Definition of term in the entry (as requested by the Inexpressble Committee):

'Forever' from the line, "...Thus, the Infinity of Being defines the 'isness' of Consciousness, at the same time, all the time, forever."... refers euphemistically to the time we live in the human body as conscious beings. Of course, this Being may survive the human body, but that is a whole different level of inquiry.

Entry:

In your response to Entry 217, you write:

"Your contention that "if A is 'our consciousness of who we are', and B is 'our being who we are', then 'at the same time' prevents the two of them from being true, since A cannot be B at the same time", is underlain by the assumption that A and B as defined are not the same. However, that may not be the case... The Aristotelian system of "A is A, and B is B, but never can A be B 'at the same time'" is not perfect, because since A is A and B is B are not absolutes from our perspective, it cannot be said with certainty that A can never be B at the same time."

Now, if you claim that A is already B, then where does that leave us regarding that A and B are identical, whether or not 'at the same time'? If they are not the same, then proving it becomes undoable, 'at the same time'; if you claim they are the same, then the structure of the Challenge is already self fulfilled, which then means there is no challenge to proving it, since it is so 'a priori'. To not have the Challenge be an illusion of mirrors, can we think of it this way instead: that another person, not oneself, cannot prove that 'you are who you are and know who you are at the same time'? Then, the challenge shifts from one's inner perspective to that of an outsider mind looking in on one's self consciousness. If this is so, then the Challenge is once again open, though the 'proof' becomes problematic, since another person's perspective can never identify who we are in our own self consciousness. The only solution that can exist, in my opinion, is that the proof identifies a mechanism that can equate any one's being with their self consciousness. Of course, this cannot prove who they are to themselves, only show how they are who they are in some reality based definition of identity. I think such a system can exist: it would be where each person is at the center of an infinity that defines its being as conscious. This takes the 'proof' from inside the mind, and places it outside the mind, so that there is a philosophical principle that operates equally for all conscious minds. Then, each person is who he or she is at the same time they are at the center of their position within the infinity that defines them. But to do so, it would require a mechanism of 'interrelationship' to make such a definition doable. I will make a crude example of this: Society's laws are assembled into an interrelated Social Contract that then redefines itself as to what those laws are. If instead of 'laws' we substitute 'concepts', and instead of "Social Contract' we substitute 'Infinity', then we may have found such a proof, whereby the concepts that define infinity then redefine themselves in terms of the whole. Now, substitute 'concepts' with 'consciousness', and 'infinity' with 'being', and you can now have a mechanism whereby the identity of 'consciousness' and 'being' are the same, since they are an 'interrelationship' of each other. Thus, the Infinity of Being defines the 'isness' of Consciousness, at the same time, all the time, forever. This is then our connection to Who we Are at any moment of time. The Proof, therefore, is that Infinite Being, through this mechanism of interrelationship, defines itself as a conscious mind, the 'I am' each thinking human being feels within him or her self."

Ivan D. Alexander
Humancafe
May 28 2001

Response:

Yes, we agree it is possible that being (i.e. who we are) is the basis for human consciousness, so that in an act of knowing we can know who we are and be who we are. However, what is important in terms of the competition, is determining whether ‘being intrinsically part of consciousness’ is more reasonable than ‘being intrinsically separate from consciousness’. Your only proof in this regard is that being and consciousness are in an interrelationship. Yet, the notion of "interrelationship" implies separation between two things, otherwise there would be no relation, and therefore it does not follow that being and consciousness are the "same". Also, if we consider the origin of knowledge, and the apparent fact that we create knowledge through thought process and sensory, it does not stand to reason how we can create who we are through who we are, or being be the same as consciousness. (Note, we are defining consciousness as the appearance of thoughts (i.e. symbols with meaning) in the human brain.)

Further, the problem with your example of equating being and consciousness with law and social contract is that the latter is dealing with conscious phenomenon, whereas the former is dealing with both unconscious and conscious phenomenon, so that the analogy of law and social contract does not capture the nature of the relation between being and consciousness. In other words, just because being and consciousness appear interconnected, it does not follow that they are intrinsically the same things, as appears to be the case with law and social contract because they are both conscious phenomenon.

