Causal Determinism Cannot Be Absolute and Free Will is a Valid Claim

When you think of the vastness of the universe, it is easy to conclude that your choices and your very existence may be meaningless when looking at the big picture. It would seem that our life is controlled by these larger forces the universe puts on us. Whole planets and galaxies are controlled by these forces. Why wouldn’t we be controlled also? Causal determinism is, roughly speaking, the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature.

Causal determinism is like a chain of dominoes. When the first one gets knocked down, the rest follow in successive order. A deterministic universe has the big bang as the first domino with the rest of the dominoes leading up to this moment that you are reading this article. In turn, we conclude that everything along the way is just a predetermined and unchanging chain of events. When experts observe the world with this belief, they assume that the data and functions they are seeing are a reflection of this understanding. Furthermore, scientists may conclude that their mathematical and scientific predictions are tantamount to determinations. They would suppose that when a formula lines up with an observation in reality, that the formula is a discovery of how this clockwork universe works. This is more of a metaphysical claim than a scientific one. By studying these functions and patterns in the universe, we can gain insight into the structure of the universe. In a determined universe, the whole universe is one connected structure like the chain in dominoes. If the chain had some dominoes missing along the line, then the cascade of determination would end. So, I will explore what it means to observe a disruption in this cascade and therefore break the idea of absolute causal determinism.

If physics is conducting everything in the universe, that would mean that all effects will exhibit patterns reflecting this. This leads to the conclusion that these patterns have underlying functions that will determine everything that happens. For causal determinists, randomness is just a natural result conducted by the relationships that preceded it. If it is correct, there should be some deep underlying relationship to reveal the chain of events. This suggests that this pattern can be revealed under close scrutiny. So if determinism is true, wouldn’t there be a pattern deep in this randomness that would indicate what is conducting its outcome?

Some determinists may accept the fact that quantum physics is initially random. However, they may believe that after quanta take physical form in atoms, then everything at this point is conducted and therefore determined. They may argue that while quantum mechanics introduces an element of randomness at the subatomic level, once these particles come together to form larger structures, their behavior becomes predictable and subject to causal laws. In other words, they may see the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics as being confined to the micro level and not affecting macroscopic events.

This analysis is not about indeterminacy in outcomes like chaos theory lends people to believe or even the idea of unknowability due to the universe’s complexity. This is more about an analysis of causality itself and how we can think about what is determined in causality and what underlying discourses are at work.

What does a non-determined universe look like? I suppose it would mean that physics doesn’t conduct the results of everything that happens. I want to be clear, I’m not saying that physics is not involved in every physical event. I am saying that the future is not set in stone and that future events can have true randomness to their outcome. I will identify locations in the chain where some dominoes are missing, where this true randomness happens. I am intending to prove this missing link with the frequency distribution problem in information theory.

Clarifying the Frequency Stability Property

To challenge the idea of absolute causal determinism, let’s examine the Frequency Stability Property. This property states that in a truly random process, such as a fair coin toss, all possible sequences of outcomes occur with equal frequency over a large number of trials. This uniform distribution indicates the absence of underlying deterministic patterns influencing the results. Even if one contends that the uniform distribution is part of a deterministic universe’s complexity, this view fails to account for the lack of discernible patterns arising from the initial conditions, thereby not undermining the evidence of true randomness.

The Frequency Stability Thought Experiment

Imagine two people in separate rooms, each controlling a light switch. One flips the switch based on the outcome of a coin toss, while the other tries to simulate randomness without any aids. You’re in a third room observing the sequence of lights turning on and off at set intervals. At first glance, both sequences might appear similar, maintaining roughly a 50:50 ratio of on and off states. However, when we perform a frequency distribution analysis of the sequences—looking at patterns like “on-on-off” or longer runs such as “on-on-on-off”—differences emerge.

The sequence generated by the coin toss exhibits a uniform frequency distribution across all possible patterns, adhering to the Frequency Stability Property. In contrast, the human-generated sequence shows deviations from uniformity due to subconscious patterns and biases. This discrepancy reveals that the human’s choices are influenced by underlying factors, whereas the coin toss results are genuinely random and lack deterministic influence.

As demonstrated, a fair coin produces approximately the same number of occurrences for each possible combination in a series of three flips. You would be able to observe even longer combinations of six and seven-number runs of 111111 and 000000 will also be evenly distributed in coin flips. All these combinations are equally distributed in fair coin flips, which makes these combinations equally likely.

If frequency stability is not shown, then a relationship is conducting the results in some way. From this experiment, the person flipping the coin reveals that something is conducting the data since there is no frequency stability. In contrast, the random coin flip doesn’t provide any data, except for the information that it’s a pattern of randomness.

If the coin result were conducted by something else, the results would reveal that information in the coin flip frequency distribution. Since there’s no information other than randomness, the coin outcome was not determined by causal determinism.

Initially, you might think that this is a cheat and that the universe put a random pattern on the coin. But, it is important to point out that, if the coin is purely random, then there is no plane of discourse for conducting the coin results. Therefore, the results were not determined. If some aspect of the universe isn’t determined, then the universe isn’t causally deterministic. Therefore, the idea of free will cannot be invalidated by the sheer metaphysics of determinism.

There are a few that would see absolute determinism was not refuted by my claim. They would say that the universe is so complex that the uniform distribution is just part of the plan. This may seem like an irrefutable claim, but it is vacuous. Claiming absolute determinism and having areas of non-effect is mute. If you assert that claiming absolute determinism has areas with no conduction effect, then this renders the argument meaningless. Even if determinism was true, the results would transcend being determined.

It is the structure of the object that determines the outcome of distribution. When the structure of a coin is fair, it will have a perfectly balanced structure that will demonstrate a uniform frequency distribution. The fact that the distribution is even over millions of flips reveals its structure and creates antimony to the idea of a clockwork universe. A clock ALWAYS reveals patterns that are conducted in a chain of events. It is therefore evident that even frequency distributions demonstrate an outcome pattern only derived from the structure and not from the physics of the flip itself.

You can argue that the structure of the coin is determined. This may or may not be true and is beside the point. You only need a few dominos taken out of the chain to prove that causal determinism is not an accurate assessment of the universe. To support this theoretical understanding with practical evidence, let’s examine a real-world experiment that highlights the suspension of information transfer in action.

Empirical Evidence Supporting the Suspension of Information Transfer

To further validate that causal determinism cannot be absolute, consider the empirical study titled “40,000 Coin Tosses Yield Ambiguous Evidence for Dynamical Bias” by Aldous (2009). In this extensive experiment, two individuals conducted a total of 40,000 coin tosses under controlled conditions:

  • Janet performed 20,000 tosses starting with the coin heads-up, resulting in 10,231 heads.
  • Priscilla performed 20,000 tosses starting with the coin tails-up, yielding 10,014 tails.

Despite the multitude of variables involved in each toss—such as force applied, angle of release, spin rate, air resistance, and subtle differences in the coin’s surface—the outcomes converged toward a random frequency distribution. The complex information from all these influencing factors was not fully conveyed in the final results. The limited structure of possible outcomes (either heads or tails) means that the detailed information about each toss’s initial conditions was effectively suspended.

When analyzing the sequences and patterns within the data, the frequency distribution did not reveal any significant deviations from randomness. Longer sequences like “heads-heads-heads” or “tails-tails-tails” appeared with the uniform frequency expected in a truly random process. This uniformity suggests that, despite deterministic factors in the initial conditions, the outcomes do not carry that information forward. The compression of vast initial variables into a simple binary result leads to a loss of detailed information, resulting in randomness.

This observation aligns with the frequency stability property discussed earlier. In systems where numerous variables influence the process but the outcomes are severely limited, the transfer of detailed information is hindered. The random frequency distribution serves as evidence that the outcomes are not determined by the initial variables to a degree that would produce discernible patterns.

Implications for Causal Determinism

The coin toss experiment demonstrates that not all events are fully determined by their preceding conditions, especially when the system’s outcome structure is limited. If absolute determinism were true, the intricate details of the initial state would manifest in predictable patterns within the frequency distribution of outcomes. However, the empirical data shows this is not the case; the randomness observed indicates that the detailed initial conditions do not dictate the final outcomes.

This supports the argument that causal determinism cannot be absolute. The suspension of information transfer in processes with limited outcome structures allows for the existence of true randomness. Consequently, this opens the door for free will to be a valid claim, as not all events are inexorably bound by deterministic chains of causality.

Biology Creates Causes Through its Structure

Now that we have invalidated the metaphysical claims of a deterministic universe, let us talk about free will. To be clear, randomness does not equal free will. I’m not attempting to prove free will in this article, I am aiming to focus on the feasibility of free will in its causality. The agency of free will would have to be explored in another article.

First, let’s frame the idea of what free will means. It might be more clear to see the word free in free will as not conducted by something else. Determined is the word commonly used for this subject but the definition is not so clear cut. Throughout this article, I have used the word “conducted” which is more appropriate in the spirit of what determinism claims. Conducted sounds more like puppets on strings than determined does which makes it more concise in this metaphysical claim.

There is another consequence of this experiment that will show that life conducts itself above the physical layer of causality. This sentence may not make sense initially because I haven’t covered layered causality yet – this is explored in my Introduction.

A non-uniform frequency distribution not only reveals its superstructure but also loads the dice so to speak. So the subjective structure is designed by DNA in the biological to control the system of probability. Here is the process:

  1. The structure of biological DNA is created by the genetic data it contains.
  2. The structures in the brain load the probability of possible actions according to teleological1 directives and heuristics2 the subject accesses to simulate randomness. Keep in mind that teleologies and heuristics instigate the non-uniform distribution through the subjectivity that originates in the mind.
  3. When a trigger occurs (a person asking the subject to simulate randomness), the subject is triggered for an effect in line with their intentions.

