A Philosophical Work in Progress X

Once one places value on one's self, one takes on the responsibility of constantly generating one's self. What results is perhaps an interpretation and an agent. One could start by framing the notion to something analogous to the id, an evolving entity. At the bottom the id is a mere chemical process. That the universe could produce such matter doesn't appear unusual, considering the trillions of planets in our galaxy alone, and the incredible power of mathematics. One's biology is one's whole self. We are nothing without our organs.

Once constituted, the id as a practical and actual entity takes on various forms in its biosphere. As an id, i am most aware of and connected to my own id, and i assume other ids are mostly aware of their own ids. The entity one calls "me" or "I," i would consider to be the ego. The ego maybe a more difficult entity to define because it consist of indirect physical objects, nonphysical objects, or mental objects; for one's experiences of one's self is not on display in the same way as one's physical structure, i.e. the id, is. The form of the ego is perceived through time as what the ego thinks, believes, and does in the present and the past. However, there are mental objects that one may not consider as one's own, and mental objects which maybe hidden from the ego.

Social, or harmonious id, behavior i'll call the overego. The overego is controlled by dominate ideas called the superego. The superego is instinct for most animals. For humans, the overego is whatever motion the masses are making. Confusion or disagreement on the superego in groups of individuals produce groups of overegos. Though one may admire the swarm creatures' unity, one may despise its mindless assimilation, i.e. complete control or negation of the ego. The superego, which is one's fundamental knowledge, is different for many egos; and made so simply by a change in where the id was initially generated, what cared for the id till maturity, how the ego developed, and other factors based in time.

A human's own subsistence depends on other humans for a time after birth, this forces human relation and interaction. And since we must imitate others before we gain the ability to invent our own objects/ideas, we also acquire a frame of reference in which we aren't the source. One persisting mental problem is the collective vs. the individual needs. If the ego perceives the collective as the most valuable, it will internalize the culture it is engrossed in. If it values the individual more, it will internalize the ethics implied in its self made philosophy.

One may need to supplement the personality given by the culture with a philosophical/scientific personality, though such may contradict at times. The ultimate rational being would perhaps be computer-like, it would analyze every notion based on mathematics or some other objective and detached standards. A scientific/philosophical mindset should, it seems to me, pursue knowledge for the sake of knowing in and of itself. Since intelligibility, or the intellect, is the main ability that separates humans, or rational animals in general, from other "lower" creatures, efficient thinking should be the main focus of development. Science, i.e. what is most likely the state of affairs, may provide knowledge of the activities that help to improve thinking. Philosophy, i.e. the attempt to know everything, pushes the limits of knowledge by showing its limits. But for most individuals knowledge is a means for obtaining some item for the id, ego, overego, or superego. Whereas I would accept such limits for my own self, it seems immoral to attempt to force others to maintain my mindset, because: 1. others may not be able to run on the exact same logic as me, and 2. forcing a mind into a certain form is psychologically painful. The transformation from a benign personality of a mere observer to the philosophical/scientific personality of an active knower is perhaps painful in of itself.

The Mind-Body Problem

Rene Descartes’s distinction between the mind and body was that the mind is a non-extended, thinking thing; and the body is an extended thing which does not think. It is a distinction between the mind and the body that many people maintain; however it creates unavoidable problems, the main one perhaps being how an non-extended object can interact with an extended object?

The limitation of science in describing the relationship between body and mind does not outweigh its ability to identify mechanisms and relationships between the two constructs. There is no proof for a mind existing without a body. For the most part, any organism with a brain structure has a mind of some kind. It may also be safe to assume all organisms with a mind are having profoundly different experiences. But as biologically manifest phenomena in the same universe, we must all have a common factor to our existence, which is our functionality.

The impression of the external world is projected internally. The sense or result of chemical interactions, i.e. reactions in the body to stimulus, create a subjective experience that perceives events, this we identify by observing behavior we relate to that of an object possess of a subjective experience or a mind. Our complex structure of chemical interactions resulted with sensations, drives, and intelligence; none of which appear to be beyond the capacity of physics. Physics is a description of a kind of motion; sensations, drives, and intelligence are all known by a relationship to an object or behavior. All minds are known by their relationship to a body. We have never seen a mind that has no body (even ghost have a form or behavior which makes their presence known). If we have never seen a non-extended object, how can we say such a thing exist? All things known must exert some kind of observable force for us to identify its existence.

