Into Me See: The beginning

If you are not interested in exploring how we understand ourselves and others then these articles, and the book, The Origin of Consciousness, on which these articles are based, are of likely limited appeal.

I begin with the blurb on the book, and then consider what I aim to do with these articles and how they will relate to the book. Yes, it is plural. I intend regular comment, unashamedly seeking to draw you in, to entice you to really think about who we are, where we came from why we are here, and how can we conceivably understand ourselves.

I also intend to link to Twitter, and have selected the hashtag the title of this introduction, #IntoMeSee. I hope you will participate, and share the ideas and analyses of how we need think if we are indeed to accurately see into ourselves or into another.

‘Origin’ cover blurb

Have you ever wondered what happens inside you that results in how you feel, what you think and what you do?

Views abound on our mind, spirit, consciousness, and ideas like ‘higher’ consciousness. What is real and what not… and how can we know?

Is some idea real merely because someone says so and others believe them? Must understanding reduce to ‘I’m right you’re wrong’? Or is there a better way to decide which ideas we need embrace and which we put aside? How do we judge? More importantly, what method can we use to collectively judge what is right and what is wrong?

In the past 100 years, social science … such as Freud, Jung, Skinner and behaviorism, Marx and Adam Smith … has failed.

Is in fact a social SCIENCE possible?

Do we even want it, with the scary images of killing whales in the name of science, the specter of A-bombs, abuse of animals, the arrogance of the military in its use of technology, and many other things that can only be described as ‘soulless’?  Is science necessarily unethical and self-serving?

When we think in a reasoned and coherent manner, and when we apply that reason and objectivity to better understand the world around us, including ourselves, does one necessarily have to give up on all the gentle, spiritual and ethical things that make us deeply human?

Is the idea of ‘spiritual science’ in principle a contradiction in terms? It is certainly a contradiction in terms today, but does it have to be this way? Will ‘science’ and our humanity, our inherent spirituality always and necessarily be in conflict?

And what about our spirit? Do we have one…and does religion necessarily hold the top hand in the game when it comes to our spirituality?

Let’s assume we can build a ‘spiritual science’. When we apply the methodology to understanding ourselves, what does it say about ourselves, where we came from, why we do what we do, why we are here, how we evolved as we are, the nature of our spirit, the links between our body, brain, mind and spirit, the formation of ideas, the nature of knowledge, he role and power of feeling within us, intelligence, our personality, and consciousness?

The Origin of Consciousness answers all the questions and more. Be prepared to be surprised.

The start point

“Have you ever wondered what happens inside you that results in how you feel, what you think and what you do?” What does happen inside us that results the unique individual that is me? What do we have in common, and what defines our uniqueness?   

The starting question has intrigued us for millennia. Today, yes, still, today, it remains unanswered.  Don’t you find that surprising, interesting? Why does it remain unanswered? What is so hard about it...? The only full solution to the question I have found is that in my book... The Origin of Consciousness. ‘Oh yea’, I can hear it... and your scepticism is appropriate especially given the failure after failure of supposed solutions beginning likely several thousand years ago.

Role of reason

To carry the scepticism forward, what on earth makes me think I may have solved it?

It is a fair question, deserving of a full and balanced answer. I have addressed that question in The Origin of Consciousness. Before addressing it I need to make clear some foundation principles on which I have based my solution. Once I have summarised those principles, then I have a request.

I begin with some simple but quite significant ideas. First, when we look at something what we ‘see’ is actually in our mind, virtual reality drives the point home. The work was also done decades ago by two fellows Anderson and Pritchett (see the reference in ‘Origin’). They took fifty people and put them into a house asking them to look at the house with the view of buying it. They bought them out and sat them in a room. They then took another fifty people and put them into the same house asking them to look at it with a view of burgling it. They bought them out and sat them in a different room. They then asked each group to write down everything they could recall about the house. They produced lists that were so different one would not recognise that they were of the same house.

