Beyond Good and Evil

Dr. Ronnie J. Hastings

Archive for the category “Human Evolution”

American Conservatism Belies History

[Waxing philosophically right now, so……CONSERVATIVE DISCRETION ADVISED!]
Seen as a parade of good and bad (and in-between) ideas instead of a parade of good and bad (and in-between) people’s lives, history reveals definite directions of advancement over, say, the centuries since the “discovery” of the American continents. These directions are easy to detect following the rise and fall of ideas along time’s arrow using a broad time scale (The Big Picture, [Sept., 2011]). Also easily detected are peoples’ ideas discarded along the way, ideas that didn’t “make it,” that didn’t “stand the test of time,” that history “left behind in its wake.”

For instance, the two world wars of the 20th century left in their wake discarded ideas such as monarchism and fascism (and certain forms of government they imply, like theocracy and oligarchy). Another resulting discarded idea was that of empires like the Roman, the Mogul, the Mongol, the Ottoman, the Spanish, and the British. The final “victory” of WWII was the end of the Cold War in 1989 when the idea of Soviet communism collapsed. These wars sent history toward liberal democracies (or democratic liberalism) in the form of republics (Reference former Republican Steve Schmidt for this terminology.). The economy of the victors was capitalism (witness how China today is employing a form of capitalism). But non-liberals (especially American conservatives) strive against the liberal capitalism that emerged victorious by practicing a perverted capitalism (They should read their Adam Smith.), wherein not enough profits are plowed back into business as capital and too much of the profit is selfishly stagnated as personal wealth — all of which opens the doors for oligarchy (striven for by Donald Trump) and its ancillary kleptocracy (striven for and practiced by Vladimir Putin). Autocracies of many forms, including “banana republics,” however, have yet to disappear.

(If you think democratic republics are “safe,” having been given the “nod” of 20th-century history, think again. Who was the only democratically elected President of Russia after the Soviet Union? Boris Yeltsin and Russian democracy are now gone. And just in the second decade of the 21st century, Turkey has collapsed into a form of fascism Mussolini, Hitler, and Hirohito would easily recognize.)

Also left behind by history are the ideas of the Luddites and those of American Tories at the end of the American Revolution (also called loyalists). Yet these are the same ideas animating the Republican Party led by Trump. (21st Century Luddites?, [March, 2017], and 21st Century Tories?, [March, 2017]) Despite history’s harsh lessons, “Trumpies” today fail to grasp workers adapting to new ongoing technology and even to what it means to be a citizen (“citizen” being well-defined by the blood spilled in the American and French Revolutions (Egalite: A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018])).

Generally speaking, American conservatism has clung to antiquated, outdated, and anachronistic ideas history has “shaken off” like water off a dog’s back, such as isolationism, racism, xenophobia, homophobia, misogyny, nationalism, sacred political states, tariffs, elitism, class hierarchy, nepotism, non-universal health coverage, and non-universal suffrage. (Citizens (I) Call For the Destruction of the Political Professional Class, [Nov., 2012], Citizens (II) The Redistribution of Wealth, [Jan., 2013], Citizens (III) Call for Election Reform, [Jan., 2013], An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 1, [Dec., 2012], An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 2, [Dec., 2012], An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 3, [Dec., 2012], Some Thoughts on Trump’s Election, [Nov., 2016], and Dealing with Donald, or, A Citizen’s Survival Guide for Trump’s Apparent Presidency, [Dec., 2016])

The xenophobic “circling-the-wagons” mentality of so many American conservatives is based upon the human tendency to take on the “us-versus-them syndrome,” which served us well when we were all hunter-gatherers (about 70,000 to 12,000 years ago). That is, “They over there don’t look like us, so there must be something wrong and possibly dangerous about them.” The “sacred” “us-versus-them syndrome” serves all religions, ancient and modern, including Christianity, well: “They don’t believe the same things we do, so we must convince them to believe as we do or rid ourselves of them.” Here in the 21st century, I think there is no longer any need of the “us-versus-them syndrome,” nor of its attendant bad ideas of nationalism and evangelism; history has passed them by. (Going Global, [March, 2018], At Last, a Probable Jesus, [August, 2015], and Towards an Imagined Order of Everything, Using AVAPS, [June, 2018])

Speaking more specifically, it even seems Trump’s administration, in the name of historically despicable and bigoted immigration laws, is now using our tax money for systematic child abuse. (I have visions of him going down to the detention centers and throwing scraps of food and rolls of paper napkins over the edge of the cages and into the flaps of the tents — similar to his condescending actions in Puerto Rico.) The June 30, 2018 protests across the nation speak loud and clear: the crying two-year old trumps Trump and all his zero tolerance.

Some of the Trump supporters who have not repudiated him and would vote for him still, despite his despicable words, actions, and inaction, such as “evangelical ‘single issue’ Christians” who turn a blind eye to his plethora of “sins” so they can have their conservative SCOTUS in the name of anti-abortion or pro-life (or immigration, or campaign finance, or some such). Pro-life is such a historically unsustainable position, much like creationism and intelligent design. These positions place their proponents at loggerheads with nature, and just like “history bats last,” “nature bats last.” As opposition to evolution is without evidence and completely useless, so is risking future babies to the horrors of genetic defects, when such risk is so unnecessary. I’m angry that sex education courses in schools and sex education at home and in places of worship do not inform future parents that already we have the medical skills in place to assure every pregnant mother she has the right to have a genetically healthy baby. Yet the pro-lifers, by denying mothers the basic right to control their reproductive cycles, force the possibility of tragedy upon families — tragedy that can with certainty be avoided. (It is like inequality of wealth forcing poverty upon countless people of minimal means, which also can be avoided.) The modern technology of human birth and “natural abortions” — miscarriages — compel history to give pro-choice the “nod.” If expectant mothers want to go ahead and take to term a baby with genetic defects, detected early in gestation, that is their choice; there is a chance in future such defects can be rectified either in womb or just after birth. But such a choice is risky, especially based upon a religious belief. (The “A” Word — Don’t Get Angry, Calm Down, and Let Us Talk, [April, 2013], and The “A” Word Revisited (Because of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas), or A Word on Bad Eggs, [July, 2013]) To cling to pro-life is like clinging to slide rules and horse collars; it is out-of-date.

And moreover, such Christians as described above risk, by clinging to pro-life, walking into the theological quicksand of redefining Christianity (“You can’t be a Christian and be pro-choice.”), just as the creationists and intelligent designers have done (“You can’t be a Christian and ‘believe’ in evolution.”). (Creationism and Intelligent Design — On the Road to Extinction, [July, 2012]) You do not have to be anachronistic to be a Christian (Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015]) Nor do you have to be historically clueless to be a Christian. (The United States of America — A Christian Nation?, [June, 2012])

Historically, American conservatives has lost their way. History is not on their side. And it is their own fault. They let their own credulity get the best of them, and then somehow become too lazy and/or too busy to vet any and all political statements. And today with the sources we have at our fingertips, thanks to the social network, it often takes only seconds to vet almost anything. Liars like Trump thrive because not enough people, regardless of political leanings, vet what he says. What do you think history will do with the “birthers?” Like the flat-earthers, history, I think, will fling them into the dustbin of bad ideas, worth only a laugh or chuckle if ever remembered.

American conservatives, unless they start reading some history instead listening to Fox News exclusively, risk, in the long run, going the path of the Luddites, the American Tories, the flat-earthers, the creationists, the intelligent designers, the pro-lifers, and the birthers. Unless they start reading some history they risk becoming pawns of revivalist fascism, organized crime, communism, nationalism, isolationism, imperialism, and/or colonialism; they risk “warping” in their heads back into 1950’s America.

RJH

Toward an Imagined Order of Everything, Using AVAPS

Perception Theory (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]; Perception Theory (Perception Is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016]; and Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]) defines human existence in terms of the products of our imagination, products formed by the non-veridical, subjective mind mixing veridical, empirical raw data from our senses with previously formed non-veridical subjective ideas, concepts, and perceptions. These products “appear” on the world display “screen” of our mind’s consciousness (Figure 1 in Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]). These products can be conveniently classified as “imagined orders,” after Yuval Noah Harari (author of Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind and Homo Deus, A Brief History of Tomorrow).  Any products of the human mind that have been shared partially or wholly across the species throughout cultural history can be called imagined orders, such as plans, ideas, conceptions, inductions, deductions, scientific theories, political theories, economic theories, philosophies, religions, and ideologies of all ilks.  Since Perception Theory postulates that “Perception is everything” and since all perceptions are products of the non-veridical imagination, it follows that Perception Theory itself is an imagined order.

Using anthropology, archaeology, and history as forensic sciences, directions of human betterment and human progress can be ascertained by comparing the historical effects of different imagined orders across time.  In other words, there are better imagined orders than others, measured in benefits to the species; we need to follow the directions suggested by the “better” imagined orders.  In AVAPS! [May, 2018] it was suggested the “better” imagined orders were those as veridical as possible; in other words, the “better” imagined orders resonated strongly with the veridical, “real” world.  For example, the toxic theology attributed to all religions based upon gods and god stories (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016] and Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]) is not one of the better imagined orders upon which we should base future imagined orders.  In his song “Imagine,” John Lennon was right to suggest we should imagine no religion.

