Hello fellow Thinkers,

Because of the length (700+ kbs) of the first thread under this heading, I thought to move the entries from July 2, 2002, to this new thread as a continuation of the same. So we can continue posting our ideas for Challenge the Philosophy here.

Many thanks, Ivan

Please find the Entries for Inexpressible's Challenge the Philosophy at: http://www.inexpressible.com/

By protomutant on Tuesday, July 2, 2002 - 11:10 am:

Aloha Ivan,

I wanted to thank you for pointimg me in the direction of this Challenge. I came across it from your site. You will find my Entry #351 & the ensuing disputes are still in progress.

Also, I would like to point out, that you should NOT have given up. You were on the right track.

At the same time I have to admit that I am unable to deal with the indiscrepancies in your argument, as I am awaiting the resolution of my own entry.

Thanx all the same - protomutant
---------------------------------------
By protomutant on Wednesday, July 3, 2002 - 06:43 am:

Aloha again Ivan,

Just passing thru again. "I" must confess you would love to see it resolved.

I believe "Garvey" has either wittingly or unwittingly devised what I refer to in 1 of my responses as:

"The Philosophic Theory of Relativity"

If you look at the latest COMMENT you will see how highly I regard this Competition. I believe it will catapult "Ontology" to the forefront of education & ensure that it will soon become THE most spoken about subject on the planet.

The evolution of "Consciousness" is on the verge of a Giant Leap into Sanity & I sincerely believe this Challenge is THE Key.

...but the relationship between Einstein's - Scientific "Theory of Relativity" & "Garvey's" Philosophic "Theory of Relativity" will only be perceptible by many, in hindsight.

All The Best - protomutant

By Ivan A. on Wednesday, July 3, 2002 - 01:04 am:

Thanks protomutant!

I'll have to go and revisit the Inexpressible, and see your entry #351. I haven't given up, just taking a break while I work on a novel. Will check it out, though, if I may confess, I'd hate to see the riddle solved.

Cheers! Ivan

TOTAL BEING = IDENTITY, continued from above:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dear Inexpressible Committee, htt://inexpressible.com

This is in support of Entry #351, though not its judgment, as to your Response asking for clarification of what is Total Being.

I think Total Being can be equated with Identity in three easy steps:

Total Being = Identity

Step 1: Interconnectedness.
All things are part of interconnectedness, everywhere and all the time, which is an ontological connecting of the dots, if you will.

Step 2: Interrelationship.
The patterns created by interconnectedness, the connecting of the dots, create interrelationships that define the dots in terms of there positioning within these patterns. So, interconnectedness is the first order of things, but their interrelationships are the second order of things, so that all parts are defined by how they are within the patterns within which they are positioned.

Step 3: Identity.
Identity is what the dots are, their being, in terms of the totality of the interrelated patterns. As the patterns of interrelationship grow in dimensions, so that greater sets defined greater patterns, then the definition of the singular dots increases in proportion to those dimensions. When tending towards infinity, if we could use a philosophical kind of calculus, then the definitions of the dots likewise tend towards infinity, so that at infinity, they are exactly as the patterns of the totality of interrelationship patterns have defined them to be. They are what they are, in terms of the whole. Therefore, Total Being, as defined by an infinity of interrelated patterns connecting all the dots of being, is exactly what those dots are in terms of their Totality within that Whole. Or, to put it simply, Total Being equals each thing's Identity.

Is this always at the Same Time? Of necessity, it is always at the same time, for patterns defining the dots of being have no time dimensions to them.

Is this Reasonable? If the definition of Total Being = Identity lends itself to infinite regress, then it is reasonable.(*)

Is Identity who we are in our consciousness? All living things are conscious at some level, if they can learn, exhibit locomotion, and have the ability to choose. By the three steps above, we are also defined in our being. This does not mean that we have to know, in our consciousness, all the interrelated patterns that define our identity to be conscious of them. What lends itself to the simplicity calculus of interrelationship is that those infinite patterns are ingrained that that identity's definition, whether or not it is conscious of that, though it displays consciousness at some level. We as human beings have taken that consciousness to a new order, where we are conscious of it, and have given it a name, consciousness. Is this same consciousness that we are now aware of the same as our identity? The two, identity and consciousness, are inextricably linked in terms of how both have been defined by Total Being.

Does this solve the Proposition? The Proposition, can we know who we are and be who we are at the same time, or its expression in the negative, is a mystery of paradox that cannot be answered here. However, since I think of God as the infinite regress of mysteries, I am happy to leave it at that, with one caveat: As long as I retain the right to be who I am, which is my identity.(**)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

*(Please note that this thinking, of identity and total being as equal, lends itself to infinite regress, so we can take it back to the beginning of the formation of the first atom in the universe as a result of whatever forces collided to produce it, or to the formation of the first thing we can define as being alive, however the universe created life within itself, or the first signs of consciousness, as defined above. This self defining interrelationship had been at work from that first moment of creation. It had been active long before we became conscious of our consciousness.)

**(But this is only the first order of things. Next comes agreement and coercion, and whether my right to be who I am is violated, or violates it for another, so that perhaps I no longer am who I am in my identity, etc...)

By protomutant on Monday, July 8, 2002 - 11:56 am:
Thanx Ivan,

You have an interesting way of looking at things.

From a truly Ontological Viewpoint Infinite Regress is a myth.

It all depends on the way in which we translate Eternity & Infinity.

A simple Ontological Definition would read:

ETERNITY = "Always NOW"

INFINITY = "Always HERE"

Thanx for the support - protomutant

By Ivan A. on Tuesday, July 9, 2002 - 04:42 pm:
Freedom or Politic?

From Inexpressible's Response to Entry #359: http://inexpressible.com/e359.html

"In our view, there is no difference between the propositions, "we cannot truly know who we are" and "we cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time", except the former is more concise and the latter is more clear. We choose the latter proposition because we think it is more important to establish clarity over conciseness in this context.
Also, as you appear to be aware, the competition is not just about establishing the more reasonable truth-value within the limits of what we know of our self-knowledge, but establishing a more reasonable framework for our decision-making. Does this satisfy you as a context for the competition/discussion? Since our identity is the center of our consciousness, and decision-making is fundamental to the content of our consciousness, we think we are focused on some very important issues. We are hoping to establish a viable, alternative political framework partly out of the competition."

Please note the last two sentences. This is very telling of why this competition is important, but also potentially dangerous if the price extolled is human freedom, the right to be Who we are.

Ivan

By protomutant on Thursday, July 11, 2002 - 05:49 pm:
Aloha Ivan,

Yes, I agree with you fully, this is extremely important.

I have included a brief response to their mention of an "alternative political framework" in my forthcoming 'Comment' - as of now, yet to be posted.

I also have a new entry on the way.

May I add, that "True Freedom" is never endangered within the species Homo-Sapiens, for it is 'Intrinsic'.

Having said that, I certainly believe we are about to incarnate its manifestation through the realisation of Real Consciousness, as opposed to Relative Consciousness.

Indications are already evident, that the inadequacies of our current political systems, are being relentlessly exposed.

The evolution of Consciousness is exposing the relativity of relativity itself, & we should be excited - never scared.

Your site & others like it are to be commended for being in the forefront of this very exposition. Keep up the good work !

protomutant

By Jim White on Friday, July 12, 2002 - 05:15 am:
Ivan, Everyone,

Follows is my submission to The Philosophy Challenge.

------------------
The Philosophy Challenge

Challenge: “We cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time.”

