awareness is not function

we don't know what awareness is

just that it is

we do not know what the surface is -

we operate with it yes

but what can we say of its nature?

but that it - is out there

relative to awareness

on what do we base the idea of unity upon?

the person - you might say - the unity of body and soul - mind and body -

I have said previously that it is a presupposition

a necessary notion

and too - that seems real - is real

we have the idea of it

the human body is - while a part of a unified physical system - a discreet entity

we perceive it as so

ideas and perception

I argue that the unity is logical - dimensional

two meta dimensions of the one - entity - the one thing - the one - what?

the one undefined - the one primitive - the one unknown

yes - not an easy idea - still -

our most fundamental notions really have no foundation -

anyway -

with consciousness

direct awareness

we do not have knowledge

knowledge is not direct awareness

knowledge is reflective awareness

we can posit a relation between the conscious and the non-conscious

we are not aware of the relationship

we begin with the reflective idea that there is one

the self demands it

it is a meta imperative and I think psychologically unassailable - given veridical
conditions

any account of the relation is reflective

the options are -

there is no distinction between mind and body - the idea that there is - is false

there is a distinction - but a point of contact - an underlying unity -

and variations on these themes

reflectively we are not presented with any one option

it's basically either / or

now why can't this matter be resolved?

observation only settles what can be observed

consciousness is not observed

it is - the observing

consciousness knows itself - not on the basis of observation

rather on the basis of reflection

reflection can't determine matters outside of consciousness

two ways of knowing

entail two realities

I say two dimensions of reality

and what it is that underlies the inside / the outside cannot be apprehended

Spinoza would say - substance

I say the unknown

that mind and body are expressions of -

the unknown

that the unknown is the unity

that the unity is unknown

so - if the question is

what 'connects' mind and body -

the answer is - unknown

- and unknowable

either - in terms of observation and reflection

my two dimensional idea -

is an attempt to avoid Descartes problem of interaction

(it makes no sense to speak of an inside and outside - interacting)

and to avoid the 'flat earth' theory of the mind-body identity theorists

to restore mind to where it is - and should be thought to be - on the inside

brain theory gives us account of the functioning of the surface

there is no such account for the inside

awareness is not function

what underlies awareness and function - if this is a question - is not known -

might we not give the unknown a name?

existence

consciousness and brain theory

brain activity - consciousness' explanation of the
functioning of the body - of the surface -

explanation based on observation - empirical theory

how could such an hypothesis - conception be an
explanation of something else?

- of consciousness -

it is a conception of consciousness

here you would need to assume that in observing brain
activity - you are observing
consciousness

what could this mean?

perhaps you would also need to assume that what you
are observing is the outside of consciousness -

its surface

that consciousness is in there

alright but this is not physics

consciousness is revelation

brain activity - consciousness' explanation of the functioning
of the body - of the surface -

explanation based on observation - empirical theory

how could such an hypothesis - conception be an explanation of
something else?

- of consciousness -

it is a conception of consciousness

here you would need to assume that in observing brain activity -
you are observing consciousness

what could this mean?

perhaps you would also need to assume that what you are observing
is the outside of consciousness -

its surface

that consciousness is in there

alright but this is not physics

simultaneity

an event occurs - on the surface - it has a physical (i.e. observational) effect -

can we say that the same event occurs - as awareness - on the inside -

the same event - two manifestations?

on what basis do we say this?

and do we want to say this?

to say this we assume an objectivity

the view - that sees the body - the outside - and the mind - the inside

in terms of such a view - a single event - could be 'watched' as a physical
manifestation and as a mental manifestation

perhaps as you might see light through a prism

this is a picture - but what sort of a picture?

an analytical picture
a theoretical picture

an explanatory picture

OK

but - this must be the reality - if

if what?

my dimensional theory of mind / body

is so

yes

the question is though - how would you know this happens?

one event two expressions?

so there is no simultaneity possible

because there is no 'extra' dimensional view

there is only the view from the inside - out

and beyond this theory

meditation VI

'For should some cause, not in the foot, but in another part of the
nerves that extend from the foot to the brain, or even in the brain
itself, give rise to the motion ordinarily excited when the foot is
injuriously affected, pain will be felt as though it were in the
foot, and thus naturally the sense will be deceived;....'

the pain is what?

firstly an awareness - the experience of pain as such

felt in a specific space / time region - in this case my leg at 2.00 p.m. today

the actual expression of the pain - is to be described as what?

in itself -

isn't it really without description?

it is what it is

if we reflect on it we can use synonyms

or we can say what it is not

strictly it is primitive and undefined

(this may have more to do with the question of description than with the event itself)

relative to other experiences we call it - name it - pain

we can go on to give a comprehensive account in terms of the science of the event

but this is not what I mean here -

just the experience itself

can any experience - in itself - be defined - as anything other than an unknown?
I don't think so

an experience to be defined must be seen in the context of other experiences

an awareness?

the same applies

I experience the pain - as my pain - in my foot

my body is the outside of my awareness

the fact that it has occurred in my leg is incidental to the awareness

could I have a pain that is not located in my body?

no

that there is a location is necessary

where is not

how do I identify location?

does it come with awareness (even if it turns out to be a false location?)

yes

so actual location of pain - is really a question for science

the pain itself is never in question

it is located somewhere - in / on my body

OK

still the experience locates pain specifically - even if observation suggests this is
wrong -

consciousness identifies the event in space / time

even though observation - science might challenge this identification

Descartes wants to say the experience is not reliable

that the consciousness is not reliable

in relation to space / time

again the pain itself is not in question

immediate awareness

the identification - of consciousness is immediate

the analysis of science is not

the analysis of science is non-immediate - it is reflective - analytical

(immediate) awareness is not analytical - or reflective

it is immediate

is this not the difference between the explanans and the explanandum?

