The closest C comes to being represented as a frozen condition contained in a world-state would be the sensory data it receives from the activity of the nervous system and the brain. The primitive bombardment of sensation, frozen, it would appear kaleidoscopic, chaotic, an abstract expression nobody observing could make any sense of. Add to that, sounds and smells.
Now maybe you can freeze colours and shapes- quality pertaining to sight. But in a frozen, immobile universe, how do you freeze sound, which depends on wave-transmission or a smell which depends on molecular dispersion? Remember, we are speaking as ‘outside’ observers, looking in on a cross section taken from an ongoing existence. That is problematic in itself. As a correction to the above: shapes and colours, the data of perception would need the motion of travelling photons to sustain an effect on the nervous system.
Now how is all this to be gathered in and sorted categorically without the activity of C? Even a jumping spider with its comparatively limited C requires the ongoing presentation of instances of time in order to observe and understand its world.
There are all kinds of mysteries bounding and abounding on this. The foremost question is how the activity given to inert matter translates into what Descartes would describe as another separate substance. I’m pretty well convinced that how it works cannot be explained in a naturalistic way within the confined hypothetical structure of our sciento-theological doctrine. That is why many practiconers simply throw up their hands declaring the mind to be nothing more than the brain and get on with the business of parsing matter into smaller and smaller elements. They do what they believe can be done and pretend that anything else doesn’t exist.
But C IS a member of existence (W). It shares W with inert matter. At least it does on our planet which is another puzzle.
Is it possible that C can only be found in the context of the biological organisms on our planet? The search has been on for some time (though many physicists and biologists will point out we have merely scratched the surface, which is true enough), for evidence of anything from combinations of the basic chemical elements: carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, ammonia etc which compose the molecular structures of life as we understand it, to traces of primitive organic material in pieces of comets and meteorites, water on remote planets or radio signals from deep space. The results don’t appear to be all too encouraging, though that depends on how you look at it. But we haven’t found much evidence of C supported by biological structures like ours, elsewhere. In fact, so far – none.
So the scientific shrug, ‘Just happens that way.’ BUT you begin to wonder, is biology the ONLY context in W that supports C? Why is it thus? The theory of evolution and development through accident provides a neat answer. But evolution is only a sort of metaphor. it doesn’t really work because matter is inert. Physics and chemistry as well, are simply metaphors. At best these offer heuristic devices to build a theoretical structure.
Therefore, the question remains: Can C appear in other material complexes than biological? Or maybe even free of matter? Are we maybe only a first step?
The Lord of this world is the angel of death. When the angel comes to gather his tax, we all must pay our due.
The relationship obtaining between C and D is one of similarity or one of unity. How DOES C effect X?
It is tempting to suggest that the C/D relationship is more than just similarity, but going any further than similarity seems to leave us guessing on scant evidence.
List Of Attributes:
1) Existence: C and D. But D CREATES w while c only partakes in it. Does D create an existence that D shares with C? Is D a member of W? If we decide, ‘yes,’ then again the argument of W not creating itself because it would have to pre-exist itself would have to hold for D as well, which would be problematic because D represents the agency that creates W from absolute nothing. This is responsible for even the POSSIBILITY of W. So the existence of D is not as a MEMBER of W but is in itself the NECESSITY of the possibility of existence. (W), whereas C is definitely a member of W. Therefore, C’s existence is contingent on D.
SO the existence of D is not existence as a member (contingent), but existence being ESSENTIAL to D and therefore, necessary.
2) Extension: Neither C nor D can be said to have extension. Extension is the primary attribute which the majority inhabitant of W has, ie it occupies space in the sense that it takes up space precluding any other matter from occupying the same or part of the same space. Some particles – bosons, eg – are said to be able to share space because their density is nil and they express force.
But this must be purely metaphoric, as force is actually state-change at N. It may be that C might be suggested as a boson, to fit it into quantum theory. C, however, is not extended. Perhaps, as discussed earlier, that part of C which is raw perception, can be argued to occupy the condition of being a state at N: ‘At n, X sees red and at N, N subset 2 and N subset 3, X sees red as well.’
But can it convincingly be argued that X SEES red without being AWARE that the object he is looking at is what he/she called, ‘red’ – or even that he/she is AWARE that he/she is aware of his/her self being aware of red?
