"Thank you for your response to Entry 174, "Is Being Aware of Itself?"

I agree with your comment, that impossibility is contingent on possibility, thus it is not-impossible to know who we are and be who we are at the same time, at least in some manner. To answer to this quest further, I feel it is necessary to add one more point to steps 1-4 already stated in Entry 174: The act of Will. Thus, let me add the following step:

5. Contingent on the points above (1-4 in #174), the mind's impossibility of being and knowing who we are at the same time can be negated into a knowledge of who we are through our will, i.e., because we choose this. If I make a conscious choice to be who I am, either in my thoughts, or by voice, "I am", then I am connecting consciously into that state of being that is already defining my identity of who I am through existence's interrelationships explained above. Through my volition, my conscious choice, I choose to position myself within the identity of who I am: I will the right to be myself. This is something not every mind can do unless it is aware of itself, and chooses it. So, even if I cannot express this to another in words, or even to myself in my thoughts, who I am in this being, "I am" is the key to the possibility that this is so. Taken from the perspective of an infinite interrelationship defining itself as my identity in this moment, "I am who I am", my thoughts and being merge as one. (Or, as said by Stephanie Kirmer in Entry 178: "There is no entity which has the capability to determine what one is other than oneself.") In effect, through an act of will, my being becomes aware of itself. Thus, when I choose "I am", it disproves the proposition that we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time.

Finally, if I am allowed this act of will, then there is the possibility that I have gained my "right" to be who I am! And if not, then I am merely someone else's definition of me, which I would not allow."

Ivan D. Alexander February 28 2001

Response:

Yes, through the possibility of knowing and being who we are, and within your own system of thoughts, you can overcome the challenge proposition by simply willing that you know and be who you are at the same time. You may even believe that your perspective of knowing and being who you are to be more reasonable than any other antagonistic perspective. However, your act of will is not consistent with the competition, in which we are considering all proposed perspectives on their merit. (i.e. their consistency and soundness in relation to antagonistic perspectives.)

No, we are not denying you the right to be who you are. We are simply questioning your ability to know who you are. (Note, we have consistently claimed that individuals cannot help from being who they are as long as they are alive. So the issue is not being who we are, or the right to be who we are, but simply can we know who we are.)

186. Entry:

"Presently, you are the one who does not know. You know you do not know because you admit you cannot find an answer; however, you don't believe that your un-answer is a truth, because you query as to whether it can be proved. How shall the truth of this query be obtained- majority opinion? semantic/linguistic acrobatics? Is not the "truth" of language merely qualified by those who invoke it, all the way back to the first primitive attempts at communication? What truths existed before- and now beyond- language?

The answer is simple existential philosophy- because our consciousness of a moment will always lag behind the occurrence of the said moment, it could be said that we will never "know", insofar as knowing is equivalent to consciousness, ourselves as we transpire- something (in this case, ourselves) must be before it can be received (either consciously or sensorarily). However, in the moment of conscious reception, we are sure of our existence, for otherwise we couldn't think, even if that thought is of a moment past. The wording of the proposition seems to indicate that time is the independent variable, while knowing and being are dependent within its equation. Rather, being is the independent, and knowing and time exist within its encompassment.

If I say, "I exist", this is true at the moment I begin the statement as when I finish it. My consciousness will never outrun my existence, and so similarly, my existence will never outrun time, because time is merely a category in which the consciousness understands its existence. Even if I expire before the statement is finished, time- insofar as time is only relevant to me as one who exists, will have ceased to exist when I did. (This may be more easily understood if you consider whether time would exist if there existed nothing in which to apply or gauge it; and besides, if nothing existed, it is a contradiction to talk of "time" existing). F. Scott Fitzgerald said as much at the end of This Side of Paradise with the admission, "I know myself, and that is all."

Mel March 1 2001

Response:

We agree that being is the "independent" variable, and knowing and time are dependent variables or as you say they exist within being’s encompassment. (i.e. we cannot help from being who we are--although the same reasoning does not fully apply to knowing, and thereby time.) Therefore, if we cease to be, then knowing and time, from our perspective, would cease to exist as well. Though within our existence, it does not follow how we can disregard the relevance of time, since our consciousness, at some level, is dependent on it. (i.e. because all thought is conditioned by change, and therefore time, consciousness needs a sequence of time, otherwise there is no consciousness. [no time--no change--no consciousness]) In other words, to argue the irrelevance of time is to argue the irrelevance of thought, including your own position on time in relation to being. Hence, your challenge in attempting to refute the proposition through the irrelevance of time, refutes itself in the process.