There is no physical law that claims nature can not create a thinking object. Why can’t the body think? A mind isn’t extended because it is an action or function; not an object in space, but rather a characteristic inferred by the behavior of an object, i.e. the body. People typically say we use our minds; as if it is a tool we use. And we do not say concepts such as eating or walking are objects, we say they are descriptions of actions, i.e. motions of objects. In both cases the mind is related to something it is external to and also subjected to, which is the body.

The mind must be a product of a tangible object; for a non-extended force can not interact with an extended force, only extended forces can interact. Extension would indicate a multitude of particles, which would appear as a mass of some magnitude. Whereas a non-extended force is no particles, or perhaps one or a few. And we know extension is merely a characteristic of space and time. Thought is a brain function, and a brain is a multitude of particles arranged in a specific manner. Though we don’t have a complete model of the motions of all the particles that make a brain, when can correlate specific parts to specific functions.

The distinction Descartes appears to be making is between agent and action. Consciousness isn’t producing the phenomena of having a body, it is a function of the biological machine, viz. an active brain structure, typically within a body. It can feel as if the mind is outside the body, because there are many body states which result in different mental states, one such state creates a feeling of distance from the body. Is this surprising, considering that various chemicals can manifest a variety of particular bodily, and consequently mental, states? Anything that can be considered to possess the characteristic of a mind must be in some way expressing this possession through the utilization of energy/matter.

On Consciousness

Our method for perceiving objects is to look upon them from the outside of them, though granted we may perceive the innards of an object, but even then we are outside the innards looking upon them. However, for ourselves, we appear to be an object inside our bodies looking outwards at phenomena. This is not only the case for physical phenomena, but also for mental phenomena; for when we utilize the mechanics of imagination, we still appear to be an internal object looking upon some external phenomena (inside ourselves). Is it possible that the object which is looking outwards is consciousness? What consequences follow if this object, which is something within us looking outwards, is consciousness?

If consciousness can look upon itself, then our inquiry is, at least, partially answered. One object that is never too far away from consciousness is the body. It is clear that we can perceive our own bodies by use of a mirror, but I’m reluctant to claim that the consciousness is perceiving itself when it looks upon the object that it appears to be within. But, if our own bodies aren’t considered to be consciousness, then what else can we consider consciousness to be? For physical objects always give the body more of a feeling of reality than mental objects, whenever the two are compared. If our own body is not the consciousness, though it appears to be as consistent in existence as consciousness itself, then how can we make any mental objects consciousness; for no mental object is as consistent as the consciousness or body, though they may appear before the mind frequently. Even if we gave a mental object that has appeared before us the label of consciousness, we would still be obliged to explain the reason why we identify the mental object as consciousness.

Let us return to the basic description of consciousness, which is “awareness of one’s own existence.” If the consciousness is an object that looks upon other objects from the inside of some object, how is it aware of its own existence? For consciousness appears to be aware of many objects, but none of them can firmly be considered consciousness. And consciousness doesn’t seem to possess the ability to look upon itself, and if it has, how will we know? We become aware of the existence of other objects, physical or mental, by a perception of them. However, we claim such a thing as consciousness exist, without having any perception of such a phenomena; for we can not perceive consciousness physically nor mentally. This presents a major threat to any conception of reality that would attempt to describe existence accurately. For whether we claim all things are mental or physical, we must explain how we came to such knowledge. If we say we observed such and such phenomena, but never observed the object which is observing the phenomena, how can we claim to know the information we are receiving is true?

My personal fix to this dilemma is to be rid of the concept of consciousness completely. Consciousness appears to be a failed attempt at discovering a feature of the body and brain that is somehow beyond them both (like the spirit or soul). If we know the interactions between body and brain are the cause of our personal experiences, and that the brain is the physical structure that causes most of our bodily motions and all of our mental events, then I see no reason not to assume it is the brain and body that perceives phenomena and interacts with objects. This, however, would require some alteration to one’s model of reality, particularly a will caused solely by the brain. For we would no longer be able to claim we were in control of our bodies unless when we use the term “we” or “I”, we are referring to our brain.

