An account of the concept of truth.

Do I think that what I write and say, is what actually is? True? Why do I feel alien towards the word true? Is this the essence of the argument, I am trying to put forth here? Do truth actually mean anything? Anything at all?

Truth or what actually is.

What is, it is. It is despite of me or anyone else. Everyone else. Do I know what is? And if I know what is, is what I know about it, what it is? Judging the truth of my knowledge about it.

How would I know whether I know the truth about it? And what true is? It is a purely subjective stance. It is 'truth' to me. It is 'true' for me. Sharing it with other individuals or all individuals (in live?), it does not change the stance. It still remains subjective.

It is 'truth' for me, us, the whole of humanity but it is still nothing more but subjective.

Truth is beyond human capacity, it is a trait that has been attributed to an omniscient, omnipotent being and can not be attributed to any human being, neither by association nor by any other form of reason or logic, and by that of science.

It suffices to say that I/we know what it is, it is and there is nothing more than that. It holds, as long as, what I/we know about it, can be used to provide solutions to problems faced, explains, gives living meaning and used to measure what other individuals know about it.

And that holds for any individual all over the world.

Chaotic, could it lead to an answer to the origins and purpose of life?

Living organisms sophisticated machines that sprung out of myriad, intertwining processes spanning eons, driven in chaotic modes.

I read in "Fractal Neurodynamics and Quantum Chaos: Resolving the Mind-Brain Paradox Through Novel Biophysics", in Chapter 6.2, Chaotic Excitability as a founding Eucaryotic Characteristic,

"Chaotic excitability may originate deeper in evolutionary history, representing one of the oldest features of eucaryote cells (King 1978, 1990)."

And not only of eucaryotes but even deeper to the chaos instigated rise of life itself, since

"The Piezo-electric nature and high voltage gradient of the excitable membrane provides an excitable single cell with a generalized sense organ. Sensitive dependence would enable such a cell to gain feedback about the external environment, rather than becoming locked in a particular oscillatory mode."

and membranes provide the boundaries of all life forms, since they first begun in the primordial soup, in the rockpools deep in earth's past. Primitive life forms being another form resultant of chaotic processing, processes which undergo by their own virtue, and for their own accord, destined towards the calm, soothing shade of stabilizing attractors, determined by the variables at play in the early atmosphere, variables established by the forces shaping earth's environment

"The Earth is an "electrode" immersed in a weak gaseous "electrolyte," the naturally ionized atmosphere."

Evolution inherent in chaotic processing, as the attractors built are bound to be used, become the starting points of the next orgasmic bout of chaotic developments, as the journey continues in our present era and it will keep going on, further in the future.

And along side nature's chaotic cauldron, another field for chaotic deployment has sprung up, that of human consciousness driven by the same chaotic recipes, driven by the same principles deeply ingrained in nature and responsible for weaving nature's fabric.

Human mind, evolving amidst the instabilities life brings about, continuously building attractors upon attractors, replicating nature, towards its emancipation from its constructed man-made prerogatives and possibly nature itself.

Imperative drive. Constructing wholes from where there is none.

There is a tendency in the human mind and is carried on in the lives of human individuals to construct a whole where there is none. It is widespread in all individuals to rely upon very few features describing a particular state, and on the merit of these few features to construct the whole ignoring the rest.

.. gestalt enabled? ..

Building up attractors based on a handful of features that define a state. Judging theories, thoughts, beliefs, other individuals on a handful of features,

Nascent ideas. Evolved future societies globally programmed.

Relevant threads

- The Global Brain Group


Drawing similarities out of computer programs for globe-wide program application. Evolution of future societies where human individuals, resources and processes will get organised as the subroutines of a worldwide program.

