Tuesday, May 03, 2011

STREAM : Delta Theory : Chapter 5 : The Development of Thought



Dear listener, I know. I know very well what you feel. Confusion. The ideas we described in the previous chapters, were anything but trivial. Arguably, if you did not already possess some background in contemporary science, it is not surprising if you failed to understand any of them, regardless of your wits and patience. Still, I honestly believe, that with enough effort, you can understand this text. However, even if you did understand it, you may still feel resentment to it. To explain, because the notions we proposed, are not traditional, potentially, a scientific background could have made it even harder to understand them. Once being convinced in the validity of conventional scientific convictions, understandably, one would feel reluctant to embrace a different persuasion. Still, it is important to understand, it is a persuasion. To explain, indeed, the notion we discussed, deal with contemporary empirical scientific issues. However, the course of our discussion was not empirical. Regardless of the empirical findings with which we attempted to validate the notions we proposed, the conclusions we reached, were not the product of empirical research. We merely used empirical findings, to navigate our way from the metaphysical foundation, from which we began our journey. To explain, without the metaphysical foundation we proposed in the first chapter, none of the conclusions we reached later, are imperative. For example, if we consider the contingent dimensions we introduced in the previous chapter, they are an explicit product of our metaphysical foundation. The only reason we introduced them, was because of our prior beliefs, that our world is consistent. Therefore, do not feel uncomfortable if you do not agree with the notions we proposed previously. Nothing demands your agreement, even if you understood them in full.
Still, ask yourself, do you really reject them? To explain, the only axioms, on which we based our discussion, were that either our consciousness, or our illusion of having a consciousness, exists, and that our world is consistent. Do you really wish to refute any of these? Indeed, as we explained in the introduction chapter, you can choose to refute your existence. Still, can you honestly reject your self-awareness? If you do not, then do you really reject our world is consistent? Do you really understand what that means? As we previously mentioned, rejecting consistency, is unlike rejecting a religion, or the validity of a notion that came to our attention. It is unlike claiming a theory is wrong. It is unlike believing in god. It is unlike believing we can travel at a velocity faster than the speed of light, or that we can travel through time. No. Rejecting consistency, is identical to claiming the things in which you believe, are wrong. To explain, rejecting consistency, is the same as embracing inconsistency, and inconsistency implies that everything we believe to be correct, must be at the same time, incorrect. Honestly, this idea does ring a bell. It reminds us of the dilemmas we face throughout our lives. However, our emotional affinity with such concepts, should not confuse us. Our discussion is metaphysical. We discuss the essence of everything that surrounds us, be it emotional, or materialistic. To clarify, while we can meditate over ideas, which arguably, do not make sense, claiming inconsistency exists in our world metaphysically, demands it exists regardless if we think about it or not. Moreover, it demands it exists everywhere within our world. If our world is inconsistent, the matter we sense, should never behave consistently. Objects falling on the ground, should never fall on the ground. The elements we see, must always disappear. I do not know about you, but personally, I fail to see this happening.
Indeed, you could claim, the manner by which we compiled the description of our world, is wrong. We will discuss this possibility later. You might not like the terminology we used, because many times, we used words, which already represent concepts, different from the ones we described. For example, the terms “dimensions”, “space”, and "photons", are already in use, within many circles. Still, these are just names. Within the context of this text, you should decode them, merely by the manner by which we defined them. Nevertheless, to some extent, you would be correct to doubt our current conclusions. To explain, again, one of our basic axioms is that either our consciousness, or our illusion of having a consciousness, exists. However, currently, we have no clue what that means. Indeed, we suggested that our consciousness is the product of contingent dimensions. Still, this hypothesis can hardly suffice. As we explained in chapter one, consistent metaphysical theories possess a unique quality, which determines they cannot introduce any element they cannot explain. However, claiming our consciousness is the product of contingent dimensions, is not an explanation for the emergence of our consciousness. It does not explain how and why these dimensions came to be, and to produce our consciousness. Moreover, such a broad suggestion, fails to satisfy the completeness criterion, which we promised to satisfy, even before we began our journey. Therefore, in this chapter, we will fulfill our obligation, by providing an explanation for the manner the evolution of life, resulted with the emergence of our consciousness.
Therefore, let us continue from where we left off. At the end of the previous chapter, we mentioned a cellular communion behavioral pattern, which potentially, can result with evolutionary advantages. By assigning different roles to different cells, a cellular community, can achieve feats as a whole, it cannot achieve otherwise. Actually, this behavioral pattern is not exclusive to cellular communities. The same principle also applies to the internals of each cell. If we observe the internal structure of living cells, we can find different organs within them, each consisting of several particles, and each performing a different biological task. In fact, some of these microscopic cellular organs, surround themselves with membranes. Moreover, considering multicellular life forms (such as ourselves), we can argue that the skin surrounding multicellular life forms, is yet another occurrence of the same principle. Our skin separates us into different animals, each of which can perform radically different tasks. Not all animals utilize this biological feature. For example, invertebrates, fish, and reptiles, usually do not sustain such role distributions, while arguably, cognitively, these animals are far superior to living cells. Therefore, on its own, there is no direct link between distributing roles between different individual life forms of a species, and any type of cognitive capabilities. For example, while ants and bees maintain a strict role distribution, they do not possess the same type of cognitive capabilities as some reptiles, and fish. In contrast, mammals sustain role distributions, and usually, are more intelligent than reptiles, or fish. The roles mammals take within their communities, always depend on their age, gender, and bloodline. Moreover, arguably, humans exceed this trait further than any other animal in the animal kingdom.
Still, there is a difference between the cellular communities of which animals consist, and other type of biological communities. Essentially, animals are the largest type of earthly biological communities, for which the death of the unifying entity the community embodies, implies the death of each of its members. Unlike animals, which can shift between communities, after the death of the unifying entity, of which the animal consists as a whole, its biological components cannot reestablish their biological integrity. Therefore, the principle guiding this repeated biological pattern is not mandatory, and therefore, cannot be an imperative regularity, which our world sustains uniformly. It is a pattern, meaning an idea. The fact we can spot similarities to this idea, reflecting in several different natural formations, does not imply a metaphysical link between these occurrences. Instead, this repeated pattern represents a common difficulty all life forms face. Actually, in the previous chapter, we already discussed this difficulty. As we explained, complexitons did not come to exist, according to a premeditated design. The kinetic equilibriums life forms sustain, emerged by accident, as particles found themselves “stuck” in endless kinetic cycles. Nothing designed these kinetic cycles, or alternatively, kinetic equilibriums, to adhere to any inclination of the kinetic patterns they formalized. These kinetic equilibriums never “wanted” to exist, and similarly, they do not adhere to the inclinations of the complexitons they yield. In other words, life forms do not persist to exist because they “wish it”, but rather because their design, motivates them to perform the tasks necessary for them to persist to exist as a species. While life forms think they obey their own selfish motivations, in actuality, it is their own selfish motivations, which ensure they will prosper through future generations. For example, even though ultimately, all earthly life forms die, the contingent dimensional automatons governing them, motivate them to attempt to prolong their lives. Still, ultimately, these automatons utilize reproduction to ensure their persistence, and not the persistence of the life forms themselves. From birth, they predetermine all earthly life forms will eventually die, and by determining this, prevent the persistence of contingent dimensional mutations, which life forms accumulate throughout their life cycle. In addition, they make it hard for aging life forms to reproduce, making it even harder for mutations to flourish. Obviously, earthly life forms did not evolve in this manner, out of some sinister intent. The reason earthly life forms evolved in this manner, is simply because evolutionary, this type of biological behavior is more robust.
In short, the kinetic equilibriums earthly life forms sustain, is somewhat contradictive. However, it is not that different from the functionality of manmade materialistic machines. For example, the pistons within the engine of a car, exhibit a similar behavior. To explain, the engine of a car causes small explosions to occur within its pistons, which it exploits to rotate the wheels of the car, as well as mobilize the engine, to prepare it for the next explosions, within the same pistons. This type of kinetic exploitation contradicts the physical process it exploits. Usually, explosions cause elements to repel from one another, while engines utilize the rotational movements of their cogs, to cause the elements these explosions repelled previously, to move back to the locations from which they repelled. Naturally, this type of contradicting exploitation, is useful, as it allows us to travel across great distances, at a much higher speed than we could by foot. However, if we isolate their “explosive functionality”, then obviously, engines are lousy at being bombs. However, arguably, cars are more useful than bombs.
The same applies to complexitons. While complexitons are great at sustaining the persistence of the species to which they belong, they are miserable at sustaining their own longevity. This is understandable. From the perspective of the contingent dimensional automaton a complexiton obeys, as long as it ensures its reproduction, the specific complexiton it yields, is as disposable as the older nano-organs it emits. However, as a side effect, this implies, that even when life forms attain self-sustainability, or alternatively, a robust optimal kinetic equilibrium, their longevity is not optimal. To explain, the contingent dimensional automatons life forms obey, do not bother to fight their contingent dimensional decadence. Instead, they cause the life forms they govern to reproduce. Still, such robust kinetic equilibriums depend on the "will to live", of the life form sustaining them, and therefore, they encourage life forms to attempt to prolong their lives, even if essentially, such efforts are pointless. Beyond a certain level of longevity, the automaton the life form obeys, will become so decadent, it would breach the kinetic equilibrium it sustained previously, and die, regardless of any attempt of the life form, to resist its inclination to self-destruct. In short, contrary to popular notions, life forms are hardly “perfectly designed”, and because of this, life forms can evolve to better their self-sustainability. Moreover, because different life forms compete over the same resources and breeding grounds, inevitably, there is always some manner by which they can evolve, and become even more dominant as a species.
Each life form type, realizes this principle, in a different way. Individual living cells, realize it through better self-organization, within the boundaries of cells. While arguably, the same contingent dimensional automaton governs all the particles, or alternatively, nano-organs, of a single living cell, it proved to be an evolutionary advantage, if different particles, would perform different functions within the cell. Animal communities, realize this principle, through self-organization of roles, within the animal community. While all the animals in an animal community, share the same biological attributes, and possibly, sustain the same contingent dimensional automaton, taking different roles increased their self-sustainability. For example, by protecting their young, animals ensure their offspring would grow to become self-sustaining, and eventually, breed. Still, unlike the internals of a living cell, the role distributions within animal communities, and more specifically, mammal communities, emerge out of the individual animals that compose them, and not as an instruction of the automatons that govern each mammal biologically. Mammals fight between themselves, until eventually, they all agree who will lead them, and what roles each mammal will serve within their community. In many ways, humans adhere to this pattern as well. In contrast, animals such as insects, or more specifically, ants, realize role distributions in a different manner. The role distributions between ants, is imprinted into their physical appearance, and therefore, it hints this role distribution is imprinted into the contingent dimensional automaton they obey. Ants distribute roles, in the same manner, as the nano-organs of a living cell, distribute roles. Still, even ants, show a more complex type of role distribution, between the cells of which they consist. Some of their cells ensure their mobility, some enable their sensory, and some sustain their metabolism.
