proposition, namely detachment from consciousness.
How can our "state of ignorance" be the universe itself? Are you saying that the universe is unconscious, and thereby making a link between ignorance and unconsciousness? If so, we agree in a limited sense.
How can mind be a function of the universe, if it is a degenerate function of us? Moreover, how can mind itself be part of the universe, if mind is empty of who we are? However, since mind clearly has a form of existence (ie. it is not non-existent), it could be part of the universe, whatever the universe is.
The limitation of the superposition model, besides its questionable basis, is that it is dependent on reason for us to be consciously aware of it. (ie. superposition is a mental construct). So we know that superposition is actually part of rationalistic determinism, as it has been in this discussion. Added to this, the superposition model does not appear reasonable, in terms of this challenge, because it cannot explain how we can know who we are and be who we are. It simply asserts that (k) is the same as (b), which does not make sense, because the equation implies a third variable, even though we already have (b)! One way around this is to assert that (k) is an extension of (b)itself. Though it still does not explain how we can know who we are while being who we are, (ie. how can we know who we are, without ceasing to be who we are. Also, superposition, applied to the challenge, contradicts the notion that we can only know something from outside of it itself. In addition, it does not explain the diffence between who we are and all other thoughts, in terms of meaning, when they are broken down to their smallest units. (ie. we are left with who we are as inexpressible and the other thoughts as unknown)).
We agree that "technology, ethics, culture, personal interactions, every word and every thought are products of a natural process". Though what's interesting, from our perspective, is what effect our thought, and their material extensions, are having on us ourselves. We claim that through the inherent difference between who we are and thoughts themselves, we are caught in a "degenerate recursion loop" which is distorted by the short-terms benefits to us from thoughts and their material extensions.
We find your view of our being as a "fractal thermodynamic path whose resultant vector always points towards entropy" interesting. Though, we avoid assuming anything about our being, because it is something we can't know anything about, and thereby we have no basis to even imagine it. So whatever we imagine or assume it is, is not it.
Your example of the downhill skier ignores other factors which may be beyond the skier's experience and self-awareness, such as an unforeseen avalanche or an unexpected deadly physical ailment, which kills the skier, or even a black bear which distracts the skier and causes him to wipe out and severly injure himself, or even the skier having a profound philosophical thought while going down the hill, which distracts him from the unknown course and causes him to severly wipe out. Though we take your point about self-destiny, and yet, there appears to be something missing; perhaps, that something is inexpressible. (ie, what's behind "physical laws"? Surely, there's more to our existence, or being, than mental constructs?!)
Regarding your point about, ignorance and knowledge, we could go even further and conclude that our ignorance is the same as our knowledge, except for the conscious form of the latter.
In terms of our discussion, since there is no absolute truth, we will always be left with uncertainty, regardless of what we discover. It appears our way to value one theory from another, is whether or not they
stand up to reason in relation to each other. (Of course, we are limited by what we know now). Has the challenge proposition stood up? (ie. is the proposition reasonable self-constistent? Has any other reasonably
proposition contradicted it? If you choose to hold onto the superposition model, we feel that you ought to address the problems we have with it (ie. above), not to mention explain how it is physically possible to know something without
getting outside it, or in other words, to know something from the same basis as the something we know. Also, for you to take the position that (b) is only part of (k) will need explaining, because it does not make sense why (b) is not part of all (k).
If it is not, what part of (k) is it part of?).
"The basis of the superposition model are:
1) That our beings existence is derivative from and contiguous with, physical and mathematical laws. In short, existence is not supernatural.
2) A rational recognition that phenomenon, in and of themselves are inherently inexpressible through language.
3) That the existence of (self) and (not self) are causally irreducible.
4) That causality reduces to an awareness of local entropy.
5) That an inumerable amount of fractal enthalpic paths are generated as the universe cools. { Fractal enthalpy being defined as a function of system self organization, in which a system of particles converges in an attractor of lower enthalpy by using self similar levels of organization, incorporating other coherent systems. Recursion via selection being a driving principle}
6) That all paths are equivalent in state space. Though some are locally more probable than others.
7) That awareness has as it's basis, contiguity of the set of our bodies fractal paths and state space.
8) That, all paths being equal, continuing awareness necessitates a collapse of contiguous enthalpic paths to avoid multiple universes.
As you can see by extrapolation of 8 awareness becomes a property of the universe
itself." Ken Bell January 14 2000
Regarding the first awareness of the basis of the superposition model, we have problems with the notion that "our beings' existence is derivative from and contiguous with physical and mathematical laws". Since we have established that our conscious knowledge consists of invented labels and invented meanings, it follows that our physical and mathematical laws are mere labels with invented meanings. Our you claiming that our "existence" is an invention? Also, as we have asked already, what is behind physical and mathematical laws? Surely, their mental constructs, self-contained within systems of thoughts, are not the basis for our existence? We agree that our existence is not "supernatural", but we go even further and assert that our existence itself is inexpressible, and therefore it can't be anything conscious, including physical and mathematical laws.