between experience and explanation

yes

my awareness qua awareness is valid

direct awareness is entirely guileless -

in terms of my surface (my body) I can observe a causal relation from foot to brain

such an account is not about awareness -

it is about the surface dimensions of the event

and it is essentially indirect - and of course unaware

also such an analysis is not event specific -

it could apply to any pain in any foot

my immediate awareness (consciousness) is event specific -

could you say such analysis (surface analysis) has no bearing on the conscious event?

yes

not on the event

but on the class of events

OK

the unity is a presupposition

the body is the outside of the entity - the mind - consciousness - its inside -

the entity as a whole cannot be described

for that we would require a perspective - that is neither inside or outside -
but one that encapsulates both - that is a third view - and this is what?

so what happens to the unity - is manifested on the surface - the body -
and inside - in consciousness

the happening event is both physical and mental - in terms of its reading -
its end points

in itself it has no characterization

as a surface event it is to be read causally -

as an internal event - it is an awareness

the surface occurrence does not cause the internal occurrence

the external / internal occurrences are simultaneous occurrences

the one event impressed in / on two dimensions

what is the connection between the physical the body the surface -
and consciousness the mind the inside?

there is no connection

the unity - is just that

we distinguish the two dimensions as a consequence - of how we know -

we observe the outside
we reflect the inside

observation and reflection entail - that observed - that reflected

consciousness is not out there to be observed

the body - not inside - to be reflected

the unity is a presupposition

it underlies observation and reflection

it is logically necessary - but not known directly

strictly speaking - the unity is unknown

meditation V

Descartes regards himself as limited and imperfect

his conception of himself entails its negation - limitlessness and perfection

but he regards himself as an existing thing -

existence it would seem is a characteristic of limited imperfect entities -

it would seem to follow

that a limitless perfect entity - God

on Descartes' argument does not exist

for existence is not to be associated with perfection -

meditation IV

Descartes here argues that error is possible when judgment is not confined
to clear and distinct matters

so the criterion of truth is clear and distinct ideas

the point is - isn't it - yes you can have clear and distinct ideas

but if there is no possibility of a clear and distinct idea being anything
other than true - that is if it is not possible that it could be false -

in fact you have no theory of truth -

clear and distinct ideas are true

why?

because clarity and distinctness are the criteria of truth

it is a circular argument

clarity and distinctness

are what?

characteristics of how an idea is held

how it is defined

is this anymore than definition?

isn't it the case that I may hold an entirely false idea - clearly and distinctly?

truth or falsity are not characteristics of definition

a statement is true or false depending on - not how it is formulated
or held - but rather on whether what it asserts is or is not the case -

that is the conditions under which it does or does not correspond
to how the world is

a statement can be true if asserted under one set of conditions -

false under another

its clarity and distinctness is not the issue -

such issues are to do with presentation - not truth

a statement can only be true if it can be false

we have no theory of truth from Descartes

different dimensions of what?

how we know distinguishes mind and body

and with this comes the idea of dimensions

as to the nature of the whole we have no view

we know what we observe
we know what we reflect

there is thus no one way of knowing

knowing is two dimensional

we understand by logic - these dimensions are dimensions of a unity

the unity is presupposed

it is a presupposition

it cannot be directly known

it can only be known via its dimensions -

we observe - from the inside out

the inside is known reflectively

the outside observationally

what we reflect on is what we are aware of

finally awareness itself

awareness - is the inside

that which is outside is that which is not aware

it is the object of awareness

we can describe the outside as physical - the inside as mental -

we have no reason to hold that we are dealing with different substances

only different dimensions

of what?

strictly - I don't think we can say

a different approach

the mind on my analysis just simply is awareness

the body function

part of its function is this awareness

much of its function is not

awareness as a function of the body

the mind as a function of the body

if all is function

what is different - distinctive about this function of awareness?

what is distinctive is how it is known

it is not known via observation

it is known reflectively

it is not to be observed

it is not outside - of the outside world

it is internal - it is inside

an internal function - the internal function

function?

yes - let's say so

so - on such a view the mind and the body are distinguished - by how 'they' are known

I say functions

and how these functions are known

OK

not a question primarily of ontologies - but of epistemologies

ontologies follow

and in this case - dimensions - not substances

if you want to go there -

but the main point is that the mind and body are different ways of knowing -

now these different ways of knowing - are characteristics of the mind

how it functions -

so -

we have the mind primarily as a function of the body

a function that distinguishes mind and body -

via modes of knowing

the mind is aware

it recognizes -

what it is via reflection

what it is not via observation

the body is what is observed -

the mind is what is reflected -

what is observed - is reflected

can a dead man reflect?

that awareness - is function

that what we observe in relation to brain function is mind - is awareness

the argument - we do not observe awareness - but what we do observe - is -
must be awareness

there the mind is a brain state -

the argument must finally be - that if the brain dies - so does consciousness

no brain function - no consciousness

therefore

consciousness is brain function

brain death is brain death - is death -

yes - but do we know that brain death equals no consciousness?