 

Perception Theory came not only to using Harari’s terminology, but originally came from questions taking years of off-and-on reading to resolve in my head questions like:  “What were the major historical events contributing to the modern world?” (The Big Picture, [Sept., 2011]); “Is the United States a Christian nation?” (The United States of America — A Christian Nation?, [June, 2012]); “Why did the US-like ideals in France devolve during the French Revolution into the Terror?” (Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones, But Words We Don’t Know Can Also Hurt Us, or, Jesus Was a Liberalist, [March, 2012]); “Why was I never in my 40-year teaching career (within both public and private schools) never intellectually reconciled with the educational system I was supposed to be a part of?” (What is Wrong With Public Education…and What To Do About It, [April, 2012], What is Wrong With Public Education…Briefly Revisited, [April, 2012], 1:  Education Reform — Wrong Models!, [May, 2013], 2:  Education Reform — The Right Model, [May, 2013], 3:  Education Reform — How We Get the Teachers We Need, [May, 2013], Top Ten List for Teachers of HS Students Preparing for College or University (Not a Ranking) – A List for Their Students, Too!, [Dec., 2014], and “Campusology” at Texas A&M and in Education 6-12, [Nov., 2016]); “Why am I so critical of American political conservatism?” (Citizens (I) Call For the Destruction of the Political Professional Class, [Nov., 2012], Citizens (II) The Redistribution of Wealth, [Jan., 2013], Citizens (III) Call for Election Reform, [Jan., 2013], An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 1, [Dec., 2012], An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 2, [Dec., 2012], An Expose of American Conservatism — Part 3, [Dec., 2012], Some Thoughts on Trump’s Election, [Nov., 2016], Dealing with Donald, or, A Citizen’s Survival Guide for Trump’s Apparent Presidency, [Dec., 2016]), 21st Century Luddites?, [March, 2017],  21st Century Tories?, [March, 2017], and Egalite:  A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018]); “How did Christianity (and by implication other ‘world’ religions) come about?” (Sorting Out the Apostle Paul, [April, 2012], Sorting Out Constantine I the Great and His Momma, [Feb., 2015], Sorting Out Jesus, [July, 2015], At Last, a Probable Jesus, [August, 2015], and Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015]); “What are the historical and political effects of globalization?” (Going Global, [March, 2018]).

The results of reading summarized in the above posts indicate the possibility of talking about an “imagined order of everything,” or “universal imagined order,” or “global imagined order” made of component imagined orders seen as “good” for mankind and devoid of imagined orders shown by anthropology, archaeology, and history as “bad” for mankind.  Indeed, is it possible to imagine such a universal order?; is the indication valid?  What follows is the attempt to answer “yes.”  Many of the posts cited above correspond to “good” component imagined orders making up parts of the universal imagined order.

So far, Perception Theory, as developed by the above sources, suggests the global imagined order should include the following component imagined orders (in no hierarchical listing):  a) ethical, b) political/social, c) economic, d) ecological/environmental/agricultural,  e) educational, and f) scientific.

The imagined structure of the global imagined order has to be applicable to all humankind all over the globe and all humankind who will in future leave the planet to live and work in outer space, and, epistemologically, the components of the global imagined order must not conflict or contradict each other, just as we have today in modern science; the physical sciences do not say one thing while the life sciences say another, conflicting, contradictory thing.  The inclusive group of all of us will be thought of as the “ultimate family” and the components of the global imagined order must be also inclusive, compatible, and cooperative.

 

a) Ethically, individuals need to relate to each other via the Golden Rule, the Principle of Reciprocity — like the philosophy of the ethical teachings of Jesus (Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015]).  As Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015] points out, many other thinkers throughout human history — both sacred and secular — before and after the beginnings of Christianity, taught the ethics of the Golden Rule, or the Principle of Reciprocity.  Emphasizing that the Principle of Reciprocity is its own reward, no in-life or afterlife punishment need be taught to young minds.  For this reason and for the sake of avoiding hurting each other due to non-veridical epiphenomenal overload in individual minds, all supernatural gods and god stories should be phased out. (Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016])  John Lennon in “Imagine” sang of not only imagining no religion, but also “no hell below us and above us only sky.”

Harari classifies “religion” as any ideology (non-veridical concept) as anything that can bring together a human group of roughly 150 or more to agree upon a common purpose or action.  He therefore goes on to say that the “religion” of the enlightened West is liberal humanism, wherein the feelings and insights of the individual are supreme, replacing gods and god stories. (For comparison he reminds us of evolutionary humanism, the ideology or “religion” of fascism — which lost out in WWII — and of social humanism, the ideology or “religion” of communism — which collapsed beginning in 1989.)  I prefer to relegate “religion” to any ideology involving gods and god stories; animism and any thought system involving “spirits” (imagined non-veridical concepts) are also relegated to “religion.”  Any form of humanism is, at best, an ethical ideology, in that it attempts to suggest how we should behave toward each other as members of our species.  Therefore, my choice of Jesus’ (and others’) teachings of the Golden Rule could be considered humanistic.  However, I prefer to divorce “religion” from both “ethics” and “humanism.”

All religion, with its gods and god stories, is based upon the dangerous and deplorable “us-them syndrome,” which sooner or later fosters animosity between believers and non-believers.  This syndrome dooms all theologies to toxicity.  As Diderot said, “Sooner or later the moment comes when the concept [of God] that prevented the theft of one ecu [French coin of face value of about $30] causes the cutting of the throats of a hundred thousand men.” [parentheses mine]

Ethics fosters no “us-them syndrome.” (Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015])  And to me the Principle of Reciprocity is the ethics for us all.

This is not to say that religion and its accompanying theology, as I am defining it, will not be part of human culture eventually.  Being religious is a genetic tendency “built in” by our evolutionary past, but has become unnecessary to our survival, as other assurances have been developed by our minds that contribute reliably to our survival (e.g. science and medicine).  Therefore, religion is delegated to the individual mind henceforward; theology is limited to the individual, thanks to the subjective trap (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]).  Religion, with its theology, gods, and god stories is a personal matter for the single member of the species.  I have my own personal theology, for instance, and can say, along with Thomas Jefferson, “I am a sect of one.” (The United States of America — A Christian Nation?, [June, 2012], Jesus — A Keeper, [Sept., 2015], Perception Theory (Perception is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016], I Believe!, [Oct., 2016], Hope and Faith, [Jan., 2017], and Prayer, [Feb., 2017])

b) Regarding political and social organizing of the human species, whatever avoids war, colonialism, and imperialism of all forms must be avoided.  No grouping of humans must advance itself at the expense of another; exploitation of one nation of another must cease.  The imagined order of egalitarianism must be expanded so that nations cease to be independent of all other nations; we are all stuck on the same planet with, at this time, no alternative; this earth is all we got.  Therefore, egalite must be expanded from egalite only among citizens of a single nation to egalite of every Homo sapiens on the planet  (Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones, But Words We Don’t Know Can Also Hurt Us, or, Jesus Was a Liberalist, [March, 2012], and Egalite:  A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018]).

The imagined order of the UN needs expanding into a more global UN composed of every nation, nations which cease to have political borders.  All military forces of each nation join the single global UN force for the purpose of keeping the peace worldwide and of responding to human need created by natural disasters anywhere in the world.  Similar to the way individual States in the United States relate to the national federal government, all nations relate to the global government, with responsibilities, resources, and money separated into regional and global designations.  The global government will be a republic both capitalistic and representative similar to those imagined at the births of the American Republic and the French Republic (Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones, But Words We Don’t Know Can Also Hurt Us, or, Jesus Was a Liberalist, [March, 2012], The United States of America — A Christian Nation?, [June, 2012], For Your Consideration, I Give You…..Tom Paine, [August, 2014], and Egalite:  A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018]).  No nation needs its own militia anymore, as danger to one UN member is danger to all; the peace-keeping global UN force, with no peer anywhere, will assure the protection of life, liberty, property, and rights the world over.

Health care, education, and housing will be provided by the global UN.  (Members in health care will be on a worldwide payroll, supported by worldwide competitive drug manufacturers, cutting-edge medical schools all over the earth, and globally reviewed medical research.)  The legacy of both UNICEF and UNESCO will be strengthened and widened.  Suffrage, the right to vote, will truly be universal.  The whole world will democratically vote to see what behaviors are deemed criminal enough to deny individuals of such rights as freedom and the vote.

The chamber of world representatives as well as the head of the executive part of the world government (a President, General Secretary, Prime Minister, etc.) shall be elected for finite terms by a democratic worldwide vote (not by electors).  A world court shall be periodically reformed from a cadre of elected judges (judges-in-waiting) from each former-sovereign-nation, or nation-state.  The court shall be appointed by a vote from the chamber of representatives (Congress, Parliament, Convention, Assembly, Althing, etc.) and shall preside and settle all disputes between or among nation-states.  All three branches of the world government, the legislative (chamber of world representatives), executive, and judicial (world court) shall be subject to limited terms, ceilings for years of service, and prohibitions to personal gain beyond their salaries.  Conviction of accepting bribes, accepting payments/perks from lobbyists, both corporation and/or political lobbyists, or committing criminal/civil crimes shall result in immediate termination and swift replacement by the germane nation-state government.

