"I think, therefore I am (Cogito ergo sum - René Descartes). If I think, I know. And if I think about who I am, I will eventually know who I am. Being who I am comes from itself: I am who I am - who else could I possibly be?!

Thus: I can get to know who I am, if not by any other means, then through thinking about it through indefinite time. So, eventually, I will know who I am. And, since I will always, at any given moment, be who I am, I WILL KNOW WHO I AM AND BE WHO I AM AT THE SAME TIME, eventually!"

Bjørn H.B. Clasen May 5 2000

Response:

We agree that if we think, we know. Though the critical question is in what sense do we know: Is our knowledge absolute or is it non-absolute? The mere fact that we think, in our view, answers this question by highlighting the dichotomy, who we are and what we know, and thereby the need for intrinsic separation from who we are to know, which means that what we know is empty of who we are. And if who we are, or life, is the basis for absolute, it follows that what we know is not absolute.

Just because we cannot help from being who we are, as long as we exist in our living state, it does not mean that we can know who we are. Though we concede that if we could ever know who we are, we would know who we are and be who we are at the same time. Yet this concession is far from asserting that we can know who we are.

In your concluding statement you appear to be conceding that you do not know who you are, and that through thinking about it over indefinite time, you will eventually know. What is it about your thinking, or thinking in general, that allows you to overcome the apparent need for intrinsic separation from who we are to know?

48. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 46.

"At the risk of delving into seemingly irreconcilable assumptions, I will attempt to reply to some of your statements. My gut feeling about this proposition, as stated, is that it is only a part of an infinite loop, which cannot be reduced into constituent parts. This seems to be the crucial point of difference in your philosophy and my entry.

As for the critical point: "in what sense does our knowledge define ourselves", obviously knowledge only defines ourselves in part. We can't know all of ourselves. But the proposition doesn't imply, as I read it, full knowledge. But more importantly, and to be fair, it doesn't imply that 'who we are' is 'full' or 'complete' either. If knowledge is only in part, then 'who we are' to be fair, is only in part also. So I'm not sure whether this is entirely relevant to overcoming the proposition. If indeed the proposition implies knowledge is only in part, or a mirror, or extension or whatever, then it may indeed hold true. But there does seem to be a self-fulfilling or circular argument here.

I feel that you have drawn unwarranted conclusions from the evolution of our ability "to know". True, it may not be advantageous at first impression "to know", with the development of such things as lethal weaponry, etc. But I could just as well argue that this is an intermediate stage in the evolution of "knowledge"-give an animal a measure of 'higher intelligence' and it is obvious the animal will use this intelligence under its animalistic instincts for bad purposes. A lion would set up a ruthless male-dominated super-dictatorship over its pride (sound familiar?), chimpanzees would constantly be at war amongst different bands, as they often are in nature, just with bigger and more lethal weapons (sound familiar?). But it doesn't necessarily follow that these inherited instincts will always be there. Over-population, lethal weaponry, environmental degradation etc are expressions of our biological instincts, but over time instincts can, like any other inherited characteristic, be genetically "switched off", or not expressed, depending on the environment that the organism lives in. In other words one could argue that we haven't yet reached many of the 'long term' benefits of the ability 'to know'. For example a chimpanzee-like animal, like us, with even more intelligence or ability to know than we have, with time, might not develop lethal weapons anymore.

How can culture be imprinted back on nature? There are many possibly ways this can be achieved. Cultural evolution has been defined as Lamarckian, but in the long term this Lamarckian "culture" nevertheless selects those who are genetically favoured to exist and reproduce in that society. It has also been a silly stumbling block in the 20th century to say "nature versus nurture", when in fact some scientists (and I assume philosophers) have suggested that there is possibly no 'conflict' at all, one compliments and defines the other. To take one example of thousands, take lactose intolerance. Studies have shown that the common ability to properly digest lactose as an adult has only arisen in relatively recent time because of the advent of modern agriculture (a cultural phenomenon). For most people in pre-agricultural times the genes which enabled the ability to digest lactose were 'switched off' after childhood, simply because it was no longer needed. This gene expression has changed in proportion in the general population in the last 10,00 years or so, as evidenced by differential lactose intolerance amongst agricultural and non-agricultural people. Now this is a physical (bodily) adaptation, caused by culture-'milk drinking', to change the gene expression in our 'nature'-lactose tolerance. Why is it any different with our mental existence? The changing environment causes mutations to become beneficial at different times which causes change. The brain also has evolved through the cultures/environment that is has existed under during the last few million years, (and before). Take the evolution of language. Cognitive psychologists have recognized that is it impossible for a child to learn the complexities of grammar and language structure so efficiently and so quickly without some kind of encoded structural learning 'module' in the mind-an 'instinct' if you prefer. Where did this instinct come from? From the cultures of prehistoric man during the last few million years that's where. The point is, the cultures of prehistoric man has imprinted on the evolving mind this ability or 'instinct'. The same is probably true of many other suspected 'instincts' in the human condition, although I won't go into them here. Now you might argue that this is indeed a very slow process, but who is to say for certain we don't influence our mental evolution in quicker ways than we presently know?