Programs run in the computer are today developed towards addressing a great many needs of the user. To do so it relies on many sub-routines or sub-programs where each is assigned to deal with a certain task. Subroutines or subprograms run in the background and take care of tasks assigned, integrated with other subprograms to a single global program. Communicate with the main program via interfaces, by which they pass over the results of their code execution and at the same time receive instructions based on the results of code execution of other sub-programs, a continuous uninterrupted cycle.

The program subroutines can be visualized as the norms that prevail at a certain time in a social structure. A number of several subroutines combine to produce the subprogram for the social group. In the social group, their activities are programmed in the same way as a computer program. This takes over all the spectrum of activities that human individuals are engaged today. The jobs they do, their education and whatever other acts are required to do by being a part of a social group. Therefore that frees individuals from the burden of the day to day tasks, that they have to do to ensure their survival and maintenance of their beings. World-wide production is channeled to the appropriate areas in the world as the needs arise, identified by the running subprograms and passed on to the global program. A world wide logistics program. The know-how built in many areas of economic activity, by multinational corporations will provide the blueprints to organise the infrastructure of production and management of an enterprise of that scale.

This replaces all economic systems and market infrastructures, uproots human interference in common causes, whatever the intentions, providing time for the individuals to pursue activities which will increase intellectual capacities and scope of life. Each one, will be freed by an enormous amount of distractions so it will be able to devote wholesomely to discover for itself and indirectly for others, the nature of reality.

This means that monetising will be completely eradicated and a lot of its drawbacks will vanish from societal infrastructures.

Discrete states and discretisation.

"Each state presented to our consciousness is discrete and it should be treated as such. The process by which our mind is able to distinguish between discrete states (it can be called a discretisation process), makes it possible to identify the states and the processes which are responsible for bringing them about, in the first place.

A human individual's discretisation powers come by learning and it leads to enhanced ability in discerning the boundaries between states and avoid the confusion of one state from another no matter how much their boundaries might overlap. This is where language helps. A tool that attempts to provide precise definitions elaborating concepts that make up and reveal a state's organisation.

By being able to distinguish between states in the environment, we increase the ability to recognise their presence and occurrence in the surroundings, no matter how subtle they appear to be. Further, by being able to recognise a greater amount of states, we are able to take in a greater chunk of the surrounding environment. As most states are components of other states this process assists in the recognition of the comprised states as well.

I found this entry in a draft form, in the Pandora's Box blog I maintain, but I fail to make out, what is it for. The thought that triggered and instantiated its existence has been lost. But the notion intrigued me and I felt an impulse to trace its meaning, and reach a conclusion, if there is any.

By starting with the notion of discrete, and arrive upon a meaning, as referred to, and as it applies upon the state, a discrete state. That states presented to our consciousness are discrete!! The information gathered in Answers.com states

"The word discrete comes from the 15th Century Latin word discretus which means separate".

and

"It is used with different meanings in different contexts:.."

Discrete then, meaning, being separate. Going a little bit further,

"Consisting of unconnected distinct parts."

or

"A component or device that is separate and distinct and treated as a singular unit."

A state that is separate, and should be treated as a single unit, consisting of unconnected distinct parts? A state to be regarded as a unit? A simple mechanism among a population of like states-mechanisms, that bring about complexity? Complexity that could lead to emergence? But what about unconnected? A state unconnected with its environment, with other neighbouring states? Certainly not. There are an enormous amount of interactions with other states, the surrounding environment. It can not be unconnected.

Though the unconnected property might refer to the parts of a state, the parts of the single mechanism. Which can be a unit, the whole out of the parts. Along the lines of a whole that is more than the sum of its parts? And the parts are unconnected? Without excluding the interactions between states?

Consciousness reveals itself in cycles, self-referential ? Chaotic?

The few thoughts that entered my mind questioned the strength of my convictions about the 'real' consciousness as I thought of it, or still think of. Namely the conviction that the unconscious part, the part that we are not in control, is more significant than the part we are in control. That the part we have a control upon it only distracts us from our 'real' consciousness.