All nation-states will be required to limit campaign and election time for choosing members of all three branches of world government to one year or less.  (Citizens (I) Call For the Destruction of the Political Professional Class, [Nov., 2012] and Citizens (III) Call for Election Reform, [Jan., 2013])  In addition, within every nation-state, campaign contributions must have a universal limit per person and must come only from individuals, not corporations or political organizations.  Exceptions to these campaign contribution rules will result in the candidate’s expulsion from the race.

c)  The economic organization of the global UN implies a global economic system — a worldwide capitalism regulated to create both capital to build business and personal wealth.  Taxes on personal income  and investment requirements will be structured to make personal wealth limited, assuring capital will be reinvested into economic growth. (Citizens (II) The Redistribution of Wealth, [Jan., 2013])  Businesses will have incentives to operate with the partnership of the employees (mandatory employee stock ownership and mandatory retirement fund for all employees), so that all within that business have the same incentive to succeed.

Worldwide trade will be the primary modus operandi to insure perpetual world peace.  War to any degree hurts everyone, the least of which way is cutting off trade (death and maiming being the greatest way), but, at the same time, probably the most important way for the species at large.  (Going Global, [March, 2018] and 21st Century Luddites?, [March, 2017])  All economic barriers will come down; there will be no need for tariffs.  There will be a worldwide currency, similar to that in the European Union.  All stock markets will resonate to operate as if at one single site, as world trade makes every regional economy in business partnership with the rest of the world.  Highways on the land, sea, and air will perpetually be filled with exchanged goods.  Hunger, disease, and poverty will become things of the past (like smallpox, polio, and yellow fever) through trade.

d) Ecologically, environmentally, and agriculturally speaking, the home to all of us, the earth, needs to be treated as our one and only hope and treated holistically.  I’m not talking a cult-like worshiping of our planet as some living Gaia, but, rather, the development of a worldwide respect for not only the biosphere, but the great oceanic and geological processes that make our existence possible.  This respect is admittedly teleological, even selfish, as we have to use this planet to generate all the sustenance our species and our fellow species need both now and in the future.

Therefore, agriculture must be guided by environmentalism and ecology, as suggested by the warnings of both Harari and of Mann (1491 and 1493).  The vision of thinkers like Michio Kaku must engage thinkers and planners of the world government.  The world government has to allocate its efforts and resources toward making the land, sea, and air more productive without placing more of our fellow species (both plants and animals) on the endangered list.  Projects of converting sea water into fresh water should dominate most of the future seashores.  The possibility of turning the Sahara and other world deserts green should become more feasible.  All ocean shallows becoming underwater farms should be forthcoming.  Orbiting agricultural stations wherein food is perpetually grown in ideal conditions to feed the entire planet should become commonplace.  In addition, synthetically produced food, such as animal tissue, should be grown in “giant test tubes,” with the goal of not having to eat our domesticated sources of meat; genetic engineering is just as important in agriculture as it is in human medicine.  Synthetically produced food, especially large-scale synthetically product animal protein, can mean the land now needed for pasture can mostly be turned back to natural processes, producing through evolution more genetic vigor needed for the future.

As I said in  AVAPS! [May, 2018], “The world needs more marine biologists, not more missionaries!”

e)  Education needs to become an egalitarian worldwide phenomenon, particularly the education of young minds as practiced in American public schools (Egalite:  A Qualified Virtue, [Feb., 2018]).  This means educational funds for the entire world will come from taxation of personal property in all nation-states and distributed fairly to all nation-states by an educational arm of the the world government.  However, public education as practiced worldwide must be freed from “professional educators” and applied as in undergraduate and graduate college and university faculties, exemplified by such faculties in the United States.  (1:  Education Reform — Wrong Models!, [May, 2013], 2:  Education Reform — The Right Model, [May, 2013], 3:  Education Reform — How We Get the Teachers We Need, [May, 2013], Top Ten List for Teachers of HS Students Preparing for College or University (Not a Ranking) – A List for Their Students, Too!, [Dec., 2014])  A system of public schools from kindergarten level to grade 12 and at least one major four-year research college or university will be established in every nation-state, if not already in place in a given nation-state.  Through school taxes in every nation-state the education of each child from kindergarten through four years of university shall be offered free of charge (provided the student successfully fulfills the requirements of each previous level in college).  The deficiencies of a nation-state to provide such free education to a qualified student will be made up from a world education fund managed by the world government and contributed to annually by all nation-states as part of “membership dues.”

The worldwide curriculum used by all the planet’s schools will feature general physical and cultural anthropology, which will be focused on the cultural history of the particular nation-state.  World history touching upon the cultural histories of every nation-state will be taught in every nation-state.  The language of each nation-state will be taught locally, but the languages designated as “world languages” (how many?) by the world government will be taught in every nation-state.  (Presumably, these world languages, like the languages chosen in the UN today, will be the official languages used in the world government.)  All sciences and mathematics will be taught via a worldwide curriculum; math is treated as the “language of the universe.”  Engineering will have a local focus within a nation-state, along with an engineering curriculum of worldwide scope.  Philosophy curricula will have their universality supplemented by the works of local philosophers within each nation-state.  As part of the worldwide philosophy curriculum, comparative culture over time, including comparative religion, will be offered.

Cooperative research at the university level, which would inevitably be international cooperative research, will emphasize dealing with the challenges of climate change, of artificial intelligence, and of mankind traveling into space.  Architecture, also a worldwide endeavor, will work on novel housing for a presumably increasing global population — housing able to adapt to possible rises of ocean levels; living under the surface of the oceans as well as in space colonies in orbit, on the moon, on Mars, on moons of the gas giants, in interplanetary space, and in interstellar space will be worldwide endeavors.  Funding for all this research will come from local nation-state and worldwide dues contributed to the world education fund, not to mention research grants from corporations.

A given student’s education toward a college or university degree will normally be peppered with study programs abroad in other nation-states and with opportunities throughout to develop artistic and athletic skills.  Academic contests, art expositions, and athletic contests among teams of students from all nation-states will be preludes to worldwide Olympic-style events that include not only athletics, but academics and the arts also.  With sponsorship from their native nation-state, outstanding performers in these areas could be professionals in these areas, expanding the number of such professionals today.  A worldwide educational system will provide stage and lighting for ever-amazing intellectual and physical achievement.

f)  Science and math requirements characterize every level of every student in a worldwide educational system.  The philosophical assumptions and underlying concepts of science and math are replete in the philosophical studies of epistemology, ontology, ethics, and anthropology.  Children learn to count as soon as they learn to speak and read; children learn to test, experiment, and answer their own questions as soon as they are rationally able.  Truth based on evidence rather than authority is taught as early as possible, and scientific skepticism is practiced as early as possible.  Teachers will need to be trained to expect everything they teach be questioned by their students.  History of science will be taught as a parade of great ideas, not a parade of great people.

Next to the classrooms, the most important part of higher education will be scientific research.  It will be up to teachers to develop a science of education, if that is possible.  It will be necessary to develop a robust ethics for science and engineering, presumably based upon the Golden Rule and a dedication to protect and advance the integrity of science itself.  Done right, these precautions will assure that areas such as artificial intelligence, genetic engineering, and robotics will not run amuck with dire consequences for our species.

Most of all, science must be remembered as a non-veridical enterprise of our imaginations, just as theology is.  All areas of study, including science, must function in such a way as to develop the imaginations of all people of all ages; all curricula and all teachers who teach young minds need to stimulate the imaginations of young minds; those who don’t need to be rewritten or asked to find another job, respectively.  And, it almost goes without saying, science needs to be AVAPS; the star-stuff we are must keep focused upon the star-stuff we are not.

 

In summation, then, an imagined order of everything or a global imagined order for all mankind should include:

a) A specific, non-religious ethic of the Golden Rule, or the Principle of Reciprocity; “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

b) A UN-like world government wherein all nations function like States of the United States in a federal government.  This world government has the three branches of the legislative, the executive, and the judicial.  Members of these branches are democratically elected by a worldwide body of voters wherein suffrage is distributed as wide as possible.  It will have jurisdiction over a single, global military force to keep worldwide peace and respond to emergencies everywhere.

c) A planet-wide economic system of regulated capitalism engaged in worldwide free trade within a single universal market.

d) An environmentally conscious planet-preserving agriculture utilizing the best potentials of bio-technology.

e) A worldwide educational system offering a free universal education and funded by a world education fund governed by the world government, offering a globally coordinated curriculum.

and f) A commitment to progress indicated by an imaginative, respectful, and ethical worldwide scientific endeavor.

 

RJH

 

 

 

AVAPS!