Moreover, the second awareness captures our inability to rationally understand us ourselves or our existence, including the so-called universe. However, we also assert that the second awareness shows that what we think itself, from our perspective and based on what we know now, is empty of phenomenon itself, and thereby contradicts the first awareness.
In terms of the third awareness, we would replace (self and not self) with (being and not being) for the sake of clarity. We agree that being itself is not reducible. However, the notion of ((b)itself in (k)itself) = (b)itself is flawed, because ((b)itself in (k)itself) must equal another variable, which contradicts the notion of not being able to reduce (b)itself. (ie. awareness 3 does not hold up). If you take the position that ((b) in (k)) =(b) without considering "itself", what is behind (b) and (k)?
The rest of your awarenesses (4-8) are interesting, though like all theory and knowledge, they are limited by reason and knowledge themselves.
Our main objection with the superposition model is that it does not deal with being itself, and yet it refers to it, for example, in the third awareness (ie. ((b) in (k)) equation, which does not hold up). As Richard Schlegel in, Superposition and Interaction, writes, "the central content of the superposition principle in quantum theory... is defined by values for two or more different substates that together constitute the total state." (page 26). What is this total state? What is behind it? Is this total state really total? Superposition, or quantum theory, is not able to really answer the second question, and in fact, it tends to ignore the idea of beyond state itself, or even state itself. In other words, with superposition, there is always something missing, and perhaps, this is why it can't deal with bases. If the superposition, or quantum theory, did, it follows that the concept and theory would collapse as shown by the flawed ((b) in (k)) = (b) equation, which means neither of them stand to reason.
"1. A valid model of cognition must include itself.
2. The notion of invention requires an inventor. Systems converge on lower energy attractors as an emergent function of the system itself.
3. I make no assertion that existence is a phenomenon in and of itself.
4. Statement (1) makes the assertion that, that which is predictable and repeatable is consistent with our notion of truth. One might consider truth to be an open gate.
5. I would have to agree with Kant and Jung that physical laws, mathematics and the like, represent a priori categories, and projection of these categories, (or "archetypes" in Jungian terms) is the way we gain knowledge. Some knowledge being rational in nature and some being intuitative depending on the archetype. The important thing to realize is that through the reflective nature of the categories we gain knowledge. Although phenomenon exists outside the scope of our projections, they can become illuminated by the incremental growth of our collective knowledge space. This introverted perspective places truth and existance on equal footing with all other projections. Studying the universe from the inside out, is really the only choice that we have. As our knowledge space grows so the state space twists into even more complex sets of values.
6. (b) in (k) is defined as the portion of (k) which recognizes 'itself' as distinguished from 'other'(b). Since "Be" refers to the state of living or existing, everything beyond (k) which is alive or exists must have the quality (b). Therefore (b) in (k) which exists is limited to (k)'s assertion that it, (k) exists and, by extension other undefined (b) exists.
7. Superposition does not use causality to reduce (b) in (k) but reflection since "who we are", is undefined. It would be innaccurate to display an effectual "snapshot" if you will, of our being. However moment to moment awareness is in the same a priori category as being.. Since neither of these concepts are causally restricted they remain rationally undefined.
8. To replace "self" with "being" would require a definition of "being" limited to
self's dualism. We can't prove a negative (not being)s, existance. "Being"
therefore becomes a priori. Self on the other hand is a derivative of awareness,
also an a priori category. The alienation of self from awareness necessitates it's
symmetry breaking into opposites.
9. Although I'm not familiar with Richard Schlegel's book, I believe that the "total state" he's referring to would be a wave function that includes the probabilities of all possible substates. As far as what's behind the total state, or the substates, or anything else, it's simply a matter of looking to find out . After all, what we find there depends on what we already know." Ken Bell January 16 2000
A)2. Are you saying that the systems of our thoughts converge on the lower energy attractor of who we are? If so, how can this be when we invented our systems of thoughts? If it does not converge, it appears that your notion of system convergence is inconsistent, unless you define "system" in a limited way.
A)3. What is existence? Is it the same thing as being? If not, what is the difference between them? Is there a difference between existence and universe? Is being the same thing as universe?
A)4. Just because something is "consistent and repeatable", it does not follow that it is a truth. It may be consistent and repeatable only within our system of thought. Moreover, it does not necessarily follow that consistency and repeatability equate with truth.
