‘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. 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. The print copy of the book is here,
print.
I accept significant
scepticism, given the decades, centuries, even millennia during which our
existence, our consciousness, our spirituality has eluded definition and
clarification. What moves us has seemed beyond understanding. But when we
carefully clarify the nature of understanding, what is it exactly that we can
understand, then all is demystified.
The point is
crucial. Imagine some event, any event, it does not matter. What is going to
happen? If it is a well-known regular event, then likely you have a very good
idea, but that is all, you have an idea, you cannot be sure, and the actual
event when you get there may or may not match precisely your expectations. If
you have strong views on the event then it can happen that what you ‘see’ of
the event is what you ‘expected’ and you may miss aspects of the actual events
due prejudice. I have done that, I suspect most of us have.
We can describe your expectations of the event as your ‘personal
theory’ of the event. I do not think that is too far a stretch, and gives us some
common concrete ground with which to explore the relationship of ‘theory’ to
the actual events. Technically, we should call the event the empirical
circumstance to which the theory applies. Likely that makes very clear the sort
of analogy I am making between every day thinking and events, and science as
the relationship between theory and empirical circumstance to which the theory
applies. Hereafter I will drop the phrase ‘to which the theory applies’ unless
it really is not self-evident. I do not think anyone would confuse expectations
of going fishing and one’s daughter’s wedding.
Okay, we have some grounds for communication. Now, sit back
and ask: What can we actually know in advance, for sure, every time, of any
event? Actually, when you think hard
about it, not necessarily very much. In life, we go out to an event to be
surprised, to experience new, different...etc. But that is not the point of
science.
Assume that we are seeking thorough, consistent
understanding of the event. What is it exactly that we can know? Going fishing
for example, we know we will have a rod, line, reel, lures (I am a salt water
fly fisherman), on a boat, and perhaps know the area we will fish (but that can
depend on weather conditions on the day).
We can sort of sense that there is a ‘structure’ to the event, and that
structure is regular and consistent, and without that structure then it just
not the same event, it becomes a different event. For example, if we go deep
sea game fishing, using a game rod not a fly rod. Still fishing, but our
expectations are really very different, our personal theory applied to the
event is different. So we know that a type of event has a particular structure,
salt water fly fishing having a different structure from salt water deep sea
game fishing. The structure defines the type of event and directs the details
of the day. But even as we repeat the type of event with the exact same
structure the empirical circumstances that emerge on the day will be specific
and unique to that day.
I hope that
gives you a ‘feel’ of what I am talking about. I now offer the exact same argument,
but more formal, more conceptual, and more precise. 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’.
To continue
our analogy, the ‘structure’ of an everyday event is analogous to the ‘mechanisms’
in the box, the output are the empirical circumstances. We can use intellectual
tools, called Ashby tools (see
The Origin of Consciousness for the references) to build models of
those mechanisms. The models are called Ashby diagrams and we refer to those
models of the mechanisms as our scientific theory of the event being our
understanding of the mechanism that process 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, our theory of those mechanisms, and hence is our understanding of
physical necessity. I define our understanding of physical necessity as ‘cause’,
hence an Ashby diagram represents the cause of the empirical events (it is a
little more complicated, but I do not wish to go further into it in this essay,
refer to
The Origin of Consciousness).
Go back to the fishing trip...we ‘see’ how the structure of
the trip is the same, rods, reels boats, casting the fly etc...And we can sense
how if we change this structure, then the event changes, we can also sense how
this structure while consistent does not determine in advance exactly what is
going to happen on the day. We may get fish, we may not, the schools of Kahawai
and Trevally may be there they may not. We get a sense of the structure
relative to the actual things that occurred on the day. Using the formal
terminology, our everyday analogy offers insight into the relationship between theory
and empirical circumstance. We begin to sense how the structure can be applied
to explain and systematise the empirical circumstance, and that we can know the
structure in advance, but we cannot know the empirical circumstance in advance.
I hope I have made clear this fundamental background because
arising from it I now make three crucial assertions.
First, all mechanisms are regularities of the universe,
consistent and repeatable. All empirical circumstances are generated by the
mechanisms, the structure of the event and are unique to that specific example
of the event on that day, at that time and in that place (and observed by that
observer, although I will not explore the role of the observer in this essay).
Second, all we can ever know in advance of any event is the conceptualization
of the internal mechanisms, the Ashby diagram of the type of event. The Ashby
diagram is our theory of the event (see
The Origin of Consciousness for the references and details of how the
Ashby tools are to be applied). Our theory is a set of variables with links
between them that describe how the mechanisms within the event generate the
empirical circumstances.