Describing human existence in terms of Perception Theory (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]; Perception Theory (Perception Is Everything) — Three Applications, [Feb., 2016]; and  Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]) demonstrates that all perceptions, concepts, ideas, and theories are necessarily non-veridical, due to the subjective trap. Logically, it is possible no product of the human subjective mind is faithful to the veridical, “real world,” empirical data bombarding the human senses; it is discomforting, to say the least, considering the possibility that our collective perceptions over time (our existence) have little or no bearing upon an objective, external-to-our-mind, universe “out there” which we presume and assume to exist.  (An in-depth review of the veridical/non-veridical dichotomy can be found in At Last, a Probable Jesus, [August, 2015].)  The source of this discomfort is the ontological baseline assumption that we are star-stuff in self-contemplation (Perception Is Everything, [Jan., 2016]), for the more disengaged our non-veridical perceptions are from the raw data upon which they are based, the more removed we are from our physical building blocks (star-stuff), from the very veridical universe of which we are a constituent part.  In other words, the less we are “at one” with the universe — the less we see ourselves objectively, as we really are.

I am happy to say that Perception Theory uses the cultural history of our species to avoid the non-veridical discomfort and possible despair of disengagement from the veridical universe, thanks to the help of two recent works by historian Yuval Noah Harari, namely Sapiens, A Brief History of Humankind (2011, ISBN 9780099590088, Vintage, London) and Homo Deus, A Brief History of Tomorrow (2015, ISBN 9781784703936, Vintage, London).

It was encouraging to read that Harari, though doing history, was using a human ontology parallel to that of Perception Theory, especially since I had formulated Perception Theory before I had read Harari.  That is, he understands the creative power of the human imagination, the existential, subjective part of human existence as well as the power that same creativity can have on the empirical, objective “real” world of science.  He does not deny the benefits to humanity given us by non-veridical scientific theories, but he understands they cannot be purely objective, can be themselves veridical.  What I call the non-veridical perceptions, concepts, ideas, and theories of our imagination Harari calls “imagined orders,” a term I will use henceforth for brevity.  One class of imagined orders we call “religions” (Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God, [March, 2016]; I Believe!, [Oct., 2016]; Hope and Faith, [Jan., 2017]; and Prayer, [Feb., 2017]), with their “toxic theologies.”  Another class would be the imagined orders we call “scientific theories,” with their history of human-altering and planet-altering effects.  Clearly, essentially any well-developed concept in our minds could be call an imagined order.  For example, political theories, economic theories, and ethical theories.

Cultural history has given our species a direction, a clue for our imagined orders.  Ask what imagined orders have vaulted us into the world-wide collective of the “modern world,” in which we are benefactors of healthier, longer lifespans, of being relatively free, for the first time, of large-scale famine, plague and war, and of emerging with a consensus idea of the best political, economic, and ethical directions to pursue.  The answers have come in the survival of the political, economic, and ethical catastrophes of the 20th century:  combinations of imagined orders  of applied scientific theories, of non-theological, humanistic religions, of humanistic ethics that reach beyond our own species to other species, of practical capitalistic economies mitigated by tried and true socialist programs like universal health care, universal suffrage, universal, free public education, and care for the elderly, of political cooperatives based upon world trade and free from nationalism and delusions of empire, and of educational imaginative orders based upon how minds actually learn.  In other words, history has witnessed our blindly “stumbling” upon imagined orders that “work” for all of us because those orders take into account the natural more than the imagined supernatural, fanciful, or ill-conceived; we now know more imagined orders that “fit” the universe of which we are a part than ever before.

Consequently, I, as a scientist, am, perhaps, more optimistic about our future than the historian Harari.  It seems straightforward to me that our cultural history mandates we in future make our imagined orders as veridical as we possibly can, like great scientific theories like gravity, quantum mechanics, kinetic theory of matter, chemistry, biochemistry, evolution, and plate tectonics.  That is, make all imagined orders, scientific or not, as veridical as possible; in the vein of KISS!, “keep it simple, stupid!”, AVAPS!, “as veridical as possible!”

 

Here in the 21st century, we know what past mistakes to avoid repeating.  Don’t make the liberal mistake of making equality more important than freedom and brotherhood.  Don’t make the conservative mistakes that wealth cannot be created, that there are only zero-sum economies, that some must gain at the expense of others.  Don’t confuse education with indoctrination.  Don’t base truth upon authority.  Don’t create religions and political theories of intolerance; there are better imagined orders than religions, or nations, or empires.  There are better imagined orders than liberal humanism, social humanism, and scientific humanism (Homo Deus).

With the help of Harari, it is now possible to apply Perception Theory toward better imagined orders for all of us.

RJH

 

P.S.  Thinking toward better imagined orders need not be more complicated than asking the question “What the world needs now is __.”  The Beatles have suggested all you need is love, and that means the human capacity to love ourselves, others, and everything outside ourselves needs to be borne in mind.  Dionne Warwick sang it more directly with her 1966 hit “What the World Needs Now Is Love.”  What do all of us love?  Lots of things, sure, but the things that have grown to benefit everyone, like the inspiring contributions of the humanities and the world-altering improvements to our living on this planet of the sciences, engineering, and medicine seem to beckon our ardor.  Let me plant the seed of: what the world needs now is more scientists, engineers, doctors, environmentalists, social workers, care takers, historians, and philosophers.

Not long ago I attended a Southern Baptist church in which my wife grew up and in which we were married.  At the end of the service a 10th grade girl made public her decision to become a missionary instead of her previous dream of becoming a marine biologist.  My heart sank.  “The world needs more marine biologists, not more missionaries!” I said to myself.

 

RJH

Perception Theory: Adventures in Ontology — Rock, Dog, Freedom, & God

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.]

RJH

 

Perception Is Everything

Recently a model of human perception has occurred to me. Perception is like that “screen” of appearance before us in our waking hours that is turned off when we are asleep. Yet, it appears to us it does not really turn off during slumber when we remember dreams we have had before we awoke. The moments just before we “nod off” or just as we awake seem as times when perception is “half-way” turned on. The “fuzziness” of this “half-way switch” is clearly apparent in those mornings we awake and momentarily do not know the location of exactly where we slept.

 

Say I am sitting in an enclosed room with a large card painted uniformly with a bright red color. Focusing upon only my visual sensation, suppressing the facts I am also sensing the tactile signals of sitting in a chair with my feet on the floor as well as peripherally seeing “in the corner of my eye” the walls and other features of the room, I am only visually observing the color “red,” all for simplicity. Light from the card enters my eyes and is photo-electrically and electro-chemically processed into visual signals down my optic nerve to the parts of my brain responsible for my vision. The result of this process is the perception of the color “red” on the “screen” of my perception. If I were to describe this perception to myself I would simply imagine the word “red” in my head (or the word “red” in some other language if my “normal” spoken language was not English); were I to describe this perception to someone else in the room, say, a friend standing behind me, I would say, “I am seeing the color red,” again in the appropriate language.

Yet, if my friend could somehow see into my head and observe my brain as I claimed to be seeing red, that person would not experience my sensation or perception of “red.” He/she would see, perhaps with the help of medical instrumentation, biochemical reactions and signals on and in my brain cells. Presumably when I perceive red at a different moment in time later on, the observer of my brain would see the same pattern of chemical reactions and bio-electrical signals.

 
On the “screen” of my perception, I do NOT see the biochemistry of my brain responsible for my perception of red; were I to observe inside the head of my friend in the room while he/she was also focusing on the red card, I would NOT see his/her “screen” of perception, but only the biochemical and bio-electrical activity of his/her brain. It is IMPOSSIBLE to experience (to perceive) both the subjective perception of red and observe the biochemistry responsible for the same subjective perception within the same person. We can hook up electrodes to our own head to a monitor which we observe at the same time we look at red, but we would only be seeing just another representation of the biochemistry forming our perception, not the biochemistry itself, as well as perceiving the red perception. I call this impossibility “the subjective trap.”

 
And yet, my friend and I make sense of each of our very individual impossibilities, of each of our very personal subjective traps, by behaving as if the other perceives red subjectively exactly the same, and as if our biochemical patterns in our respective brains are exactly the same. We are ASSUMING these subjective and biochemical correlations are the same, but we could never show this is the case; we cannot prove our individual perceptions in our own head are the same perceptions in other heads; we cannot ever know that we perceive the same things that others around us perceive, even if focusing upon the exact same observation. The very weak justification of this assumption is that we call our parallel perceptions, in this scenario, “red.” But this is merely the learning of linguistic labels. What if I were raised in complete isolation and was told that the card was “green?” I would say “green” when describing the card while my friend, raised “normally” would say “red.” (Note I’m stipulating neither of us is color blind.) Such is the nature of the subjective trap.

 
[If one or both of us in the room were color-blind, comparison of visual perceptions in the context of our subjective traps would be meaningless — nothing to compare or assume. In this scenario, another sensation both of us could equally perceive, like touching the surface of a piece of carpet or rubbing the fur of a cute puppy in the room with us, would be substituted for seeing the color red.]

