Reply to the response to Entry 633

“While expressions, words and pointers are only tools of adulthood it does NOT mean that infants cannot register any/all of their sensory inputs (smell, taste, audio, visual and sense of touch etc.) though they cannot name or label such inputs at all. Consequently there could be some datum reference in zeros and ones (0,1) like a digital binary plot of the notionless state as perceived in infanthood. Such a state forming the datum reference in each adult, subsequent perceptions of adulthood through sensory inputs modified by obscuring and processing mind owing to its rigidity due one's notions and constant spinning torque due one's desires and distortions and coloration due one's conditioning and likes and dislikes as well as cravings. At moments of rapture if the adulthood inputs entirely tally with the datum reference of infanthood - then a chord is struck as the mind is unable to process due to the error signal becoming zero. If only one could be in a constant state of rapture in the stillness of the mind reducing all passions and desires and notions and pre-conditioning thus reducing factors of obscurity and error signal to zero, notionless state of infanthood would be recaptured in one's adulthood also and at the same time reckoning in terms of pointers or descriptions of such a state could still be possible provided, the error signal is vigilantly kept to remain zero. Such a feat has been/is being performed by Zen Masters, saints and sages repeatedly at different points in space and time though the exact mechanism might not have been investigated. After all one need NOt know the working of any device in order to use a device. e.g., Driving a car or using a computer etc. Thus, such a possibility as described thus far is more than being more reasonable and probably a direct dialog with people like Stephen Jourdain and persons like him may prove to be fruitful. Probably above explanation could also form the basis to explain one's intuitive abilities and aesthetic sense and in born talents.”

R. Rangan January 6 2008

Response:

How do infants (or anyone else) register sensory inputs without some form of notions?
If infants cannot name or label their sensory inputs, what use do these inputs have? Are you saying that infants instinctually (and unconsciously) react to their sensory inputs? If so, how do infants (or anyone else) more reasonably completely know who they are (or anything else), since the basis for knowing, notions, is not only outside their grasp, but also (epistemologically) limited in nature?

We encourage you to write Stephen Jourdain, or any other master, saint, or sage you know, encouraging him to submit an entry to Competition 1. Or in the alternative, pose the question of Competition 1 to him, and you submit his answer on his behalf.

Other issue:

We do not understand this statement:

“some datum reference in zeros and ones (0,1) like a digital binary plot”

How can datum reference be devoid of notions? What is being referenced and at what level? If it is solely instinctual as we suggested above, then the infant (or anyone else) does not know and know they do.

635. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 634

“First of all I am NOT a scientist to describe as to how infants' sensory inputs get registered like I have described. It is only a theory and more probable than yours.
Digital mapping in binary states of 1 or 0 is how data is arranged and handled as inputs and projected after processing as outputs in a computer. For example a web page or a streaming audio or video is a bundle of such arrangements of digital states of 0 and 1 only.
What I imply is that in infants it is not have to be descriptions and labels necessarily as all the five sensory inputs being very active like adults only difference lies in its mind remaining in the original state of being notionless, nil distortion or obscurity or coloration occurs to any kind of input through any of the sensory organs. Thus a reference mapping in a digital plot of ones and zeroes still must occur whether the child consciously understands or not. This probably forms the templates of various aspects of such a notionless state in an infant's physiology and subsequently in adulthood if any digital map or plot of zeroes and ones (with distortions and colorations added to the input data received through the ensory organs) would always be compared to the original templates. If they tally - nil error and a chord is struck as mind has nil error signal to be processed and tranquil moments of rapture get triggered.
In adulthood since the mind is spinning like a virtual gyroscope with its rigidity due one's notions and spinning torque due one's desires. Any input disturbance would always cause precession or wobbling as the output result and spin axis, input axis and output axis all three lying mutually perpendicular.
In infant there is NO such virtual gyroscope formed yet, due absence of any kind of notion or desire. That is the only difference.
Your notion that notions and labels are pre requisites for knowledge is grossly inadequate as it cannot explain one's intuitive knowledge or in-born talents or rapturous states for example.
An infant is in a state of the unknown and also is ignorant of it while an enlightened being is also in a state of unknown (i.e. extra-ordinarily sensitive and highly vulnerable as it is a totally dynamic state is ever fresh as it keeps changing from moment to moment with inputs streaming through all the sensory organs without naming any!) but owing to his past exposure to an obscuring mind of adulthood, he is also aware at the same time.
His awareness through his individuality (as we constantly know for ourselves) is only one among all with no selective preference or desire.
He/she may be seen doing things or living like we do - but, with a difference.
He/she is immersed fully and becomes the thing as he ceases to be the doer only doing exists and the duality of the observer and the observed has vanished once and all for him/her.
Note: The foregoing model as described thus far, not only explores the state of enlightenment but also explains intuition, in-born talents,etc. as well.”

