| Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 9 (26-28) |
"The connection between our bodies and everything else, irregardless of our conscious awareness, exists as the defining form of our being. Through constant interaction the structure of our (body/mind) remains in flux and is therefore causally irreducible. Our reflection of a portion of this flux defines our consciousness. A better way to put this would be to say that a portion of this flux exhibits the emergent property of reflection. The category of matter hence cannot be subdivided into thinking and non thinking substance. Matter/energy speaks. Although our concept of matter/energy is encapsulated by properties and conditions it is, at present, the best basis upon which existence can be structured. With this in mind it is easy to visualize ourselves in terms of information flow, or more appropriately a collapse of (self/not self). Since it is impossible for our conscious awareness to encompass knowledge in a dynamic universe, the knowledge that we are aware of exists as only a small portion of the category. These words that you read only make sense in terms of "what you bring to the table" so to speak. Everything behind them remains uncollapsed until brought to the surface of consciousness. Does non awareness preclude existence? You tell me.
The difference between direct and indirect knowledge is in their source. Direct knowledge being primarily experiential and indirect knowledge being reflective. Although existence can be experienced through conditioning, as it most often is, there is a more ubiquitous level of experience that remains beyond rational cognition. This realm of newness exists beyond our personal and collective conditioning and the simplicity of the subject/object superposition becomes clearer through detachment. One may choose to visualize detachment itself as a form and encapsulate it within a linguistic context, this would be akin to "throwing out the baby with the bath". To confine our knowledge to the realm of the past aka. reason is to close the door to new possibilities, including knowledge in the absence of reason. Our personal reason gives us the ability to define connections between this and that, the presupposition being that there exists an inherent discontinuity in the universe. Although this technique can be useful in making things and doing things, it cannot, in and of itself provide a basis of reality. In fact, participation with the world, through the dance of conditioned existence can only give us knowledge of the dance itself. We dance alone.
It is my belief that through material spirituality (another oxymoron) that we can come to see ourselves, and the world, as a unified entity. Utopian implications aside, the interconnectedness of being remains uncollapsed and unrealized through our present conditioning. The question of whether to teach a child to read so as to improve his/her mind must be brought on equal footing, with the question of whether to teach a child to fight and kill to defend a mode of existence. Through this leveling of instances of the category, conditioning, it becomes easier to see what is lacking in institutionalization. The discontinuity that exists between components of our social creations and ourselves is inherently schizophrenic. The collective projections that we label as state, religion, economy, etc are immaterial and have no fundamental awareness. Without conscious integration these invented functions can only serve themselves at our expense. Our task is to decide, how much we're willing to pay."
Ken Bell February 27 2000
We agree that our reflection is connected to us ourselves and everything else. Though the critical question is how connected is our reflection to everything else? (ie. is it a limited connection to everything else, or an unlimited connection?) In other words, in what sense, is what we know connected to everything else? We come to the presiding issue, our theory of knowledge, which will effect everything we think and believe.
To not rationalize the origin of knowledge is to blindly attach to our system(s) of knowledge. It is to ignore our "intrinsic responsibility to ourselves" to know, from our perspective, the nature of knowledge itself. We could respond that everything, including our knowledge, is interconnected; so we have no way of really understanding knowledge itself and that the best we can do is know a "portion" of the interconnected whole. Though what is this "portion" we know, and how do we come to know it? Moreover, how do we know knowledge itself is intrinsically part of everything else? We must make blind assumptions based on blind assumptions. Though if we carry our theory further, we contradict our notion of interconnectedness, thereby unknowability, by claiming that we derive knowledge from the collapse of uncollapsed proto-knowledge in the form of matter and through energy. Yet, we face that we have no way of collapsing non-collapsed proto-knowledge without first having knowledge, and we have no way of having knowledge, without first collapsing proto-knowledge. In addition, we face that knowledge, from phenomenological perspective, is a label with invented meaning. So we return to the notion of deriving knowledge from matter, or everything, wondering how it can be so. We could reply that it is the best we can do, and yet, we face that if everything is interconnected, and knowledge is from everything, we would have no way of knowing anything, except from the limit of what we know. Further, we face that knowledge itself an appearance in our minds appears intrinsically different from who we are. What do we do: go on with our unreasonable, contradictory, and incomplete theory that knowledge comes from matter through energy in the form of proto-knowledge? Or do we look into our only opening, the inventive nature of knowledge?