Also, in reference to the Fitzgerald quote, how does someone truly know him/herself while being him/herself?

Other issue:

The competition is not after the "truth" regarding the nature of being and knowing. Rather, it is after the more reasonable perspective as determined by the participants and the Inexpressible Committee. (For more information see Conditions for the Competition)

187. Entry:

Statements from the Response to Entry 166:

(1) However, it is possible that sensa may be different from the sensing organism, and yet intrinsically the same as the sensing organism, thus overcome the problem of implied separation.

(2) Also, thoughts as form may be intrinsically the same as who "we" are, thereby negate the effect of time lag in terms of knowing who we are.

Entry:

"It may be possible to reasonably show that these two statements reflect the nature of the universe and our relation to it. One angle to approach (1) and (2) above is that of pan- psychic i.e. the idea that all of matter has 'mind', and 'consciousness' is a kind of fundamental aspect of the universe that we have evolved into, rather then purely something our brain creates. The brain, as a machine, may be tapping into barely detectable 'forces' of the universe in the same way, for example, that a television utilizes certain frequencies of EM radiation to transmit sounds, images and so on. The point is, the TV doesn't create anything which doesn't already exist in the cosmos, but simply taps into existing 'forces'. But to reasonably show that the statement (1) is true, one must go even further, and assume that this 'fundamental aspect of the universe' (i.e. consciousness or mind as a kind of 'force' separate from our minds, which our minds tap into') is 'complete' in the sense that it does not change. And we must further assume that this 'force' if you like, is not confined in space and time, but transcends all matter, space and time. It is non-local, non-changing, and completely uniform at all times and places. Is there any empirical evidence that this 'force' exists? A little, if you follow the deductions made in quantum physics, although another problem is that even if this 'force' exists, it may not be possible to directly detect it, at least with the senses we have evolved. We may only be able to observe glimpses or shadows of its existence.

The assumption of 'uniformity' (or Form) of this 'mind- force' across space and time needs be made, otherwise it does not seem possible how one could show that the sensa are 'intrinsically the same' as the sensing organism. Some of the ancients believed this was 'God', although to my way of thinking it doesn't necessarily follow that this 'uniform force' is also the origin of all things, any more than EM radiation is the origin of all things.

If we have evolved into an aspect or force of the universe which is already there, is whole and unchanging, completely uniform, and permeates through all of space and time, then it follows that as our minds tap into this 'force' of the universe, we experience in our being intrinsically the same uniform Form as exists external to our minds. Our minds do not so much as 'receive' information, but exists in a continuum with the things eternal to it. Thoughts as form are the same as who we are, and neither our being, nor our thoughts, are subject to the changing conditions which other forces impose on our material existence."

Roger McEvilly March 2 2000

Response:

If our knowledge comes from "tapping" into the existing knowledge as present in the "uniform force" external to us, how can there not be an element of "receiving"? Even if our thoughts as form are intrinsically the same as the "uniform force", there is still a transfer of knowledge from the uniform force to our minds, thereby a supplier and a receiver. This dualism implies that there is a separation between the source of knowledge and attainer of knowledge, which can be linked to the notion that we create knowledge indirectly through our sensory and perception of the external world. In order to overcome this implied separation, you need to show how we can tap into the external knowledge, whereby external knowledge transfers directly into our minds, thus negating the role of our sensory and perception. (For additional problems with the direct realist position see Entry 182)

188. Entry:

"I do not understand why this is so complicated. Knowing who we are and being who we are is a co-existent relationship. In order to be who we are we must know who we are; in order to know who we are we must be who we are. It is this dualism that people separate from each other. They are not separate, they depend on each other. If either one is false, or does not exist, then the other cannot exist..."

Nicholas Covelli March 3 2001

Supplementary Comment in reply to the initial response by the Inexpressible Committee:

"We would like to clarify that "who we are" as defined in the competition refers to our fundamental level of being. So it does not necessarily follow that we need to know who we are in order to be who we are. Though we acknowledge that we need some conception of who we are, in order to be who we are."

