Unpublished Words From Elsewhere 24

Jan 14

There is really no ‘question’ of free will. Not directly in the world. The world-states being frozen, tiny units of total existence, cannot have any effect of course, on states that no longer exist or states that haven’t happened yet. (Axiom 6)
If whatever it is that creates existence, happened to, for whatever reason be it mechanical or conscious terminate time, then there simply would be no existence of anything. Period. If the contingency – and it would from our perspective – HAVE to be anticipated as a contingency because we have no understanding, save what it seems to be doing, of it and therefore, no a priori knowledge of whether or not within its own frame of reference, it is necessary or not – were to suddenly with each burst of time produce a universe composed of only an inert gas in which was suspended, a uniformity of red powder, then that beingness of gas & powder would comprise the totality of existence and gas powder, the ‘stuff’ (or matter) of existence. Everything that exists is determined from OUTside existence. There is, in the real moment of time (N), NO motion, no cause-and-effect (X).
Reduction of C to stuff is employed by those who cannot explain C in terms of stuff other than to correlate perceptual or emotive events with specific neural states and who try to establish the priority in time of the latter. But it can’t be done because C is NOT stuff. When C happens, it is C that is happening whether or not specific neural conditions are occurring. When this latter occurs, it is stuff-activity.
As for the force of deductivity through observation?
Well, what is it that does the observing? Does neural stuff (equipped with legs) walk around making observations? What would an observation look like? (because as stuff it would have to be PERCEPTIBLE or (like Brownian motion) its supposed EFFECT perceptible), an observation looks like nothing. An observation has no stuff – properties.
C is secretive to a locale – undetectable to any other C. It is only localized C that in all W has observations. C has to reproduce localized observations (imperfectly) by manufacturing it in stuff eg pencil marks on paper, which other localized C recognize as being symbols conveying particles of meaning.

Jan 15

If C in W is dependent on the activity of a succession of states of stuff in a particular localized type of construct and if the understanding of a given such C depends as well on the more minute differences of a localized stuff construct from other similar but not exactly the same as the former in tiny but significant details (hormones, genes, etc), then C must be determined by the agent of N (+W) through the states of existence presented by this agent.

But what kind of dependence is it?

Methodological experimentation shows that there is a strong correlation between B-state change and thoughts, feelings et. But C somehow can effect changes in the body that supports it. Drugs, schizophrenia, electrical stimulation can affect the brain, causing conditions of changes in will, perception and understanding by changing bodily states – but note that however altered, C functions, yet remains. What appears to change in C when B functions are tampered with, is C’s environment (E). This is what C perceives and attempts to understand and act on.
In dreams and hallucinations, what is altered from what is referred to as ‘reality’ is C. C itself marches on and always deals with E. Now, of course, there are ways of altering C’s emotional condition through pharmaceuticals as well as E. A change in mood can affect will, but some drugs can bring on lassitude or a ‘piss on it!’ state of mind. so we have C’s altering in the areas of E, emotion and will. C’s understanding of these doesn’t likely change. E of course INCLUDES emotion and will as well as perception. These are all the things that compose E and which C’s understanding has to deal with, but deal with them C will.
UNDERSTANDING IS THE HEART & WOULD OF C. It only goes when C lapses.

Jan 16ehsyr

So as Descartes in his ‘Meditations’ points out, just about every aspect of C- emotions, will and most certainly what C PERCEVIES – can be altered chemically or surgically or by whatever means involving physiological mechanisms, in short, by altering localized configurations of stuff. Theoretically, anyways, it should be technologically possible to re-create in actuality Mary Shelley’s fictional vision of a living human being complete with a fully functional C. The technology is there. Particularly it might be tempting using bio-engineering to grow one – it’s, I believe, already been achieved in Britain with sheep. In other words, it looks like it is possible to create stuff- conditions that will accommodate C.
‘Who needs a God?’ The humanists crow. ‘We (man) can do it him/her self!’ The mystery has been removed from life.
A compelling argument.
For what?