I certainly believe this to be the case

but on what is this belief based?

observation

the dead man exhibits no sign of consciousness

yes

but this is to suggest that consciousness - is observable - if only indirectly

and we know such an argument - in life - as well as in death - is a stretch

observation cannot be an argument for or against consciousness

we know consciousness - via reflection - not observation

can the dead man reflect?

who is to know?


p.s.


hope this is not my last post

the irrelevance of the identity thesis

the brain as function
the mind as awareness

we think of the brain - on the basis of what science tells us -

and we want to or are tempted to

equate the brain with awareness

the brain is the mind

when we do this what are we doing?

given my dimensional analysis -

we are not saying the inside - consciousness is the outside - the brain

we are saying what?

the brain is - a description of the mind

the physiology of the brain - is a description of awareness

is an account of awareness - as - an observable thing

is this really no more than - a pragmatic decision - to see
things in such a way -

a pragmatic decision to avoid metaphysics and its problems?

it is to say - we can assume such - and it's useful to assume such -

I think there is something in this - as an account of what can
happen in this debate

it's like a decision to avoid the issue - and proceed as if it
is not there - and go for whatever results can be found - given
such an approach

so - a pragmatic-heuristic argument?

or just plain lazy or bad thinking?

my point on the last post was that

really awareness - is irrelevant to function qua function

awareness is how we know - functioning is what we know

nothing is added or subtracted from the operation of the brain -
by saying it is the mind

it's irrelevant - might be comforting - but it's irrelevant

picture and function

for me the mind / body problem is the question of the relation between
the inside and the outside

inside - as consciousness

the outside - the body

and our particular focus is the brain -

can we regard the brain as the outside of the mind?

yes - we can put up this hypothesis

always understanding that the mind - awareness - is never observed -

it is not out there - on the surface - to be observed

awareness can only be known reflectively

or awareness is - whatever else it is - awareness of awareness - in the first instance

so two kinds of knowledge - knowledge of the inside (awareness of awareness)
and - observational - knowledge - knowledge of the outside -

the outside provides its own knowledge via the senses

still for me the question of how awareness relates to non-awareness

how consciousness relates to the non-conscious

inside / outside - that is a dimensional analysis - is a start

the entity - the person - is two dimensional

the whole here - is two dimensional

the unity is expressed in two dimensions -

in mind - in matter

and this unity - can only be understood dimensionally

can only be successfully described in these terms

this may have been Spinoza's intuition and he then took it to
the universe - to reality - as such - as a whole

that which is - here - let us say the person - for Spinoza substance
or a mode there of

is in itself unknown

this I think is unavoidable

for Spinoza the one thing expressed in two attributes

for me - two dimensions of the one -

and the dimensions are inner and outer

I am not convinced that - for Spinoza there is any internality

and this I think is a major defect of his argument

so - inner and outer

I argue is a real division

that some things in this world - have an inner dimension -
that this is consciousness

can we know how the inner relates to the outer - or visa versa?

they must be two aspects of the one thing -

otherwise there is no unity - no thing to speak of -

is this to argue that inner is co-extensive with outer

perhaps

consciousness - though seems to be a non-extended - point

a focus

a focal point

perhaps awareness here is the tip of the iceberg?

the body as the outside of the mind

the mind as the inside of the body

simple as that

nothing more to it?

the point being that knowledge of the inside - cannot be observed

that knowledge of the outside is not a matter of reflection

my gut feeling is that the relation -

inside and outside - is not something we ever see

it is unknown

or perhaps it is not a question that makes any sense

how does the inside relate to the outside?

they are two dimensions of the one unity

and really it's only the mind-brain identity theorists who want
to deny the internal - and argue for one dimension

at least I think they are committed to such a view

the Cartesians on the other hand mistook dimension for substance

the mind-brain identity theory is - in my terms - an hypothesis of what?

location -

the mind is the brain

this is where you will find it

in my terms it would be to say - the brain is the outside of the mind

still an argument about the location of consciousness

OK

but is consciousness relevant to a theory of how the brain works?

brain theory is really just theory about how the organism functions

is the inside - consciousness - relevant to this?

I wonder -

perhaps the behaviourists are right here

functioning is about how the outside works

how the surface - operates

the fact of the inside - of awareness is just the realm of knowing -

it is awareness of function

the brain is all that it is - does all that it does

awareness is another matter

brain function is a surface function - awareness is an internal
property - the internal property - internality

therefore awareness is not function and furthermore -
function is not awareness

however awareness and function go together -

how?

function is what to awareness?

it is really the primary object of awareness

the surface - that is - is what the mind is aware of

and awareness?

awareness - shows the surface - pictures the function

functioning consciousness

what I have been putting is that consciousness is the inside dimension
of reality

I don't think all of the surface reality has an underlying consciousness

only life forms I think have this possibility

and within this group only complex forms

I think all consciousness is self-consciousness

that is that any form that has consciousness

recognizes - at least at a very primitive level - non-conscious reality

this recognition distinguishes

the distinguishing is the fact - of self

self as I am defining it is essentially a logical fact

the fact of differentiation

all right

so my basic position is that the mind-body problem is dimensional

not substantial

we are talking about two dimensions - not two substances

awareness is the inside of things - that have an inside

this is what the mind is

non-awareness is the outside

the outside is not aware

the brain on this view is squarely part of the surface of the world

therefore the brain - as a surface category - is not aware

if you want to characterize the outside world as physical

the physical is not aware

the brain is not the mind

OK

so the question - what is the relation between the inside (of a human being)
and the outside?

we are aware of the outside - that awareness is internal

it is in the broadest sense - knowing

thus when we observe the brain - scientifically that is - our awareness -
in the form of neurological conceptions is what?

the mind's picture of the brain

now the question - can we jump to -

the mind's picture of itself

no

the mind is awareness

we are self-awareness

therefore aware of awareness

that is the mind's picture of itself

it is really quite contentless

if I say the mind is the brain what am I doing?

on my thinking I am saying the inside is - the outside - or a particular
location of it

the inside is the outside?

such an argument is to destroy the essential distinction of my argument

it is to go against what I see to be the basic reality we face

such would not be a move forward

the mind has a picture of the outside

the outside of itself - yes

the mind cannot be identified with any particular feature or region
of the outside

it can only equate to the whole of the outside - of a human being

is this so?

earlier I suggested a monad model of consciousness

that the outside of the world - has mind points in it

could the same argument be made in relation to the body

that the inside is not co-extensive with the outside -
is rather a point - within?

