| Challenge the Philosophy - Entries 38-46 |
Definitions of principal terms used in the competition:
"We can't know": our ability to refute or prove a proposition, using reason,
by only contradicting our use of reason. For further explanation, and explanation of "know", see "we can't know" and "know".
"I don't think we can ever have true knowledge of who we
are in the first place. We can have flashes of insight like
the experience of satori in Zen, but never a kind of
epistemological knowledge of the totality of our being.
Just as a tree is what it is without humans having to name
it, so we are still "who we are" whether we are conscious
of our being or not. When we transcend our labels,
definitions, etc. that confine what we perceive to be "who
we are" we reach not a knowledge of who we are, but an
AWARENESS of who we are independent of conceptualization.
Thus, we can be AWARE of who we are and still be who we are
at the same time, but not KNOW who we are, because such
knowledge is unattainable from the outset."
Rich Tysinger April 4 2000
It is unclear how we can know that we are aware of who we are independent of conceptualization, when we can’t know who we are.
"Sentience has components, two of which you mention in your response to Entry 34. "Unconscious", Freud's "subconscious", and "Conscious". The "brilliant idiot", the "analytical". The "brilliant idiot" subconscious absorbs information independently of the "analytical" conscious, without discretion. It considers possibilities, without discretion, without limit. Therefore, sensory input can be "disconnected" from knowledge. The analytical conscious then interprets the brilliant idiot's considerations. If the analytical forms a "fabrication" to explain the brilliant idiot's unlimited observation, the observation is misinterpreted, and knowledge does not result. If the analytical sifts through the input and "selects" the input that adheres to reality, knowledge results.
The sentient is. Simply, whilst the above struggle occurs, we are ourselves. The struggle is quite possibly a definition of "being"."
Edwin C. Turner April 4 2000
We agree with your notion of "subconscious" or unconscious sensory. Though it is unclear what "information" we are absorbing through it. You imply that we are actually absorbing knowledge, as though it already exists. If you are referring to something like proto-knowledge, which we collapse into knowledge, this concept does not make sense because we can’t collapse proto-knowledge without knowledge, and we can’t have knowledge without proto-knowledge. Also, it is unclear how our unconscious sensory could itself collapse proto-knowledge, and then transfer it to our minds in the form of knowledge, when it appears that we use past knowledge to collapse new knowledge.
Moreover, it does not follow how our unconscious sensory could transfer unconscious knowledge to our minds and convert it into conscious knowledge, while maintaining a direct connection between conscious knowledge and the proposed unconscious knowledge outside of us.
Further, it is unclear how we could have unconscious sensory of us ourselves through us ourselves.
From an epistemological perspective, it appears that we invent knowledge through past knowledge and unconscious sensory. So the claim that we receive "input" of knowledge solely through unconscious sensory does not make sense. Also, assuming our unconscious sensory is a direct link to actual knowledge, it is unclear why our unconscious sensory would transfer both fabrications and knowledge that "adheres to reality", and not just knowledge that adheres to reality. In our view, if your theory is correct, there would be no such thing as fabrications.
"The fact of our limited/incomplete knowledge is always a
discouraging ingredient to all our philosophical
discussions. But fortunately we have explored and given so
much meaning to the words "better", "comparison" and
"progress" that we can always find the best definition
based on the existing knowledge we have through the pure
reasoning.
The first part, "we can’t know who we are" expresses the
fact of our limited knowledge. So the "truth" has meaning
only with respect to the knowledge we have.
The other part "and be who we are at the same time" tells
about the truth of our existence.
Finally, the variable which lies at the center of all the
arguments is the fraction of knowledge. As this fraction
grows we witness the change in our definitions, and existing
theories are replaced by better theories.
So basically both (we can’t know who we are and be who we are
at the same time) can co-exist at the same time as the
governing factor, the fraction of knowledge which is a variable, keeps on increasing as the civilization grows without
any interruption."
Aashish Payal April 5 2000
We agree that both (we can’t know who we are and be who we are at the same time) not only can co-exist at the same time, but they do co-exist. Though it is questionable whether we can sustain this co-existence in the long-term.
In our view, you assume that theories which replace other theories are "better" in terms of our existence. Though this may not be the case if we as a species are gradually suppressing ourselves from our existence through thoughts and their material extensions.