Third, that theory in science bears the exact same
relationship to any set of empirical circumstance as our personal theories bear
to personal events in our lives.
Scientific theories are managed with attention to such
things as precision, accuracy, ability to predict outputs, and reproducibility.
If some group of scientists share a theory of some type of event then that
theory is said to be the current scientific paradigm for that type of event. An
accurate scientific theory enables better management of the events, for
example, how to use fertiliser such that there is improved grass growth
enabling more stock producing more milk.
Personal theories are managed with much less care and
attention. Should they be? The relationship between our personal theory and the
events in our lives is exactly the same as for the scientist and their use of
theory. The scientist may explore many
points of view to find the best fit between their Ashby diagram of the type of
event, their theory, and the empirical circumstances that emerge from that type
of event. When they find a good fit,
they then use it to improve management of that type of event.
Given that our psychological processes are an exact parallel,
do we need to do less? What would happen
if we took more time and care to reflect on the thinking we apply to some type
of event...if we explored more options of how to best think about the event,
would we be placed in a position to better manage the event and so have a more
rewarding output?
The scientist seeks to have their theory of an event, their
reality (what is in their mind), best match the type of event, the Reality
(what exists beyond their mind). They do this by seeking to understand the
underlying mechanism driving the empirical circumstances of the event, using Ashby
tools that capture those mechanism building Ashby diagrams that enable
prediction and management of the type of event. I refer to this process as one
of seeking
congruence between
reality and Reality (refer to
The
Origin of Consciousness, and
Into Me See: The beginning
for a discussion and definition of the terms reality and Reality). The search
for congruence is the search for truth in seeking the best match between what
we think and what is there and what happens. The search to improve congruence
between reality and Reality is the search for ‘greater truth’, and is called
verisimilitude.
As individuals, seeking perhaps balance, fulfilment, spiritual
peace, and effectiveness should we do less?
But I digress, and will not carry the argument further. I merely sum the
discussion by pointing out that the theory in the book is clear, the very
structure of our psyche makes the search for congruence intrinsic to our
existence it is not a choice, and the argument is then summed in the phrase ‘everyone
is a scientist’. We act on what we ‘see’ which is determined by what we use to
‘look’ exactly as the scientist. But the scientist places emphasis on managing
what they use to ‘look’. If we followed, if we reflected and shaped what we use
to ‘look’ with more care and precision, would we enable a more rewarding
result? For now, I leave you to reflect on the question.
The theory of us in
The
Origin of Consciousness has the following elements from which is forged all
mood and conduct. But before the summary, there are several very important
properties of the theory arising from the discussion above. First, the theory
is a conceptual Ashby diagram of the mechanisms within the system ‘person in
their environment’. It consists of variables with linkages between them such
that if a variable changes then the variables immediately linked to it change
in sequence following the links. The Ashby diagrams are then linked variables
that track the flow of change through a system (refer to
The
Origin of Consciousness for a discussion on the idea of the flow of
change).
Second, the causal theory applies to everyone, but the variables
have a range of values, so to assess how a particular person may act or feel
requires measuring the values of the variables as expressed in them in that
exact situation at that immediate time, place the values into the theory and
then calculate the result.
Theory is a set of linked variables describing how the
mechanism of the system process the input. An input into any situation has the
effect of changing the value of a variable, this change then cascading through
the set of linked variables to produce the output from the system. If an input has
no effect on the system then there is effectively no input, nothing happened,
nothing changed.
This general stuff describes how any theory must relate to
the details of any empirical circumstance and describes how any system of
linked variables must relate to the situation. It is the values of those
variables that describe the empirical circumstance, and this must be since the
manner in which we must think about it can only be a specific example of how we
must think about any event (‘must’ in the sense it is how we are constructed,
we have no choice about it). And this arises even forced on our understanding
by two fundamental propositions both of which we know in advance of any attempt
to build a theory of psychology. First, we cannot know the empirical details of
any situation in advance, we can only know the structure of the event, the
mechanisms. Second, we ‘see’ all events in mind, and what we see in mind is
different from the event beyond our mind, so we have reality and Reality. All
of this general stuff applies to a theory of a person in an actual situation,
we cannot know what a person will do, but we can know the theory. Getting to
know a person is effectively coming to know the values of the variables as
expressed in them. Personality is then the carrying of values of some variables
from one situation to the next giving consistency to their conduct and mood, ‘if
it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a duck’ then it is likely
...Joe or Helen or Abdul or Liu or...