We see with our mind not with our eyes. What we see depends on what we think. I explore this is depth in the book.

We have now established there are two very distinct ‘things’ in the world, or at least two, what happens in our mind and the objects outside our mind. Again, I discuss these issues in depth in the book. Ontology is implicated at the very start of our attempt to find a solution to the opening question. Then in addition we immediately face a question what exactly is the relationship between what is in our mind, what I call our reality (little ‘r’) and that beyond our mind which I call Reality (big ‘R’). I will henceforth use the terminology reality and Reality to signify that in mind and that existing beyond mind.

The idea that we cannot prove the world beyond our senses has held appeal for hundreds of years, therefore how can there be two things, at very least it is argued we cannot be sure. These arguments have the effect of making all Reality, reality. I show in ‘Origin’ how this idea is in breach of a fundamental methodological issue, and I show that it is not possible in principle for any individual to establish the existence of the external world. I conclude that the only realistic and rational position to adopt is to assume that what one sees is there. That there is what I refer to as congruence between reality and Reality, so if one sees a bus coming best get out of way to avoid being run down.

We have not started thinking about a general theory of psychology and already we are in deep...this is a major reason the opening question has not been previously resolved, historical methodology was simply not good enough. The first several chapters of the book are devoted to this issue and to building a methodology that is strong enough.

What we see depends on the ideas we use to look. We are forced to acknowledge that as a fundamental of humanity. Therefore to find new theory of what happens inside us we are faced with the issue how we go about ‘looking’, what are the ideas and tools we need use, and how do we use them. This turned out to be a complex question but fully resolved in the book. Fundamentally the tools adopted are those of W Ross Ashby, supported by my analysis of the nature of a relationship, strategic science, and the nature and construction of variable.  It likely sounds more difficult than it is and this foundation is crucial for me to see into you, and for you to see into me. And given that it is still, today, unresolved except for my solution, then we should not be surprised if it takes a bit of thinking about. If a solution was really simple and clear, then it would have been done already.

Application of the method, I call Ashby tools, leads to concepts I define as Ashby diagrams. Think of Ashby diagrams as the fundamental structure of our mind in relation to the object we are examining. The Ashby tools are then the process of structuring our mind so we ‘see’ with greater insight and effectiveness. 

I refer to the process of applying the Ashby tools to build improved concepts enabling greater understanding as conceptual reasoning.  It is reasoned in sense it involves application of very specific intellectual method with clearly defined rules of application, to build conceptual models (the Ashby diagrams) with very clear and well defined properties and having a very precise relationship between the diagram in mind, our reality, and the object in Reality.

The nature of an Ashby diagram

To illustrate the relationship between reality and Reality, we can use a simple pendulum. T=k√l is the formula for the period (T) of a simple pendulum at sea level, with k a constant of 2π over the square root of the gravity constant, and ‘l’ the length. With a simple pendulum at sea level, then the formula is simplified to that stated.  

Now there are pendulums at sea level in Algiers, Dubai New York, Bristol, Bangkok, Beijing, and Rangiputa. We can ask ‘what is their period?’ In advance we cannot know, all we can ‘know’, in advance is the theory, the formula, to find out the empirical period of the pendulums we need go to each of those places, measure the length, and then calculate the period using the formula.

Ashby diagrams are exactly equivalent to the formula and all Ashby diagrams bear the exact same relationship to the actual empirical circumstances as the theory of the pendulum bears to the actual pendulums. This point is crucial, and I cannot stress it enough.

All we can ever know in advance of any actual empirical situation is the theory that links the variables to ‘see’, ‘understand’ and ‘manage’ our relationship with the situation. As a matter of tight and non-negotiable principle we can have no specific data on any empirical situation in advance of encountering that situation, and if we do think we know what is going to happen, we need be very, very careful that we do not ‘see’ that which we ‘expected’ or ‘thought’ would happen, and missed aspects of what actually happened.  