Comment:

"But you see...My point is that knowing who we are is part of our fundamental being...Reasoning and thinking is a human instinct. Our inability to know is our inability to be who we are. Because part of being is knowing, and part of knowing is being. This is a duality that has been separated by man's avoidance of nature; which is in part, thinking. Thought, is a human instinct. What derives from thought??? Reason. What derives from reason? Knowledge. It follows that since we are abiding by a human instinct, (thinking) then we are able to become a fundamental human being. Hence, I would also like to point out that in order for humans to achieve a "fundamental level of being" they must follow their innate natural human instinct, which is thought."

Response:

We agree that reasoning, thinking, and knowing apparently stem from human instinct. (i.e. from the unconscious.) However, just because being is a necessity for knowing (i.e. we cannot have knowing without being), it does not follow that thought as form is an actual human instinct. All you have shown is that thought as form stems from human instinct. (i.e. it is possible that thought as form is just an extension of human instinct, or simply a means to express it, without actually being human instinct. This possibility corresponds to the apparent fact that knowing is not a necessity for being. We can "be" without having to "know".)

To claim that thought as form is the same as human instinct, you need to show how something conscious can be something unconscious, and explain how knowing, which is not a necessity for being, is the same as being. Also, you need to explain the origin of thought. (i.e. where does thought come from? If you claim that thought is simply part of us ourselves, you need to reconcile this claim with the apparent progressive nature of thought, the non-necessity of knowing for being as mentioned, and the fact that we appear to derive thought through our sensory of the external world.) For a similar entry see Entry 182.

Other issue:

It does not make sense that reason derives from thought, and knowledge derives from reason and thought, because we cannot have thought, reason, or knowledge, without the other two. For example, how can you have a thought, thereby know that you do, without some form of reasoning and knowing?

189. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 187

"If our knowledge comes from "tapping" into the existing knowledge as present in the "uniform force" external to us, how can there not be an element of "receiving"?" (From the Response to Entry 172)

"'Tapping into' is not the same as 'receiving'.

TVs 'receive' signals yes, but the signals themselves are part of the wider spectrum of EM radiation, which includes radio, microwave, gamma, light UV etc. A TV, powered by electrical current, taps into EM radiation, as much as it receives it. But the electrical current is itself simply a form of energy, which is itself a form of matter, which is itself a form of EM radiation, which in turn is a form of energy. The equation E=MC2 refers to energy and matter being interchangeable. But they are intrinsically the same thing.

Our brain may operate in a similar manner. It is also powered by electrical current, tapping into the mind-force or FORM as thoughts. There is no 'receiving', because as previously defined, one of the central assumptions is that this 'uniform force' is instantaneous and transcends space and time. One must remember that space and time are properties of the universe which may be 'subordinate' to other properties, and/or be transcended by them. There is some evidence that there are properties of the universe which do transcend space-time, as in the superposition of electrons etc. (Also, empirical evidence suggests that all electrons (and some other particles) in the universe have exactly the same properties-mass, charge and so on-they seem to be exactly the same wherever you find them. (Which incidentally has some bearing on the validity of 1+1=2 being 'nowhere true', supposedly because no two things are exactly the same).

The assumption of the 'mind-force' also implies that not all of our knowledge is received by the senses. (But one doesn't even need a 'universal force' to negate the idea that all knowledge is received by the senses, we can simply inherit modules or programs from natural selection which operate instinctively and innately, irrespective of the information received from the senses, as in 'prepared learning').

"Even if our thoughts as form are intrinsically the same as the "uniform force", there is still a transfer of knowledge from the uniform force to our minds, thereby a supplier and a receiver". (From the Response)

There is no need of 'transfer' if the 'uniform force' transcends the space-time continuum. This is a huge assumption, admittedly, but not altogether impossible. Space and time are properties of the external visual matrix, but if the uniform force lies 'outside' the visual matrix as we perceive it, it does not 'transfer' within it. As I have defined it, the uniform force does not 'transfer', and does not involve a supplier and a receiver. No 'separation' is required, because there is no 'separation property' to the uniform force. The uniform force, as defined, is non-local, instantaneous, and is able to be so, because it operates under laws which do not relate to the physical properties we can observe, or as we currently define them."

