Development and application of perception theory (Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016] & Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016]) has opened up for me seemingly unending possibilities of understanding better almost any aspect of human knowledge and experience. Among my favorite areas of philosophy is ontology, the philosophy of being — what is existence?, what does it mean “to be?”, etc. Modern existentialism has sprung from ontology, now armed with human psychology, cultural anthropology, and evolutionary psychology. Perception theory thrives upon the notion that objectivity (the veridical) and subjectivity (the non-veridical) are not “at odds,” but, rather, exist in an evolutionary symbiosis via and upon our “world-view screen of perception” within our heads (See At Last, A Probable Jesus, [August, 2015] & Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016]). (Another way of thinking of this screen is that it is synonymous with the German Weltanschauung.) What this work focuses upon is the light shed upon the question “What does it mean to exist?” provided by perception theory.
For anything to exist, there must be some perception, conception, or idea of that thing on the non-veridical side of the screen — in the human mind embedded in the human brain. I recall several years ago finding agreement with a former friend and fundamentalist Christian on this universal premise of “knowing” anything — e.g. to know God is to have certain brain activity within your mind; to know anything else is to have different brain activity within your mind. Not having worked out perception theory at that time, I only remembered the novelty of agreement between the two of us. I now know this novelty was but an unrecognized feeling of the compatibility of the objective and the subjective; had the symbiosis between objectivity and subjectivity been clear to me back then, our discussion would have gotten much further than it did.
The definition of existence in the first sentence of the previous paragraph must not be mistaken for an affirmation of Bishop Berkeley’s ontological “proof of God” based upon “To be is to be perceived.” The good bishop declared that God must exist because He is the Universal Perceiver keeping the world in existence around us, even when we are not directly perceiving it, such as when we are asleep. Perception theory declares, on the other hand, that existence creates perception, not the other way around. Existence is a processed quality actively attributed by the non-veridical upon both the veridical (empirical data bombarding the senses) and the non-veridical (ideas generated or processed by the mind using veridical data, other non-veridical concepts, or both). All things perceived existent either in the outside world or in our heads must be non-veridical products, even though the genesis of all things perceived lies ultimately but indirectly in prior and/or present empirical data.
To demonstrate all this with examples, consider the existence of four non-veridical products — the idea of a rock, of a dog, of freedom, and of God. In other words, how does perception theory describe the existence of a rock, a dog, freedom, and God? Four ideas are chosen in anticipation of existence falling into four distinct categories. Perhaps other ontologists using other theories would choose another number; perhaps other ontologists using my exact same perception theory would choose another number. Moreover, the list of possible examples representing each category is virtually endless. No doubt every single reader would come up with a completely different list than rock, dog, freedom, and God.
First, how do we know a rock exists? Its existence is inferred by our minds from strong, direct empirical signals sent by our senses of primarily sight and touch. If it is a relatively small rock, we can pick it up and collect even more empirical signals; we can, for instance, measure its size and we can weigh it. A rock does not move of any volition from within; if broken apart, and if not a geode, it seems uniformly hard and dense throughout, etc. etc. Each rock we investigate, even if only one in our entire life, contributes to an idea of a rock that becomes a non-veridical image on our perception screen in our head, an image reinforced by subsequent direct empirical experience of any particular rock “out there,” outside ourselves; typically this subsequent empirical experience could be our picking up a rock we’ve never seen before, or someone purposely or accidentally hitting us with a thrown rock, etc. Finally, we know a rock exists because empirical data from other human beings having to do with rocks seems to correlate with the notion that their non-veridical perception of rocks is nearly the same as our non-veridical perception of rocks. In fact, I have never seen a human holding a rock denying it is there. This, despite the impossibility of our ever experiencing others’ non-veridical perception, due to the subjective trap (Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016]). In other words, other apparent perceptions of rocks assure me I am not “making rocks up” in my own head, or “If I’m crazy to say rocks exist, then apparently almost everyone else must also be crazy!” Beings like me also behave as if rocks exist.
[Here I pause to interject and define a useful “test” to aide in contrasting and comparing the four examples of existence (the first of which is the existence of a rock just discussed). I am going to employ three sentences with blanks to fill in with each of the examples, one at a time. The three sentences are: 1) “_______ helps me to understand the universe better.” 2) “Wars over _______ are sometimes justified.” and 3) “I have a personal relationship with ________.”]