On the Existence of Cognition

If there be a thing that is cognitive, in which case I merely mean that that word is seen in many places and widely known, then I would assert that there be two objects that exist from which cognition can be manifested. These two objects are the Personal and the Logical.

The Personal is a manifestation created by physical objects, viz. matter/energy. It is an object that evolved over extended periods of time. For we are something large which was spawned by something small. The core of the developed human is the brain. The brain has various functions, generally speaking the brain organizes information. The result of organized information is Logic.

This piece of information is obtained by the utilization of Logic. Logic is an affirmation of information. The universe is mere information organized in a particular way at any given moment. Humans, being a spontaneity in the universe, and not the universe itself, may never possess the minute knowledge of the Summa Genera. However, one need not know the whole Summa Genera, but only knowledge that is complimentary to one’s own conditions. Logic is the highest point of which this information can go, granted one has information and can communicate it to others.

The brain is not created to know everything in the universe. It is a mechanical object found in a body. The body is spawned by the universe, and the cause of the brain; for all living creatures have bodies, but not all have brains, or at least only humans have high cognitive functionality. Cognitive abilities only allow for a glimpse at the Summa Genera. One must consider ones own limitations when utilizing Logic, for that may become a required response.

On the Mind

“Mind” is that which we consider the model of our world. Many people will describe this in various was. The few manners in which I have heard it described as is; that point from which we observer the world, the self, the ego, me/I, the spirit/soul, consciousness, awareness, life, human, and many other phases. For me, it is an action, or performance, or feeling, or reaction of some kind. It is something i do, something i have or am given or perceive, or know about. It has shown me many things, of which i think about, or contemplate, or make judgments about. That of which i judge or contemplate is the world, the universe, I/me, or God. What then is the problem? If one considers it all one thing, then one need not fall into disputes.

The problem may then be what ought we to do with it? These sets of mechanics, which are used to create, manifest, or actualize certain events, are what we utilized when forming our world model. Each model has its own particular explanation, but one is sufficient enough to continue. Conflict will always occur in the various descriptions of how mind is used exactly; whether it is physical phenomena, chemical reactions, biological manifestations, or psychological entities. And if God be the source of my power, then it only could control, or generate my movements and actions. The question still remains what ought we to do?

Regardless what we are there is a quantitative state to this existence we call the Mind. At the very least there is one thing, or nothing. But, frequently, there is more than one thing, i.e. something else is involved in the manifestation of the Mind. What ought we to do with the mind could depend on a multitude of objects. I describe it as an undeniable force from any object mentioned thus far.

I hope these arrangements of words can be of some practical use, though much contradiction exist amongst them. More or less could be said of this. One could understand the basic idea; the argument would be on particulars beyond this theoretical position.

God and Quantity

An interesting conclusion follows from the logical deduction of God in terms of Quantity. Anyone who knows how to count can easily follow my reasoning in this matter, let me illustrate my meaning. God is 1 thing, therefore It can’t be nothing, and must be something. However, to know of God, an observer must perceive either God’s form or God’s motion. Now this can follow with several conclusions concerning Quantity and God. First there must be at least 2 things, God and the observer. God is also known by Its form or motion, making at least 3 things. If we negate the statement, “God is also known by Its form or motion, making at least 3 things,” we still end with 3 things. For, at the very least, the observer is 2 or more things, observer qua observer(Form) and observer qua observing(Motion); less any observer as such denies this determination. Thus resulting in the outcome still ending in 3; God, the observer, and the observer observing; this being the case regardless if God is known or not.

Another odd conclusion follows from God as First Cause. Considering the concept of a 1st Cause, this cause in itself, in relation to quantity, necessarily is 1 thing. But, a cause, in itself, necessitates an effect, making 2 things. And if a cause has no effect, then it can’t be considered a cause qua cause, rather the concept(idea, event, phenomena, etc.) must be an effect itself, or nothing at all(non-existent). Effect as an necessity is one circumstance of a 1st Cause; a causeless cause, a cause resulting from no effect, is another, and a paradox indeed. For a causeless cause can only come from 2 things, nothing and itself. The result of this is drastic, for if the causeless cause came from nothing, then we would still have 2 thing; the causeless cause and nothing. But, if nothing does anything it will cease to be nothing, and become something. No longer being nothing, it would be a falsehood to say a causeless cause came from nothing.