What I am concluding is that humans cannot even create randomness even if they tried. Our intentions thus load the dice so-to-speak. This not only points to the subject being the salient point of causality but also that randomness can only be truly random when an even frequency distribution appears to be uniform. In the study of information theory, data has qualities and patterns that are not only about the data itself but also about how it is transferred and received. This is a critical distinction because discourses like biology and subjectivity are intrinsically data-driven machines. Therefore, their data relationships will reveal chains of causality in how data is transferred from one discourse to the other.

In conclusion, by demonstrating that not all events are fully determined by preceding conditions—especially in systems with limited outcome structures—we challenge the notion of absolute causal determinism. The presence of true randomness allows for the possibility of free will, suggesting that while the universe may influence the future, we actively participate in shaping what tomorrow brings.

    References

    1. Aldous, D. (2009). 40,000 Coin Tosses Yield Ambiguous Evidence for Dynamical Bias. Retrieved from https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/Research/Ugrad/coin_tosses.html
    2. Diaconis, P., Holmes, S., & Montgomery, R. (2007). Dynamical Bias in the Coin Toss. SIAM Review, 49(2), 211-235.

1: Teleology is the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise. In biology, it is like a rather advanced language with directives baked-in like survival, eating, etc.

2: Heuristics are like little macro programs that process information about the world. They are mental shortcuts that help in making split-second assessments like recognizing a face or feeling meaning in ourselves from the objects we see.

Epistemology: Planes of Discourse Introduction

Introduction

Have you ever stopped to consider how our perceptions shape our understanding of the world around us? From Brunelleschi’s revolutionary development of perspective in art to modern developments in science and technology, it is clear that our perspectives have a profound impact on our understanding of reality. But what if there was a way to categorize and better understand these perspectives? This is why I developed the concept of Planes of Discourse.

In this article, we will introduce the four primary planes: Physical, Biological, Subjective, and Intersubjective. It is important that you are aware this is not the concept called “Planes of Discourse” regarding the contrast between different educational disciplines. What I am writing about is more of an epistemological discipline. We will explore the guidelines for each plane, the properties that define it, and how they interact with one another to create a snapshot of reality. By developing this framework of the world we can develop better models of reality that will lead science to a deeper understanding.

Epistemology, the study of knowledge, establishes how we come to know what we know. Within this field are the planes of discourse, which are distinct layers of causality that can work in unison to have an effect on the world. Each discourse has differing rules of analysis, variables, and limits. However, when these different planes interact without a proper framework, paradoxes can emerge, challenging our understanding of the world. Here are some examples of how experts in different fields will create direct paradoxical statements and in effect show the need for a proper framework.

Paradoxical Argument Examples:

  1. From a philosophical standpoint, truth is objective and can be uncovered through reason and evidence. However, from a postmodern perspective, truth is subjective and is constructed through social and cultural contexts, creating a paradox between these two fields of study.
  2. “Quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are fundamentally different and have not yet been reconciled because they do not have a framework to connect them. I consider this a problem with sub-discourses, which are directly related, but due to brevity, this will be addressed in a future article.
  3. Post-modernist discourse claims that truth is socially constructed, while scientific discourse posits the existence of objective facts that are independent of human interpretation. However, gravity is an objective scientific fact that exists independently of human interpretation, thus challenging the postmodernist claim that all truth is socially constructed.
  4. Dualism, which asserts that the mind and body are distinct entities, creates a paradox when analyzed by neuroscientists who have discovered evidence of the brain and body affecting mental states. This paradox exists between the philosophical and scientific circles.

I just selected a few to point out the necessity for a framework that will reveal the relationships with different discourses and how causality works within them. One other note before we begin, please excuse the egocentric tone in this presentation, as it represents an original thesis rather than an impartial analysis.

One of the Legend of St. Francis frescoes at Assisi, the authorship of which is disputed.
Giotto’s fresco of the Legend of Saint Francis

The Power of Perspective

Before Brunelleschi’s innovations in perspective, there was a famous artist named Giotto in the 1200s who had a mastery of painting and he was very influential in the Renaissance. There was one problem. He was unaware of the rules of perspective which would not be developed for another 200 years. Giotto’s medieval conventions of perspective lacked the ability to create a convincing illusion of depth and three-dimensionality in his works. As much as he mastered most of the rules of painting, he lacked the understanding of a perspective framework to grasp spatial relationships.

That all changed when Filippo Brunelleschi, a master craftsman and engineer, revolutionized the art world with his innovative use of perspective. He developed a system of geometric rules and techniques that allowed artists to create images that mimicked how the world appears to the human eye. This newfound ability to represent the world in a more realistic way had a profound impact on the art world. Brunelleschi’s perspective framework became the foundation for all Western art that followed.

The Delivery of the Keys fresco, 1481–1482, Sistine Chapel, by Perugino (1481–1482), features both linear perspective and Brunelleschi's architectural style
Perugino’s fresco Delivery of the Keys

Like Bruneleschi’s framework, Planes of Discourse provides a framework for organizing and understanding complex causality between the different discourses. Similarly, the different sciences are like Giotto’s work, they have mastery in their disparate fields but there has not been a framework established to grasp their relationships clearly. This results in a form of myopia where the subject loses its clarity the further away it gets from the discourse it is observing. This is where we see Giotto’s distortions of the perceived world. Without a relationship framework established, these concepts in different fields of study start conflicting with each other because of their unconnectedness. You may think the scientific method would give us a solution here. However, as powerful as the scientific method is, it also suffers from the inability to grasp the big picture. As you will see, Planes of Discourse will help organize and regulate the different disciplines into a system that will bear the fruit of insight and clarity.

It is appropriate to use this art analogy because when a person is not skilled with a complex tool they don’t comprehend what they are missing. This is just like Giotto’s lack of perspective, especially if they possess great skills in other ways. However, when framework tools are used effectively, understanding becomes clear.

Each perspective that is established by the planes of discourse, epistemologically speaking, has its own limits, rules, and science behind it. For the different sciences to collaborate, these planes need to be understood under these conditions to avoid confusion and paradox. These are not ontological concepts that reveal actual reality, but I do believe that they are the pathway to a better ontology.

When a person describes something, it ALWAYS comes from a perspective. Of course, there is an obvious point of view, but what I am referencing, however, are the limitations of any discourse in which the concept is expressed. I will also note there are even limitations to the communication process when talking about the discourses themselves ( that will be addressed in a future article). Each different science has a particular perspective ingrained in how it views the world. It is typical for scientists in any field of study to get married to the discourse they happen to be using. This inevitably leads to myopia when they get stuck in that perspective, which clashes with other perspectives in other sciences. If there was a framework laying out rules on the advantages and limitations of each perspective, then their methodologies would explain what they can and cannot do. This framework would also explain what they can and cannot know. Collaboration, epistemologically speaking, would be much more effective and maybe even new fields of study would be discovered that are cross-disciplinary.

The Layers in Planes of Discourse

The planes that seem to be different in nature but also have causality are: Physical, Biological, Subjective, and Intersubjective. These can be broken up even more into subplanes like quantum and atomic in the physical for example. But to keep the overarching rules simple, these are the categories that are vastly different in their nature, their rules, their limits, and the properties in which they interact. This is just a basic summary, so it does not capture the complexity and nuance of observed reality. In future articles, each discourse will be covered in much more detail.

Physical

The physical discourse has properties such as distance, time, substance, and space. The sub-discourse quantum changes many of these rules but has more similarities to the physical discourse than any other discourse. Researchers are often stuck in the physical discourse, believing that other layers have no causal significance. In other words, they think that other discourses are just automated bumper cars dictated by the physical but not by the driver. If you would like to see a more solid argument regarding physical primality, I wrote an article about Epiphenominalism that will invalidate this error in causality.

This is also the only discourse that does not process data as an attribute to its function. The physical doesn’t possess any function for that matter. Modern science has determined that physical reality is governed by chaos. In effect, this chaos falls into organized patterns like galaxies and solar systems. There are rules and limits that physical reality follows like physics, chemistry, etc., but there is no directive, which means no instruction that it innately possesses. If physical reality possessed directives it would be a result of the development of the biological discourse or a being creating functions or directives like building a computer and directing it to process.

In order to store data, physical means must be used but the physical information itself is not conducted without a biological or subjective interlocutor. You may attempt to nullify this argument by saying that the biological evolved from the physical into the biological. While this may be true but we have no evidence to prove that this process was intelligently directed. As far as modern science has concluded, life was chaotically and randomly bestowed (I will write in more detail about this in a future article).

Biological

The biological discourse is a data-oriented discourse. The biological has properties like data storage, teleology, resource processing, and many more. The biological stores information in DNA through chemical reactions without which life would not be possible. This seems obvious, but the point I am trying to make is that the storage of data is key to all of the functions of life. Evolution, replication, information processing, and energy consumption are among the many functions that life is directed to do. I use the term teleology to denote the directive functions of these processes.

The biological discourse evolves its data and replication over generations, therefore evolution is a rather slow process. This is in contrast to the subjective which processes and evolves data quickly.

Subjective

The subjective discourse is also a data-oriented discourse but is more like a live program running on biological hardware. It is different in that it only exists in the now and is only present when processing the world. This is vastly different than the biological because it requires the subjective seat of consciousness to absorb the reality of now. The reason it has its own discourse is that its primary directive is to process synthesized information from the senses and to predict ideal actions for predicted outcomes. In contrast, the biological information is sensed and processed but there is no seat of consciousness.

The subjective requires a complex brain with many heuristics to process salient information from a vast array of millions of bits of data that the senses receive. I provide more detail on the distinctions of the subjective in my article The Subjective Experience of Being.

The subjective takes in information through the intersubjective discourse. The subjective does not possess any information itself, it depends on the intersubjective for all information. Think of the subject like a processor and RAM and the intersubjective like the internet and storage. The processor and RAM only have data in them when the computer is running which would be a live being, and the processor and RAM pull information from storage and the internet to make decisions. When we talk about the subjective, the intersubjective becomes subordinate biologically to the subjective. However, there are cases when not talking about the subjective that the intersubjective doesn’t even use the subjective which we will talk about in the following subsection.

