Existence and Explanation

Image by ‘pro-non’ @ http://pro-non.deviantart.com/art/Cosmos-342962111

The relationship between knowledge and explanation regarding our existence and the way we navigate the universe is always a topic up for debate, as answers to such questions are not to be found – yet. Perhaps the answers are embedded in the various systems we have developed, to progress, advance and understand – with each differing system providing its own, unique insights into the workings of our world. Let me elaborate.

Seemingly arbitrary birth dates, numbers and mathematics exampled by Dan Millman’s Pythagorean homage “The life you were born to live”, Mayan astrology, and other various forms of numerology all, somehow, provide scarily accurate insight into our being, our soul and the nature of our person. Such techniques of self-understanding and self-discovery are often scrutinized for not being scientific or logical and are therefore deemed fictitious – only believed as true and accurate due a person’s desire for explanation and meaning, simply a victim of the Forer Effect.

Furthermore, these systems are all from different centuries and cultures – each with their own interpretation but on the whole, very similar. How is it that geographic, chronologic and communicative separation can result in such similar systems of explanation if not for the existence of some form of viable but under-researched method of understanding our why?

Calling these arguably rudimentary systems totally useless or incorrect is simply ignorance: such methods of explanation are not logical or scientific, no – but judging such phenomena on its illogicalities and lack of scientific basis is illogical in itself. These systems are not MEANT to be rational, they are completely different systems of explanation and using one system (e.g. logic) to refute the other is more pointless than judging the intelligence of a pig on its ability to speak French.

These different systems of explanation are just that: systems which we have developed to try explain our universe. Science, technology, mathematics, logic, philosophy, religion, spirituality etc. are all methods of explanation in their own rights, each a different angle of discovery, of Ultimate Realisation. None of these systems are wrong; it is simply a case of apples and oranges, physics and philosophy.

Perhaps there are more undiscovered systems of explanation out there – new fields of science to be uncovered, combinations of existing systems, new ways of connecting the nodes of our network of understanding. These systems are tendrils that we send out into the cosmos, reaching around, feeling what’s out there to give us more insight, forever striving towards Ultimate Realisation. Our five senses are no longer enough to explain our universe, so we used them to create more advanced systems of explanation, and every advancement in every field is that tendril reaching further – until perhaps it hits a wall, and a fresh tendril begins to grow, seeking knowledge in a new direction.

Perhaps this is even evidenced by, and is reason for, evolution. However, I think this tangent is to be explored another day. For now, I must go and start the uni work I have been so successfully avoiding all day. Ciao.

Systematic Determinism

NOTE: For that which follows, think of ‘physical state’ as the brain’s status in terms of it’s physical attributes – chemical balances, neurons firing etc., and ‘mental state’ as your consciousness, your mind. A less simplistic definition of mind-body dualism can be found here.

What happens in the gap between one thought and another? I cannot remember these gaps as time is measured through consciousness, and such gaps are merely fissures in consciousness. If you added up all the gaps you’d ever had and placed them next to each other, then, for that moment, you would not be privy to the passing of time.

Is the gap between thoughts a way of loading our next? Perhaps our brains have created a sort of biological buffering, with our brain processing its current physical state and the micro-gap in thought is the resulting delay caused by the updating of the physical state to the mental state. If this is the case, our mental state is simply a delayed reaction to the physical state, and thus our thoughts are reactionary only, predetermined, albeit by fractions of a second.

If our thoughts are predetermined, then choice is an illusion. What I mean by this, is that we are constantly updating and refreshing, always changing in short-lived, small-scale determinism. We may be able to change our physical state based on resulting thoughts of a previous predetermined (reactionary) choice which in turn affects our next choice – a method of constant test and analysis before moving onwards to the next, giving rise to the illusion of free will. We are unable to skip two or more thoughts or choices ahead as one thought gives rise to another in linear fashion.

A thought about desire for thirst may result in a thought about which type drink we desire (e.g. hot or cold), or which flavour, and so on until some steps later we think “this coffee is delicious”. We don’t simply jump from the recognition of thirst to “this coffee is delicious”, even if we don’t notice the thought process between. The first thought of thirst, following the process of test and analysis resulting in a cup of coffee was the instigating factor in a series of deterministic events.

If we skipped the thought about flavour, or perhaps instead thought about the desired viscosity we may very well have not ended up at coffee, but orange juice or beer. This process is deterministic at every point of test and analysis because the results already exist (e.g. upon thought (analysis of the physical state) we determined that we have desire for coffee), we are merely testing for them.

Systematic determinism: near-instant, constant refreshing, updating and analysis of mind and body resulting in following a predetermined path of cause and effect.