We agree with your view of our existence as a fraction, in which knowledge is the numerator, and who we are is the denominator. Also, we agree that civilization grows through the increase in knowledge or the numerator. However, if knowledge is an empty form, it appears that the more knowledge, or numerator, grows, the more we ourselves, or denominator, are suppressed. So it appears that there may be a limit to the increase in knowledge, and thereby civilization. It may be the point at which we are suppressed to such a degree through our knowledge, and its material forms, that we become extinct.
"Man, with the use of his senses, has a perception of his
surrounding. His sight gives him a representation, an
image. Then, he relates word or writing with the
representation, knowing consciously that they are not what
he has seen. In other words, he describes what he has
seen. Language only permits him to do that. Logic is anterior
to any language, and the reason why he could possibly describe
his vision. Thus, searching for what, he could only say how. He
has reached the metaphysical world. There exists something
beyond logic. But as a man he can only describe it, show
it. Any attempt has proven to be senseless if not absurd.
"Who we are" taken in the sense of "how we are" is a
never ending task for humanity, but we can know how we
are. And be who we are, we have no choice but to
be, experiencing it at all times with the use of our senses
telling us that we are.
To conclude, we can know who we are and be who we
are at the same time without contradicting our use of
reason. The paradox refers to think that we can't."
Louis José Mercier April 11 2000
Even if "who we are" is taken in the sense of "how we are", it does not follow how we can know "how we are", when who we are appears to exist "beyond logic". In other words, what we know through the question "how" appears limited by knowledge itself.
We agree that we can’ help from being who we are "at all times" as long as we exist as we are. Though it is unclear how we can really experience who we are through who we are.
It does not follow how we can know how we are, without knowing who we are. Also, it does not follow how our senses can be telling us that we are being who we are. Sure, our senses appear to transfer unconscious information, but that does not explain how we can really consciously sense who we are. What is it about the senses that allow us to really know? For further discussion see Entry 39.
"We join spokes together in a wheel,
but it is the center hole
that makes the wagon move.
We shape clay into a pot,
but it is the emptiness
inside
that holds whatever we want.
We hammer wood for a house,
but it is the inner space
that makes it livable.
We work with being
but non-being is what we use."
Stein Leikanger April 14 2000
We agree that we use "non-beings". However, we also use "beings" like eating animals or testing on them for medical research, or using people to get them to vote for someone, to buy something, pay taxes, or fight in wars.
Though the question we face is whether or not it makes sense, in terms of our preservation, that we exist through the non-being of our thoughts? There is a profound difference: we exist directly through our thoughts, in contrast to existing, for instance, indirectly through the emptiness inside of a clay pot.
Our thoughts allow us to structure our existence and invent empty objects, which we use through the empty space inside of them. Yet, it appears that by existing directly through the emptiness of our thoughts, and their material extensions, we are gradually absorbing ourselves into their emptiness.
For reply by Stein Leikanger see Dispute 12.
"We can know who we are each time we go out from ourselves
(remember Cartesius' aphorism: "Cogito, ergo sum"), each
time we convert into a thought. This thought as a product
of reason can understand our existence as human being. In
other words, we can be "us" as a "present" or "us" as a
thought studying this present."
Héctor Tedín April 24 2000
We agree that we appear to be able to get outside of ourselves, in a limited sense, through thought. We say limited because we appear to be always behind our thought. Also, it is unclear how we can truly get outside of ourselves while still being who we are? You turn to "reason" to answer this question, and yet it is unclear how reason can truly allow us to understand ourselves or know who we are?
If reason is simply a word and concept that describes the basic process of thought, or comparison of different conscious meanings, then it is unclear how reason can allow us to know who we are. However, if reason has an innate connection to who we are, which allows us to know who we are, then we must ask how do we truly know reason has an innate connection, and how does this innate connection allows us to know who we are?
We agree that we can study things through thought. Though that does not mean we can really know things through thought or who we are while who we are is behind knowing.
Finally, in terms of Cartesius’ aphorism, "I think, therefore I am", it is unclear who or what "I" is. Also, it is uncertain that our "thinking", or thought, is truly who we are, when it could be an extension or product of who we are, which would give our thought only a limited connection to who we are. In other words, just because we think, it does not follow that what we think itself is who we are.
"The plural of the analog "I" is "we".
The values that have created the solar system and the
planet are not governed by ideas that have their premise
based on the "i and we" of humans, although our
language dictates that we have to deal with it that way.