I think you're right about "now" being a crude term. I use the term "now" indeed quite loosely, but in doing so I am in fact restating my assumption, that "now" is just a 'part' of an infinite loop. But if I use the term loosely, so does the proposition. This concept of "now" is encapsulated in "at the same time"-this phrase implies a concept of "now". This is a problem with the concept of time itself, and may indeed need to be looked at for the proposition to hold. Is time a series of reducible 'moments', or a continuum? It may not in fact be possible to say "at the same time", any more than it is possible to say where an electron is in space at any given "moment of time" or a "now". Once again, we are possibly reducing an irreducible infinite continuum, or 'loop', as I have described.

If I indeed imputed conscious self-identity to bacteria by using the word "control" then I am undoubtedly probably mistaken in this example. By 'control' in this instance I don't mean 'conscious' control, rather, I am implying that it is just possible that what we call conscious self-identity has possibly some kind of instinctive precursor in other forms of life. But I 'm not too worried about this nonsensical point, as you say.

I'm sorry to say I don't understand the logic or proof behind "if who we are is the main determinant of our knowledge, it follows that we cannot control who we are through our knowledge". This appears to me to be arguing by assumption. To my mind one doesn't necessarily follow from the other.

I do believe that evolution has occurred, but this does not necessarily mean I believe there aren't other "forces" or "life-forms" or other "entities", "outside" of evolution which are in existence or at work, but are at present untestable.

We can't know anything absolutely. Of course one of the great understandings of our time is that there are no absolutes. But from this it doesn't follow that part knowledge is not knowledge. Therefore we can, in part, know ourselves, and in so doing redefine ourselves, in part, as a continuously evolving reality. It is important to note here, to be fair, that 'who we are' is quite possibly only 'in part', or 'incomplete' also.

I'm not sure whether we can go any further in this discussion. It basically comes down to whether or not consciousness is reducible to such propositions. It was my feeling about this in the so-called Chinese Room. To re-state my gut feeling of this, I believe the proposition is part of an irreducible infinite loop, 'who we are' defines our knowledge, which then redefines 'who we are' or our nature, and so on, and that consciousness in this sense is a duality-much like the wave-particle duality of light. In other words, in my humble opinion, for what it is worth, it is just possible that the proposition is both true and untrue at the same time. It is also possible that the whole phenomenon of consciousness, including 'introspective knowledge', is like quantum physics, irreducible beyond certain boundaries. Also, five years may not be enough. I feel that evolutionary psychology might have something more to say about all this in the next few decades, or more.

I hope you post/reply to this response, as I am quite interested in your response to these ideas.

Of course I could be entirely on the wrong track, and badly mistaken. If I don't post another entry, good luck with the proposition, which does touch on a number of complex aspects of our existence."

Roger McEvilly May 6 2000

Response:

We agree that the challenge proposition, or any other, appears to be "part of an infinite loop, which cannot be reduced into constituent parts". However, because of the apparent uncertainty of knowledge, we cannot be 100% certain that all knowledge is part of an infinite loop. This uncertainty surrounding knowledge, or certainty, has led to this competition, whereby we are confident that we ourselves exist, that there is a fundamental level of being behind our existence, which we label who we are, and that we cannot know who we are, though we are not certain about these assumptions and conclusion.

If no one overcomes the proposition, the competition would be a way to lessen our uncertainty. That is the best we can do, because it appears that uncertainty will surround a proposition or claim, regardless of how much evidence we have to support it.

Furthermore, in our view, as reasoning beings, the best we can do in terms of knowledge is believe in ideas and theories which are the most sound and consistent in relation to themselves and opposing ideas and theories. The challenge proposition has so far met this standard. It appears to be beyond reasonable refutation. Does irrefutability mean anything? That is up to each one of us to decide, which leads to question of how can we be guided by reason and yet be selective in what we believe through reason? Surely, in the spirit of science, we cannot ignore a sound and consistent claim on grounds that it throws into question our evolution through knowledge?

How can our knowledge of who we are (ie. our fundamental level of being) be in part? Either we know who we are in full or not at all. To overcome the challenge proposition, one must show how we can know who we are in full. Since you claim that we cannot know anything absolutely, it follows that you believe the proposition cannot be overcome. However, because of the apparent uncertainty of knowledge, it follows that knowledge could be absolute. So the challenge is not circular or self-fulfilling. Moreover, we make it clear that we are not asking someone to prove absoluteness, but to reasonably show, within the limits of reason, that we can know who we are. You may consider this challenge an insignificant point, but in our view, it may show that our knowledge itself is empty of who we are.