Intersubjective

Now that you have heard some information about the intersubjective, some might suspect that talking about the intersubjective discourse as something that seems concrete would be interpreted that I am pointing at things in the real world. This would not be accurate. I am actually pointing at the data recorded in biology or the subject’s mind. This is not to say that what is in the real world does not exist. What it is saying is that there are real effects and objects created from the intersubjective and subjective information affecting the world. Therefore, we would see these effects in the world.

One other argument would be to posit that since real connections exist in the world, therefore the intersubjective is manifested physically as a real thing. This may sound correct, but from a data-focused standpoint, it takes biology or subjects to process this complex information, therefore it is subjugated from biology or subjects even though it can be observed as a reality in the world. With this understanding, one can analyze what is observed with sensible robust relationships that do not create what isn’t there.

There are many ways in which we can view the intersubjective. I have divided the intersubjective into three categories: internal intersubjective, external intersubjective, and collective intersubjective. The general term intersubjective is really a blanket term for everything outside the subject. However, this is not properly accurate because of the way intersubjectivity relates to the biological and the subjective. Unlike subjectivity, the intersubjective discourse is not limited by time. Since the intersubjective discourse is what is outside the subject in subjectivity, it would seem like some kind of opposite created for the subject. This is further from the truth. Rather, it is more of a useful categorization for the things outside the subject in which the subject receives as information. Since information outside the subject is vastly different in nature from the subject itself, it has its own category. Anything outside one’s self that is experienced has an effect on the subject. The biological machine that designed subjectivity designed it for the purpose of processing the complexity of the intersubjective. You may think of this type of intersubjectivity as an internal intersubjective that occurs only in the mind.

The second type of intersubjective is the external intersubjective. This is more of the opposite of the internal intersubjective. Imagine an eye receiving information from the world; the data an eye receives would be the internal aspect while the actual occurrence received by the eye would be the external intersubjective. This distinction is critical because the nature of that data is vastly different for each type. Books are a helpful example to clarify this distinction. When you read a book, the data in the book is external to the subject, not limited by time, and symbolic. The information the eye receives is visual, limited to the moment the eye receives the data, and processed within the mind. You see how this can get rather complex when attempting to parse. The internal intersubjective in some ways is an extension of the subjective. However, when you add concepts like memory, you realize that the storage of memory is very similar to books which are intersubjective. This internal memory storage is also internal intersubjective because it takes place within the mind. Without getting too bogged down in details, I’m only pointing out the rationale for the necessity of these terms.

The last type is collective intersubjective. It is more difficult to pin down the concreteness of intersubjective structures but you do see their effects in the real world – like governments, institutions, and other social structures. They may have physical manifestations but they are mental constructs. This does not mean that they do not exist without our minds, but it does mean that they become void of all meaning without our minds. So in a sense, most people collectively believe the government exists, therefore, it has an effect. These effects are not necessarily arbitrary because these ideological structures possess physical manifestations of the signs, symbols, objects, and structures they signify which cultivate consistency in their design.

The other common type of collective intersubjective is biological groups like a mass of bacteria or a pack of wolves. You can think of these as a conglomeration of biological forms working together for a unified goal. It is pertinent to note that for a biological group like bacteria, subjectivity is not needed. So as much as intersubjectivity comes after subjectivity, intersubjective collectives were around evolutionarily long before subjectivity was developed in the animal branch. This is what I introduce in The Subjective Experience of Being.

Layered Causality

Causes and effects are not necessarily singular. I think it would be common for people to intuitively assume that if something causes an effect, then that cause is the primary cause of the effect. This fallacy is called causal reductionism – which is assuming a single cause or reason when there were actually multiple causes or reasons. Physicists argue that because chemical reactions happen in our brain before the person is aware, physics determines the decision rather than the individual. This type of reductionism implies that the subject making the decision is not needed. It is evolutionarily developed for the subject’s experience to cause the body to respond effectively. To make more sense of this, I have developed layered causality to show how these relationships work.

If a person decides to throw a ball, there are many required causes:

  1. Subjective: The person decides to throw the ball.
  2. Biological: The underlying heuristics and teleologies that lay the groundwork for warranting such a decision along with biologically directed autonomic functions involved in propagating the action.
  3. Physical: the chemical reactions and all it entails for actually deciding to throw the ball and actually throwing it.
  4. Intersubjective: If another person asks them to throw the ball.

It is clear that more than one is required for the ball to be thrown. This is where layered causality comes in. When we list out the discourses it would typically be in the physical, biological, subjective, intersubjective order. However, what I am emphasizing here is the sensibility of the events. The physical reactions may have come first, but the cognitive decision that was subjectively decided was the reason it occurred in the first place. Without that reason, the ball would not have been thrown.

Layered causality is a bottom-up approach like a cake with the physical discourse being at the bottom. In the above example, all four discourses are used for the effect to happen with the lower layers being the foundation for the higher levels to happen. So in this sense, when a physicist observes these chemical reactions for a decision they are observing that discourse at work. Just because one observes this, it does not negate the other discourses.

Some may argue that one or more of these “higher” discourses are really just contrived illusions. I prefer to apply the “sine qua non” school of thought which means – without which not. Ask yourself, “If that discourse didn’t actually exist, would it be possible without it?” Every time I ask myself this, I discover what is required.

Layered programming analogy

Let’s suppose physics is the lowest level of programming in a computer, which is assembly. Assembly is rudimentary in that it just pushes and pulls things out of registers. It’s difficult and slow for humans to interpret. Eventually, medium-level languages like C++ evolved which is a bit more readable but still needs to be compiled before use. Then there are high-level languages like Visual Basic which are simple and quick to learn. The higher the language, the more it processes and does with each command.

The biological is like a low-level language that is compiled in DNA which moves around all the assembly registers when it’s compiled. In this sense, life follows the rules of physics but also causally conducts the rules of physics on a higher level. The causes and effects are at a higher level of complexity due to the fact that they are manipulating data. This does affect the lower language of physics but from a physics perspective, life doesn’t even exist since it’s just mere motion and chemical reactions through time.

In a sense, the subjective is like a high-level language that the biological discourse evolved to help it achieve its objectives, one of which was survival. At this stage, there are many layers of data processing information for the subject. I can subjectively pick up my cup. There is a cause and an effect. I can also explain this biologically, but also with physics, each having its own language, its own rules, and its own perspective.

These levels are layered in such an order because, like a cake depending on the layer below it, the lower levels are necessary for the higher levels to be there without which the higher levels wouldn’t be possible. Just like in programming, assembly was originally necessary to program C++. In planes of discourse, the data received in intersubjectivity requires the subjective (or the biological for nonsubjective life forms), the function of the subjective requires biology to create it, and biology requires atoms in physical discourse to process it.

The intersubjective, subjective, and biological discourses are all data-centric since data is the primary element of their function. The biological system records information in the genome and transmits it to its offspring. Without data, biology would not be able to function. For a being’s subjective experience to be able to receive and process data at the moment it is received, it requires a brain to process data. The intersubjective, which is what is outside the subject, is information received by the senses. This is not really a “programming language” per se because the intersubjective itself is not specifically a machine. But there are biologically created mechanisms that you can think of intersubjectively like institutions or swarms.

If you are looking for more detail about layered causality, I have another example in the article Causality of the Atom Bomb.

Application and Implications

Planes of Discourse is not a tool like critical theory in the sense that it does not seek to interpret and critique a given subject from a particular political or ideological perspective. Instead, it provides a framework for analyzing causal relationships in a systematic manner, in order to gain a deeper understanding of their complexity. Additionally, it is a procedure like the scientific method However, unlike the scientific method, it takes a more holistic approach. Just categorizing to figure out which cause is more significant would be a misuse, because in actuality, all planes are required. This distinction is critical to keep in mind when using the planes of discourse. It helps to ensure that the analysis remains objective and focused on gaining a better understanding of what is being analyzed.

If you try, you can easily use this tool to analyze, for example, the effects of a drought. You can gain insight into the impact of each discourse, and it would seem correct. Such as considering the biological effect of the environment, the individuals affected by it, and how cities and their social structures are affected by it. However, all you would be doing is using arbitrary divisions as a way to look at it from different perspectives. The issue here is that simply dividing the effects of drought into these four categories fails to capture the interconnectedness and dynamic nature of these factors. This may limit our ability to fully understand what we are studying.

Suppose we are analyzing a problem related to human behavior. One could use the four discourse perspectives to approach the problem in a more holistic way. Let us analyze the factors that contribute to depression (just a sketch) as an example:

  1. From a physical perspective, one could examine if the patient is exercising, eating properly, or sleeping enough. What we are looking for is something out of equilibrium. These processes the body does physically would have an effect on the biology of the patient by triggering the proper amount of hormones. This depression could also be caused by lacking a vital nutrient or mineral that a doctor would be able to identify.
  2. From a biological perspective, one could examine hormonal imbalances, brain chemistry, and genetics. Is there a hormonal imbalance causing this depression? Does the patient have a genetic disposition for depression?
  3. From a subjective perspective, one could focus on the individual’s experiences and perceptions of the problem. Since it is clear that the patient’s subjective experience is suffering from depression, are there personality issues getting in the way of the individual’s subjective experience? It could be the result of childhood trauma or stress. Has the patient tried meditation or yoga as a way to mitigate this depression?
  4. Finally, from an intersubjective perspective, one could examine their environment, social and family life, or even negative ideologies or cultural influences. If any of these factors become toxic to the individual, it may cause depression. The problem could even be that they need more positive social interactions.