R. Rangan January 9 2008

Response:

We agree with you that there may be a base template(s) for human sensory input. Though it is unclear to us how this unconscious knowledge (from the template(s)) can translate into actual knowledge. You refer to one’s intuitive knowledge, and in-born talents and rapturous states like a baby giggling.
Intuitive knowledge manifests itself in the conscious domain as actual knowledge. In-born talents and rapturous states are clearly responses, but they may be instinctual based. For example, does the baby giggling really know what it is giggling at, or is it just instinctually and/or mechanically responding to stimuli?

Another issue is that since the base template(s) is in the unconscious domain (i.e. devoid of notions), it is unclear to us how a baby (or anyone else) relying solely on this base template(s) can know who they are, let alone completely know who they are. The knowledge you are referring to (from the base template(s)) is outside of the conscious domain, and yet we can only access knowledge of things in the conscious domain; so we do not see how your position (in terms of completely knowing who we are through the base template(s)) can advance beyond a mere possibility.

Note, we are not questioning your idea of a base template(s); we are questioning how you or anyone else can more reasonably know that the base template(s) is a source of complete knowledge.

636. Entry:

Reply to the response to Entry 635

“Existence and continued existence is the essence of Life. Cognition through all sensory inputs is a fact whether one understands or not. It is NOT dependant upon any comparison or evaluation or interpretation or manipulation or extrapolation. Such is the state of living cognition in infants, animals, plants and every single form of multitudes of life forms all around. For example, a dog endowed with a large portion of the brain devoted to odors and smells could unfailingly remember different shades and various spectra of smells. How is it done? Does a dog have to name or tag each shade of smell? If you pass it saying it is instinctive, it is inadequate to brush it off as such and your basic notion of knowledge through descriptions and the known only - it fails to explain such things. On the other hand let us examine as to what really happens as we grow out of infanthood wherein a reference datum of The Notionless State has been inscribed against which adulthood perceptions are built upon. In adulthood if there is zero error signal and if the digital map or plot of sensory inputs tally absolutely, the processing mind becomes helpless as zero inputs give zero outputs and the notionless state which has remained always as the background screen gets noticeable and a dynamic state of the unknown gets revealed on its own as it happens at moments of rapture or enlightenment. On the other hand if we are in the excited state as we are and which has been taken o be the norm, every single input gets distorted or colored always and the mind is busy processing inputs and outputs thus generating a panorama of virtual display of non-facts and justify that it must be so because descriptions and labels are known and one could feel secured only in the domain of the known. However the shades of obscurity caused by the mind due to perceptions causing errors from the registered templates which are like glimpses of the unknown acquired in one's infanthood. It does NOT mean that one must know through such templates. When the processing due to the mind stops due to error being zero, awareness is total and it deals with facts only and perceptions are such that the observer vanishes and the process of re-cognition of such observations from memory or comparisons or judgments, interpretations and extrapolations - all of it ends and only ‘observing’ or ‘being’ remains as a dynamic fact or truth. Anything else is non-fact or false and recapturing the congruence with the original templates ushers one into such a dynamic state of being in the ‘now’ happens naturally or effortlessly. All that has happened is simply reducing the errors to zero. That is all.”

