The Genetic Universe is a timely follow-up to three of the most important intellectual discoveries: Berkeley’s immaterialism, which has not been adequately recognized as an intellectual breakthrough although it was scientifically corroborated by modern physics; Darwin’s biological transmutation leading to speciation, which, when well understood, constitutes scientific proof of the biological sphere of intelligent design (“natural selection,” is in fact, a supernatural rearrangement towards species’ development directed by programmed, gene based instructions), but has been misinterpreted as meaning evolution; and Mendel’s genetics which has been followed up extensively in the physical-biological sphere but not as it pertains to mind emergence, or mental functions and manifestations.
A key issue in metaphysics, in my opinion, is whether a given tangible object exists independently on its own. In this work, a tangible object is a duality of external world substratum states and mind (mental functions and their manifestations). Therefore, the external substratum commonly referred to as a “tangible object” does not amount to independent existence.
In everyday life, seeing or hearing a tangible object is assumed to be an obvious manifestation of something that stands independently in the external world. In this work, the object is identified or recognized visually or by sound, but what is seen or heard is what mind creates in representation of it, since the external substratum particularly related to recognition lacks visual or sound features of its own.
In this work, it is recognized that natural selection disproves the claim of a direct creation of the species. At the same time, the theory of natural selection does not prove a claim of biological evolution or disprove a potential claim of an indirect creation of the species, more importantly, “natural selection” is not a natural manifestation; it is a supernaturally imposed programmed feature, better defined as intelligent design.
Furthermore, in this work, all the facts of “evolutionary” biology are actually facts of intelligent design. Biological evolution is a modern myth which emerged out of misinterpretations of the theory of natural selection’s highly successful scientific results. The biological transmutation which led to speciation is a process of development (rather than evolution) programmed in the genetic makeup from which the chain of species actualized, and which, at some stages, lead to regressive states such as a loss of helpful animal instinct in humans, rather than progressive ones. This is in clear conflict with the concept of biological evolution.
Should a natural feature, property, or law of biological evolution be a universal fact, there would be some surprising results, such as human beings becoming more and more healthy and knowledgeable as time elapses, ultimately immune to any disease and fully knowledgeable from birth, reaching a point in which medicine and education become obsolete, but in contrast to such prospect, specific needs for medicine and education are increasing.
A common worldwide assumption is that it’s acceptable for the global population to keep increasing; it is just a matter of finding solutions to the new problems caused by population growth. In this work, common sense dictates global population should decrease to less than half of what it is.
First Seven Paragraphs from Three of the Book’s Chapters
Words and phrases appearing in the book in bold type—53 terms in all—are further explained in the Genetic Universe Glossary, available separately.
On the basis of a fundamental metaphysical fact, as I have suggested previously, there are no images in the external world, visual or auditory. If the universe is invisible and soundless, what would be the nature of “seeing” or “hearing” when the existentialist prejudice is overcome?
Seeing and hearing includes a cognitive system feature of making copies, either visual or auditory, of what is reputed to have been seen or heard, and storing those copies in memory to be retrieved and converted into awareness at a later time. The fact that what is seen or heard is recorded and could be retrieved works against a correct understanding of the process, because having a memory copy of seeing or hearing something and corroborating it against a new instance of seeing or hearing the same target only guarantees identification of the target. Contrary to popular belief, such corroboration does not disclose whether the target exists or whether it was actually seen or heard.
My last claims could appear strange if you do not know how the identification of the content took place. Should you believe with confidence looking at an object a second time around corroborates the first time as an instance of seeing it. Would you be open-minded enough to entertain the idea that external, visual, or auditory content is never seen or heard, only identified? Visual copies made by the cognitive system of humans are superior to those made by devices, such as photographic or video cameras, and the same is correct about auditory images—the human copies of sound are superior to those of sound recorders. They are not only of better quality; they are perfect as long as the vital memory accumulated corresponds to each external pre-existent “copied.” Why are device copies imperfect?
Devices such as photographic, video, television cameras, and sound recorders create mirror-configurations out of scientific stimulus promoters, a task the human cognitive system also performs, and when those configurations are observed (or heard) by mind, they lead to mental images of the original source although the original source mirrored lacks images of its own.
