Unpublished Words From Elsewhere 25

Jan 21

The temptation is to jump immediately to speculation and to relate C with the creative source of time and existence D. Reasoning beyond the relative assurance that there is some action that brings N with W into fact in a continuous movie reel, is going to be helplessly speculative, although there are what may be called, ‘clues.’

1) There’s this thing about C having the capability of altering (only very locally), the course of the N (+W) movie.

2) There’s the supposition that since each W-state that follows, does so in a manner in which the previous state and the following state are virtually similar states with the exception of very small apparent differences in the second state, like two adjacent movie frames. This succession could be anything. The second frame could have pictured an existing world composed of colored balloons and lollipops. But it isn’t. NONE of the frames alter our picture of reality dramatically enough to appear chaotic. There is consistency. There is change and there is change of a kind that is perceived as motion – BUT THE CHANGE is consistent with C’s assumption of AN UNDERLYING REAL WORLD IN WHICH STUFF CHANGES AND MOVES AND ACTS STUFF UPON STUFF ACCORDIN GTO UNCHANGEABLE LAWS OF FORCE AND INERTIA. Stuff changes, the laws don’t.
So we look at a universe regulated by unchangeable and unchanging laws and we declare this universe to be orderly and not chaotic. Even with the undirected swirling and collisions of particles. We discern a statistical orderliness according to probability.
Then we could look at this world and ask ourselves, ‘How does it happen this way, like a clockwork set in motion.” Or we can shrug and say, “no way of telling it’s just what it is.’ Or ‘if we keep investigating scientifically, maybe we’ll find out eventually.”

But we could look at the consistency and look at the way time and the world are constantly being created FROM ABSOLUTE NOTHNG – which means that it can’t be created by itself because it (time and existence) would have to at the point of nothing, pre-exist itself (which is absurd). We begin to suspect that the giant eternal clockwork motion of the endless succession of ordered, non-chaotic worlds we see as a unity, just doesn’t work. There has to be some extra-existential force of creation an agency that necessarily compels existence as we know it FROM THE FIELD OF ANOTHER EXISTENCE ALTOGETHER.

Another existence and then we have to ask ourselves if the compulsion is either:
a) willed – implying C
b) Just another machine in another existence running mindlessly on ?

Jan 22

Hume argued that you can’t take something that is generally supposed to be an effect and try to deduce a cause and the nature of that cause from it. In the contemporary narrative C has given itself, every event following a chance in local material status is taken to be the effect of some cause, from the actions of Gods and spirits to a continuum of quantum events that just about covers everything in the universe: A painting on the wall of a gallery, a melon ripening in a field, a dense star collapsing and omitting intense particle radiation, a ball soaring over the left field fence, a little cone of soil in the dust of a country lane, the focus of a family of ants and on and on. Everything. Human C’s narrative is a composition of X – and (supposedly) to a lesser degree, the C of other critters as well. One thing leads to another. The princess went for a walk in the garden and at the well, she came upon a frog. It was a talking frog…
C spends its time composing and re-composing the narrative generally in the context of the greater overriding narrative of the culture.
But note: It’s always C’s narrative either individually or in concert with most other C’s that is taken to be either true or false – not statements about facts, as Russell once contended. The question is epistemic, not ontic. “This here thing in the road is a stone!” quoth Dr Johnson to his friend, Boswell. But the real question is not, ‘Is it a stone?’ but rather, ‘What CAUSES us to believe we are on a road and what CAUSES us to believe that is not a mere lump but rather a stone?”
C’s narrative in a stuff-locale is always PRIMARILY a narrative of causes ever since the first spark that was struck from a flint. C has composed a narrative and re-composed it. The narrative is about not so much where events, but CAUSES. Cause, according to C is the seat of truth.
So C naturally finds it hard to accept that being is made up of states precoded and followed by gaps of total nothingness. These states of ‘reality’ are inert, motionless, frozen; here and gone. They cannot affect each other. There is no X in the world.
So where IS cause? What IS reality?
We look for cause, for an explanation.
Maybe there IS no cause. Maybe it is all just one big eternal machine, an eternal and infinite machine that just keeps on going and going and going and…

Think of it: God as a giant energizer bunny.

The thing is, the world happens; explodes into being and then is gone. Again. C IS THE ONLY ELEMENT OF BEING THAT EXPERIENCES. C is W experiencing itself. C’s understanding tries to sort the phenomena of being. These are the NOUNS in C’s story. C misinterprets its own experience and applies X in its understanding giving the world motion but blind motive. This motive C ascribes to ‘laws of nature’ after observing constancies in the presentation of Being. But C has misplaced motion which is, in reality, given B D at N (+W). Motion and change are the VERBS in the story.
Is there a consequence or C’s errors?

Jan 23

C is an epiphenomenon of localized stuff given in N (+W), but cannot be CAUSED by stuff. But C is also an epiphenomenon that can somehow alter future states in the locale it shares with the brain whose activities in special parts of itself over a succession of states appear it gives rise to C.