Roger McEvilly March 4 2001

Response:

There are a number of issues and problems you need to deal with:

1. There is no direct evidence that the properties of the universe transcend space-time, as in the superposition of electrons. More specifically, the superposition of Quantum Mechanics is an unprovable/unverifiable hypothesis, because it refers to something beyond human cognition. (i.e. we can only think in terms of space-time, so the notion of something outside of space-time is also outside of our cognitive capability.

1.1 Though empirical evidence may "suggest" that all electrons (and some other particles) of the universe have exactly the same properties--mass, charge, and so on, it cannot show that they do, because of the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, which states that our need to use light photon particles to observe electron particles alters the electron particles, so that we cannot know with certainty the atomic structure of electrons. Also, empirical evidence is dependent on an observer and the technology used for observing, and therefore, we may not have the technological or physical capability to observe property differences in electrons, even though structural differences in electrons may be present.

1.2 It does not follow from the Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle that the physical and non-physical realms are a complementary whole (Bohr’s Principle of Complementarity). All we know is that through our dependency on observer and technology, we cannot perceive things exactly at the atomic level. To infer from the Uncertainty Principle that there is a non-physical realm not only behind the physical realm, but also directing the physical realm is to make a gross assumption.

2. Your assumption that the "mind-force" does not supply all our knowledge makes the notion of "mind-force" a less probable hypothesis, because it does not follow why we would not tap all our knowledge from the mind-force as opposed to creating some knowledge through our sensory. (Note, we disagree with your assertion that knowledge is received through our sensory, because sensory implies separation between it and the external world, whereby through interaction with the external world, sensory creates information. To claim that sensory merely "taps" into the mind-force, then your distinction between knowledge attained through mind-force and sensory does not make sense, since they imply the same thing. Moreover, you need to reconcile that sensory, in forms like nerve endings, imply interaction/reaction rather than "tapping".

3. If modules and programs from natural selection do not come from our sensory, where do they come from?

3.1 How does the human mind tap into the mind-force? Also, what is the mechanism(s) that allows the human mind to tap into the mind-force?

3.2 How is non-space-time knowledge converted into space-time knowledge? It appears that with the mind-force hypothesis, there is a point of separation between mind-force (unconscious) knowledge and conscious knowledge, as implied by your distinction between non-physical and physical.

3.3 Where does the unconscious knowledge come from within the mind-force? (i.e. what is the origin of the mind-force’s knowledge?--is it eternal or is there a basis for it?)

190. Entry:

"The proposition is irrefutable. I believe the first phrase alone is true "We can not know who we are.".

Without resorting to magic, human knowledge amounts to patterns that abbreviate reality. We sometimes call these patterns symbols or models, but whatever we call them, they are approximations of reality, definitely not replications of reality. These patterns require matter to exist. They exist as chemical structures in our bodies.

These symbols are enormously valuable in that we can manipulate them outside of real time and predict the future or deduce the past within some tolerance of error.

But the abbreviated aspect of our knowledge is critical to its value. The more elaborate (less abbreviated) our knowledge, the more time it will take to manipulate and the more matter it will take to represent it. If the symbol (or model) was complex enough, we would not be able to manipulate it faster than real time and it would be worthless.

Magic is needed to overcome this limitation, because basic physics is not enough. If I have 4 or 5 pounds of grey matter to store all my "knowledge", I have to limit the complexity of all the patterns, symbols or models I create. Each of these abbreviations can only occupy so much of the 4 or 5 pounds. Certainly I cannot completely "know" a 10,000-pound tree for instance. I simply don't have the matter to build a replica of it.

This holds true for the human mind itself. We cannot build a replica of the human mind within the human mind just as you cannot contain a gallon jug within a gallon jug. Physics gets in the way.

Our knowledge of ourselves will always be an abbreviation of ourselves. Therefore "We cannot know who we are."

Steve Vaughn March 5 2001

Response:

We disagree that the proposition is irrefutable, and that its first phrase, "we cannot know who we are" is a truth. Why? The self-referential nature of knowledge makes what we know, including your reasons for believing that the proposition is irrefutable, neither certain nor uncertain. For instance, you claim that human knowledge is made up of matter in the form of chemical structures, though this may not be the case--though human knowledge appears connected to the grey matter of the brain, human knowledge may be immaterial, and if so, there is no material storage constraints on how much we know. The underlying distinction which this example touches on, is that impossibility is contingent on possibility (i.e. there has to be possibility for there to be impossibility); whereas, possibility is not contingent on impossibility, which means that possibility cancels out impossibility. Therefore, your claim that the proposition is impossible to overcome does not stand. (i.e. it is more possible that the proposition is refutable than it being impossible to refute.) For more perspective on the relation between possibility and impossibility see the Response to Entry 168.

