| Challenge the Philosophy - Investigation 9 (20-21) |
"It seems that linguistic philosophy(s) have always had trouble including themselves as a self referencing categories. The problem is that by focusing on intrinsic relationships we inevitably run aground on the reef of causality. We need to be aware, and use the tools that we have, so as to proceed with some sense of understanding beyond apparent limitations. It is my opinion that a more eclectic approach is less likely to introduce transfinities into the model. For example I could match in a one to one correspondence the concepts of, fabrication and discovery, by linking them acausally, that is, to create two mutually exclusive, (intrinsic) and (extrinsic), sets. As a result the boundary between them becomes fractal and they co-exist as superposition states so that, the most probable state, is one between fabrication and discovery. In this particular example, "we" exist at the (C)onvergence of intrinsic and extrinsic. Teleological considerations aside, this gives a probabilistic value of self in relation to environment.
I make a clear distinction between our thoughts, and our knowledge. The former
being a form of recursive language by which we form a closed loop of symbols,
hence reasoning and the latter being the substrate from which symbols and their
associated properties arise. The "word" is similar to a wave that carries a
certain amount of potential energy from (self) to (not /self) thus changing local
entropy. The "word" is continuous with its context space and has non-local
characteristics. As a result the (word/context) superposition becomes itself
context space.
"How can context space, a mere word, be a functioning component of a context
space and at the same time be the context space it is a functioning component of?"
In a general sense your question describes a fractal. A fractal is an object that exhibits self similarity through many levels. State space in terms of time, space and energy is where matter an energy organize themselves.
A node is an area of state space where one or more of its dimensions has collapsed within the interference of out of phase attractors (other fractals). In mathematical terms a node is the fractal expansion of a particular superposition, a fractal interference pattern, all the way down to the quantum level.
Since a node can be temporally out of phase with itself the causal linkage between node and attractor breaks down. In more general terms a "word" connects different places and times in terms of relative entropy. The "word" itself carries little energy and has only a context dependent relationship with the universe.
"Further, the view that who we are ((b)itself) is in our thoughts does not make
sense because our thoughts, and system(s) of them, show no sign of life, except
that they appear to have form of existence."
I would argue that (Knowledge/Language) exhibits many characteristics attributed to living systems:
Redundancy ->As in context dependent metaphor
Adaptation -> Verb tense,
Speciation and Convergence ->dialects and pidgins
Reproduction -> memes
And so on...
(Knowledge/Language) is alive in the same sense that our hands are alive.
In the case of consciousness and unconsciousness it may prove fruitful to consider both states as existing along a continuum. Allowing for a fuzzy boundary between the two states, knowledge exists as a function of the entire continuum. If we fix as an independent variable, an attribute, (such as self reference(SR)) along some point of the cont. further divide the categories into intrinsic and extrinsic values we end up with a three dimensional space where we can examine functions such as:
[thought -> (Conscious, Intrinsic, more SR)]
[word -> (Conscious, Extrinsic, less SR)]
[dream -> (Unconscious, Intrinsic, more SR)]
[archetype ->(Unconscious, Intrinsic, less SR)]
[instinct -> (Unconscious, Extrinsic, less SR)]
[ethics -> (Unconscious, Extrinsic, more SR)]
[meaning -> (Conscious, Extrinsic, more SR)]
...with respect to information flow.
Would you consider this, as an acceptable way to approach the (Knowledge/Language) problem?
Regarding Destruction:
All forms of conscious extrinsic unity (religion, government, economics, ideology ...etc.) exist as a basis of their negation and are therefore, in the long term, useless to bring our species and individuals into stable, and more balanced relationships. Since what is good for the individual is not always what is good for the species and the relationships between species and environment have no moral/ethical basis we are left with the conclusion that: Ethics is a way to balance individual (need/desire) with group (need/desire). Ethics is an intrinsic conscious function of the group and an extrinsic unconscious function of the individual. The group is constantly at odds with itself, not settling in any stable state but following a paradigm dependent locus.
The instability of the group is a function of (group/individual) desire. So long
as desire, and it's negation, fulfillment exist as a basis of unity, there can be
no long term stability. In fact the entire issue of desire based freedom is the
dangerous blind alley that has lead us to such introspection. So once again we see
a system of belief, sowing the seeds of it's own destruction."