We agree with you that the human species may be at "intermediate stage" in the evolution of knowledge, with possible long-term benefits of the evolution, like the non-development of lethal weapons, to follow. However, we disagree with you that our biological instincts are the sole cause for our global problems like resistant strains of bacteria and environmental degradation. We claim that the cause of these problems is our existence through knowledge, whereby we are becoming dependent on empty thoughts, and their material extensions, as a means to exist, thus we are suppressing who we are, distancing ourselves from unconscious nature, and making the means for our existence inhuman. A case in point is resistant strains of bacteria, which through our conscious dependency on antibiotics to fight bacteria, instead of letting our natural body defenses fight them, we ourselves, in the developed world, have become weaker through less struggle, and bacteria, like strains of Enterococcus, stronger through having to struggle and adapt. Another case is the notion of genetically switching off instincts through control of environment, which amounts to suppression of who we are, assuming that our instincts are equated with who we are. Surely, passive, benign human beings or a controlled, sterile environment would not be considered long-term progress for the species?!

Furthermore, in brief terms, the development of lethal weapons has less to do with our instincts, and more to do with the uncertainty of knowledge, the fragmented world, and our existence through thoughts, and their material extensions, as a means to exist. Yes, in one-government-world, there would likely be less cause for proliferation of arms, though proliferation would still be present through division between government and members of the populous, and between the human species and unconscious nature. It is our view, in the spirit of Darwinism, that the strongest individuals and species would be produced in a solely instinctual existence, in which we would have the least lethal means to harm each other and the greatest frequency of being harmed. Knowledge in conjunction with other factors like our need to exist through life-forms appears to be taking us further away from the ideal existence, whereby we do the most lethal harm to each other with the least occurrence of being harmed.

We agree with you that culture can influence us physically and mentally over time, as illustrated by your lactose tolerance and exertion of brain examples. Though it is unclear to us whether or not culture can change who we are (ie. our fundamental level of being)? We have asserted, in our previous response, that since who we are is the basis for culture, culture cannot change who we are. Rather, all it can do is bring out things in our nature. Moreover, your claim that our instincts are a product of evolution is questionable, because they may well be a product of who we are, and evolution (ie. the interaction of life-forms) may merely give occasion for us to express them?

One problem with the concept of time is change versus non-change, or as you say, "moments versus continuum". In terms of the phrase, "at the same time", in our view, it can be applied to either scenario, in contrast to "now", which clearly implies a moment or non-change. In other words, "at the same time" implies multi-things or life-forms, thus the necessity for things to occur simultaneously, or at the same time. To refute "at the same time", everything must be shown to be one. Yet, oneness is beyond our minds because there would be nothing we could know. So as far as we know, the phrase appears reasonable.

Regarding our point about not being able to control who we are through knowledge, we have shown through a series of premises and conclusions that from our limited perspective, we ourselves imagine knowledge. Thus, it follows that we ourselves cannot change through knowledge, because it would amount to changing who we are through who we are. 1

We agree with you that our consciousness appears to be in a "state of duality", in which there appears to be an intrinsic difference who we are and thoughts themselves. It is similar to the wave-particle duality and even the energy-sound wave duality.

Since we accept that knowledge is not absolute, thereby there is no truth, it follows that the challenge proposition cannot be both true and untrue. The best we can do, as mentioned, is determine if it is sound and consistent from our limited perspective. In terms of our gut feeling, we believe the proposition, broken down to "we cannot know who we are", is the key to understanding our consciousness, thus everything we know through it. We discover through the proposition that what we know itself is empty of who we are; so by existing through knowledge, and its material extensions, we are suppressing who we are and other life-forms, and replacing them with non-life.

We agree that five years may not be long enough to show whether or not the proposition can be refuted. However, due to the uncertainty of knowledge, it appears that we may never truly know, and that is the challenge of our existence: We must take conscious risk over our preservation.

1. The series of premises and conclusions showing that we imagine knowledge can be found at proof.

49. Entry:

"We can only be who we are. Therefore we know that we are who we are. You cannot know anything about the contents of who you are and be who you are because who you are is always subject to change. You can only know that you are who you are."

Alexander Wuijts May 9 2000

Response:

We agree that, from our limited perspective, we can only be who we are. Therefore, we know, within the limits of reason and knowledge, that we are who we are.