OK

how would this relate to the brain

the mind is the inside of the brain

the brain as two dimensional -

I understand this is getting closer to the common view

(if there is such a thing)

but for me the question why?

why take such a view?

the obvious argument

brain damage effects directly the functioning of consciousness

OK

but perhaps this is an unexpected clue -

the functioning of consciousness

the idea being that the brain is consciousness as a function

that awareness requires the brain - for its functioning

the brain is awareness functioning

awareness - out there?

image

what is an image?

that which is imagined?

it is an internal characterization of what is presented in consciousness

that is a reflection on the presentation of consciousness

a description

a description of a particular in the presentation

a making of a particular in presentation

a categorization

that is a way of organizing - what is given in consciousness

images

are not out there

that's clear

the question is though - are they in there?

are there such things as images?

Descartes and the Empiricists certainly talk as if this is so

I am suggesting there is no such thing per se

that an image is an idea

an organizing principle

this categorization - or the fact of categorization - I suggest is necessary

for though the world presents

what it presents is always a question

that is - in a primary sense we don't know

it is only on reflection that some light is shone

and reflection here is about how to handle - organize - operate - with what is presented

where do we get these notions from?

consciousness categorizes being

initial categorization is objective - object-like

consciousness objectifies

image is an internal description

its logic is based on the logic - the ontology of objectivism

what I see is a box

what I have is an image of the box

that notion of image is a theoretical characterization of the given

it is a stratagem employed to avoid the problem of not knowing -
- of speechlessness

image talk is thus meta talk

an internal reading

awareness of the outside world

how are we to understand this?

the outside world is given in consciousness

it is what is given

given in the sense of reflected in - consciousness

consciousness is the ground of reflection here

consciousness is in this sense a mirror for the outside world

the outside is mirrored in the inside

the relation is symmetrical

are we to say the relation is causal?

the outside world causes - the awareness

does the outside of anything cause its inside?

the outside - the surface is not the cause of the inside

the outside of consciousness - given consciousness - is reflected in consciousness

awareness is this reflection - (and awareness of it)

it is the showing of the world

the world - the outside world as presentation

presentation is only possible given consciousness

the world is not altered by the fact of consciousness - it is shown

its showing is not on the surface

its showing is inside

consciousness brings an inside the world

and here I favour a kind of Liebnitzian view

internal monads - centres of consciousness

these monads are all identical

their character is given in their surface reflections

here is where difference occurs

and this difference is unique

no two bodies occupy the same space -

have the same view

and consequently -

or the same history

time gives us simultaneity

reflection is the world internalized

a mode of being

non-reflective reality is - the non-conscious

non-reflective reality has no centre

consciousness centres the world

gives it focus if you like

this fact has no bearing on the outside - the surface

it is an internality

an internal reading

meditation III (ii)

Descartes I would argue mistakes the awareness of non-conscious reality -

as an argument for God -

he asks quite rightly where does the idea of the outside come from - or strictly
speaking he doesn't ask this rather - where do our ideas of outside things come from?

as if there must a cause to the effect

but I argue it is not a question of cause and effect

it is awareness

perhaps he would term it - direct apprehension

(which he quickly dismisses)

my argument is that it is awareness of - the outside

awareness - that is consciousness - to be self-conscious - aware of itself - is by
definition - in its self awareness - aware of what it is not -

the world outside itself

awareness is not caused by the outside world

the outside world is not caused by consciousness -

these dimensions - simply exist -

the outside reflects on the inside

the inside on the outside

it is a dynamic relationship

consciousness impacts on the non-conscious

and the non-conscious impacts on consciousness

we are not talking here about substances

rather dimensions

dimensional analysis

gives us a way of organizing reality

explaining its basic structure and action

for conscious - self-conscious beings

what occurs for human beings has an internal dimension and an external dimension

we are aware of this - in fact this is awareness

an event in itself - an action in itself

is without description - unless described dimensionally

Descartes' argument of perfection

is really no more than the awareness that I a conscious entity exist in the world

that the world - the domain of my existence

is an ontological space I am in

it is not a question of greater and lesser - let alone perfection and imperfection

it is rather just the fact of an existent in a domain

the space of its actions

perfection is despite Descartes' attempt to mask it - a theological notion

that has more to do with his education by the Jesuits than sound philosophical
thinking about the nature of reality

ground

the ground of the concept of the totality - of the world

is the world

we conceive consciousness

and we conceive that which is not consciousness

consciousness and non-consciousness

is the totality

the world is two dimensional

the concept of the totality

is necessary for consciousness' being

its awareness of itself

what is not itself

- that which is not itself - is that which is outside of it -

surrounds it

consciousness conceives itself as within

when we speak of the world - we are speaking of the outside of consciousness

consciousness includes itself as - within the world

the totality - is neither in nor out

neither the inside nor the outside

it is that which is inside and outside

that - is that

it cannot be spoken of - thought of -

except in terms of its dimensions

the totality as such is unknown

it is the ground of consciousness

the ground of that which is not conscious

it is necessity

and necessity is existence

the open statement

we begin with consciousness

consciousness recognizes itself and that which it is not

so can we conceive a totality - the totality?

yes - it seems

but how does this work?