The second circumstance results in the same case. If a causeless cause caused itself, then we have still 2 things. For the effect of the causeless cause is the causeless cause itself. This leads to the cause of the causeless cause being itself, and the effect of the causeless cause being itself. Therefore the causeless cause must be somehow outside itself to cause itself, i am not quite sure how this is done. One way is for there to be 2 causeless cause, problem with that is 1 causeless cause would end up as an effect. Another way would be to make the causeless cause cause only itself. But how could a causeless cause become anything more than a causeless cause if it can only cause itself; for a causeless cause only effect would be itself, itself being nothing more than a causeless cause. A causeless cause seems to have the ability to exist as a causeless cause, but as nothing else.

Let us say the causeless cause caused itself and a man. The causeless cause would have caused 2 things. The cause of the causeless cause being the causeless cause itself, therefore the causeless cause is either 1 thing or 2 things. But how could the causeless cause cause a man? A man is a complex of things, to keep it simple let’s say 10 things, how did the causeless cause acquired 10 other things? the causeless cause hasn’t become anything more in itself but a 1st Cause, at most it is 2 things, which are both causeless causes. And in itself, it is nothing more than 1 thing, itself. For a causeless cause can only come from nothing and itself, and in itself it is nothing more than a 1st Cause.

Unless the causeless cause causes something other than itself, it is essentially always close to nothing(non-existence or null-existence). In the case of the causeless cause causing itself and a man, it can only cause a man. For it being a causeless cause would force it to result in a man. But, man qua man is the configuration of many things, and each thing related to something else. So from where could the causeless cause have preceded from causeless cause to a man? For, if such a proposition were to stand without validation, it would be the same as a man coming from nothing and from nowhere. And this is a result we have concluded before, that a causeless cause can only be caused by nothing or itself. A man can’t be the cause of himself, but if a man is caused by a causeless cause, then he would be the cause of himself. The cause of the causeless cause would be man, and man would be caused by the causeless cause.

Categories of Existence II

Now many philosophers have created their own categories of existence, or being, which is just one of the reasons i find it important. I suppose that such a task is traditional, in a sense. But such a task is necessary in any metaphysical system. The categories i choose are meant to be very simple because the metaphysical system of reality is a manifold system; one could think of 2-D, 3-D, 4-D and quantum mechanics mixed into one system, and in a sense that is the reality we live in. The system i propose is the least difficult and burdensome, for it operates all properties at once, as we shall see ultimately.

The third property of existence is Quantity. This property is an abstract substance, because its brought about by the observer; more particularly because the observer is another Space and Motion, and understands this fact. For Motion is intrinsically and inseparably apart of Space, and each Motion and Space can be assigned a Quantity. Quantity is completely contingent on the observer, or at least in my view it is. For all things are in existence, and all of existence is one; therefore, in a technical sense, every Space and Motion is one. But Space and Motion are separate. For the form, or essence, of a thing is stable and we call it one Space, but Space must extend or is mere extension, which necessitates Motion of some kind; and Motion in turn implies an unstable state. So it would seem that the true state of Space is constant Motion, therefore constant change.To differentiate between each state of Space by means of Motion, while still maintaining that all Space is one, is the utility of Quantity.

The significance of Quantity is in the observer. And how the observer perceives Quantity can have some major effects on the system. A hypothetical may illustrate what i mean more efficiently. If reality is one Space, then the Quantity of all things are 1. If the observer considers himself/herself separate from reality, then the Quantity of all things are 2. If the observer can perceive Space separate from Motion, then the Quantity of all things are 3. If the observer perceives another Space separate from the Space of reality and the Space of the observer, then the Quantity of all things are 4. If the observer perceives the other Space, in Motion, then the quantity of all things become 5. As one can see, this system can go on ad infinitum. Mathematics is the main system that deals with Quantity exclusively, but Quantity is useless without objects to quantify, as we can see.