Since we do not know who we are, it does not follow how we know that who we are is always subject to change. However, since our perspective, and knowledge, appears subject to continuous change, it follows that we cannot know who we are unless it is dynamic, and its changes correspond to the changes in our perspective. Though, we face the dilemma of how we can know anything without intrinsic separation from it. And if who we are and thoughts themselves are intrinsically different, their corresponding changes become illusory.

We agree that, from our limited perspective, we know that we are who we are, without actually knowing what it is.

50. Entry:

"This proposition can be overcome if you grant me an assumption I'm not sure I can prove. Assumption: Consciousness is a quantum phenomenon. At the quantum (sub-atomic) level experimental evidence suggests that apparently contradictory elements of our observable universe, become one. Waves and particles merge to become a single entity. Space and time become a continuum. Energy and matter are transferable. Matter becomes non-localized, both in space and time. Knowledge and being are one (?). Now if these ideas and the assumption are correct, the following two statements are both true:

1) We can't know who we are and be who we are at the same time.

2) We can know who we are and be who we are the same time.

Now I know this might sound absurd to some, but quantum physics has always sounded absurd, yet the experimental evidence backs it up. "Knowledge (to know) and being (who we are) merge to become a single entity".

A famous physicist once said, "anyone who says they understand quantum physics, simply shows that they don't understand quantum physics". Our brain has primarily evolved to find food and mates on the Savannah, not understand quantum physics (although the fact that we know a little about it shows we may have some ability in this area). Maybe we find the idea that the two statements above are both true absurd, simply because our brains aren't designed to understand it.

If consciousness is a quantum phenomenon, or as I prefer to say, an expression of quantum reality, there is going to be some real problems in trying to describe it in terms of our evolved language, or in terms of "macro" world physics. Nevertheless it would perhaps also give us hope-we are not completely at the mercy of the ruthless struggle for existence which seems to characterize most of life. Good and evil don't exist at the quantum level, therefore we may one day be able to live in complete freedom from such ideas. Maybe there is a "collective quantum awareness" that we are all a part of.

If the 2 statements given above are both true, which I believe they might well be, then (2) overcomes the proposition (being true). It's just that the real bombshell is, that the opposite is also true. Our minds, searching in the darkness, fail to comprehend this point.

Or do they? It may be that "we are an expression of a "quantum awareness", and are destined to eventually evolve to fully understand it."

Roger McEvilly May 10 2000

Response:

We agree that if we grant you the assumption that "consciousness is a quantum phenomenon", you would overcome the proposition. However, we are not able to do that because in our view, the assumption does not stand to reason:

Premise (1): We cannot get outside of our minds and know that we are.

Premise (2): We cannot know something (ie. thought) solely through itself.

Conclusion (a): What we know of what we know is an empty form.

Premise (3): Who we are is not an empty form.

Conclusion (b): What we know of what we know is not who we are nor is it partly who we are.

Conclusion (c): Consciousness is not in a state of superposition (ie. who we are in knowledge).

Conclusion (d): We cannot know who we are whether we imagine we know we know it or we are not aware of knowing it.

Why is the "ruthless struggle for existence" such a bad thing, when it produces such beautiful, strong, vibrant life-forms, or as Darwin writes, "endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful..." (Origin of Species)?

From our perspective, the dichotomy good and evil only exists as an illusion in our minds, if we let it.

Why would we want to detach ourselves from the struggle for existence? By detaching ourselves from that struggle, we would likely become weak, ugly life-forms, and eventually extinct. In our view, in the spirit of the struggle for existence, we ought to embrace struggle, and in the perspective of Nietszche, even wish struggle onto ourselves without actually seeking it out.

Additional comment on Entry 48:

Could the human species be at an intermediate evolutionary stage with the full benefits of knowledge still to come? The species has survived for over five thousand years through knowledge, which shows that knowledge has been advantageous to the species, otherwise its use of knowledge would not have lasted. Though knowledge as a means to exist may be disadvantageous in the long-term. Also, it has been only in the last two hundred years that the species has increased its dependency on knowledge with disturbing results, including global environmental degradation and global proliferation of increasingly lethal arms. Also, many civilizations that have depended on knowledge have collapsed, like the Mayas, Incas, Egyptians, Romans ect. Though it could be argued that new civilizations naturally replace old civilizations, and that the causes of the collapses may not have been attributed to the use of knowledge. Yet, it is clear that the knowledge of past civilizations did not save them from collapse.

To understand our evolution through knowledge, we must understand our relationship to knowledge, and knowledge itself. By doing so, we come to the conclusions that knowledge itself is empty of who we are, and that we are harming ourselves by existing through knowledge despite some short-term benefits, and with only more harm to ourselves to follow if we continue to evolve through knowledge.

For further explanation on superposition and consciousness see Investigation 9 Response 20.

Entries 38-46 Entries 51-56.