225. Entry:

"During a suicide attempt I had an out-of-body experience in which I saw clearly my form attempting to end its life. Later, in hospital, I was intrigued by this revelation. After all, who was the one that observed the form of Burt attempting suicide. Later an experience I had with Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi convinced me that there are two kinds of knowing -- one is intellectual and of little value in being who you truly are at the same time, and feeling-knowing where one would feel one's true Self but no 'mind' to know it. The most important point is this, can the mind, which is a small fraction of consciousness, know its true nature which is beyond itself? When we say 'knowing' who are we referring to? Who is the real knower?"

Burt Harding May 30 2001

Response:

If the human mind’s "true nature" is beyond itself, then it follows that the human mind (i.e. system of thought) cannot know its "true nature". In other words, since we apparently cannot get outside of our minds, and we cannot know something solely through itself, then it follows that we cannot know the nature of the human mind. But what if the mind’s true nature is not beyond itself? We would still face the problem of knowing something solely through itself. Though we could turn to human mind from a phenomenological perspective (i.e. we can know something without knowing that we do--the form (phenomenon) of knowledge), and yet we face the problem that we appear to be the creators of mind through our sensory and thought process. (i.e. we cannot create who we are through who we are, and therefore the form of knowledge cannot be who we are.) Though this problem does not mean that we cannot know the mind’s "true nature" other than who we are, if there is such a nature.

Answers to questions of identity like "knower" (i.e. conscious identity) and "real knower" appear to be determined, explicitly or implicitly, through our ontological view of knowledge. It is our ontological view that humanity is the creator of knowledge (indirect realism), thus conscious identities are fabrications with limited connection to who we are, and who we are, the "real knower" is beyond our comprehension.

226. Entry:

"Analyze the first segment -"know who we are" and determine several levels of awareness; then proceed to define "be who we are" according to the proposed levels of awareness; conclude that therefore all of us always know who we are while being who we are - on the levels of awareness we have determined (or elected not to determine) to be living in."

dov p. ancona June 3 2001

Response:

Within your system of thought, or determination of ‘know who we are’ and ‘be who we are’, you have shown that we can know who we are. However, you also need to show outside of your system of thought that your levels of awareness correspond to who we are. In other words, as stated implicitly in the conditions for the competition, overcoming the proposition is not just a matter of creating a system of thought in which we can know who we are, but defending the system within the constraint of more reasonableness against antagonistic systems of thoughts.

227. Entry:

"In reply to your Response to my Entry 224, I would like to add the following:

You say: "Your only proof in this regard is that being and consciousness are in an interrelationship. Yet, the notion of "interrelationship" implies separation between two things, otherwise there would be no relation, and therefore it does not follow that being and consciousness are the "same".

It is the 'separation between two things' that I would like to address. In the manner of interrelationship here described as 'Being' defining a 'consciousness' as it applies to each living and conscious person, I think it is important to note that the separation you mention is in fact narrowed through a kind of calculus, whereby the definitions of who that person is in terms of their 'being' is minutely detailed by the infinitesimal interrelationships (both micro and macro) of their reality that define that being. So, in the extreme of 'infinitesimality', they approach each other to a zero, same as calculus approaches zero at any point of the slope. However, because in the universe, such a zero is unattainable (even quantum physics bears this out, where the observations fall into a domain of probability), then the infinitesimal approach to 'identity' in the absolute is never totally achieved, though it is as close as one can get (that this is the 'same' in the closest this universe will allow us to get to that point). Also, I maintain that the consciousness of 'who we are' is not something we manufacture through sensory perception within ourselves, but rather is a definition from reality's infinite Being that allows us then to manufacture a sense of who we are, what we think of when we say 'I am'. This is a very fine distinction, but I thought it important to point out. The definition, or identity, of consciousness, the who we are, is from a Reality, understood as an infinite Being, which defines who we are; and not the other way around, though it appears to our sensory minds that it is 'we' who define reality. Appearances are an illusion?

Also, in the second point of your Response: "the problem with your example of equating being and consciousness with law and social contract is that the latter is dealing with conscious phenomenon, whereas the former is dealing with both unconscious and conscious phenomenon," fails to consider that laws in and of themselves are not conscious, merely written out formulae. The people who create laws are conscious, one hopes, but the laws themselves are not, same as the Social Contract is not conscious. I did say that this was a 'crude example', but wanted to use it by way of illustration of how 'interrelationship' of a whole made up of its parts then redefines its constituent parts.