I believe the greatest explanation for Quantity comes from Parmenides. Here is one of his statements concerning Quantity, more specifically the number one,”But if one is, and both odd and even numbers are implied in one, must not every number exist? And number is infinite, and therefore existence must be infinite, for all and every number partakes of being; therefore being has the greatest number of parts, and every part, however great or however small, is equally one. But can one be in many places and yet be a whole? If not a whole it must be divided into parts and represented by a number corresponding to the number of the parts. And if so, we were wrong in saying that being has the greatest number of parts; for being is coequal and coextensive with one, and has no more parts than one; and so the abstract one broken up into parts by being is many and infinite. But the parts are parts of a whole, and the whole is their containing limit, and the one is therefore limited as well as infinite in number; and that which is a whole has beginning, middle, and end, and a middle is equidistant from the extremes; and one is therefore of a certain figure, round or straight, or a combination of the two, and being a whole includes all the parts which are the whole, and is therefore self-contained. But then, again, the whole is not in the parts, whether all or some. Not in all, because, if in all, also in one; for, if wanting in any one, how in all?–not in some, because the greater would then be contained in the less. But if not in all, nor in any, nor in some, either nowhere or in other. And if nowhere, nothing; therefore in other. The one as a whole, then, is in another, but regarded as a sum of parts is in itself; and is, therefore, both in itself and in another. This being the case, the one is at once both at rest and in motion: at rest, because resting in itself; in motion, because it is ever in other.”

Categories of Existence

To better understand existence, we can start by creating properties in which existence exist. I will attempt to restrict language somewhat, thus to maintain a complete concept of all possible existences; though no one would be wrong in saying that this is incorrect, which we may see at a later time. But these properties i will consider universal for right now. There are five properties of existence; Space, Motion, Quantity, Property, Time. These are intrinsic and necessary in our reality at the very least, they can not be separated from existence or each other.

Each property is intertwined with existence so tightly that the basic concept is difficult to explain. Each term itself is arbitrary to the actual concept; a concept which i doubt any being can fully grasp except existence itself. I will still do my best to explain as completely as possible starting with Space. Space, as defined, is form; and form is length, width, and depth. When we think of Space, the subject of geometry should come into mind, or one can think of cosmology, the study of outer space. Space is the shape of a figure, and as we know, figures come in a myriad of shapes and sizes. Existence is perhaps the biggest space imaginable, and the universe, or reality, second biggest. The smallest space known is the atom or particle, which physicists measure using Planck’s constant, which is a very small number. Space and the other properties of existence, as terms, are reliant on a observer; But also, for an observer to be a observer qua observer, he/she must also exist, and is therefore reliant on existence conversely.

(Footnote: I personally simply assume we are the observers. And as i am apart of we, i must conclude that existence existed before me. I can not affirm the knowledge any events that occurred before my birth with certainty, for is is all knowledge from hearsay. The facts and evidence are adequate, however, and i can’t believe otherwise unless evidence to do so was brought to me. This is very much an issue concerning mind, which i will review latterly. Our existence itself is a mind/body paradox which should be taken into account more often than it usually is.)

The next property of existence is Motion. By Motion i mean any action; action being simply a thing done, a force exerted. Motion is easily seen in relation to Space, when Space is being occupied or changing form. Particles, the basic building blocks of existence, are in constant Motion. Motion is what brings particles together in various configurations. When particles become more restricted in Motion and Space, they clump together and form many of the objects we see around us; however though we see things “at rest,” at the subatomic they’re still in Motion, or more precisely exerting a force. In a broad scale, the primary forces that act in nature are; electromagnetic force, gravitational force, weak force, and strong force. These are more of a psychics standard of Motion. Motion comes in many different actions that create rather counter-intuitive concepts to exist.

Motion is also implied in the simple fact of an object being in Space. For Space is a pure form of extension, thus any object in Space is taking up volume in Space. But Space itself, being pure extension and a unit, doesn’t necessitate an object, because it is itself an object. However, extension is a Motion, and as such is an intrinsic Motion of Space. In the Space of reality, we only know what empirical facts tell us. Any premise that is to concern reality must have an implication of Space of some form and whatever Motion its doing. Reasons being other concepts, other Motions and Spaces, such as cause and effect; observing, observer, observed triune; and the mind-body relationship.

(Footnote: I’m going to end here for now. For the idea is starting to take shape, and just needs more information. It’s clear that the rather intrinsic properties of existence itself is spread throughout all existence. But as we separate the multiple factors of existence, it becomes more clear what existence is, and how it can be.)