"We" so to speak, can easily understand the difference
between sleep and work; love and hate; fear and the lack of
it; and other things as humans that are apparent opposites
yet are understood without question because our search as
human beings is for an answer that will make us find the
answer so we can be dominant in the whole order of
things. Quantum physics with things appearing and
disappearing are letting us know that we are not the be all
and end all of stuff to come. The future can be known if
we know that we are just on the way as humans to the
dynamics that will follow, be they as random and reckless
as they will be, knowing that time is not an issue, our
path is preordained for good over evil."
Gary Parrish April 27 2000
We agree with your view on the limitation of the human species’ language and knowledge. However, we are confused by your assertion that "values" (ie. conscious values) "created" the solar system. What values are you referring to? What evidence do you have to make this claim when according to you, the solar system is not governed by ideas of human beings?
Also, you claim that there is good and evil. What is good? What is evil? Is a robber evil because he steals from others, even though others are made accountable for their own existence? Is a doctor good for helping a sick, poverished developing community, even though he is encouraging dependency instead of letting the community grow stronger through their own struggle and resources?
Finally, how do you know the human species is preordained for so-called good, if all knowledge appears uncertain? How can you really know anything about the human species, if we cannot know who we are?
Reply to the response to Entry 43:
"To get outside from ourselves" is really a great paradox:
like Cartesius, "I" is the subject of the existence or
thought? Because each time we think, we create our
identity as "Nature living-objects" different from other
type of animals. "I" is a conscious state which gives to
the physically perceptible substance an identity as human,
not only in time and space, but also the possibility
to "get outside from ourselves" as a thought.
In the aphorism "Cogito, ergo sum" "I" represents the
conscious state, and "ergo" is not just an adverb of time:
is not "time" the idea represented: there is an "I" each
time a thought is produced. "Thinking" and "we" are not the
same thing, but we "are" each time we "think" because
without thinking, there is no thinking-subject, I mean,
no "I".
Héctor Tedín May 3 2000
By asserting that we can "get outside from ourselves" as a thought, you are conceding that there is an intrinsic difference between ourselves and thoughts themselves, because if thoughts were intrinsically the same as us, we would not be able to get outside of ourselves.
Although "think" and "we" are the same thing when we are thinking, because we cannot have thinking without identity, it does not follow that "we" is the same thing as who we are. In other words, it does not make sense why our identity has to be inherently the same as who we are, for us to be able to think.
Moreover, if there is no thinking, there would simply be who we are. For example, in moments when we are not thinking, we do not cease to exist. Therefore, it appears that "thinking-substance" or "I" equates to who we are only in a limited sense (ie. "I" is an invented conscious identity of who we are).
"The answer to this proposition can be gained by a good
understanding of biology and the evolution of mind-the mind
being the construct of the brain. I have given this some
thought, and believe I can in fact show how the
proposition, that "we can’t be who we are and know who we
are at the same time" can be overcome.
Firstly, there are several dubious assumptions involved in
this proposition, some of which I would like to highlight.
First and perhaps foremost, is the implication that
knowledge or "to know" is independent of our true selves.
This statement is a paradox. Our innate instincts which we
have received through evolution, define "who we are", but
our knowledge or "to know", which we have also received
through evolution, also defines ourselves. It is an
interactive, instantaneous, and constantly evolving reality.
Firstly, who are "we". All of the "we" in "who we are" is
what we have inherited through evolution. To "know" is a
construct or ability of this evolved "we", fortuitously
arisen and selected because it is advantageous to "know"
and be "knowledgeable", (including being knowledgeable about
ourselves), at least in our species, otherwise this ability
to know or be knowledgeable would not have evolved in our
species in the first place.
"To know" therefore is an ability of our nature. "Culture"
is a construct of our nature, which is then imprinted back
on our nature, which then constructs culture, and so on, in
an infinite loop. Therefore over time, we can change our
nature by our culture. Nurture and nature constantly
interact to redefine themselves. The point is, our ‘nature’
or ‘who we are’ is time-dependent. There is, in one sense,
no such thing as a static "who we are". Just like some
biologists point out that in a sense there is no such thing
as a ‘species’-the term ‘species’ is time-dependent. A
‘species’ is just a like-bunch of organisms caught in a
small period of time, in a constant but varying state of
flux. We’re evolving all the time, our natures or "who we
are" is also in a state of flux. By knowing who we are we
then redefine who we are, and so are no longer who we are,
but who we are has become who we were. We have evolved. We
have redefined who we are. But by now then, in this new
moment of time, we now know who we are, and we are who we
are, who we are is, now, who we are.