I can conceive my table - totally?

it's an object outside of consciousness

the totality - is not like this -

yes it is outside of consciousness -

but consciousness is inside it

so the conception of the totality

is that conception that includes consciousness and what it is not

consciousness in conceiving itself - conceives itself as in the world

in the totality

so the notion of the totality comes with consciousness' awareness of itself

in fact it is crucial to it

for consciousness to conceive itself - it must conceive itself as within -

within what it is not

what it is not -

is not the totality

the totality is consciousness and what it is not -

the conception of the totality - is - what - a dualism?

it is a conjunction

c and -c

which in my terms is not a statement of what the world is made of

that is - it is not a statement of substance

rather a statement of dimension

we know the world as an inside (consciousness) and as an outside - non-consciousness

what we can speak of is the world's dimensions

but here we are speaking of the world

and what is the status of this?

it is something like a necessary conception

necessary to conception

a platform for conception

an architectural feature of it -

a feature without which consciousness - it could be argued is not possible

self-consciousness that is

still how to categorize it?

a - necessary conception - might be the best we can do

even so

clearly - what we are talking about here

is -

the machinery of consciousness

consciousness being aware of this machinery

as reality

or is it - rather that the idea of the totality refers beyond consciousness?

beyond consciousness and what it is not?
but it is not a referral to a third reality -

it is a description - a shorthand -

for the reality of consciousness and non-consciousness

this is what?

if we don't analyze it -

it is for us - just what is -

whatever that is -

it is strictly speaking - an open statement

the open statement

perception and truth

if perception is all we have to go on

how can it be other than - what we perceive - is true

there is no other approach

just different angles of perception

and different ways of interpreting what is perceived

OK

but are we to equate awareness with truth?

I am aware of x

where does truth come into the picture?

I suggest when I state x

assert x

make the claim - that x -

we are then dealing not with awareness or perception

but rather assertion

and then the matter is a question of the conditions under which the assertion is true

which is to say - under what conditions do I give my assent to the assertion?

so in short truth is always a claim

about what is

at a simple level of discourse we begin by determining if the claim has a basis in
perceptual awareness

this is not a bad place to start

meditation III

Descartes says -

'I am certain I am a thinking thing. But do I thereby know also what is required to render me thus certain of anything? In the first knowledge there is indeed nothing save the clear and distinct apprehension of what I am affirming: yet this would not suffice to render me certain of its truth, if it could ever happen that anything that I apprehend thus clearly and distinctly should yet prove false; and accordingly I would now seem able to adopt as a general rule that everything I apprehend in a genuinely clear and distinct manner is true'


this is a very poor argument

Descartes asks - what makes me certain of anything?

he then acknowledges his criterion of truth - clarity and distinctness of idea

but makes the point - that if it could happen that a clear and distinct
apprehension proved false - then clarity and distinctness 'would not suffice'

for a moment it seems as though he is distinguishing between clear
apprehension and truth - and is aware that a clear and distinct idea -
could well be false

and if so truth is another matter

he goes on to say -

'and accordingly I would now seem to be able to adopt as a general rule that
everything I apprehend in a genuinely clear and distinct manner is true'

he is saying if any clear and distinct idea turned out to be false -
then he would not regard clarity and distinctness as the criteria of truth

but as this has not happened (at least I think this is his point) then he
will continue to operate with this criteria

how could it ever happen if by definition a clear and distinct idea is true

this is a circular argument

he defines clarity and distinctness as truth

and truth as clarity and distinctness

why should we regard a clear and distinct idea as true?
(and not just as clear and distinct)

as Descartes has already acknowledged - we can have clear and distinct
hallucinations - and clear and distinct perceptions that are not true?

the fact is we have no theory of truth from Descartes

clarity and distinctness may well be desirable properties of thought

but - even if so - all we are talking about here are features of idea
construction and presentation

there is no necessary connection to the world

we could imagine a man with clear and distinct ideas - in a world that is without
clarity or distinctness

that is no correspondence

Descartes in saying 'if it could ever happen that anything I apprehended
thus...yet prove false' seems to be suggesting that there is at least the possibility that a clear and distinct idea is false

as a mater of experience - possible experience

but he goes on to suggest he has not had this experience

but the thing is - he would not be able to identify it if he did

as again - he has no criterion of truth

there is a second matter here

the assumption it seems that certainty and truth are one in the same

there is no argument from Descartes for this view

and at the very least it seems unreasonable

empirical science - of course does not operate with such a standard

such a standard would bring science to an end

actually I think it fair to say certainty has nothing to do with the growth of knowledge

certainty has nothing to do with knowledge

Descartes here is importing theological concepts - into the epistemological realm

anyway

from Descartes we have no definition of certainty - apart from - again -
the clear and distinct argument

which at best is an argument about psychological style

and it is a style that we can see would be attractive to mathematicians
and logicians perhaps craftsmen too

some artists maybe - but certainly not all

sensualists might well be repelled by the notion

be that as it may

truth hasn't come down the catwalk

imagination and intellect

for Descartes the possibility of an entity - a material entity - is not given in the senses

yet he wants to say it is not imagined

the possibility of an entity he regards as an intellectual apprehension

not a matter of image

granted a thing's possibility goes beyond its present - given reality

but is this anymore than to say

our imagination covers what is before us and what might be - could be - what is
possible

what is possible - is not what is - imagined - rather what can be imagined

do we need a further faculty of intellectual apprehension - why can't
imagination do the job?

could it not be argued that the presentation of different images at
different times - leads naturally to the notion of possibility

that imagination just is consciousness of possibility -
and that this in turn is based on awareness of reality?

and images are just this awareness?

meditation II

the mind conceives itself

therefore the mind exists

thinking is this awareness

awareness of awareness

and from this to self

self awareness

awareness defines recognizes awareness

this awareness is reflexive

it is self aware

but what do we have here?

awareness of awareness

what follows from this?

only awareness

and this is?

consciousness is what?

it defines itself as itself

again what follows?

awareness is what

- awareness

x is x

we can box it up and call it mind

this is just dressing

awareness is awareness

and self?

