A Final Author’s Note


I’ve built an ideology from which to theorize answers for all personal and social questions of relevance to a given subject, or that which is good/bad for it. The stated premise is that this question does not simply concern arbitrary/anecdotal philosophy, but rather an aspect of reality that “mental/behavioral” varieties of science will need to theorize in order to emerge from their “primitive states.” Though various examples of my theory have been shown along the way, the focus of this discussion has simply been “to describe reality,” with an emphasis on “conscious life,” and particularly “the human.” But what does this perspective practically imply? How specifically can an individual or society promote its sensation based interests, given its specific circumstances? Here I extend an invitation to all for intelligent discussion of both the potential consistencies and inconsistencies of these models against observation, as well as their practical personal and social implications. This work has now consumed me for over half my life, though I should indeed have some time left for general discussion.

Here I do expect “heated conversation with my own ilk.” Throughout the universities of our world and beyond exist the descendants of an ancient society that seeks to build “philosophical understandings.” But apparently we’ve also “failed” — today we have virtually no generally accepted theory regarding philosophical dynamics. Thus by advertising this deficiency I should also invoke the ire of those who are perhaps “proud” of our various perceived achievements.

Furthermore my work seems to also have implications to “science” — a great institution which has indeed developed a vast field of accepted theory. But I presume that it will not hastily consent to the expansion which I propose, and will also fight the notion that its “mental/behavioral” fields could be nearly as troubled as I’ve suggested. But if this community cannot practically demonstrate that personal relevance is “fundamentally arbitrary/anecdotal,” “naturally unscientific,” or otherwise “impossible for human comprehension,” then the institution of science should indeed be required to take up the ancient philosophical question of “good” in order to also become “more whole” in this regard.

Moving now to the practical business of determining how specific individuals and societies may “lead their existence properly,” yes I do also consider such questions from the perspective of my theory — though perhaps in an unusual way…

Observe standard political discourse. This commonly seems to be a process where we demonstrate the “horrible” implications of an opponent’s ideas, as well as the “pleasing” implications of our own. The associated attack and defense here should be quite familiar to those of us that live in the democracies of our world, and perhaps beyond.

For my part, however, a somewhat different discussion is sought. I do not seek to demonstrate that the implications of my own ideas happen to be “pleasing,” or that the implications of an opponent’s are not. Thus my response to a standard attack must simply be to check whether or not the assumptions which have been made seem “valid,” as well as if an accurate interpretation of my theory does seem to exist. If so, however, then regardless of how “distasteful” a given implication may seem, I simply must not object.

Though this approach might also be termed “political suicide,” I do nevertheless remain confident. Regardless of how my “repugnant theory” may cause me to be perceived, I do find hope in the following belief: Once our “mental/behavioral” sciences accept philosophical elements of reality as their own burden, the “greatest” revolution in human understandings, should indeed occur.

To now conclude this discussion, please consider the following argument for a coming “greatest” human revolution…

What has been the most prominent effect of science upon humanity so far? Observe that by teaching us about reality it has brought us both more and less “useful” types of understandings. Furthermore over the past few centuries we’ve used some of the more useful in order to develop various tools and such that provide us with astounding abilities. Thus it might be stated that the most prominent effect of science upon humanity so far, has been to provide us with “unprecedented power.”

Apparently “power,” however, can also be “dangerous.” A person that gains tremendous new abilities should also gain the potential to make tremendous new mistakes — and apparently our societies display this vulnerability no less. So in retrospect the state of our world over the past few centuries of science fueled power, without a balancing science fueled theory from which to use our power properly, should not be surprising. I suspect that this dynamic is sufficient to explain every great “horror” associated with “the age of science.” (Please choose your own examples of “personal and social horrors,” to assess whether or not they each stem from an inability to understand how to lead our lives and structure our societies “properly,” given our tremendous science provided modern abilities.)

It is from this perspective which I reason that the “greatest” achievement of science, will not gain this distinction by imparting still greater human abilities. Thus neither Newton nor Einstein (my own favorites), would merit such a distinction, nor would this be earned by developing a successful “theory of everything,” nor a means from which to “live well without polluting,” nor the ability to “colonize the galaxy,” nor even the development of a method from which to “exist perpetually in perfect contentment.” Rather than provide us with “still greater abilities,” I suspect that the greatest achievement of science will rather “rebalance” its traditional gift. By further teaching us about reality, I believe that science will soon give us a theoretical understanding from which to use our power “properly.” Once our “mental/behavioral” sciences accept philosophical elements of reality as their own burden, we should soon find that this “greatest understanding of them all,” will be achieved. Here scientific theory of good/bad will rebalance our disproportionately great modern abilities.

One Comment on “A Final Author’s Note”

  1. You are coming along slowly. You have my basic structure there, ordered sensations based on mechanisms that are processed for a mind, with inputs to it and outputs from it by the mechanics. So the basic structure is there, but you are obviously a computer person so it difficult to adapt my ideas and appear original.

    It will be interesting when you get to the crucial piece, the mechanics. If the brain just processes, then it all really depends on sensation provided by inputs from the mechanics for outputs to the mechanics.

    Your friend Graziosi at Conscious Entities has done much the same thing. Actually, almost identical. He took my structure and tried to adapt it to computers, all based on sensations provided my a missing mechanics, like yours. Neither of you can take the next step to detail the mechanics that gives such a comprehensive mind.

    Don’t be shy, its in the title of my work spread around all the sites you visit for the last several years. Its called the human Design, because the mechanics has a very specific Design for a mind to work.

    At least I have inspired you both to try to write something.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s