| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home |
|
|
inexpressible.com |
|
| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | | |
| Challenge the Philosophy Competition 3 - Ignorant Exertion Theory (Entries 1-5) |
"The origin of human conscious knowledge in the moment of invention is from an ignorant exertion by a human being which is manifested in the form of an ignorant assertion that there is conscious meaning."
Ignorant Exertion Theory:
The origin of knowledge appears to stem from an inability of the human species, as unconscious beings and from thousands of years ago, to survive any longer in ecosystems. So instead of perishing from for example animals stronger and faster, the species exerted that there is conscious meaning, and from there, it used its exerted knowledge to plan and invent, thereby thrive in ecosystems. However, by exerting meaning to its thoughts, the species gave meaning to what did not have it, thus overtime the species has gradually absorbed itself and the natural world into the emptiness of its thoughts and their material extensions. So by exerting conscious meaning and existing through it, the species had only, barring a successful return to ignorant nature, guaranteed in the long-term its extinction.
Definition of principle terms:
"Ignorant" refers to consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison.
"Challenge" refers to more reasonable refutation of the Ignorant Exertion Theory as outlined. "More reasonable refutation" entails using reason in the most objective manner possible, and includes the arguments stated in the entries submitted to this "Challenge the Claim" competition, and the arguments stated in the responses to them. Also, one idea or position is deemed more reasonable than another idea or position if it is more sound and consistent. (Overcoming the claim can entail more reasonably refuting its terms and the concepts behind them.)
Submit challenges (and other submissions) using the "Entry Form"
See Investigation 9 (Reply 27).
Possibilities for the origin of knowledge:
-when the content of one's thought corresponds to the content of the world.(this, of course brings up questions of language, & sense-perception)
-mind inverted on itself. (needs no mediator like language/senses...though some would disagree with this)
-consciousness coming to know itself.
-some Descartesish thing about knowing that we doubt or some Socratesish thing about knowing that we know nothing.
-The law of non-contradiction.
-I have no satisfying answer.
Bryan January 29 2001
"An assertion requires a consciousness present to assert. This fact, projected on the claim, results in the consequences that the origin of knowledge must lie in an unconscious consciousness. This is conceivable, but then it also goes, that there must also be ‘prior forms of knowledge and assumption’."
Raoul Starren May 28 2002
We agree that an assertion requires a consciousness present in order to make the assertion. However, does the same requirement apply to an unconscious assertion? We do not think so, because an unconscious assertion according to our use of the term stems from an exertion and unconscious consciousness (i.e. unconscious information from responses to interactions). So through an exertion and unconscious consciousness, a human being can unconsciously assert that there is conscious meaning which takes the form of conscious knowledge.
"'The origin of knowledge is from an unconscious assertion by a human being, without prior knowledge and assumption, that there is conscious meaning’.
The assertion is incorrect as it mistakenly assumes that life forms other than human beings do not have knowledge, assertions, or meaning. In fact it appears to be so bad as to almost render it not worth contention, but I'll try anyway.
There is no division between other life forms and human beings. Human beings are one bud, on the end of one branch on the tree of life, and we differ only slightly genetically with other life forms, as all life forms do, from each other. We share roughly 50% of our genes with bananas.
All life forms collect information from their environment which is then processed and used for day to day life. This information collection and processing capacity varies from life form to life form. Some information is passed on to offspring, which varies greatly from species to species. Humans in particular rely greatly on adaptive (not necessarily always correct) information being passed onto offspring, with a proportion of information emerging from the brain during development and maturity, balancing out survival necessity (some of which is referred to as 'revelation'). Because the environment continually changes and adaptive information must be passed onto offspring in each successive generation, new information is continually gained from mature individuals to pass onto offspring, and the rest of the human community. It follows that much information is time-dependant, and can only be adaptive and/or be interpreted as useful or 'correct', given enough time in one particular social or physical environment. Because the social and physical environments continually change, the information and interpretation of this information also changes. An example is the "God is Dead" phrase from Nietzsche. There is no longer any need for people to think a tribal God oversees the safety and security of the (now) expanded community, when this community has developed the skills and expanded social structures to confront the world as it is. It has also been recognized that the concept of God has been used by minority power structures to repeatedly control people through fear and coercion, rather than for communal benefit. It is doubtful whether there is all that much communal benefit left in the idea of God at all.
But all life forms have limited 'knowledge' of their environment, in order to survive and live in that environment. All life forms instinctively attach 'meaning' to such limited knowledge, in order to render this information effective. It is adaptive, and probably all brains in all life forms 'express' this instinctive capacity. They just don't use the words "knowledge" and "meaning", because most of them do not use 'words' (although many do), although but this does not mean that the same fundamental brain-adaptations/instincts/responses are not in operation. All the genetic information suggests that exactly the same genes operate in responses to environmental cues in many different life forms, including humans. The bud on the tree which is human, has inherited these responses, and responds in much the same way, with minor modifications, as do all life forms.