© Copyright 2002 by Jimmy L. White - All rights reserved

Consciousness encompasses three unique properties; thus, consciousness is a complete (whole) unique substance in its own right, and of its own volition. Consciousness is the substance of life; moreover, the three properties of consciousness are constituted as one substance, which comprises our being.

Three Essential Properties of Consciousness

Awareness
Self-Identity
Free Will

Consciousness arises of its own volition, meaning a conscious entity is the possessor of free will, which gives rise to volition; therefore, it is by the combination of consciousness and free will that self-identity occurs.

“We cannot truly know who we are … “

Self-identity occurs through the volition of free will and conscious awareness

“In part or in whole …”

The properties of consciousness are inseparable; therefore, consciousness is whole

“And be who we are at the same time …”

It is inconceivable to think we are not who we are, for there is no spatial separation of the three properties of consciousness, the substance of life.

The first clause, would demand that our identity resides outside of our consciousness-

The second clause, demands the three properties of consciousness are spatially separated-

The third clause, demands spatial separation and a time lapse between the three properties of consciousness-

Conclusion: The proposition as framed is problematic in that, the demanding of the three properties of consciousness to be treated as separate entities i.e., each part separated from each of the other parts; however, to fathom such a process as potentially giving rise to the knowledge as stated is incomprehensible, and illogical. If we properly understand what it means to be conscious, the associative problems disappear for the conclusion as rendered here is based on objective participation, not subjective thought. Thereof, the knowledge of self-identity is a complete whole, and it is undeniably true in every respect regardless of time, for the complete function of consciousness occurs simultaneously, which cannot be spatially or dimensionally separated from the experience of consciousness itself.

Addressing only the first three arguments as stated-

1. Representational knowledge

Your supporting arguments do not logically follow; i.e., “we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds.”

Direct information is absorbed by our consciousness for our consciousness permeates the space surrounding us, which therefore, encompasses every object within proximity of our being. If that were not true, we would not be able to make decisions of judgment such as the involuntary reactions required to avoid accidents. A speeding car that pulls in front of your car when traveling at fifty miles per hour requires such reaction to avoid a collision; therefore, the “knowledge” of that car pulling out in front of you is not - representational, it is direct knowledge as absorbed by our consciousness.

2. Epistemology of knowledge (human invention)

“Conscious knowledge is apparently derived from human invention. (i.e. we invent conscious knowledge from interactional based information.)”
“Since we are the ones behind the invention of conscious knowledge, we cannot invent true knowledge of ourselves and be ourselves. In other words, we cannot be the basis for invention and at the same time the product of invention.”

I reject the first statement for the use of word, “apparently.” It is not readily apparent that humans invent direct information as absorbed; moreover, humans “discover” knowledge.

Do humans invent - conscious knowledge? I would greatly appreciate a proof of such an invention.

Knowledge of self is a priori, as demonstrated next.

I am- demands that free will make a choice; thereby, two options are available to what is our “awareness.” Free will can choose I, or not I. In the absence of I, no choice can be; therefore, free will only has one choice to make - I am, which is the guarantor of truth.

Here, I believe it imperative to clarify some conceptual errors in your hypothesis, for it is most certainly evident to me your platform of argumentation is rather weak and unsound. Because the vast majority of human beings have no memory prior to two years of age, an identity is firmly established, before cognizant memory functions occur; therefore, it can be assuredly stated that for whatever reasons such historicity is fact, the establishment of an identity is the primary function of consciousness during the first two years of life, and it can be categorically proven the human brain does not mature until around the age of 18 - 19 years. By that, through modern diagnostic methodologies, we can prove humans do in fact Build an Identity; therefore, we have no need to discover - or - invent an identity.

3. Internalism and externalism

I addressed the issue of internal and external in my response to the First Premise.

Conclusion: After reviewing the remaining supporting arguments, there is no further point to continue since the remaining arguments are logically insurmountable. What has been so cleverly woven into the challenge is – what we are – not who we are. By using the word “apparently” there are very few hard factual statements, the type of statement that can be validated. For me to understand who I am does not require knowledge of what I consist of, in the same sense I do not require knowledge of what an apple consists of to identify an apple; therefore, your challenge shall remain forever unanswered for it is meaningless, and an endeavor in futility.

End © Copyright information -

Respectfully Submitted,

Jimmy L. White – July 13, 2002

By Jim White on Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 09:55 am:
Ivan, Everyone,

Follows is the Appended concluding arguments 4 through 9 as required to complete the Philosophy Challenge. After some thought, I decided to try and win the competition by attempting to refute, or overcome the remaining arguments- Jim White
-------------------------------

© Copyright 2002 by Jimmy L. White

Appended – to Formally Complete the Philosophy Challenge – July 13, 2002

After thinking about the arguments that at first I did not think could be overcome using normal methodology I read through arguments 4 through 9 and of them, only the eighth argument seemed to be a sound argument that could not be dealt with or overcome. The difficult triple negative caused difficulty because I could not eliminate any of them using every methodology I could think of. What follows should reveal the problem of dealing with argument 8.

4. Temporal lag

“Conscious knowledge is apparently defined by temporality, and therefore as soon as we think we know who we are, we cease to know who we are because what we know is past knowledge of who we are. (If we deny the notion of time, we also deny the notion of thought, which then self-defeats the denial of time.)”

Time - the age old problem rears its ugly head; however, for a thing to exist, it obviously must consist of something. Here, I invoke the PNC, for it proves Time is not logically plausible.

Time if it exists, exists as three distinct disconnected parts

1. Future
2. Present
3. Past

It is impossible for a thing not to be accessible to itself; thereof, demands time does not exist, for the Present cannot access the Future, neither can the Present access the Past. Thereof the PNC denies Time is a necessity, which negates the premise, time exists. There can be no such thing as an arbitrary necessity; hence, for time to exist, the claimant suffers burden of proof, which demands that time must be proven as a logical necessity. Logical necessities always serve specific purposes; therefore, defining a logical purpose for the Future, and the Past is the only method that will prove that time exists. It is impossible to define a purpose for either Future or Past. The present definition of Time was arbitrarily established by using the decay rate of the Cesium Atom; therefore, there is no potential for time to exist for it is an abstract constructed entity without properties, and nothing can/will exist without properties. The past is spatially separated from both Present and Future; the Future is spatially separated from both Past and Present; the Present is spatially separated from both Past and Future. No thing can/will exist if separated from any of its parts. Exists means to have real being, and time does not possess real being, for a real being consists of a substance; therefore, the Past does not consist of a substance, neither does the Future consist of substance.

Lag means - to follow or trail behind; however, time cannot lag behind itself, for the three parts are spatially separated by Dimension. Obviously, the Future cannot lag the Present; the Future cannot lag the Past; the Present cannot lag the Past, which denies every potential for "time lag" to exist.

The problem of Time is, it is not a universal attribute that can be ascribed to the universe; therefore, it is on this occasion that I remove time and the associated time lag from the argument as presented, which proves to be a logically fallacy that can be absolutely proven as such by a simple experiment.

Experiment: Place three volunteer human beings inside an enclosure without access to the outside world of reality. To insure no suffering occurs, the enclosure must be fitted accordingly, and then provide every creature comfort necessary to sustain life for 14 days. No source of any external to internal communications is allowed, but communications to the external world is paramount for a consideration of safety. Ideally the enclosure should be adequately large, fully equipped with good lighting and all accommodations requisite for normal living, excepting television, radio, and every type of device that is capable of measuring duration. All food must be passed upon demand to any volunteer whenever requested, and an adequate amount of beverages, refreshments and snacks shall be in storage inside the enclosure. None of the volunteers will know the total of elapsed duration to ensue before they will be tested for their ability to know what time it is prior to their reentry into the world of Reality. The period of duration for confinement shall be no less than eight days, and no more than 13 days.

