A comment on the universality of all things

Kirsh, Dr. Marvin E.

English

CogPrints Cognitive Sciences Eprint Archive

Cognition and Causation as Universal Phenomenom

Cognitive Sciences ePrint Archive

Cognition and Causation
Marvin E. Kirsh
Comment for: Hameroff, Stuart R. (1998) "Funda-Mentality": is the conscious mind subtly linked to a
basic level of the universe?. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2(4):pp. 119-127.
I think phenomenon and consciousness are known via relations derived from self relation as in the example
given below using the onion (its’ layers, are alone, prominent demarcations perhaps related in the same
way to the organization assortment and extraction of learned facts)
I am a scientist (biochemist) absent from the university 20 years and have recently pursued a study in
philosophy. Current science education is very restrictive and does not consider history. In my own mind I
have reduced all things(including cause and effect) to the word witness(of both unique witness A and the
act of his(its') witness =A). From this scheme A chain is thus described of witness and events A.B.C.D
...over time of any change.. This must be true even for temporally unextended events. A question can be
posed-can a volume of space exist that is closed such that a witness process within it leaves no external
record from uncommunicated thought, and I do not think that this is possible. Between the past and the
present, in general, the existence of a closed space implies the alignment of all witness processes from an
origin. Thus if the molecular interactions within the brain are chains of witness in terms of
communications between intracellular and extracellular events, thought produces a sum change of some
type, rather than saying A causes B. Like the layers of an onion, it is conceived from a (differential-i.e
conceived from a more previous change)..previous change.. and relates to itself that way...relates externally
that way the same, and to the same, of objects of mutual witness and cannot be detected if it did not occur
in this ad-infinitum means of mutual relation . .e.g. occurred with intention as an external relation
appropriate to the relations of another onion-set of onion like, layered entity. If such a relation did not
occur, it did not exist; the suggestion of whether an uncommunicated thought/unextended event, could be
detectable is not any different from the suggestion of being able to detect what dies niot exist. This is very
different from a notion "does cognition alone produces detectable or undetectable change". The way one
spends his time, where his thoughts rest can change the way he relates--self-relates. I think this fact might
be instantiated to concepts of history.
With respect to the onion example, the world, all of its’ processes might be divided into the appropriate
(direct, basically originating proximally, and directly applicable to one's perceptions) and the inappropriate
(indirect, originating distal to what is proximal and relocated in the sense that it contains “information”
more applicable to a distal place). These elements –appropriate and inappropriate, associated with
momentum/energy-by comparison and difference, I believe, define time, are the perceived elements of
change, as of the different layers of the onion-and the basis of all relations. Actual time itself I think to be
of a higher order(e.g. x^2) oscillation, with respect to our mental frequencies/wavelengths as space and
volume seekers; are but a subset. Einstein himself did not believe that the correct elements to describe
phenomenon had been ascertained (major topics being “observed and then reconsidered”).
If one reflects on history, it is dominated (from description see Nietzsche "On the Geneology of Morals) )
to be riddled with actions and concepts formed from inappropriate connections(the Arians and the Jews and
their described activities and ascribed life positions with respect to others-one another).
To include the human habit of soul searching, but extended deep into the realms of science and
philosophy, where serious controversies exist and a vast dark area continues to emerge, I would like to
propose the notion that there is an inappropriate light in every beacon on this earth from its’ beginning –
from the first recorded thoughts.
With respect to history and science, it is simple to state that all things emerge, but not so simple to accept
that we might not find laws that enable us to assemble an understanding or order to provide explanation-but
only a simple list of circumstances evolved over time from the past and unwitnessable. I believe that
natures mechanism for continuance is recurring in the sense that (information for) survival in (innately)
included with conscious experience. Science, though, appearing useless, in this case of unpredictable
emergence, might only suffer from a poor orientation(see personal manuscript in URL list) in its avoidance,
or ignorance, of individual ratios (that might be, with empirical categorization, become individual potential
ratios, for each unique,causality becoming, in both science and individual perception a range of
hierarchically ordered potentials uniquely suited for each unique relation). A newly ordered scheme that
accounts only for a mechanism of transmission, transmission/replication of form, self avoidance as the
issuer of force/momentum-the means of uniqueness(and uniqueness in perspective and emergence), is
possible. In this sense though, I believe/fear that we have overextended our means to take an
inappropriate direction for continuance with an excessive exploitation of nature arrived at from failed
insight and overconfidence.
Marvin E. Kirsh
http://www.authorsden.com/marvinelikirsh
http://www.marvinekirsh.com
http://philosophy.elte.hu/philphys_archive/2007/msg00015.html


Cognition and Causation as Universal Phenomenom

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

CogPrints Cognitive Sciences Eprint Archive

Cognitive Sciences ePrint Archive