Let’s “test” the existence of a rock with the three sentences: 1) “A rock helps me to understand the universe better.” That is hard to argue against (i.e. there is little or no absurdity in 1) about a rock.) Contemplating a rock is “classic” starstuff interacting with fellow starstuff (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]). One of my many favorite photographs of my elder granddaughter when she was a toddler is her sitting on the patio holding a fallen leaf with both hands and staring at it intently — if that is not starstuff contemplating fellow starstuff, I don’t know what is! Just like my granddaughter left that patio so many years ago with “leaf,” apparently, as a new non-veridical concept in her brain, my holding and staring at a rock not only reinforces my catalog of non-veridical rock concepts in my brain, my understanding of the place of rocks in my universe, the universe I assume we all share, is enriched further. So, yes, 1) about a rock seems to be clearly true.
2) “Wars over a rock are sometimes justified.” This one seems totally absurd, as if it is a theme of a classic Monty Python skit. There may have been a time at least a hundred thousand years ago when a group of early Homo sapiens attacked a neighboring group that had stolen the first group’s “sacred stone,” or some such, but to kill each other over a rock is today considered insanity.
3) “I have a personal relationship with a rock.” Again, this reeks strongly Phythonesque, but at least no one is getting hurt, it is assumed. One thinks of the absurd fad a few years ago of owning a “pet rock.” Good fun, if one is not serious about it, but the ones who had the most fun were the sellers of pet rocks making deposits in their bank accounts. Similar to the pet rock “relationship” is a person’s attachment to tools, equipment, houses, automobile, etc. For instance, in the building projects I have done, I’ve grown “attached” to tools such as my Dremel-brand rotary multi-tool. But, like a pet rock, these inanimate objects can be replaced if lost, stolen, or worn out; replacements give the same attachment as the tool they replaced. Hence, the relationship is to any tool that can do a specific job, not to a specific one — to the idea of efficient and practical rotary tools; to emotionally attach to a worn-out tool that no longer does the job is absurd. I “loved” the old Dremel I had to replace, but as soon as the new one “fired up,” I no longer thought about the old one — I immediately “loved” the new one. However, I often fondly think of a 1966 red Ford Mustang I used to own and later on sold, but from the moment I sold it, I no longer had the personal relationship with that particular car — I had and still have a “love affair” with the idea of owning a red Ford Mustang, since I never replaced the one I sold. 3) speaks of a relationship with a particular rock, not with the idea of rocks in general.
Since 1), 2), and 3) for rock responses, are, respectively, “very true,” “absurd,” and “also absurd,” we can infer something about the type existence exemplified by the existence of a rock. If I label this type existence as strongly veridically-based, as it always harkens and focuses back to the empirical, veridical source of the non-veridical concept of rocks in our heads (“rocks in our heads!” get it?……..never mind……) — namely, the universe outside our heads that we assume exists, else we would not behave the way almost all of us do and all existences conjured in the contemplation of the universe — again, anything outside our heads — is/are strongly veridically-based existence(s). This means existing as science assumes existence to be; the existence of a rock is a scientific example of “scientific existentialism,” a basic ontological assumption of the philosophy of science. Strongly veridically-based existence suggests that objects like the rock exist independent of our perceiving them. We logically infer the rock existed before anyone alive today (unless it is a man-made structure like a brick recently kilned), and, long after we are gone, long after the non-veridical perceptions, conceptions, and ideas of rocks have ceased to exist inside our heads, the rock will continue to exist. (Even if the rock erodes considerably, we normally consider it to be the same rock; we could conceive of its deliberate or accidental destruction, such as being thrown or knocked into the magma of a volcano, but most rocks seem to survive for eons of time.) Strongly veridically-based (rock) is the first category of existence.
Second, how do we know a dog exists? Most of what is said about the existence of a rock above applies to the existence of a dog, with at least one obvious difference. That difference is the reason I chose the idea of dog as another existence example instead of lumping the canine with the rock. That difference is best illustrated by an event that occurred not long ago in a favorite pub I frequent: Early one afternoon in this establishment the lady co-owner walked through holding her newest family member — a puppy that looked like a wired-haired dachshund. We all reacted as if she was carrying a new grandchild of hers; “how cute!” and similar exhortations abounded. The evolutionary reasons we naturally respond to puppies is not germane to the point here, but imagining how different it would have been if she had walked through holding a rock is. Had she walked through with a rock rather than a young dog, many would have not noticed at all; if they did notice, perhaps they would have dismissed the observation immediately as not noteworthy, or again if they did notice, would think it odd for the situation and would either ask her about the rock or say nothing.