The uniqueness of every event is a fundamental of this
intellectual position since every event occurred in a specific place in the
stream of events that is our life, therefore no event can ever be repeated. It
is possible to experience similar events, but that event that occurred five
seconds, five days, five years ago occurred then, and is unique because of
that.
The short overview below captures the key aspects of the
theory providing summary insight into the crucial features of us that are the
underlying causal structure of all mood and conduct.
1.
The brain.
a.
Our existence, ‘I’, does not lie in the brain
per se, but in the energy flows in the brain. When the energy flow stops, or is
significantly altered by neural malfunction, then we cease to be or may have our
life experience restricted, or our neural state altered to the extent ‘someone’
is there, but ‘I’ have ceased to be.
b.
For purposes of psychology, the brain is best understood
as an entropic device, which means the energy in the brain flows inherently to
the lowest available energy states.
c.
Habit results from the energy flows of the brain
following its internal entropic tendency. It follows that habit is not
psychological but neurological. The original formation of habit may have been
by choice of response, but allowing habit today is enabling historical choice,
and does not necessarily reflect current choice.
2.
The structure of our psyche.
a.
Our psyche exists in multiple structures, called
mental sets (refer to
The
Origin of Consciousness) consisting of one or
all of an idea, emotions, and habits, all interacting with the initiating
stimulus.
b.
Our spirit is an identifiable structure the core
of our psyche containing those ideas and emotions most integrated with our
self-concept and experience of self.
c.
Our psyche is the structure of mental sets both
active and inactive.
3.
Our mind and spirit.
a.
The combination of attention and our spirit
constitutes consciousness.
b.
The
combination of consciousness with our active knowledge, emotions and attitudes
constitutes our mind. Our mind is our
consciousness and those mental sets active at that moment.
c.
It follows that our mind is in a constant state
of flux. It is ‘I’, the central aspect
of our spirit that gives continuity to our existence in mind. ‘I’ experience my
mind as ‘me’.
d.
‘I’ have access via attention to all mental
sets. ‘I’ can initiate mental sets I know of. But, mental sets may also be
initiated by stimulating events independent of ‘I’.
e.
These arguments lead to the insight that
sometimes we need slow the flux of mind in order to allow aspects of our psyche
to come forth. This is reinforced by the understanding that the first stages of
perception are neurological not psychological, hence the brain can perceive
that which the mind has not noted and slowing the mind’s flux enables emergence
of that which we may not know we know (refer
The
Origin of Consciousness for a full discussion on perception).
f.
Our spirit is the seat of ‘I’ and is that part
of our psyche always active. The exception is perhaps in ‘flow’, the
state where we are so engrossed in an activity we lose ourselves in it.
There are two ways it could happen, either
our spirit ceases to be an active mental set, or our attention is diverted from
it, in either case we lose touch with our central existence, with ‘I’ (refer
The
Origin of Consciousness for a full discussion on flow).
4.
Choice and free will.
a.
The attention mechanism enables us to direct
energy flows in the brain to take paths that would not occur if the brain is
left to its own entropic tendencies.
b.
Choice lies in resisting habit and adopting
actions we choose. Exercising choice
requires energy.
c.
Free will resides in our mind, proprioception,
and our knowing, for example, how to lift our left arm seven inches. We do not
know how we lift our arm, we just know we can, but we are bounded in that we
cannot do that which we cannot do, or think we cannot do.
5.
Congruence, truth and verisimilitude.
a.
Survival is improved by applying the best ideas
to the circumstance. The emergence and use of ideas in physical survival
dominated early human development.
b.
The multiple structure of our psyche enables us
to ‘look at’ what we use to ‘look’ and so determines what we ‘see’ of some
event. That is we can think about how we think and make the crucial choice of
the ideas, and emotions associated with them, we allow to shape our mood and
conduct.
c.
Selecting the best ideas and applying them in
our greater fulfilment is the modern equivalent of selecting the best ideas and
applying them in our survival 100,000 years ago.
d.
The search for the best ideas to apply remains a
dominate force today, often referred to as politics, religion, values, morals
or ideology. Each of us is unique, each seeking to fulfil our own spirit, this
search the modern expression of evolution’s striving for survival. It is this unique personalised striving that
leads to the view that the world will become dominated by a single idea namely “I want what is best for me (and mine)”.
I suggest this idea is already evident in the world, what we need learn is the
tolerance essential amid such diversity and individual pluralism.
e.