Ken Bell February 1 2000
We expound the theoretical nature of superposition further by the following points:
Superposition in terms of intrinsic value cannot be conceptualized, because intrinsic value, or who we are, is beyond our minds (ie. "causally restricted concept"). It follows that superposition, in terms of intrinsic value, is beyond our minds as well.
Superposition in terms of substates in state(s) can be conceptualized, though without the notion of intrinsic value. Since, intrinsic value exists (ie. we exist, and there is something behind us), superposition in the limited sense of substates in state(s) is not an accurate description of our existence.
Superposition in terms of intrinsic value may exist. Though we can never know, as long intrinsic value remains beyond our minds, and we can’t get outside of our minds.
Hence, it follows that superposition, or any other concept, in terms of intrinsic value faces the same causal restrictedness as the concept of "who we are".
Added to this conclusion, we show in the following points below that superposition, in terms of intrinsic value or extrinsic value, does not explain our consciousness in relation to who we are:
If we can’t know who we are, why can’t what we know itself be who we are? We can’t know who we are whether we know we know it or not.
If who we are is part of thoughts themselves (ie. (b) in (k)), it does not follow how we can know who we are. We can’t know something solely through itself. From this point, it follows that what we know can’t be thoughts themselves. It follows that thoughts themselves are empty or only have form of existence.
In terms of your distinction between language and knowledge, it does not follow how language could only be a "closed loop of symbols", when without meaning and knowledge, the symbols would have no conscious existence. In other words, we cannot separate language and knowledge theoretically without contradicting ourselves. As far as we know, there is no language without knowledge, and no knowledge without language.
If you believe that knowledge itself is beyond who we are, and assertion, invention, language, and unconscious sensory, we would like you to tell us why and how, especially since we both agree that knowledge is not absolute.
The knowledge / language characteristics you cited, "redundancy, adaptation, speciation and convergence, and reproduction", appear attributed to who we are behind our knowledge / language. These characteristics reflect us, the inventors of knowledge / language. However, thought itself shows no signs of a living being, or your cited characteristics, except that it has form of existence. Thoughts themselves do not move, eat, reproduce, breath, think, act instinctually....
How is knowledge / language alive in the sense of our hands? Thoughts themselves do not have skin, bone structure, tissue, nerve endings, nor do they move, grow, and die. We believe it is unreasonable to distinguish our bodies from who we are, because there is no body without who we are, just as there is no who we are without our bodies. However, the same reasoning can be applied to our minds (ie. consciousness) and who we are only in a limited sense (ie. we have evolved a dependency on our minds as a means to exist). Unconscious nature shows that it is possible for a living being to exist without consciousness.
We don’t think your conscious and unconscious continuum with knowledge as a function of it is an acceptable way to resolve the knowledge / language problem, because it does not explain the basis, or origin, of knowledge itself. So all we really have is a theoretical explanation of knowledge and language using knowledge, and without defining what knowledge itself really means. We believe it is crucial for any theory of knowledge to define the nature of knowledge itself and be able to defend it. Your set theory, zeroth law of thermodynamics, and superposition amounts to theoretical fabrication if your theory of knowledge cannot stand up.
Moreover, there is no knowledge / language problem if knowledge and language are viewed as products of our invention and assertion, because they would be viewed inherently the same, with only fabricated difference.
We agree that some knowledge and language appears to be more or less intrinsic, more or less extrinsic, and more or less self reference. Though these categorical differences may be causal illusions, or merely a reflection of the affect of knowledge, and its material application, on who we are as individuals, society, and the world. In other words, categorical differences in knowledge may have nothing to do with knowledge itself, and everything to do with who we are.
In terms of your comments on destruction, why is the "group" at odds with itself? Could it be that it is following a "paradigm dependent locus" and not who it is? We could apply the same reasoning, or "instability" to all individuals of the species, whereby we all appear to be following some paradigm dependent locus. Though individuals appear to have less dependence on a paradigm(s) than the group. If we look further, we see that the "paradigm dependent locus" is the necessary condition for a thinking being. (ie. we can’t have a paradigm without not thinking).
Is it possible to be a thinking being and not have conscious desire? We don’t think so. It appears that thinking as a means to exist is the same as conscious desire and need. Hence, the fact that we are thinking beings may be the source of our instability, which links to the contradiction in our existence between "in-itself" (who we are) and "for-itself" (who we are through consciousness) (Sartre).