It seems obvious that the difference is that the dog is alive (“quickened”) like us while the rock is not. Being alive (being “quick”) and animate portends a brain, and a brain portends some non-veridical potential such as humans have. (Clearly, though plants are alive, the life forms I’m here describing are animals.) So the strongly veridically-based existence of a dog (We can empirically interact with a dog just like we do the rock.) is modified, tweaked, or nuanced slightly; it is a somewhat different kind of veridically-based existence. I label this type existence as quickened & strong veridically-based. Another ontological difference between a dog and a rock is that, like all living beings, there is no notion of extended prior or future existence; like humans, dogs have very limited, terminated existences compared to rocks; brains are very finite. Quickened & strong veridically-based (dog) is the second category of existence.
1) “A dog helps me to understand the universe better.” Again, for the same reasons as those of 1) for a rock, this seems very, very true. Perhaps human understanding of the universe is furthered more by the dog than by the rock because we are physically closer related to dogs than rocks; a dog’s starstuff strongly reminds us of our own starstuff — both of us are mammals, etc.
2) “Wars over a dog are sometimes justified.” Once more, unless we are talking about an imagined early, early time of Homo sapiens, this statement cannot be considered meaningful in our modern, civilized times. Once again for 2), absurd.
So far, the three-statement test’s responses for the dog are just like the rock’s. But a difference appears in 3):
3) “I have a personal relationship with a dog.” Even if one has never owned a dog, one surely has observed dog owners and knows this statement has to be very true, and not absurd. We now know that just like perception theory describes a symbiotic relationship between objectivity and subjectivity, human cultural evolution now describes the symbiotic relationship between humans and their domesticated animals, especially dogs. (Cat lovers undoubtedly would have chosen a cat instead of a dog in this work. I have just as undoubtedly exposed myself as a dog lover.)
Summing up, 1), 2), and 3) for dog responses are, respectively, “very true,” “absurd,” and “true.” This shows that the difference between strongly veridically-based existence and quickened & strong veridically-based existence is simply the difference between “alive” and “not alive.” Strong veridically-based existence of these two slightly different types is firmly planted in empirical data focused upon by perception; the rock and the dog exist scientifically, or, as we say, “The rock and the dog exist.” Anyone who seriously disagrees with this statement is a hopeless solipsist doomed to self-exile from the rest of mankind. Also, most of mankind would find the dog more interesting and emotionally satisfying than the rock for obvious reasons; we ontologically have more in common with a dog than with a rock. We naturally quicken the dog, not the rock.
Before we continue, keep in mind these two slightly different forms of existence, though veridically-based via being scientifically objective, have to be generated as all human knowledge — subjectively and non-veridically generated within our brains and attributed to the perceptions from our senses we label as “rock” and “dog.” We are convinced non-veridically that rocks and dogs exist veridically.
Third, how do we know freedom exists? There is nothing “out there” outside our brains that we can see, touch, smell, etc. and label it “freedom.” There are plenty of symbols of freedom “out there” that fire our senses, to be sure, but we would never hang a giant “FREEDOM” sign around the neck of, say, the Statue of Liberty in the harbor of New York City and declare Lady Liberty equivalent to freedom; a symbol of freedom stands in for the idea, concept, or perception of freedom, reminding us what freedom is. Freedom, then, is not only non-veridical in origin, like all knowledge and perception (and therefore a product of our imaginative, creative, and calculative capacities inside our brains), it never corresponds one-to-one to something “out there” outside our brains existing strongly veridically-based or quickened & strong verdicially-based (existing like a rock or dog). Yet most astute observers think of freedom as a quality and/or constituent of the “real” world of the veridical. Freedom, then, has to be linked to the veridical universe outside our brains, but not as directly as the idea of a rock or of a dog.
