The Philosophical Singularity: Ontological & Epistomological Foundations
Jackson Capper
|
The act of philosophy is reasoning. Reasoning can take any fundamental premise and produce greater composite propositions. For example, a mathematician might begin with \(1+1=2\). From here he may derive composite arithmetical processes, algebra, and even calculus. Such fundamental premises do not have to be as low-level as basic addition. For example, a Christian apologist may begin theological reasoning from the premise that Jesus Christ was resurrected on the 3rd day. No further explanation is necessary as premises can be taken for granted in the right conversation. Our conversation is unique in that we urge ourselves to take nothing for granted.
“I think, therefore I am” [efn_note]Descartes, R., 1637. Discourse on the Method[/efn_note] seems to be quite the fundamental premise. However, should we really assume that we think? Who is I? This is not be pedantic. The very notion of thought and being need to be established on firm ground. Our goal is a philosophical singularity, thus we require that we conquer all implications of existence with a consistent line of reasoning from premises. To do this requires a bedrock of fundamental premises. Our universal philosophy can then be extended in both directions. Consider some examples:
Stoic ethics for example, takes for granted that a life led according to rational nature is virtuous. Stoicism encompasses rationality of which leads to this premise, and from this premise.
Kantian ethics takes for granted that a virtuous life is one that is lived by the maxim that one wishes to become a universal law. This leads one to argue that kindness is virtuous because one wishes others to be kind to himself.
Catholic ethics takes for granted that Jesus was the Son of God, and that he gave Peter the means through which the Holy Spirit would reveal Holy ethics through the church. Catholic apologetics often deals with Protestant refutations, arguing for the truthiness of this core premise. Theologians like Thomas Aquinas dealt also with the consequences of such premises such as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation.
The last example is purposefully illustrating that theology is no more than a line of reasoning based on a premise considered as religious. However, the line between religious and secular is subjective and therefore a useless distinction. To a devout Catholic, Catholicsm is not religious, but just a truth about the universe. In order to find this universal line of reasoning (the logos), we immediately run into the epistemological problem of knowledge. If we cannot know anything, any attempt to reason are just extensions of assumed junk and our conclusions will be junk. The question is therefore, what can we know?
It cannot be true that nothing exists. Consider your conscious experience now. We have no reason to assume that knowledge exists outside your brain. We must assume that knowledge exists within the brain. However, your brain is simply matter. Matter cannot know anything other than to represent the culmination of prior causal events, and to conduct future causal events according to the mechanics of the universe. Your brain does not know anything more than a cup of tea knows anything. The only reason we distinguish between the knowledge of the brain and the knowledge possessed by a cup of tea is that the brain has the quality of being monitored by an inexplicable phenomena we know as consciousness. The anatomy of consciousness is complex in itself, but let us needlessly complicate things. For example, the brain receives an induced signal from the outside environment and renders to the consciousness a blue dot. This is not enough to constitute a knowledge of existence.
We should not assume consciousness has any knowledge of the blue dot as soon as the blue dot disappears. We can assume that the memory of the blue dot is stored in the brain, which it can retrieve and present to consciousness at will and this explains why we have a sensation of past events and therefore time itself. This is similar to the block universe model although such a model ignores consciousness. Of course, we cannot know the nature of consciousness as we can only what is material. We cannot know that somehow consciousness can access some ex-brain memory system, however only the brain is necessary here. Given that consciousness is assumed incapable of knowledge (which requires memory), then consciousness observing the blue dot is insufficient to explain the knowledge that something exists.
It could be said that a cup of tea “knows” it exists. It knows how it will cool down at room temperature because this process is carried out every time. However, this knowledge is merely a state of matter. There is no experiential component to have witnessed it’s knowing. It is only a causal soup. Your brain is also a causal soup, but the experiential component brings about a testament, a distinguishable phenomena from which knowledge has meaning and purpose.
Still, witnessing unconscious knowledge is not conscious knowledge. It can only become conscious knowledge by the underappreciated property of the brain incorporating its experiential component into its knowledge bank. The brain processes input which through some mechanism, invokes the conscious sensation of a blue dot. The important factor is that that existence of a conscious sensation is memorised in the brain. This memory is then itself witnessed by the consciousness. We know this because we know we are conscious. The very act of a brain testifying to this in manuscript is proof.
Thus, through the brain of a homo sapien, the experience can experience itself in the form of a mirror. Given that the experiencing of itself is also stored, this causes a sustainable, deep introspection that forms an ego. It is this kind of conscious knowledge which we can know not just that something exists, but something special exists. It is upon this solid, undeniable premise from which we can build a complete line of reasoning. Note that this premise is fundamental. We no longer need to critique it, or defend it. Yes we made assumptions, but they are the assumptions that had to be made. We can take it for granted and concentrate entirely on the propositions which we can derive from it.