Ironically, "desire based freedom" is really desire based illusion, because of the interconnectedness of all beings. Absolute freedom, or any other notion of freedom, does not exist, not even in unconscious nature. The illusion of freedom exists in our minds, only if we let it.
Other issues:
The notion "we can’t know who we are" is a paradox only if we choose to view it as one. It all depends on our perspective.
In regard to your claim that we can know who we are through "focused awareness" (Reply 19), we respond:
Can we know who we are when superposition does not apply to our consciousness? (ie. we can’t know something solely through itself. So what we know of what we know can’t be ((b) in (k)). It must be an empty form of existence).
Added to this question and comment, can we really know who we are? Can we really know anything?
"Before we examine knowledge, we must first determine whether we can effectively define it. Since a perspective from outside of ourselves would necessarily reduce to a category, any information gleaned from such a perspective would have the functional limitation of a category. Hence any fundamental discourse on the subject of knowledge must begin with a look at self referencing sets.
By definition a fractal set is self referencing, in that every member of the set exists as a context dependent function of the entire set. Context being the functional relationship between a derived class and its member(s) through which the member(s) are defined. Quite literally, "Worlds within Worlds".
Using "who we are" as a basis of the set (k) requires a casting of "being" into the class of "who". We reference "who (we are)" in relation to all other classes and categories that are part of our personal knowledge. We reference "being" in terms of (k) itself. Non-existence is an empty set. Existance is derived from the self reference of any member of (k). Therefore the statement "who we are", using "who we are" as it's basis makes knowledge synonymous with being.
Using members of itself as a basis, the set (k) can be defined in terms of functional relations between members ; a context dependent structure based on linking related classes into a category. Using this basis the study of knowledge is no longer the sole province of epistemology. Neuroscience, poetry, quantum mechanics, or for that matter knitting or any other self consistant structure can be expanded to an understanding relative to themselves. Our task is to decide the context.
In terms of knowledge, consciousness is the focused awareness on a fairly small subset of (k) in terms of functional relationships. Perhaps even 1 member, 1 connection at a time. Like the proverbial iceburg, most knowledge held by a person remains unconscious until a member(s) is accessed by a functional relation with another member(s). To carry the metaphor further, when the iceburg rolls, ninety percent of it still remains under water. To add to our knowledge our physical being (self) must come into contact with something else (not self). Since most of our knowledge exists unconsciously it would be reasonable to infer that most (self /not self) superpositions exist in an uncollapsed state. This "proto-knowledge", if you will, does not become part of our personal knowledge until the superposition is collapsed by awareness.
It is my opinion that the uncollapsed proto-knowledge has no inherent structure but is able to reveal hidden connections between ourselves and the universe.
Within this context, language is the ability to remotely access conscious or unconscious knowledge using structured physical representations of collective knowledge. Using this definition, language is no longer restricted to (self/not self) interactions and can be used as a medium of reflection. It therefore becomes possible to create new knowledge within a (language/knowledge) loop, in such a way that conscious awareness is localized within the cycle. This simple view places consciousness at the boundary between knowledge and language. Another way to put it would be to say that consciousness is the functional relationship between knowledge and language. Although this doesn't define consciousness per se, it does provide a location and a connection between knowledge and language. It also demonstrates that mind, of which conscious awareness is a part, is inherently non local in that we exist unconstrained by spacetime.
"The illusion of freedom exists in our minds, only if we let it. "
Unfortunately, I have to agree wholeheartedly with this statement. To answer
I might add that,
freedom is the doctrine of the state.
The sword of freedom, being cast in the image of its darkest shadow, has
lead to such unimaginable human suffering, that bondage pales in comparison.
The image comes to mind, of a small group of gorilla's, fighting and
squabbling over a huge pile of banana's. Is this what we've been reduced to?
What would an enlightened gorilla do? Perhaps pick up a single banana and
walk away with it, or maybe just eat some leaves. In regards to us, the
middle way must involve what many would consider a sacrifice of their rights.
Indeed the violent opposition that any imposed policy would elicit, would only serve to reinforce the status quo. We can only build the world from the inside out." Ken Bell February 4 2000
Some unfinished business:
Since we can’t know something solely through itself, because there would be no distance, separation, or contrast to know the something, it follows that what we know itself of what we know (ie. our consciousness) is not in a superposition state ((b) in (k)), or any other variable combination. However, there may be two other possibilities:
1. the ((b) in (k)) superposition is in some of (k) (ie. only in the (k) we perceive other knowledge from).