The main problems with the philosophy of the inexpressible committee is the gross assumptions of large divisions between humans and other life forms, combined with the gross assumptions of essentialism in human nature. The committee seems stuck in a kind of 18th century time warp, as these assumptions and concepts have been shown to be grossly incorrect many years ago.
In essence, the summary of my contention is that the assertion could not have come from a human being, without such assertions also existing in other life forms."
Roger McEvilly August 14 2002
Your argument is that ‘the unconscious assertion that there is conscious meaning’ could not have come from a human being, without similar assertions coming from other life-forms, and therefore, since other life-forms have existed prior to human beings, it does not follow that an unconscious assertion by a human being is the origin of knowledge. However, what the proposition refers to is "the origin of [human conscious] knowledge" as pertaining to the moment human beings first had conscious knowledge, and how we first had it. Viz., in the moment of its first existence, where does the human conscious knowledge come from?
It is our contention that a human being created conscious knowledge through an unconscious assertion, and beyond that an unconscious exertion, that there is conscious meaning. In other words, we contend that conscious knowledge is a human creation within the moment of conscious knowledge’s creation.
Other issues:
We do not question that other life-forms have limited knowledge of their environments. Although it is unclear to us whether other life-forms have limited knowledge of their environments and know that they do. Viz., are other life-forms self-conscious? Note, even if they are self-conscious, it does not refute the proposition that human conscious meaning, and thereby human conscious knowledge, is first derived in the moment from an unconscious human exertion manifested in the form of an unconscious human assertion.
Also, in light of your comments, we have changed the proposition to make it more clear. It now reads: "the origin of human conscious knowledge in the moment of creation is from an unconscious exertion by a human being which is manifested in the form of an unconscious assertion that there is conscious meaning."
“The immediate and mediate experience of consciousness is ‘the formation of patterns’. All representations and images are combinations of patterns. Any experience can be traced to various pattern formations held together through association be it termed ‘gestalts’ or ‘qualia.’ Occam's razor prohibits the positing of unnecessary entities in order to explain ‘consciousness’ i.e., the process of pattern formation, unless those entities or processes are also present within experience. The explanation of consciousness need not extend beyond pattern formation to included an ‘unconscious pattern;’ itself a contradiction of terms. In short, there is no necessity to go beyond this definition: ‘consciousness is the process of pattern formation.’ This is an adequate explanation of consciousness that does not posit unnecessary entities or processes, and conforms exactly to experience. An unconscious brain does exist when injured or impaired, or forms a pattern identified as ‘unconsciousness’ to those witnessing this event. However, ‘unconsciousness’ as a process or entity is an unnecessary explanation of any conscious event. Rather ‘unconsciousness’ is simply the absence of pattern formation. The absence of an entity or process cannot be regarded as an entity or process. ‘Subconscious’ processes are evident in experience and can be explained as the partial formation of patterns experienced when integrated into pattern formations, i.e., consciousness. In other words, all patterns have sub patterns as verified by experience. A subconscious process is simply and effectively explained as a pattern formation in the process of integration or association with other patterns. Association is a common experience and is sufficient to explain consciousness or the process of pattern formation as the ‘binding’ of patterns.”
Jack Ferguson March 16 2004
Supplementary comment (as initiated by the Inexpressible Committee):
“I challenge the Unconscious Exertion Theory. It assumes the existence of an unconscious entity a priori. By not defining terms, it is open to alternative definitions. By providing an experiential definition of consciousness and adhering to the razor, I excluded the possibility of an unconscious entity, thereby providing a coherent argument that an unconscious substance is a fiction.”
We agree with your point that by not defining the terms of the Challenge Claim, the Claim is open to “alternative definitions”. However, in fairness to the challenge and Unconscious Exertion Theory, it appears more reasonable to use the intended definitions of the terms. The term relevant to your challenge is “unconsciousness” which refers to human consciousness devoid of knowledge in the form of symbols or forms and which is defined by comparison. So the Unconscious Exertion Theory is contending that human knowledge in the form of symbols or forms originates out of unconscious exertion or a conscious exertion devoid of symbols or forms. With reference to your challenge, this clarification satisfies your application of Occam’s razor by being within the bounds of consciousness.
In addition, your challenge provides no explanation of the origin of human knowledge in the form of symbols or forms. Viz., the mere acknowledgement of “conscious patterns” does not explain the origin of those patterns.
So we ask you: what is the more reasonable origin of human knowledge itself in the form of symbols or forms, or what you call “the formation of patterns”?
| Search inexpressible | Books | Contact Us | Home | |