Animals evolved to allow these role distributions, because of the lack of biological optimization of their initial ancestors. As we explained, when complexitons first emerged, it was by chance. Obviously, as the first complexiton initiated its kinetic equilibrium, it was self-sustaining. If not, it would have never persisted to exist through future generations. However, being the first complexiton to emerge, naturally, it had no other complexiton on which to depend. It had to perform all the necessary tasks to persist to exist, by itself. However, we should remember, it persisted to exist, and evolve to the earthly life forms we find today. Therefore, we should expect, that even though it emerged by chance, its persistence was not coincidental. It persisted to exist because its persistent existence was robust, and the reason it was robust, was because it emerged as such. In fact, other complexitons might have emerged before it, and became extinct, simply because their persistence required too many conditions and resources, which were not available. The only reason the primal complexiton persisted to exist, was because it utilized less resources than it harnessed. In other words, with a more careful design, this primal complexiton could have sustained more than merely itself. It could have shared some of its resources with its siblings. However, because it was the first of its kind, then obviously, these siblings did not yet exist. Therefore, while the potential evolutionary advantage of role distributions, was already there, this primal complexiton did not realize it. Nevertheless, again, the potential was already there, and indeed, this potential was realized later, through the progression of evolution.
This potential is the common ingredient, causing all life forms to distribute roles, be it nano-organs, cells, fully-fledged animals, and even animal communities. It is not a product of dimensions, but rather of the lack of planning, by which life forms first emerge. To evolve from single life forms into communities, life forms must have first become communities out of necessity, or alternatively, because of the immediate evolutionary advantages it yielded, and only later realize the full potential of this self-organization. However, whenever such a process occurs, something must govern it, and “tell” each individual member of the community, what role it should take. Indeed, the automaton a life form obeys, can be this organizing agent. However, as cellular life forms transformed into cellular communities, they attained an additional feature. They began to respond to external conditions of the community as a whole. To explain, the membranes surrounding a living cell, imposes a limit to the physical elements to which it responds. A living cell performs its internal functionality, and can react to physical events occurring along its membrane. However, to be a community, a cellular community must be able to respond to the collective external conditions of all its members. If it did not, it would be no different from a disintegrated cellular colony. Moreover, in order to yield evolutionary superiority, a cellular community, should distribute roles between its members, according to these collective external conditions.
Initially, such role distributions could have occurred without any additional agents governing them. For example, whenever a cell was located at the outskirts of a cellular community, it absorbed more photons, or alternatively, sunlight, than the cells located in the center of the community. Therefore, the contingent dimensional automaton governing this cell, could have evolved to utilize the existence of such a physical state, by transforming such a cell, into a skin cell. Moreover, such an automaton could have utilized motion vibrations, which propagated throughout the cellular community, to establish some sort of physical kinetic responses, such as moving the community away from its current location. However, such types of community responses, meaning, responses that occur throughout the community, without any element specifically assigned to “do the thinking” on behalf of the entire community, are limited. For example, supposing a community found itself at a location, where there was food, both to its left, and to its right. Where would it go? To the left, or to the right? Or would it do nothing, and die of hunger? Naturally, it could choose to move in both directions at the same time. However, by doing so, it might split in two, and lose its integrity.
Such problems were common, and naturally, along the path of evolution, many cellular communities, lost their integrity because of them. From big and robust communities, they transformed into smaller ones, repeatedly, until either they completely disintegrated, or they were overrun by more intelligent communities, communities that differentiated between the role of performing tasks, and the role of deciding which tasks to take. Still, to achieve this, each member of these communities, must have sustained two different functionalities. While each cell persisted to sustain the functions required for its own existence, each cell performed an additional specialized role, meaning, the role the community assigned to it. For example, if we consider the cells in our stomach, they persist to exist through reproduction. Still, they sustain an additional specialized functionality, meaning, the composition and decomposition of incoming materials, into useful nutrients, which cells utilize throughout the cellular community.
The same applies to the cells governing the community, or what we conventionally refer to as brain cells, or alternatively, neurons. Neurons sustain their own existence, while at the same time, perform the tasks necessary, to enable the cognitive capabilities of the animal to which they belong. Still, we are not there yet. We should first understand how this role came to be.
Generally, multicellular life forms, find it harder to evolve, than single cellular life forms. Indeed, as we explained at the end of the previous chapter, the membrane surrounding each cell, protects the integrity of the kinetic equilibrium each living cell sustains, and therefore, reduces the risks mutating their behaviors would breach their kinetic equilibriums. However, evolving as a community, demands more than merely a single cell, experimenting with different behavioral variations. To evolve as a community, each cell within the community, must sustain similar behaviors. Therefore, these new behaviors, must yield some sort of evolutionary advantage, to each member of the cellular community separately. To clarify, if a cellular mutation fails to yield any evolutionary advantage, there would be no reason it should flourish. Still, yielding an evolutionary advantage, merely to the mutated cell, is not enough. To explain, supposing a cell within a cellular community, mutated to devour all its siblings. Naturally, before this mutation emerged, the cells within this community, were not hostile towards each other. Had they been hostile towards each other, their entire cellular community would have disintegrated. Therefore, the cells within this cellular community, would not resist the hostile actions of their mutated sibling. At first, this mutation would flourish. This mutated cell would devour its siblings, while reproducing new cannibal offspring. However, once the supply of non-mutated cells would deplete, the offspring of this mutated cell, would have no one to devour but each other. Therefore, inevitably, the cellular community would disintegrate, in an aimless internal strife.
Still, these hardships do not change the necessity for evolution. In a world filled with life forms, all fighting for dominance over the same resources and breeding grounds, there is no room for life forms, which are “too lazy” to evolve. Moreover, obviously, in such a disposition, any multicellular life form, which could solve this difficulty, would flourish. And indeed, earthly life found a solution for this problem, through the process of fertilization between cellular communities. Fertilization is not merely the manner by which earthly life forms reproduce. In fact, arguably, fertilization is not necessary for the reproduction of life. The cells, of which our bodies consist, reproduce throughout our lives, replacing older cells, with newer ones. However, the manner by which these cells reproduce, has nothing to do with fertilization. Indeed, this cellular reproduction, does not increase the amount of cellular communities, or alternatively, animals, while theoretically, reproduction through fertilization increases it. Still, usually, within balanced ecosystems, the amount of animals remains relatively constant, regardless of the amount of offspring animals give birth to. Intuitively, we could think, that reproduction through fertilization, is necessary to prevent the contingent dimensional decadence of the automaton life forms obey. However, as we just explained, multicellular life forms already achieve this, by reproducing and replacing the cells, of which they consist. Still, the biological pattern of reproduction through fertilization, would not have become this successful, if it did not yield an evolutionary advantage.
Still, why did it become so successful? Well, by allowing different automatons to merge, and produce a mutual offspring, life forms ensure a safe and effective manner, by which they can evolve. Unlike the mutated cells we previously discussed, reproduction through fertilization requires more than merely one mutated cell. It requires the interaction of several fully functional cellular communities. Therefore, through fertilization, life forms can evolve, while avoiding self-destructive behavioral patterns. Moreover, life forms utilize other means, to ensure the automaton their mutated offspring obey, will not be self-destructive. First, many life forms require some time to reach sexual biological maturity. Obviously, life forms do not “know” if the automaton they sustain is defected or not. It is their natural environment which determines their evolutionary successfulness. Therefore, by waiting for sexual maturity, life forms manage to establish some basic level of confidence, that an offspring obeys a life-sustaining automaton, regardless of its level of mutation. Secondly, considering life forms such as mammals, the animal itself can choose with whom to mate. If a life form is awfully disfigured, a life form can decide to avoid assimilating these disfigurements, into its future offspring. Humans take this issue to higher levels of subjective selection, but essentially, this selection involves similar motivations. Moreover, according to empirical findings, the automaton life forms obey, demotivates sibling animals from fertilizing each other. Had the biological function of reproduction through fertilization, was to reproduce, there would be no reason for such biological tendencies to flourish. To explain, as we suggested in the previous chapter, the prime goal of reproduction is to avoid the contingent dimensional decadence of the automaton a life form obeys, and therefore, intuitively, we could think, that fertilization between siblings would ensure this goal is met. However, again, it does not. In many ways, the automaton a life form obeys “teaches” the animal, not to fertilize its siblings, by yielding defected offspring, and by doing so, “teaches” the animal it should find an animal to mate with, which obeys a contingent dimensional automaton, different from the one it obeys. Moreover, it causes the animal to die of old age, explicitly predetermining that unless the animal will reproduce through fertilization, its species will not persist to exist. In short, while indeed, reproduction through fertilization is a reproduction biological process, arguably, its prime function is to enable the evolution of cellular communities, and not reproduction.
Biologically, reproduction through fertilization, relies on cellular role distributions. Some cells serve for fertilization, some serve as a “womb” for the unborn offspring, while most other cells protect them, by creating a cellular buffer, between the “womb” and the outside world. Of all the cells, only the “womb” cells accept contingent dimensional mutations. The rest tend to ignore such contingent dimensional suggestions. Still, reproduction through fertilization does not require any type of intelligible agent, persistently controlling the behavior of each cell in the cellular community. For example, plants implement it, without possessing any type of cognitive capabilities whatsoever. Still, obviously, the development of such an agent implicitly demands cellular role distributions, and therefore, we should expect, life forms developed their cognitive capabilities, only after “learning” the principle of reproduction through fertilization. The development of such a controlling agent, demands the prior existence of cellular role distributions, in a manner that differentiates between the controlling agent, and the cells it controls. It is improbable cellular communities managed to evolve in this manner, without first attaining the ability to evolve as communities. Still, such role distributions could not have emerged out of thin air. There must have been an additional reason, which motivated multicellular life forms to develop the infrastructure, these controlling agents utilized later, to control the behavior of these cellular communities. In other words, the infrastructure with which animals control their behaviors, or alternatively, the nervous system, must have sustained an additional functionality. This functionality yielded an evolutionary advantage, even before the emergence of any type of cellular community control, and cognitive capabilities.
Naturally, there is no way we can determine what this role was, conclusively. Humans depend on their intelligence and resourcefulness to survive, and therefore, it is hard for us to imagine a nervous system, that does not facilitate any sort of "controlling mechanism". In fact, it is possible, that through the course of evolution, the nervous system replaced its biological function altogether. Still, by analyzing our previous conclusions, with respect to our contemporary knowledge in biology, arguably, we can solve this evolutionary puzzle.
First, we should consider the product of this evolutionary process, meaning, neurons. It is a well-known fact, that neurons relay electrical charges. By sending electric impulses to our muscles, neurons cause muscles to contract. In fact, contemporary medicine has utilized this attribute of neurons, to control different types of prostheses and mechanical augmentations. Still, the manner by which contemporary medicine utilizes neurons, is mostly as controllers of mechanical apparatuses, and not as input devices. Despite our somewhat science-fictional fascination with the technological potential of mechanical senses, contemporary sciences have failed to produce such hi-tech augmentations. Indeed, electric charges can cause us to feel pain, and can easily be fatal. However, as our knowledge in biology clearly shows, by transmitting small electrical charges through our nervous system, our body provides us with the ability, to sense the world in which we exist. Neurons connect the organs responsible for sensory, such as the eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and skin, with the brain. Metaphorically, neurons are similar to the wiring inside a computer, connecting the various computer chips, with input and output devices, to form an interactive calculating agent.