{There is a diagram with 6 D;s in a row with successive N’s 1-5 between them. Arrows point down from the first D to W, then up again to Q’s below every D, the whole of which empties into C. On the left side, N (+W) labels the whole.}

In this diagram, Q represents a condition of INCIPIENT C. At any given state, W.

Q is NOT a particle, because C, although it arises in association with stuff (brain states), is an activity without any material properties of eg density, mass, energy, velocity, extension, etc. So Q although a sort of DIVISION of ongoing C, can’t be frozen. Q is sort of like a wind, sweeping across a prairie. Say you could hypothetically freeze the air and he dust, debris, pollen and such in a parcel, even examine it and analyze its composition, you wouldn’t have the wind itself. Wind is unfreezable. When the wind is stopped, its simply not there any more.
Same with C.

In the diagram, there doesn’t appear to be any direct relation between D and Q. The direct relation is between D, which at N, brings existence, W, into being.
But somehow C can, in relation to ‘its’ brain, somehow alter the course of N (+W) to change the succession of brain states that in turn correspond directly with muscular skeletal states in the body. BUT DO NOT CAUSE THEM.
There IS, however, a causal relation set up between C and N (+W) to change the brain and body states (appearing to C as action).
In order to affect this, X (the only X operative at least partially within W), C would have to refer back to D
C shares important properties with D.

How C actually alters N (+W) remains a mystery yet. This complicated mechanic is made further difficult by the fact that C only really fires up the thinking at some point when several W have passed at N.

Jan 25

>An expanding universe that includes space, has to place to initiate expansion, no place in which infinite density can be located. If time and space are collapsed together, there is then no time in which it can all begin. There is also no place to expand into.
>To consider a future in which all exists before time is a contradiction. If something exists in the future is to say that it exists at no time. Time and existence are inseparable, but not identical.

Jan 26

C’s will is free for two reasons:
1) Since X and effect does not operate in W, but is given at N, brain-states, like any W states do not CAUSE C. The succession of brain-states at N give rise to the accumulation of proto-conscious conditions Q, the accumulation of which is C. Q is not a state but a condition LIKE but not exactly, an epiphenomenon because C can through N (+W), X an alteration in brain-states.

2) Because of C’s ability to alter local W-states & because C is not stuff but is a CONDITION set up in W through ongoing N (+W), X does not occur directly between D & C.

In summary: neither B nor D directly XC, but C can locally (brain and body), affect B.

Not ultimately, a very reasonable criticism of the above two proposals can be made by asking
A: In what sense is activity in specific neural cortices of the brain which result in the quasi-epiphenomena X relating to quite specific thinking NOT a CAUSE of that particular thinking? Manipulating the sense of the MEANING of cause & effect provides only a sketchy way of avoiding what, in truth, is really the case: brain-states directly cause certain thoughts.
B: If everything in and of W is absolutely determined at N in a succession of states and if C is part of W, then C too, as being contained in W must as well be determined by W.

In respect to A, I guess I have to concede that the correlation between brain activity and consciousness is close and apparently ALMOST but not quite necessary. Reports of consciousness after brain-death have been documented in some of those subjects who have returned to life after temporary cessation of bodily functions, including neural activity. Also it appears that will arising from thought can result in bodily activity. So it is not too certain that if there is a causal relation between mind & body, which way or if both, the relation goes.
Neurophysiologists who can track brain-states in comparison with moods, emotions, thoughts, seem generally pretty certain these states precede the conscious activity, but since C is slower than W-states and requires activity rather than states, the antecedent consequent relationship can’t really be established.
Also C goes in in a very complex manner involving many levels of perception and understanding. A simple, relatively) physical thing like a state can’t be accurately correlated with a complex NON-physical condition like C. But the point remains that no state of existence that comes and goes at N can affect any state before or after. Change in state from one to the next is only given at N. Secondly, consciousness is not a state, as material aspects of W are when presented at N. Consciousness is a CONDITION OF BEING that shares none of the properties of physical matter. As such they could not be directly affected by matter even if material states could operate as affects upon states before or after.

And that presents us with the question: if Q is not a particle or a state, how is it that is shares the property of all W states of being bound by nothingness before and after N?

Well, one can’t be certain for sure, but W-states are states of what we call EXISTENCE or BEING. Not-Being is nothing – that which Parmenides claimed could not be spoken of because the sole attribute of nothing is ‘nothing’: no attribute of any kind, which made it unreferenceable.
But in fact, ‘nothing’ is at least lofically required in order to separate categorically the particulars of whatever ‘is.’
So if we believe C exists and furthermore, is perhaps the DETERMINNANT of existence (Is there any such thing as existence without C?) – then C must be a part of or attribute of existence. If a given state of existence is bounded at N, then, as part of W, the same must be said of c in the attenuated form of Q.

Jan 27

I guess the closest defining point to be made of Q is that it represents a presence which induces C or which C must fill in order to become. Q is a minute impetus toward C – like a quantum particle of stuff, but NOT a particule becaue impetus is not stuff. An impetus has no extension, mass, v

Leave a Reply

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