"Evolution. The proposition is the construct of information that believes it is an entity (a mind). When that mythical artificiality is overcome, it will be apparent that human evolution is the inevitable process of becoming who we are - the ultimate paradox! There is nothing other than who we are - complete complementation. We can go beyond the myth."

Bridie December 3 2003

Response:

Since you concede that Challenge Proposition 1 (what you call a "construct of mythical artificiality" because the Proposition refers to a static entity (i.e. we cannot more reasonably...)) is not (more reasonably) overcome, we will only add that the concept of evolution defined by complete complementation also refers to a static entity (i.e. the inevitable process of becoming who we are), and as you mention, the concept of evolution is subject to contradiction because it does not follow how we can be in the process of becoming who we are, when we cannot help from being who we are (in every moment we are alive). Moreover, it is unclear what grounds you have for claiming that humanity is evolving towards human perfection (or completion), or even what human perfection is.

454. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 452

"'(As a side note, we should add that your claim that "no human being ever needs complete knowledge of an empirical entity, for any practical purpose whatsoever", ignores all relevant situations (and human needs!) like a patient dying of cancer who needs (or could use!) complete empirical knowledge of a cure to cancer...' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 452)

Aha! This is precisely the sort of area where I am claiming that you confuse two interpretations of ‘complete’ knowledge. In the *practical, everyday* sense of complete knowledge, i.e. entirely sufficient for a given purpose, complete knowledge is extremely useful. But in the literal sense of ‘complete’ which is required for Challenge Proposition 1 to be true, the cancer patient *does not* need complete knowledge, since ‘complete’ knowledge includes unnecessary information, e.g. about the history of the social structures which led to the development of agriculture and then literacy, which millennia later was necessary for the synthesis of particular medicinal compounds.

You don't seem to disagree with the idea that we can ‘completely’ know ourselves, in the *practical* sense of ‘not lacking reasonably justified knowledge necessary for a given purpose’, as opposed to the *literal* sense of "lacking no knowledge of any sort". The cancer patient needs *practically* complete knowledge, not *literally* complete. There are no circumstances in which literally complete knowledge is preferable to practically complete knowledge, virtually by definition.

'... and supports this position with (an apparently original) simultaneity problem of being and knowing.' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 452)

Although it isn't relevant to my argument, I don't see what this simultaneity problem is. We tautologically cannot be anything other than what we are, so the simultaneity problem seems to boil down to ‘NOT( (We can completely know who we are) and (TRUE) )’, i.e. it is logically equivalent to the assertion that we cannot completely know who we are. Just using extra, redundant words does not make it a new problem.

'Moreover, you appear to overlook that Challenge Proposition 1 could help lead to (other) interesting conclusions.' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 452)

I haven't overlooked this. On the contrary, I have given a specific argument as to why it can never do so under any circumstances. Namely, that literally ‘complete’ knowledge never gives us anything which sufficient knowledge does not. But Challenge Proposition 1 says nothing about the possibility of sufficient knowledge for any purpose.

'Further, your main criticism of Challenge Proposition 1 is that it says something you already know and believe (i.e. there is more reasonably no complete knowledge).' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 452)

No, my main criticism is that the literal notion of complete knowledge can't be used to draw any significant conclusions. Whether I believe the proposition (which, in its own terms, I do) isn't part of my argument.

'Finally, regarding your criticism of our stated implication of Proposition 1, you appear to overlook that it is not that "values are objectively based on features of ourselves", but that objective values necessarily entail our identity in their meaning, and that Yes there are people, such as particular religious oriented people, who believe in complete values.' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 452)

The problem still stands. Those people who believe in ‘complete values’ (whatever they might be) only need to invoke *sufficient* knowledge of ourselves for their purposes. Even if they explicitly use the words ‘complete knowledge’ in their arguments, they (presumably) mean it in the practical sense of ‘nothing relevant missing from the knowledge’, not ‘nothing at all missing from the knowledge’. And even if that's not what they mean, their argument loses no power by replacing the second with the first.

'Supplementary comment:

In our view, your notion of "sufficient knowledge" is ambiguous because it begs the question, what is the ground(s) for sufficient knowledge?' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 452)

This depends on the domain! Sometimes it is a judgment call. Broadly speaking, knowledge for a given purpose (and implicitly, to a given reliability) is sufficient if the purpose can be reliably achieved with the knowledge and it is ‘minimally sufficient’ if the purpose cannot reliably be achieved with any less knowledge. Sometimes (hopefully it should be clear from context) I mean ‘minimally sufficient’ when I say ‘sufficient’.

'Also, it is unclear to us, when you accuse us of mixing up two interpretations of Challenge Proposition 1 (i.e. theoretical and practical), why the theoretical cannot extend into the practical.' (Excerpt from the response to Entry 452)

In general, it can. In this case, it cannot, because the particular theoretical notion (i.e. complete knowledge) is of no practical significance due to the difference between complete and sufficient knowledge.