This, of course, is an old philosophical battlefield. all sides have yet to come to agreement. But I am convinced that even the most primitive act of perception involves awareness both of object AND self. Awareness is an ongoing act, not a state. The act of C is a PURE act – an act in itself, which in our experience seems to arise from the GIVEN activity of the brain and nervous system, not dependent on given state-change as plain-states are.
Although the action of C is dependent on matter or, as I call it, ‘stuff,’ it is of course not caused by stuff in the form of perceived neural and brain activity, because their action is given in W-states at N. Since stuff exists only in the form of states, it is, therefore, inert. It has no capacity to cause anything.
So C, as a pure action (indirectly given over a series of N (+W), is associated with stuff. Therefore occupies a locale (vicinity) but is not extended in the manner stuff is extended.
D, on the other hand, as the agent of time and existence, has to stand outside existence in order to bring it about. But the problem is, how can it (whatever it is), do all this and continue to do it on an ongoing basis if it doesn’t ITSELF have being? Also – we know roughly where a C is: A C has a locale that being the extended stuff with which it is associated.
W – all existence – is the creation of D, the imitator or genesis of time and existence, mutually interdependent aspects of reality, for nothing could exist without time and time implies (inescapably) a something, even if no C or extended stuff is present anywhere. But the ‘anywhere’ or ‘no-where’ implies a place for the possibility of ‘some’ thing. This something might not happen for a long TIME or never – which, in itself implies time.
But the generator D of N (+W) brings N and W into actuality between intervals of ABSOLUTELY NO ACTUALITY. So this means that D must stand beyond time, existence and even no-existence. Time and the possibility of existence, including place CANNOT have any cogent application for D. Therefore, D is not extended. C is not extended, but involves locale. D is not extended and stands outside time, existence, place and even non-existence.
March 19 (Continuing Attributes:)
3) WILL: Environment, perception and will are the rudimentary ingredients of the soup of C. Understanding slides in a little later, followed by abstract categorization and finally contemplation of the nature of the abstract or of the environment which may have expanded by then to a board of information, remembered, in print or electronically conveyed.
So I’ll try to work out an order of appearance of these elements of C.
A. Environment: This refers to what a primitive C will encounter in its locale. If, in the case of
its ‘stuff.’ it is a single-cell organism. Its sensory capacity will be a purely receptive
chemical confrontation of the cell wall with molecules in its vicinity.
B. Perception: In the case given above, the chemical, ‘confrontation’ most primitively accidental,
the more developed and specialized the sensory apparatus becomes, the less accidental this
confrontation is likely to be.
C. Will: This represents the dividing line between a molecular complex or a coacervate whose
interaction with its environment is accidental and an organism that can manipulate its stuff –
locale to the point where it has achieved the capacity of locomotion within its environment and
can capture food. The organism may yet have a perceptual capacity limited to chemical interaction
without specialized sensory organs but it chemically ‘recognizes’ its prey. Through a kind of
referral back to D at N (+W) can cause its ‘stuff locale’ to ‘move.’ (State-change).
To declare that this sensory/locomotion event is a result solely due to electro-magnetically
attraction at an atomic electronic level, is, I think, stretching a point beyond believability.
At this juncture, I’m convinced that, ‘life’ begins with C and here we have intentionality or action
arising from will – and this must come with the knowledge in the organism that it CAN will to
action. This represents the first particular of :
D): Understanding: Which begins to develop along with the physical apparatus of perception; eyes, ears
or tympanum, olfactory centres and most importantly, an inter-co-operative nervous system including
that wonderfully compact switching complex, a brain. What is perception without understanding? This
is the capacity to sort out the bombardment of sensory data into useful categories.
There is more to C than just being able to sort out the environment in terms of what different sense data show – how this data composes different things like what is edible and what is not, what is a safe hole to hide in and what isn’t. Why do rabbits dance at midnight? Why do humans move to rhymes and compose chants?
E): Abstracting: The environment into categories, unseen forces (what, after all is quantum physics?), rules of behavior, laws of nature: sorting out all the particulars of C’s environment, ‘discovering’ the movement and rhythmic ways of the universe and beyond. In terms of purpose and meaning, this is where C is free – truly free of any determinant. Even partially free of D.
F): Contemplating. This, in terms of purpose and meaning. This is where C is free – truly free of any determinant.
Even partially free of D.