The results are predictable - No volunteer will have a concept of what time it is, after the conditions for length of stay in confinement are met.

5. Comparative nature of reason (reliance on past knowledge)

"Reason is apparently defined by comparison of conscious meaning, and therefore what we reason and thereby knowledge is based on what previously know, which means that we can only know in the context of past knowledge."

Reason is not apparently defined by anything; therefore, to categorically prove facts, the clauses of the statement must be iterated as three separate clauses enabling logic to function, as logic should.

1. “Reason is defined by comparison of conscious meaning.”

2. “and therefore what we reason and thereby knowledge is based on what previously know,

3. “which means that we can only know in the context of past knowledge."

Knowledge of pain is my choice for refuting the argument, for the knowledge of pain is an inherent (innate) or embedded necessity for all mammals. You must understand pain is a necessity, and that a necessity always serves a specific purpose. The purpose of pain is to warn the sufferers of it as it is experienced to notify them something associated with their being is abnormal. It does not matter when, if, how, or why, pain occurs, for the sufferer of it will react accordingly. That proves the first clause of the argument is false, and that at least some knowledge is innate; thereby, adjudicates and nullifies the claim that, ”and therefore what we reason and thereby knowledge is based on what we previously know," which effectively renders, “we can only know in the context of past knowledge," as a false notion not established by facts.

6. Incomplete empirical knowledge

"Empirical knowledge of who we are whether of our biological or conscious make-up, cannot completely capture ourselves in entirety due to the complexity of our make-up."

Empirical knowledge of biological composition is an odd form of question begging; therefore, it is not relevant for proof of anything, specifically the knowledge of my self-identity. The reason being for that is, I exist; therefore, I do consist of a substance; that substance is my being, and my being is my essence. Previously the issues of being, and its associated consciousness were fully addressed; therefore, there is no complexity to my conscious make-up. This is where you crossed the bounds of logic using an assumption, and sublime crossover (and a direct contradiction I might add) of the meanings of - who we are - and - what we are. Who = that person, a person, or the interrogative of another person - what = interrogative of an object, or matter. Who, and what, are both pronouns; therefore, extreme caution is necessary for challenges such as this, which insures that there is no misunderstanding of a specific word possible. That proves use of vague, and abstruse language, which is totally unacceptable and is not honest for debate, or discussion. Yes I know what I am, but what I am, is not what the proposition specifies.

7. Recursive reflexivity (infinite regress)

"Apparently all conscious knowledge if it is asserted with absolute truth-value succumbs to infinite regress, whereby we reach an end link in our chain of reasoning which infinitely repeats because we never come to an absolute endpoint. Or, we face "recursive reflexivity" whereby each addition of knowledge of who we are changes who we are so that we never attain true knowledge of who we are."

An infinite regress is possible only when dealing with abstract entities or concepts; therefore, your argument as presented is invalid and unsound. An infinite regress will never occur in reality of the worlds of which, are the private and mutually exclusive domains of our existence. Prediction: My body will die, and will convert to other forms of matter, or energy; by that, my body will disappear from experiential reality. That is an absolute prediction, with an absolute truth-value. I defy logic to disprove the truth in that prediction. There is no other condition, nor further point to find or prove, for that is the essence of absolutism - guaranteed truth value, and guaranteed result in reality as we, human beings experience it. By that, prove to me the truth of the prediction is not self-evident, as specifically phrased.

8. Precedence of possibility

"Since possibility is necessary for the existence of impossibility, and impossibility is not necessary for the existence of possibility, it follows that possibility precedes impossibility. This axiom defends the competition from the standpoint that it cannot be claimed with validity that it is impossible to truly know who we are, and therefore, the proposition is impossible to overcome.

Also, since the proposition is asserted from a limited perspective, it is consistent with the precedence of possibility, and in particular the possibility of truly knowing who we are."

All things, concepts, entities, or abstract constructed whatever’s the human mind can conceive of are impossible to make manifest in reality; thereof, we can say, it is impossible for all possibilities to occur. Possible can be both causal and contingent; impossible is not contingent, and cannot be caused.

The argument as presented is based on devious wording as phrased, of which, by using what is a triple negative obfuscates every potential result. That statement follows with the explanatory and superfluous clauses omitted, and then divided into the three relevant clauses required to prove the truth-value of each particular clause.

"it cannot be claimed with validity that"

"it is impossible to truly know who we are,"

"the proposition is impossible to overcome."

There is no possible rebuttal to argument 8, until after argument 9 is refuted. In other words, every potential to refute argument 8 does not exist, until after argument 9 is refuted, which will determine the truth-value of each of the cited clauses.

Final argument-

"it cannot be claimed with validity that" - This clause is true.

"it is impossible to truly know who we are," - This clause is false, PNC wins!

"the proposition is impossible to overcome." - This clause is false, I win!

9. Limited perspective

By asserting the proposition with limited truth-value, we avoid the skeptical contradiction of claiming to not know anything from a position of knowing, or in the context of the proposition, claiming to not truly know who we are from a position of truly knowing who we are. Also, we do not diminish the significance of the proposition by limiting its truth-value, because apparently all propositions from our perspective are subject to limited truth-value, and as mentioned, if we did not limit the proposition’s truth-value, it would result in contradiction.

Here again, it is not apparent that all propositions are subject to limited truth-value. That is an assertion without supporting argument; however, I will accept the assertion.

Argument 9 is clearly obfuscating and ambiguous.

Argument 9 includes a direct contradiction that is clearly elucidated. It follows as was written.

"we do not diminish the significance of the proposition by limiting its truth-value."

The contradicting statement immediately follows the above statement.

"because apparently all propositions from our perspective are subject to limited truth-value,"

The following statement compounds the contradiction with a hilariously funny extra warning about - what contradiction?

"and as mentioned, if we did not limit the proposition’s truth-value, it would result in contradiction."

In view of the "noted" and properly "identified" direct contradiction, I claim victory with argument 9, for it conclusively proves the results for argument 8!
End © Copyright information -

Respectfully Submitted as Appended,
Jimmy L. White – July 13, 2002

By Ivan A. on Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 01:38 pm:
Hi Jim,

Great reasoning. But remember, in time we all
die. Reality does have time, whether or not we
are cognizant of it, though most of the time, we
are. I would probably not go through the great
lengths you have to refute the proposition, since
then I would be giving it power I do not believe
it has. Still, always interesting to see the
mechanics of thought. Good luck!

Thanks for sharing your ideas.

Ivan

By protomutant on Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 02:07 pm:
Aloha Everyone,

Just came across this after posting an Inquiry to the Competition which has not been posted yet & which I will reproduce hereunder.

Jim the interesting point is, I believe you are tackling the issue from the right angle. This is precisely the point I made with my Inquiry to Response of Inquiry #6, based on their revelation of the Original proposition, which I cornered them into.

My argument was based upon the non-existence of Absolute Truth-Value in the Original proposition, and is directly related to yours, although subtly different. I believe the 'Contradiction' lies in the fact, that the Original proposition itself has no Absolute Truth-Value.

My Inquiry(reproduced below, but not posted by Inexpressible yet), will explain my point...meanwhile, Good Luck with your Entry Jim, I believe the enigma is about to be exposed.
*************************************************
Aloha,

Posted in Entry form as well
--------------------------------------------------------------------
1) - You claim the Original Proposition is:

“We cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time”

2) - The proposition has been always asserted with limited truth-value.