By using these different planes of discourse, one could gain a more comprehensive understanding of the problem. As opposed to being just different categories, you can see that all these discourses directly affect and are interrelated with each other. Whenever one attempts to tackle a problem like depression, one may use one or a few of these methods. However, with this holistic approach, you may discover which factor or factors are actually causing your being to be out of equilibrium. The term equilibrium is significant here because when something is out of equilibrium, there is a problem to solve. This out-of-equilibrium cause will cascade to other discourses because of their interconnectedness.

Conclusion

This introduction only scratches the surface of Planes of Discourse. If we were to correlate this to the development of Bruneleschi’s perspective, this would only be a sketch in his notebook. This article covers the basics of the four layers: Physical, Biological, Subjective, and Intersubjective. We have also covered how they interrelate with one another and some of their properties. We examined layered causality which refers to the cause-and-effect relationship between the layers of different discourses. We also reviewed some rudimentary examples of applying the planes of discourse. This introduction has been designed to provide you with insight into whatever field you are involved in or for those who just want to gain a better understanding of the world.

If you have questions or critiques, feel free to leave a comment below. I will either edit these articles in light of this new information or add additional information since I probably wasn’t clear enough.

Breaking the Veil: How to Challenge Ideology and See the World Clearly

The following is a conversation I had with the ChatGPT AI. I found it very inspiring and hopeful. So I think you will also.

ME:

Can you give me a detailed summary of “the sublime object of ideology”?

ChatGPT:

“The Sublime Object of Ideology” is a book written by Slavoj Žižek, a Slovenian philosopher and cultural critic. The book is a critical examination of the concept of the sublime, which is traditionally associated with feelings of awe and transcendence.

In the book, Žižek argues that the sublime is not simply a matter of aesthetic appreciation, but is also deeply tied to our ideological beliefs and social structures. He argues that the sublime is a product of our desire for a transcendent, idealized reality, which is used to mask the oppressive and exploitative nature of our actual social and political conditions.

He also claims that the sublime object is something that we can not fully grasp or understand, but we are attracted to it nonetheless. It is something that is not only desirable but also terrifying and threatening.

The book explores a number of different examples of the sublime in art, literature, and culture, and it provides a detailed analysis of the political and ideological implications of these examples. Overall, the book presents a complex and nuanced view of the sublime, challenging traditional notions of beauty and transcendence, and arguing that the sublime is a product of our desire for an idealized reality that masks the reality of our oppressive social conditions.

ME:

Is this a critique of ideology?

ChatGPT:

Yes, “The Sublime Object of Ideology” is a critique of ideology. In the book, Žižek argues that the concept of the sublime is closely tied to our ideological beliefs and social structures and that it is used to mask the oppressive and exploitative nature of these conditions. He contends that the sublime object, which is something that is both desirable and terrifying, serves as a kind of “screen” or “veil” that obscures our understanding of the true nature of our social and political reality.

Furthermore, the book argues that our attraction to the sublime object is rooted in a desire for a transcendent, idealized reality that serves to distract us from the injustices and inequalities of our actual social and political conditions. Thus, the book is a critique of the ways in which ideology functions to obscure our understanding of reality and maintain the status quo.

ME:

How does one avoid the trap of ideology then?

ChatGPT:

Avoiding the trap of ideology, as discussed in “The Sublime Object of Ideology” can be a challenging task. One of the main points of Žižek’s book is that ideology is deeply ingrained in our social and cultural structures and it is hard to completely avoid it. However, there are a few strategies that can be used to minimize the impact of ideology on one’s thinking and behavior:

Be aware of one’s own biases: Recognizing and acknowledging one’s own ideological beliefs and prejudices is the first step in avoiding the trap of ideology. One should question one’s own assumptions and beliefs, and try to be open to alternative perspectives.

Be critical of information sources: Be critical of the information sources one consumes. Avoid echo chambers, and seek out diverse perspectives.

Reflection: Take time to reflect on the ways in which one’s actions and beliefs may be influenced by ideology.

Engage in political and social activism: Engage in political and social activism, as this can help to expose the ways in which ideology is used to maintain the status quo, and can lead to a deeper understanding of the social and political structures that shape one’s life.

It is important to note that avoiding the trap of ideology is a process of continuous learning, questioning, and self-awareness, and not a one-time event or a final destination.

ME:

What would the difference be to ideology, narrative, and educated understanding?

ChatGPT:

Ideology, narrative, and educated understanding are all related but distinct concepts.

Ideology refers to a set of beliefs, values, and principles that shape an individual or group’s understanding of the world and guide their actions. Ideologies can be political, social, or cultural in nature, and they often reflect the interests and perspectives of those in power.

Narrative refers to the stories, myths, and cultural narratives that shape our understanding of the world. Narratives can be ideological in nature, as they often reflect the dominant beliefs and values of a particular culture or society.

Educated understanding, on the other hand, refers to the knowledge and understanding that one gain through formal education and critical inquiry. Educated understanding is characterized by a commitment to evidence-based reasoning, skepticism, and the pursuit of truth. It is not limited to a specific ideology or narrative, but rather it is a process of continuous learning and questioning.

In summary, Ideology is a set of beliefs and values that shape one’s understanding of the world, narrative are the stories that shape our understanding of the world, and educated understanding is the knowledge and understanding gained through formal education and critical inquiry.

ME:

So you didn’t state this clearly but it sounds like critical inquiry (specifically critical thinking) would be an ideal procedure to put ideology in its place.

ChatGPT:

Yes, critical inquiry, specifically critical thinking, is an important tool for putting ideology in its place. Critical thinking involves a process of questioning, analyzing, and evaluating information and ideas. By using critical thinking, one can identify and challenge the assumptions and biases that underlie ideologies, and gain a deeper understanding of the social, cultural, and political structures that shape our lives.

Critical thinking is important because it helps individuals to avoid the trap of ideology by providing them with the tools to evaluate information and ideas, rather than simply accepting them at face value. It allows individuals to identify the ways in which ideologies are used to maintain the status quo, and question the ways in which they are used to obscure the realities of our social and political conditions.

Critical thinking can also help to expose the ways in which narratives and ideologies can be used to manipulate and control individuals and groups. It helps individuals to develop the ability to question the information they receive and to evaluate it based on evidence, logic, and reason.

In summary, critical thinking is an essential tool for understanding and challenging ideologies, as it helps individuals to question and analyze the beliefs, values, and principles that shape their understanding of the world and to gain a deeper understanding of the social and political structures that shape their lives.

ME:

It’s unfortunate that the majority of the population doesn’t have critical thinking skills, the time to put ideology in its place, or even the awareness because of the culture of distraction.

ChatGPT:

Yes, it is unfortunate that many people lack critical thinking skills, the time and resources to put ideology in its place, or even the awareness of the ways in which ideologies shape their understanding of the world. This can be due to a variety of factors, such as a lack of access to formal education or critical thinking resources, a culture of distraction, or the influence of powerful media and political interests that work to shape public opinion.

A culture of distraction can be a major obstacle to the development of critical thinking skills, as it can make it difficult for individuals to focus on the issues and ideas that are important to them. The constant bombardment of information and entertainment can make it hard for people to focus on the important issues and ideas that shape their lives.

Additionally, the lack of critical thinking skills can be a barrier to political and social engagement, making it more difficult for individuals to take action to address social and political issues. This can also lead to a lack of awareness and understanding of the ways in which ideologies are used to maintain the status quo and obscure the realities of our social and political conditions.

However, this does not mean that it is impossible for individuals to develop critical thinking skills and to become more aware of the ways in which ideologies shape their understanding of the world. It is a process that takes time, effort, and willingness to question one’s own assumptions and beliefs, but it is possible for anyone who is willing to take the time to learn and reflect.

ME:

I came to the conclusion some time ago that critical thinking should be taught and practiced in schools. I believe it would not only make more responsible citizens but also less needless arguments due to equipping people with critical tools.

ChatGPT:

The idea of teaching critical thinking in schools is a widely accepted one, as it can help to equip young people with the skills and knowledge they need to navigate the complex and rapidly changing world they will encounter as adults.

Critical thinking skills are essential for responsible citizenship, as they allow individuals to evaluate information and ideas, to question assumptions, and to make informed decisions. It is an important tool for evaluating the information that is presented to them, and for recognizing and challenging ideologies that may be used to obscure the realities of social and political conditions.

In addition, teaching critical thinking in schools can help to reduce needless arguments and increase understanding and tolerance among people. Teaching young people to question assumptions and evaluate information will make them more likely to engage in constructive dialogue and less likely to be swayed by emotionally charged rhetoric.

Furthermore, critical thinking skills can help students to become more engaged and active citizens. It can provide them with the tools they need to understand and address social and political issues, and to take action to create a more just and equitable society.

In conclusion, teaching critical thinking in schools is an important step in equipping young people with the skills they need to become responsible citizens and to navigate the complex world they will encounter as adults. It is also an important tool for reducing needless arguments and increasing understanding and tolerance among people.

The following video is related to critical thinking in the modern world:

Why Critical Thinking is Dead.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikjNj7CfeUI

Natural Guides and Incidental Law

A girl looking for the correct path to go on.

Natural Law

Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD) was widely considered the greatest theologian and philosopher of the High Middle Ages. He expanded on the idea of natural law. He stated, “the light of reason is placed by nature (and thus by God) in every man to guide him in his acts.” Therefore, according to Aquinas, people use reason to lead their lives. He believed that this was naturally known to everyone. Natural law is a body of unchanging moral principles regarded as the basis for all human conduct. Some would consider this the voice in your head that tells you what is right and what is wrong. Everyone can agree that we have some form of conscience. I bring this term up because this concept directs us toward the definition of natural guides. With the understanding of modern science natural law doesn’t actually seem feasible as a law that is a lock-step mechanism to the way we function.