 
The subjective trap suggests the dichotomy of “objective” and “subjective.” What we perceive “objectively” and what we perceive “subjectively” do not seem to overlap (though they seem related and linked), leading to a separation of the two adjectives in our culture, which has a checkered history. Using crude stereotypes, the sciences claim objectivity is good while subjectivity is suspect, while the liberal arts (humanities) claim subjectivity is good while objectivity is ignorable. Even schools, colleges, and universities are physically laid out with the science (including mathematics and engineering) buildings on one end of the campus and the liberal arts (including social studies and psychology) buildings on the other. This is the “set-up” for the “two cultures'” “war of words.” I remember as an undergraduate physics major debating an undergraduate political science major as we walked across campus which has had the greatest impact upon civilization, science or politics? We soon came to an impasse, an impasse that possibly could be blamed, in retrospect over the years, on the subjective trap. Ideas about the world outside us seemed at odds with ideas about our self-perception; where we see ourselves seemed very different from whom we see ourselves; what we are is different from whom we are.

Yet, despite being a physics major and coming down “hard” on the “science side” of the argument, I understood where the “subjective side” was coming from, as I was in the midst of attaining, in addition to my math minor, minors in philosophy and English; I was a physics major who really “dug” my course in existentialism. It was as if I “naturally” never accepted the “two cultures” divide; it was as if I somehow “knew” both the objective and the subjective had to co-exist to adequately describe human experience, to define the sequence of perception that defines a human’s lifespan. And, in this sense, if one’s lifespan can be seen as a spectrum of perception from birth to death of that individual, then, to that individual, perception IS everything.

How can the impossibility of the subjective trap be modeled? How can objectivity and subjectivity be seen as a symbiotic, rather than as an antagonistic, relationship within the human brain? Attempted answers to these questions constitute recent occurrences inside my brain.

 

Figure 1 is a schematic model of perception seen objectively – a schematic of the human brain and its interaction with sensory data, both from the world “outside” and from the mind “inside.” The center of the model is the “world display screen,” the result of a two-way flow of data, empirical (or “real world” or veridical) data from the left and subjective (or “imaginative” or non-veridical) data from the right. (Excellent analogies to the veridical/non-veridical definitions are the real image/virtual image definitions in optics; real images are those formed by actual rays of light and virtual images are those of appearance, only indirectly formed by light rays due to the way the human brain geometrically interprets signals from the optic nerves.) [For an extensive definition of veridical and non-veridical, see At Last, A Probable Jesus [August, 2015]] Entering the screen from the left is the result of empirical data processed by the body’s sense organs and nervous system, and entering the screen from the right is the result of imaginative concepts, subjective interpretations, and ideas processed by the brain. The “screen” or world display is perception emerging to the “mind’s eye” (shown on the right “inside the brain”) created by the interaction of this two-way flow.

 
Figure 1 is how others would view my brain functioning to produce my perception; Figure 1 is how I would view the brains of others functioning to produce their perceptions. This figure helps define the subjective trap in that I cannot see my own brain as it perceives; all I can “see” is my world display screen. Nor can I see the world display screens of others; I can only view the brains of others (outside opening up their heads) as some schematic model like Figure 1. In fact, Figure 1 is a schematic representation of what I see if I were to peer inside the skull of someone else. (Obviously, it is grossly schematic, bearing no resemblance to brain, nervous system, and sense organ physiology. Perhaps many far more proficient in neuro-brain function than I, and surely such individuals in future, can and will correlate those terms on the right side of Figure 1 with actual parts of the brain.)

 
Outside data collectively is labeled “INPUT” on the far left of Figure 1, bombarding all the body’s senses — sight, sound, smell and taste, heat, and touch. Data that stimulates the senses is labeled “PERCEPTIVE” and either triggers the autonomic nervous system to the muscles for immediate reaction (sticking your fingers into a flame) necessarily not requiring any processing or thinking, or, goes on to be processed as possible veridical data for the world display. However, note that some inputs for processing “bounce off” and never reach the world display; if we processed the entirety of our data input, our brains would “overload,” using up all brain function for storage and having none for consideration of the data “let in.” This overloading could be considered a model for so-called “idiot savants” who perceive and remember so much more than the “average” person (“perfect memories”), yet have subnormal abilities for rational thought and consideration. Just how some data is ignored and some is processed is not yet understood, but I would guess that it is a process that differs in every developing brain, resulting in no two brains, even those of twins, accepting and rejecting data EXACTLY alike. What is for sure is that we have evolved “selective” data perception over hundreds of thousands of years that has assured our survival as a species.
The accepted, processed data that enter our world display in the center of Figure 1 as veridical data from the outside world makes up the “picture” we “see” on our “screen” at any given moment, a picture dominated by the visual images of the objects we have before us, near and far, but also supplemented by sound, smell, tactile information from our skin, etc. (This subjective “picture” is illustrated in Figure 2.) The “pixels” of our screen, if you please, enter the subjective world of our brain shown on the right of Figure 1 in four categories – memory loops, ideas, self-perception, and concepts – as shown by the double-headed, broad, and straight arrows penetrating the boundary of the world display with the four categories. The four categories “mix and grind” this newly-entered data with previous data in all four categories (shown by crossed and looped broad, double-headed arrows) to produced imagined and/or reasoned data results back upon the same world display as the moment’s “picture” – non-veridical data moving from the four categories back into the display (thus, the “double-headedness” of the arrows). Thusly can we imagine things before us that are not really there at the moment; we can, for instance, imagine a Platonic “perfect circle” (non-veridical) not really there upon a page of circles actually “out there” drawn upon a geometry textbook’s page (veridical) at which we are staring. In fact, the Platonic “perfect circle” is an example of a “type” or “algorithmic” or symbolic representation for ALL circles created by our subjective imagination so we do not have to “keep up” will all the individual circles we have seen in our lifetime. Algorithms and symbols represent the avoidance of brain overload.

 
From some considered input into our four categories of the brain come “commands” to the muscles and nervous system to create OUTPUT and FEEDBACK into the world outside us in addition to the autonomic nerve commands mentioned above, like the command to turn the page of the geometry text at which we are looking. Through reactive and reflexive actions, bodily communication (e.g. talking), and environmental manipulation (like using tools), resulting from these feedback outputs into the real world (shown at bottom left of Figure 1), we act and behave just as if there had been an autonomic reaction, only this time the action or behavior is the result of “thinking” or “consideration.” (The curved arrow labeled “Considered” leading to the muscles in Figure 1.)

 

Note how Figure 1 places epistemological and existential terms like CONSCIOUSNESS, Imagination, Knowing, Intention & Free Will, and Reason in place on the schematic, along with areas of the philosophy of epistemology, like Empiricism, Rationalism, and Existentialism (at the top of Figure 1). These placements are my own philosophical interpretations and are subject to change and placement alteration indicated by a consensus of professional and amateur philosophers, in conjunction with consensus from psychologists and brain physiologists, world-wide.
Figure 2 is a schematic of the “screen” of subjective perception that confronts us at every moment we see, hear, smell, taste, and/or touch. Figure 2 is again crudely schematic (like Figure 1), in this case devoid of the richness of the signals of our senses processed and displayed to our “mind’s eye.” Broad dashed arrows at the four corners of the figure represent the input to the screen from the four categories on the right of Figure 1 – memory loops, ideas, perception, and concepts. Solid illustrated objects on Figure 2 represent processed, veridical, and empirical results flowing to the screen from the left in Figure 1, and dashed illustrated objects on Figure 2 represent subjective, non-veridical, type, and algorithmic results flowing to the screen from the right in Figure 1. Thus Figure 2 defines the screen of our perception as a result of the simultaneous flow of both veridical and non-veridical making up every waking moment.

PerceptPic1

Figure 1 — A Model of the Objectivity of Perception

 

(Mathematical equations cannot be printed in dashed format, so the solid equations and words, like History, FUTURE, Faith, and PRESENT, represent both veridical and non-veridical forms; note I was able to represent the veridical and non-veridical forms of single numbers, like “8” and certain symbols, like X, equals, and does not equal.) Thus, the solid lightning bolt, for example, represents an actual observed bolt in a thunderstorm and the dashed lightning bolt represents the “idea” of all lightning bolts observed in the past.

 

The “subjective trap” previously introduced above is defined and represented by the rule that nothing of Figure 1 can be seen on Figure 2, and vice-versa. In my “show-and-tell” presentation of this perception model encapsulated in both figures, I present the figures standing on end at right angles to each other, so that one figure’s area does not project upon the area of the other – two sheets slit half-height so that one sheet slides into the other. Again, a) Figure 2 represents my own individual subjective screen of perception no one else can see or experience; b) Figure 1 represents the only way I can describe someone else allegedly perceiving as I. I cannot prove a) and b) are true, nor can anyone else. I can only state with reasonable certainty that both someone else and I BEHAVE as if a) and b) are true. In other words, thanks to the common cultural experience of the same language, my non-color-blind friend and I in the room observing the red-painted card agree the card “is red.” To doubt our agreement that it is red would stretch both our limits of credulity into absurdity.