According to contemporary neuroscience, this is all there is to it. While contemporary neuroscience does not claim to understand the exact algorithms neurons obey, as they select what electrical charges they fire to what destinations, the working assumption in neuroscience is that the elements neurons transmit, are simple electric charges. Because we have managed to transmit information, using electric charge manipulations, contemporary neuroscience assumes the same occurs within the bodies of living animals.
Obviously, the fact that using electric currents, we can make our muscles flex, is irrefutable. Still, the widespread assumptions, regarding the elements that travel through neurons, do not fit our previous conclusions. Again, as we argued in the previous chapter, information is not an existing element in the physical world. There is a fundamental difference between the sensations of pain we feel from our body, and the cold nature of information. Generally, the sensory inputs our senses transmit into our brain, are fundamentally different, from the meaning we extrapolate from data. There is a fundamental difference between saying “My head hurts”, and feeling our head pounding with pain, after accidentally hitting a doorframe with our heads. While we can lie and pretend we do not feel sensations of pain, lying and pretending we do not feel them, does not take these pains away. The same applies to visual and audio input. There is a fundamental difference between understanding what we see and hear, and the actual experience of sight and sound. Sensory comes first, way before we recognize a sight or sound, if we understand it at all. However, the data computers transmit through their wirings, does not possess these attributes. While we can view the data computers manipulate as meaningful states, in actuality, this data is merely a static state of the components of the computer. It is our understanding, which generalizes this data, and decides it means what it means. We can always install an adapter onto a computer, which will interpret its states in a different manner. For example, by reading the memory of a computer in an opposite order than we usually would, understandable data can easily become unintelligible noise.
Arguably, with extensive neural surgery, we can rewire our nervous system in similar manners. Still, considering our conclusions from the previous chapter, perhaps we can find a better explanation for the happenings occurring in our nervous system. To clarify, we should revisit our notions regarding electromagnetism, and contingent dimensional transmissions. According to our assumptions, transmission of electrical charges, or alternatively, electrons, between particles, does more than merely change the electrical charges of particles. By relaying electrons, particles can share the nano-world they span. In fact, according to our assumptions, there is no other option. To explain, because all particles must sustain physical randomness, they all must complete the sub world the imminent dimensions span, by spanning their own contingent dimensions, which in turn, determine the manner our world persists, within the small region of space around them. Therefore, according to our metaphysical model, regardless of any other use our neural system serves, it should also relay contingent dimensional transmissions. Moreover, considering our previous assumptions, that contingent dimensions govern the manner by which cellular life forms behave, utilizing this network, a cellular community can share stateful contingent dimensional information, between its members, and react accordingly.
Obviously, sharing such contingent dimensional states embodies an evolutionary advantage. If cells could share contingent dimensional states, they could synchronize behaviors, according to both the internal and external states of the cellular community. For example, if a cell is in need for nutrients, theoretically, it can transmit its contingent dimensional state to other cells in its cellular community, which potentially, both possess the nutrients it lacks, and are “willing” to share them. Moreover, by relaying external contingent dimensional states from the outskirts of the cellular community, into its center, cells could inform all the cells throughout the community, in which direction they should move (in the direction of nutrients, for example), and from which direction they should move away (for example, from the direction of inhospitable conditions). Still, as we already mentioned, without a central controlling agent, this type of unregulated contingent dimensional transmissions, could have just as well disintegrated such cellular communities. Moreover, such a straightforward interpretation of external states transmissions, places the “thinking parts” of the cellular community at its outskirts, and not at its center, contrary to the biological design of our nervous system.
Still, these drawbacks are not enough, to explain the evolutionary advantage of the design we see today. Again, we should remember, the design we see today, in which all neurons responsible for sensory, direct their electric charges into the center of the animal, should have yielded an evolutionary advantage, even before it served as means to control the cellular community. Obviously, the best way to ensure all the cells within the community “know” the state outside the community, is by transmitting all the information into its center. However, if we consider our own biology, it does not appear, as if neighboring cells share any type of information. At best, cells, which serve as our immune system, destroy nearby cells, whenever they identify a disease infected them. Apart from such hostile actions, whatever is the information cells transmit, it must first reach our brain, and only then yield any type of response. We could think this serves as means by which cells share energy between them. However, according to empirical studies, this does not occur. Cellular communities utilize nutrients to share energy, rather than neurological electric charges. Moreover, it does not appear as if the neurons transmitting these electric charges, along with the contingent dimensional states they carry, respond to them. Indeed, neurons cause our muscles to flex, by sending electrical currents onto muscle cells. Still, again, we can simulate this effect, with electric currents coming from any source. Such electric currents originate from outside our body, and therefore, obviously, they do not send any contingent dimensional information, relevant to our body. In short, regardless if sharing contingent dimensional information between cells is beneficial or not, our body does not seem to have evolved to support this feature.
To summarize, there should be a different, more plausible manner, by which the nervous system emerged. Still, what could that manner be? What evolutionary advantage can our nervous system yield, other than establishing a network, by which the members of cellular communities could share information?
Well, to understand this, we should ask a different question. Instead of asking what benefit can such contingent dimensional transmissions provide for an entire cellular community, we should ask, why should a single cell bother to emit electric charges in the first place? To explain, to sustain their metabolism, or alternatively, to maintain their kinetic equilibriums, all cells continuously replace the particles of which they consist. During this process, cells absorb and emit particles, from and into the bloodstream. Therefore, theoretically, cells could have utilized the bloodstream to transmit any contingent dimensional information they wish. Indeed, our bloodstream consists of two different stream systems, one injecting nutrients to cells, and one evicting disposable materials from cells. Still, theoretically, such systems could have sufficed for contingent dimensional transmissions as well. Therefore, transmitting electric currents out of cells, not through the bloodstream, must have yielded an evolutionary advantage. Still, we should understand, transmitting electric currents, requires energy. It demands each cell consumes more nutrients, than it would otherwise. Therefore, on its own, transmitting such electric charges imposes an evolutionary drawback, rather than an advantage. Therefore, there must be an additional motivation behind this evolutionary process.
To understand this motivation, we should reexamine the contingent dimensional content, which these electrical currents transmit. This content originates from the cells that transmit it. Obviously, this information can be useful within a neural system, which utilizes this information intelligibly. However, without such an “intelligent agent”, essentially, this information is useless to the neural system that carries it. Moreover, obviously, the cells from which this information originated, have no use of it, as they were the elements to evict it in the first place. In short, when these electric discharges first emerged, they probably did not serve any use for the cells that discharged them, or to the cellular community that inevitably must have absorbed them. Therefore, essentially, the only biological function these electric discharges yielded, was to evict something away from cells, rather than transmit something to any other element within the cellular community. Still, again, there is no evolutionary benefit in wasting energy without purpose. Using the same energy, the community could have grown in size. Nevertheless, there is another form of eviction, which these electric discharges provided. They provided cells with the means, by which cells could evict some of their contingent dimensional content. In other words, arguably, these electric discharges, served as the manner by which cells could dispose of contingent dimensions.
To explain, naturally, throughout the life cycle of living cells, the contingent dimensional automaton living cells sustain, are hardly the only contingent dimensions living cells encounter. As living cells replace the particles of which they consist, or alternatively, their nano-organs, they encounter many contingent dimensions, which do not adhere to the contingent dimensional automaton they obey. Moreover, naturally, photons collide with living cells as well, and as we suggested, they might carry contingent dimensions along their trajectory. Because these contingent dimensions have little to do with the automaton life forms obey, they impose a constant disturbance to the kinetic equilibriums living cells sustain. Therefore, naturally, disposing of these contingent dimensions, would yield an evolutionary advantage, as it would ensure cells could maintain more robust kinetic equilibriums. Still, if complexitons were to dispose of each particle spanning inconvenient contingent dimensions, arguably, they could not reproduce. To explain, inevitably, all particles span contingent dimensions. Moreover, potentially, the variety of these contingent dimensions, is infinite, and therefore, essentially, no particle is a “perfect match” for the nano-world living cells span. Therefore, complexitons must have revised a way, to separate the contingent dimensions they do not utilize, from the particles they assimilate.
Still, contingent dimensions are existing physical elements. To remove them, complexitons must physically detach them from their nano-organs. However, again, complexitons cannot afford to remove them, along with the particles from which they originate. If they removed them along with these particles, essentially, they would have no particles, with which they could replace their older nano-organs, and maintain their kinetic equilibriums. Therefore, complexitons required a method, by which they could keep and assimilate inbound particles, with which they replace their older nano-organs, while at the same time, expelling unwanted contingent dimensions.
Apparently, they found such a method, through the use of electromagnetism. As we explained in the previous chapter, electromagnetism allows particles to emit “lumps” of three dimensional flows of causality, or alternatively, electrons, from which they span their nano-worlds. However, this does not imply, that they must span their entire nano-worlds, from each electron. Arguably, particles can segment specific unwanted contingent dimensions, into the area of the dimension of life, of which these “lumps” consist, and therefore, by emitting these “lumps”, or alternatively, these electrons, out of the particle, they could dispose of these contingent dimensions, while retaining the prime portions of the particles they assimilate. Still, these electrons carry “unwanted” contingent dimensions. The contingent dimensions they carry, impose a risk to each of the nano-organs of a complexiton, as all of them sustain the same contingent dimensional automaton. Therefore, to ensure the robustness of their kinetic equilibriums, complexitons “eject” these electrons, through electric discharges. Still, because essentially, all the cells within a cellular colony obey similar contingent dimensional automatons, they would all find the contingent dimensions these electrons carry, equally harmful. Therefore, cellular communities evolved to form “sewage channels”, by which their cellular members could dispose of these contingent dimensions, without the risk of absorbing the contingent dimensional “garbage” of other cells.
Apparently, this was the initial role of neurons. Neurons are cells, which specialize in relaying electrons, without absorbing the contingent dimensions they carry. While it is unclear how neurons manage to perform such a task, arguably, their function came hand in hand with the emergence of reproduction through fertilization. To explain, for reproduction through fertilization to emerge, cells must have found a method, by which they could “decide”, which cells absorb contingent dimensions, and which do not. Only a specific small group of cells, within the cellular community, absorb them, and only when specific, highly selective conditions are met, meaning, through specific sexual organs and actions. Usually, the rest of the cells do not absorb them, and apparently, of all the cells, neurons excel in this capability. Moreover, arguably, a similar process affected the manner, by which cells received their nutrients and raw materials. Cells no longer absorbed nutrients and raw materials, directly from the environment outside the cellular community. Instead, the members of cellular communities, absorb their nutrients from the bloodstream, while cellular communities assign specialized cells, to extract nutrients from the raw materials in their external environments, meaning, the cell of which the lungs, stomach, and other internal organs consist. These specialized cells, neither fetch, nor insert these nutrients and raw materials, into the cellular community. The cellular community assigns the cells compiling its mouth and limbs, to sustain this functionality. Still, again, the cells compiling the mouth and limbs of a cellular community, do not assimilate or chemically prepare, the nutrients and raw materials they fetch. Indeed, through taste, the cells compiling the tongue of a cellular community, can evaluate the materials the mouth conveys into the internal organs of the cellular community. Still, arguably, they do not absorb contingent dimensions. To explain, according to empirical research, chemistry determines taste. However, as we explained in chapter three, the imminent dimensions determine chemical attributes, and not contingent dimensions. Therefore, arguably, the sense of taste does not include assimilation of contingent dimensions.