But the will of D does not appear to be blind or almost blind will, like that of the amoeba or pike waiting in the shallows that will fire off after almost any lure, as long as that lure has a minnow wiggle or froggy kick to it. As discussed earlier, D presents an orderly W at N and a progression of W that fits before and after in time in such a manner that it seems that stuff and space possess attributes such as motion, spin, forces in relation to parts of itself. This can affect cause and effect.
But it cannot achieve these, such attributes belong to the succession N (+W) All the world of matter is presented at N.
So it seems to me therefore, D possesses more than blind will. d’s will is coherent, consistent and most of all, it is at least guided by understanding or at least, the genesis of it.
But neither am I entirely convinced that all the assumptions, hypotheses and tests upon which the ziggurat of physical science is constructed, are thoroughly deserved, tightly calculated and marvelously elegant. Most of all, though erected mathematically, they rest on a solid foundation of the clearest common sense. The trouble is, the entire edifice depends on experience that is the property of every C. Troubles is, if I am right, experience has from the beginning, greatly misled us.
It seems, given this new track of thinking, that whatever keeps creating W – or a new W each instant – has a will, at least I argued such. But my argument is not unassailable. I argued against a mechanical act of creation at each N, suggesting that the mechanical function would have to pre-exist itself at N, that being absurd. But what the heck! Who knows what existential conditions beyond existence logic prevails in?
The temptation is to say what has will must also of necessity have the other accoutrements of C, particularly if what results from D’s ‘will’ is an ordered, consistent universe as C sees it. But it doesn’t have to BE that way – it may just be the way C SEES it. It looks like, to begin with, C has already been grossly misled at least once.
As to the question of D being God or a God: well, I suppose there are some who might eagerly jump to that conclusion, but I wouldn’t.
People will and have, been saying for centuries; ‘This is God’ or ‘Here is God,’ and even telling us what ‘God’ means.
There are occasions in holy writings of different cultures where a God bears attributes or characteristics that are shared by Gods of other cultures. Foremost of these being the power to create the heavens and the earth and everything that in them is. This means the universe and all its contents including our little planet.
On our little planet are these beings possessing that mystery of mysteries, C. Is there any other c in this universe? We don’t know. We look for other physical conditions in stuff elsewhere that we believe supports our C. But nothing so far quite, or even remotely fits. Is C possible without a special concoction of supporting stuff at large. We don’t ask that question.
Why do we look around for other biosupports for C? Because it’s too weird that only this planet has them. But it’s a big universe. Our vision is just too myopic. It is my suspicion, as I have expected before, that our C linked at least in one category with D – the ability to undertake X even if, in the case of C, only locally and in a roundabout way – C is more like D than the other occupant of W: stuff. C, like D is active: stuff in inert. C is not extended and neither is D, which is beyond extension: the prime attribute of stuff – down to the smallest particle – is extension in space. (Which itself is extended in PLACE).
C is also at least partially free. It is mysterious in its freedom to will and to cause change in its local stuff.
This caused change is, of course, apparent. But not decisively the case because it is always possible that C may be localized expressions of D.
It may be also that c might be an expression of existence itself since C is the only thing in all of W that recognizes itself. It is reasonable to speculate that such a condition might be a link with D in some (arcane) manner.
Mystery is the fifth similarity C & D jointly possess. How C arises from successive states of existence is a conundrum almost equal to the fact of its matrix: how there IS such a thing as existence at all.
The necessity of C is existential, that is, in order to question the fact of C at all, C must be employed. The necessity of D is more compelling in that categories – all categories are subsets of W, including the category of being/non-being. Since W only is (or existence only exists) – as a given or creation of D at N, the category of being/non-being is also given at N (by D). To put it in other words: if D is, it is because D pre-exists existence as a supercategory or C’s () reference. To put it in God’s response to Moses, ‘I am that I am.’
I don’t know but it seems to me that at the point at which I should consider whether or not the accept the proposition that D is God.
The strongest affirmative case supporting the proposition ensues from the truth of W as being a creation in sequence at N. Being happens at N and N itself is brought into being as an act of will as opposed to the reiteration of N (+W) as a mechanical constant as say, gravity, is supposed by all to be. ‘Will’ presupposes a superior personal power removed from existence as C supposes it.
A willing super being is generally considered anathema. By members of the scientific community who strive to remove, ‘person’ from the more intimate workings of nature, replacing it with laws and forces.
More To Follow