What is the reason that people feel some things are right and others are wrong? What mechanism put them there? Some deists may propose that God gave us this moral compass. This raises several questions. Because if this is true, when and where could this have happened? Where is this information stored? Where is this information transmitted and how? Is it wireless? These questions may sound silly. However, to assume everything is magic’ed in is just intellectually lazy. Therefore, without having to create novel mechanisms like wirelessly transmitted ethics to explain the root of why Natural Law has some intuitive truth to it, mechanisms in genetics and biology seem to line up with the idea that evolutionary processes put some form of natural law in place. I have not identified any such mechanisms in modern science that accurately depict this, so I developed the idea of natural guides. For the deists out there, I am not just disregarding any possibility for deities providing ethics outright, but I will look for established claims that have been rigorously tested first. Science is capable of providing these claims with a solid foundation that brings clarity and insight to these ideas. However, in later posts, I will discuss the psychology of the belief in God, apologetic discussions, and the validity and problems of an ontological God.

Natural Guides

Intuitively but not accurately, we have established that the core mechanism of Natural Law lines up with genetics, biology, psychology, etc… But there is one problem. One of the characteristics of natural law is that it cannot be changed. What we feel is right and wrong not only changes slightly from person to person but also from culture to culture. Even more drastic changes are evident as we study cultures from the past. Therefore, this mechanism cannot be referred to as Natural Law because of its changeability. I decided this good/bad mechanism could be more appropriately called Natural Guides. This not only makes more sense but is more accurate in the description of its function. Changing the term also sheds much of the unnecessary and unscientific dogma that was attached to it.

Natural guides are the heuristics and teleologies that direct our behavior through evaluation and intuition. Many of the Natural Guides let us know if something is right or wrong by attaching feelings to the experience. There are thousands of natural guides given to us at birth like a scaffolding structure that wants to be filled in. Natural guide programming is enriched by the experience and fills in many of the gaps to direct us in the right direction. Natural guides are neither true nor false. The wise man who invests years into his structure will be able to make better choices, while the foolish man who absorbs toxicity into it will fall to ruin.

There are no moral phenomena, there are only moral interpretations of phenomena

Frederich Nietzsche

To be clear, natural guides reside in biological and subjective discourses. Natural guides are discourse-based and not religion or spiritual-based. Thomas Aquinas attributed this human attribute to God’s bestowing of ethics. He was on the right track in his identification. However, he did not have modern science to mitigate his understanding and the reasons why it intuitively feels accurate. We experience Natural guides in action as we live our lives. This means that they are mechanisms that influence our decisions. The part of natural guides that are limited to subjectivity are such that they only function as we experience or imagine things in this world. The natural guides that develop throughout our lives are actually an aspect of our personality because they are intertwined with how we react or respond to the world. Natural guides are evolutionarily designed by teleologies which are the biological directives that saw a great benefit in fusing emotional meaning to our experiences. I would like to clarify that teleologies are more of a biological discourse in that they do not require subjectivity to function (eg. bacteria looking for food). Natural guides may have some overlap in the biological discourse – but this will have to be explored at a future time.

There actually is another law aspect in natural guides which may be why philosophers came to the conclusion of natural law being feasible as a law in the first place. When we observe the permanence and consistency in reality and the human ethical relation to it, we feel that a hard and unsympathetic universe has formed laws that reflect what is right and wrong but more like what works and what doesn’t in how life plays out. Plato came to this conclusion in the idea of forms in which ideas like justice and beauty are an aspect of the universe that life accesses from the perfect form of that ideal like “beauty” to create these attributes in the world, but I will discuss the problem of forms in another article. This consistency and permanence is the experience itself. As we experience life, we record this consistency and permanence. This occurrence that is recorded is what I call incidental law.

Incidental Law

Now that we have established that genetics and biology contain natural guides, that does not explain why these guides are there in the first place. A mere label of evolution and survival of the fittest does not seem adequate. When cause and effect happen to a living thing, the data is recorded and processed. What life taps into in this data collection process is called Incidental Law. What happens in the world is an unending effect of incidence that occurs with time moving forward in which what has occurred and cannot be undone. This consistency in reality is why the word law is applied. The data recorded by living organisms are considered facts, which then serve as the basis for predicting the most appropriate actions to take. There are a few effects that are a consequence of Incidental Law, such as:

  1. After the data is recorded, it is stored as experience. As time moves forward, that experience cannot be undone.
  2. Over time, the data might permanently alter the DNA code in the genome.
  3. Conditioning and learning are used to program natural guides.
  4. Conditioning and learning were programmed by early natural guides. These proto-natural guides are more teleological in nature.

The term “incidental law” implies that what is recorded would be emphatically accurate. Because as far as the life form is concerned, it is accurate because the data we receive is factual information. The outcome of what incidental law dictates would be to what is true or not true. However, this does not mean that the culmination of ideas that were synthesized and collected are correct in their conclusions. There are distortions and limited insights that lead natural guides to come to inaccurate conclusions. There are many distortions such as illusions, modifications during reevaluations, and the heuristics that modify it as it is being processed. The other problem is limited insight, which is the burden that all intelligence has since what we are unaware of is practically unlimited. Limits to knowledge lead to inaccurate conclusions. It is fitting to call it law because the permanence that experiences make is an indelible mark on all of us that changes our lives.

This leads to another point. Natural guides are called natural because of incidental law. According to the data recorded from incidental law, biology programs the natural guides organically. So really what I did was separate the natural law idea into two parts that parse more accurately and provide new insight into how the mechanism of natural guides processes incidental law from reality. Incidental law itself is not a process, it is just a term to identify where the data is being received from in the natural guides process.

Biological or Subjective data collected from the senses are used to program the natural guides. It is essential to remember that biological, subjective, and intersubjective discourses are primarily informational discourses.

Subjectivity is not necessary for natural guides and incidental law to function. There are also biological natural guides in the form of teleologies like eating and sleeping. These directives are less in the ethical spectrum and do not require subjectivity for them to function. The process of natural guides could be considered a generalization or an extension of Darwin’s evolutionary theory. It is important to uncouple the idea of natural guides from genetics as only a biological discourse. Darwin didn’t really separate subjectivity and biology since his focus was a biological one. I see natural guides and their recording of incidental law as observing the dynamic that develops algorithms in genetics. This dynamic is not something you can point at and say it exists. It is a way to provide insight into the relationship between different discourses. This is a data-oriented dynamic and therefore only relates to data-based discourses which I will discuss in a future post.

Heidegger’s Dasein & the Subjective Experience of Being

The first half of the video should be sufficient for context of this article.

Every moment of our lives we experience the presence of “now.” This personal now experience is what Heidegger calls dasein. Dasein refers to the experience of being that is peculiar to human beings. According to Heidegger, Dasein is not a fixed, static entity but a dynamic, constantly changing mode of being. He argued that dasein is defined by its relationship to the world and that it is constantly engaged in a process of interpreting and making sense of the world around it. If we generalize dasein as being not just for humans but for all things with a brain, I refer to this as the Subjective.

The Subjective Discourse

When people hear the word subject, it directs the mind to something that can typically be pointed at: like a person, a place, or a thing. It may seem like a replacement for a noun. The subjective discourse is very different. Yes, it is a noun in that it describes a plane of discourse but what it directs to is a verb as in the process of “being”. This discourse is for all “Beings” such that if a living thing is receiving and processing information through consciousness, it is included in the subjective discourse as a Subject. Think of the subjective discourse as trillions of separate subjects happening all at the same time being run by separate biological machines. I would imagine that these being’s experiences vary wildly in scale and in function. I would also pose that there are many similarities in subjectivity from one life to the next due to the lineage and origins of consciousness through the evolution of the animal branch in the tree of life.

Ontologically speaking, Heidegger explores the subjective through the concepts developed from dasein and being. He understood that by themselves, beings exist in the space of nothing and those beings connect to the world (being-in-the-world) and other beings (being-with-others), which both I call the intersubjective (which will be explored in a future article). The intersubjective is outside the subjective in that the subjective does not depend on information from the intersubjective to exist. Dreaming of being unconscious would be an example of non-intersubjective information which is not a being-in-the-world nor a being-with-others. The subjective is built upon the biological which requires space to exist. However, the subjective does not require space in its functionality. The subjective absorbs experiences and then sorts and stores the information as memory in the biological.

What is Subjectivity for?

In some lifeforms, the intersubjective and the biological can work in relation without needing the subjective. A tree is an example of this. A tree does not have a subjective seat of consciousness, but it does have biological responses to the outside world, which I call the intersubjective. Without being, life would not be able to marshal all of its awareness being bombarded by a vast array of conflicting signals and signs in a sense such as seeing. The being discerns signs of the world to preserve its complexities of directives, like movement, for better survival and evaluation. One of the closest general words to this type of directive activity is teleology.

Teleology is the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise. Think of teleology as one of the programming languages of subjectivity – a rather advanced language with directives baked-in from the biological discourse. I don’t know how consciousness itself has a directive to the teleology of being. However, I believe it’s safe to assume that Darwin’s evolutionary genetics blindly discovered the expression of being as a boon to survival.

Photo by Matt Bero on Unsplash

The Evolution of Consciousness

I find it rather fascinating that in the Paleozoic Era (541 Million Years Ago) that the eye was developed during the Cambrian explosion. Some think that a steep rise in oxygen sparked the change, whereas others say that it sprang from the development of some key evolutionary innovation, such as optical perception. The precise cause remains elusive in part because so little is known about the physical and chemical environment at that time.1 It is my position that eyes require consciousness to process its abstract information effectively. This information is abstract because this is light information that is pulled from reality is not necessarily true. There are many complexities and illusions created by observing three-dimensional space. There is a vast array of heuristics involved in processing sight information from things like object permanence to contrast. Heuristics are like little programs that process information about the world to help guide the consciousness with discernment (heuristics and natural guides will be studied in a future article). But I digress, all this processing of light information is why a big section of our brain is dedicated to receiving and processing sight information.