R. Rangan January 16 2008

Response:

We agree that there must be some form of cognition through all sensory inputs or a base template(s). Your example of a dog’s sense of smell proves the point.

However, the question remains as to what is the nature of cognition through the base template(s)? We know it is not at the conscious level. Viz., the dog does not verbalize in the form of notions what it is smelling, just as a new infant does not verbalize in the form of notions what it is laughing at.

Also, cognition at the base template(s), is derived through the interaction of sensory receptors with the outside world, thereby indirect relation between them. So it is clear to us that based on the indirect, unconscious nature of cognition through the base template(s), that complete knowledge cannot more reasonably be derived through the base template(s). Therefore, your entry does not overcome Proposition 1.

637. Entry

Reply to the response to Entry 632

“Given the length of time, I have been involved in the debate, my expectations gradually evolved to the presumption that the deterministic definitions imposed in the Challenge, in time would soften, given my impression of the material I was able to read. Predominantly that impression was that the common problem was simply dealing with confining definitions, which can only lead to a restricted view of reality.

Holding elevated mythical concepts of what ‘truth’ should be, will always regard reality as an impenetrable barrier despite it being the only source for ‘true experience’.

It does appear that you have dismissed common sense as having nothing to do with reason. Had you included it as a substantial reality, then two people, or a dozen people sitting at tables would have constituted a group of people using tables in a reasonable manner. Quantifying that to the countless use of tables being used for what they were designed, one could reach the conclusion that a ‘more reasonable’ position had been established (if it was ever necessary) and a table, is a table, is a table.

In your arguments, you adhere to ‘infinite regress’ as a dismissal to any reality you do not understand. Invoking ‘infinite regress’ never addresses the subject matter, it only attempts to reduce the argument to’ nothingness’ – impossibility (already said). Whether it is one form of materialism or a trillion (a fork or forks), the implicit principles are the same immediate factors that define in each moment of existence, their reality.

The fundamental existence of principles in all Nature and Reality defines the ‘truth’ of their existence. Homo sapiens in each moment of time in their wisdom, and with a profound amount of common sense, now know why tables were originally designed.

Truth = Knowledge

Given the construction of my arguments, which you measure by your own definition of Truth or Knowledge, perhaps two new definitions of Truth or Knowledge may be appropriate to create some balance and reality.

New Definition

Truth or Knowledge is the Universal application of a mutual standard that we trust. Its constructive purpose is to create simple and efficient laws that we can constantly use. Where there is clear agreement of an interdependent measure that has reciprocal value, then it becomes unifying constructive knowledge. We recognize and accept that constant obligation toward truths that are enduring, by the increasing use we adapt them creatively, and conform to their principles through the evolution process. (Archimedes et al). Wisdom is born of the accumulation of Knowledge and Truth.

New Definition

Truth is composed of simple laws that we can use. Our basic mutual trust as to their existence is evident through their connective purpose. The value of their stability creates clear agreement that is easy to understand. Our constant obligation is to confirm those laws, and use them constructively, as they are the simple principles of unification. (Archimedes et al).

Real meaning must have Universal application. Never dumbed down, nor convoluted. However diverse ‘truth’ is expressed, its essential meaning will contain the same universal principles, and it is in the application of the above definitions, that the potential experience of truth in all things is possible.

The structural belief in dichotomies promotes an unnatural acceptance of the mythical ability to deny ‘what is’. The ‘Eureka’ moment is that immediate experience of the truth, which in turn dissolves the mythical separateness between object and the observer. Our innate natural obligation toward wholesomeness stumbles when unnatural beliefs hold healthy experiences in check. All life is the manifestation of truth.

To say that ‘everything is’ is self evidently true. It is an all-inclusive statement of fact that cannot be denied. It requires no intellectual definition to ascribe integrity to a reality that must exist. That reality with all its inherent truth is the dynamic that enfolds all life.