Perception theory suggests freedom resonates with the veridical universe outside our heads (a universe assumed, as science assumes, to exist independent of our perception) through not only objects designated as symbols of freedom (e.g. Statue of Liberty) but through observable actions and language (citizens deciding for themselves, and political speeches and books waxing long and eloquently about freedom — the latter of which are more symbols). In other words, we say non-veridical freedom exists indirectly in the veridical real world by resonating with objects and actions that would not logically exist without the non-veridical concept of freedom in our heads, much like unseen moving air molecules cause seen leaves on a tree to move. Remove the wind, and the leaves don’t “move in the breeze;” if freedom did not exist, we would not see different people respond differently, as if by “free choice,” to the same situation, and we would not have Thomas Jefferson’s words in the U.S. Declaration of Independence. Freedom, then, exists as a resonating non-veridically based existence. Resonating non-veridically based existence (freedom) is the third category of existence.
The example of freedom suggests all political, economic, artistic, and ethical theories are resonating non-veridically based. The same goes for all scientific and mathematical theory; numbers are non-veridical constructs in our heads that resonate strongly (I don’t know an example stronger) with the veridical “real” world; mathematics is the “language of the universe;” the universe appears to us to behave mathematically, thanks to this strong resonance. As anything non-veridically based, we make these theories up in our heads, but they are distinguished from strictly fanciful ideas by our ability to appeal to the real world of the universe and the human culture inside the universe (cite evidence, in other words) and point to objects and/or social behaviors that correlate logically with the theories in our heads, all leading to a necessary consensus in a majority of heads around us. Without the consensus of others, resonating non-veridically based ideas remain eccentric musings, speculations, or hypotheses. If the resonating idea did not exist, there would be no consensus evidence to cite. The vehicle of this resonance of the non-veridical with the veridical might very well be Richard Dawkin’s “memes,” or bits of human culture that spread throughout humanity like genes or viruses or bacteria.
[We can now illustrate literally the three categories of existence so far listed. Look at Figure 2 — A Model of the Subjectivity of Perception (The “Screen”) in Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016]. Rocks and dogs (processed, veridical, and empirical screen results) would be drawn in the figure in a solid font, while freedom (a subjective, non-veridical, and algorithmic screen result) would be written in the figure as the word “freedom” in a “dashed font,” if I could do such using Word. Everything on the screen is non-veridical in origin (“made up” in our heads), but the “solids” are direct products of our senses in contact with the “real world,” and the “dashed” are indirectly but firmly connected to the “real world” (idea of a horse) or not connected at all to the “real world”(idea of a unicorn). Again, in the world of Figure 2, rocks and dogs are solid, and freedom is dashed.]
Back to our ontological “adventure,” how do freedom’s 1), 2), and 3) read?
1) “Freedom helps me understand the universe better.” There has to be agreement to this statement, even in disagreeing minds; leaders of democracies see freedom as something to be provided for the people and despots of all ilks see freedom as something to be denied the people. The non-veridical concept of freedom is very useful and motivating in the real, veridical world.
Speaking of the really veridical, 2) “Wars over freedom are sometimes justified.” So much of history screams for agreement to this 2) sentence. No need to elaborate upon how much blood has been sacrificed in wars in which somebody’s freedom was at stake.
3) “I have a personal relationship with freedom.” Plausibly, there would be a lot of agreement here too, even in disagreeing minds. Citizens have a positive relationship with freedom, while despots have a negative one.
Interestingly, freedom’s three responses to 1), 2), and 3) are three resounding “true’s.” a) Could it be that a general characteristic of resonating non-veridically based existence is the absence of “absurd” from the answers to the three questions? (Same for other ideas like freedom?) b) Is the absence of “absurd” in the answers always characteristic of any kind of non-veridically based existence, not just the resonant kind? Take the resonant non-veridical case of “love;” I suspect that “absurd” would probably be the logical response to 2) in the case of love (all types, including eros, philos, and agape). Imagine the insanity of making war on a group because they refused to love your group, or, conversely, because you refused to love them! Therefore, the answer to the a) question of this paragraph is clearly “no.” When it comes to scientific, resonating non-veridical ideas, the answer to a) is also “no,” as fighting wars over a scientific theory (whose existence is definitely resonating non-veridically based) is as absurd as the craziest Python skit. [Imagine testing somebody’s new theory in quantum mechanics by rival, skeptical departments of physics of major universities attacking the claimant’s department instead of “hashing it out” at a conference of presentation of lab data.] Probably it is just coincidence, then, that freedom’s responses are three “true’s.” Perhaps the proper conclusion to draw on this matter is that responses for the resonating non-veridically based (freedom) are more varied than the responses for the strongly veridically-based (rock) and the quickened & strong veridically-based (dog). Getting ahead of ourselves, the idea of a unicorn mentioned above is clearly non-veridical and suspiciously looks non-resonating. Answers to 1), 2), and 3) for a unicorn must contain at least one “absurd,” if not two or three, so “no” also must be the response to b). For all possible resonant non-veridically based existences, responses 1), 2), and 3) should be “True,” “True/Absurd,” and “True,” respectively.
