TOWARD A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. LIFE CIRCUITS
III. LIFE CIRCUITS AND THEIR APPLICATIONS
IV. SYSTEMS OF ETHICS FOR GROUPS
V. PROPOSAL FOR NEW SYSTEM OF ETHICS
VI. BACKGROUND: FREEDOM, KNOWLEDGE, AND CONSCIOUSNESS
I. INTRODUCTION
An ethical system is a set of rules that will survive, or
thrive, to the extent it is reinforced, and not undermined, over time. It will
be reinforced if it tends to improve their welfare and prospects for survival
of the group employing it. In order for such a system to have success and be
reinforced, it must depend on models of reality that best represent the most
significant aspects of the world the group operates in and therefore have the
potential to provide the greatest predictability of future events that may
significantly impact the group’s welfare (assuming an agreed upon method for measuring
group welfare) . A significant part of a model of the world for a group of
humans is a model of a human individual. Such a model should accommodate the
concept of incomplete identity over time and recognize the importance of time
considerations in the understanding of “will” or “free will.” Models should
make use of complex, multi-entity feedback loops in representing human
individual and social behavior. Models of human social environments also should
include clear rules regarding group identification and group definition.
A. Creation of Circuits
1. Life regenerates itself by creating circuits
of a sort (self-sustaining feedback loops, usually positive feedback loops).
Life processes are programmed by their genetic code, developed through the
process of evolution, to search (experimenting with different outputs) for
circuits that will provide what the life process requires for continuation,
i.e. survival and propagation (the genes that produce such an organism are the
ones that continue). The most sophisticated life processes, those of a brain,
seek connections between the organism’s needs and environmental resources to
fill those needs, with the most fundamental of such needs, those directly
connected to survival and propagation, being in some manner to some extent
pre-programmed in the brain (possibly what is pre-programmed are propensities
towards creating neuronal pathways that create sensitivities to certain forms
of stimuli from the environment the organism evolved in). As those connections
are developed, self-regenerating life circuits are formed, e.g. as X discovers
that water quenches X’s thirst, a connection is formed in X’s brain between
water and quenching thirst, and as X learns that going to the river facilitates
X’s acquisition of water, a further connection between water and the path to
the river is formed, etc… So connections in the brain lead to actions that lead
to meeting needs that lead to stimulation of reward centers in the brain. And
more connections with more strength are formed as a result of the stimulation
and the whole process may be viewed as a self-regenerating circuit.
2. In social or group
animals, the self-regenerating life circuits often go through members of the
group. As relationships are formed between brains, life circuits travel through
one brain and to the next through communication and then through that brain and
then back to the first brain or to other brains in the social group, which may
be seen as a larger circuit. Those larger life circuits can have sub-circuits
just as groups can have subgroups. And these larger life circuits facilitate
the development of more sophisticated and intricate models of the universe that
can be shared within the group, as any members of the group can contribute
through communication to the breadth, depth, or consistency of any shared
model.
3. Any individual may
have any number of life circuits with any number of groups. To the extent that
the groups overlap or interconnect, the life circuits may overlap or interconnect.
As each social circuit involves communicating some shared experiences and
shared models of reality, which may include desirable goals or shared
priorities, different life circuits that involve overlapping or interconnected
groups will come into conflict if their models and any associated goals and
priorities are incompatible or inconsistent, not in harmony, with each other.
4. Note: The circuits
described here share some characteristics with the circuits formed by the
connected “Desiring-Machines” of Deleuze and Guattari in Anti-Oedipus but are
not derived from that source and are intended to be more universal and
encompassing.
B. Individual and Group Action
The requirements of survival would indicate that individual
brains have predispositions toward forming life circuits tending to increase
the probability of survival of the self and the group, with reproduction being
one requirement for group survival. As an individual learns the individual’s
life circuits tend to become more developed and efficient, and when the
individuals in a group learn from the group the group’s life circuits tend to
become more developed and efficient as well, particularly when the learning is
from others in the group who are behaving consistently with increasing the
strength of the group’s life circuits, which should generally be consistent
with improving the group’s welfare (which is true to the extent it is a healthy
group). As individuals form group life circuits, they develop shared models of
the universe that help coordinate activities and further direct the development
of new life circuits and new models. However, for individuals to prosper within
a group they must make distinctions between what the shared group model
indicates is valuable, e.g. the king’s life and the nation’s wealth, and what
their own model indicates is valuable, e.g. their own lives and welfare.