I go further and make it clear in the book that the relationship an Ashby diagram of a situation makes with any actual situation, called the empirical circumstance, is the exact relationship all science must make with the situation to which our theories apply. This means science is the process of building conceptual links between selected variables, building theories, and then using the understanding provided by such theories to better manage the empirical circumstances to which the theory applies.

All of this without actually beginning to think of psychology or the variables that may apply, or how to link those variables... etc. All of this is essential if we are to understand what we have when we create our general theory of psychology. The fact that this has not previously been done, that this depth of analysis of the method needed has never before been explored is a major reason why I think I have solved it.

Now, sit back and get gently reflective in mind. Question: Is a general theory of psychology knowledge? Well, of course it is. Next question: Do people create knowledge? Obviously they do. Third question: Should a general theory of psychology account for all outputs from humanity? Well, if it does not then it must be an incomplete theory and therefore cannot be a general theory of psychology.

It follows that any general theory of psychology must account for itself. I call this the reflexive condition that any theory of psychology must meet. All the above discussion was merely exploring this fundamental condition that any general theory of psychology must meet, namely to be apt then any theory of psychology must account fully for its own existence.

I hope you did not quite see that coming...and there are various other issues of method and construction that enforce other conditions and restrictions on any general theory of psychology. I know of no other analysis that has fully dealt with these issues. All of which again adds to the point of why I may have solved it.

My request

What we see depends substantially on the pre-existing ideas we hold through which we ‘look’. The history of failure with very inadequate theory has built a general view that it is not possible, with lots of reasons offered, the latest one I was told very recently was that reductionist causal Western science simply does not apply. Social science is different and must be understood holistically, etc. etc.  All of this begs so many questions: What is cause? What is science? What can we know of specific situation in advance? And so on...Jumping in with inadequate historical assumptions and insisting on them simply goes nowhere. We need sit back and have a close reflective look at what the issues are and then analyse how to do it better and drag ourselves out of the conundrums we have that undermine current social science. I did that, it took 20 years, The Origin of Consciousness is the result, suggesting further that I may just have solved it since I seem to have gone about it beginning at the beginning.

The first thing we need do is understand the questions, and then the order in which the questions must be answered. With the first general question being what intellectual tools do we need that can do the job...? And this question implies all the stuff above about Western science, cause, etc. All of this comes from my view of strategic science, namely first things first. No-one would try and build a house from the roof down it must be built from the ground up. First things first. I simply argue intellectual endeavour is exactly the same, and the first things must be done first... this is fully covered in ‘Origin’.

The book offers a unique, original intellectual position, built from the ground up. Build the method first, ensuring it is solid and strong enough, and covers all the issues of science, relationship between reality and Reality, reductionism and causality, etc. Then apply the method, being sure to stay tightly within its rules. Select variables, apply Ashby tools and build an Ashby diagram of how we ‘work’, the Ashby diagram of how we internally process an input to produce an output. Finally interpret the result.

My request is this, scepticism is legitimate, but please, hold it to one side, seek to read and understand with an open mind, and aim to understand the whole construction, not merely react to some point within it. I suspect it will be different from that which you have previously encountered.

I will work hard to make myself clear, throughout the book I have used examples and analogies that relate to an ‘average informed reader’. I request you work hard to manage your mind so that you can see what is offered clearly, then you decide if it is the breakthrough that has been sought for three millennia.

Cause, mechanisms and physical necessity

Below I offer a list of how and where this intellectual position produces a theory of the person that is quite different from anything that has gone before.  We cannot ever know something of some empirical circumstance in advance of it happening. What we can know in advance is the Ashby diagram, which is a system of linked variables, the theory about the circumstance. In The Origin of Consciousness I explore in depth what exactly an Ashby diagram in our mind, our reality, reflects and captures in Reality. In summary, the Ashby diagram is a conceptualisation of the causal mechanism which result in the outputs of the system.

It likely sounds terribly complicated but it is not. Imagine a system in a box, and imagine there is no aspect of the system outside the box. Now imagine input into that box. Because there is no aspect of the system outside the box we know that the output from the box can only result from the input acted upon by the mechanisms inside the box, it cannot be anything else. These mechanisms are the causal necessity of the system, they are always an aspect of the system no matter the input. The mechanisms are fixed, permanent, a regularity of the system.  It is this regularity of the universe that makes it possible to use ideas in survival, it also enables science, and leads to quips like ‘if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and walks like a duck then it is probably a duck’. The Ashby diagram is the conceptualisation of those mechanisms, so is our understanding of the mechanism that work on the input producing the output.

I do not want to go any deeper into this argument, so I will sum it by saying the mechanisms in the box are the physical necessity that processes any input, and the Ashby diagram is the conceptualisation of those mechanisms and is our understanding of the physical necessity. I define our understanding of physical necessity as ‘cause’. 

A general theory of the person must account for all human output

A major criteria that I learned as I studied this question was that any valid general theory of psychology had to account for every conceivable human output. If it does not then it cannot be viewed as a complete theory. At the end of this article is a list of topics explained for by the theory, it is a long, broad list, as it must be if it is to be a general theory. 

Much historical psychology has focused on mental illness. Now I do not suggest mental illness is not important, but it does not dominate the world today. I argue quantum physics and the technology arising from it are much more dominant (for example, atom bombs, cold war and the politics of destruction, computer technology and the web, and tech companies as the underpinning of much economic growth). 

Our modern world is dominated by knowledge, therefore it is essential that knowledge creation and management emerged as a major factor, and it does. But some of the things the theory must account for are surprising. All physics is knowledge, therefore any interpretation of any aspect of physics can only be a detail within the overall interpretation of how all knowledge relates to the objects of that knowledge. In short, if the theory cannot fully account for quantum physics then it is not a full general theory. And the power and influence of Wikipedia in our modern world, how and why? And another aspect of physics, universal constants like Plank’s constant, they are produced by us out of our conceptual processes...what are they? Are they part of Reality, or are they an aspect of reality dependent on how we have conceptualised Reality. And time, what is time...? Do we really understand it, and if we more fully understand how exactly we are linked to the world beyond our mind, what will that tell us of time? And if we gain sharper insight into time will that alter our perceptions of ourselves in the universe and the very construction of the universe?

And truth... It is a crucial aspect of human thought and endeavour... what is it, how can we understand it in relation to our reality and Reality?

Then of course there are all the more ‘normal’ psychological issues such as dreams, intelligence, mental health and mental illness, attention, consciousness, human growth, opinion, prejudice, habit, emotional reaction and I have included the human spirit, what is it and how can we understand and define that inner core of us?

The interpretation of the theory

The intellectual position produces an Ashby diagram of a person in their environment. It is the conceptualisation of the mechanisms within our psyche, including the exact relationship between our brain and our mind, such as to offer causal understanding of how the factors within us act on any input resulting in our mood and conduct. We are the box, the Ashby diagram is the diagram of the mechanisms within us providing insight into how we work.

Recall the theory of the pendulum, if we want to know the period of any actual pendulum we need measure the length and place it in our theory. Well, the Ashby diagram of the mechanisms within us bears the exact same relationship to any actual situation involving us, and there are many more variables and it is very much more complex, but it is exact and precise.

 About now you are likely wondering what on earth is the use of this then, it cannot tell me anything about a specific person in some specific circumstance. Well, I understand how it can seem like that, and twenty years ago when early in this research, I thought the same thing. But I was wrong. Be prepared to be very surprised, it has an enormous amount to say on humans not the least is defining very precisely the line between what we have in common and what makes each of us unique.

I summarise below some of strengths and interesting perspectives that emerge from the theory in The Origin of Consciousness.  

·         The first general theory of psychology grounded on a complete preliminary methodological analysis.

·         Meets the criteria of necessarily accounting for all outputs of the human species.  

·         Is fully reflexive able to account in detail for its own existence.