To conclude, apparently, this explanation, for the formation of the neural system, is consistent with other similar facts we know about living organisms. Therefore, we will endorse this explanation, until a better explanation will become available. Our neural system, emerged as a drainage system, by which living cells could dispose of potentially harmful contingent dimensions. When neurons first emerged, they had no inclination to yield any type of intelligence, or control the cellular community to which they belonged. In addition, arguably, the structure of our neural system, did not emerge with any specific design. The automaton all the members of a cellular community obey, merely determined, that each non-neural cell, would have access to a nearby neuron, with which it could dispose of its harmful contingent dimensions. If this hypothesis is correct, it might also suggest, that the formation of the neural systems we see today, is simply the result of accumulations of neurons, along the physical shape of the cellular community.
Still, again, regardless of its primal biological function, these primal neural networks, possessed the potential for greater evolutionary advantages, which later generations realized. While indeed, the contingent dimensional content, of the electrons neurons carry, is harmful, it can be useful. Theoretically, these contingent dimensions, include the collection of the individual “sores”, of each of the cells within the cellular community, as well as contingent dimensions, which cells could have absorbed from the environment outside the community. Potentially, by evaluating these contingent dimensions, the cellular community can both know “what is wrong with it”, and what is happening “outside of it”. Therefore, clearly, evolving in a manner, by which these cellular communities could respond intelligibly to these contingent dimensions, would yield an evolutionary advantage. The cellular community could “help” its cells, whenever they are in danger, as well as navigate itself better, within its external environment. The cellular community could both ensure its existence is more robust, as well as manipulate its external environment, in manners it found beneficial. However, again, evolution does not occur in this order. Life forms do not evolve, because they "wish it", or because they find it beneficial. Instead, life forms evolve by default, and persist to exist, according to their biological successfulness.
Nevertheless, surprisingly, the transformation of these primal neural networks, into a controlling agent, did not require additional evolutionary steps. To explain, neurons do not absorb the contingent dimensions they carry, and therefore, naturally, they cannot absorb the electrons that carry these contingent dimensions. Therefore, to prevent the accumulation of electric charges, within each neuron, neurons must discharge them. Still, because all the cells, within a cellular community, continuously emit electrons, neurons cannot simply relay electrons between each other. If they did, the electric voltage within the neural system as a whole, must continuously grow. However, according to empirical findings, animals do not continuously raise the electric voltage, within their nervous systems. Beyond a certain voltage, such electric activity is harmful, and potentially fatal, as it can decompose the molecules, of which the animal consists. Therefore, there must be an outlet, by which neurons discharge the electrons they carry, away from the bulk of the cellular community.
Essentially, these primal electrical outlets, were the first incarnation of an infrastructure, capable of governing the entire cellular community. Regardless if these primal cellular communities, utilized these electric outlets, or simply emitted its electrons without incident, both the amount of electrons they emitted, and the contingent dimensional content these electrons carried, were determined by the cellular community as a whole. Utilizing this infrastructure, a cellular community could synchronize the actions each of its members performed. Indeed, as we suggested, all the cells of which a cellular community consists, would find the contingent dimensions discharged along these electrons, equally harmful. However, there are other means by which cells could utilize these electrons. For example, let us consider muscle cells. Muscle cells utilize electromagnetism, to initiate their contractions. As we already explained, muscles flex whenever electric currents run through them, regardless of their source, meaning, independently from the contingent dimensional content, of the electrons that cause them to flex. Therefore, by connecting muscle cells to these outlets, the cellular community could move, according to the collective conditions of all its members. In other words, the cellular community would move in response to its controlling agent, meaning, its nervous system. For example, the cellular community could have utilized these early nervous systems, to coordinate its blood flow. The cellular community could utilize the fact, that on average, each cell emits an electron at a relatively constant rate, and therefore, the nervous system, emits its electrons at a relatively constant rate as well. Therefore, a cellular community could utilize this repeated behavior, to cause all the muscles responsible for sustaining the bloodstream (such as the heart, and the muscles surrounding the blood veins), to contract in a relatively synchronic manner. Indeed, this type of controlling agent, does not “think”, as its functionality is determined merely by its architecture, meaning, the architecture of the nervous system. It simply expands the kinetic equilibrium the cellular community sustains, through an additional type of electromagnetic manipulation. Nevertheless, in many ways, it is no different from contemporary computers. To explain, contemporary computers do not “think” what they are supposed to do. The action contemporary computers perform, are the product of the manner by which their architecture, manipulates electromagnetism. Indeed, the architecture of contemporary computers, incorporate specific patterns, by which they can “store” states, which can determine their future actions. Still, these states do not exist within the architecture of contemporary computers.
Simple as it was, this type of controlling agent, yielded many evolutionary advantages. At last, cellular communities could synchronize their actions, according to their immediate collective external conditions. The more the external conditions are hazardous, the more the cells of which the cellular community consists, need to emit contingent dimensions, and therefore, increase the amount of electrons they emit. Therefore, cellular communities could have evolved their neural networks, to make them push away from hazardous external conditions, whenever the nervous system was saturated with electrical charges. Moreover, they could have evolved to repel other life forms, which potentially, could be hostile. Still, obviously, the potential for evolution was far greater. To clarify, the architecture we described so far, can respond merely to the immediate state of the cellular community. It does not store its previous states, and therefore, cannot deduce any course of action, other than the obvious. Again, it is merely an electromagnetic extension, of the deterministic memory-less automaton the life form sustains. Indeed, this infrastructure can already support many different behaviors. Theoretically, such architecture can assign different neural pathways, to different combinations of origins, from which electric saturations emerged. To clarify, if we consider the previous problem we introduced, meaning, that a cellular community found food both to its left, and to its right, the architecture of the nervous system, could have predetermined it would prefer food to its right, rather than to its left. Still, this architecture cannot “learn” anything. It predetermines all the behaviors it supports, regardless if these behaviors are beneficial or not. Moreover, it cannot effectively respond to immediate internal and external changes, which take time to unveil. Because it does not respond to the contingent dimensional content, of the electrons passing through it, it cannot differentiate between a cell emitting electrons, because of temporal discomfort, due to temporal external conditions, and a cell emitting electrons, because of a chronic problem, such as a disease, or any other type of parasite. It must respond in the same manner to both. Therefore, it would prove a great evolutionary advantage, if these nervous systems could change the manner they respond to the current electric surges, according to previous surges. In other words, it would prove a great evolutionary advantage, if these nervous systems, could somehow “remember” their previous states, meaning, store the location of previous surges, and determine the manner by which they react to current surges, according to the combined conditions of previous and current electric surges.
Essentially, this functionality demands very little. It merely demands that before the nervous system determines a response to its current conditions, it will let this surge “loop” within a neural pathway, then recombine with the current electric neural stream. If after the “loop” the electric surge did not reappear, it would mean the surge was temporary. If not, meaning, if the electric surge persists, it means it is chronic. Moreover, it would mean that the electric voltage, at the section where previous and current surges intersect, is larger. Therefore, the nervous system could assign a different outlet to each of these conditions, meaning, assign a different behavior to each. Obviously, as we just explained, supporting this functionality yields great evolutionary advantages. However, it demands an architecture that supports it, meaning, an architecture, in which electric surges could “loop”. Naturally, these “loops” cannot consist of the same type of cells that exist all over the cellular community. To explain, the cells throughout a cellular community, repeatedly emit electrons, and therefore, are not at liberty to “host” previous electric surges. However, if a portion of the cellular community, consisted merely of neurons, it could support such functionality. To explain, usually, neurons relay the electrons of several nearby cells. The electric charges they carry, consist of the collective electric charges, several non-neural cells emit, as well as their own. However, in a section of the cellular community, consisting of merely neurons, the neurons of which it consists, would have the liberty of relaying additional electrons, such as the electrons non-neural cells emitted in previous states.
Accidentally, such a cluster of neurons emerged, and formed what we know today as the brain. As we just explained, this architecture yielded great evolutionary advantages, and therefore, it flourished throughout the animal kingdom. Still, as we suggested, remembering previous electric surges, does not fully realize the potential for evolutionary applications and advantages of nervous systems. This type of application, does not take into account, the contingent dimensional content electrons carry. Essentially, this content differentiates between different states, which cause cells to emit electrons. For example, it differentiates between a cell in need for nutrients and minerals, a cell assimilating hazardous materials, and a cell in threat due to extreme heat.
Assigning different reactions, to different causes for such cellular electric discharges, yields a great evolutionary advantage, and therefore, naturally, we would think, attaining such functionality, requires a complex evolutionary process. However, surprisingly, it did not. In fact, arguably, biological nervous systems, support this functionality by default. To explain, while as we suggested, neurons do not absorb the contingent dimensions the electrons they relay span, they must still absorb these electrons, onto the particles of which they consist. While these particles cannot be the nano-organs responsible for the reproduction of these neurons, they still span the same nano-world as all the other nano-organs, of which these neurons consist. Therefore, essentially, the automaton neurons obey, can determine different behaviors, according to the contingent dimensional contents of the electrons it relays. Naturally, when neurons first emerged, the rules by which neurons relayed electrons, were not optimal. Still, the manner, by which neurons optimized their behaviors, was no different from any other evolutionary process. Neurons mutated by chance, some mutations yielded evolutionary superiority, these mutations flourished within several different cellular communities, and these cellular communities continued to evolve in similar manners.
Arguably, the collection of capabilities, we already mentioned, suffices to explain the behaviors of some animals, such as insects, for example. Still, they do not support one significant cognitive capability, which many animals possess. Animals utilizing the nervous systems we described, cannot learn by experience. However, luckily, we need not bother to explain how nervous systems “learn” new behaviors, as the field of neuroscience, already provided us with a working model for machine learning. Nervous systems can “learn” new behaviors through experience, by continuously modifying the neural pathways within the brain of the animal, according to a reward function, meaning, by continuously attempting to find behaviors, which better their performance. Still, there is one seemingly minor issue, which neurosciences refrain from answering. What is better? Why do nervous systems “learn” anything? To clarify these questions, we should remember the “driving force”, which causes evolutionary progressions, meaning, natural selection. It is the evolutionary successfulness of contingent dimensional mutations, which motivates this process. Again, animals do not “wish” to better the contingent dimensional automaton they obey. If anything, they “wish” it to persist to exist, through future generations. Still, for animals to apply the algorithms neuroscience suggest, and learn new behaviors by experience, they cannot rely on natural selection as their reward function. Natural selection occurs through mass reproduction of similar life forms. In many cases, it requires many years to determine, if a biological mutation is successful. However, the reward function, by which nervous systems presumably manage to learn behaviors through experience, must provide an immediate evaluation to the successfulness of the behaviors animals perform. Without such immediate evaluation, the only type of learning, which neuroscience offers, is the learning of patterns. A nervous system can learn to reflect the type of inputs it receives, be it surges of electrons, or specific contingent dimensional contents, and in turn, respond differently whenever these inputs are similar or different from the patterns it learned. Indeed, this principle can be one of the biological reward functions, by which biological nervous systems learn. To explain, whenever input patterns repeat, it reflects a long duration, in which such input patterns appeared repeatedly. Therefore, learning these repeated patterns, is the same as learning what must happen, for life to persist.