By acting out our intrinsic responsibility to ourselves, we look into the concept of invention, and through a process of interrogation, we come to a plausible origin of knowledge, "unconscious assertion by us, without prior knowledge or assumption, that there is conscious meaning," and the notion of knowledge coming from only us ourselves through our sensory connection to everything else. So our knowledge and system of it, from this other theoretical perspective, is a limited, inventive perception of ourselves and everything else centered around the assertion of conscious meaning, whereby we use reason, our system(s) of knowledge, and our limited connection to everything else to exist. In other words, we are inventing a reality in our minds, and imposing it on everything else, even though our conscious reality is dependent on everything else. Since our knowledge itself appears empty of who we are, we also appear to be replacing everything else with our empty knowledge, and its material extensions, and if we carry this perspective through, our system(s) of knowledge, and its material extensions, will replace everything else, including ourselves, and then become nothing.
We scrutinize this unconscious assertion theory for contradiction and find none. Though we find that it is incomplete because we don’t really know "us ourselves" or "everything else". Also, our advanced system(s) of knowledge closely resemble the "universe"; though we attribute this resemblance to our limited connection to everything else, our advanced system(s) of knowledge, our imposition of knowledge on everything else, and our evolved dependency on knowledge as a means to exist.
We ask ourselves if there is any other reasonable theories of knowledge we may be overlooking? Because of the inventive nature of knowledge, we answer with none. So we return to our intrinsic responsibility to ourselves, and face going on with the limited, unreasonable, and contradictory proto-knowledge theory, or replacing it with the limited and consistent unconscious assertion theory. If we choose the former, we face that contradiction and unreasonableness lie behind everything we believe, and if we choose the latter, we must face the profound issue of whether or not knowledge itself is empty of who we are. If knowledge is empty, our existence is bleak, and if it is not, we have hope of "consciously integrating the inventive functions of the technological world (ie. state, religion, economy)". In our view, as objective and rational beings within limits, we must replace proto-knowledge theory with unconscious assertion theory, and then face the nature of knowledge itself in relation to who we are with renewed rigor, while bearing in mind that we may face a possibly larger obstacle of trying to unit the concept of interconnectedness with the reality of collapse/non-collapse, or one being through another, into a functioning concept.
Endnotes:
1. We can’t know knowledge solely through itself, and since knowledge from in our minds is all we can know, what we know is not knowledge itself, which does not make sense. So what we know must be an empty form of existence through our thought process and unconscious sensory. Therefore, the concept of superposition does not apply to our knowledge itself, and that our knowledge itself appears inherently different from who we are, while connected in limited sense to who we are.
2. Our sensory connection to everything else, in terms of knowledge, is limited. Through our senses of taste, smell, touch, hear, sight, and instinct, we absorb unconscious information, which we use to invent knowledge.
To base knowledge upon assumption is to put the cart before the horse. Knowledge is a priori and does not require our particular definitions to exist. The mechanic working in his shop, doesn't need to know anything about information structures to decide which tool to use next. To say that the basis of knowledge is "unconscious assertion" is to say that your particular theory has an irrational basis. Further you make your own claim unprovable by placing its basis in the unconscious. Negation is not a proof.
The reason that you cannot find a contradiction within unconscious assertion, is that its basis has been placed beyond scrutiny. Using this form of inductive reasoning one could equally place the stars as a basis of causality, or bush spirits as a basis of good hunting.