Finally, you say: "In other words, just because being and consciousness appear interconnected, it does not follow that they are intrinsically the same things, as appears to be the case with law and social contract because they are both conscious phenomenon." Given my statement in the paragraph above, "that laws in and of themselves are not conscious", I would also like to point out that 'consciousness' as defined by its Being as a product of an infinite interrelationship is conscious only because of the nature of the 'definer'; so no other analogy would ever fit, since any other set of totality is less than infinite, and thus falls short of the definition each conscious being has from an infinite Being. To make it simpler, it is not some Deity that defines consciousness in us, though some like to think of it this way; rather, it is inherent in the mechanism of interrelationship, whereby each thing is defined within its interrelated totality, that defines a human consciousness. The fact that we have evolved consciousness then means that the Totality that defines each human being (who is conscious) is itself Conscious, because that is how the mechanism works. Any analogy or example I could create with my mind would of necessity fall short of this, since it is impossible for the human sensory mind to ever capture all the infinity of interrelationships that realize into being this consciousness. The mechanism has to be understood 'a priori', and then used to define what is, which is only what the mechanism does itself. Rather than whether or not the phenomena examined are conscious, the Proof to the Challenge is in the mechanism of interrelationship itself."

Ivan Alexander
Humancafe
June 3 2001

Response:

We have the following questions regarding your "mechanism of interrelationship whereby each thing is defined within its interrelational totality", so that the totality, which defines each thing, is comprised of each thing:

1. If the "whole is made of its parts then redefines its constituent parts", how can the parts redefine themselves, unless you make the parts self-existent entities, so that the whole as self-existent entity is a fabrication?

2. If human beings are merely part of an interrelated whole, what is behind the interrelated whole or the parts which comprise the whole? In other words, how can interrelation itself be a basis for existence, when interrelation is dependent on the pre-existence of things for there to be interrelation?

Other issues:

1. When we use 'who we are', unless otherwise stated, it is used as a non-label with non-conscious form, even though in terms of phenomenon, 'who we are' is a label with conscious form.

2. In the response to Entry 224, we are not stating that laws and social contract are conscious; rather, we are stating that they have conscious forms.

228. Entry:

"Consider this proposition within the context of a time line. Past, Present, Future. Knowledge is a thing of the past. Now is a time to be present. I'd tell you about the future but I haven't figured that one out yet. The answer is obvious, the proposition holds true. Profound? Tell the world and see if it listens."

Graham Scott June 4 2001

Response:

We agree that knowledge from an epistemological standpoint appears to be derived from past knowledge (i.e. we know through what we already know), so that we cannot know who we are in the present. Also, it is questionable whether we could know who we are in the past because there is no who we are to know, since it apparently only exists in the present. However, from a phenomenological standpoint, the problem of time line does not occur, because we are dealing with form rather than knowledge, and therefore in our view it is not obvious that the proposition holds true.

Other issue:

One implication of the proposition is that it establishes intrinsic separation between who we are and what we know, which is significant for us or most of humanity because we exist from what we know. (i.e. what we know and its material extensions are intrinsically empty of who we are, and therefore by existing from them, we are gradually replacing ourselves with what is empty of ourselves.)

Another implication is that we cannot structure our existence around identity, because there is no identity except for fabrication that we can know. Also, if our identity is fabrication, it follows that everything we know is fabrication as well, since what we know is centered around our identity

229. Entry:

Reply to the Response to Entry 227

You ask: "If the ‘whole is made of its parts then redefines its constituent parts’, how can the parts redefine themselves, unless you make the parts self-existent entities, so that the whole as self-existent entity is a fabrication?"

The individual parts that comprise the reality of a totality interrelationship is made up of the same substance, to its infinitesimal, that comprises what the whole universe is made of.

You ask: "How can interrelation itself be a basis for existence, when interrelation is dependent on the pre-existence of things for there to be interrelation?"