- awareness of awareness

is awareness of what?

nothing

in Descartes' argument the I is central - is the issue

and what is the I but awareness of awareness?

he defines himself as a thinking thing

an entity that thinks that knows that it thinks

is there not an argument to say that all he has established

is consciousness

awareness of awareness

and where is the individual identity in this?

the point being that the I that presupposes his argument - for mind -
as awareness of awareness - just is that - awareness of awareness

we can ask - do we have two concepts - an I and mind?

there is but one

and where is the I?

given that I is awareness of awareness

my point is that Descartes has established thinking - and thinking about thinking

but there is no particularity in this

he has not established his own existence

only thinking

awareness of awareness

consciousness

consciousness is awareness of awareness

surely it will be argued that this awareness must be had by something?

possessed

yes this is the given view

and I hold to it

but it doesn't seem to me that anything in Descartes' argument so far entails this view

perhaps consciousness exists as a universal form and particularity of mind is an
illusion?

Descartes' argument in the second meditation for the nature of mind
undercuts his argument for his own existence

meditation I

the argument of the first meditation

one can be totally deceived

that is all one believes could be false

this argument assumes knowledge to begin with

but curiously as an unknown

if I don't know (and I don't) what is true

then yes I may well be deceived

but how would I know this?

unless I was already sure about what the standard of truth is

if I don't know this

I can't know that I am deceived

deception presupposes knowledge

Descartes' argument in the first meditation

leaves knowledge - truth assumed - but not stated

questioning this assumption - that there is indeed knowledge

destroys the argument of universal deception

we are left with doubt - not certainty of deception

doubt regarding the grounds of our belief

we have no grounds for the argument of universal deception

for we have at this stage no standard of universal truth

and doubt here should be for Descartes - not knowing with certainty

perhaps certainty is doubtful

does this mean that we do not know?

if it is the case that there is no certainty -

how can we know we are deceived?

Descartes argument operates with an unknown standard of knowledge

and he asks could everything be false -

relative to this unknown?

the fact is we can't say

we don't know

we can't know

we have I suggest no grounds for doubt - in the first meditation

religious belief

religious belief is mythical representation of the unknown

given that the unknown

that which is beyond our conception and perception - is silent - and does not present

strictly speaking anything goes -

and for this reason it is the deep source of all creativity

it is where - it can be said we create out of nothing

the point is that the unknown - is objectivity - it is the only standard outside of
consciousness

so in a sense - any creation in it - or of it - is an objective creation

the unknown is objectivity

it does not discriminate - hence its universality

and so any picture fits - all pictures fit

the problem has been thinkers have not known where they are -

discrimination is a property of subjectivity -

and inter-subjective battles do not decide the nature of the unknown

in the unknown - all conceptions - all creations are equal

the world as substanceless

consciousness recognizes itself and the non-conscious

this is the basic fact

consciousness - recognizes itself - describes itself - characteristically
as what it is not - i.e. - non-material - non-physical

and it recognizes the outside world - as what it (consciousness) is not - as material as physical

these descriptions are hooks to hang your hat on

they are natural characterizations

they are not absolute

however description is necessary for practice

platforms need to be established or at least assumed

and then it goes on

the truth is though neither dimension has any characterization outside of what
consciousness creates

they are simply and primitively - dimensions of reality

substance and content come with description

pre-description these dimensions - are just dimensions - and as such
contentless and substanceless

thus I am putting that the world in itself - is without substance - without content

two dimensional unity

consciousness as the inside of a physical entity

will only understand the outside - know the outside - in terms of
categorizing - of understanding - of knowledge - that it generates

consciousness observes the outside - the surface

and consciousness observes through - the surface

how this occurs we cannot say - we have no awareness of the process -
we do not observe the connection - we do not see how this happens

the action is unitary

so we can regard knowing

as the act of this unity

that is - not just an inside operation - or an outside event

it is both - it is one

the human being is an entity - a two dimensional entity

its actions are expressed and echoed inside itself and outside itself

to understand a human action you must take into account its internal and
external dimensions

the human being sees itself as dimensional and knows itself as a unity

does the outside affect the inside - yes

does the inside affect the outside yes

the key to understanding this is the concept of impact

the world impacts on the mind

the mind impacts on the world

being in the physical world reverberates in consciousness

and consciousness - the inside affects the body - reverberates in the world

we are not talking about two substances here

rather two dimensions of the one

and the relation of the two is the action of the one - the unity -

impact from the outside will be felt inside

consciousness here is recognition of impact

impact on the outside - from the inside will affect the surface

here consciousness is the initiator of impact

consciousness and the world

consciousness I would say recognizes itself as contained and within

there is from the individual consciousness no sense of universal consciousness

consciousness is localized

and it is not out there beyond my window next to the palm tree or over
the fence in the paddock

it is not of the surface of the world - of things

it is inside

and not inside every surface entity or event

only some

it is though by definition within the natural world

the natural world has internal centres - consciousness-es

thus the inside of the world is not co-extensive with the outside

some features of the world have insides

have consciousness

so consciousness is contained

I would say self-contained

it postulates itself within itself

and hence recognizes itself

consciousness is thus subjectivity

and a subjectivity that postulates - holds itself within this subjectivity -
as objective - as object-like - that is discrete - defined - contained

the human being as an entity exists inside the world and on its surface

it is two dimensional

metaphysically - two dimensional

and from consciousness the sense of unity - of oneness - of one entity -
among others - and other objects

consciousness defines

this is what differentiation is

metaphysically

we begin from the centre

a centre

in terms of which everything else is categorized

the action of the categorization -

is not indiscriminate

the world is not made by mind

I think it fair enough to put that our categorization of the world -
corresponds - on its own level - to the world

that the surface as it appears to consciousness - is how it is - to consciousness

the point of consciousness is to facilitate definition of the world -

to recognize the world for what it is

we may imagine - another form of consciousness - a higher consciousness
if you like - recognizing - seeing the world differently

this is just to say that beyond our conception the world is unknown

consciousness brings possibility to the world

consciousness brings possibility to the unknown

the human being as an unknown

I have argued that the human being as such is not to be described as either
mental or physical -

that these predicates are analytical

which is to say human events - human actions - in a holistic sense are without
definition

the human being as such is an unknown

analysis - or breakdown begins with categorization

how to relate consciousness and the material world

the realist answer here is that consciousness is an internal dimension of the entity

that physicality is (relative to consciousness) the outside or surface dimension

what can we know of the relation between the two?

only this - that the entity is two dimensional

that the whole has an inside and outside

not all entities are two dimensional - on the face of it

most of nature is just surface

consciousness - internality - is exceptional

consciousness is the appearance of internality in the world

how does the internal effect the external?

how does mind effect matter?