Physical and mental sustenance for the individual requires positive feedback
from life circuits regarding the individual’s narrow interests, though the more
the narrow interests are secured, the more that broadened interests involving
more broad life circuits may be pursued.
A. Interests, Life Circuits, and
the Broadening of Life Circuits
An individual’s life circuits correspond well with what is often
termed “self-interest.” So that as one forms more and more broad life circuits,
with the recognition that such circuits must be re-energized with rewards in
order to be maintained, then one’s self interest expands and to some extent
merges with the community interest. In this way, traditional leftist politics
may be seen as an attempt to create broader life circuits and more merging
between self-interest and community interest, and traditional rightist politics
may be seen as an attempt to limit the expansion of life circuits and the
expansion of self-interest to the broader community. However, a danger exists
that an individual following a leftist course may overextend and create life
circuits too broad to receive adequate reward to be maintained, with the
likelihood of inadequate rewards increasing as the individual attempts to
create and maintain life circuits much broader than those of the great majority
of the population the individual participates in. Also, the desire for social
freedom limits the emotional rewards an individual may receive from cooperative
group activities, as humans readily develop an aversion to allowing others to
have control over an activity the individual is emotionally invested in.
B. Limitations on the Broadening
of Life Circuits
1. The rewards of some
small narrow life circuits are stubbornly zero-sum in that when X receives the
reward that means that Y will not receive the same reward. These include social
rewards such as those from sexual relations and those derived from an
individual’s high social status. The life circuits involved here cannot be
broadened because they involve competition and not cooperation. And the
motivation and individual sustenance developed by these small narrow life
circuits, including constructive positive motivation that may produce output to
strengthen the broader life circuits of the general society, is substantial and
can contribute significantly to mental health and satisfaction.
2. A related point is
that a high level of constructive motivation may be built with small narrow
life circuits that promise rewards involving the acquisition of some level of
credit, e.g., money or wealth, that may be used by the individual in the
furtherance of some other life circuits, generally narrow life circuits that
are zero-sum, e.g., to secure sex, a spouse, or some personal item for
possession or consumption.
C. Analysis of Existing
Institutions, Social Behavior, and Social Systems
1. Using life circuits as
the fundamental components, new models of existing institutions, patterns of
behavior, social systems, and human groups should be developed. Healthy and
sustainable processes may be determined by analysis of the life circuits.
Perspectives may be developed to allow any self-sustaining life circuit to be
analyzed as an entity itself (having a life of its own), independently from the
individuals that contribute to it.
2. Providing historical
context and a scientific perspective with an emphasis on likely propensities
and patterns developed by human evolution (considering feedback loops,
including life circuits, involved in evolution), assumptions about appropriate
groupings and boundaries in human societies must be challenged. The standard
and popular groupings and boundaries have been formed primarily through
pressures applied by dominant or powerful interests in human societies, and
these groupings and boundaries can be catastrophically maladaptive for the
species in an evolving world society.
D. Analyzing Political Systems
and Thought
The life circuits provide a new and simple method for analyzing
the extent to which a policy or political program serves individual interests
or rights vs. the interests or rights of a group, including a society or
nation. It serves individual interests to the extent the life circuits are more
confined to the individual and serves group interests to the extent the life
circuits flow throughout the group.
A. A Very Brief History of
Systems of Ethics
1. Humans developed
rules of social behavior in order to better regulate behavior within a group of
humans, including behavior with regard to other potential members of the group,
which may serve to improve the welfare and increase the probability of survival
of the group, though all sets of rules have to some extent been fashioned to
serve the interests of the group elites who made and enforced the rules. Over
hundreds of thousands of years of evolution, it is likely that humans evolved
to appreciate rule-based systems for behavior. As human brains and intellect
grew, more sophisticated rules of behavior, systems of ethics, developed and
typically were accepted by most individuals in the group, particularly in the
groups that would flourish and dominate.