My Inquiry is:

How was Garvey able to ‘assert’ the proposition with limited truth-value, unless he knew with Absolute Truth-Value that the proposition was “True” with limited truth-value ?

The Committee admits that he didn’t, in that both he & they agree that although they don’t know for sure, they believe it is impossible to overcome the proposition.

The proposition is therefore a personal belief based on impossibility & as you yourselves admit has no Absolute Truth-Value. Do you agree that personal belief, has no Absolute Truth-Value ?

If so, why do you find it necessary for someone else to overcome the proposition (which has no Absolute Truth-Value) with Absolute Truth-Value.

It is only ‘impossible’ to overcome a proposition if it has Absolute Truth-Value.

Therefore, Garveys belief of ‘impossibilty’ accepted by the Committee is necessarily based on personal belief, as it has no Absolute Truth-Value.

Is it ‘more reasonable’ that you expect someone elses belief, albeit based on ‘possibilty’ to include Absolute Truth-Value, when yours does not ?

NO – it is pure dogmatism of the highest order !

Therefore, I assert, that ‘mere possibilty’ without Absolute Truth-Value overcomes the proposition.

This is precisely why I introduced Absolute Truth-Value into the equation in the first place…I.E. – “Absolute Being either exists or it does not”

You deny that you are required to prove that Absolute Being exists, yet I AM required to prove that it does. WHY ?…what are the grounds based on Absolute Truth-Value for your belief that it is impossible that it can exist ? You do not have any grounds with Absolute Truth-Value, other than the fact that you limited the unproved Truth-Value of an unproved proposition. I.E. – your grounds are based entirely on personal belief.

Unless you can agree that the proposition is overcome by merely showing the ‘possibilty’ that it can be overcome, the Competition becomes an unreasonable & preposterous exercise in Philosophical dialogue doomed to go round in circles forever. To deny this is to cling dogmatically to the assumption that the personally held belief of the ‘impossibilty’, of something with No Truth-Value, has Absolute Truth-Value. This is obviously contradictory, ridiculous & simply laughable.
To conclude therefore – if you deny the latter, the Competiton must be declared ‘null & void’.

Friends to delay the issue would merely substantiate Garveys mental torment, in as much as he would have to admit defeat, by labelling his final publication for ‘Inexpressible Publications’ – ‘ Critique of Unreasonable Consciousness’: Why I was wrong.

The ‘inexpressible’ has no Absolute Truth-Value whatsoever & will always remain unable to serve any useful purpose. Only that which has been expressed (and/or is capable of expression) is capable of embodying the Absolute Truth-Value of existence. Inability to express knowledge will always remain un-representational, whereas expression of knowledge allows for education & therefore includes representational potentiality.

protomutant

By Jim White on Sunday, July 14, 2002 - 12:08 am:
Ivan, Protomutant, Everyone,

Follows is another amendment to those as already posted, and I have at least one more argument that needs refutation in order for everyone else's response to the challenge becomes as relevant, or even moreso than that as the Original Challenges was written. I will endeavor to prove the remaining argument quickly.

Please see my previous posts of Friday, July 12, 2002 - 05:15 am, and Saturday, July 13, 2002 - 09:55 am in order to correlate this amendment accordingly. Thank you, -Jim White
-------------------

What follows is appended July 13, 2002 and © Copyright by Jimmy L. White

To fully establish the validity of my arguments there were seven more arguments made to support the Original Philosophy Challenge. By that, in order to refute every known type of argument the Committee will present to me, I will continually update this paper when and if required for it to be as compiled a complete absolute refutation to the Challenge as was presented.

The Philosophy Challenge- Continued Refutations-

"We cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time."

Response to the three Premises + Four Arguments (C) Copyright 2002 Jimmy L. White

The proof for the proposition comes down to three premises:

1. We exist. - True Statement

2. There is a basis behind our existence. - True Statement

3. Our conscious knowledge is representational. - False Statement

Four Arguments

1. there is no evidence showing a direct continuum of knowledge from the external world. - False Statement

2. we appear to derive/create knowledge from past knowledge or reflecting/reasoning. - False Statement

3. it does not follow how knowledge as conscious phenomenon could exist as a static, conscious form in objects which are devoid of consciousness. False Statement.

4. it does not follow why objects would contain absolute conscious knowledge of themselves that is directly transferred to conscious life-forms. False Statement
-----------------

Opening Statements

Premises 1 and 2 stand on merit as defined. Premise 3 is invalid, and cannot be proven to be true; thereby, proving the Philosophy Challenge can be overcome.

The four arguments are invalid, and, or, are false, thereby, proving that someone can or will overcome the Philosophy Challenge as it was originally written.
-----------------
Premise 3

Our conscious knowledge is representational-

This premise is central to validating the proposition because the premise shows from our limited perspective that we cannot truly know something. So if the premise stands, assuming that the other premises also stand, it follows that the proposition stands as well.

The defense of this premise is as follows: We consciously know in an interactional or representational way through sensorial, biochemical, neurological, and conscious responses, and any other responses, to interactions internal to us as human beings, so that what we consciously know, from our limited perspective, is not truly what is.
-----------------
Response to Premise 3

I agree that "some" types of knowledge are in fact representational, but not all knowledge is based on, or is representational of any whatever. The common problem among framers of the Challenge is, their dependency on a language as iterated to imply, tell, inform, and or constitute an idea, concept or notion into a statement that is self-evident – true or false. The problem is firmly rooted in the logical apparatus known as the human brain, since the human brain does not rely upon, or depend upon the language as spoken and written such to solve some logic problems. Undoubtedly, the human brain apparatus utilizes a precise methodology inclusive of a regimented process, which is fully analog in function that can be used to incorporate polynomial exponential algorithms of specific types that cannot be duplicated by any known digital methodology. It is from that aspect of which I approach problem solution. In some instances that rules out the commonplace formal logic systems that have been designed by science, and philosophers to prove, and disprove propositions, verify premises, and formulate formal arguments.

Yes, I strongly believe in and use the Principle of Non Contradiction (PNC), the Principle of Excluded Middle (PEM), and as a last resort the Principle of Exclusive Disjunction for Contradictories (PEDC). When each of them is properly used, they allow us to eliminate superfluous language, which becomes a formidable tool that often annihilates insufficient or invalid, nonsensical arguments and components of a proposition or premise. Yes, that is reductionism, which is another tool often bypassed by logicians and philosophers.

Follows is my direct argument to defeat the premise-

Direct information is absorbed by our consciousness for our consciousness permeates the space surrounding us, which therefore, encompasses every object within proximity of our being. If that were not true, we would not be able to make decisions of judgment such as the involuntary reactions required to avoid accidents. A speeding car that pulls in front of your car when traveling at fifty miles per hour requires such reaction to avoid a collision; therefore, the “knowledge” of that car pulling out in front of you is not - representational, it is direct knowledge as absorbed by our consciousness.

Continuation and Explanation of the Argument-

It was Heidegger who had great difficulty in expressing an in here, out there realization of being. Yes, I studied Heidegger, but only to learn where his philosophy failed; by that, I mostly reject Heideggerian Philosophy for that one reason for he trapped himself in the vicious circle some people identify as an infinite regress; thereby, he could never form a complete argument that resulted with a valid concept that could be validated as being true within context as absolute, and irrefutable.