Fourth, we come to the question of God. I use the generic “God” to include all monotheistic and polytheistic views, in order to address the views of theists, agnostics, and atheists. If God is used in the context of a specific religion or religious philosophy, I will naturally use the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition, as this is the religious culture in which I have lived. However, my tack in this ontological “trek” is to come up with as widely applicable conceptions as possible, so that I could just as well use “deity” instead of “God.” So, how do we know God exists?
God exists, like the rock, dog, and freedom, as a non-veridical construct of our brain. God is different than the other three in that God not only is not empirically verified in the “real” world outside our heads, God cannot “escape” our heads via resonance. (Symbols, words, and actions purportedly representing God’s presence can be sensed all around, but like symbols and actions for freedom, they are NOT God — if they become God to certain worshipers they are NOT ontologically God; they are idols and/or icons or rituals.) That is, the concept of God is so epiphenomenal (a secondary, coincidental, and unintentional by-product of brain activity), there is no world-wide consistency and agreement among these symbols, words, and actions, as there are for freedom, love, or ethical behavior. The non-veridical creation of God does NOT resonate with the universe, because God is like an ultimate non-veridical heat sink or dumping ground in our minds of as much definition, blame, credit, love, mystery, origin, power, thought, etc. as we can bestow. No resonant non-veridical existence, like the idea of freedom, is like that; resonant concepts are definitely defined and predictably correlated to specific objects and actions, not to just any and to just all objects and actions, as is the case for God. God is said to be the answer for everything, which is absurd, as it says nothing. God is said to be in everything, which again says nothing, as we have discovered something in everything (We call them elementary particles.), but do not worship elementary particles as God. Therefore, the non-veridical existence of God does not resonate; it “bounces back” or loops back into the brain’s fanciful, imaginative, creative faculties. God, then, exists as a looped non-veridically based existence, a concept perpetually defying definition out in the real world outside our heads. God is epiphenomenalism run amuck.
God exists as Santa Claus, Satan, Heaven, Hell, Purgatory, ghosts, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, and fairies exist in our brains, and in our brains only. (It is possible that some, perhaps not all the non-God listings in the previous sentence are resonant and exist as resonate non-veridically based, as will be shown below.) Theists love and atheists despise the two words “God exists” near the beginning of the previous sentence; atheists love and theists despise the entire sentence. I would speculate that agnostics would be uneasy that theists and atheists could “sort of” agree upon something as “important” as God existing. I just may have angered all three groups! I’m not sure any of the three would be happy for me to join their group.
Things that exists as looped non-veridically based entities in the human brain, like God and Arthur Conan Doyle’s English garden fairies, remind us of our “imaginary friends” so many of us imagined as children. Having imaginary friends probably evolved as culturally advantageous to psychologically deal with stressful loneliness, which is a life-long problem for such social creatures as we; hermits are not the normal examples for Homo sapiens. The modus operandi of creating imaginary friends is related to attributing human characteristics to non-human veridical and non-veridical entities. We call this anthropomorphism or personification of phenomenon. Personification of looped non-veridically based entities in our head is a hallmark of our epiphenomenal abilities. Thus, Santa Claus is the personification of the very veridical altruistic behavior of giving at Christmas time; Satan is the personification of the very veridical phenomenon of human evil. In this sense, Santa Claus and Satan very “weakly” exist, or superstitiously exist — exist as psychological “crutches” to “handle” not-so-simple observations in the real world. Santa Claus and Satan, as superstitious personifications, enjoy in our heads the ontological label of resonate non-veridically based, as the desire to give and human evil are both very real. But God could be seen as the superstitious personification of everything and anything, the ultimate “imaginary friend,” or “super-friend,” if you please. And as a looped non-veridically based entity, God could also be an “all answer” friend, the “answer” to any and all unanswerable questions. (Recall the analogy of the ultimate heat sink — actually, functioning like an imaginary “black hole” in our head.) It is but a short step to God being “the” answer to all we see, to being the origin and Creator of the universe, as well as our super-friend. This is exactly what theists do; they pray to God one moment and are speechless with pious awe the next as they stare into a telescope at the clear night sky. What a trick we do in our heads — God is not only “with us,” he/she/it is simultaneously somehow controlling the entire universe! At one extreme God seems close to being the same as the universe (pantheism) and at the other God seems to be the perfect “person” we wish we could be (wishful narcissism). Effortlessly swinging back and forth between these theological extremes, we don’t have to think; we only need one answer — God.