2. For early humans the
social life circuits involved only small groups, but over time groups merged
and populations increased and so the size of the group grew, and the leader of
the large group became known as a king and the territory of the large group
began to be thought of as a nation. And these larger groups prospered only to
the extent the life circuits within the group were healthy, i.e. consistent
with group welfare, and the probability of this increased when rules were
developed with regard to what types of circuits or associated behaviors would
be allowed or promoted. So rules of ethics can be thought of as limitations on
life circuits, ideally with the limitations designed to maximize group welfare,
though often the limitations were designed to maximize the welfare of the
well-positioned group members.
B. Designing Systems of Ethics
A successful system of ethics must be a function of, be
developed consistent with, human motivation potential because rules unlikely to
be followed would not achieve their purpose and as a result the group would
weaken and would not survive. And the system of ethics that succeeds best
provides some combination of maximal group welfare and maximal long-term
probability of survival of the group. So the system should maximize the extent
to which strong self-regenerating life circuits are available that are
consistent with group members’ desires and potential desires and consistent
with group welfare and survival. There is a strong argument that innate
sensitivities to certain types of stimuli, phenomena, were developed through
evolution that were consistent with the survival and welfare of the group.
Thus, it appears likely that actions that result in a perception of achieving
such goals (survival and welfare of the group) have the potential to take
advantage of such innate sensitivities and stimulate pleasure centers, thereby
creating healthy self-regenerating life circuits for individuals and for the
group. And a rule of ethics that guides individuals into choosing such actions,
and thereby creating such life circuits, would be likely to be adopted and
followed by many or most individuals in the group, thus not only increasing the
number of healthy self-regenerating life circuits but also strengthening its
own ethics rule circuit. And it could strengthen the general ethics rules
circuit – promoting belief and trust in rules of ethics and the advantages of
following them — as it achieves the primary purpose of rules of ethics.
C. Determining What is the Group
1. A group is a set of
individuals who commonly interact and for that purpose usually have common
rules of behavior. Members of a group share certain common life circuits that
are crucial to their welfare and survival. Groups constantly form and grow and
also decline.
2. Because of the growth
of communications technology, international travel, and international trade,
communication and interaction across the globe has become common in the 21st
Century and that has created global interconnectedness composed of a great many
life circuits. So the most fundamental and natural group in the 21st Century
has become the entire human race.
D. Manipulation in a Group and Predatory Life Circuits
Individuals may produce life circuits that involve the
manipulation and use of others, which may be characterized by a predatory
relationship in which the manipulator gains from the relationship while the one
manipulated loses while there is no net gain, and usually even a loss, for the
main social group. Typically deceit is an essential component of such a life
circuit. Those who are manipulated or used may sometimes come to feel part of a
life circuit that takes from them more than it gives back (such individuals are
sometimes colloquially referred to as “suckers” or “tools”). Often the
manipulators make use of primal impulses, e.g. sexual impulses or basic desires
for social status, that they connect in the victim’s brain to phantom rewards.
These are predatory life circuits for those who are manipulated and such
individuals become weaker as a result. The manipulators reap all the rewards of
such life circuits and are strengthened unless a greater life circuit that they
are subject to, e.g. the main social group, provides punishment for such manipulative
behavior.
E. Group Action
Group actions are usually initiated by those identified as
leaders, i.e. initiators of new life circuits within an existing group or
forming a new group. Though the main life circuits and sub-circuits of the
group may encompass all members of the group, the individual that is the leader
might not participate in any strong life circuits that encompass all or nearly
all members of the group. Sometimes the leader only participates in strong life
circuits that encompass only a small subset of the group, though the leaders
may participate in weaker life circuits, particularly ones where the leader is
in a dominant position and most are in subservient positions, with all or
virtually all members of the group. Note that the leader may engage in
manipulation, particularly in the weaker life circuits. Also note that in a
life circuit where there is competition for resources, as the position of some
is maximized, the position of others is weakened, particularly when it is the same
individuals whose positions are maximized time and time again.