2. there is some other basis than (b) in (k).
Possibility 1. implies that some (k) is empty of (b). More important, the possibility does not make sense because we would have no way of using the ((b) in (k)) except from our perspective; so there would be no way for us to invent it. It does not follow how some of our knowledge is from invention and some of it is not (ie. we invent our knowledge, and yet we have a scenario where we can’t invent some of it, yet we concede that we do). Also, the mere fact that we use ((b) in (k)) from our perspective not from our perspective (ie. knowledge appears indistinguishable), eliminates possibility 1.
Possibility 2. proves the claim that we can’t know who we are. Though it does not make sense how the basis of (k) could be different from who we are, if we accept that "life" is the basis for all beings. To get around this point, we could assert that the basis behind (k) is different from life itself. Though this assertion, as mentioned, proves the claim, as does the assertion that (k) only has form of existence through our assertion and invention. Moreover, possibility 2. faces the same problem with invention and non-invention as possibility 1.
So we are left with knowledge being an empty form of existence, which would allow us to know through what we know of what we know. It follows that the process of acquiring new knowledge is merely the collapse / non-collapse process within our invented system(s) of thoughts and in relation to the unknown of our imagination. Hence, when you assert that "we can only change the world from the inside out", you are correct, because as long as the system(s) stays in tact, any changes we make will only further the system(s), unless of course the change(s) brings about the destruction of the system(s) and replaces it with a new one. For example, the change of government from a liberal regime to a communist regime, or from a fascist regime to a conservative regime will do nothing to the system of rule itself, just as a new scientific discovery, like the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics, will do nothing to the system of scientific thought itself. To facilitate real system change, we must "build from the inside out". In the case of the world, this constitutes our system of thought, and further our existence through thoughts, and their material extensions, as a means to exist. To alter how and why we exist through thoughts will change our existence, thereby the world. Though we would still be in the same system of existing through thoughts, and likely face the same source of our problems.
Since thoughts themselves, and their material extensions, appear empty of who we are, it follows that by existing through them, we are absorbing ourselves into their emptiness, and making our existence, and our existence itself, empty of who we are. For example, the destruction of the environment may be viewed as the species exploiting through its material inventions and replacing the environment with them, and our breakdown in our society and culture, or us as members of society, may be viewed as us ourselves being absorbed into the increasing empty order of thoughts and their material extensions in the form of law and technology. Hence, to really change the world, we would have to detach from our thoughts, thus return to the unconscious unfolding of nature.
Other issues:
Since who we are is not part of knowledge itself, it follows that the notion of self and non-self is a theoretical illusion. In other words, we add new knowledge to our system(s) of thoughts, rather than to us ourselves. We exist through our system(s) of thoughts. They are outside of who we are.
The notion of "uncollapsed proto-knowledge" is a fabricated concept part of a fabricated theory of knowledge. There is no way to get beyond the fabricated and imaginary nature of knowledge, except by fabricating. Though many of us deceive ourselves because through our advanced system(s) of thoughts, and their material extensions, we are convinced that knowledge can answer anything by merely looking into things. Many of us believe it is only a matter of time before we can know anything. Yet, we can’t look into infinity, or knowledge itself.
Language consists of symbols, and definitions of them which we label knowledge, just as knowledge consists of symbols, and definitions of them which we label knowledge. The difference between language and knowledge appears to be that language is a way of expressing knowledge verbally, mentally, and physically; whereas, knowledge is our understanding according to a system(s). Though we can’t have language without knowledge, just as we can’t have knowledge without language. Moreover, language is a form of knowledge, and knowledge is a form of language. So we use both language and knowledge as a source of reflection. The medium of reflection is the inherent difference between who we are and thoughts themselves. This separation gives us the necessary space to reflect, just as this separation gives us the necessary space to know. Consciousness has no place in these relationships except as a label of them as a whole.
The mind is constrained by what we know or what we don’t know, thereby constrained by space-time.
A deeper problem in society than the constant conflict between individual interests and society’s interests is the non-absoluteness of knowledge. So the basis for order in society through law, including morality and ethics, is subjective, thereby partial.
Dispute 9 (19)
Dispute 9 (22-23)