(or visa versa)

my view is that this is the wrong question

that cause and effect analysis is a one dimensional issue

that is that such applies to relations on the surface

that it makes no sense to speak of such between dimensions

it is true that we can analyze our actions - or events as such

but this is analysis - explanation

and the point of this - is not the discovery of some hidden dynamic

rather a means of organizing our actions - and stratagems for action

the idea of this is thus finally to the service of pragmatics

in a final sense we have no explanation for human events

but in practice we act as if we do

what can we know here?

awareness is awareness of

I say the outside world -
(outside that is of consciousness)

and consciousness is aware of itself

therefore the inside world -

one point -

we are not aware of the relationship between consciousness and the external world

if I am right here it is worth some thought

we are - I am saying simply aware of - the objects of consciousness - internal
and external

the question of the relation emerges post event

in response to the reflective separating out and - or division of awareness
into dimensions and the question of their unity - how can different realities
(mind and matter) interact?

I say they are not different substances - so it is not a question of how does
one substance of a particular nature - relate to - connect to another - of a different nature

fair enough question - if the issue is substance

what we know is that mind is inside matter

a dimension of matter?

or matter is the outside of mind - a dimension of mind?

the whole - here the conscious human being - is not one dimension or the other -

the human being - the entity as a whole is unknown - non-classifiable -

except in the dimensions of its unity

the dimensions - or dimensional definition is not a substantial issue -
rather it is logical - formal

x has an inside and an outside -

we call the inside consciousness - the outside matter

so on this view - it does not make sense to speak of the inside of anything interacting with the outside

the entity as a unity - a singularity - acts

we begin here

any division into - mental and physical

is analytical - and hence theoretical - reflective - removed from the realm of action -

and why go there?

for good reasons - practical reasons

given some of the difficulties we face as human beings

so I am saying human action is ontologically singular

we are aware of what we do

we reflect on this

but this after the act

reflecting on the relation between the internal and external will tell us what?

that the internal is inside - the external is outside

won't tell us much

if we are looking for a causal connection - one way or the other -

what we are asking for is - what we are presuming is that -

the inside causes the outside - the outside causes the inside

the inside an effect -

the outside an effect -

a misapplication - use of the idea - the category of cause

put simply - cause and effect is a surface category

tempting yes to say everything has a cause

the point is you have to choose your cause

not everything is related to everything else in terms of cause and effect

the inside does not cause the outside - or visa versa - of anything -

the question of the senses

our senses give consciousness access to the outside (outside of consciousness) world

to the outside

what is this?

this relationship between consciousness and sense experience?

the inside and the outside

consciousness and the physical world?

this is the question

it is the question of knowledge

the outside is a dimension of the entity

the human being has internal and external dimensions

the totality - the person - if you like or just x -

just is these dimensions

can only be described in terms of these dimensions

the entity as such is best regarded as non-conscious and non-physical - as - an
unknown

still the question of the relation of the dimensions

the inside to the outside -

clearly aspects of a logical unity

and this unity - exists in both realms - is both dimensions

is knowledge - knowledge of the outside - the physical world - and knowledge
of the inside - say awareness of ideas

best seen as the point of unity -

that which is - a description of the unity - as unity?

clearly it has - an external / physical aspect

and at the same time - an internal - mental aspect

two aspects to knowledge - of the world - in the world -

it is not a question of interaction

or of one becoming the other

the analysis must be double aspect if it is to be complete?

awareness I argue is an internal property -

we don't observe awareness

(we are aware)

but awareness is partly awareness of the outside

awareness internalizes the outside?

transforms it?

what is the outside - outside of awareness

we can't say

OK - so knowledge is the internal dimension

yes

alright

what of the internalization -

what do we say here?

consciousness and the senses again?

what do we say here?

for clearly the senses

the physical -
the outside -

play a crucial role here

what is it?

what is the relationship?

I want here a non-causal account

for the causal makes no sense

yet it is basically the empiricist and indeed the rationalist approach -

for me it is a question of how to see this matter in terms of an inside / outside
paradigm

there is a third world view - i.e. - Popper

but this again is an interactionist view?

perhaps another tac entirely -

the question - why can't this matter be settled?

the question of mind and body -

this would be to say the matter cannot be resolved - why?

the relation between the inside (consciousness) and the outside (non-consciousness)?

could it just be - that to see - to know the relationship - there would have to
be a third view?

the view of what the relation is -

and we have no third view -

we have only what?

the view from the inside

yes

even so -

we know the senses are integral to the possibility of consciousness

i.e. - with no outside - no inside

that is we cannot in the argument just retreat to the inside - and say that's it -

the inside is knowledge - the outside the object - the point of - knowledge -

that which is known (primarily)

the entity is physical and mental

physical and mental are just dimensions of the entity

we really can't separate the two dimensions - once they are recognized

the entity as a whole ceases to exist -

a body without consciousness is no longer - a person

a mind with no body - is no person

the two dimensions just are the entity

the fact of consciousness - is the source of the knowledge of this

the question I am asking in one sense is -

how does that knowledge come about?

it is to ask for an analysis of the relation of inside to outside

could it be there is nothing to analyze?

that the relation just is the fact of - the nature of the entity

and as to how the inside relates to the outside - and visa versa

if the question - does actually make sense - we can't know the answer

we can only know the relation not how or why

what is the relation between the inside of a box and the outside?