This understanding is similar to a highly controversial
idea in biology that bacteria, for example, by borrowing
and sharing DNA and genes can, to a certain extent, control
their own evolution. There is some who think that humans
also can do this in their collective minds. We are
constantly redefining ourselves by knowledge, and therefore
controlling our own evolution, in the same general sort of
way that bacteria are suspected of doing. This is a highly
contentious idea, but I believe it is correct. We can, in
part, control our evolution and thus "who we are". Nature
has delegated this to us with the invention of
consciousness and the ability to "know" itself.
It is just as true to say I can discover who I am, as I can
make myself who I am. Therefore we can be who we are, know
who we are, redefine ourselves to who we want to be, and
therefore to be who we are in the way we want to be. We are
then who we are, redefined and known at the same time, but
still who we are. Nature has been doing this for billions
of years. Nature has delegated this power to us. We can
control our own evolution of who we are, by knowing who we
are. We can, by knowing, define who we are. And therein
lies the answer, the proposition has been overcome."
Roger McEvilly May 4 2000
We agree that our knowledge defines ourselves. Though the critical question is in what sense does our knowledge define ourselves: Is our knowledge who we are, so it is a mirror of who we are, or is our knowledge a limited extension of who we are, thereby reflective of who we are, without actually being who we are?
We agree that there are advantages for the human species to exist through knowledge, and its material extensions, otherwise the species, or at least its ability to know, would not have evolved. However, just because the species’ ability to know has evolved, does not mean that it is advantageous to know in the long-term. For example, the profound problems with modernity like over-population, proliferation of lethal weaponry, and environmental degradation, including accelerated species extinction, are signs that "to know" is disadvantageous and may possibly lead to the species’ extinction. Therefore, your conclusion that "to know" is an ability of our nature is questionable. It may be a weakness in our nature.
Since "culture" derives from our nature, or as you say "culture is a construct of our nature", how can culture be "imprinted back" on our nature? There is nothing to imprint back on since it is all coming from our nature. We concede that a culture can bring things out in our nature that other cultures may not do; though this is far from saying culture can change our nature.
We agree with your view that existence appears to be in a "state of constant flux"; though you contradict your view by claiming to know who we are, now, even though our knowledge and who we are appears to be constantly unfolding. What is this now? How is "now" even conceivable except as a crude term, when everything appears to be in a state of constant flux?
Your cited claim that life-forms can control their own evolution by borrowing and sharing DNA and genes is nonsensical. Firstly, you are imputing conscious self-identity to life-forms which only show signs of instinctual behaviour. So the notion that bacteria can consciously borrow and share DNA and genes is incorrect. From our perspective, what you are describing is the sophisticated unfolding of unconscious nature, whereby there are many life-forms under one identity, nature.
Your added claim that we can partially control our evolution, and thus who we are, through our invented consciousness and our ability to know ourselves is questionable, because you are assuming that we can really know things, including ourselves. Moreover, if who we are is the main determinant of our knowledge, it follows that we cannot control who we are through our knowledge.
How can we discover who we are through who we are? How can we make who we are through who we are? How can we define who we are through who we are? How can we redefine who we are through who we are? Sure, we can define and redefine our conscious identity, but that is different from defining and redefining who we are.
In short, your argument comes down to the claim that evolution is the basis for life. If that is the case, where does the first evolved life-form come from? How can you assume that the concept of evolution, derived from a conscious life-form, equates exactly to something apparently beyond all life-forms?
Further, you claim that we, the human species have the ability to know, including know ourselves. How can we know anything without intrinsic separation from what we know? How can we know something absolutely?
"Who we are": the fundamental level of our being from our limited perspective.
For further explanation see who we are.
"Be": the state of living or existing with who we are as the basis.
"Existence": things and life-forms occupying space.
"We": the individuals who make up humankind.
"Overcome": our ability as individuals to refute the proposition, "we can't know who we are and be who we are at the same time",
without contradicting our use of reason. Our use of reason entails using reason to the truest extent possible, and includes the arguments stated in the entries and
disputes submitted to the "Challenge the Philosophy" competition, and the arguments stated in the responses to them.
38. Entry:
Response:
39. Entry:
Response:
40. Entry:
Response:
41. Entry:
Response:
42. Entry:
Response:
43. Entry:
Response:
44. Entry:
Response:
45. Entry:
Response:
46. Entry:
Response: