Epilogue


The essence of philosophy is words chasing words seeking meaning from which to deduce their purpose. Indeed, the fate of every philosophy is doomed from the first word which cannot give meaning to itself. The first word can only gain meaning by definition using other words which, in turn, can only gain meaning by definition using yet more words in a never ending circle once the first word is used by another word to gain its meaning by definition. And so it is that many philosophies have often grown to fill tomes with words chasing words for meaning.

The reach of philosophy is always beyond its grasp for it can only use words to convey meaning to that which knowledge or understanding cannot be directly ascribed. The result is such that every philosophy makes use of at least one unproven or not provable speculation that must be taken on faith as an axiom of truth. And so it is that a philosophy is on its best footing when Occum's razor can be used wisely to produce a parsimony of words to confer insightfulness of itself.


"Whenever possible, substitute constructions out of known entities for inferences to unknown entities." ~ Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)

And so it is that this philosophy begins with the axiom that humans perceive they exist as a known entity as an integral part of whatever constitutes the whole reality for which the perception itself is the only entity known with absolute certainty.

"I think, therefore I am" ~ René Descartes (1596–1650)

From perceptions engendered in the brain, humans appear to exist at two levels of reality. The first is the reality of all that is the physical phenomena of all that exists in nature. The second is the reality of all that is the mental phenomena of perception of nature in the mind as created in the brain.

All that we can know of the physical phenomena of nature are the perceptions created in the mind by the physical brain based on sensory awareness of the objective material world in and around us. And that means all we can know is what we can sense of that world, leaving everything not sensed as unknown or unknowable. Is is our only pathway by which to become knowledgeable of reality and the truths ingrained in it.

We can only know the effect of what was sensed in the physical world by our sensory system as a perception in the mental world of our mind, thus leaving the true essence of the reality of what was sensed as an unknown. And so it is that our knowledge of reality is, at best, incomplete.

The result of this duality is the paradox of sensing the objective reality of a nature we cannot know firsthand and knowing the subjective reality of the mind that we cannot sense firsthand. Of neither can we have any certain, leaving us to our lives with the perception of both being true and the dilemma that no philosophy founded on either of them can be absolute.


“All that we do is touched with ocean, and yet we remain on the shore of what we know” ~ Richard Wilbur (1921-2017)

From the perspective of nature, humans are material entities obeying the invariant laws of nature living our lives in a deterministic fashion. We are just another rock over which nature holds domain with a single degree of freedom for action and change in response to its environment. But humans are different from inanimate rocks in that they also exist as biological entities with brains. The human "rock" exhibits a biological determinism with multiple degrees of freedom for action and change. When two rocks experience the same change in their environment, the reactions of both rocks result in identical changes. But when two humans experience the same change in their environment, each may respond with entirely different reactions and changes. This biological determinism and its multiple degrees of freedom ultimately give rise to humanity.

From the perspective of mind, humans are entities with domain over nature. We can decide our actions and their resulting material changes. We can influence the deterministic course of nature with mental processes of the brain. But we cannot overcome the laws of nature which govern the mental processes in the brain producing the mind.

Decisions made for actions by the human brain are of three kinds:

(1) Those driven by emotional processes without consideration of rational thought
(2) Those driven by rational processes without consideration of emotional thought
(3) Some combination of emotional and rational processes with consideration for both emotional and rational thought.

Consciousness is not essential for actions taken by humans. Indeed, the vast majority of human actions are taken without any consciousness of thought. We go about our daily lives performing actions without awareness of them: walking by consciousness of placing one foot in front of the other; talking without consciousness of the semantics of the language being used; placing food in our mouth, chewing and swallowing; blinking of ours eyes when they become dry; breathing when we need more oxygen; reacting to loud noises we hear and the like, all without consciousness. Only when confronted with the need or opportunity for making an decision do we gain awareness of subsequent action resulting from the decision. And, even then, the mental processes in the brain has made the decision before the mind gains conscious of what decision was made.

The brain makes decisions and initiates actions based on present and past human experiences in the physical world as perceptions of it resulting from sensations resulting from awareness of it from sensory information produced by stimulation of the neural sensory system. No stimulation, no information. No information, no awareness. No awareness, no sensation. No sensation, no perception. No perception, no experience. No experience, no decision. No decision, no action. We become a human rock. The experience of some event past or present must always prompt the decision process.

Sometimes we are conscious of the decision and sometimes not, but the mind always reaches a binary "yes or no" decision for action in every case. And it does so on in humans at a rate of about one new decision every 2 seconds. Indeed we are constantly bombarded with experiences that prompt the process with new sensory information. Further, the mind is also constant bombarded with information garnered from past experience that is subjectively related to the present sensory experience and has been previously stored in the brain as memory is retrieved from memory and incorporated into the decision making process in the brain.

Consciousness of mind is not always necessary for making decision but awareness of sensory information is an absolute requirement whether accompanied by consciousness or not. Of the new decision our brain makes on average every 2 seconds, we only become conscious of one of them on average every 12 minutes.

The phenomena of decision making in living things is an ancient one, occurring even in brainless, one cell organisms such as the amoeba which, based on stimuli from their environment, unconsciously make a primitive decision to move toward or away from substances in their environment. Awareness preceded consciousness which had to first await the development of brains and then development of that part of the brain that produces consciousness.

Consciousness plays the role of providing subjective mental awareness of the physical awareness of the world in which we live. This mental awareness is presented in consciousness as perceptions of the world in which we live as a result of sensations produced by the brain. Primary among these sensations are the qualia of sight, sound, smell, taste and feel from which the brain creates the subjective perceptions of objects and actions in the physical world. Indeed, consciousness is the mirror of the mind, reflecting that which we experience and serving only to give us awareness of our perception of our experience of it.


“Now is consciousness” ~ Eckhart Tolle (b. 1948)

Sensations give rise to the phenomena of subjective emotions to which are ascribed subject evaluation of their significance to us. We perhaps best know them as ineffable feeling about the objects or events that were the initial cause of the sensations that are experienced. These subjective judgments are not universal and vary widely as the private judgments made by each individual. What emotions are held as "positive" for some may be held as "negative for others" and vice versa. But in all cases the valuations arise from the personal experiences of each individual.

Value judgments of emotions can and often do provide the sole basis for making decisions lacking rational consideration of consequences. However the development of the human brain also enables us to use logical systems of predetermined form for obtaining considered value judgments as a basis for rational decisions without consideration of emotional values. Sometimes, if not most times, the values of both emotional and rational judgments play simultaneous roles in decision making. These decision often prove to be the most difficult to make. But a decision we ultimately do make even if the decision is to make no decision and thereby result in no action.

The evaluation of emotions and the feelings associated with them are plastic and subject to change over time as the result of new experiences with them. Conscious feelings of love turn to conscious feelings of hate. Conscious feelings of happiness turn to conscious feeling of sadness. The objective thing or action that gives rise to the emotions do not change but the feelings associate with them can and do change, causing entirely different outcomes of actions associated them.

Decisions involving rational considerations are ultimately based choices producing expectations of the most emotionally acceptable outcome. Is it "better" to do "this" than to do "that"? But unlike decisions made entirely on the basis of emotions, rational decisions are the product of a system of logic used by the brain to decide if doing "this" will be "better" than doing "that". How do I "feel" about "this" as opposed to "that"? Experience: It is raining. Emotion: I dislike getting wet and fear catching a cold. Logic: If (a) I bother to take an umbrella I will not get wet, but if (b) I do not I will get wet. Decision: I like not getting wet more than I dislike bothering with taking an umbrella and so I take an umbrella.

In the case of rational decisions, the logic systems used by the brain are different for each individual. Some systems result in a decision for "this" action in response to an experience while others result in a decision for "that" action in response to the same experiece. Consequent, the logic of one person may be held as absurd nonsense by another. Further, the logic system for each individual is plastic and subject to change over time as the result of new experiences and thoughts. Unlike the formal logic systems of mathematics, the logic system of the human brain is systematic but not formal.

"You are, after all, what you think. Your emotions are the slaves to your thoughts, and you are the slave to your emotions." ~ Elizabeth Gilbert (b. 1969)

An understanding of the phenomenology of mental processes conducted by the brain is currently beyond our grasp just as was the understanding of the phenomenon of the physical processes of the cosmos was in the ancient world. The ancients knew the stars moved but not how or why they moved. We know that mental processes in the brain result in production of the mental phenomenon, conscious or otherwise, we experience in our daily lives but the how of what they come to be still largely eludes. Understanding them is , not essential and only our natural curiosity drives humans to seek understand why of they are as they are. The only certain knowledge we have is that a living, functioning brain is a necessity for their occurrence.

The significance of the phenomenology of mental processes conducted by the brain, however, is that it enables multiple degrees of freedom in human actions in response to the environment in which we live. We are not rocks with a single degree of freedom of action in response to an environmental stimiulus in which it exists. But having the capacity for multiple degrees of freedom does not mean we have free will to choose our actions. It only means more than a single response is possible to a given experience with he exact response being subject to how the ever changing brain is currently configured as a result of past experiences. The more similar the background of two individuals or group of individuals the more likely their responses are to be. Common responses result in the creation of cults and cultures which adopt a set of actions commonly acceptable to the group as a code of ethics.

The actions adopted as commonly acceptable to the group are not always acceptable to each individual in the group. Individuals have their own set of actions which they personally consider acceptable as morals by which to live. Conflicts of personal morals and group ethics frequently result as well as do conflicts between subgroups within a group.

The sources of morals are as varied as are the emotions that engender them. We have no evidence, however, that morals are a fundamental or universal aspect of nature. Should that be the case, they would be as inviolate as are the material law of nature. Further, we have no evidence that human are endowed with a universal set of morals by some spiritual entity. Should that be the case, we would not have over 4,000 recognized religions lest there be over 4,000 different spiritual entities.

The origins of morals begin are the twin biological imperative for all living things to live to reproduce and reproduce to sustain life as bound by the laws of nature in the chemistry of the physical entity. The purpose of life for all living things, including humans, at the most fundamental level is the sustenance of the process in doing so. And therein lies the singularly most fundamental moral of unacceptable behavior of all which is not to kill or otherwise endanger the lives of those of your own species. This moral is so fundamental that 99.4% of all humans on earth today have adopted it as a moral standard and every society of humans on earth have adopt it as an ethical standard. Further, it is accepted as a legal standard with penalties for its violation by all so cities.


"So far, about morals, I know only that what is moral is what you feel good after and what is immoral is what you feel bad after." ~ Ernest Hemingway (1899-1961), Death in the Afternoon

As the capacity for human language evolved, social groups larger than the family began to amalgamate with a common interest for survival. With the formation of social groups came the first ethical standard which was the make the killing those of their own kind and society an unacceptable action. Unfortunately for the biological imperatives, a small number of individuals in a social group do kill those of their own kind for a variety of reasons considered antisocial. And out of this grew a ethical standard of self defense against other individuals of the species, both within and without of the social group, to be an acceptable human behavior. Not only did this benefit the individual but it also benefited the social group as a whole by protecting the lives of all against a nonconforming member of their society. And from there grew the plethora of ethical standards we have today of protecting individuals and the society in which they live from nonconforming members.

The setting and enforcement of ethical standards take many forms. In all cases, the enforcement of the standards was and still is by an agent with authority over the social group. In ancient times, the agent of authority was typically the cheiftan who ruled by virtue of their own strength, power and charisma. In more modern times, the agent of authority has been replaced by an agency of authority chosen by the members of the society to govern them. Today the agency of authority is typically a formal government with the power of agency distributed by various degrees to its governors. Even then, however, chieftains do still arise from time to time bearing dictatorial power over the society.

Over the past 2000 years the Christianity religion has been a major agency of power in the Western world, imposing its tenets as a set of morals not only on individuals but as ethics for entire societies. Not only did it dictate a set of acceptable human behavior but it also played upon the emotions fear and hope as motivation for acceptance of its authority. And not until the explosive growth of scientific inquiry over the past two centuries has that religion begun to lose its power as a agency of authority. Today we live in an increasing secular society in search of a set of ethics commonly acceptable to societies at large.

The rise of societies and their attendant set of societal ethics to protect their interests are often in direct conflict with the interests of the individual and their set of personal morals. The result is codification of actions acceptable for both as legal codes with punishment by the agency of authority for nonconformity. The degree of freedom given to individuals and to the collective group vary widely and are a source of constant conflict.

"Ethics is in origin the art of recommending to others the sacrifices required for cooperation with oneself." ~ Bertrand Russell (1872-1970)

The behavior of the individual in a society results from an agency of mind of that individual as forged by learning experiences in the world. Some of them are learned from the collection of knowledge by direct observation of the world while other learning is indirect through the experience of knowledge communicated by others with language. In both cases, the brain evaluates the knowledge learned and stores it as information in the brain for use in deciding actions both in the present and in the future. The actions decided by the brain do not always conform to moral or ethical standards.

A philosophical inquiry throughout history has been that of purpose. Nature has no purpose for humans other than that it has for itself. The purpose of human life, however, is the living of it. And that, in and of itself, is both sufficient and necessary.

Therein we have the whole of humans and humanity in a nutshell. We are entities of whatever might be the substances of reality with an absolute certainty only of what we perceive in the phenomena of mind as self with what we hold to be our material entity obeying the laws of nature and our mental entity a slave to the emotions arising from experience. We are a pinball falling through a pinball machine with paddles of experiece thrusting us against the pins, the resulting actions responding in accordance with the laws of nature, and finishing our passage as a lifeless ball at the bottom of the machine leaving behind only a historical trace of having been a pinball at all. In the end, reality holds its purpose for playing a game of pinball with us humans as a closely guarded secret.


"He's got crazy flipper fingers, never seen him fall.
That deaf, dumb and blind kid sure plays a mean pinball." ~ Pete Townshend (b.1945), "Pinball Wizard"

Finis