Consciousness, is not limited or restricted to the in here (interior) of being, for if it were, we could not rationalize (destroy-examine-probe-test) the reality of other objects, things, or entities that exist external to our being. Fact: Objects do not exist in reality. Instead, objects exist as the reality of their being. In other words, it is the reality of our being is the method used to precisely and concisely project the image of our being to others who observe us. It is in that sense, everything that is external to our being is projected by the reality of those whatever that appear to us. That is how and why that you see your own body as it appears to you - our own being allows us to view self, not only from the inside of our being, but as we appear to others. In essence, our consciousness is projected into the infinity of space whereas, it absorbs everything of interest, and allows us to examine it as it appears to us; by that, the external appearance of whatever can be examined upon whim and at leisure if, and, or, required. The absorption of knowledge is an autonomic integral brain function, which will be ultimately comprehensible and understandable. At this stage of my life, and my reasoning ability, I am not sure that an adequate method of expression is available to accomplish fact.
------------------

Refutation of the Four Arguments-

1. there is no evidence showing a direct continuum of knowledge from the external world.

The statement is false.

A direct continuum is constantly available to us if and when we are in a conscious state of awareness; moreover, we exist within such a continuum. As human consciousness is projected into our individual worlds (realms) that we exist within the flow of knowledge is never-ending, and allows continual examination of our world. Obviously some types of knowledge never before known or apprehended by us, evades by our never coming in direct contact (through our consciousness) with its specific knowledge. We will never be able to know the absolute being of everything that appears to us. For us to be able to do that, so we could learn or know what another being is, as it is, requires us to destroy the being as it exists, which would defeat the very purpose of such destruction – that is only true for other living creatures, of which, should never be forgotten and omitted from our cognizant realization of what it truly means to live (enter morality or ethics).

2. we appear to derive/create knowledge from past knowledge or reflecting/reasoning.

The statement is false.

Appearances are everything, but amount to nothing, if that appearance does not exist as the reality it must appear as, in order for us to "know" anything about whatever appears. Convoluted expression of abstract concepts or notions is the major culprit of necessarily we must attempt to apprehend. Here it can be categorically stated, the human enterprise will not "create" anything, for creation has provided every necessary thing for us, which proves that creation has no beginning or end; therefore, creation is eternal, and infinite in every respect. The human enterprise only assembles, builds (constructs with), establishes and modifies whatever creation provide[s][d] for us; therefore, it is not humanly possible to create any thing, entity, idea, concept, universal be it material or immaterial, nor a true necessity (whatever it is that is necessary to support life). Creation supplied every human enterprise with "imagination," and it is the improper use of human imagination that tries to "create," but always fails in every such endeavor. For example, we can conceptualize that known as a "square circle," but it is humanly impossible to make, cause, build and or construct such an abstracted concept or notion whereas, it will materialize as a reality, for it does not consist of a necessary substance. (enter noumenon and phenomenon)

3. it does not follow how knowledge as conscious phenomenon could exist as a static, conscious form in objects which are devoid of consciousness.

The Statement is false.

Contrary to the conceptualized statement as rendered, it is the substance of an object that manifests as the reality of objects as they appears before us, which is totally independent, and is not dependent on the object's being, being in a conscious state. Consciousness is a distinct attribute of and belongs exclusively to animate beings; however, unconsciousness is an attribute of every being, animate, or inanimate, and belongs to all beings. Using the example of the "cup," I will attempt to explain why knowledge is discovered, and cannot be created by using a thought experiment that anyone can use to explain that some types of knowledge is inherent (innate) to the human enterprise.

I am totally ignorant - I exist alone in the world of my appearance, and I have never seen a cup before. Think, I am thirsty: As I walk along on my daily travels in search of food, I see a cup for the first time. Not knowing what a cup is, I pick it up, and examine it. I like the cup for I had never seen one before so I decide to keep the cup. Remember, I am now thirsty, so I decide to visit a favorite spring to quench my thirst. Before when I never had a cup, I used my hand to dip water to partake of it, but I had always had to dip my cupped hand several times to quench my thirst. I now had a cup, but I only needed to dip the cup a couple of times to quench my thirst. The question is, how did I know that I could make a cup of my hand in order to dip water? The answer is, I "discovered the knowledge," but I never "created any knowledge"; all knowledge existed prior to my life, and being. (enter eternal and infinite knowledge)

4. it does not follow why objects would contain absolute conscious knowledge of themselves that is directly transferred to conscious life-forms.

The statement is false.

Consciousness or unconsciousness of whatever appears to us, has nothing to do with, and is wholly independent of the appearance (manifestation) of the individual reality of things or whatever it is that appears to us. It is the substance of being that manifests itself to our conscious recognition of it. The human enterprise accumulates knowledge as it was, and is discovered; therefore, we are equipped with a nearly infinite memory system, complete with the necessary attributes and properties required for survival. If the being of an object cannot project what it is to us despite being animate or inanimate how are we supposed to apprehend the object? The object projects itself into our "consciousness" the same as our consciousness projects our appearance to the object. The projection of or manifestation of a being's image as the reality that it is can only be an autonomic function of being, which denies that our consciousness is limited and or restricted to our innermost self. (enter the essence of being)

Thank you,
Jim White

By Jim White on Sunday, July 14, 2002 - 12:34 am:
Promutant, Ivan, Everyone,

If it is impossible to establish the truth-value of a proposition, premise, or statement, there is no potential for the reality of objects, entities, abstract concepts, notions, ideas, be they matrerial, or immaterial, to manifest for the human enterprise to examine, study, and then use to further human progress. By that, the conceptual notion of not being able to know an absolute truth is one of what I openly identify as a form of absurd skepticism. Science is capable of, and has established hundreds of absolute truths, and perhaps that should be revised to state, thousands or millions of absolute truths. It only takes one absolutely proven absolute true fact to defeat Mr. Garvey' false assumption concering the truth-value of a proposition, premise or statement, which in essence renders Mr. Garvey's, and the Philosophy Challenge Committee Challenge - absurd.

The Earth Rotates About its Pivotal Axis-

That statement is absolutely true, in every respect; therefore, the Philosophy Challenge is defeated with one statement consisting of seven words, that is gramatically "perfect" and in full accord with the acknowledged Linguistic Standard of modern English. That standard is, The Oxford Dictionary, which can be accessed online at the following URL.

The Oxford Dictionary

No matter the outcome of everyone's entry and attempt to defeat the challenge, I will continue to refute Mr. Garvey and his false assumption at every opportunity, for the world of human enterprise must change; otherwise, what has been earned this far in history of earth, will eventually diminish, for atrophy will not relent of its absolute controlling function that no living mortal will ever overcome.

Jim White

By Jim White on Sunday, July 14, 2002 - 01:34 am:
Challenge the Philosophy - Inquiry 1 - Garvey and Yates

Discourse quoted as taken from the Inquiry

10. Yates: Your refusal to answer the question directly speaks for itself I think. If you won't speak about the past then simply consider the question asked about the present. Should we with hold treatment (at least voluntarily) that brings us certain death so that a race, sometime in the distant future, can exist as unaware beings? If not in the present then when?

Garvey: I choose not to speak about the past because it is not for me to second guess what has already happened. In other words, what has happened appears to have occurred because it was meant to happen..