There is the potential
for the widespread adoption of a new system of ethics that is sustainable. The
success of the system would depend on creating self-regenerating life circuits
for the system that would be consistent with short- and long-term survival
needs and the health, vitality, and welfare of individuals and the group as a
whole. Certainly a system that encourages the development of sound small life
circuits, e.g. the life circuits of the family, could be sustainable as such
small circuits may provide immediate rewards, physical and mental sustenance,
and dependable connections. And some of these small life circuits could be
broadened into larger life circuits and others (those that are more stubbornly
narrow because of zero-sum properties) could be woven, slowly and carefully to
avoid overextension or disharmony, into broader life circuits in communities of
larger and larger size.
VI. BACKGROUND:
FREEDOM, KNOWLEDGE, AND RELATED ISSUES
A. Issues Related to Freedom
1. Determinism
The fatal flaw of simple determinism results from removing the
actor from the universe. The actor is part of the universe and so the actor has
part of the power and force of the universe and is a source of causality. The
actor is a source of causality like any other force in the universe and the
time of the action, in the unbroken chain of actions through time, is as
important as any other time in the succession of events. If one models the
universe as following deterministic processes, the actor must be viewed as both
determiner and determined. The action may be depicted as starting with the
actor at a particular time just as it may be depicted as starting with any other
part of the universe at any other time.
2. Free Will
Any X, any actor or object, forms and acts in response to all
forces acting upon X, both internal to X and external to X. The internal forces
in the brain of a sentient being may be described as comprising “the will.” The
term “free will” is problematic because it implies an independence from forces
of the universe and there can be no such independence. However, it should be
noted that the term is often used loosely to refer to freedom from social pressures,
and that usage is not directly contradicted by the analysis here, though it is
apparent that complete freedom from social pressures becomes virtually
impossible if an individual interacts with, and becomes dependent on in any
manner, other individuals in a society (acknowledging that an individual in a
low-population-density and low-interaction society would have relatively more
social freedom).
3. Identity and Will over Time
(a) Human identity over time is approximate, not complete, as
all living things change over time (time really is a measure of change). As a
human being grows and has experiences, the human brain changes in response to
stimuli, both in an immediate sense and over time in response to analyses of
stimuli. The brain evolves over time as it encounters and absorbs, or even
merges with, the energy from new stimuli. The brain at time T(n) is thus a
function of what it was at time T(n-1) and what it experienced between time
T(n-1) and time T(n). So the will of the individual at time T(n) is not equal
to the will at time T(n-1) and can only be at best approximately equal to what
it was at time T(n-1). Actually, at time T(n) the will is the result of the
combination and interaction of the internal forces at time T(n-1), the external
forces that impacted the brain through perceptions between T(n-1) and T(n), and
any analysis that occurred between the two time points, and of course any
biological changes from aging and any disease or injury or other ongoing
chemical processes.
(b) Note that Identity
during the time of engaging in an act is not absolute. For an individual to
accomplish any act, including the act of completing a thought, it takes some
time range, e.g. T(n-1) to T(n). And during that time range, the individual has
identity that ranges from ID(T(n-1)) to ID(T(n)). So the individual has a
different identity on completing the act from what the individual had on
starting the act.
4. Freedom and Will
(a) The freedom to act in
situation S is where there is a will to act by the individual (“will” is the
motivation/desires of an individual as determined by the internal brain
forces), and an absence of external forces in situation S to prevent or
significantly interfere with that act.
(b) Will
over time: The will evolves as the individual encounters new energy that shapes
the individual’s identity through perception and repercussions of perception,
including the adoption or formation of new life circuits or evolution or
diminution of existing ones. The will also evolves because of biological
changes, e.g. hormonal changes or the processes of aging, injury, or disease.
(c) Freedom and will in
life circuits: The will includes the forces from self-regenerating life
circuits, including those wholly contained in the brain and those that go through
other brains, i.e. a group life circuit. At an instant, one can represent the
force of a group life circuit as an internal force, though over a larger time
frame it would be more accurately represented as a partially if not mostly
external force. Thus, in the smallest time frame following those life circuits
could be represented as an act of individual will and thus as an act of
so-called “individual freedom” but in larger time frames it could not.