Still, we should remember the manner by which such learning capabilities emerged. Nervous systems did not emerge as learning apparatuses. As nervous systems began to learn behaviors, they already maintained other functions, meaning, the eviction of unwanted contingent dimensions from cells, as well as synchronizing actions throughout cellular communities. These functions were crucial for the survival of the cellular communities that utilized them. Therefore, regardless of the evolutionary advantages of learning through experience, these evolving nervous systems must have maintained their previous functionalities. Therefore, these learning capabilities must have merged with the functionalities, which nervous systems sustained already. In other words, for nervous systems to learn by experience, they must have evolved to sustain a functionality, which supports both learning, and their previous functionality. Moreover, this evolutionary process, must have yielded an evolutionary advantage, even before it allowed nervous systems to learn through experience. In other words, this evolutionary process, optimized the functionalities nervous systems supported already.
To understand this evolutionary process, we must remember the initial functionality of nervous systems. Nervous system emerged as a contingent dimensional “drainage” network. This network evicted potentially dangerous contingent dimensions. Therefore, we can deduce, that the more contingent dimensional “traffic” passed through these neural networks, the more the collective states of all the cells within the cellular community, endangered its persistence. In contrast, whenever the cellular community was not experiencing special threats, less “traffic” passed through these nervous systems. Therefore, it yielded an evolutionary advantage, if nervous systems attempted to lower the “traffic” that passed through them, as it would ensure the community refrained from entering hazardous conditions.
Technically, introducing such a feature, could have required that the collection of neural pathways, within the brain of animals would grow, or alternatively, that the brain of animals would consist of more neurons. Still, unlike the initial reason for the accumulation of neurons within the brain of animals, these additional neurons do not serve as means to store the previous states of the nervous system, throughout the body of the animal. Instead, these additional neurons store the state of the brain itself, and modify the behaviors of the animal, according to these internal states. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether additional neurons were necessary. Arguably, the existing collection of neurons within the brain of animals, could have sustained this additional functionality as well. Once the brain supported this functionality, it could incorporate it with its existing functions. The brain continued to relay electrons cells emitted, while continuously attempting to lower the amount of electric activity within it, by routing these electric charges more efficiently. Still, from the perspective of the animal as a whole, this evolutionary mutation resulted, with something more distinguishable than merely a new neural functionality. It resulted with what we now know as “urges”, or alternatively, our instincts.
Instincts motivate animals to perform specific tasks, by stimulating electric activities, within the brain of animals. The automaton governing the animal, already defines exact manners by which it can remove some of these electric surges. These manners are the heritage of earlier evolutionary stages, in which the brains of animals did not yet attempt to lower the electric activity within them. We are born with these instincts, as they are an inherent part of the design, which defines us as a species. However, animal brains developed yet another type of instincts. As we previously suggested, the brain of animals evolved to be able to learn repeated input patterns. Whenever the brain encounters the patterns it already learned, it does not increase the electric surges within it, and therefore, generally, it remains indifferent to this electric activity. It continues to operate in its usual manners. However, when the input patterns the brain encounters, do not match the patterns it learned, the brain enters a different state. Through trial and error, the brain learns what neural activity, lowers the amount of electric activity within it, which this new input pattern provokes. Whenever the brain finds such a method, it modifies its neural connectors, to perform these actions by default, meaning, it modifies the patterns it learned, to incorporate this new solution, to its current electric surplus. Obviously, the circumstances, for similar input patterns, can be different, and therefore, the neural “solution” to each circumstance, can be different as well. Therefore, the manner by which these “solutions” transform into fixed neural pathways, must be incremental. To explain, while the brain can fixate its neural pathways to any specific “solution” for its current electric surplus, following the same learning algorithm, future incoming neural inputs can override them. Still, inevitably, all of these “solutions” might share some core ingredients, which “work” equally, for all neural inputs of a specific type.
These repeated core ingredients, formulate a new type of instincts. These are learned instincts, meaning, instincts animals develop through experience. Sadly, there is no direct manner, by which animals can imprint their learned instincts, into the contingent dimensional automaton they obey. Again, as we suggested, neurons excel in their ability not to assimilate the contingent dimensions they relay, into the contingent dimensional automatons that govern them. However, learned instincts can transform into born instincts, through future generations. To explain, whenever an animal is born with a mutation, which allows it to behave from birth, in a manner similar to the manners more experienced animals behave, it can increase its successfulness, within its animal community. Therefore, this mutation can flourish within this animal community, and persist to exist through future generations. Moreover, because this young mutated animal, does not require experience to learn these behaviors, it can spend its time more efficiently, by learning behaviors, which other animals within its community, are “too busy” to learn. These other animals, do not have the luxury of possessing these instincts from birth, and inevitably, must learn these behaviors “the hard way”.
Generally, this type of evolutionary progression, resulted with the tendency of animals belonging to a specific species, to remain within an animal community. Without their animal communities, the more optimal behaviors of mutated offspring, may be less prominent. However, there is more to it. From the perspective of an animal, the emergence of learned instincts, resulted with a new behavioral pattern. Again, the brains of such animals, remain indifferent to neural inputs they learned. Such patterns, do not increase the amount of electric activity within their brain, and therefore, yield no inclination to do anything, other than the actions the animal performs by default. Therefore, essentially, animals are “blind” to the neural input patterns they learned. While they continue to respond to these neural inputs in the manners they learned, they do not bother with them, any more than they bother with the demands of their born instincts. Cognitively, this collection of born and learned instincts, form a type of “filter”, over incoming neural inputs. Only input patterns, which match neither the born nor learned instincts, can pass this filter, and come to the attention of the animal, meaning, cause an electrical surge, within the brain of the animal.
Still, regardless if learned instincts can evolve into born instincts, this type of evolutionary progression, is slow, and coincidental. Moreover, the fact that animals require an animal community, to allow learned instincts, to evolve into born instincts, is problematic. To explain, usually, physical strength is the most significant factor, when determining which animals flourish, within an animal community. Such physical strength is not the product of cognitive superiority. If anything, it is a product of refinement of the automaton a life form sustains, such as bigger muscles, longer claws, more intimidating growls, and the likes. Therefore, even if an animal mutated to be cognitively superior, it does not imply its mutation flourished within its community. Theoretically, animals which do not form animal communities, do not suffer from this drawback. Nevertheless, again, without an animal community to nurture its enhanced capabilities, such “smarter” mutations, might never be able to realize their potential.
Therefore, arguably, at first, evolution "preferred" physical superiority, over cognitive superiority. Animals evolved to become bigger, stronger, and faster. Arguably, this type of evolutionary progression resulted with the emergence of dinosaurs, for which we find fossils to this very day. In addition, most probably, animals developed some of their senses during this phase of evolution, as the ability to sense their external conditions, is as crucial to the dominance of animal species, as physical strength. Moreover, we should expect, that through the evolutionary refinement of these senses, animals evolved to differentiate between sensory stimulations, according to contingent dimensional differences. Nevertheless, obviously, there is no way to determine the details of these evolutionary advancements.
Currently, it is unclear why this type of evolutionary progression ended. It could have been due to climate changes, asteroids hitting the earth, ancient aliens, you name it. However, there might have been a different, somewhat "less exotic" reason. It could have been due to a new cognitive capability, which emerged in the animal kingdom.
To understand this new capability, we should dive into the neural architecture of the brain. As we already mentioned, the brain consists of neural pathways, starting from various cells within the body. As we suggested, the prime function of the brain, is to route the electrons passing through it, onto muscle cells. Five factors determine the manner by which these routings transpire.
1. The origin of the neural activity, meaning, the neural pathways in which an electric surplus emerges.
2. The level of neural agitation, or alternatively, the amount of electric surplus, within the brain.
3. The neural architecture of the brain, meaning, the structure by which neurons connect to each other, within the brain.
4. The contingent dimensional content, of the electrons the brain routes.
5. The contingent dimensional automaton, governing the animal.
This collection of factors, can sustain a vast variety of behaviors. Still, this variety, is not always a blessing. To explain, indeed, as we suggested, theoretically, this infrastructure can learn relatively optimal behavioral patterns, by which the animal can respond to external conditions. However, it is not that effective, when dealing with neurological input stimulations, which are somewhat different, from all the input stimulations, to which it already learned how to respond. To clarify, if we observe the behavior of animals sustaining this neurological infrastructure, many times, we would see the animal “almost” manages to solve “new” problems, but inevitably fails. The behaviors it already learned, can cause it to perform actions, which are the beneficial solution for the problem at hand. However, because the animal finds itself in a somewhat “new” disposition, it fails to recognize the actions it performed, are effective. Instead, it would simply give up, or prefer a different type of response. It would have provided a great evolutionary advantage, if the animal would have persisted along its learned behaviors. However, the animal does not know this, and therefore, refrains from doing so.
Still, this is not the only option. Had animals sustained some sort of instinct, which would cause them to “want” to insist to perform the actions they began, regardless of the behavioral patterns they learned, they could have “solved” such problems. In other words, something must make their brain “blind” to the differences between the behavioral patterns they learned, and their current dispositions. Still, it cannot utterly “blind” the brain of animals, from all of the specific details of their dispositions. If it did, such animals would fail to respond effectively to any disposition. Therefore, the cognitive functionality this capability requires, must be a bit more subtle. It must allow animals to obey their learned instincts, as long as they manage the situation effectively, and come into play, only when animals find themselves in dispositions they did not already encounter. At these ambiguous dispositions, this cognitive capability, will cause animals to follow behaviors they already learned from previous dispositions. In other words, this cognitive capability, must allow the brain of animals, to perceive different dispositions, as identical, while refraining from allowing such ambiguity, whenever animals encounter dispositions they already know how to handle.
Still, how can animals evolve in this manner? Let us consider the five factors we mentioned previously. Naturally, we should not expect much difference in the location of the neural activity, as the similarities between neural activities, were the initial reason why the animal almost succeeded in “solving” its problematic dispositions. The same applies to the amount of electric activity. Arguably, we could think the neural architecture of the brain could yield this capability. However, because learning through experience takes too much time, even if the animal manages to learn an effective manner to deal with such dispositions, it would fail to effectively deal with them, as they transpire. Moreover, because this behavior enhances the behaviors the animal already learned, the contingent dimensional automaton governing the animal, cannot yield this behavior intentionally. The contingent dimensional automaton, can only sustain behaviors the animal knows from birth. Nevertheless, unintentionally, or alternatively, unintelligibly, it can yield this behavior, by manipulating the manner by which neurons react to the contingent dimensional contents, of the electrons they relay.
To explain, as we suggested, this new disposition is similar to dispositions the animal already encountered. Therefore, arguably, in many cases, the differences between these dispositions, could consist of merely a few contingent dimensions. How come? Well, as we suggested, the sensory input we receive through our senses, is different from the data, which contemporary computers manipulate. We experience sensory inputs as existing entities. Therefore, according to our metaphysical foundation, this sensory input should compile of dimensions, and because this sensory input changes over time, it implies these dimensions cannot be imminent, but rather, contingent. The contingent dimensions we sense, can determine the shape and color of the objects we see, the sounds we hear, and the likes. Still, not all of this contingent dimensional information, is significant. For example, if we consider a predator, it could provide it an evolutionary advantage, if it knew different animals of the same shape, but of a slightly different color, are equally delicious. While such a predator, could have learned how to hunt grey animals of this specific shape, it may refrain from hunting their brown siblings, as it might fail to recognize they are of the same species. If the contingent dimensional automaton, which governs the brain of animals could have been “blind” to these contingent dimensional differences, it could have reacted to both in the same manner, and yield more beneficial behaviors. To clarify, the contingent dimensional automaton, could host both the old and new neural inputs, within a hosting dimension, effectively generalizing both neural stimulations, as two occurrences of the same metaphysical entity. Indeed, because these small differences consist of contingent dimensions, materialistic manipulations may not be enough to yield such behaviors. However, with contingent dimensional manipulations at the disposal of life forms, it was not that difficult to evolve in this manner. In fact, we already suggested, that pre-cellular complexitons, attained this capability, while attempting to “phase out” clouds of other pre-cellular complexitons.
Still, animals could not have learned to treat different dispositions similarly, without first learning which differences are insignificant. Again, had animals spanned every contingent dimensional difference along with the contingent dimensional sensory they learned through experience, inevitably, they would lose all their previously learned skills, as they would react to all the dispositions they encounter in the same manner. Therefore, animals must have evolved to sustain a new type of learning. Moreover, because this type of learning required the assistance of the automaton that governed these animals, it must have affected their unintelligible cognitive behaviors, or alternatively, their instincts. Furthermore, as we previously explained, this new instinct must have evolved on top of existing brain functions, including the born cognitive instinct of animals, to reduce neural activity within the brain.
In short, this evolutionary progression resulted with the cognitive instinct, to generalize contingent dimensional neural input. Through generalization, animals adapt behavioral patterns, far more versatile than the sum of their experiences. Moreover, unlike the cognitive capabilities we discussed previously, the born cognitive instinct to generalize yielded significant evolutionary superiority. As we suggested, it improved the self-sustainability of predators, and therefore, could have shifted the evolutionary scales, from perfecting the abilities animal possessed from birth, to improving the behaviors they learn through experience. In short, animals no longer became only stronger and bigger. They became smarter as well.
Still, as we already mentioned, to achieve these new capabilities, animals had to adapt a new type of learning. Indeed, the brain of animals already attained the ability to learn different contingent dimensional neural input patterns. Moreover, neuroscience has shown there are algorithms, by which a neural network can “generate” the patterns it learned, meaning, it can create a generalized model, of the type of inputs it already knows, even without contingent dimensional manipulations. Still, to be able to generalize, animals required the ability to compare different previous input patterns they encountered, and determine which differences are significant, and which are not. Therefore, animals required a manner, by which they could store previous contingent dimensional neural inputs, on top of their existing cognitive capabilities. In short, attaining these new capabilities, required additional neurons, specifically assigned to these tasks. However, again, evolution does not progress in this manner. To explain, before this new cognitive capability emerged, there was no need for such additional neurons, and without an evolutionary advantage, natural selection does not favor evolutionary progressions. Therefore, there must have been a manner, by which these new capabilities emerged, on top of existing neural architectures. Still, animals already used their existing neural architectures, and therefore, attaining these new capabilities, must have occurred through some type of neural optimization and reorganization. Animals must have found a way, to reuse their existing neural architectures.
As we stated many times before, we cannot know exactly how animals achieved this capability. Still, considering our cognitive capabilities, as well as the cognitive capabilities of other animals, and more specifically, apes, animals must have found such a way. But again, how? Well, sleep is a good candidate. Animals sleep for many reasons. Indeed, some of these reasons are cognitive. However, there are other reasons. According to empirical research, animals use sleep to grow, to restore their immune systems, and to conserve energy. To explain, obviously, without sunlight, animals, which depend on their ability to see when fetching food, would only waste their energy at night, and hence, lower their self-sustainability. Therefore, it yielded animals an evolutionary advantage, if they could lower their metabolism at night, through sleep. Still, naturally, during sleep, the neurons within the brain of animals, do not process incoming external stimulations, and therefore, are free to perform other tasks, such as the cognitive tasks required to attain new generalization capabilities. As the brain shuts out external incoming neural stimulations, it can use the same neurons it usually uses for sensory, to perform any other tasks, such as learning the contingent dimensional conditions, it gathered through wakefulness. Moreover, arguably, considering the non-cognitive evolutionary advantages of sleep, animals may have utilized sleep to learn new cognitive skills, even before the emergence of the born instinct to generalize, and therefore, it suggests, the addition of generalized learning, occurred on top of existing non-conscious learning mechanisms.
Still, with the emergence of cognitive generalizing skills, many new evolutionary advantages became available, and the more animals harnessed these skills, the more they became successful as a species. Obviously, animals that mutated to carry more neurons within their brain, became more evolutionary successful. Still, there may have been other means to attain these new cognitive capabilities. To clarify, the ability to generalize, deemed what were previously evolutionary advantages, redundant and obsolete. The same neurons, which animals utilized to control their body, could yield much more beneficial behaviors, once harnessed by these new cognitive capabilities. Therefore, arguably, natural selection caused many animals to devolve. Through mutation, by detaching limbs, whose evolutionary advantages were marginal, from brain activities, animals “freed” many of their neurons, allowing them to enhance their generalizing skills. Obviously, with no neural control, these limbs no longer served any purpose, and therefore, to optimize their energy consumptions, animal mutations which did not include these unused limbs, attained evolutionary superiority. Moreover, by reducing their general size, while retaining the same brain mass, animals could free even more neurons, to enrich their generalizing capabilities even further. In short, animals became smaller and less naturally equipped with limbs, which once served as their main means of survival.
Still, there may have been another reason for this devolution. Motivation. The less an animal is big, strong, or equipped with specialized limbs, or even born instincts, the more it needs to utilize its cognitive capabilities to survive. To explain, unlike born instincts, animals must learn their generalizing cognitive capabilities, and to do this, animals must face cognitive challenges. However, when the survival of animals depends merely on inherited genetic advantages, animals may refrain from learning new behaviors. Indeed, the more an animal is equipped with inherited genetic advantages, the more it finds it “easy” to survive. Still, as we mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, the personal interests and comfort of an animal, have little to do with its ability to survive as a species. Actually, we can find many contemporary occurrences of this principle, in nature. For example, humans have killed almost all the deadliest predators on earth, predators whose natural inherited genetic advantages, exceed our own by far. Humans are born relatively helpless. Our survival depends on our cognitive capabilities, and these take many years to mature. In contrast, most earthly predators do not require such a long time to become self-sustaining, and without our matured cognitive capabilities, these predators can easily defeat us as a species.
The introduction of generalization cognitive capabilities initiated a new dual type of evolution. As we just explained, biologically, the relative size of the brain of animals became larger, while arguably, their other born genetic capabilities suffered from devolution. However, cognitively, their evolution was much more radical. Because the brain of animals grew bigger than was required to merely route incoming sensory neural inputs, then obviously, neurologically, the brain of animals no longer merely processed these incoming inputs. The neurological pathways, which the brain of animals redeemed from their previous functionalities, began processing neurological stimulations the brain already processed. In other words, animals began generalizing generalizations, or alternatively, hosting different contingent hosting dimensions.
Still, things are more complicated than they seem. Innocently, we could think, that this is yet another manifestation, of the hosting capabilities of the dimension of space. However, this is unlikely. Because the automaton governing the life form, sustains the born cognitive instinct to generalize, this instinct must occur independently from context. The automaton governing the life form does not “care” what contingent dimensions it hosts, and therefore, arguably, whenever the brain of an animal hosts several sensory inputs, it hosts them in the same hosting dimension. To clarify, selecting a different hosting dimension for each generalization action, demands a far more complex metaphysical apparatus, contrary to the minimalistic manner, by which evolution progresses. However, the product of this metaphysical action, contradicts the manner by which the dimension of space hosts dimensions. As we explained in the previous chapter, the dimension of space spans contingent dimensions locally. The dimension of space does not “merge” contingent dimensions, into nano-worlds of higher dimensional complexity, but rather places each contingent dimension, in a different independent “area” of the logical field. Therefore, arguably, the dimensional hosting capabilities of the dimension of space, cannot cause two different contingent dimensions it hosts, to behave as a single metaphysical entity, or alternatively, a single dimension, and therefore, cannot cause a behavior the brain assigned to one contingent dimension, to be applicable to a different contingent dimension. The same applies to the dimension of life, as it shares the same type of contingent dimensional hosting capabilities, as the dimension of space. While the dimension of life can merge the contingent dimensions it spans, into a single nano-world, it does so by merging their behaviors in a stateful manner. To explain, when the dimension of life, assimilates contingent dimensions, it changes the manner by which it will react to future metaphysical dispositions. After such assimilations, the dimension of life, of which a particle consists, will cause this particle to react differently to external conditions, than it would otherwise. However, as we explained, cognitive generalization, demands the brain will retain its previous neurological functions, for different contingent dimensional neural inputs.
In short, cognitive contingent dimensional generalization, demands a new metaphysical feature. As we just explained, abstractly, it requires the ability to increase the dimensional complexity of contingent worlds on demand. To clarify, again, this metaphysical ability is different from spanning contingent dimensions, from the dimension of life, as its metaphysical product, is not the same type of nano-world, as the one spanning from the dimension of life. The hosting dimension of this contingent world must be different from all the imminent dimensions we described so far, including the dimension of life. Nevertheless, again, because the metaphysical agent governing this type of contingent dimensional spanning, is the contingent dimensional automaton that governs the animal, and more specifically, the brain of the animal, and because this automaton exists uniformly, within each animal of its species, we should expect, the dimension supporting this metaphysical functionality, should be uniform as well. Still, what could this dimension be?
Well, to understand the metaphysical essence of this new dimension, first, we need to understand its metaphysical product. This dimension can cause several dimensions, to cause the same result as a single dimension. Therefore, it implies, this dimension allows a metaphysical relation between dimensions. However, as we explained so many times before, this is impossible. Dimensions exist independently from one another, and therefore, such metaphysical relations are impossible. The only manner, by which two dimensions can sustain any type of metaphysical relation, is if these two dimensions are the same metaphysical entity, meaning, if they both segment the same “area” of the logical field. Still, as we explained, cognitive contingent dimensional generalization requires the ability to host several metaphysical elements, within a unifying metaphysical entity. In short, cognitive contingent dimensional generalization, requires the ability to host a dimension within the metaphysical element it embodies.
This is the new metaphysical feature we were looking for, meaning, the ability for a dimension, to host itself. Indeed, the imminent dimensions we described so far, do not support this metaphysical feature. However, they do not contradict it. Moreover, as we just explained, this dimension is not one of the imminent dimensions we described previously. While this new dimension, is mandatory for cognitive contingent dimensional generalization, it is not mandatory for the existence of physical elements in the world. Nevertheless, arguably, it is mandatory for us, meaning, to the existence of our consciousnesses. To clarify, by allowing dimensions to be the elements they host, it allows existing elements in the logical field, to react to their own existence. Metaphysically, the elements obeying the demands of this new dimension, are “aware” of their existence, and therefore, theoretically, this dimension enables the existence of our self-awareness.
As such, we will call this new dimension, the dimension of consciousness. Possibly, this dimension is merely one of the dimensions compiling the dimensional cluster we named the dimension of matter. However, we cannot know this for sure. Moreover, because it affects contingent dimensions, it does not produce the same type of uniform physical behaviors, such as those governing the laws of physics. Still, regardless if this dimension is imminent or not, its existence is mandatory for our ability to consciously contemplate on the issue. Therefore, in many ways, it is no different from the dimension of life. While the various occurrences of the dimension of consciousness exist separately, the metaphysical function of all these occurrences, is uniform. Still, just as the metaphysical uniformity of the dimension of life, does not cause all particles to behave uniformly, so does the dimension of consciousness. Still, the manner by which the dimension of consciousness yields different behaviors in different consciousnesses, is somewhat different from the manner the dimension of life allows different contingent dimensional automatons to govern different particles.
Throughout the life of the animal, the dimension of consciousness continuously assimilates different contingent dimensions. It continuously constructs an ever growing contingent world, consisting of recurrences of itself, along with the contingent dimensions it assimilated. Metaphorically, it is similar to a photo album, which miraculously appears in all the photos it holds. Still, without these additional contingent dimensions, the dimension of consciousness is no different from any other imminent dimension. It exists because it can, and that is all there is to it. The dimension of consciousness is merely the metaphysical enabler, for the existence of contents, within the self-aware metaphysical entity, we call our consciousness. It allows contingent dimensions, to compile our consciousness, in a manner that sets these contingent dimensions, as manifestations of one metaphysical entity, meaning, a consciousness. In many ways, the dimension of consciousness is a space, which due to its unique qualities, can allow the existence of consciousnesses within it. Still, it is not a physical space, meaning, it is not the physical space the imminent dimensions yield. It may exist independently from the imminent dimensions we discussed previously. In fact, possibly, the only metaphysical connection between the world, which the dimensions of existence, causality, space, motion, matter, and life, sustain, and the dimension of consciousness, is through the contingent dimensional inputs, the dimension of consciousness hosts. Still, because these contingent dimensions arrive from the world, the inputs they carry, reflects the behaviors occurring in our world, and therefore, reflect the same regularities the dimensions of existence, causality, space, motion, matter, and life, sustain. To ease our discussion, from now on, we will refer to this dimensional cluster, as the external world.
Actually, there is another option. It is possible the imminent dimensions of the external world, are dimensions which span from the dimension of consciousness. It is possible, our consciousness “understands” its contingent dimensional inputs, by “slicing” this information, and hence, distinguish it as existence, causality, space, motion, matter, and arguably, even life. If this is true, this implies that as far as we know, the dimension of consciousness is the logical field. The external world is merely the manner by which our consciousness understands it, and can just as well not exist at all. Moreover, this implies the dimension of consciousness, can also span the dimension of consistency. To clarify, as we explained in chapter two, the dimension of consistency contains definitions, which do not exist in the external world. Nevertheless, they exist in our minds, as ideas, or alternatively, generalizations. Therefore, the dimension of consciousness actually contains them, as existing elements, meaning, as contingent dimensions it hosts. Indeed, these generalizations are incompatible with the external world, but from the perspective of the dimension of consciousness, metaphysically, both are existing elements, meaning, we can feel the existence of both. In fact, this can help explain how our consciousness can continuously “select” the three spatial dimensions it perceives, as possibly, our consciousness does the same to all of the imminent dimensions.
Still, this hypothesis is problematic. While it is possible, implicitly, it undermines the very reason why our consciousness emerged in the first place. To explain, the manner, by which we explained the emergence of our consciousness, was by first analyzing the external world, according to its imminent dimensions. However, if our consciousness selects these imminent dimensions, then there is no reason this selection imposes any type of necessity over the manner by which our consciousness emerged. In short, this hypothesis marginalizes the manner by which we explained the emergence of our consciousness, and therefore, it refutes its validity, and the conclusions we reached regarding our consciousness. Moreover, this hypothesis does not provide any alternative consistent explanation for the formation of our consciousness. It introduces elements it does not explain, such as the self-hosting capabilities of our consciousness, and therefore, deems itself an inconsistent metaphysical theory. Therefore, it will not interest us, as it does not help us populate the consistent metaphysical category.
Still, it is not completely irrelevant. Our consciousness does “slice” space individually, into three spatial dimensions. Moreover, it “slices” its contingent dimensional inputs, into colors, texture, smell, sound, and the likes. Still, these distinctions do not undermine the metaphysical essence of the external world. They are simply beneficial methods, by which we can perceive our world. Nevertheless, again, they do not exist in the external world. To explain, the elements appearing in our consciousness are fundamentally different, from existing elements in the external world. The external world hosts elements separately and independently, while all the elements our consciousness hosts are manifestations of our consciousness. Moreover, the elements appearing in our consciousness consist of generalizations, meaning, elements, which in the external world, appear as several different elements. In fact, the manner by which the dimension of consciousness hosts elements can help to explain the appearance of paradoxes in our minds. For example, if we reexamine the liar paradox, it explicitly binds two elements together, meaning “I” and “lying”. From the perspective of our consciousness, this seems completely valid. Our entire existence consists of elements which are manifestations of our own consciousness, and therefore, we have no problem accepting “lying” as one of these elements. However, there is no such a link. While both the terms “I” and “lying”, can refer to a single consciousness, the metaphysical “glue” between them is neither “I”, nor “lying”, but rather the dimension of consciousness. To clarify, our self-awareness is not the same as the “self”, or alternatively, the “I”. It is the metaphysical function of the dimension of consciousness, which allows all consciousnesses to sustain a metaphysical relation with their existence. Therefore, essentially, the term “I”, and “lying”, refer to different irrelevant segments within the dimension of consciousness, and therefore, the “liar paradox” is not a paradox at all. It merely shows our lack of understanding, regarding the metaphysical essence of our consciousness, and its relation with the “self”.
The distinction between the dimension of consciousness, and the external world, can help us explain empirical findings, regarding the connection between the physical structure of our brain, and the existence of our consciousness. To clarify, science has failed to locate any specific area in the brain, from which consciousness emerges. This is not surprising. According to our assumptions, the elements that bind the dimension of consciousness, and the contingent dimensions, arriving from the external world, are neurons, and not any specific type of neural architecture. Therefore, because the neurological function of all neurons is uniform, our consciousness emerges from the collection of all the neurons in our brain, simultaneously. There is no physical link between these neurons. The link between their contingent dimensional contents, is sustained by the dimension of consciousness, which is not a spatial dimension. In fact, the contingent world the dimension of consciousness spans, can disconnect from the imminent dimensions altogether, allowing us to dream of worlds, which do not obey the demands of the imminent dimensions. Actually, this conclusion can help us clarify the notion of non-locality, as possibly, it too consists of non-spatial contingent dimensional connections and relations.
Still, this raises another difficulty. If indeed, the existence of our consciousness does not require a physical link between neurons, then why do we not all share the same consciousness? If we all utilize the same metaphysical space, meaning, the space the dimension of consciousness yields, why do we not feel the existence of everyone else, along with our own existence? Well, unlike the born cognitive instinct to generalize, the manner by which each consciousness arranges its experiences, or alternatively, the contingent dimensions it spans along with itself, varies between individuals. While indeed, the neural architecture of our brain is rather uniform, and hence, it suggests common types of such organizations, this architecture is merely one factor. The content of our experiences, mold the contingent world, of which our consciousness consists. To clarify, each manifestation of a consciousness, consists of more than merely the dimension of consciousness, and therefore, metaphysically, yields a different contingent world. Again, in many ways, it is no different from the dimension of life, which allows different particles to span different nano-worlds, while sustaining the same metaphysical function in all particles.
While the introduction of the dimension of consciousness, into our metaphysical foundation, solves the enigma regarding our self-awareness, on its own, it cannot explain the reason why our consciousness should “want” to do anything. To clarify, our consciousness continuously hosts contingent dimensional inputs, originating from the neurons in our brain. However, there is nothing in our self-awareness, to force us to “care” what this contingent dimensional information is. We could just as well experience this contingent dimensional information, without incident. Arguably, the neurons in our brain could have just as well utilized the dimension of consciousness, merely for the generalization capabilities it offers, and leave our consciousness indifferent to these contingent dimensional inputs. However, from our experience, we know this is not the case. Whenever our body is in distress, we feel sensations of pain, which motivate us to perform actions we would refrain from doing otherwise. These are fundamentally different from our sense of touch. Many times, these sensations of pain originate from abstract issues, which have nothing to do with touch, such as a broken heart, stress, and the likes. Obviously, our reactions to these sores yield an evolutionary advantage. An animal that “cares” for the condition of its body is more likely to strive, than an animal which is indifferent to it. Still, again, on its own, the dimension of consciousness does not support this metaphysical feature. Therefore, metaphysically, there must be additional elements, “forcing” our consciousness to react to the contingent dimensional inputs arriving into our consciousness. Still, because we all feel pain, these metaphysical elements affect us uniformly, and therefore, cannot consist of the contingent dimensions compiling our internal world. Moreover, because the existence of their effect on our psyche is irrefutable, metaphysically, these must be existing elements, meaning, dimensions.
Because these dimensions rely on the functionality of neurons, and because our knowledge of neurons is incomplete, we cannot know the exact manner by which these additional dimensions accomplish this task. Moreover, we cannot know the evolutionary progressions, which eventually yielded the use of these dimensions. Still, we can speculate, these contingent dimensions sustain a similar functionality to the one neurons already supported, meaning, these dimensions make our consciousness “want” to evict specific contingent dimensional inputs, which we would otherwise regard as pain. Moreover, considering the somewhat self-aware nature of the manner by which the brain attempts to evict electrical surges, then arguably, the metaphysical entity, enabling both the emergence of our consciousness, and the emergence of pain within our consciousness, might be this ancient method of cognitive optimization. Therefore, without a better analysis regarding the connection between the dimension of consciousness, and the function of neurons, we will simply call this metaphysical enabler, the dimension of pain. Still, we should note, as its silly name suggests, the term " the dimension of pain" merely “hides” our lack of understanding. Ultimately, the dimension of pain should consist of “non-painful” dimensions, which neurons utilize, to motivate our consciousness away from non-beneficial dispositions.
Nevertheless, there are several other, less obscure manners, by which the brain can utilize its neural architecture, to exploit the dimension of consciousness, and yield evolutionary advantages. By storing different contingent worlds in the brain, our brain can introduce elements into our consciousness, even if these contingent worlds are different from the current sensory stimulations, arriving through our senses. By doing so, it can manipulate our consciousness to optimize its performance, when no special cognitive task is required. Whenever on idle, the brain begins streaming these nano-worlds into our consciousness, which in turn “thinks” about these inputs, and optimizes its future performance, when facing similar dispositions. In short, it allows us to think. Nevertheless, again, to support this functionality, these contingent worlds must exist within the brain, in segments which do not utilize the dimension of consciousness. In other words, it demands the involvement of even more neurons, entrusted with the storage of these contingent worlds, or alternatively, memory. In many ways, the manner by which the brain utilizes memory is similar to our previous suggestions, regarding the manner the automaton governing the life form, utilizes DNA sequences, to extract beneficial functionalities from it, on demand.