Is (1 + 1 = 2) a truth? The equation is consistent and repeatable within the system of mathematical thought, but outside of that system, and similar ones, the consistency and repeatability of the equation does not stand to reason. For example, in terms of time and space, there is no such thing as two identical units. So 1 + 1 cannot equal 2. From another perspective, when the units and signs of the equation are broken down in terms of their meanings, they come to an unknown. So we really don't know if 1 + 1 = 2 is a truth. Further, if the units and signs are mere invented labels with invented meanings, it follows that it is unlikely that the equation really is a truth (ie. truth does not equate with the fabrication of thought). For further explanation of the limit of (1+1=2) see (1+1=2)=false.
How can we have a notion of truth, when we know through the challenge proposition that we can't ever know an absolute truth (assuming who we are equates with absolute truth)? Also, how can truth be considered an "open gate", since it appears to not lead us anywhere?
A)5. Since our knowledge is not absolute (ie, we can't know everything, because our minds would be in a state of oneness), it follows that physical and mathematical laws, or a priori categories, are not as well. Also, since we can't know who we are, and what we know itself appears empty of who we are, how can we gain anything from a priori categories than empty laws with no connection to outside of our minds, except the effect on us ourselves from existing through the empty laws?
Your view of knowledge, and its growth, is contingent on reason itself. If reason collapses as a valid way to determine truth, your view of knowledge, and its growth, collapses as well. Since we both agree that our thoughts are invented labels with invented meanings, it follows that reason and meaning themselves are invented labels with invented meanings. Hence, it appears that the source of reason, and a priori categories, is invention. Now, if we consider that language has been invented over time, like the growth of knowledge you referred to, it follows that there must have been a first thought for the species. If we go beyond the first thought, and then proceed forward, we come to an unconscious assertion by us that meaning exists, or the birth of knowledge. So the basis of meaning, and therefore reason and knowledge, appears to be a blind assertion by us. How can we base our existence on knowledge, when we know its basis lies in merely an assertion with no foundation except that we merely made it? (Added to this, now we know our thoughts themselves, and reason itself, are empty of who we are). Can you ignore that reason exists only through a blind assertion by us that meaning exists? How can you base our existence on a mere assertion, without prior knowledge or assumption, and then claim that there is truth behind reason itself? It appears that the entire basis of science is in contradiction with what science perceives itself as? (ie. the pursuit of knowledge and truth). For science to be consistent, it needs to account for the notion of truth through reason, or a priori, and the fact that the basis of reason, knowledge, and meaning is an unconscious assertion with no prior knowledge.
We agree that as "our knowledge space grows, the state space twists into even more complex sets of values". Though we question whether knowledge's growth is leading us closer to any so-called truth. In fact, Garvey claims that our existence through knowledge, and its material extensions, is gradually leading us to our self-destruction.
who we are existing through something empty of it equates with the absorption of who we are into emptiness. (The short-term benefits of us existing through knowledge and its material extensions cloud this destructive dynamic).
A)6. We don't accept your ((b) in (k)) argument, because your definition of "be", as mentioned in response 13, is too vague to be useful. It ignores as does the superposition model, the notion of being itself. (Mathematics, physics, or any other a priori categories cannot add the "being itself" concept to their systems without compromising them. A priori categories are based strictly on reason).
A)7. Just because "who we are" is undefined, and yet you agree that it exists, is no excuse for the superposition model not to define, and include, it in a limited sense. Is "inexpressible" really an inaccurate "snapshot" of our being, or is it the closest conscious representation of it? If inexpressible is inaccurate, in what is it?
"A priori" and "being" are causally unrestricted in the sense that they are invented labels with invented meanings. We agree that "being" in terms of its meaning is causally restricted. However, the meaning of a priori is not restricted, because it is contingent on reason and knowledge, and beyond them, the invention of conscious meaning ect.
A)8. We concede your point about not replacing "self and not self" with "being and not being" for the reasons you stated.
A)9. Since you claim that we can know "anything" by "looking to find out", what is behind who we are? What is behind knowledge itself? What is behind being itself? What is behind reason itself? How can we know who we are while being who we are, since to know something, we ourselves must be external to it? How can ((b)itself in (k)itself) = (b)itself? How can thoughts themselves be inherently the same as who we are, and yet they show no sign of life except that they have a form of existence? We propose that the failing of the superposition model and all other a priori categories, is that they are limited to reason, and yet, they cannot add the notion of who we are, even though it is clear through observation and reflection that who we are exists; and as soon as a priori categories add who we are to them, they collapse, as shown through the axiom, we can't know who we are. We come back to the question of how we can be selective in what we believe through reason, and yet use reason, (ie. a priori categories), to guide us? We challenge you to add who we are, (ie. being itself) into the superposition model, or are you claiming that we ourselves, "the inventors", do not exist?!
Dispute 9 (10-12) Dispute 9 (16-18)