If it is true, from my perspective, that the world is self-destructive, and can only increasingly threaten us ourselves, ("degenerate recursion loop") then it follows that we would have to do something about it. If the answer lied in a gradual detachment from material inventions, then it appears that some people would have shorter lives than if we didn't detach. Though in the long-term, the species may survive, whereas, if we didn't make the change, it would likely not. This is a form of entrapment. Anyway we deal with the situation, lives will be effected. And the longer we wait to act, it appears that the more lives will be compromised. (Yes, if we follow the detachment through, at the some point, we would have to withhold treatment which would bring death sooner to some people than if we didn't. Though if the treatment itself is the problem, there is nothing we can do about this. Moreover, we could look at it from the perspective that some people would not be alive if it weren't for certain treatment. So in some sense, they are fortunate to have their length of life). For example, I believe that the practice of medicine is detrimental to humankind, because through physicians and the medicines they use, we are shielding ourselves from unconscious nature. In other words, we are relying on others and things to preserve us rather than relying on ourselves. This is inherently weak compared to unconscious nature, which simply exists.

The crux of Mr. Garvey’s commentary is, if we were to abide by his philosophy, human enterprise would be reduced to basic unconscious instinctual autonomic function, which is a very problematic position to rationally defend. Think- you are living in the world, as Mr. Garvey proposes would be better than the one we live in today.

You accidentally break your arm.

In Mr. Garvey’s world, instinct alone would “fix or repair” the arm, naturally.

In the world of my existence, I simply have a Doctor set the arm using modern tools as designed to accomplish fact.

At the end of 1 year, who would be in the best physical condition?

The person living in Mr. Garvey’s world?

The person living in the world of today?

No further assessment of Mr. Garvey’s thoughts required.

Jim White

By Claude on Sunday, July 14, 2002 - 03:05 am:
Ivan,

I was at first going to quit after responding to the 3rd argument; however, after reading a few of the inquiries, it is apparent that Mr. Garvey has an ulterior motive that could be a serious problem, if for some insignificant reason the philosophy as espoused by Garvey would catch, and establish a foothold among dissidents of every sort. His philosophy is not dissimilar to that of Nietzsche (Superman/Overman), yet promotes a utilitarian edge designed to cut, slice, and dice existing cultures and civilization into itty-bitty shreds, so “nature” will eventually overcome the mistakes of human enterprise.

The logic of Garvey is…?

Because the universe is the way it is, and functions according to the universe needs of necessity, there is not one act that humanity can commit, which will save earth from an inevitable, and ultimate demise through pure and sure atrophy, which is irreversible if previous history of the universe that we can discern and prove as being true, motion of earth alone is adequate to destroy the ecosystems that now support life.

My logic says, the human enterprise better get off its duff, begin amassing the greatest resources available as quickly as can be done, and get busy with locating another place within our vast universe that can support life, as we human beings, know of it. If that cannot be accomplished within the next ten generations … I will not even hazard one guess as to what the state of Civilization people of earth will be in, but I am sure that earth and her people would be much better off if Mr. Garvey’s philosophy never was written to paper.

Claude

By Jim White on Sunday, July 14, 2002 - 02:02 pm:
Everyone,

Follows is my final arugment to refute the Philosophy Challenge - It contains my original argument to refute Representationlism, which is the First Argument as iterated by the Challenge - and upon which, so much credence was placed, it is almost hysterically funny. Thanks! Jim White
--------------------------------

The Philosophy Challenge- Argument Against Representationalism

© Copyright 2002 by Jimmy L. White

Merriam Webster

Representationalism 1 : the doctrine that the immediate object of knowledge is an idea in the mind distinct from the external object which is the occasion of perception.

The Original Argument-

1. Representational knowledge

Conscious knowledge is apparently based on interaction at sensorial, biochemical, and neurological levels, or any other levels, and therefore we can only know via representation. (i.e. we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds. We know through representation based on interaction, whether it be the interaction of neuron cells or the interaction of sensory receptors with external stimulus. One way around this position is to assert that some conscious knowledge is created ex nihilo ("out of nothing"). However, the concept of ex nihilo is less reasonable than something coming from something else (causality), because we can only know by imputing causality onto things.

The representative nature of conscious knowledge is important, in the context of the competition, because it refutes the notion of true knowledge viz., representative knowledge cannot truly be what it represents, because then it would not be representational.

1st Refutation- as written July 12, 2002

Your supporting arguments do not logically follow; i.e., “we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds.”

Direct information is absorbed by our consciousness for our consciousness permeates the space surrounding us, which therefore, encompasses every object within proximity of our being. If that were not true, we would not be able to make decisions of judgment such as the involuntary reactions required to avoid accidents. A speeding car that pulls in front of your car when traveling at fifty miles per hour requires such reaction to avoid a collision; therefore, the “knowledge” of that car pulling out in front of you is not - representational, it is direct knowledge as absorbed by our consciousness.

Continuation of Refutation – Further Explanation-

I cannot rationalize a connection between the word, representational, and its correlation to knowledge in the argument as stated whereas, the question: What is it that supposedly is representative of what according to the argument? Here, the only solution is to break the individual sentences and or clauses to establish a truth-value for each of them as stand alone fact revealing components for obviously, the argument is verbose, ambiguous and it is rather abstruse.

1. Conscious knowledge is apparently based on interaction at sensorial, biochemical, and neurological levels, or any other levels, and therefore we can only know via representation.

2. (i.e. we do not know directly from the external world in a Aristotelian fashion, whereby external knowledge somehow enters directly into our minds.)

3. We know through representation based on interaction, whether it be the interaction of neuron cells or the interaction of sensory receptors with external stimulus.

4. One way around this position is to assert that some conscious knowledge is created ex nihilo ("out of nothing").

5. However, the concept of ex nihilo is less reasonable than something coming from something else (causality), because we can only know by imputing causality onto things

Refutation 1st Statement-

Clearly the first four clauses of Statement 1, begs the question: What is it that supposedly is represented by the various actions/reactions at the various levels? Surely if something represents something else, that something else must be physically identifiable i.e., entity, being, concept, or whatever; otherwise, there is no substantive information that we can or will be able to rationalize or consider successfully to establish the truth-value. Moreover, it is certainly evident there is no truth-value at all within the context as presented; thereof, proving the fifth clause reveals nothing evident; thereby, conclusively proving there is no ascertainable truth-value whatsoever.

Refutation 2nd Statement (in parentheses)-

The Second was completely refuted and explained by my original refutation.

Refutation 3rd Statement-

The first clause is a clear case of question begging: What is it that – we know – from the interaction – that is representational of what? The “what” or “it” has not been elucidated or even referenced as of this stage of argument, but I presume that the identify of such a preponderant mystery is evident or clear in the minds of the committee; hopefully, they will eventually identify the “it,” or “what.”

The second clause continues the ambiguity of the first; however, there is not even some type of question that can be formulated; thereby, rendering the 3rd Statement as idiotic, and wholly worthless, for it is nonsensical.

Refutation 4th Statement-

Statement 4 is nothing more than superfluous obfuscation, and hyperbole, without any potential whatsoever to prove or know, what it is the committee is attempting to iterate.

Refutation 5th Statement-

Statement 5 is the only statement in the argument that reveals some reasonable logic as being present in the sense, I agree with the inference of inputting causality.

The second paragraph of the original argument does not warrant more than a cursory read to learn contents, of which, is nothing but a plea of authority, in order to place importance on a “something, “it,” or “what,” that is never identified within the argument.

Conclusion: On the surface, many people will perceive the argument as sound; however, by reducing the argument to individual clauses and statements, the argument contains no substantial factual evidence upon which, the argument was based upon. Instead, it seems as if the argument was formulated on a superior (Superman – Overman?) concept, which only the authors of the Challenge are privy to. Here I may I ask, who is it so privileged?