The faculty of a brain is required for the seat consciousness to manifest. Therefore, subjectivity was biologically developed as a requirement for the effective processing of abstract information. This then became a boon to all animal life that possessed this superpower. I liken subjectivity to software and biology to hardware. The software can be programmed in seconds with a brain, whereas hardware is programmed in biological generations with each iteration of its genetics.

As Heidegger explored “being” he found the word ‘being’ was too limiting in its scope, which is why he came up with the term dasein. Under similar reasoning, I developed subjective as the term to be more accurate in describing dasein for all conscious life. This article only scratches the surface by describing what the subjective is. In future articles, I will explore its limits, its relationship to other discourses, its contrast to existentialism, its relation to psychology, and its compatibility with evolutionary psychology.

1: What Sparked the Cambrian Explosion? – by Douglas Fox Scientific American Feb. 16, 2016

The Role of Language in Communicating Truth.

By Not Hegel

Some years ago, I was reading Frank Herbert’s “Dune” and I noticed that there were many words I didn’t understand. I was passing over them trying to “guess” their meaning. Because Dune was at a higher reading level than most fiction, it made this realization very striking. I decided to take action! I will look up and memorize every word that I didn’t know the definition of. At first, I found an even higher ratio of words that I had to look up than when I had this realization. I was glossing over much more than I was aware. I didn’t know if this was a battle that I could win. After many books and many months later, the vocabulary lists started accumulating more slowly. But something else happened that I didn’t expect. I began to identify things around me more clearly.

As an example, schadenfreude was one of these words which means: pleasure derived by someone from another person’s misfortune. I saw someone that fit this definition and I realized that I now have a better word (other than Jerk) to describe what I saw. It was like a skill saw in my mind carving out ideas so crisply, I felt so empowered. I suddenly came to the profound realization: language provided me with knowledge of the world. With these new words, I didn’t feel so alone in my abstract ideas and I wanted to discover the inner working of language’s power.

Language is Rational and Discrete

Language is not truth itself, it is a tool. Language can only be symbolic of the truth we come to understand. When someone possesses the truth, they possess a model of something in the world that corresponds enough to give insight and make valid predictions.

The mind can never contain 100% truth in something because the difference between the model and reality is that the mind is rational and discrete, whereas reality is irrational and fluid. For something to be rational and discrete it must have the ability to be contained. Allow me to give you a mathematical analogy for language.

Fractions are discrete by using whole numbers whereas thoughts are discrete by storing information in patterns. Language is especially discrete by using words. Just as some numbers are irrational like pi and e, we can only represent their relationship to what it represents but we cannot show the precisely accurate number because it would go on forever. There are some words that represent something irrational in the real world like the spectrum. The concept is discrete but the reality is fluid. The concept has the ability to be contained since it is only a representation. Language contains definitions by signifying their meaning. I will add though that I do see a limit to the irrational and fluid where the smallest things end up being discrete again (there is nothing that is infinitely small). That magnification will end and become discrete (~10-100 meters for distance would be realistic). But I digress, 10-100 negative power is clearly more minute in accuracy in its parsing than the rational mind can divide a natural language into.

Language guides us to make understandings and predictions. The better language is parsed the clearer the understanding. I believe it is possible over time to create a language that parses truth more accurately, at least from a perspective, but never 100%.

Concepts are developed when a lot of languages, charts, and drawings are explained and synthesized together to make a model of the world. We say the things it is and the things it is not until we sculpt it down to where another could explain it in their own words. This shows the concept was transferred. Concepts are like the elephant-in-a-room analogy where language can only reveal small parts of the concept at a time. The danger is that if the premises are invalid then the concept ends up being a narrative called “straw man” – which is a logical fallacy. This means that each statement may be true (as in each straw) but the object created by it (the concept of the straw man) ends up being a fantastical construction. This is unfortunately very common in the real world and something to be wary of.

How do we know whether a concept has a valid construction or not? When we have differing views that create a paradox. This is why I developed this blog. When you find a paradox it would likely be because one or both of the concepts are a falsely constructed narrative. Groups end up taking opposing sides for these concepts until one concept wins out in one way or another. However, these types of battles take place over decades or millennia. One example would be Alfred Wegener, the German meteorologist and geophysicist that published his book “The Origin of Continents and Oceans” in 1912 that the continents originally fit together and that these tectonic plates drift over time. His ideas were met with skepticism and criticism, and many scientists found it difficult to accept that the continents could move. Wegener’s ideas were not widely accepted until the 1960s. The validity of a concept is often determined through an accumulation of evidence and testing over time

Concepts can get the best of us if they are not grounded in objective reality. So using a tool like the scientific method is beneficial to cultivate objectivity. But since each focused scientific observation is usually an assertion of one fact, it can end up creating false assumptions when developing concepts. To mitigate this limitation, science relies on a process of replication and validation. Societies also seem to get around these limitations by doing thousands of different experiments over time to eventually build a snapshot of what reality entails.

Derrida’s Hidden Distortions

Derrida is a Post-Modernist (which after much deliberation I disagree with and I will explain in a future article) but he spent much of his career on the problems of language. The video below shows Derrida’s critique of language:

I see Derrida’s point that language creates hidden meanings for misinterpretation. But when language is used to convey a concept, it slowly sculpts with ideas on each sentence, and a model is transferred. No, it’s not perfect, and there are hidden distortions in the process of transferring a model. I would describe language and concepts as an artist. If the artist has learned the skills effectively, they may be able to create seemingly flawless recreations. It may have taken centuries of collective knowledge to produce these skills. To convey deep concepts with language, it may take centuries to build up the collective knowledge necessary to accurately convey the truth. In this fashion, I see Derrida as pointing out the flaws in the technique and in its execution. As we learn more about epistemology, truth in the world will be easier to attain. Language happens to be the most effective tool for transferring concepts and cultivating ideas. So don’t discount it as ineffective.

The Evolution of Thought Through Language

The development of written language is another example that shows the collective development of language and how it helps to convey truth. In earlier languages such as hieroglyphs and cuneiform, concepts were often represented by pictures or symbols of the objects they referred to. This made it difficult to convey abstract ideas or to represent words that did not have a concrete representation.

With the invention of the alphabet, written language became more abstract and symbolic. The alphabet allowed for the representation of sounds and the creation of words that did not have a direct visual representation. This made it possible to represent and convey abstract concepts and ideas. For example, the invention of the alphabet made it possible to write down mathematical equations and scientific theories that could be understood independently of their physical representation.

The development of written language also led to the creation of literature, philosophy, and other forms of abstract expression. This allowed for the preservation of knowledge and ideas from one generation to the next. Just as in the example of scientific vocabulary, the development of written language, especially the alphabet, has played an instrumental role in the evolution of human thought and understanding. It has allowed the conveyance of abstract ideas and the preservation of knowledge in a way that was not possible before. This is another example that shows how the collective development of language helped to convey truth. It also reflects the evolution of human thought and understanding.

As ideas become further abstracted from reality into our future through the development of language, we need to be careful that language can only create models of the world. As Derrida warned, language can create hidden meanings and alternate interpretations that can lead to confusion and misunderstanding. As language develops and evolves, it will provide more magnified opportunities for insight but also opportunities for misunderstanding. In conclusion, the more we understand about the nature of language and its relationship to truth, the more effectively we can use it to understand and represent the world.

The Hegelian Dialectic is Proven to be Causally Weak

By Not Hegel

Introduction

The Hegelian dialectic, a core concept in Western philosophy, has significantly influenced our understanding of the world and shaped numerous subsequent philosophical theories. However, this article argues that the dialectic’s causal weaknesses not only undermine its own foundation but also weaken the epistemological basis of many philosophies that have stemmed from it. By addressing the thinking errors that are a common outgrowth in using the Hegelian dialectic, I aim to mitigate unnecessary social issues arising from polarized thinking.

The Hegelian dialectic is a philosophical concept and framework developed by German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. It describes a process of arriving at a new idea or synthesis through the resolution of contradictions. The dialectical process typically consists of three stages:

  1. Thesis: This is the initial idea or proposition that represents a certain understanding or belief.
  2. Antithesis: This is the opposing idea or counter-proposition that contradicts or challenges the thesis.
  3. Synthesis: This is the reconciled outcome that arises from the conflict between the thesis and antithesis. It is a new idea that integrates elements from both the thesis and antithesis, thus transcending their initial opposition.

In Hegelian thought, the dialectic process is seen as the driving force behind the development of human history, culture, and knowledge. This approach emphasizes the importance of conflicts and contradictions as catalysts for change and progress. However, critics argue that the Hegelian dialectic oversimplifies complex issues and may inadvertently promote a polarized, binary way of thinking. I will argue about its oversimplification in contrasting elements but also the issue of overusing the contrast heuristic in obtaining information about the world.

When I use the term dialectic here, I am not talking about the dialectic that Socrates uses to gain knowledge through discussion. This type of dialectic is a style of argumentation that is limited as a method of logical inquiry and is very useful in affective style learning. As a metaphysic of reality, Hegel reified this term into a broader philosophical framework than just a method of discussion.

Filtering the Dialectic

Hegel calls the universal structure of all thought and reality, the dialectic. I do agree that interaction with the world can seem like a tug-of-war or that even reality can feel modernist in believing that progress is on the horizon (resulting in synthesis). However, to anchor the structure of reality as a dualist or even a triadic mechanism is not only a big inference but there is no basis for this type of dynamic in reality. I see this as mere pattern recognition of a contrast heuristic of the mind and not an ontology that is sewn into the fabric of reality. I’m not just simply going to reject this as a fantasy of the mind. I will identify what truth he is discovering and trim away the unnecessary and ungrounded aspects:

  1. The mind is a biological machine and, among other things, a prediction machine. So, as a subject, there are events that trigger responses. These responses use prediction for the desire for successful outcomes.
  2. Among the mechanisms of the mind, one is contrast. It’s very useful in discerning one thing from another [look up cognitive psychology]. It s a natural heuristic to contrast something with an opposing thing to glean new insight from it.
  3. The mind synthesizes information (as the mind synthesizes everything to an extent) to recalibrate, adjust, and predict.