p.s.


we think in terms of the senses as that means by which the physical / outside is
revealed -

but the outside is the revelation in consciousness

any explanation is consciousness' reflection on the revelation

the actual experience occurs - without explanation

it occurs as an unknown

the experience is an experience of unity

reflection divides

mind / body

the goal in all of this is to find some unified account

yes - it's all mind in the end - no - sorry it's matter

the real problem here is not one of substance - it rather one of perspective

people I think - often don't know where they are coming from - or where they are

from the inside an act will be regarded as intentional - mind directed - you might say

the same act from an observer's point of view will be a surface event

OK - this we know

consciousness sees out
consciousness see in

consciousness is thus at the centre

an internal perspective - an external perspective

it's how you look

now the question will be - OK - how then to characterize the act in itself?

putting aside perspective - is it a mental event - a physical event?

an internal act that expresses itself on the surface

a surface act that - you would think under normal circumstances has a mental
co-relate

the point I wish to make here is that the act in itself - cannot be characterized

cannot be characterized as mental

cannot be characterized as physical

there is no 'in itself ' perspective

such a position is really - strictly speaking without perspective

or you may wish to go the way of Spinoza -

and postulate a sub specie aeternitatis point of view

yes - very well

but that there is no such point of view

no such perspective

the fact is the act in itself is without character

the human being - as a unified entity -

a person as Strawson put it - is in the same boat

my argument is that mental and physical predicates only apply - perspectively

that is from an internal point of view -

from a surface point of view -

the holistic vision is not possible

I mean it is a great argument for God

but that's what it is

it is to attempt to - or to believe one can - step out and look back

it's really a trick of consciousness

an undisciplined and misapplied use of the reflective operation

that is consciousness

from the point of view of no perspective - i.e. the thing in itself -
an entity - any entity is unknown

this is an analytic argument really

but it is not trivial

we see the inside of things (ourselves)

the surface of things - ourselves and the world

we look both ways

we do not see - cannot see from the top as it were

that is there is no such knowledge that can hold the inside and the outside
of an entity in one perspective

if we have grounds for unity - for holism - for oneness -

they are not based on seeing

our seeing is two dimensional

but once this is seen for what it is it

we may quite easily say - assume

that from whatever point of view

we are looking

at the unknown

that which is the object of the gaze

the gaze in

the gaze out

is in the first instance - what we do not know

be it the inner world or the outer world

our descriptions are descriptions of dimension

and are thus - dimension dependent

this is to say to understand mind and body

one must begin where one is

at the centre

the issue has been mistakenly regarded as one of substance

it is first and foremost a question of ontology

and this is to say a question of the dimensions of the world

you will fail if you think you can find a dimension free description

of the human being

perhaps you are inclined to say there is an essence beyond dimension

OK - but this is to refer to what you cannot know

Einstein time and consciousness

Einstein held that in the absence of subjective experience time is tenseless

this is to say?

no time

for an eternal now is not tenseless

now is tenseful

tenselessness is quite simply absence

eternity is absence

time therefore as fullness

or at least busy-ness -

seriously -

perspectives - subjective experience

is not outside of the world

it is a feature of the world

a kind of event - at least

it is surely really an open question

whether the mind gives time to the world

or the world gives time to mind

- which is then reflected back

if you hold hard to your perspective

this is all you have

it really entrails nothing outside of itself

we must begin in the middle

consciousness - as the inside -

(I say of the world - and not meaning here to be mystical at all)

consciousness is the inside of the surface that is the outside of

consciousness

it is an inside / outside job

it is just logic

you don't need to worry about substance at all here

the kind of materialism of Alan Place and Jack Smart - is just - thin

it is surface materialism - surface metaphysics

it is only seeing the surface of things

I have great respect for Otto Neurath for saying

'everything is surface'

yes - everything that is seen - observed - empirical - is on the surface -
is the surface

the mind is not there -

consciousness is not on or of the surface

the brain is - as with any other physical form - on the surface -

it is therefore not consciousness

and I'm not really taken with the idea that it is a surface representation

expression as it were

no more that is than anything else

consciousness is simply the inside - of the outside

call the outside matter if you will - OK

call the inside mind

it matters not

the key point to get is that

the world is two dimensional

inside / outside

so yes - everything is surface if you wish to discount mind -

I don't

but I don't say it is observable or empirical

these are categories for the surface
it is the inside of things - at least certain things

it is not outside of nature

it is inside

the categories of description appropriate are the categories it creates
to describe itself - in short the language of art -

art is the language of the inside

of the inner life

we look out and we look in

therefore space

inner / outer space

this is what we know

it is the reality

there are primarily and finally two instances of our looking

therefore time

inner time

outer time

again

our reality

is what we know

morality as projection

the world as given
the world of facts

the outside

is one dimensional in the sense that it is present in space and time

what I should do

is to ask a projective question

it is to go beyond the given facts

to think beyond

the given facts cannot therefore provide an answer

they are the basis for the question

but it's the question

the asking

this is a feature of consciousness

(the tree does not ask - the stone is not concerned)

this pins morality as a concern of -

an act of consciousness

the thing is though -

the reason for morality is the world as given

the world of facts

(no facts - no such world - no question)

so any answer to the question - what should I do?

projects - a world of facts

projects a state of affairs

we can't say -

what is - the thing to do -

we say what is the right thing to do - the good thing to do

'right' and 'good'

are not magical terms - or terms with no meaning - they are not 'is' terms

- however they are not

and this is important - non-natural

they are projections

they are as natural as mind - as consciousness

and you will see this unless you want to regard mind as other worldly -

a ridiculous notion

the mind is in the natural world

therefore -

a fact of the world is the projection of consciousness

it - if you like - needs to project in order to function

projection is a purely natural function of consciousness

the language of morality is not language of the given

it is projective language