(d) Manipulation example:
(i) As individual X exerts
will in changing the brain (mind) of individual Y (e.g. changing Y’s beliefs or
understanding), then Y’s brain in part becomes an agent of X’s brain (X creates
a life circuit in which Y’s brain is included). Then Y’s brain may be a
function of X’s will. If the relationship is symbiotic and the life circuit
serves Y as well as X or the goals of some larger group then the relationship
and life circuit may be manipulative but not abusive. If the life circuit
serves X at the expense of Y, then it is abusive manipulation.
(ii) If Y acts as a
result of X’s creation of the life circuit and manipulation of Y, can Y’s act
be represented as an expression of freedom? It depends on the time frame from
which freedom and will are analyzed. From the time frame starting after
manipulation T(m+), Y’s will was exercised and Y’s act may be expressed as an
act of Y’s individual freedom (ignoring other forces acting on Y besides X).
From the time frame before manipulation T(m-), X’s will was expressed in Y’s
actions, and Y’s act cannot be expressed as an act of Y’s individual freedom.
(iii) Note that if X
creates a life circuit that includes Y’s brain and the circuit is beneficial to
Y and so X’s act is not abusive manipulation, from the time frame before X’s
influence T(m-), X’s will was expressed in Y’s actions, and Y’s act cannot be
expressed as an act of Y’s individual freedom even though Y acted and Y
benefited.
5. Focus on Social Freedom
The term “freedom” is most often used with regard to the social
freedom of the individual in a loose sense. This social freedom is not any sort
of absolute freedom, but merely the absence of a perception by Y of direct
control by X (the desire for such social freedom may have originated as a
survival mechanism, for the individual and the individual’s genes, in human
groups where those who allowed too much domination by others fared poorly in
terms of nutrition and in terms of mating opportunities). Positive feedback for
Y from life circuits Y is invested in can be disrupted by interference from X,
and this would tend to make the disrupted circuit less dependable and
pleasurable and even lessen Y’s trust in other related circuits, resulting in a
less active and less successful Y.
6. Control
(a) Note that the term
“control” can sometimes provide greater clarity if substituted for the term
freedom.” Discussions without context about the freedom of X can be misleading
as they ignore that X’s freedom to act may limit Y’s freedom in some way and
vice versa. When the term “control” is used, it may become clear in some
situations that X’s freedom to do A and Y’s freedom to do B are mutually
exclusive, i.e. cannot exist together. What X seeks in the freedom to do an act
A is control over the environment in some manner so as to allow X to do A. That
control may be indirect or it may be in cooperation with others, as in a
so-called “democracy,” but X may need to acquire the means to carry out A for
X’s freedom to do A to be anything more than illusory. And X’s control over the
environment to do A may be inconsistent with Y’s control over the environment
to do B.
(b) One example concerns
the freedom of speech. In order for X to exercise the freedom of speech, X must
be able to control the means to produce the speech and, possibly with
government help, control the means to block others, such as Y, from preventing,
restricting, inhibiting, or drowning out that speech. Without such control, the
freedom would be meaningless.
(c) Another example
concerns the freedom to control one’s own health, which requires control over
environmental quality. In order to exercise the freedom to control one’s own
health, X must be able to limit the freedom of others to create environmental
hazards.
7. Harmony
(a) The “search for
harmony” better describes the human condition than the “search for freedom.” A
non-trivial model of the environment accounts for the interconnectedness of
physical phenomena, which makes the search for freedom a poor description of an
individual’s goals using that non-trivial model. Finding harmony between the
individual’s needs/desires and the individual’s model of the environment is a
better description of an individual’s goals.
(b) To put it in terms of
life circuits, the harmony that X achieves internally is based on the extent to
which X’s life circuits meet X’s needs and that requires harmony between X’s
circuits and the external environment (as well as X maintaining internal
harmony). The extent to which X achieves harmony, i.e. forms life circuits to
meet X’s needs that are in harmony with the external environment, appears to be
a crucial factor in determining X’s quality of life.
8. Consideration of Feedback Loops
So much of human thought consists of perceiving, internalizing,
and repeating thoughts of others in the same group in the construction and
operation of group feedback loops. The
human that survives within a human social group is only part individual and
part group member.
9. Using Best Constructs
What is often lost in discussions of “freedom” is that this is a
mental construct that was created in efforts to describe experienced phenomena.