This explains the probable mechanisms involved but it doesn’t explain how this may work in societies. These mechanisms also extend to intersubjective (social) discourses since ideas spread communally. So subjective (the self) mechanisms may extend to societies also (which I will write about in a future article).

A Thing Vs. A Non-Thing

Some things we observe might seem like real things but aren’t. This might seem obvious to you, but many people are tricked into believing things that aren’t there. Let’s start with an example that no one disagrees with: When you look in the mirror, you know that it’s not another person in the mirror, it’s just a reflection of you. So you wouldn’t say that the person in the reflection is another you but just a mere reflection (not real, just an image).

Now let’s do one that’s a bit trickier: Light and darkness. Light is a thing. You can point at it and observe it. And darkness seems like a thing because you can point at it and observe it. The difference is that light is real and darkness is not. You can create light but you cannot create darkness. Darkness is just the absence of light. The darkness is more like the mirror in which you can observe it as a contrast to something else (the original person creating the reflection.) Our minds see light and darkness as a contrast. Typically, when we see a contrast we try to use words for each element and make them real and thus reifying them. Unfortunately, many things, in reality, have contrasts that are similar to “the thing” and “not the thing.” The non-thing doesn’t exist and is just a result of our mind making a contrast, which happens to be very useful but not necessarily ontologically accurate.

When Hegel developed the dialectic he used his heuristic of the mind and came to the conclusion that this subjective heuristic is in fact an aspect of reality. This would make perfect sense if you disregard material reality – which is what he did. I don’t know if he rejected material reality to keep logical consistency or it just could have been his foundation. Either way, let’s cover the dialect in more detail.

The thesis is the thing that is observed to be real (I’m using the word observe here because observations aren’t necessarily real.) The antithesis is not necessarily real. It is possible to be real, but as we have seen there are many things that are contrasted that are not. You can often label the antithesis as “not the thing.” Synthesis is when these two things merge into an adjusted form to become the new thesis. Now to be clear, I am not saying this process doesn’t happen, of course it does. But what I am saying is that it is only one process of a plethora of possible dynamic transformations. What if it was a process of three or more? What if it was two different theses and four opposing things with only two that may be real?

My point is that when people believe this is a real ontological reality, they will make false assumptions. Karl Marx used this concept and anchored it to physical reality which we will only introduce in this article.

Hegel’s Effect on Historical Materialism

Historical materialism, developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, is an approach to understanding history and social change, emphasizing that economic and material conditions shape society. Historical materialism stresses that class struggle drives social change, and as contradictions between classes intensify, it eventually leads to the overthrow of the existing system and the emergence of a new mode of production.

Marx basically rejected Hegel’s subjective dialectic in the mental world and said that the dialectic worked in physical reality. He believed that when the industrial revolution takes place, the proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. Also that the stages of development are a natural outgrowth of the contradictions inherent in capitalist production. The idea of the oppressor and oppressed dynamic can be used to divide people along class lines and create a sense of conflict or tension between different social groups.

Marx’s theories can be very prescient in the way economics works the problem is when Marx depends on Hegel’s dialectic to predict the outcome of class struggles. When looking at Historical Materialism, the above video explains part of why it seems to work. But, it doesn’t extend to materialism, because these contrasts are of the mind only. Just as we can create our ideas in reality, it doesn’t necessarily make those ideas a material aspect of that reality. Yes, our ideas have an effect on reality but it doesn’t guarantee that the dialectic is a necessary aspect of reality. There are many aspects of systems in reality that are not opposites. We create this false dichotomy by assuming that the opposite is the most appropriate way to contrast it. It’s very comforting to easily look for good vs evil and us vs them. This makes us feel better about ourselves. It just happens to be inaccurate and too simplistic. If you are looking for opposition you will find it. Typically, anything you put your energy into believing, you will validate those ideas in the real world. But that doesn’t make it an accurate assessment of how the world works. If Hegel didn’t exist, Marxism would not have existed in its current state. I’m not saying that Marxist ideas have no merit, I’m just saying that this historical materialism has no philosophical foundation on which to make those ideas. Now, let us take a closer look at class consciousness through the economic variable in the division of labor.

When I think about complex systems that are intersubjective structures like society, it is easier to use the analogy of an engine. Society and engines both have inputs and outputs, a necessary equilibrium to keep them functioning, many variations that are designed with different efficiencies, and will break down when not used correctly. Marx focuses primarily on class struggle as the weakness in the engine. Marx then predicts through the dialectic that it will go through a specific transformation that requires revolution between the two classes. While this may be possible and even feasible, complex systems are not necessarily divided into two primary groups.

It was Marx’s observation in his early industrial society that employees suffered as a result of the profits of business owners. I’m not using the preferred Marx terms because they would be the creation of a false dichotomy that I explained above – they would polarize the information and create bias by creating factions that are not necessarily there. By imagining these factions, he actually reifies his ideas and makes those factions into reality. He is prophetic due to a self-fulfilling prophecy. This pattern of self-fulfilling prophecy is clearly demonstrated in all Neo-Marxist traditions.

There is not just a subjective problem when it comes to the development of historical materialism when put into practice. There is the intersubjective issue of manipulating the societal engine in an unrealistically idealistic way. When Marxism was put into practice, the resulting economies suffered greatly. I would guess that this is due to a misidentification of how money works efficiently in society (this is why communist China changed to economic capitalism to be more efficient and effective). In an engine, every variable affects every other variable. When Marx was analyzing society, he focused on a duality that was not looking at the big picture and therefore misunderstood how that variable affects the other variables. I would not venture to guess at this time how this all works. However, using the premise as a social engine (which is still too simplistic) may be more useful in figuring out how it actually works.

The Dialectic Meets CBT

First, I will introduce CBT then I will show why it is pertinent to this discussion. Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) is a type of psychotherapy that focuses on modifying dysfunctional thoughts, behaviors, and emotions in order to improve mental well-being and overall functioning. CBT is based on the premise that a person’s thoughts, rather than external factors or events, directly influence their feelings and behaviors.

Neo-Marxism stripped much of the ideas of economics and focused on the oppressor and oppressed – the weakest epistemological element in his brilliant analysis. Disaffected people can get easily hijacked by this psychological dynamic for the very reason that Hegel and Marx developed it in the first place. The contrast heuristic is a very satisfying way to partition the world. Unfortunately, when it is overused, it develops psychological problems. Dialectical thinking can be susceptible to some of these cognitive biases. This may seem paranoid to some. But, this dynamic is a psychological one – one that hijacks common thinking errors that can lead to psychosocial issues. Here is a small list of CBT thinking errors that may likely occur with dialectical thinking:

  1. Overgeneralizing – always or never (if they don’t agree they are an oppressor and that they were always an oppressor because of it)
  2. Labeling – self-esteem labels (calling people names that disagree with you which invalidates ideological differences)
  3. Catastrophizing – A revolution needs to happen for anything worthwhile to occur
  4. Fortune-telling – assuming that a revolution is part of the process
  5. Mind-reading – that if someone disagrees they are thinking unethical things
  6. Mental filtering – only analyzing the world under oppressor and oppressed thinking (which ends up being very myopic)
  7. Making demands – that you must be part of the solution or you are part of the problem

I conclude that many thinking errors crop up like weeds in someone’s psyche when someone uses black-and-white thinking of opposites to analyze the world. CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy) may seem foreign to some so I will clarify the difference between something psychological to something intersubjective like society.

How does one identify when there is real oppression or real injustice happening? You can’t just reason everything away as not real. So here are a few questions you can ask yourself to parse something internal from external:

  1. Is this oppression rooted in common thinking errors? Life is not black or white.
  2. Is the necessity for change truly external and not the more common answer to inner turmoil? By extension, one should not be showing signs of emotional instability or distress by mere words or infractions.
  3. When reasonable discussion only becomes an array of reactions and not responses.
  4. Is the oppression begging the question? Do you have to explain the problem before anyone can even discover the “suffering”?

Everyone on the planet has mental distortions, it is part of the human condition. Just as there are always real problems in society, there are always real problems in the people making up that society. How can one judge the world when one does not even see clearly? Despite our imperfections, we can still strive for self-awareness, empathy, and understanding in order to make better judgments and decisions.

Counterarguments

The dialectic is a tool for understanding change. I would see this as the most convincing argument for Hegel’s Dialectic. This approach may seem to help reveal the contradictions and conflicts within a system that might otherwise be difficult to identify. My counterargument is that this understanding is too simplistic and needs to be tempered with other concepts of analysis that don’t use contrast.

Just as contrast can reveal the edges of objects, doesn’t mean that the resulting dividing lines are real – it just shows there was a difference between one place and another. When an artist draws cartoons, they use lines to create the shapes. When compared to reality, the lines do not exist but are useful in simplifying the reproduction of objects. An artist then uses many mental tools to complete the reproduction.

When thinking about the difference between actual reality and abstract mental reproductions, I think a math analogy might be useful. When observing objects in the real world, it is easy to compare and contrast one with another. However, when observing complex social structures like classes, economy, and labor, they are not tangible concrete things. They are more like dynamic forces maneuvering in complex systems.

In mathematics, two dynamic forces can be represented as vectors, which have both magnitude and direction. These vectors may be different but they don’t necessarily oppose each other. Instead, they can be combined through vector addition to creating a new vector that represents the net effect of the original two forces.

This mathematical representation highlights that the interaction between dynamic forces is more complex than simple binary opposition. Forces can work together, counteract each other partially, or even be unrelated, depending on their magnitudes and directions. Consequently, the dialectic’s focus on opposition and synthesis may not fully capture the range of possible relationships between dynamic forces in reality. This supports the argument that Hegel’s dialectic, while insightful in some contexts, is not a comprehensive explanation for all aspects of reality.