Remember: stuff exists in tiny frozen states. C can alter locally N (+W) to determine change in stuff. This is what C can do. A spider can build a nest, a fox can stalk a groundhog. A spider has no C – only ‘instinct’? Poke a spider (gently) on its way with your forefinger and the spider will first quickly react as though your finger were a trapped insect, rushing toward it – then quickly realize (understand), that whatever your finger is, it is far too big to be lunch abnd possibly or likely – very dangerous. She will retreat like a little rocket to some nest she has built or around the corner of the door frame or whatever, to wait out the danger in hiding.
Understanding.
Primitive, comparatively, if you wish, but UNDERSTANDING – that part of C that Descartes (and Plato before, if you think about the ‘cave analogy’ from the ‘Republic’) discovered is not temper able. Understanding, given E, can lead to wrong conclusions because E CAN be tampered with, but understanding remains an independent analytical function of each and every C.
You can alter C’s will to understand rigorously, you can alter what C believes it is understanding. You can change the BASIC ACTIVITY of understanding that lies at the core of C. The only outside stuff changes to understanding either diminishing or out rightly destroy the capability.
But of course, there is the argument that understanding can be INCREASED by altering the stuff to increase the stuff- configuration that also increases the CAPACITY for understanding. Does not a human’s bigger brain, give her a BETTER understanding than the spiders gives it?

Jan 17

The main print or question of consideration here is that C is attaining the level of technology where it is becoming quite capable of affective X at N (+W) to the extent that it can manipulate C itself; perhaps even grow stuff in the necessary configurations required to host C, thus providing a new C locale (person). C is on the brink of creating that long-awaited scifi dream: Shelley’s Dr Frankenstein’s ‘monster.’ In fact the tradition extends even back into the medieval folk tales of homunculi and succubae.
But there remains an occlusion in the investigation. W is presented as a series of states – that is, FROZEN conditions of reality following each other and beginning and ending ALMOST (Axiom 5) – duration), instantaneously. Therefore no state can affect the preceding or following state. Therefore, X is an illusion as far as the changes and motion of stuff – the illusion presented to C’s understanding through immediate memory which can create a narrative or story of ongoing reality in accordance with cultural norms. But C is not stuff. It doesn’t come in states although it appears to require state changes in local configurations of stuff as they occur in succession – a brain – in order to function in W.

And in this functioning, C somehow has the ability to affect changes in the otherwise (apparently) DETERMINED succession of N (+W).

Only two ‘things’ (for want of a better noun), can change existence.

1) D which brings existence into being, instant by instant out of nihil, thus determining its ongoingness

2) C which has the capability somehow or determining however briefly conditions of W-states BEFORE THEY COME INTO BEING.

This is important because somehow C reaches into ASOLUTE NOTHING to locally alter what is not.

C doesn’t at all understand how it does this since C operates from out of the past.

C is a rogue element in N (+W)

Jan 20

The only possible way it can work for C to affect N (+W) locally is for C to have some ability to change the stuff of W as it relates to C’s own stuff – locale. (C’s own body) and then use these alterations to manipulate stuff in its vicinity: grasping an axe, swinging the axe to bite into a tree trunk, etc. The expected result of the tree toppling over seems to be a causative relation of reduce support in the tree trunk and the weight of the tree. Even the strokes of the axe cutting out chips from the notch seem to C to be caused directly by him. But they are not. In fact C’s causation in W ends with the swing of the axe. C can only X in C’s own immediate locale, (body). The rest is determined by D through N (+W).
Everything beyond C & C’s locale is determined outside of C. But the curiosity remains of the consistency in the succession of W-states that C reads as the lawlike behavior of the universe. By learning these laws or more properly, patterns of consistency in the presentation of W, C advances technology – and possibly the destruction of C’s planet: the Biblical lesson of Eden and the tree of the fruit of knowledge.
But the control that C has over C’s own stuff locale is not absolute. C can only discover existence as it appears to the narrative of C’s understanding OF THE PAST. C occurs over a series of states and must sort perception into the narrative.
Only after this understanding -narrative has been achieved can C’s will alter N (+W) in c’s own stuff.
So C is quite imperfect:
1) Understanding is impelled by will & affected by emotion & it can be faulty
2) C only understands through memory of immediate past.
3) C’s relation to its own stuff depends on the state of C’s locale of stuff given at N (+W). Most of
these locale states are altering more swiftly by far than C’s understanding and therefore there is no
direct X between body-states & understanding.
C is an epiphenomenon but the X relation is not given by the body because C is not produced as states. it follows a succession of W-states.

It is still a mystery how C can (if in fact it does), cause alterations of its own stuff-locale to appear at N. More to follow

2 Comments


  1. realism versus anti-realism?
    absolutism versus relativism?
    invariance verse convariancy?
    presentism versus eternalism?
    endurantism versus perdarantism?

    C has a headache.


  2. Thanks F. Kafka (why does your name sound so familiar?) Appreciate being read. Didn’t expect it would happen. Your first comment was most welcome and your wit works here. And so I write on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *