‘Into Me
See’ series of essays
By Graham
Little
These
essays summarise and extend the conclusions from the intellectual position in
the book The Origin of Consciousness. Excluding this work,
there is no general theory of psychology, no general theory of knowledge
integrated with a general theory of psychology, no general theory of cause.
This means that all historical lines of thinking have failed. Our options are
to seek to revise what has been previously offered, or find a new start point.
Near forty years ago my research lead me to conclude that everything able to be
said had been said, every wrinkle possible had been explored. I judged further re-treading the historical
lines of thinking would prove fruitless.
We need a new start point if we are to fully
understand who we are, where we came from, what is religion, what moves us, is
there a God, do we have a spirit, what is science, what is truth, do ideas
exist, and the other ‘big’ questions. I began by building a new social science
methodology, applied it to the
system ‘person in their environment’ then interpreted the resulting theory.
I
do not have opinions on intellectual issues, what is offered is not ‘opinion’
but conclusions. I believe that truth and verisimilitude are not found in opinion
or belief, but in methodology and argument. Where I do apply a judgement
unsupported by method or argument, making it an ‘opinion’ or a ‘belief’, I aim
to make that clear.
After
reading these essays I hope you will then read the book The Origin of Consciousness to fully understand
yourself and others, why you are here, why you are as you are, and how to find
spiritual fulfilment. Titles of
the essays are listed in the menu to the right. For the print version of the
book, click Origin.
I recall as a lad
in Runanga, my home town, I came home late afternoon with a nasty cut on my
knee from a fall off my bike. I raced home after the crash over the bank forgetting
about the apples in the saddle bag. We had stolen them off the tree in Jackson’s
orchard. Old man Jackson came out and yelled at us, we took off like frightened
rabbits and in the rush I crashed. I saw the old man look after me concerned,
but turned away smiling when I jumped up and took off. I got lots of sympathy
at home, until Dad unpacked the saddle bag to put the bike away. My hesitant
story even sounded false to me. Dad stood one arm on hip, cynical but amused expression,
one eyebrow cocked. The explanation did not match the circumstance, he did not
believe a word I said.
Explanations are
only any good if the explanans fits the explanandum. That is if the explanation
fits with the circumstance it is to explain.
Definition of EXPLANANDUM and EXPLANANS, Merriam-Webster Dictionary on
line.
Explanandum: a word or an expression whose meaning is to
be explained —used chiefly in philosophy —contrasted with explanans, which is
the meaning of a word or expression.
|
In Origin we have a theory of psychology. It is the explanans. What is the
explanandum? What exactly must it explain?
In a later essay I will explore the question of why should we believe the theory in Origin. How do we know when our theories are true, bearing in mind, as discussed in the essay The structure of truth, we can never know absolute truth, referred to as Truth, and can only ever have theory truer than the one we had yesterday. How do we judge the current best fit to Reality, the verisimilar reality? And yes, it is pronounced ‘very similar’, and means the ‘most similar’, the closest, best estimate we have. I leave for later why the theory in Origin is the verisimilar theory and why it is an advance on everything currently available, including modern neurophysiology. It is a major advance, if not a revolution compared to historical theories. For now, I wish to explore what it is that a verisimilar theory of psychology must explain.
Previously the term ‘mechanisms’ was defined as the processes within any system that acts on any input into the system to produce the output. In the first essay I used the analogy of a fishing trip with rod, reel, and location to illustrate the idea of mechanisms separate from the experience on the day which is the output of those mechanisms. We tend not to experience the mechanisms, merely the results of the mechanisms. Mechanisms processing input to produce the output. It follows that a general theory of psychology being a description of the ‘mechanisms’ within humanity must offer explanation of all outputs of humanity. Nothing is exempt.
The system ‘person
in their environment’ is analysed as a closed feedback system. So how does the
idea of mechanisms processing input, work? The mechanisms are not processing
input from ‘outside’ the system. What we
have is a dynamic feedback system. For example, the ‘environment’ is constantly
changing, our thoughts are constantly changing, and this is occurring without
any ‘outside’ influence. So when the environment changes, the mechanisms guide how
that change flows through the system. Change in the environment flows into the
person and then feeds back into the environment, which further changes, and
again flows into the person, and the cycle continues. The system ‘person in
their environment’ does not need any ‘external’ input to trigger it. Inputs can
come from outside. For example, a stray bullet from a shooting incident just
happened to ricochet from a concrete wall and passed through the brain of a
bystander. End of mechanisms within the
system...
The theory in Origin is a conceptualisation of the solution to questions like: If the
environment changes from A to B, how will the person respond? And once the
response is made, how will that impact the environment, and how will that change
impact the person... etc.?
In examining what
the theory must explain let’s start with the obvious. First the theory must account
for every aspect of what today is viewed as the psychology of the person. For
example: Personality, consciousness, intelligence, sleep, psyche, spirit,
mental health, mental illness, thought, ideas, emotions, attitude, habit,
attention, etc. Explaining all this is the easy bit.
If the theory is to
have teeth, as they say, it must be causal. What is the point of a theory if we
have to say ‘well sometimes it works and sometimes not’. Now we begin to
encounter problems, on the surface we think we know causality or ‘the cause’. Cause
is the idea that something makes something else happen, that once began it is
not stopped. Cause and necessity are head and tail of the same coin.
Whatever it is we
know of cause is knowledge by definition. But our knowledge of cause is not
cause? All we know of cause is in reality, and as already discussed we cannot
assume what is in reality is in fact an aspect of Reality. Recall as well, that
probability explanations do not let us off the casual hook. We cannot assume
that a mathematical explanation, no matter how accurate the answer it provides,
offers any congruence with the mechanisms of Reality, and all we can ever know
in advance are the mechanisms whereby the empirical circumstances we experience
come to be. We have knowledge of cause
in reality and mechanisms in Reality. The mechanism in Reality are the
necessity within any system, cause is the conceptualization of those mechanisms
and hence is our knowledge of necessity.
All knowledge is
created by people. All science is knowledge. All so called scientific laws are
knowledge. Scientific laws is an historical term applied in the mistaken idea
that somehow it was a true and proper aspect of Reality, where in fact it is an
aspect of reality. A general theory of psychology as a matter of principle must
include how knowledge is created. Now knowledge consists of ideas, I think it
very difficult to sustain an argument that ideas are not part of knowledge. All
of this means that any general theory of psychology must account for how ideas
are created, and hence it must describe exactly the structure of the
relationship between an idea and the object of that idea. If what we know of
cause is knowledge, then what we know of cause is created by people. Is it
possible to understand knowledge without having any idea of what it is or how
it is created? What exactly are the
relationships here?
It gets worse.
The logic is as
follows:
·
All
science is knowledge, part of which is what we know of cause.
·
Knowledge
is the foundation of our reality, and therefore must bear a relationship with
Reality from which it is derived. We cannot assume reality is congruent with
Reality, virtual reality and clear air white out prove that point.
·
It
follows that knowledge will bear a relationship to Reality, and the relationship
science makes to Reality can only be a detailed example of the relationship all
knowledge makes to Reality. Therefore to
fully understand scientific knowledge we need a general theory of how all
knowledge relates to Reality, science is then a detail within that.
·
We have
established there is reality derived from Reality. The example of people seeing
different aspects of the house depending on they use to buy or burgle as
filters to ‘look’ establishes we often do not ‘see’ all Reality. Therefore it is
appropriate to use the term ‘abstracted’. Any reality is an abstract of Reality.
Any reality is an aspect of Reality.
·
If we
understood how exactly we ‘abstract’ our reality from Reality, this would shed
light on the structure of the relationship between them. At very least we have
the proposition that understanding of how we abstract our knowledge of Reality
could influence our understanding of science. Therefore, it follows that in the
absence of any in-depth understanding of how we abstract our knowledge, we need
be cautious on our speculations on the nature and structure of science which
could be changed by the emergence of a general theory of knowledge.
·
But
knowledge is created by people, hence any general theory of knowledge must be
from within a general theory of psychology.
The conclusion
follows: The interpretation of all science is potentially influenced by the
development of a general theory of psychology.
Conversely, in the
absence of a general theory of psychology we cannot be conclusive about any of
our knowledge. It follows that all statements of science need be prefaced with
the qualification "...in the absence of a general
theory of psychology, knowledge or cause the solution to which could influence
this conclusion, we speculate that..." The term speculate is not too strong a term,
it stresses that we need hold our conclusions as tentative until underlying
intellectual issues are finally resolved. I personally summarise this position
in the mantra: Knowledge lies in the answer, wisdom in the next question.
We now have cause,
knowledge and a general theory of psychology all interrelated in what I call a
‘problem situation’. All unknown, all
awaiting solutions, and those solutions have the potential to impact all other
knowledge. A further conclusion is that a general theory of psychology must
account for itself, since it itself is knowledge. I refer to this as the reflexive criteria any
general theory of psychology must meet.
I quote below the
summary of the circularity from the book, Origin in the section ‘Issues of
method’.
“I summarise the
circularity below. Begin at any point you are inevitably guided back to your
start point.
1. We need a general theory of psychology.
2. But for it to be causal we need to understand
cause.
3. We need a general theory of cause to enable a
general theory of psychology.
4. But what we know of cause is knowledge.
5. We need a general theory of knowledge to
guide us identify a general theory of cause.
6. But knowledge is created by people.
Therefore we need a
general theory of psychology. And the
circle closes.
To deny this
circularity is to deny for example that there is no link between a general
theory of knowledge and a general theory of psychology. To deny this
circularity is to deny first things need to be done first.
To resolve the circularity
demanded an iterative method not a linear method. The iterative method is to
create a solution then apply it around the circle until a theory was created
that resolved all three issues of psychology, knowledge and cause,
simultaneously.”
Western science has
significantly followed Rene Descartes method established in the mid-seventeenth
century. This was what I refer to as the ‘divide and rule’ process that is
complex issues are broken into smaller parts and each solved one at a time. I
use it, it works. Well, most of the time.
The divide and rule
process does not work in the circularity above because the issues are
interactive, which means all issues must be solved at the same time. The only
method is iterative that is create a solution and then apply it to provide
theories of psychology, cause and knowledge all at once, if it does not, then
back to the drawing board.
None of the above
means any particular bit of science would be changed by the development of a
general theory of psychology. That is not
the point. The point is that in the
absence of a general theory of psychology that necessarily contained a general
theory of knowledge, which in turn necessarily contained a general theory of
cause, we cannot be sure of the status of any our knowledge.
Imagine proposing
to your boss that the price should go up on your main product. The boss says we
need research to see what competitors are doing. You strongly argue that is not
needed, which is accepted, and the price is increased. Then it comes out the competitors
put their price down and suddenly you lose major market share.
We can think of the
actions of the competitor as the underlying theory. The thought experiment
gives a sense of how what we think today is influenced by underlying theories.
So our scientific views today are related to various underlying theories, and
where we do not know those theories, then we best tread with caution.
Now our theories
are also evolving, but that is not what is alluded to above. Even our best effort today can be improved
upon tomorrow. Even when we take to account all underlying factors. It is now clear
that important underlying theoretical developments could profoundly influence
many important issues. To promote points of view without acknowledging this is
equivalent to continuing to promote the price increase knowing the competitors
are reducing their price and the result will be devastating loss of market
share.
In discussing any
theory on any intellectual issue we need bring to account underlying factors
that if resolved could influence the theory. I refer to this as ensuring first
things are done first. The rule states that discussion on any topic must be
bounded by what is known of the factors underlying the topic (I call the
‘factors underlying the topic’ the ground of the topic). When theories are
created by resolving first things first, then theory is said to be ethically constructed, and hence have intellectual
integrity. All theory in Origin is ethically constructed.
What is the point
of all this?
Take something
which has been generally accepted, for example 'universal constants' in
physics, such as Planks constant. In Origin I show how these can arise as a function of how we conceptualise
the system and are not necessarily aspects
of Reality at all. They may merely represent the communication links
between the variables we are using to describe the systems under study, and as
such reflect the underlying mechanisms whereby the variables interact. For
example, in Plank’s equation E=hν,
Planks constant quantifies the mechanism between energy (E) and frequency (ν).
Another example is
time. When explored from within a general theory of psychology time emerges as
the period between events. It is only present in reality and is not present in Reality. This analysis destroys
the idea of space-time, and since we use space-time to account for gravity, for
example, what then gravity?
In Origin I discuss my deep disquiet with these propositions. For
centuries, physical science has sort-of over shadowed social science. The
fundamental position in Origin has it the reverse. Social science is directing that
physics has got many key things wrong.
Can this be? It took me a decade to get used to this idea. To come to
terms with the fundamental, that if we create a general theory of psychology
that accurately conceptualises the mechanisms with the system ‘person in their
environment’ then nothing can be exempt. That system must process every input
and account for every output of humanity: NOTHING
EXEMPT. The consequences as regards our understanding of the universe
are profound.
In summary, in the
absence of a general theory of psychology, which must include theories of
knowledge and cause, all science is speculation about the nature of the
universe and we do not know if any aspect is truly part of Reality, or is only
present in reality.
Where does all this
leave us?
In order to
understand science we need understand how exactly we interact with and relate
to our environment. In the absence of in-depth understanding we need be very
cautious of our assumptions and need deliberately hold them tentative, subject
to resolution of some very fundamental issues such as general theory of
psychology, knowledge and cause. This has not historically been the case,
physics and time have been discussed and interpreted independent of any
understanding of human psychology.
A general theory of
psychology must account for all outputs by humanity, all that which is exhibited
by humanity. There can be no exceptions. Further, we need have some sense of
priority on what we must explain. In the list of priority factors I include
knowledge, truth, culture, social development and politics and all aspects of
psychology. I have not ranked the
factors needing explained, but note I have placed psychology as we understand
it today at the bottom of the list. Humans were applying knowledge in survival,
searching for truth, building cultures, shaping societies through politics long
before there was any notion of psychology as we think of it today. No theory of psychology is worthy of
consideration if it does not account for all on the list in broad order of
priority of the list. That rules out all historical theories.
There is no general
theory of psychology, or cause or knowledge. If we think of all historical
theory and lines of thinking, and assume the aim of those lines of thinking was
to build theories of psychology, cause and knowledge, then again we can
sensibly conclude all historical lines of thinking failed. We have two choices, we re-tread the historical
lines of thinking in the hope we can find a chink not previously exploited and
so succeed where all before failed. Or we can start again.
In the early
eighties, after near a decade of research looking for the chink, I decided all
that could be said in historical lines of thinking had been said. All
historical lines of thinking were dead ends, seams that had been worked out. I
needed to start again.
Thirty years on I
offer the theory in Origin. It is the only theory to date that meets the rigorous
standards I set for both creation and explanation. It alters our understanding
of ourselves and of the universe in which we exist. This in itself a measure of
why it needs to be considered carefully and with due intent to understand,
since the breadth of explanation is an important criteria in judging the verisimilitude
of the theory.
No comments:
Post a Comment