Side Note:
Sometimes too much knowledge can be positively counterproductive, due to agents' limited processing capacity. Huge advances were made in mobile robotics when focus switched from using all available information to using task-sufficient information. For reference, see the work of Rodney Brooks. This isn't really relevant to my argument, but is interesting for contextual purposes."

Simon McGregor December 3 2003

Response:

There appears to be confusion on your part. Challenge Proposition 1 itself does not refer to literally "complete" knowledge, even though it contains reference to complete knowledge. Proposition 1 itself refers to more reasonable knowledge, and in fact, the Proposition is antagonistic to the notion of complete knowledge (i.e. knowledge known in entirety). Similarly, your proposition itself, "the literal notion of complete knowledge can’t be used to draw any significant conclusions", does not refer to literally complete knowledge, even though its contains reference to literally complete knowledge. Your proposition itself refers to, we assume, your so-called "sufficient knowledge". So your equation of Challenge Proposition 1 to literally complete knowledge, and thereby the Proposition’s inability to draw any significant conclusions, does not stand. However, we agree that the literal notion of complete knowledge cannot draw any significant conclusions, because as mentioned in the response to Entry 452, literally complete knowledge is more reasonably a non-entity, (and not because as you contend that so-called sufficient knowledge can match based on significance complete knowledge, assuming that the latter exists and we know that it does. Note, if we had complete knowledge, we would be able to deal with every problem that exists. In essence, there would be no problems. Surely, practically sufficient knowledge, related to a specific purpose, cannot match this complete significance.)

Our example of the cancer patient (from the response to Entry 452) refers to a situation in which there is no practically sufficient (and incomplete) cure for cancer, so that from the standpoint of the patient, a literally complete cure is better than no cure at all. (Obviously, a practically sufficient cure, if available would not contain unnecessary information as a literally complete cure would. But this argument is practically meaningless to us, because literally complete knowledge is a (more reasonable) non-entity.)

Supplementary comment

The simultaneity problem of being and knowing (i.e. the temporal separation between being and knowing, in which we cannot more reasonably completely know who we are without ceasing to completely know who we are ad infinitum, without (possibly) getting outside of ourselves but then we cease to be who we are), provides another explanation for why we cannot more reasonably completely know who we are.

Your notion of "sufficient knowledge" is limited to (apparently) unaccountable purposes.

455. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 453

"In your response you make radical presumptions.
If you would please add the following pointers to the original entry - they may simplify matters in overcoming the idea.
Concepts like reasonable, sound, and consistent may need to be appraised if couched in science, and logical thinking terms.
The presumption that ‘knowing’ that ‘we are’ is necessarily a matter of expression. We can, ‘know’ ‘that’ which is inexpressible, but may only use language in proximity attempts to explain.
You have to be - to see. When you see - you can be.
Simultaneous knowing, and being, is re-cognition of who we are. Two is the basic number - we are. Unless there was one other - we could not possibly know who we are.
There are no dichotomies. Mythical dichotomies distort Reality.
Everything is: The computer you use today has always existed, it is the arrangement of particles that has materialized it.
Evolution proceeds in advance of our need to evolve. In our pure active state, we are.
There is no static end (an abomination) - only beginning.

Zen koan recorded 1228:

'An instant realization sees endless time.
Endless time is as one moment.
When one comprehends the endless moment
He, or she, realizes the person who is seeing it.'

Simultaneous occurrence is complete complementation."

Bridie December 12 2003

Response:

How does endlessness (or infinity) more reasonably translate into completeness?

How do you more reasonably completely know that existence is endless (or infinite, or "only beginning")?

Supplementary comment:

Regarding your quoted Zen koan, since an individual can only more reasonably comprehend endlessness (or infinity) within limits, it appears to follow that the individual realizes the person who is seeing the (endless) moment within limits as well. If you contend that an individual can completely comprehend endlessness, thereby completely realize who he or she is in the endless moment, then we would like to know how an individual can more reasonably completely comprehend endlessness. If you cannot more reasonably demonstrate complete comprehension of endlessness then your contention (of complete comprehension of endlessness) falls short of overcoming the Challenge Proposition. Viz., your contention would simply rest on an assumption.

456. Entry:

"We are what we know. So who we are is determined by how long we live and how much we learn in that time. So we cannot [completely] be who we are because we are still here [i.e. alive], and we will never know who we are because we wont be around when we are all gone."

Vernon Ealy December 13 2003

Response:

How is your claim that "we are what we know" more reasonably complete?

Based on the principle of interconnectedness (of things), how does our (i.e. humanity’s) non-existence bring about our completion?

Entries 448-452, Entries 457-460