If this construct is found to be lacking, insufficient, or misleading in
creating a reliable and accurate model of the world then it should be replaced
by more effective constructs such as that of “harmony” or “control”, and it
should be used with recognition of the social reality of group feedback loops
that the individual exists within. The
word “freedom” is often assumed to describe a goal in and of itself, but the
most fundamental goal of any animal behavior is to receive positive feedback,
as in the development of life circuits, in the animal’s search for survival and
procreation, and this is furthered by the construction of the best model
possible.
B.
KNOWLEDGE
1. Nature of Knowledge
(a) Knowledge of a world,
an environment, is a set of data obtained through interaction with an
environment and through the processing of previously acquired knowledge. The
processing of the knowledge may include the formation of rules and
generalizations regarding the knowledge, including knowledge about the actor
and about the processing of the knowledge.
(b) Knowledge of the
environment becomes useful to an actor if the actor creates a model of the
actor’s environment that allows the actor to predict repercussions of the
actor’s actions and other future events, i.e., what new data will be
encountered, in the environment. The actor’s model may include a model of the
actor and even a model of a model of the actor, and so on, recursively.
2. Limits of Knowledge
(a) (i) Briefly,
mathematics is comprised of representations of the most fundamental rules
regarding the relationships between phenomena encountered in the environment.
Such rules serve as the foundation in the construction of the models of the
actor’s environment. Mathematics is purely abstract and involves the creation
of general models of phenomena or of types of phenomena, e.g., classifying
phenomena as some type of object such as a circle or a sphere, and allows for
grouping and comparing different phenomena. The actor may choose which
phenomena and relationships to form general models of, and mathematical rules
are generally based on simplifying assumptions about relationships which make
certainty possible. Relationships expressed in mathematics, as in mathematical
theorems, are those on which the strongest reliance is placed as they are
developed through rigorous logical proof and are based on the most fundamental
and defensible assumptions. Mathematical relationships and rules are helpful
not only in directly developing and organizing useful models of the actor’s
environment, but also in providing tools, such as the analytical tools of
mathematical probability and statistics, for developing other fields of
knowledge that can further enrich the actor’s models . Models for phenomena
studied in those other fields can be tested using knowledge of mathematical relationships
to determine whether the models are in compliance with the data.
(ii) After mathematics,
the most fundamental and reliable knowledge is that derived from the study of
the fundamental elements of nature in what are commonly referred to as the "hard
sciences.” The accepted theories of the rules, or laws, of nature are those
that have been proposed and are left standing after a rigorous winnowing
process involving experimentation and statistical analysis, which show that
particular theories, or models of how some part of the universe works, have
more predictive ability than others, i.e. are consistent with new data obtained
from experiments. No theory comes with a guarantee that it cannot be improved
upon, and the most one can say about a theory is that no superior theory, i.e.
one with better predictive value or with equal predictive value but some other
advantage (e.g. simpler), has been validated by experiment. Since the depth of
analysis, the number of levels of analysis, is unbounded, it seems likely that
any theory can be improved upon as the analysis goes deeper and deeper. Fields
of study that do not allow for rigorous experimentation and control of all
significant variables, e.g. the social sciences, offer much less certainty, and
theories in such fields can never achieve the level of certainty or acceptance
of those in the hard sciences. However, rules regarding complex processes, that
such fields of study focus on, may be developed through extrapolation from more
fundamental knowledge from the hard sciences, and such rules may provide some
level of predictability, but rules developed through excessive extrapolation
should be adopted with great reservation.
(b) (i) Knowledge of
general theories and rules does not guarantee any degree of knowledge of a
specific phenomenon of nature. From a simple and straightforward application of
elementary mathematics it would appear that there are an infinite number of
perspectives in space and time from which any specific phenomenon may be
analyzed. It would also follow that there are theoretically an infinite number
of ways and degrees to which the phenomenon may be divided and represented in
the construction of a model of the phenomenon. Thus, with finite resources
available it is impossible to guarantee that one has a complete model of any
phenomenon at any point in time. And without certainty of having a complete
model, and thus with no certainty of knowledge of a phenomenon, assuming only
finite models are possible (because of finite resources), all actions of all
entities in the universe are never completely predictable, completely known, or
even completely knowable from a theoretical perspective by a finite information
processor.