Jimmy L. White – July 14, 2002

Dear Jim,

Thanks for your challenging ideas regarding Inexpressible's Challenge. I'd love to see how the Committee will answer your line of reasoning, which I read as saying essentially that their philosophical challenge is invalid. (Our friend Protomutant seems to see it this way too.) Their insistence that knowledge is representational is a weak link in their thinking, and you show that weakness by showing consciousness is direct in us, so that it even permeates the space surrounding us. Interesting way to look at it, since it then presupposes a universe that is consciousness, as I believe, and that it is it's own algorithm, which Paul Davies believes. And as you say, "Objects do not exist in reality. Instead, objects exist as the reality of their own being," is again dove tailed very nicely into my seeing the universe as it's own self defining reality. I believe you also alluded to the universe's algorithm self creation transcends digital interpretation, for it is totally fluid in an analog sense. The makes most sense if you think of digital infinities as no longer digital, but become fluid analog instead. However, that is not necessary to overcome the Proposition. Well, the Earth does spin on its axis; an identity is itself, or is not itself; and dead men don't lie. All these appear to be self evident absolute truths. So let's see how they answer your challenge to their Challenge.

Only as an interested spectator, of course, for this is your burden to show them the errors of their ways. Good luck! (I kind of wrote it off myself as an absurd, but fun exercise, a game.)

Ivan

Ivan, Everyone,

The Philosophy Challenge has posted my entry as #362-

Needless to say, the response is the same as others in that, it is almost a canned iteration of the basic arguments of little substance. I did respond, but elected to keep it short and simple. I did drive home one point- they obviously neglected to even mention my calling to their intention the Direct Contradiction in Argument 9-

When a supposed formalized argument includes a direct contradiction, that should reveal the quality of reasoning behind the Challenge itself.

Jim White

Dear Jim,

Alas, you may be right. Sometimes I think the Committee has a computer driven software for the answers, though you must admit they are clever, a very bright bunch there.

The crux of the matter is in their:

"For your "complete whole" argument to make sense you would have to refute that human consciousness is dependent on, among other things, human sensory and human respiratory. In other words, you would have to establish that human consciousness comprised of awareness, self-identity, and free will, is a thing-in-itself."

This is something I think may be insurmountable, from the way they state it, since we use reason to arrive at an understanding of our consciousness, a circular conundrum, though I agree with you that consciousness is a priori, or else without consciousness reason would not exist. However, how do you get that through their heads? Remember, they are programmed to naysay whatever anyone presents. If not, this closed circle game would have been over a long time ago. So it is better as I said earlier, a curiosity, a game, which is fun, but expect no great philosophy to flow from this.

Take care, and don't give up! #@!!&@@##$!

Ivan

Ivan, Everyone,

Follows is my final answer to the Philosophy Challenge Committee- Please note the words in Italics- that proves the Challenge is a worthless joke. So, tongue in cheek, I would almost wager the response will be the same or simlar canned response. Thanks!! Jim White-
---------------------------------

Response to The Philosophy Challenge - #364 – Jimmy L. White

Committee: “Moreover, your argument that the notion of infinity of things is neither reasonable nor rational overlooks that due to our inability to know with absolute truth-value and know that we do, all thoughts from our perspective are reasonable themselves, and since we are conscious of them, they must be rational viz., they must make sense at some level.”

Does each of the Committee possess a Driver’s License, and a Social Security Number?

My question is: Who is the person listed by name on each of them?

Then I must (I have no alternative) presume the Committee does not know who they are.

If that is the case, I have responded to a Committee the members, of which, do not know who they are; therefore, I have no alternative but to think, the Committee does not exist.

I rest my case.

Jimmy L. White

Ha! ha ha ha ha !!!

I rested my case sometime ago, but it's cruel fun
to see what others (myself included) try to
respond to that circular paradox with no beginning
and no end!

WELCOME TO REALITY!

Ivan

Hi Ivan,

Truth always wins therefore it is stranger than fiction, but when a person cannot "truly" know who they are, that person is in serious trouble. I am most sure the signers of the Constitution of the USA, knew precisely who they were, and exactly what they were doing, and so doing, their logic stands foremost in history of earth- For only in a place such as this, could someone say -

"We cannot truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time."

Especially when they also stated,

“all thoughts from our perspective are reasonable themselves, and since we are conscious of them, they must be rational viz., they must make sense at some level.”

Jim White

Hi Ivan,

How's everything going? Including the theory of everything of course. Remember not to get your z-bosons confused with someone's d-bosoms, especially when you are at one of those parties.

Funny, this silly proposition sometimes crops up for me (the inexpressible one). I usually get a little agitated for about 2 minutes and then get on with life. I had ended my responses to THE COMMITTEE (hmmm, sounds like some despotic group from a Star Wars episode), by chastising them as to the ethics of pursuing the question, and suggesting they shut down the site in the interests of the greater good of the community. Haven't been back since, but I did detect that their site seemed to shut down for a while after that.

Today I was reading a commentary on the ideas of Nishida Kitaro about temporality and identity where it is reported that he defines personal unity as "an intuitive unity of the I of yesterday and the I of today". My thoughts somehow trailed off to that silly proposition from 'inexpressible'.

Then I started to think about the continuity of identity between the 'I' of yesterday and the 'I' of today, and the fact that we can indeed see both 'I's as one in the same I. Then I thought about the I that made the proposition 'we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time'. It occurred to me that it is the proposition itself, that is the existence of the proposition itself, that overcomes the proposition.

If we consider that the I that began the proposition remembered themselves as the same I that completed the proposition, and therefore as the proponent of the proposition, then the proposition defeats itself. If the potential proponent of the proposition had not made the proposition then the proposition could not be overcome. It would be inexpressible, in that it was never expressed. However, once the proposition is expressed, it defeats itself.

In fact every person that responded to the proposition defeated the proposition because they knew they were responding to the proposition, and remembered that they were responding to the proposition. The evidence is right there at the site. Indeed the COMMITTEE were the only ones who got it wrong. Since they were responding (always) in the negative (to the claims denying the proposition), they were knowing that they were responding in the negative, and being in the negative, and therefore contradicting themselves. The only way that they could support the proposition would have been to not respond to any of the responses to the proposition. In other words to remain silent for ever. Which is a fact that we all hope that they wake up to sooner rather than later.

Kind regards,

Dave.

Hi Dave, Jim, Protomutant, and All,

I must admit that the COMMITTEE'S PROPOSITION (That we cannot know who we are and be who we are at the same time) is something of a stick in the eye. It challenges because it is so untrue, and yet it teases, because it cannot be answered in a way the Committee would ever accept. So the Proposition continues as a tantalizing game of words, to which there is no end. In my last, and most probably final, response to the Challenge, July 14, 2002, I wrote:

"Does this solve the Proposition? The Proposition, can we know who we are and be who we are at the same time, or its expression in the negative, is a mystery of paradox that cannot be answered here. However, since I think of God as the infinite regress of mysteries, I am happy to leave it at that, with one caveat: As long as I retain the right to be who I am, which is my identity."

Like you Dave, I find the Proposition self negating, which means we throw it back to its authors to either answer why they think this is so, or remain forever silent. Truly, this exercise has been a rather humorous chasing of one's own tail. I rested my case and made peace with the fact that it is all spurious and a pointless pursuit. There is no Challenge.

As a continuation of what I wrote today on TOE-4, I believe the next giant leap in evolution will be when we can use the mind to find agreement, rather than continuing in the contentious tradition of predatory behavior. Maybe then, we will know who we are and be who we are at the same time, without question. We are Who we are.