 
The model described above and schematically illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 can be seen as one way of describing the ontology of human beings, of describing human existence. Looking at Figure 1, anything to the left of the world display screen is the only way we know anything outside our brain exists and anything to the right of the world display screen is the only way we know we as “I’s” exist in a Cartesian sense; anything to the right is what we call our “mind,” and we assume we think with our mind; in the words of Descartes, “I think, therefore I am.” We see our mind as part of the universe being “bombarded” from the left, so we think of ourselves as part of the universe. Modern science has over the centuries given us some incredible ontological insights, such as all physical existence is made up of atoms and molecules and elementary particles; we can objectively or “scientifically” describe our existence, but we do so, as we describe anything else, with our subjective mind; we, as self-conscious beings, describe the veridical in the only way we possibly can – non-veridically. Thus, the model suggests the incredible statement made by scientists and philosophers of science lately. Recalling that atoms are created in the interior of stars (“cooked,” if you please, by nuclear fusion inside stars of various sizes and temperatures) that have long since “died” and spewed out their atoms in

PerceptPic2

Figure 2 — A Model of the Subjectivity of Perception (The “Screen”)

 

contribution to the formation of our own solar system around 13.5 billion earth years ago, and recalling our bodies, including our brains, are made of molecules made from the atoms from dead and gone stars, the statement “We are ‘star-stuff’ in self-contemplation” makes, simultaneously, objective and subjective, or scientific and artistic, “spiritual sense.”

We can veridically “take in,” “observe,” “experience,” or “contemplate” anything from the vast universe outside our body as well as the vast universe inside our body outside our brain while at the same time we can imagine non-veridically limitless ways of “making sense” of all this veridical data by filing it, storing it, mixing it, and thinking about it, all within our brain. We are limitless minds making up part of a limitless universe.

 

As if that was not enough, each of us, as a veridical/non-veridical “package of perception,” is unique. Every human has a unique Figure 1 and a unique Figure 2. Our existence rests upon the common human genome of our species, the genetic “blueprint” that specifies the details of our biological existence. Yet, every individual’s genome is different from every other (even if only by .1% or by a factor of .001), just considering that mutations even for identical twins make their two “blueprints” slightly different once the two organisms exist as separated zygotes in the womb. Moreover, how we behave, and, therefore, how we respond non-veridically to the veridical data we receive individually, even from the same environment shared by others, is mitigated by the unique series of experiences each of us has had in our past. Hence, each person is a unique individual genome subjected to unique environmental experiences, the exact copy of which cannot possibly statistically exist.

 

The world display screen of an individual in any given moment has never been perceived before, nor will it ever be perceived again, as in the next moment the screen is modified by the dual flux of the veridical flux from the left and the non-veridical flux from the right in Figure 1. The life of an individual is a series of receiving this ever-changing dual flux and thinking or acting in the real world upon the basis of this dual flux; it is a series of two-way perceptions. The life of an individual is observed by another individual as a series of perceived behaviors assumed, but never proven, to be generated in the same way as those of the observer. All in the span of a human life is perception; to an individual human being, perception has to be everything.

 

This model suggests to me the absurdity of having objectivity and subjectivity irreconcilably separate; it suggests, rather, that they are inseparable; they go together like, in the words of the song, “horse and carriage” or “love and marriage.” The blending of objective data and imaginative concepts in our brain makes our perception, our conscious “everything,” or existence as a self-conscious being, if you please, possible. What we are is the veridical of our screen of perception; who we are is the non-veridical of the screen. In other words, the scientist is as potentially subjective as the poet, and the poet is as potentially objective as the scientist; they differ only in the emphases on the contents of their respective screens of perception. For the “two sides” of campuses of higher learning to be at “war” over the minds of mankind is absurd – as absurd as the impasse the political science major and I reached in conversation so many years ago.

 
If the above was all the model and its two figures did, its conjuring would have been well worth it, I think, but the above is just the tip of the iceberg of how the model can be applied to human experience. Knowing how prone we are to hyperbole when talking about our “brain children,” I nonetheless feel compelled to suggest this model of conception can be intriguingly applied to almost any concept or idea the human brain can produce – in the sense of alternatively defining the concept using “both worlds,” both the objective and the subjective, instead of using one much more than the other. In other words, we can define with this model almost anything more “humanly” than before; we can define and understand almost anything with “more” of ourselves than we’ve done in the past.

 

Take the concept of the human “soul” for example. It seems to me possible that cultures that use the concept of soul, whether in a sacred or secular sense, whether in the context of religion or psychology, they are close to using the concept of the “mind’s eye” illustrated in Figure 1 of the model. The “mind’s eye” is the subjective “I,” the subjective observer of the screen, the “see-er,” the “smell-er,” the “taste-er,” the “hear-er,” the “touch-er,” the “feel-er” of perception; the soul is the active perceiver of subjective human experience. The soul defines self-consciousness; it is synonymous with the ego. This view is consistent with the soul being defined as the essence of being alive, of being that which “leaves” the body upon death. Objectively, we would say that death marks the ceasing of processing veridical data; subjectively, we would say that death marks the ceasing of producing non-veridical data and the closing of the “mind’s eye.”

 

Yet the soul is a product of the same physiology as the pre-conscious “body” of our evolutionary ancestors. In other words, the soul “stands upon the shoulders” of the id, our collection of instincts hewn over millions of years. So, in addition, we would objectively say that death also marks the ceasing of “following” our instincts physically and mentally; our unique, individual genome stops defining our biological limitations and potentialities. The elements of our body, including our brain, eventually blend to join the elements of our environment. Objectively, we would say death marks our ceasing to exist as a living being. The concept of the soul allows death to be seen as the “exiting” or “leaving” of that necessary to be called “alive.”

 
So, the concept of the soul could be discussed as the same or similar to the concept of the ego, and issues such as when does a developing human fetus (or proto-baby) develop or “receive” a soul/ego, which in turn has everything to do with the issue of abortion, can be discussed without necessarily coming to impasses. (See my The ‘A’ Word – Don’t Get Angry, Calm Down, and Let Us Talk, [April, 2013] and my The ‘A’ Word Revisited (Because of Gov. Rick Perry of Texas), or A Word on Bad Eggs [July, 2013]) I said “could be,” not “will be” discussed without possibly coming to impasses. Impasses between the objective and subjective seem more the norm than the exception, unfortunately; the “two cultures war” appears ingrained. Why?

 
Earlier, I mentioned causally the answer the model provides to this “Why?”. The scientist/engineer and the artist/poet differ in their emphases of either the veridical flux to the world display screen or the non-veridical flux to the same world display screen of their individual brains. By “emphasis” I merely mean assigning more importance by the individual to one flux direction or the other in his/her head. At this point, one is reminded of the “left-brain, right-brain” dichotomy dominating brain/mind modeling since the phenomenon of the bicameral mind became widely accepted. The perception model being presented here incorporates on the non-veridical side of the perception screen both analytical (left) brain activity and emotional (right) brain activity in flux to the screen from the right side of Figure 1. Just like my use of left/right in Figure 1 is not like the use of left/right in bicameral mind/brain modeling, this model of perception is not directly analogous to bicameral modeling. What the perception model suggests, in my opinion, is that the analytical/emotional chasm of the human brain is not as unbridgeable as the “left-brain-right-brain” view might suggest.

More specifically, the perception model suggests that the “normal” or “sane” person keeps the two fluxes to the world display screen in his/her head “in balance,” always one flux mitigating and blending with the other. It is possible “insanity” might be the domination of one flux over the other so great that the dominated flux is rendered relatively ineffective. If the veridical flux is completely dominant, the person’s mind is in perpetual overload with empirical data, impotent to sort or otherwise deal with the one-way bombardment on his/her world display screen; such a person would presumably be desperate to “turn off” the bombardment; such a person would be driven to insanity by sensation. If the non-veridical flux is completely dominant, the person’s mind is in a perpetual dream of self-induced fantasy, sensing with all senses, that which is NOT “out there;” such a person would be driven to insanity by hallucination. In this view, the infamous “acid trips” of the 1960’s induced by hallucinatory drugs such as LSD could be seen as self-induced temporary periods of time in which the non-veridical flux “got the upper hand” over the veridical flux.

This discussion of “flux balance” explains why dreams are depicted in Figure 1 as “hovering” just outside the world display screen. The perception model suggests dreams are the brain’s way of keeping the two fluxes in balance, keeping us as “sane” as possible. In fact, the need to keep the fluxes in balance, seen as the need to dream, may explain why we and other creatures with large brains apparently need to sleep. We need “time outs” from empirical data influx (not to mention “time outs” just to rest the body’s muscular system and other systems) to give dreaming the chance to balance out the empirical with the fanciful on the stage of the world display. Dreams are the mixtures of the veridical and non-veridical not needed to be stored or acted upon in order to prevent overload from the fluxes of the previous day (or night, if we are “night owls”); they play out without being perceived in our sleeping unconsciousness (except for the dreams we “remember” just before we awaken) like files in computer systems sentenced to the “trash bin” or “recycle bin” marked for deletion. Dreams can be seen as a sort of “reset” procedure that prepares the world display screen to ready for the upcoming day’s (or night’s) two-way flux flow that defines our being awake and conscious.