Actually, we can speculate how this neural functionality emerged. When the brain of animals, evolved into utilizing the dimension of consciousness, it already consisted of a complex set of neural pathways. Therefore, it is very likely, some of the neural inputs arriving into the brain, failed to find a way to exit the brain. These input stimulations were stuck within the vast set of neural pathways, without any use. However, as evolution progressed, accidentally, the brain introduced these sensory inputs into the dimension of consciousness, and initiated the evolution of conscious thought, into the abstract thought capabilities we have today. By replacing the content of these “stuck” contingent dimensional inputs, with generalizations, it allowed the consciousness to further optimize its performance, while evicting "painful" contingent dimensional inputs. Moreover, apparently, the brain evolved to allow our consciousness to select which memory it wishes to access, in order to alleviate the sensations of pain it suffered.
Yes, dear listener. I said: “sensations”. Finally, we can fulfill our obligation, and satisfy the completeness criterion, by mapping the six items on our list, to our metaphysical foundation. Sensations, are the contingent dimensions, which our brain introduces into our consciousness. Constructs of sensations, are the sensations in our consciousness, which our consciousness already processed, or alternatively, generalizations. Sensory, occurs whenever the brain initiates the insertion of sensations into our consciousness, without any conscious premeditation, while nullification, is the opposite process, meaning, the process that occurs, whenever the brain stops streaming a sensation into our consciousness. Thought, is the process occurring in our brain, as our consciousness attempts to optimize its performance, and hence, lesser the amount of pain sensations in our consciousness. Repression, is the manner by which our consciousness merges different sensations, and by doing so, evicts some of the sensations it harbors, by “labeling” it as identical to other sensations. Alternatively, we can claim that repression is the result of a successful generalization cognitive process.
Still, considering our conclusions, we can do better than merely satisfying the completeness criterion, by providing an even more detailed description of our sense of being. Our consciousness receives sensations from our body, with which we become aware of the external world. Using pain sensations, our body manipulates our consciousness, to handle its current sores, by finding which generalizations lesser our sensations of pain, with respect to the sensations we sense. In effect, the body exploits its own design flaws, to achieve evolutionary superiority, through ever growing cognitive capabilities. These cognitive capabilities merge with our born cognitive instincts, by transforming into learned cognitive instincts. The collection of our cognitive instincts, form a sensational filter, preventing many sensations from entering our consciousness. Moreover, this “filter”, transforms our internal world, into an abstract world, consisting of generalizations and abstract notions, rather than mere reflections of the external world. This internal world exists only within the span of the dimension of consciousness. Therefore, it exists independently both from the external world, and the nano-world governing the automaton, which defines us as animals. While this automaton can manipulate our consciousness, metaphysically, it is a different world. Moreover, apart from raw sensations, which were not yet converted into generalizations by our consciousness (such as unrecognizable sights and sounds, for example), the manner by which elements exist in our consciousness is fundamentally different, from the manner by which elements exist in the external world. In fact, the coexistence of the elements in our consciousness, and the elements in the external world, would deem both worlds inconsistent, and therefore, both could not exist in the logical field. In the external world, elements exist independently from one another, as well as from the imminent dimensions, which span them locally. Within our consciousness, elements exist as manifestations of the same consciousness. For example, within our consciousness, the word apple, the shape of an apple, and the taste of an apple, are all manifestations of the same consciousness, and therefore, semantically, they are interchangeable. For this reason, it is so simple for us to replace ideas with the words of our language. To clarify, indeed, to speak a language, we must learn it first, until we manage to read, write, or speak it. Once we learn a language, our brain converts this language into learned instincts. Still, we do not need to learn the interchangeability between words and concepts, as to our consciousness, these are all manifestations of the same metaphysical entity, meaning, the same sensation, within the same consciousness. Therefore, by speaking it, we can cause a similar sensation, to appear within the consciousness of others, and by doing so, we can share ideas between different sensations. Moreover, we can think with words, as essentially, the ideas, and the name we give to ideas, originate from the same sensations. Within our consciousness, words and their meaning, are interchangeable, as metaphysically, they are the same entity. In addition, apparently, our consciousness also performs some sort of metaphysical action during sleep, suggesting our dreams serve as means, by which our brain optimizes the sensations it keeps in memory, and by doing so, betters our self-sustainability during wakefulness. Actually, this is not surprising, because as we suggested, sleep serves as means for our brain to generate new fixed neural pathways, and by doing so, optimize its contingent dimensional routing performance.
Still, there is one more observation we should consider, regarding sleep and dreams. The common assumption in brain research is that we dream only in specific short segments, of the time we sleep. If this hypothesis is indeed correct, it means our consciousness does not persist to exist continuously. While our body persists to exist, and perform its biological functions, our body does not require the involvement of our consciousness, to perform these tasks. This is not surprising. According to our previous assumptions, our internal world obeys a set of regularities, different from the one the imminent dimensions sustain, and therefore, has no obligation to persist to exist, in the same manner as the external world. As we sleep, our consciousness ceases to persist to exist, and actually, it is not that bad. Arguably, it is even enjoyable. Still, metaphysically, there is no real difference, between these intermissions of consciousness, and death. Therefore, arguably, contrary to our instincts, death is not such a scary ordeal. Indeed, we fear our own death. However, arguably, the reason we fear it, is unjustified. To clarify, our consciousness is not our body. It consists of different dimensions. Therefore, metaphysically, the death of our body is irrelevant to our consciousness. Still, we all share the fear of death. Naturally, fearing death, prevents animals from performing actions, which risk the persistence of their existence, and therefore, yields an evolutionary advantage. Therefore, it is not surprising all intelligent animals show some type of fear of their own death, and apparently, we inherited this fear from our ancestors. The fear of death, merged with the manner, by which the brain manipulates the dimension of pain, causing us to refrain from actions, which could risk the persistence of our existence.
Still, humans are different from other animals. Considering our conclusions, apparently, the manner by which the human brain manipulates contingent dimensions, is unique. Arguably, other animals do not share these cognitive capabilities, as if they did, they should have learned to speak in languages, similar to the languages we speak. Because our current knowledge in contingent dimensional manipulations, is scarce, to say the least, we cannot know what is it exactly that the brain of animals lack, which prevents them from developing such languages. To explain, while the brain of animals is relatively smaller than the brain of humans, at an early age, the brain of a human is relatively the same size as the brain of some animals, such as apes, for example. Still, considering the evolutionary advantages of human language, meaning, the ability to share insights between humans, if animals could speak in a language similar to ours, natural selection would make sure they would. Therefore, because animals do not speak in a language similar to human language, their brain must lack a fundamental metaphysical capability, which all humans share. Again, without knowing the exact manner by which our brain manipulates contingent dimensions, it is hard to tell what this metaphysical element is. Arguably, it is possible, animals do not utilize the dimension of consciousness, meaning, non-human earthly animals are not self-aware. In fact, empirical findings partially support this, as apparently, animals fail to recognize themselves, when staring at their reflection in a mirror. Still, this is only a hypothesis. It could just as well be, that the manner by which other animals utilize pain, demotivates them from enhancing their cognitive capabilities, and through future generations, they might too develop cognitive capabilities, similar to those humans possess.
Still, again, regardless of the evolutionary advantages our cognitive capabilities yield, all the ideas with which we think, are incompatible, or alternatively, inconsistent, with the external world. While as we explained, we care for our existence within the external world, all the problems we face, do not exist in the external world. Although these problems demand we change our dispositions within the external world, they exist merely in our consciousness, which metaphysically, is detached from the source of these problems. The same applies to paradoxes. Paradoxes can exist only in our consciousness, but without any metaphysical implication in the external world. Paradoxes merely reflect the incompatibility, or alternatively, the inconsistency, between the dimension of consciousness, and the imminent external dimensions. The manner, by which the dimension of consciousness links the different manifestations of our generalizations, makes us believe paradoxes apply to the external world. Still, this is but a mirage. Arguably, this incompatibility can explain why science has failed so miserably, while attempting to create artificial intelligence. The manner by which we attempted to create artificial intelligence, was through materialistic means, while arguably, our consciousness utilizes dimensions, which are incompatible with the dimensions that govern physics. To be more precise, our consciousness utilizes contingent dimensions, meaning, dimensions our world spans locally, and which do not adhere to the intermatter flow, or alternatively, to the universal laws of physics.
Moreover, the manner by which science attempted to create artificial intelligence, was by reducing intelligence to language, with the belief, that human language is a consistent logical system. However, it is not. Human language consists of the collaboration of two different incompatible logical systems. In one, different elements exist separately from one another, while in the other, different elements can exist as single metaphysical entities. There is no way to bridge the two, into a consistent logical system, as the two systems override each other. The external world, forces us to accept the world in which we exist, does not “behave” according to the manner we believe it should, while our internal world, persistently attempts to change the external world, to be how we believe it should be. In addition, within our consciousness, the sensations words represent, are not terms of the language. They are existing elements, which in many ways, are identical to the sensations they represent, meaning, the manner by which we sense the semantic meaning these words represent. Contemporary computers, simply do not support such functionality. Moreover, because the amount of particles of which contemporary computers consist, imposes a limit to the amount of states to which they can respond, then arguably, materialistic computers might never be able to process the possibly infinite dimensional complexity of sensations. To clarify, indeed, our collection of born and learned instincts, as well as the generalizations with which we think, reduces the dimensional complexity of the sensations we preceive. As we explained, this collection of cognitive neural apparatuses, yields the “filter” of our consciousness. Still, just because we are not aware of the dimensional complexity of the contingent dimensional inputs arriving into our brain, does not imply our brain does not process it. It is simply that our brain already learned how to route these sensations unconsciously, and therefore, does not require the involvement of our consciousness. Still, had a materialistic computer attempted to mimic human intelligence, it would not have the luxury of avoiding the complexity of the data, which the “filter” of our consciousness, hides. It would have to mimic both the processes happening within our consciousness, and the processes which our brain performs, unconsciously.
To conclude, it appears we are done. We satisfied the completeness criterion, as promised. While indeed, we may have made some mistakes on the way, especially from chapter three and onwards, we have managed to compile the first complete consistent metaphysical theory. Possibly, our mistakes were severe. Still, without concrete proof, which will show our metaphysical foundation is flawed beyond repair, the metaphysical model we proposed is “good enough”. Therefore, I guess we can call it a night. We are done.

Hip hip, hurray!

Urm...

Er...

Bollocks! This metaphysical model was never the goal of our journey. From the very beginning, I explicitly said, I do not wish to unveil the essence of the world-in-itself. What we really wanted, was to find the essence of our causes, meanings, and purposes. We wanted to understand how we should live our lives. However, apparently, we neglected this discussion altogether. Moreover, we discussed issues, mostly from the perspective of the human animal. However, as we just understood, our consciousness consists of different dimensions, which obey a different set of regularities, from the ones the human animal obeys. No. While indeed, the metaphysical model we compiled, satisfies the basic completeness requirements, it is not the goal of our journey. We require a new, different model, a new theory, which will better our lives as consciousnesses, as essentially, this is what we really are.

Therefore, there can be no delay.

Let us move on.

Ladies and gentlemen!



Welcome to Delta Theory.


No comments:

 
Real Time Web Analytics