·         Provides a rigorous definition of science while simultaneously fitting fully within that definition.

·         Begins with an analysis of perception and how we necessarily perceive the world.

·         Integrated with evolutionary theory, fully describing the aspect of the environment, differentiated perceptual fields that gives rise to ideas and the application of ideas in survival.

·         Proposes that neural evolution occurs in relation to differentiated perceptual fields with the end result being the greatest ability to create ideas and apply them in survival. It is the interaction of neural functioning with differentiated perceptual fields that drives neural and hence mental evolution across all species.

·         Ideas used in survival enables improved survival potential. Ideas die instead of individuals of the species.

·         The species that evolved the greatest capacity to apply ideas in survival must become the dominant species in the ecosystem. That species is humanity.

·         Establishes that once life begun the application of ideas in survival was inevitable.

·         Provides complete conceptualisation of the human psyche able to account for all observed human outputs.

·         Provides complete conceptualisation of the human spirit as an integral aspect of the human psyche.

·         Shows the emergence of consciousness as an aspect of the use of ideas, and that once life begun, and ideas emerged as an evolutionary force, then consciousness as in humans was an inevitable consequence leading to the view that consciousness is the pinnacle of evolution.

·         Defines the exact seat of consciousness as in human knowledge, precisely the seat of consciousness being the human spirit as the core of the human psyche.  

·         Accounts fully for the development of consciousness within the individual and emergence of the ‘sense’ of self.

·         Specifies the exact nature of ‘higher’ consciousness linking it to spirituality.

·         Clearly shows there is no ‘unconscious’ as in Freudian type analysis.

·         Exactly defines the relationship between mind and body.

·         Defines human existence as a spirit within a psyche within a mind within a brain within a body. All equally important, since if any aspect fails then the person has their existence eroded/constrained to that extent.

·         Fully relates the theory of psychology to causality and to the second law of thermodynamics. Therefore defines the exact line between forces of physical necessity and freewill/choice within humans.

·         Defines the brain as entropic that is functioning via normal/regular mechanism necessarily understood by regular science and via second law of thermodynamics and not necessarily by quantum physics. 

·         Proposes that attention mechanism has the capacity to alter energy states of neurons in the brain and so enable flows of energy to occur that left to internal entropic forces would not have otherwise occurred.

·         Defines habit as the entropic functioning of the brain.

·         Defines the nature of freewill, and that the fundamental of the human condition is the tension between freewill and entropy.

·         In summary, proposes consciousness as the only force in the universe able to overcome/thwart entropy. Hence only conscious choice and applying energy can overcome habit.

·         Contains integrated definitions of knowledge, and causality.

·         Defines the exact difference between humanity and all other species as the line between second and third level conceptualisation. This is symbolised in the statement that only humans have university libraries that conceptualise the mechanisms of Reality.

·         Accounts for culture and the relationship of culture with the development of the individual. 

·         Defines a complete theory of intelligence that extends beyond current models and theories.

·         Defines learning and explores how the actual processes of learning may be fewer than the neural complexity implies.

·         Defines dreams and their interpretation.

·         Provides the only fundamental definition of mental health.

·         Defines all forms of mental illness and psychological dysfunction as different types of failure within the theory.

·         Provides clear guidelines for counselling people with failures of the theory within them, and hence experience psychological or neurological problems.

·         Reinterprets much of physics. Provides a new and complete interpretation of quantum theory. Provides a new and complete interpretation of universal constants that emerge in physics. Provides a full theory of time as the period between events stressing that time is an aspect of reality but does not exist in Reality.    

·         Provides a complete theory of truth, defined as the search for congruence between reality and
Reality.  

This is an exceptionally broad list, however as already pointed out if it does not have the reach across every human output and endeavour then it is not a general theory of the person and must be regarded as limited and suspect as a result.

More detailed discussion in the book, The Origin of Consciousness.

I would be pleased to discuss any aspect if you care to email grl@xtra.co.nz