The pre-existence of things in interrelation to one another from the beginning of the universe, the 'creation' of the infinite Totality, Big Bang, etc. Hence, we are back to a prime mover, or Creator, syndrome, alas, so this becomes circular.

Ivan Alexander
Humancafe
June 6 2001

Response:

1. Even if everything that comprises the universe is made up of the same substance, whatever it may be, it does not necessarily mean that who we are and thoughts as form are intrinsically the same, even though they contain the same substance. (i.e. the contents of who we are and thoughts as form themselves may be different, despite both of them being part of a common substance.)

Also, if you equate fundamental, universal substance with fundamental level of being, how can we create who we are through who we are? Or even how can we create the universal substance through the universal substance?

2. The important consideration regarding interrelation is that in order for there to be interrelationship, there must be things or something behind the interrelation to begin with, and therefore, the mechanism of interrelationship itself is insufficient in explaining the fundamental nature of things.

230. Entry:

"Psychoanalysts have long maintained that certain stories, myths, and systems of thought appear to be universal to Homo sapiens. They suggest that rather than being culturally dependent, such things are in fact biologically controlled. That is, the very structure of the brain as inherited through natural selection in past environments, has predetermined that certain systems of thought will arise, regardless of the surrounding, present environment. In other words, if you took a baby and placed it on another planet, it would grow up developing myths related to the earth (e.g. God, redemption, sin, universal floods, dragons etc.), and not necessarily the other planet. For example, the serpent myth of various cultures has been attributed to a common inherited archetypal knowledge of snakes across cultures, and indeed across primates. Serpent myths exist where snakes do not even exist.

Now my point is this, (without being versed in all the details of unconscious theory), is that if 'archetypes' (encoded knowledge) exists, and emerges from the brain at certain ages and under certain environmental triggers, as in dreams, epileptic seizures, sudden insights, religious experiences and so on, then "who we are" is, at least in part, a complexly encoded (genetic) programme or "form", as knowledge. This "knowledge" is a programme, encoded by environmental influence, over millions/billions of years, through natural selection of chromosomal combination, in the same way as this entry is an encoded message typed by fingers (with encoded and learned variation) over several minutes. If knowledge as archetype is encoded as modules of form in the brain, then "knowing" "who we are", is the same as "who we are".

Brain modules have different methods of working and expression. Some rely on empirical support of the senses, some do not. Some are less certain of themselves, some are not. Some rely on inherited archetypes as knowledge (e.g. "revelation"), some on that which is learnt from the surrounding environment (e.g. raw 'facts' of history).

In this model then, not all we "know" is learned. Some is encoded, and would properly be called an "instinct". It doesn't mean that this exists as form in the sense of being absolutely true (Plato), rather, it exists as form in the sense that the brain is programmed to THINK it is absolutely true. Some evidence for this 'instinctive modular model' is provided along a number of lines, including those who follow beliefs which are not in touch with reality, (which in extreme cases is often classified as schizophrenia), dream analysis, the similarity of myths across cultures and so on.

Recent evidence from neurobiological studies (e.g. "Why God wont Go away", by Neuberg and Duilini 2001) supports some of the contentions of the psychoanalysts. Archetypes, variably expressed in myths, "God", mystical experiences etc etc, have been found to be intimately associated with stimulus of certain brain areas. These brain areas operate along structurally determined pathways which are consistent for the entire human race, which would explain the similarity of myths across cultures, for example. In this specific sense, our knowledge then, is, who we are. Even the introspection of our belief systems, along the lines of reason and introspection or empirical verification, is who we are, as these abilities themselves are predetermined, and just the working operation of another, slightly modified module (one which introduces the function of doubt, for example). Thus doubt, reason and reflection is knowledge as form as who we are, also.

The thrust of this contention is as follows. Our knowledge is not entirely learned, believed, derived from the surrounding environment, or 'unconsciously asserted'. Much, of it comes from within the brain itself. It is an expression of who we are, as determined by the human genome, and this genome then is likely to contain already programmed knowledge in exactly the same way as a computer contains programmed knowledge. The programming mechanism is selection of replicating organic modules. These modules are able to modify, and learn, but with constraints, and with modules that are in some cases less able to be modified (as in pious "religious faith").