This model might possibly suggest new ways of defining a “scientific, analytical mind” (“left brain”) and comparing that with an “artistic, emotional mind” (“right brain”). Each could be seen as a slight imbalance (emphasis on “slight” to remain “sane”) of one flux over the other, or, better, as two possible cases of one flux mitigating the other slightly more. To think generally “scientifically,” therefore, would be when the non-veridical flux blends “head-on” upon the world display screen with the veridical flux and produces new non-veridical data that focuses primarily upon the world external to the brain; the goal of this type non-veridical focus is to create cause/effect explanations, to problem-solve, to recognize patterns, and to create non-veridically rational hypotheses, or, as I would say, “proto-theories,” or scientific theories in-the-making. Thus is knowledge about the world outside our brain increased. To think generally “artistically,” on the other hand, would be when the non-veridical flux takes on the veridical flux upon the world display screen as ancillary only, useful in focusing upon the “world” inside the brain; the goal of this type non-veridical focus is to create new ways of dealing with likes, dis-likes, and emotions, to evoke “feelings” from morbid to euphoric, and to modify and form tastes from fanciful thinking to dealing emotionally with the external world in irrational ways. Thus is knowledge about what we imagine and about what appears revealed to us inside our brain increased.

With these two new definitions, it is easy to see that we have evolved as a species capable of being simultaneously both scientific and artistic, both “left-brain” and “right-brain;” as I said earlier, the scientist is as potentially subjective as the poet, and the poet is as potentially objective as the scientist. We do ourselves a disservice when we believe we have to be one or the other; ontologically, we are both. Applying the rule of evolutionary psychology that any defining characteristic we possess as a species that we pass on to our progeny was probably necessary today and/or in our past to our survival (or, at minimum, was “neutral” in contributing to our survival), the fact we are necessarily a scientific/artistic creature was in all likelihood a major reason we evolved beyond our ancestral Homo erectus and “triumphed” over our evolutionary cousins like the Neanderthals. When we describe in our midst a “gifted scientist” or a “gifted artist” we are describing a person who, in their individual, unique existence purposely developed, probably by following their tastes (likes and dislikes), one of the two potentialities over the other. The possibility that an individual can be gifted in both ways is very clear. (My most memorable example of a “both-way” gifted person was when I, as a graduate student, looked in the orchestra pit at a production of Handel’s Messiah and saw in the first chair of the violin section one of my nuclear physics professors.) Successful people in certain vocations, in my opinion, do better because of strong development of both their “scientific” and “artistic” potentialities; those in business and in service positions need the ability to simultaneously successfully deal with problem solving and dealing with the emotions of colleagues and clientele. Finding one’s “niche” in life and in one’s culture is a matter of taste, depending on whether the individual feels more comfortable and satisfied “leaning” one way or another, or, being “well-rounded” in both ways.

Regardless of the results of individual tastes in individual circumstances, the “scientist” being at odds with the “artist” and vice-versa is always unnecessary and ludicrous; the results of one are no better or worse than those of another, as long as those results come from the individual’s volition (not imposed upon the individual by others).

 

From the 1960’s “acid rock, hard rock” song by Jefferson Airplane, Somebody to Love:

When the truth is found to be……lies!
And all the joy within you…..dies!
Don’t you want somebody to love?
Don’t you need somebody to love?
Wouldn’t you love somebody to love?
You better find somebody to love!

These lyrics, belted out by front woman Grace Slick, will serve as the introduction to two of the most interesting and most controversial applications of this perception theory. The first part about truth, joy, and lies I’ll designate as GS1, for “Grace Slick Point 1” and the second part about somebody to love I’ll designate as GS2.

Going in reverse order, GS2 to me deals with that fundamental phenomenon without which our cerebral species or any such species could not have existed – falling in love and becoming parents, or, biologically speaking, pair bonding. The universal human theme of erotic love is the basis of so much of culture’s story-telling, literature, poetry, and romantic subjects of all genres. Hardwired into our mammalian genome is the urge, upon the outset of puberty, to pair-bond with another of our species and engage, upon mutual consent, in sexual activity. If the pair is made of two different genders, such activity might fulfill the genome’s “real” intent of this often very complex and convoluted bonding – procreation of offspring; procreation keeps the genes “going;” it is easily seen as a scientific form of “immortality;” we live on in the form of our children, and in our children’s children, and so on. Even human altruism seems to emerge biologically from the urge to propagate the genes we share with our kin.

Falling in love, or pair bonding, is highly irrational, and, therefore a very non-veridical phenomenon; love is blind. When one is in love, the short comings of the beloved are ignored, because their veridical signals are probably blocked non-veridically by the “smitten;” when one is in love, and when others bring up any short comings of the beloved, they are denied by the “smitten,” often in defiance of veridical evidence. If this were not so, if pair bonding was a rational enterprise, much fewer pair bonds would occur, perhaps threatening the perpetuation of the species into another generation. [This irrationality of procreation was no better defined than in an episode of the first Star Trek TV series back in the 1960’s, wherein the half human-half alien (Vulcan) Enterprise First Science Officer Spock (played by Leonard Nimoy) horrifically went apparently berserk and crazy in order to get himself back to his home planet so he could find a mate (to the point of hijacking the starship Enterprise). I think it was the only actual moment of Spock’s life on the series in which he was irrational (in which he behaved like we – fully human.]

GS1 is to me another way of introducing our religiosity, of asking why we are as a species religious. This question jump-started me on my “long and winding road,” as I called it – a personal Christian religious journey in five titles, written in the order they need to be read: 1) Sorting Out the Apostle Paul [April, 2012], 2) Sorting Out Constantine I the Great and His Momma [Feb., 2015], 3) Sorting Out Jesus [July, 2015], 4) At Last, a Probable Jesus [August, 2015], and 5) Jesus – A Keeper [Sept., 2015]. Universal religiosity (which I take as an interpretation of GS1) is here suggested as being like the universality of the urge to procreate, though not near as ancient as GS2. As modern humans emerged and became self-conscious, they had to socially bond into small bands of hunter-gatherers to survive and protect themselves and their children, and the part of the glue holding these bands together was not only pair-bonding and its attendant primitive culture, but the development of un-evidenced beliefs – beliefs in gods and god stories – to answer the then unanswerable, like “What is lightning?” and “How will we survive the next attack from predators or the enemy over the next hill?” In other words, our non-veridical faculties in our brain dealt with the “great mysteries” of life and death by making up gods and god stories to provide assurance, unity, fear, and desperation sufficient to make survival of the group more probable. Often the gods took the shape of long-dead ancestors who “appeared” to individuals in dreams (At Last, a Probable Jesus [August, 2015]). Not that there are “religious genes” like there are “procreate genes,” but, rather, our ancestors survived partly because the genes they passed on to us tended to make them cooperative for the good of the group bound by a set of accepted beliefs – gods and god stories; that is, bound by “religion.”

The “lies” part of GS1 has to do with the epistemological toxicity of theology (the intellectual organization of the gods and god stories) – religious beliefs are faith-based, not evidence-based, a theme developed throughout the five parts of my “long and winding road.” On p. 149 of Jerry A. Coyne’s Faith vs. Fact, Why Science and Religion are Incompatible (ISBN 978-0-670-02653-1), the author characterizes this toxicity as a “metaphysical add-on….a supplement demanded not by evidence but by the emotional needs of the faithful.” Any one theology cannot be shown to be truer than any other theology; all theologies assume things unnecessary and un-evidenced; yet, all theologies declare themselves “true.” As my personal journey indicates, all theologies are exposed by this common epistemological toxicity, yet it is an exposé made possible only since the Enlightenment of Western Europe and the development of forensic history in the form of, in the case of Christianity, higher Biblical criticism. This exposé, in my experience, can keep your “joy” from dying because of “lies,” referring back to GS1.

Both GS1 and GS2 demonstrate the incredible influence of the non-veridical capabilities of the human brain. A beloved one can appear on the world display screen, can be perceived, as “the one” in the real world “out there,” and a god or the lesson of a god story can appear on the world display screen, can be perceived, as actually existing or as being actually manifest in the real world “out there.”