Other issue:

Your contention that "true knowledge" pertains to completely knowing something in terms of their matter is questionable, because as mentioned above, it is unclear whether human knowledge is in the form of matter. You appear to be implying that knowledge as material form is directly transmitted into our minds from outside, and yet it is unclear how such a process could occur when we sense and perceive whatever is outside of us, thus creating an indirect relation.

191. Entry:

"Many people go through life, having a sense of being , a sense of who they are, and knowing that they are persons, entities that are always changing. As long as we are open to the concept that all things, all experiences in life have an impact on us, that part of being who you are is knowing your change. Knowing what you are, does not mean you know all that there is to know about yourself, it just means that you know that you do not have all the answers. Therefore knowing who we are and being who we are, can be achieved, which is (a being that is consistently changing)."

Raymond Dent March 6 2001

Response:

Just because people are aware of their physical dynamic, does not mean that who they are is dynamic as well.

Also, just because experience apparently has an impact on us, does not mean that experience has an impact on who we are.

We agree that because of the self-referential nature of knowledge and other reasons, knowing that we know who we are in an absolute sense appears less reasonable than not doing so. However, the competition occurs on another level--knowing without knowing that we do. In other words, the question of whether or not knowledge as form is intrinsically the same as who we are (i.e. fundamental level of being).

192. Entry:

"One cannot know the reality of one's self without initiating change in one's life. If we truly knew the truth of man's wisdom we would be changed into a different state of being. And would cease to be who we were. Thereby initiating a whole new cycle of existence. This is why we get into philosophical debate. Because we lack the knowledge of the truth of our existence."

Charles Kindall March 7 2001

Response:

We agree that one cannot know the reality one’s self without initiating change in one’s life. Though it does not necessarily follow that initiating change in one’s life entails change in who we are. (i.e. who we are as in fundamental level of being may be static.)

We disagree that we "lack the knowledge of the truth of our existence," because we may know the truth without knowing that we do. So what we apparently lack is knowledge of us knowing the truth of our existence.

We agree that philosophical debates results from us not knowing that we know the truth of our existence. However, working within this epistemic uncertainty, the Inexpressible Committee evaluates entries based on determining which perspective is more reasonable.

193. Entry:

"There is nothing in the universe that is not physical, nothing that is not observable.

There is no disembodied mind or soul.

All of our thoughts, memories and emotions exist as physical manifestations: electrochemical events and conditions. Who we are is a physical system; it is the sum of our constituent particles and their interactions.

If we can know these particles, their position and velocity and how they interact, then we can know who we are.

But there are some problems:

If who we are means the position and velocity of our constituent particles, then it is subject to Einstein's relativity principle. We can only know who we are in relation to something else.

If who we are means the position and velocity of our constituent particles, then who we are is constantly changing.

If who we are means the position and velocity of our constituent particles, then who we are is subject to the uncertainty principle, which states that we cannot know with absolute certainty both the position and the velocity of subatomic particles, and the more we know about one, the less we know about the other, and if we know one absolutely, then we know the other not at all."

Matthew Groves March 8 2001

Response:

We have the following questions and comments:

What reasons do you have to believe that everything in the universe is physical?

How can everything be observable if there are things that are "constantly changing"?

By claiming that there is no disembodied mind or soul, are you claiming that there are embodied mind and soul?

Though thoughts appear connected to the electrochemical events of the human brain (i.e. the firing of neurons), it does not necessarily follow that thoughts as form are electrochemical. They may be extensions of the brain’s electrochemical events, while thoughts as form are intrinsically and physically separate from the events.

Your claim that a human being is made up of a physical system with his/her basis in constituent particles, does not explain how the constituent particles interact. (i.e. what is behind the particles that allow them to interact?) Surely, a particle or anything else cannot exist from nothing?! (i.e. what is the source of the particle’s position, velocity, and momentum?) We contend that it is a necessity of reason that all life-forms have a basis behind their individual existence; they cannot simply be physical systems.

Entries 181-184 Entries 194-206