Summary

To summarize, I emphasized the problems in identifying dialectics as actual causal dynamics in reality. This includes Hegel’s dialectical causality in mental structures and Marx’s dialectical causality in societal structures. I also pointed out the difference between what is real or not real in contrasting elements which in turn shows the weakness in identifying dialectical causality altogether. Then I showed the connection between these ideas influencing the psychological dynamics creating the polarization in thinking and the psychological issues it entails. By studying ideas like this, they have revealed the dangers of utopian idealist philosophy. However, when these ideas land on reality, they validate the necessity to compare and contrast what actually works and what doesn’t. So maybe utopian ideals should stay where they belong: in the clouds.

Limitations of Causality and its Relation to Scale

by Not Hegel

Carl Sagan in Cosmos provided a very logical rejection of horoscopes. He said the doctor helping the mother give birth has a greater gravitational effect on the child than Saturn does. This gravitational effect of the planets is the crux of the study of horoscopes. Therefore, this was a disregard for Scale.

When talking about cause and effect, the scale of what is being analyzed has to be kept in mind. When we say Earth is in the Solar System, we are saying that Earth is within the dynamics and scale of the Solar System and is affected by it. If the Earth was light years away from the Solar System, sure it would still have an effect but it would not be enough to provide any meaningful effect or difference.

What’s being stressed here is that when discerning cause and effect, scale and limits are very important. A discourse limit is when a relation between cause and effect is negligible.

When thinking about the planes of discourse, the scale needs to be kept in mind when it comes to causality. What is the limit of cause and effect of quantum physics creating an atom? We can all agree that everything is made of quanta, but each quanta’s sphere of influence is minuscule. Without adding new rules to the universe, we can safely say quanta has limits in its singular effects.

What I’ve discovered is that these discourses all have limits. This may seem obvious to some, but the problem is similar to horoscopes: we just disregard the scale of their limitations. Because of this, much paradox is created.

Just to point out how the scale of limits can be problematic: which is the primary cause of a sneeze? (1) the quantum particles (2) the atomic particles (3) the chemical reactions (4) the biological mechanisms. According to a physicist, all things are determined. According to a chemist, the chemical is the key. According to a biologist, the sneezing mechanism is primary.

I’m not going to even attempt to answer this question now without a proper philosophical foundation. All I’m trying to point out here is that discourses have limits in their scale. This is much more important than you may think, I will cover this more in Limits and Layered Causality.

Causality of the Atom Bomb Invalidates Epiphenomenalism

by Not Hegel

Epiphenomenalism

This point of view is commonly called epiphenomenalism. I’m aware that Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder does not want to attach an -ism to her understanding that physics is the sole cause (or primary cause) of our actions. I will explain how this is not necessarily true. So, allow me to provide you with the definition of Epiphenomenalism:

Epiphenomenalism

A position on the mind-body problem which holds that physical and biochemical events within the human body are the sole cause of mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition).

With this definition, you can see that Dr. Hossenfelder is referring to a physical event, namely physics, as the sole cause of mental events.

For the longest time, I would hear this very effective argument and have no response. It’s not that I just wanted to disagree with the idea, it’s because intuitively, the idea just didn’t sit right with me – it didn’t feel logically sound. As I was developing the Planes of Discourse, I started to put the pieces in place that would have a proper response to this argument. I have come to understand that the universe is far too complex to structure, or in this case, restructure. I cannot possibly definitively destroy Dr. Hossenfelder’s argument in a few hundred words. However, as I build this model which I call The Planes of Discourse, the collection of arguments will become clear.

I will use the mind experiment “Causality of the Atomic Bomb” which I designed a few years ago. Keep in mind that this is an early post and I have not accumulated a philosophical foundation for this argument, but it will make intuitive sense.

Causality of the Atomic Bomb

In thinking about causes, let’s think about the elements required for an atomic bomb. You will need the following:

  1. A physical universe is required for the bomb and its environment.
  2. Biological life is capable of voluntary movement for its construction (as opposed to happenstance in which effects occur chaotically).
  3. Subjectivity is required to devise the idea of such a weapon.
  4. Intersubjectivity is required to enable the subject to tap into collective learning to be able to devise something so complex.

This is clearly not an exhaustive list of requirements, but without any of the elements, the atom bomb would not be possible (sine qua non – without which not). To be clear, the four above are required for the effect of an atom bomb to exist. It is true that part of Dr. Hossenfelder’s argument is a determinist argument about sole causes. But, I will extend this argument, more sensibly, for primary causes. I will discuss more regarding primary causation and layered causality in future articles.

Counterargument 1:You might think that robots can replace the Biological (2). However, I would argue that the Biological is required in the first place to design the robot since robots do not create themselves (or procreate). Biology is one of the proto-causes of robots.

Counterargument 2: You might argue that Subjectivity (3) is not required. Subjectivity was created by nature to analyze and evaluate the world in order for biology to survive. Without analysis and evaluation, the eyes would not be able to process the complex information it receives for the teleologies of the survival process (this will be explained later in an upcoming post). Therefore analysis and evaluation are necessary to develop an atomic bomb. It isn’t able to construct itself.

You may ask the following questions: Are each of these planes really causes? How can you have multiple causes? Logicians have two words they use that are useful here: necessary and sufficient. A necessary condition is one that must be present in order for another condition to occur, while a sufficient condition is one that produces the said condition. To be clear, the physical is necessary for the biological effect to occur, the biological is necessary for the subjective to occur, and the intersubjective knowledge is necessary for this effect to occur. Therefore, all four discourses are necessary and sufficient for the atomic bomb to occur. If any were missing, it wouldn’t happen.

When we analyze things, we tend to see them from one methodology, one perspective. People in their respective fields stick to their methodologies (like the physicist in the video uses physics). This is actually a good thing when someone doesn’t have a proper framework, switching methodologies (and the perspectives entailed) creates logical inconsistencies. You can lead to a paradox if you’re not careful. Therefore, most experts stick to their discourse.

Moreover, there is the possibility that the Physical is the cause of everything else, and therefore, other discourses are not required. This would be an oversimplification. This would be like saying ‘The galaxy was formed therefore cars exist.’ Things such as creating the atomic bomb require other planes, without which it would not be possible.

There are those that think this leads to epistemological pluralism. In epistemology, pluralism is the position that there are not one consistent means of approaching truths about the world. It is my understanding, pluralism is a way of giving up logical consistency and accepting the fate of paradox. I promise you, the Planes of Discourse is not pluralism, nor will it lead to it. In my opinion, pluralism happens when philosophers have monist ideas that don’t mesh with other sensible ideologies.

In each of the four elements, there are real causes and real effects. In this example, all four are necessary, or the effect would not be possible. A scientist must devise the idea for it to manifest. Without these thoughts, the device wouldn’t exist.

If we break down all complexity to explain it in physics terms (as in epiphenomenalism), we would say that nuclear fission happened because of the combination, forces, and placement of the molecules. In this materialist perspective, the other causes in the example do not make sense. This reminds me of the computer code which at its base are 0s and 1s. At the lowest levels, all these bits do not make sense. It is the structures formed by these bits that make sense. Higher languages like C++, Java, and even BASIC use knowledge to understand and process something useful and meaningful. Think of the biological using genetics to record and process the information of the world in order to apply that knowledge to survival heuristics. The physical universe (eg. quanta and chemistry) doesn’t process with knowledge whereas the Biological, the Subjective, and the Inter-subjective are all data and knowledge-driven discourses that do things for a purpose. Without the volition of purpose (free will from physical reality), all would be chaotic and senseless. There may be order in this type of universe (like the physical/epiphenomenalism universe), however, life wouldn’t be possible since knowledge-based heuristics like survival or reproduction would have no cause or effect. Knowledge-based discourses require saved data and while it is correct that this saved data is composed of molecules, these molecules have a knowledge-based effect on the world. Without these molecules used as data, the heuristic effect would not be possible.

I hope that by this point I have made some sense and begun tearing down the Epiphenominalist wall. In future articles, I will cover other topics such as layered causality – a detail on each discourse and how they work together, free will, consciousness, problems with determinism, and many more. If you are still not convinced, I also wrote a more mathematical analysis regarding causal determinism. This is a long journey, a lifelong race. I am confident however that I can lead you to a more solid foundation from which to understand the universe.

People Cultivate Meaning Through Identity

by Not Hegel

“Man’s Search for Meaning is a 1946 book by Viktor Frankl chronicling his experiences as a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps during World War II, and describing his psychotherapeutic method, which involved identifying a purpose in life to feel positive about, and then immersively imagining that outcome.” – Ref: Wikipedia

When thinking about Frankl’s “Meaning”, I realized that there is an ideological connection. Frankl’s three meanings are meaning in work, meaning in connection with others, and meaning in suffering. The first two make sense immediately, but the meaning through suffering is more challenging.

In my opinion, the expression of persevering in suffering has nothing to do with suffering without witnesses. Instead, it has to do with suffering assiduously displayed to oneself or others, which may include God. It is not necessary for this expression to actually be displayed, but it is believed to be shown. The belief that it has been expressed fulfills meaning in what they are desiring to express. This is an expression of, at its most fundamental level, the identity of a human being. The existential expression of what that person believes a human should be is expressed as intended.

These are from the subjective, ontologically speaking, to the intersubjective. There is no meaning in a vacuum, but it is a subjective relationship to something that exists outside of it, and that makes up its meaning. This satisfaction derived from meaning is a heuristic that drives us to connection. Through ideas about how the being relates to the world, these external relations are formed. This being, grounded in identity, finds meaning in this relationship with a work, a person (or a group), or an expression. Each is a manifestation of something signified in the world and of the being as a signifier; the being is the subjective response to the world intersubjectively.