Unconscious assertion has no basis of existence other than the encapsulation within the category of origin. Since the concept of origination has, as it's basis our filtered observation of the world, your use of it is intrinsically tied to your concept of unconscious assertion. As previously stated "A valid model of cognition must include itself."
For the theory of "unconscious assertion" to be acceptable it must show the connection between its basis, and its derivation, extrinsically. In other words, you are presented with the task of not only defining what you mean by "unconscious", but also the connection between your conscious conclusion and unconscious assertion.
Also to reiterate, I make no claim that proto-knowledge is at the basis of all knowledge. Proto-knowledge exists as the uncollapsed boundary set between (self/not self). Since it's existence is probabilistic, I make reference to it only in terms of possibilities.
Ken Bell March 8 2000
Because all knowledge appears to bottom out into unknown, we have no choice but to base knowledge on assumption. Further, since knowledge is inventive, and therefore progressive, it follows that there must have been a point of no knowledge, and that the basis of knowledge, and our first thought and rest to follow, must have been an unconscious assertion by us, without prior knowledge or assumption, that there is conscious meaning. So the mechanic working in the shop exists from his evolved, conditioned existence, and therefore "does not need to know anything about information structures to decide which tools to use next"; the structures are already part of his thought process. He is merely acting them out. It is like a driver accelerating a car: what we see on the surface is the car moving at increasing speeds without the driver aware of all the information structures behind the car’s acceleration, even though they are latent in every part of the car and the thoughts of the driver pertaining to the car’s operation. Hence, your claim that "knowledge is a priori" fails to capture the inventive nature of knowledge. In other words, the concept of a priori isolates knowledge in the moment, without representing the origin and development of knowledge. Moreover, it is unclear how a priori relates to the acts of unconscious nature. For instance, a cougar is on a mainland with a channel separating it from an island. The cougar is hungry and senses that there is prey on the island, but it can’t swim across the channel because it is too wide and the current appears too strong. Instead of giving up on the prey, the cougar rides a log across the channel to the island.
How did the cougar know to the cross the channel on the log? The cougar did not know anything, because it does not have thoughts. It appears to have instinctually known about crossing on a log, which shows that there is a form of knowledge outside of asserted knowledge. It follows that by us existing through asserted knowledge, we appear to be replacing instinctual knowledge with it.
"Unconscious assertion" represents, from our limited perspective, the moment of our birth of asserted knowledge. It implies that "who we are", in relation to everything else, is the basis of our knowledge. Hence, the basis of knowledge, or unconscious assertion, appears non-rational, rather than "irrational" as you stated.
Since all knowledge is uncertain, any claim we make about the origin of knowledge, or anything else, will be unprovable. So we did not make the unconscious assertion theory "unprovable" as you argued. However, the important consideration is whether or not the unconscious assertion theory is provable in relation to itself and all other theories of knowledge, including objections to the theory.
Furthermore, unconscious assertion is no further beyond scrutiny than proto-knowledge. They both represent the limits of what we can know.
Unconscious assertion is not a product of "inductive reasoning"; it is a product of deductive reasoning from the claim that knowledge is inventive. Invention leads to unconscious assertion. So unconscious assertion does not correspond to the "stars" or "bush spirits", and in fact, it is proto-knowledge, a product of inductive reasoning, which corresponds to their imaginary forms.
The statement, "a valid model of cognition must include itself" is unreasonable, because it does not represent the limit of knowledge. In other words, it is unreasonable to expect a theory to be whole, when from our perspective, there is no such thing as whole.
In terms of the meaning of unconscious assertion:
"Unconscious": refers to a state of being without asserted knowledge.
"Assertion": refers to a moment of exertion by a being.
"Unconscious assertion": refers to the moment of exerting oneself in the formation of conscious meaning. It is a moment whereby we absorb ourselves into emptiness by having the illusion of conscious meaning, thus attaching to the illusion. Further, it is a moment of attaching our "meaning" to what does not have it, while we exist as if it does.