It is the constant dynamic that allows Homo sapiens to ‘more reasonably’ identify the content and properties of all its manifestation, and we use (or misuse) them according to the dictates of the principles involved. That ‘which is’, is a pure egalitarian entity. All space – time – energy – matter is. They are an eternal reality, which, to repeat, has always been, and always will be.

When natural materialisms profound reality is experienced, it displaces any mythical postulation toward an equally mythical non-material existence.

Hypothesis: Because ‘truth’ was attributed to a mythical non-attainable mystery, its very properties attained the same mysterious values. Thus, reality became artificially divorced from the very truth that was its fundamental structure. All reality is ‘truth’. Out relationships, one to the other is a ‘truth’. Our interdependence is a ‘truth’. Our interaction is a ‘truth’. That which we cannot deny is a truth.

We cannot deny any part of our existence, because we are in every way, connected to all reality (however tenuous the link). We do not manufacture the ‘truth’. It is an inherent component of Nature and Reality. The Eureka moment is that experience of its existence made transparent.

Identify the substantive principles that must exist e.g., All life forms require sustenance.

Evolutionary progress continues because at each moment in time we exercise common knowledge. Knowledge is not contingent on any individual opinion, nor is it possible to negate it through any impossible descent into ‘infinite regress’. Everything is, it always has been, and it always will be.

Everything that is, is the construct of the properties of the Universe.

The principles that are at the core of all space-time-energy-matter enable life to progress and evolve. When they are made manifest in the form of a table, or an elephant, in each moment of time, they are complete, and in a common sense way we know it.

The natural application of principles is the dynamic that forms the basis of human knowledge – reason – commonsense –truth. Our collective reason exponentially establishes their fundamental correctness, and we conform to the truth of their existence. Thus a table, is a table, is a table.

Beware of the restrictive use of any language that imposes limitations (by definition) that attempts to exclude our natural reality. That natural accommodation toward a common reality allows human integrity and morality to flourish. Observe diners in a restaurant who use tables, chairs, knives, forks, and spoons, and conform to the uniform implicit design necessary for the restaurant to function. In that scenario, there is the potential in that observation to see and experience ‘mutual agreement’, or the truth.

Homo sapiens if they need a definition to encompass who they are, then by quantification, it would be a definition that fits their common aspirations, and evolving reality. By our collective senses we can hear, see, feel, smell, and taste. The mechanisms by which we can identify reality.

The contemplation of truth is only valid if it addresses reality. When we place principles at the forefront of reason and knowledge, the natural benefits will be automatic. It is the principles that remain constant. The evidence of truth is in the identification of the constant principles. Observing principles in action is identifying truth.

All reality is truth – everything is – everything that is, is there to be recognized. Truth can never be a constrained elitist property. It is all encompassing, infinitely used, and acted upon universally.

Our being here is a truth. Our relationship, one to the other is a truth. Our interdependence is a truth. Our interaction is a truth because we are all an inextricable part of the same reality.

We cannot deny any part of our existence, because we are in every way connected to all reality (however tenuous the link is).”

Bridie. February 11 2008

Response:

The concept of “infinite expanse” does not more reasonably establish completeness, because the concept itself is subject to endless regress.

We agree that based on human agreement it can be more reasonably established (practically) that a “a table is a table, is a table, is a table.” However, that establishment is not the same as more reasonably completely establishing.

The phrase “truth = knowledge; knowledge = truth” is subject to endless regress, and therefore, it does not establish completeness.

If we consider that knowledge is a product of sensory, and our sensory is in an indirect relation to the external world, then it follows that knowledge is not complete, and therefore it cannot be equated to truth or completeness.

The Heisenburg Uncertainty Principle, for example, more reasonably refutes the concept of immediate or direct experience (of truth).
Commonsense, though valuable on practical level, does not necessarily establish truth.

The idea that “everything is,” is subject to endless regress, and therefore it does not more reasonably establish completeness. For example, it is more reasonably possible that everything is not is.

If you wish to refute “endless regress,” you will need to more reasonably demonstrate a concept that does not succumb to infinite regress when it is broken down in terms of its meaning.

Entries 628-633 Entries 638-643