(ii) If a phenomenon is labeled an X(i), note that a causal
relationship may be established between an X(i) and some X(i-1), where X(i-1)
occurs before X(i) and is within relativity limitations, and a causal
relationship may be established for any X(i-n) generally, where n > 1 (again
within relativity limitations). And there is no limit on the number of X(i-n)
that may be established to have causal links with X(i). As the causal
relationships are unlimited, some phenomenon X(i) could be described as the
result of an unbounded number of other phenomena, each with an unbounded history
of causality (infinite number of infinite chains of causality). But models of
phenomena are finite (certainly useful models are), and so the phenomena giving
rise to X(i), e.g. the X(i-n), cannot be completely detailed in the model
constructed to represent X(i) and at best can be generalized or approximated.
Of course the great majority of the X(i-n) will have negligible effects on the
X(i), but since all X(i-n) to X(i) relationships cannot be analyzed, there
remains an uncertainty about the effects of innumerable X(i-n).
3. The Purpose/Function of Knowledge for an Organism
Possession and use of knowledge developed as a useful tool for
organisms struggling to survive in the organisms’ environments. An organism
survives by making adjustments, or adaptations, by either changing internal
settings, those of the organism, or changing the external settings, those of
the environment, so that internal settings mesh, find harmony, with external
settings in a way that leads to meeting the organism’s survival needs. This
also applies to meeting reproductive needs, as determined by instinctual
desires. This continual process of input, adjustment, and output can be modeled
as a self-regenerating life circuit (a type of self-sustaining feedback loop).
An organism’s brain creates internal life circuits that model external life
circuits. A sophisticated brain may even model the organism itself and its
internal life circuits and even engage in self-reference and self-reference of
self-reference, though this self recursion must be cut off at some point as it
is of declining utility as it progresses.
4. The Organization of Knowledge and Use of Models
(a) Organization of
knowledge may increase the advantage of possessing knowledge. Organized
knowledge can allow for comparisons, facilitate the development of more general
and accurate rules, and aid in the elimination of contradictory and useless
knowledge that could otherwise become a nuisance or even a hazard.
(b) Organized knowledge
can be used to produce a model of any phenomena experienced and can be used to
produce a model of the universe itself, the source of all experience, and with
analysis can provide a set of rules regarding the relationships of different
phenomena in the universe. With a model of the universe, and a set of rules
that phenomena in the universe follow, one may predict future phenomena in the
universe, including reactions to one’s own actions and one’s own reactions to
those reactions and so on. And thus such a model may be used by an organism to
optimize the search for self-regenerating life circuits. Note that any such
model, as well as its accompanying rules, will always be limited and incomplete
and can at best be a gross approximation of the source of phenomena producing
the input that is the basis of the model, and of course it follows that the
accuracy of predictions is limited by the limits of the model. Generally, a
model that provides greater predictability of future phenomena is the superior
model. However, a model that provides greater detail (i.e., richer
information), a wider variety of dependable, tested rules (e.g., mathematical
axioms and theorems and laws of nature derived primarily from the hard
sciences), and conclusions from deeper analysis of the state of nature using
the rich information and the tested rules can generally be expected to provide
greater predictability of future phenomena.
(d) (i) A nontrivial
model of the universe takes into account that an infinite number of possible
sources of energy may create, map onto, a perception of a phenomenon (organism
input). Ultimately, all scientific or other analysis can do is provide
information regarding the likelihood that different phenomena will occur or
reoccur given that other phenomena have been experienced, i.e. provide some
form of approximate predictability about phenomenon X(i) given phenomena
X(i-1)…X(i-j). Note that if Source S(x) and Source S(y) always produce the same
input or at least indistinguishable input, i.e. the same perceptions for the
observer, say Observer O1, then S(x) will be treated by O1 as identical to
S(y), and O1’s model for S(x) and S(y) will be identical, even if there may be
a difference between S(x) and S(y) to observer O2 (e.g. a typical human
observer). S(x) and S(y) may have different effects according to the
perceptions of O2 but O1 never experiences those differences. One illustration
of this is the science fiction scenario where S(x) is the standard models of
the universe, and S(y) is a universe where an alien intelligence inserts
electrodes into O1’s brain to control O1’s perceptions and thoughts. As long as
the mimicry is complete and exact for the duration of O1’s life, there could be
no difference to O1 and S(x) and S(y) could then both provide identical
experiences for O1 and O1 would produce identical models of the universe for
both S(x) and S(y), even though O2, e.g. the omniscient reader of the science
fiction, has quite different models for them.