Ivan

Hi again Ivan,

I'm amenable to your overcoming of the proposition. Overcome could be seen as a synonym to transcend, I reckon. The proposition is not one that can be answered, as such, it is a proposition to be transcended. A bit like the wine in the Monty Python skit - 'not a wine for drinking, but a wine for laying down and avoiding'.

In a way we all overcome the proposition in our own mind, which is the way it should be.

I guess the problem I have is with the people who take it seriously, then take it out into the community and begin some cult or other with it. You know the routine, the cult leader is always some wise-guy who seems he has some 'inside information' (a healthy scepticism term from Alan Watts if you remember), and oppresses some group of vulnerbale souls who are ripe for the mental picking. Maybe all we can hope is that, when it comes to new-age gurus, that the buyers will beware.

Just hope we don't see a story in the news reports about 'Garvey' setting up some regime or other on a Caribbean island (a la Jim Jones).

Yes, I think there are other important projects to tackle. Interrelationship is a catch-all for my interest in associated areas such as trust-building, education, the full re-establishment of ethics in both philosophy and religious dialogue, and politics, et al. Guess the terrorists have the inside running with their capacity to grab headlines, but the work must continue.

Do keep up your good work! Though I don't encourage you as much as I should, I can assure you that you have an ally here in Oz.

'Infinite Regress in Mysteries'...hmmm I like that. Could it be the title of book?

Cheers old chum,

Dave.

(Mini-dialogue with Mr. Garvey):

Dear Stephen,

Thank you for your kind note regarding my entries #321 & 323.

My response required a couple days to reflect on what is it we are trying to accomplish within the parameters of Challenge the Philosophy competition. What is the absolute truth-value we are striving for? You wrote to me, regarding my above entries:

"One thing you did not include, though you alluded to, is that the problem with attaining self-knowledge with absolute truth-value, is not just from the self-referentiality (and fuzziness) of communication between individuals, but also from the self-referentiality (and fuzziness) from an individual communicating with him or herself." (Italics mine)

I think this is the crux of the matter, that there is a fuzziness to the self-referentiality even from an individual communicating with him or herself. This comes down to: What is the real meaning of "know" in our self-knowledge? Does it mean that "knowing" is a self-referential fuzziness of necessity, so that we can never really "know" anything, not even ourselves? If so, then the proposition that "we cannot truly know who we are" is a truism a priori, and thus the competition becomes an exercise in semantics, since the conditions for overcoming it from the start had already been prejudiced in favor of an impossible answer: If we cannot truly know (a priori), then any knowledge becomes fuzzy of necessity. Do we really know that we can know?

The other (implied) condition of the Challenge is that "being-known itself contradicts being-in-itself" (as you stated in your response to my #323), which I take to mean that "knowing" is likewise contradicted by Schopenhauer's dilemma as a precondition of the competition. In effect, if it is impossible to know anything (in itself) in advance, then even the proposition becomes unknowable a priori, which kind of puts it in a bind since we have no reasonable real reference point from which to address this knowledge. If so, the we cannot even know if we know the proposition that we cannot know, since we can never be sure we either know or do not know what it is we know.

Sophism aside, I think what it comes down to in the end is what is it we "choose". This has always been my position, that whether or not we can truly know who we are is dependent upon whether or not we are conscious of our choice of knowing. As my entry #323 states:

"That we are conscious of this (that we are who we are) then is, even if incompletely so (part of our knowledge is beyond reason, for example), the definition of 'who we are' in our 'being'... if this is a definition we choose, one that is acceptable to us as an extension of our being conscious in a universe that is 'conscious' of itself, at the point of our being."

What this means, in effect, is that the universe created an identity (through its Totality infinity interrelationship focussed back upon itself at that point of being) that now has a mind, a who, and which has the ability to choose to be aware of itself in "I am". Of course, the corollary to this is that if this mind chooses not to be conscious; or chooses not to know itself, or is unable to do so; then it remains "unconscious", and thus cannot know who it is while being who it is. So, in the end, it is a choice, a conscious choice of self-referential identity consciousness. And that choice is not fuzzy.

So what is it we are actually trying to establish in the Challenge? I think we are trying to establish whether knowing itself is possible, at all levels of our knowledge, including our self knowledge. However, if we cannot know that we know, even in our asking the question, then why should it ever satisfy the proposition, if we really do not know that we are asking the question? In other words, if knowing is at risk of not knowing, then how can we ever hope to know? It is the question itself that then becomes fuzzy, with an uncertainty as to what it is that we can know, if anything. And that, I would posit to the committee, is the "absolute truth-value", that knowing is contingent on a consciousness of the knower, of knowing oneself. So it is a choice.

We can, if we "know oneself" (Socrates?), choose to be who we are and know who we are at the same time. When this conscious choice is made, the two "knowing and being" are interrelated of necessity into one.

So glad to hear from you and the Committee. I am humbly at your service, always a joy.

All the best,

Ivan Alexander
www.humancafe.com

(This above was in response to Inexpressible.com's Stephen Garvey's letter below, 12/10/02)

Dear Ivan Alexander:


Having reviewed your entries 321 and 323 (as part of summarizing entries), I find them to be some of the best entries submitted in terms of content.


One thing you did not include, though you eluded to, is that the problem with attaining self-knowledge with absolute truth-value, is not just from the self-referentiality (and fuzziness) of communication between individuals, but aslo from the self-referentiality (and fuzziness) from an individual communicating with him or herself.


Also, I don't know what are the reasons for your optiminism that humanity will eventually evolve minds that can truly know ourselves as part of the interrelated infinity of existence.


Regards,


Stephen Garvey

In a message dated 12/14/02 1:51:42 PM, inexpressible@monarch.net writes:

<< The Competition in my view acts as a check on those who think they truly know, provides a forum for pushing the envelop of human ideas, and establishes a practical application of the concept of more reasonableness.>>

Dear Stephen, indeed I think your Competition achieves your stated goals. At least it did this for me!

I do not ever think anyone truly "knows", self-referentially, and that our sense of inner identity, of who we are, is what we "own" but do not know it as a "truth-value". For knowledge to achieve the truth-value state, in my opinion, is for the universe to validate it. If we in our slowly emerging consciousness as a human species go through a phase of self destructiveness, as we seem to be doing now ecologically and soci0-politically, then the universe will check us at some point where we will be forced to choose one way or the other. If our choice is a true one, the universe will let us advance and proceed; if we fail in our choice, we're kaput until further notice. This may mean that our evolution then takes a giant step backwards into a dimly lit past existence devoid of technology, except for fire and maybe the wheel, and we start again. Possibly this had happened before? Anyway, there are no clear truth-values other than what we are given by reality, and the best we can do is reason what these truth values may be, and then act upon our conclusions. I think this is an old argument that goes back to Plato-Aristotle, as to whether there are pure forms and ideas or pure existence such as it is. I guess, looking at it from this perspective, I fall more into the Aristotle camp, though pure ideas may exist but not as humanly understandable ideas, for then we would need to emcompass infinity, which I do not believe we can. Lucky for us, the universe has already done it, so we need only to explore the results, which is the reality of the universe.

RE " Note, if a self-aware identity with absolute
truth-value evolved in the universe's "infinite Totality", then the universe from our perspective would no longer be infinite! "

I think, in my fallible thinking, that the universe and infinity are growth values, so they are never achieved. So even if we reached the absolute truth-value of a self-aware identity, we would only be adding another layer to infinity, which then (via interrelationship) would redefine us as a new self-aware identity. Of course, this is only how I understand it, and in itself it has no truth-value, I assure you.

Well, this is fun, and I truly look forward to seeing your new book!

Take care, all the best, Ivan