"Conscious meaning": refers to a state of being non-existent while having form of existence.
The connection between our "conscious" conclusion on the origin of knowledge and "unconscious" assertion is the inventive and limited nature of knowledge and deductions from them. Also, conscious and unconscious are both concepts derived from consciousness, even though unconscious refers to a state of being beyond our minds.
Question:
Do you claim that proto-knowledge is the basis of some knowledge?
"The origination of knowledge is more a cosmological than philosophical question.
A portion of the universe systematically encodes a context space
A particular enfolding of (matter/energy) (space/time)>br>
An emergent rule set
And that’s just the "A"s!
The point is, is that no one theory can hold all the answers. It can only frame larger questions.
I agree that "a priori" is a crude term, but it supplies an acausal hence scientific basis to the study of knowledge. Using this basis, one could easily envision the development and evolution of knowledge in terms of the evolution of neural networks. Knowledge need not be defined in terms of the individual of for that matter the species. The possessor of knowledge can therefore possess only incomplete knowledge. This does not mean that knowledge is in any way, incomplete. What it does mean is that knowledge is not bounded by the individual. In terms of knowledge, the limits of self are arbitrary. Self can therefore only be defined in terms of awareness. Although we may find some day that a sense of self or "reflective consciousness" may have an evolutionary basis the sense of self serves as a way of locating our position in large data structures or cultures. Since "who we are" is a dynamical non-reversible process and the sense of self is an emergent property of the process, self knowledge can only be derived through self awareness. The bounds of self are indeterminate and the concepts of completeness and incompleteness are misapplied to the self. Human culture is a non-reversible process. To pretend that one can simply "turn back the clock", so to speak is to ignore the acausal nature of awareness, not to mention the second law or thermodynamics.
In psychological terms proto-knowledge exists as unconscious sensation or the change of state of the (self/not self) system that exists beyond awareness. The realization of this discontinuity between sensation and cognition, or put it quite simply change of state can lead to a suddenness or newness of perspective. I believe that this is the basis of intuition and creativity. Hence arguments relating creativity to perception must be framed within a conscious continuum. To say that proto-knowledge exists as some knowledge is to define a class of knowledge. This I have referred to as indirect knowledge k(i) as distinct from conscious awareness k(d).
Concerning the basis of knowledge, arguments placed in non-rational terms must have an experimental basis. Just as rational arguments must be proven. Since the basis of knowledge, as we concede, cannot be derived rationally, scientific truth must be applied to derive structure and not impose it. I have chosen the approach of system self organization and thermodynamics to present the foundations of a workable model within which structural questions can be framed.
It seems as though you're saying that meaning, can be an illusion. It is my
opinion that the concepts of illusion and truth are subject to meaning. Within the
context of meaning, truth can only be derived by the acceptance of one illusion
over another. However, meaning itself provides our clearest window into the
unconscious. Derived meaning, supersedes truth by establishing a framework or
context within which truth can be applied. Meaning is a perfect example of k(i)
if meaning is an element of "I"
for all "I" there exists (k)i+(k)d (...self awareness)
for all (not)"I" there exists ["I"((k)d+(k)i)] = (not)"I"(k)i (...meaning can only be experienced)
The truths contained within meaning may or may not translate to other context domains, or meanings. Thus, to place empirical value on one over the other is simply an exercise in reductionism. We must create our own meaning. Within the creation of meaning we become truth.
A model which includes itself is not definitive of wholeness. The statement refers to the assertion that ultimate reality is unknowable in terms of the individual. Also to self consistency and the correspondence to observation. We concede an external perspective unlikely. The limit of our knowledge is our awareness.
Since you define the unconscious in terms of asserted knowledge, and assertion in terms of self you have disconnected the self from the unconscious. This would make all classes of the contents of the unconscious public. We would therefore be omniscient albeit in an unconscious manner. Is this what you believe?"