Putting GS1 in more direct terms of the perception model represented by Figures 1 and 2, non-veridical self-consciousness desires the comfort of understandable cause and effect as it develops from infancy into adulthood; in our brains we “need” answers — sometimes any answers will do; and the answers do not necessarily have to have veridical verification. Combining the social pressure of the group for conformity and cooperation, for the common survival and well-being of the group, with this individual need for answers, the “mind,” the non-veridical, epiphenomenal companion of our complex brain, creates a personified “cause” of the mysterious and a personified “answerer” to our nagging questions about life and death in general and in particular; we create a god or gods paralleling the created god or gods in the heads of those around us who came before us (if we are not the first of the group to so create). We experience non-veridically the god or gods of our own making through dreams, hallucinations, and other visions, all seen as revelations or visitations; these visions can be as “real” as the real objects “out there” that we sense veridically. (See At Last, a Probable Jesus [August, 2015] for examples of non-veridical visions, including some of my own.) Stories made up about the gods, often created to further explain the mysteries of our existence and of our experiences personally and collectively, combine with the god or gods to form theology. Not all of theology is toxic; but its propensity to become lethally dangerous to those who created it, when it is developed in large populations into what today are called the world’s “great religions,” and fueled by a clergy of some sort into a kind of “mass hysteria” (Crusades, jihads, ethnic “cleansings,” etc.), makes practicing theology analogous to playing with fire. As I pointed out in Jesus – A Keeper [Sept., 2015], epistemologically toxic theology is dangerously flawed. Just as we have veridically created the potential of destroying ourselves by learning how to make nuclear weapons of mass destruction, we have non-veridically created reasons for one group to try and kill off another group by learning how to make theologies of mass destruction; these theologies are based upon the “authority” of the gods we have non-veridically created and non-veridically “interpreted” or “listened to.” It is good to remember Voltaire’s words, or a paraphrase thereof: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

Also remember, the condemnation of toxic theology is not the condemnation of the non-veridical; a balance of the veridical flux and the non-veridical flux was absolutely necessary in the past and absolutely necessary today for our survival as individuals, and, therefore, as a species. Toxic theology, like fantasy, is the non-veridical focused upon the non-veridical – the imagination spawning even more images without checking with the veridical from the “real world out there.” Without reference to the veridical, the non-veridical has little or no accountability toward being reliable and “true.” All forms of theology, including the toxic kind, and all forms of fantasy, therefore, have no accountability toward reality “out there” outside our brains. Harmony with the universe of which we are a part is possible only when the non-veridical focuses upon referencing the veridical, referencing the information coming through our senses from the world “out there.” This is the definition of “balance” of the two fluxes to our world display screens in our heads.

Comparing this balanced flux concept with the unbalanced one dominated by the non-veridical (remember the unbalanced flux dominated by the veridical is brain overload leading to some form of insanity), it is easy to see why biologist Richard Dawkins sees religiosity as a kind of mental disease spread like a mental virus through the social pressures of one’s sacred setting and through evangelism. Immersing one’s non-veridical efforts into theology is in my opinion this model’s way of defining Dawkins’ “religiosity.” In the sense that such immersion can often lead to toxic theology, it is easy to see the mind “sickened” by the non-veridical toxins. Whether Dawkins describes it as a mental disease, or I as an imbalance of flux dominated by the non-veridical, religiosity or toxic theology is bad for our species, and, if the ethical is defined as that which is good for our species, then toxic theology is unethical, or, even, evil.

To say that the gods and god stories, which certainly include the Judeo-Christian God and the Islamic Allah, are all imaginative, non-veridical products of the human mind/brain is not necessarily atheistic in meaning, although I can understand that many a reader would respond with “atheist!” Atheism, as developed originally in ancient Greece and further developed after the European Enlightenment in both Europe and America, can be seen as still another form of theology, though a godless one, potentially as toxic as any other toxic theology. Atheism pushing no god or gods can be as fundamentalist as any religion pushing a god or gods, complete with its dogma without evidence, creeds without justification, evangelism without consideration of the evangelized, and intolerance of those who disagree; atheism can be but another religion. Atheism in the United States has in my opinion been particularly guilty in this regard. Therefore, I prefer to call the conclusions about religion spawned by this perception model as some form of agnostic; non-veridical products of the brain’s imagination might be at their origin religious-like (lacking in veridical evidence or dream-like or revelatory or hallucinatory) but should never be seen as credible (called epistemologically “true”) and worthy of one’s faith, belief, and tastes until they are “weighed” against the veridical information coming into the world display screen; and when they can be seen by the individual as credible, then I would ask why call them “religious” at all, but, rather, call them “objective,” “scientific,” “moral,” “good,” or “common sense.” I suggest this because of the horrendous toxicity with which religions in general and religions in particular are historically shackled.

We do not have to yield to the death of GS1 (When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joy within you dies!); GS2 (Love is all you need, to quote the Beatles instead of Grace Slick) can prevent that, even if our irrational love is not returned. In other words, we do not need the gods and god stories; what we need is the Golden Rule (Jesus – A Keeper [Sept., 2015]). This is my non-veridical “take” on the incredible non-veridical capabilities encapsulated in GS1 and GS2.

Western culture has historically entangled theology and ethics (No better case in point than about half of the Ten Commandments have to do with God and the other half have to do with our relationship to each other.) This entanglement makes the condemnation of theology suggested by this perception model of human ontology an uncomfortable consideration for many. Disentanglement would relieve this mental discomfort. Christianity is a good example of entangled theology and ethics, and I have suggested in Jesus – A Keeper [Sept., 2015] how to disentangle the two and avoid the “dark side” of Christian theology and theology in general.

Ethics, centered around the Golden Rule, or the Principle of Reciprocity, is clearly a product of non-veridical activity, but ethics, unlike theology and fantasy, is balanced with the veridical, in that our ethical behavior is measured through veridical feedback from others like us “out there.” We became ethical beings similarly to our becoming religious beings – by responding to human needs. Coyne’s book Faith vs. Fact, Why Science and Religion are Incompatible points out that in addition to our genetic tendency (our “nature”) to behave altruistically, recognize taboos, favor our kin, condemn forms of violence like murder and rape, favor the Golden Rule, and develop the idea of fairness, we have culturally developed (our “nurture”) moral values such as group loyalty, bravery, respect, recognition of property rights, and other moral sentiments we define as “recognizing right from wrong.” Other values culturally developed and often not considered “moral” but considered at least “good” are friendship and senses of humor, both of which also seem present in other mammalian species, suggesting they are more genetic (nature) than cultural (nurture). Other culture values (mentioned, in fact, in the letters of the “Apostle” Paul are faith, hope, and charity, but none of these three need have anything to do with the gods and god stories, as Paul would have us believe. Still others are love of learning, generosity (individual charity), philanthropy (social charity), artistic expression of an ever-increasing number of forms, long childhoods filled with play, volunteerism, respect for others, loyalty, trust, research, individual work ethic, individual responsibility, and courtesy. The reader can doubtless add to this list. Behaving as suggested by these ideas and values (non-veridical products) produce veridical feedback from those around us that render these ideas accountable and measurable (It is good to do X, or it is bad to do X.) What is good and what is bad is veridically verified, so that moral consensus in most of the groups of our species evolves into rules, laws, and sophisticated jurisprudence (e.g. the Code of Hammurabi and the latter half of the Ten Commandments). The group becomes a society that is stable, self-protecting, self-propagating, and a responsible steward of the environment upon which the existence of the group depends; the group has used its nature to nurture a human ethical set of rules that answers the call of our genes and grows beyond this call through cultural evolution. The irony of this scenario of the origin of ethics is that humans non-veridically mixed in gods and god stories (perhaps necessarily to get people to respond by fear and respect for authority for survival’s sake), and thereby risked infection of human ethics by toxic theology. Today, there is no need of such mixing; in fact, the future of human culture may well hinge upon our ability to separate, once and for all, ethics from theology.

A final example of applying the perception model illustrated by Figures 1 and 2 for this writing is the definition of mathematics. Mathematics is clearly a non-veridical, imaginative product of the human brian/mind; this is why all the equations in Figure 2 need a “dashed” version in addition to the “solid,” as I was able to do for the single numbers like “8.” But why is math the language of science? Why is something so imaginative so empirically veridical? In other words, why does math describe how the world works, or, why does the world behave mathematically?

Math is the quintessential example of non-veridical ideas rigidly fixed by logic and consistent patterns; math cannot deviate from its own set of rules. What “fixes” the rules is its applicability to the veridical data bombarding the world display screen from the “real” world “out there.” If math did not have its utility in the real world (from counting livestock at the end of the day to predicting how the next generation of computers can be designed) it would be a silly game lodged within the memory loops of the brain only. But, the brain is part of the star-stuff contemplating all the other star-stuff, including itself; it makes cosmological “sense” that star-stuff can communicate with itself; the language of that communication is math. Mathematics is an evolutionary product of evolutionary complexity of the human brain; it is the ultimate non-veridical focus upon the veridical. Mathematics is the “poster child” of the balance of the two fluxes upon the world display screen of every human brain/mind. No wonder the philosopher Spinoza is said to have had a “religious, emotional” experience gazing at a mathematical equation on paper! No wonder we should teach little children numbers at least as early as (or earlier than) we teach them the alphabet of their native culture!

Further applications of the perception model suggest themselves. Understanding politics, economics, education, and early individual human development are but four.

I understand the philosophical problem of a theory that explains everything might very well explain nothing. But this perception model is an ontological theory, which necessarily must explain some form of existence, which, in turn, entails “everything.” I think the problem is avoided by imagining some aspect of human nature and culture the model cannot explain. For instance, my simplistic explanation of insanity as a flux imbalance may be for those who study extreme forms of human psychosis woefully inadequate. Artists who see their imaginations more veridically driven than I may have suggested might find the model in need of much “tuning,” if not abandonment. I have found the model personally useful in piecing together basic, separate parts of human experience into a much-more-coherent and logically unified puzzle. To find a harmony between the objective and the subjective of human existence is to me very objective (intellectually satisfying) and subjective (simultaneously comforting and exciting). The problem of explaining nothing is non-existent if other harmonies can be conjured by others. Part of my mental comfort comes from developing an appreciation for, rather than a frustration with, the “subjective trap,” the idea introduced at the beginning.

RJH

Post Navigation