Certainly the unconscious, the part we do not control, (Involuntary? Out of the bounds of our volition? What are the repercussions of such thought?), is more efficient in finding solutions, as it has into its command a better arsenal of mechanisms (John Holland's reverberated cell assemblies) for arriving into solutions. Since it resides in what underlies the phenomenon, what is responsible for bringing out the phenomenon. But it looks to me that if we rely wholly into its commands, we might loose track of what we try to achieve.

That is due to its holistic nature. No matter what it is presented with, and by that I mean, regardless whether the presented is a complete whole or not, the result of incomplete and/or incorrect knowledge inherent in what is presented, that part of our consciousness will treat the presented as a whole despite being incomplete, and will act upon it as a whole. Assessment of the state of the environment, which defines the plan of action and guides decision making, is at fault as the presented only pretends to be a whole but, actually, is not.

And there is the other consciousness, the one we can control. The in-control consciousness. It has to deal with the state, the consciousness that we can not control, (the out-of-control consciousness?), brings forth. As I feel that what differentiates between these two aspects of consciousness is a sense of control that the individual asserts upon their function, it resembles the phenomenal and access consciousness as they are mentioned in this website. What distinguishes phenomenal consciousness (P-conscious), which I see as the out-of-control consciousness, is:

"we have P-conscious states when we see, hear, smell, taste and have pains. P-conscious properties include the experiential properties of sensations, feelings and perceptions, but I would also include thoughts, wants and emotions."

and for access consciousness (A-conscious), which I see as the in-control consciousness, is:

"A representation is A-conscious if it is broadcast for free use in reasoning and for direct “rational” control of action (including reporting)."

I am only going to use these quotes from this website, as I regard the rest as baggage that distracts me from my objective, mental constructs a result of overuse and abuse of language, language a symbolic system that suffers by the Godelitis syndrome. (I did not know that such a term exists, but the google search pleasantly surprised me.)

The 'in-control' consciousness will let the 'out-of-control' consciousness guide the immediate actions, since both are parts of consciousness as a whole, and it has to be trusted. But it is the 'in-control' consciousness that inspects the result of the action taken, and subsequently judge how effective the action was. It will examine every aspect of the environment the action has been applied, or at least every aspect, see what the 'out-of-control' part missed taken into account and report. The 'in-control' part will notice the need of what the 'out-of-control' part should take into account the next time, and guide learning about the aspects that have not been considered.

So there is a cycle of 'in-control' and 'out-of-control' phases of our consciousness. A loop, self-referential? Its output feeds back into the loop? The makings of chaos?

Not that long after I formulated these thoughts, doubt crept in. Am I wrong to postulate such a process? Have I underestimated the power of the holistic drive? What else would I call it? Than a drive? It powers its occurrence, its happening, its being there, its instantiation. Is it significant that I regard them both as one? Both being parts of a whole? And that by virtue of being a whole in itself, consciousness acts in a holistic manner? Has a power of its own?

Is the chaotic inference overlooked? Can the chaotic processes explain consciousness' holistic approach? What is holistic but the acceptance that every part of a whole plays a role, has its role? No matter whether it has been noticed or not? Whether it has being masked by the process that creates the whole in a 'more than the sum of its parts' fashion? The 'emerged' state does not reveal the full complement of the parts it has emerged from? Does holistic imply purpose? And purpose gives direction? We accept reality as being a whole and within reality there are other wholes built in hierarchies. The holistic nature of reality and the holistic nature of consciousness brought out of the same blueprint? Decoded out of the same code?

Reductionist vs. holistic or side by side?

We have to break it apart and put it back again. We need to know what is made out of, how each little bit works, how it influences every other bit of the whole and how it is influenced by every bit of the whole. We do that with the knowledge that it works only if all is put back together again. Nothing is obsolete. Everything is needed no matter how inconspicuous, how insignificant it might appear to our senses, to our awareness, to our consciousness. It can only act as a whole.

And in the process we build our consciousness up.