[The only way God could be added to Figure 2 in Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016] would be the word “God” in dashed format; there would be no world-wide consensus on any dashed object that would represent “God.”]
Thoughts applied to this “whatever and everything” looping non-veridical entity form theology, which varies and correlates with the particular culture of the brains producing the thoughts. “Looped” is another way of saying “faith-based,” so it is easy to see that theology is a “sitting duck” destined to become toxic due to faith-based epistemology as described in Sorting Out the Apostle Paul, [April, 2012], Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept. 2015], Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016], and Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016].
Now to sentences 1), 2), and 3). 1) “God helps me understand the universe better.” Definitely not, as “the” answer to every question is no answer at all. There is no definition, comparison, or contrasting possible with God. Even most theistic scientists agree here.
2) “Wars over God are sometimes justified.” Apparently so! As the history of Europe and the Middle East (not to mention events today in the Middle East) attest. However, this may be the response only for today’s theists. Today’s modern atheists would definitely say “no.” For lack of certainty, agnostics could not justify any “holy war.”
3) “I have a personal relationship with God.” Theists say “You ‘bet-cha’!” Atheists say “Hell, no!” Agnostics say “Who knows?” The looped non-veridically based existence of God placed into 3) may very well render 3) non-applicable or nonsensical.
So, for God, the three responses in possible theism, atheism, and agnosticism “triads,” are “No!,” “Yes/No/No,” and “Yes/No/?” (Or, to correlate with the other three sets of responses, “Absurd,” “True/Absurd,” and “True/Absurd.”) An astounding assortment of ambiguity, to say the least. Ontology shows us, then, that God does not exist like a rock or a dog; nor does God exist like freedom. God exists only in our heads; we have made he/she/it up, and he/she/it is so purely epiphenomenal that he/she/it becoming even weakly veridical (becoming resonant) seems impossible, even oxymoronic.
We can construct the following table of ontological results of this “adventure” for convenience:
CATEGORY OF EXISTENCE EXAMPLE 1), 2), 3) RESPONSES
Strongly Veridically-based Rock True, Absurd, Absurd
Quickened & Strong Veridically-based Dog True, Absurd, True
Resonating Non-Veridically based Freedom True, True/Absurd, True
Looped Non-Veridically based God Absurd, True/Absurd, True/Absurd
Clearly, there are two main divisions of categories — the first two are veridical and the last two are non-veridical. This is to be expected from perception theory with its assumption of “balance” between the objective and the subjective. The veridically-based categories of existence indicate learning about the universe and avoiding war, while the non-veridically based indicate no definite pattern except being ambiguous on war and personal relationship. Correlation between the two “veridicals” is strong, and correlation between the two “non-veridicals” is non-existent, or, at best, really weak. Reliability, not surprisingly, seems to lie with the universe outside us, not with that within our heads — with the two “veridicals” and with the non-veridical that resonates with the real world. Nor is it surprising to see that if you want to know about the universe, direct the non-veridical toward the veridical in your head (Perception is Everything, [Jan., 2016]). And, war is clearly a function of our heads, not of the universe. In my opinion, war could also have more favorability with theists than with atheists or agnostics (Perhaps I’ve not met enough Quakers.).
The astute reader of perception theory might have noticed I’ve interchangeably used, pretty much throughout, the terms “mind” and “brain,” as if they are essentially synonymous. They can be distinguished, but for the purposes of perception theory they obviously go together. For completeness, let me mention their distinction: perception theory is compatible with the idea that “mind” is an epiphenomenal by-product of the physiological complexity of the brain, mostly the complexity of those “johnny-come-latelys” of the brain, the frontal lobes; the “mind” is an incidental effect of the complex brain, which originally evolved for survival of the species. We needed to be cleverer than the animals competing for our resources and/or trying to eat us, so with the addition of animal protein from dead animals, our brains enlarged enough, on the average, to be just that — cleverer. Human birth canals did not enlarge enough to “keep up,” so big-brained babies had to be born less mature than the babies of our primate cousins, chimps and gorillas. This gave Homo sapiens a “long childhood” and child rearing to physical independence became a necessary part of developing human culture, contributing to the advancement of the “nuclear family” and necessarily cooperative groups, usually of extended kinship. The imaginations of our “new” big brains had a long time to exercise in this long childhood — so much so, in my opinion, created imaginary concepts based upon veridical perceptions lead to a self-concept of “that which imagines,” or, the mind. Our brains did not evolve “intentionally” to form a mind; they just happened to be complex enough to form a mind.