I believe that the concept of 'encoded knowledge', if real, defeats the proposition. The proposition states that at no time can any knowledge be "who we are". The existence of knowledge as instinct (form in the brain, but not form in the absolute sense), would overcome this assertion. There is growing evidence amongst neurobiologists that some knowledge is derived from inherited modules or programmes in the brain, and equates with who we are in a very fundamental sense."

Roger McEvilly June 8 2001

Response:

The problem with your position is that the knowledge to be encoded must either come fundamentally from who we are or the external world ("environmental influence"). If it is who we are, then we face the problem of how we can create who we are through who we are. If it is from the external world, then we face the problem of how knowledge can come directly from the external world, when our sensory receptors imply an indirect relation with the external world. (Note, the notion of knowledge biologically passed on from one offspring to another, does not change the origin of knowledge in terms of who we are and external world.)

231. Entry:

"Regarding your Response in Entry 229, indeed I can understand what you say when you write:

‘2. The important consideration regarding interrelation is that in order for there to be interrelationship, there must be things or something behind the interrelation to begin with, and therefore, the mechanism of interrelationship itself is insufficient in explaining the fundamental nature of things.’

The short answer is: Yes, the thing behind interrelationship is infinity.

Interrelationship as a mechanism is insufficient unless it is taken in its totality, since lesser interrelationships, say in smaller sets, have a conceptual 'defining' quality as regards to its internal parts, but are powerless. To have the power to identify its parts, no matter what their form, even infinitesimal forms, the complete totality must be considered, infinitely as its own existence, for then all things within it are exactly as the totality image, the pressure of all, allows it to be. This is a mental construct, a model that requires a leap of awareness, and as yet not one that is common currency in our thinking. So the 'nature of things' under this self-defining system is defined in direct proportion to how all of existence has molded it over time into what it is, no matter what it is, that we are observing. Is this a mental fabrication? What concept is not? But if this concept is taken 'a priori' as how things in existence (those that we see from 'behind our eyes', if you will, those that are observable to us), are then as forms (nature of things) manifest from that totality of interrelationship. So the usual method of observing things in reality is reversed, and instead of defining an object or being from our perspective, we then understand that it is already being defined by its own infinite mechanism, and that we are then merely observers of it. Because we are part of this mechanism, when we become aware of it, while being aware of our own being, the two tend to merge into one, at least at some level of cognition by us. (Hence, this is why I entered this idea into the Challenge.) So it is mainly a matter of perspective: From which side are we seeing things? Is it from where we stand, from the subjective-objective reason and sense of our awareness? Or is it from that other side, the one that spans infinity as it defines itself? It is not an easy answer, since we are as yet very unfamiliar with that 'other' that is self-defining itself as the universe's reality. Yet, without that other side, then our existence is reduced to being only what we think of it. In my opinion, that is a self induced illusion. It is not 'we who create who we are through who we are', as you ask in your response. It happens from the way our physical universal reality is structured as an infinite set, a set within which we evolved over time a mind capable of being aware of this.

In answer to the Challenge:

We are who we are and know who we are at the same time because that is how the totality of interrelationship has molded us over time, into being where and what we are, while at the same time giving us the capability of a consciousness: that we are this, are aware of this, and simultaneously aware of ourselves in our own being. Further, it is of necessity 'at the same time' because this system of identification is active at any infinitesimal moment of time, or at least as close to 'the same time' as is physically (as defined by quantum physics) possible in our probabilistic universe."

Ivan Alexander
Humancafe
June 10 2001

Response:

How does the whole as infinity define its parts, when there is no whole except for the interrelation of parts?

How does the pressure of all parts interacting allow the whole to be? What does the whole be?

If the parts are self-existent entities, dependent on an interrelation with other parts, where does the whole come into the picture? Is there a necessity for the whole? Could not the fundamental nature of parts themselves be the basis for the parts, thereby eliminating the need for a whole?

Just because we may become partly aware of the mechanism of interrelation, does not mean that we are aware of the basis for the mechanism. As we stated in the response to Entry 229, there must be something behind the interrelation in order for there to be interrelation. You define that something behind as "infinity". Therefore, since we cannot comprehend infinity, we must conclude in terms of your challenge that we cannot know the basis for the mechanism or who we are.

Entries 214-223 Entries 232-238