The search for the best ideas is the search for congruence,
to match what we think, our reality, to the external circumstances we face,
called Reality. Congruence is striving for verisimilitude itself the striving
for truth.
6.
Evolution of consciousness and the inevitability
of our existence.
a.
Brains evolved in interaction with
differentiated perceptual fields to create the neural structure in human’s
enabling the creation and application of ideas used in survival.
b.
Differentiated perceptual fields are an integral
part of any environment, hence the evolutionary momentum toward creation and application
of ideas in survival is a natural aspect of any and all ecosystems (refer
The
Origin of Consciousness for a full discussion on
differentiated perceptual fields).
c.
The species that emerged with the greatest
capacity to create and apply ideas in survival would necessarily emerge as the
dominant species. That species is us.
d.
Consciousness is an inevitable result of the
evolutionary momentum toward the human type capacity to create and apply ideas
in survival. This argument is summed in the phrase ‘human type consciousness is
the pinnacle of evolution’.
e.
Once the capacity to create and apply ideas in
survival is consolidated, then evolution becomes cultural not physical, ideas
die instead of individuals of the species.
f.
Once the species masters the use of ideas in physical
survival and is clearly the dominant species, then the emergent concerns are
with the species spirituality and with management and consolidation of ideas
into knowledge (see the discussion in
The
Origin of Consciousness on the time line of this development
from 50,000 years ago to today).
These elements are the conceptualisation of the mechanisms
operative within us.
They are the theory
of what happens inside the box...in this instance the box is ‘us’, the system
‘person in their environment’. We can only ever know in advance the theory of
the mechanisms, in order to establish the empirical circumstance of this event
at this time on this day with this person then we need measure the values of
relevant variables place the values in the theory and calculate the result. The
details of the variables and their interrelationships are discussed in full in
The
Origin of Consciousness.
We are a spirit within a mind within a brain within a body.
Understanding this ‘nested’ structure is crucial. Each
element of ‘us’ is separate, but integrated with the other elements such that
if any one fails, the whole fails and/or the person has their experience of
life significantly reduced. The mind exists within the brain, but neural events
can and do occur that are not psychological, but because the brain is the
mechanism of mind the neural events will have psychological consequences. For
example, clear air white out is a neurological process with no psychological
component, but due the nesting of mind in brain, there are major psychological
effects which as a matter of principle cannot be understood or explained from a
psychological point of view. (Note, as an aside, for deeper understanding of
the links between events and mechanism, the non-continuous structure of
knowledge and the role of reductionism in science see the appropriate sections
in
The
Origin of Consciousness.)
The fundamental of all human existence is the tension
between habit as embedded in the entropic tendency of our brain, and freewill
which is exercised by using our mind and attention mechanism to apply energy to
direct neural energy flows into pathways of our choosing, redirecting them away
from pathways driven by entropy. These
arguments lead to the phrase ‘consciousness is the only known force in the
universe that can thwart entropy’.
Additional crucial issues are what is not included in this
theory of why we are as we are. First there is no Freudian type ‘unconscious’.
There is our mind the seat of our consciousness and free will, and the entropy
of the brain driving our habits. We may have emotional responses without
knowing where they come from, but these are readily accounted for within
psychic structures from forgotten events, or events that predate cognitive
capacity as in early childhood, such that under related circumstances feelings emerge
without associated ideas or associated memory of their formation. Second, there
is no religious soul, nothing that continues to exist after our death. Finally, there is no higher
consciousness...as in meditation. The argument will not be put here, but in
summary meditation is shown as a state of neural functioning unrelated to any
psychological state, and that which is often referred to as ‘higher
consciousness’ as in supposed ‘oneness’ of meditation is shown to be a marked
reduction in consciousness and derived from neural structures similar to those
that give rise to clear air white out.
The theory is more straightforward, less dramatic, and more
systematic than I suspect you are used to or expected. But it is precise and thorough.
It makes no assumptions other than those of the necessary method for
constructing social science theory, or all theory for that matter.
You may disagree, but the theory arises totally from the
methodology by application of the tools within the rules associated with those
tools. Hence to disagree is not to disagree with some aspect of the theory, but
to confront the methodology, challenging the very notion of applying reason to
understand ourselves, and challenging the use of Ashby tools and Ashby diagrams
and the intellectual rules implicated with them.
I would be pleased to receive any comment, always interested
to listen to or read well-reasoned argument,
grl@xtra.co.nz.
-§-