(ii) From the same set of
perceptions of phenomena an observer could potentially form an infinite number
of hypotheses to explain those perceptions, including an infinite number of
hypotheses that each assume different possible individual gods or sets of gods
as being the source of the phenomena. That observer could use the perceptions
of those same phenomena to argue for any number of models of a god or gods. To
put it another way, the same evidence, the same set of recorded observations,
can be used to argue for any one theorized god or any number of such gods,
including an infinite number. Scientists, for the sake of utility, prefer to
use the simplest model of the source of phenomena, with the fewest assumptions
(Occam’s razor), that is consistent with experience, i.e. with the evidence,
and that has predictive value. That is why scientists prefer to avoid models
involving a god or gods in developing hypotheses and theories. Theologians do
not highly value utility in choosing the best model of the source of
experience, and do not rigorously test predictive value of a model, and so they
have no method for winnowing down the possibilities other than their “sacred”
texts,” which they consider as indisputable fact that any hypothesis must
comport with, and so they do not abandon their hypotheses involving gods. a
theologian has a personal interest in maintaining any belief system which
provides the theologian with authority and power by virtue of a position as
interpreter of the most important rules of the universe.
(iii) The approach
described here is related to that of the philosophy of science known as instrumentalism
in that predictability of phenomena is the key and determines the value of a
model.
(d) Absolute certainty of
the exactness and completeness of information with regard to the phenomenon for
which one is constructing a model is impossible to attain even for one moment
and even more so for an infinite succession of moments, regardless of the
amount or degree of analysis. Also note that analysis is necessary to determine
the optimal level of resources to be allocated to analysis of any particular
subset of the model, as an infinite number of levels of analysis are possible
and so each subset of the model, each problem, could demand infinite resources.
Of course the analysis of allocation could also be infinite, and so some
educated guess, e.g. a heuristic, must be followed to determine a cut-off
point, though past experiences with costs associated with such analysis may
provide pressure to reduce the time and energy spent on such analysis, i.e. a
perception of declining utility may provide guidance. And note that
pre-programmed, genetic, human propensities and abilities may also play a role
in determining cut-off points.
C. Consciousness
1. Consciousness consists
of the direct experience of thought, as thought continues over time, as opposed
to a model of a thought or of any phenomenon in experience. The duality of
existence is between the direct experience and the model of the experience. All
that we can communicate, and all that we can explain, are models of experience,
not direct experiences. When we form a memory, we form a model of an
experience. When we think about experiences we have had, we are creating and
manipulating models of experience. When one thinks about past thoughts the
images of models (visual, auditory, or other) formed come to mind. Memory may
function to record past direct experience, i.e. past consciousness, including
the emotional component, but the act of committing such direct experience to
memory creates a model of it and so what is remembered is the model, though recalling
this model may generate a similar consciousness to the one that produced the
model. Most likely any creatures with
similar physical characteristics of perception and cognition would have similar experiences of consciousness. But a thinking object or entity that is vastly different from a human brain, such as an electronic silicon-based computer, could not be expected to have a similar experience.
similar physical characteristics of perception and cognition would have similar experiences of consciousness. But a thinking object or entity that is vastly different from a human brain, such as an electronic silicon-based computer, could not be expected to have a similar experience.
2. Consciousness is not
properly represented as consisting of moments of thought experience, as the duration
of a moment is undefined (could even be infinitesimal), and there are no clear
markers to place boundaries to determine individual moments of thought.
Instead, consciousness is better represented as consisting of in-brain feedback
loops or circuits of varying durations, possibly of indeterminable durations,
thus allowing the possibility that the consciousness is part of something
eternal or at least of much greater duration than a human life that is
participating in sustaining it.
No comments:
Post a Comment