The astute reader also no doubt noticed that I described the looped non-veridical based concept of God in our heads as being epiphenomenal, a clear unintentional by-product of brain complexity — a product of our mind. Perhaps I should have throughout the presentation of perception theory used the descriptor “epiphenomenal” with all non-veridical existence, both resonating and looped. Our ideas and concepts exist as epiphenomenal products of our epiphenomenal mind.
As I began this “ontological adventure” of comparing the existence of a rock, a dog, freedom, and God as suggested by perception theory, I could see that the adventure had to end talking about theists, atheists, and agnostics. Frankly, I did not at first see exactly where the adventure would leave me, a “perception theorist,” or “perceptionist” in relation to these three groups of thinkers. Would I come down agreeing with one of the groups or two? To my surprise, perception theory both agrees and disagrees with all three. God exists all right, which makes the theists glad but the atheists furious (agnostics would not like this certainty of God’s existence), but God exists confined in our heads as, again, “epiphenomenalism run amuck” — a dashed word on the perception screen of our mind — as a Grand Answerer, or super-friend so super we don’t have to struggle with where we and the universe came from, as God also is the answer to that also; he/she/it is not only the Grand Answerer and Grand super-friend, he/she/it is also the Grand Creator. God is all we need in one Grand Epiphenomenal Package, saving us from having to mentally struggle, think, and/or worry. God only being in our heads infuriates the theists and delights the atheists (and again is too certain for agnostics).
Perception theory, then, in a way, makes the clashes, conflicts, debates, and ill feelings among theists, atheists, and agnostics seem rather silly. The differences among them are interesting, but not worth fighting over. Taking my cue from Arian Foster, NFL running back formally with the Houston Texans, who is the only NFL player I know to have the courage to “come out” in favor of freethinking amidst a locker room and overall profession teeming with theism, Arian says it is better to have friendly, respectful dialogue about religious beliefs than trying to convert each other. He is, in addition to being a free agent as of this writing, in my books a perfect candidate for being called a perceptionist.
Finally, I want to establish that despite a lot of correlations with perception theory in Richard Dawkins’ The God Delusion (2006, Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, New York, NY, ISBN 978-0-618-91824-9 (pbk.) or 0-618-91824-8 (pbk.)), I had developed perception theory before I read this book, and this book was written about a decade before my perception theory. I am delighted at these independent correlations, as I’ve met Dr. Richard Dawkins personally and spent a few hours with him one-on-one, in which we did NOT discuss our religious positions. I consider him a friend of casual acquaintance, but it is possible he has no recollection of meeting me. I met him years ago as part of the cast of a BBC film featuring Richard that was part of the debunking of creationist fossilized “mantrack” claims along the Paluxy River near my home in Texas; my role was the “intrepid amateur paleontologist (with son),” among many amateur and professional scientists, who were showing evidence these claims had no scientific merit whatsoever. (See Creationism and Intelligent Design — On the Road to Extinction, [July, 2012]) I recommend all Dawkins’ books to the readers of perception theory. The God Delusion presents the case for atheism very well for theists, atheists, and agnostics; I can only hope my presentation of the case for perception theory does something similar for all three groups. I agree with Arian Foster: I hope in future to have meaningful, respectful, and friendly dialogue among all three groups, during which I’d love to renew my acquaintance with Richard Dawkins and start one with Arian Foster.
[Incidentally, the BBC film done along the Paluxy River, entitled “God, Darwin, and the Dinosaurs,” was so “controversial” in the U.S., it was never aired on TV’s “NOVA” PBS scientific series. It was, however, shown in Britain (I think) and Canada. I got to see it only because a Canadian friend of mine mailed me a VCR videotape copy he recorded off his TV! I can only hope that public scientific sensibilities in the U.S. are now less “medieval” than then.]