Ken Bell March 13 2000
"A priori" is only "acausal" in the view of the beholder. Since the concept of a priori is narrow, because its focuses solely on the moment, an evolutionary theory of knowledge based on "neural networks", with a priori as their basis, would also be narrow. It appears that a priori is part of the "components of our social creations" (Reply 26), which are discontinuous with us ourselves, and prevent the collapse of the concept of "interconnectedness of being." Hence, in our view, a priori must be rejected as a basis to study and understand knowledge.
Since all we can know is from in our minds, knowledge appears to be bounded by the individual. To assert the contrary, is to imagine that knowledge is outside of our knowledge and minds, when in fact it is still in our minds, thereby bounded by the individual. In our view, this perspective of assuming that knowledge exists beyond our minds is a dangerous delusion. For instance, it causes individuals to believe in something beyond our minds, and possibly act upon it, even though what they believe in is from in their minds.
Since the origin of knowledge appears to be from outside of our minds, and as long as we exist as we are through consciousness, and thereby within our minds, our knowledge will always be incomplete. In other words, there is no knowledge itself. There is only knowledge, and knowledge itself, from our limited perspective. So we focus in our minds, and not in our imagination as though we were outside of our minds through concepts like proto-knowledge. By doing so, we face the inventive nature of knowledge.
We disagree that "human culture" is a "non-reversible process" because human culture is not who we are; rather, it is a concept in our minds. However, we agree that we cannot simply "turn the clock back". Though we believe that we can correct our past mistakes by facing them and overcoming them, thus returning to our previous existence before the mistake and in a new state of being. It is like a person leading a normal life, and then developing a drinking problem, which he eventually overcomes, and returns back to his normal life stronger and with the physicals effects of his past problem marked upon him.
Since nothing can really be proven except from within our system(s) of thoughts, the effort to derive a structure for knowledge appears to be in vain. Also, it appears that we cannot rationally derive a structure for knowledge, since the basis for knowledge from our perspective is beyond rationality. Moreover, it does not make sense to structure knowledge if we are not going to impose it even in a limited sense. Perhaps, we are overlooking something right before our eyes: the apparent limit of all knowledge and the doubt that surrounds it.
Since we cannot derive a rational or provable structure for knowledge, the notion of scientific truth, or any other notion, as a way to overcome this obstacle, is an illusion. We come back to what is before our eyes: knowledge appears to be from us ourselves. From this point, we discover through the proposition that we can’t know knowledge solely through itself, that what we know is not knowledge itself, which means that what we know must be an empty form with existence. From this second point, we discover from our limited perspective that there is an intrinsic difference between who we are and knowledge itself. We then discover that since we can only know from who we are, and we can’t get outside of our minds, our relationship to knowledge is all we can hope to understand. Hence, to give knowledge an independent existence, or to isolate it as though it has one, is to ignore its fundamental relationship to who we are.
We are asserting that all "conscious meaning" is illusory, which means that conscious meaning has a form of existence, but itself does not exist. The concepts of illusion and truth, or any other concept, are subject to us imagining that they have meaning. It is us alone that supports our conscious reality. This statement corresponds with your own, "we must create our own meaning. With the creation of meaning we become truth." However, the meaning we create appears to be empty of life! So the truth we create is a lesser truth of the truth that we have created an illusion of truth, contingent on the belief that it is not, and that the more we exist through our illusory creation, and its material extensions, the more we absorb ourselves into its emptiness.
In regard to the statements on the unconscious assertion theory from Response 27, the meaning of "oneself" in the definition of "assertion" is the same as the meaning of "being" in the definition of "unconscious"; so the notion of oneself is not disconnected from the unconscious. (In response 27, we have changed oneself to being for clarity). However, since all knowledge appears to derive from who we are, and there appears to be only one fundamental basis to life, the content of knowledge, regardless if it is an illusion or not, would be public. So in a limited sense, we appear to be omniscient, which corresponds to the notion that we create meaning and thereby knowledge.
Dispute 9 (24-25)
Dispute 9 (29-31)