The process is a representation in the case of still pictures and an emulation in the case of motion pictures or sounds; however, when the human cognitive system does it, note recognition of the object also takes place in matching relevant cognitive content to the external pre-existing source, resulting in actualization of the external object by mental images generated and superimposed on the external target-source. It is a technical fact that for an external object-entity to be realized as a perceptive objectification, it must be directly confronted by the cognitive system. A representational or emulative copy of the external object-entity in contrast to the original external source which is confronted directly by the cognitive system offers no essence—that could be objectified—but only appearances—visual or auditory—leading to two-dimensional mental objects in the human observer or listener. Therefore, a mental image, when created by direct confrontation of the external object-entity, is the most perfect image possible (and the only arrangement that actually achieves the hierarchy of “image-in-its-own”).
However, a mental image created by direct confrontation of a representation or emulation of the same external source also achieves the hierarchy of “image-in-its-own,” although it should be regarded as a secondary image in recognition of it being based on appearances separated from their essence.
A device-generated pre-image is a mirror-configuration, which in current fashion (when seen or heard) leads to a mental image very similar to the one promoted by the external source, but only in appearance, which, depending on the use of it, fulfills its function well. The goal of the device-generated pre-image, in general terms, is to allow recognition or identification of the source’s visual (or auditory) appearances and it could be said the quality of products of visual and sound devices at present time is very satisfactory. In strict technical details, a device boards the logical characteristics of the source’s scientific stimulus promoters in potency, and copies the stimulus-promotion context, producing a pre-image. Such pre-image cannot be equal to the pre-image of the external source’s set of scientific stimulus promoters (though it can be very similar in psychological force promotion), because it is a representation or emulation of it.
The state of awareness presents an important obstacle to philosophers-to-be who are interested in perception metaphysics, and it is also an obstacle to science; but this is too shocking for scientists to admit, since the scientific method depends heavily on observation.
Philosophers working in perception metaphysics can’t allow their awareness to get in the way and would not be as shocked as scientists, since metaphysics depends mainly on inference. Awareness is a very useful state—one feels confident under its guidance—so it seems like a crime to inform you of its deceptive methodology. Yet, awareness could be judged on the merits of its results independently of how it actually functions, in similar fashion to the way vision and hearing could be judged on excellent results alone, setting aside the deceptive methodology on which they are based. An admirer of the scheme of awareness, in contrast to a critic of it, would concentrate on the merits of a finely synchronized functioning that rarely, if ever, lets you down.
What are the main issues of awareness?
I would say awareness is a trick in the sense that things we are aware of are not what they seem; it is a trick that creates a very effective state of confidence, allowing for recognition of classes and correct identification of members of such classes. In strict scrutiny of what constitutes the external world, there is no proper awareness of it. Philosophers, while philosophizing, come close but do not wholly attain a complete awareness of what is external to mind. But there is, no doubt, a state of awareness, which allows for very effective sense-directed outcomes.
I will go back for a moment to the fact there is no seeing or hearing per se—although awareness does an excellent job in vision and audition tasks—to initiate a discussion on how seeing and hearing actually take place.
“Cognitive representation” is a somehow inaccurate term but one I could use to avoid changing scientific terminology beyond what is absolutely necessary. The assumption the word “representation” naturally leads to is of an image substituting for another image. Therefore, since it is usual for someone who awakes to the external world to believe strongly in existing images, it is only the question of how such existing images could be seen that leads to the concept of cognitive representation. In applying common sense to this issue, either cognitive representation is not needed because the cognitive system has a way to see external world images directly, or cognitive representation is needed because there is a problem with seeing the external world directly.
A philosopher working on a theory of cognition needs to choose a path—direct cognition or cognitive representation, but either direction requires existing images on the external world. If the existence of images in the external world was questioned and negated, such eventuality would eliminate the possibility of direct cognition for obvious reasons, but also it would alter cognitive representation into something else, for example “cognitive attribution” meant to achieve a higher goal, perhaps to recognize or identify what has no visible traits or details.
I claim cognitive attribution is necessary because direct vision or hearing is impossible, and at this point, it does not matter whether appearances are external facts, because human awareness does not allow for noticing external appearances. Having made those claims, from here on, I will refer again to cognitive representation since mental images still represent external manifestations, although not external images, and to avoid exacerbating the differences between metaphysics and science.
When confronting the matter of awareness, I was forced to redefine very old concepts and to adopt reception in place of the ordinary perception term, elevating “perception” in my lexicon thereafter to a hierarchy unrecognized in the past and still unrecognized to this day.
Something similar occurs when confronting consciousness, since it is often used interchangeably with awareness. My conclusion is that awareness and reception stand together because they both deal with arrangements of two-dimensional relations. Similarly, consciousness and perception also stand together because they both deal with three-dimensionality; however, awareness is not consciousness and likewise reception is not perception. I don’t know of any other philosopher or scientist who makes such differentiation, and part of the reason others do not is that I have adopted the word reception to define, under its title, a portion of the traditional meaning of “perception.” To clarify, I shall explain a few things about what physical depth means for two classes of individuals—receptors and perceptors.
In the sphere of reception, there is no substantive depth in tridimensional materiality. There is theoretical depth, which is just illustrative as required by the logic of seeing depth in a given visual context, and such lack of substantial depth could only be noticed by perceptors since they comprehend three-dimensionality as an embodiment, while receptors live under the rule of depth as a logical outline-effect. The difference between substantial and theoretical depth is not obvious, and is somehow hidden by the fact that receptors could and often understand the logic of physical depth without reaching the embodiment of it.
For example, when drawing objects, young children are satisfied with the results of two-dimensional illustrations, but at some point may include a depth-effect on the side of two-dimensional bodies, thereby suggesting they know about three-dimensionality and that type of manifestation would be a good sign (if done by their own initiative) of them nearing the advent of perception.
However, understanding depth-effect does not necessarily imply perceiving tridimensional entities, which is why the situation is not obvious. A lifetime receptor could understand the depth effect and could perhaps even explain what physical depth means, but the only way to corroborate a lack of actual embodiment in his or her sense of three-dimensionality would be by indirect means. The indirect means needed are not yet officially recognized by the scientific community because it is my persuasion, not theirs, that leads toward such rationale on the basis of my definitions of receptor and perceptor.
The fact of an individual’s judgment not measuring up to the requirements of physical three-dimensionality, that is, he or she remains in the two-dimensional sphere that belongs to elementary learning, could be discovered by a lack of certain qualities perceptors possess in transcendence of purely logical relations (and transcendence of emotions that obey logical schemes). If you still find my reference to physical depth unnatural, let me repeat one of my metaphysical principles in an attempt to put you at ease: The accumulation of theoretical knowledge could only lead to more logical outcomes, unless such an accumulation of theory is complemented by practical knowledge that achieves a transcendence from actuality to realness.
The key factor I have identified as signaling transcendence from the initial two-dimensional sphere of elemental learning is what sense of physical depth a given individual exposes in conjunction with his or her intellectual hierarchy. Physical depth is the final frontier of a suitable balance between pure intellect, which on its own (when someone is extremely intellectual and not physical at all) could only make the individual logical and rational but not reasonable, and physical exercise that on its own (when someone is extremely physical and not intellectual at all) could only make the individual logical, rational, and full of muscles but not reasonable. According to my standards, both versions of human development are distanced from the state of suitable maturity. The difference between the states of awareness and consciousness has far-reaching human consequences according to my metaphysical persuasion; however, initially it may seem like no big deal.
Absolute Realization is a metaphysical persuasion which I classify as a theist, essentialist, intelligent design proposition about a foundation of epistemological awareness that eventually reaches theoretical-practical realness. My metaphysical argument springs from a simple, although surprising realization: As a matter of metaphysical fact, the universe is invisible and silent, and the human genetic makeup—practically singlehandedly—must overcome such considerable interaction limitations in order to succeed.
Genetic instructions carried by the chain of species are responsible for both the emergence and functioning of the body and mind in human beings. As the necessary means to interact with the featureless substratum of the universe, they are the cause of the feature-rich environment we are able to observe as soon as we become aware. Therefore, the external world we identify as being visible, audible, tastable, smellable and touchable is a synthesis of the universe substratum’s pre-existents and mind’s effect on them.
Survival is a major part of the human project, and a good portion of civilization and culture serves to seek and maintain survival. Yet human potentialities exceed plain survival. An example of such is the stepping up from a receptor’s hierarchy to a perceptor’s scope and reach, which clearly indicates a higher purpose best defined as transcendence. The instrument of the highest level of transcendence is perception, and it is achieved by two ordinary devices of civilization and culture: theoretical learning and physical work, interacting in suitable magnitudes.
Under perception, the external world is reachable beyond psychological impression—the state that rules from human birth until maturity—yielding thus the properties that allow turning mind into soul. Absolute realization is therefore the last step of the human journey of effort, resilience, and achievement.
If a system of cognition confronts manifestations that are not external world images and produces mental images in mirror correspondence to what is confronted, the product of it could be correctly called cognitive representation. However a difficulty appears when someone believes the system represents external images with internal images. It does not; instead it attributes internally produced images to the stimuli that is sense-input from external targets lacking images of their own. (I choose to keep using the term cognitive representation in an effort to avoid exacerbating the differences between metaphysics and science when the subject at hand is one that includes both metaphysical and scientific issues.)
The attribution proceeds with sufficient speed and precision to suggest direct representation of mirror-like counterparts—so much so that since most people are ignorant of what cognitive representation means, they just believe seeing or hearing directly is possible (or evidently possible)—but philosophers know better, and students of philosophy should know better.
Force surface is an inferred feature of external world substratum which unobserved manifests as levels of extension relief and under intellectual scrutiny constitutes the essence of actualized external world objectifications. Force surfaces project emanations that promote stimuli of either a two- or three-dimensional nature and are absorbed by the human sensory apparatus, leading to mental images either two-dimensional (logical) or three-dimensional (logical-practical).
Objectification is the generic term for an external world substratum extension actualized by mind into an object of reception or perception. The scope of objectified external world targets covers all substratum-based cognitive outcomes of the five human senses—all actualized substances and all actualized intangibles. Under the substratum-based cognitive outcomes classification there are visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, and tactile objectifications, which are either receptive or perceptive in nature.
A receptive objectification is a set of logical facts that manifests in a two-dimensional mode and belongs to the sphere of actuality. Tangible objectifications are first actualized in receptive mode and recognized as tangible until a receptor becomes a perceptor, after which they acquire presence in a combination of the targeted external substratum and the perceptor’s mind, and are thereafter approached in a perceptive mode, revealing consequences and ramifications of materiality which elevate the perceptor to the sphere of reality.
Intangible objectifications include all clear-cut two-dimensional extensions such as symbols and pictures displayed on televisions, computers, or cinema screens and borderline two-dimensional objectifications such as printed or painted symbols or pictures. Printed or painted symbols and photographs are three-dimensional by virtue of ink or paint being tangible substances but insufficient in visual relief for perception. Two exceptions that should be noted are some paintings and crayon drawings which effectively allow for perception of their images-in-latency.
Intangible contingent mode objectification-potency (i.e., logical feeling-based sensing of tangibility under touch) leads to either indirect objects of reception or direct realization by perception. They occur under each sense as follows.
Under tactile sensing a receptor gets a psychological impression of an object of actuality—a logically tangible object—while a perceptor could realize the object-entity-candidate directly and within the sphere of reality as long as direct dermal touch is available to tactile sensing.
Under visual sensing, the same impression/perception conditions apply—a receptor receives a psychological impression of an object of actuality—a logically visible object—while a perceptor could realize the object-entity-candidate directly and within the sphere of reality as long as natural-look-surfaces are available to visual sensing.
Under gustatory sensing, the same impression/perception conditions apply; a receptor receives a psychological impression of an object of actuality—a logically tasteable object—while a perceptor could realize the object-entity-candidate directly and within the sphere of reality, but the taste sensed directly must be the natural pre-taste of the object-entity-candidate available to be realized on the basis of its taste.
Under olfactory sensing, the same impression/perception conditions apply; a receptor receives a psychological impression of an object of actuality—a logically smellable object—while a perceptor could realize the object-entity-candidate directly and within the sphere of reality, but the smell sensed directly must be the natural pre-smell of the object-entity-candidate available to be realized on the basis of its smell.
Under auditory sensing, again, the same impression/perception conditions apply; a receptor receives a psychological impression of an object of actuality—a logically audible object) while a perceptor could realize the object-entity-candidate directly and within the sphere of reality, but the sound sensed (directly) must be the natural pre-sound of the object-entity-candidate available to be realized on the basis of its sound.
Additionally, for the auditory sense, musical sounds could be perceived in their own right when certain conditions are met. Acoustic music that appeals to a given perceptor, listened by such a perceptor directly and within the perception-intrinsic distance range of perceptibility is a perceptive-objectification-candidate that could be realized on its own, provided the musical performance produces strong instinctive feelings in the listener-perceptor.
A perceptor is a mature human subject who interacts with the external world using human senses at the level of perception. Perceptors are able to actualize the presence of tangible entities acquiring access to consequences, ramifications, and implications of materiality. Therefore, the mental environment they live in is a combination of reality and actuality in which assimilated logical facts and formalized educated instinct complement each other.
The role of perceptor, as differentiated from that of receptor, is reached by a suitable ratio of theoretical knowledge and physical work, and the combination of intellectual build-up and physical experience is required to transcend the microcosm of logical relations towards the macrocosm of perceptual relations. To differentiate the two, it could be said that the receptor is living under actuality alone while the perceptor is living under both actuality and reality.
At birth the human organism is readily equipped for reception as follows: In the initial absence of awareness, the instinctive system of physical reflex interacts with the external world until the semantic faculty is activated, allowing thereafter for intellectual build-up. Intellectual build-up, in turn, initiates the sphere of psychological impression, which supersedes but does not eliminate the system of physical reflex. Situations where awareness is present are handled by psychological impression, while situations where awareness is not present remain under physical reflex control.
Psychological impression plus physical reflex allow survival in modern environments, since a human organism unable to actualize the presence of tangible entities could nevertheless survive, adapt, and learn. Physical adaptation and intellectual learning offer the mental environment within which all those manifestations take place. The environment of reception is a virtual ambiance, in which the virtual nature is somehow concealed by the sense of touch and by virtue of receptors having the logical ability to differentiate tangible from intangible states with no need for perception.
Reality begins with actualization of the presence of tangible entities. Perceptors are individuals capable of achieving such actualization, and in doing so, they begin accumulating perceptive memory turning their mind into soul. When the environment of realness ends at death, they are able to transcend on the basis of such a transformation.
Consciousness is an instinctive state which surpasses the intellectual state of awareness and grants access to the sphere of reality; the sphere of actualized presences. The structure of consciousness involves ramifications and implications of realness as they interact with the epistemological structure of awareness (actuality) in a synthesis of instinct and intellect, leading to educated instinct as the main property of consciousness.
Emanation is the initiating means of sense interaction from external world substratum to mind. It manifests out of a group of force types that affect the human senses, input of devices, and stimulus acquirer mediums, promoting stimuli.
The creation of both two-dimensional and three-dimensional representative objects in mind suggests two- and three-dimensional properties of emanation (based on two- or three-dimensional force surfaces as the source), with the three-dimensional type of property emanating only from object-entity-candidates; tangible objects or substances.
Emanation from visual external world targets requires light that would separate levels of substratum relief (of the visual source-target) to allow objectification of force surfaces by mind.
Essence is a perceptive state classifiable as a member of the sphere of reality rather than a receptive (logical) state classifiable as a member of the sphere of actuality. Since any scientifically classified substance or state is recognized on the basis of its appearances, either by human inference of inner properties or by measuring/display of instruments targeting inner properties, such classification pertains to the actuality of the substance’s (or state’s) innermost appearances—what is promoted in the way of stimuli—and not to its essence.
Essence as a physical manifestation constitutes a potential for presence, or pre-presence prior to it becoming presence, only actualized in perception. Since the actualized (metaphysical) presence of an object-entity-candidate is an instinctive state, any intellectual description of it seeking scientific precision or proper definition would pertain to the actuality of the tangible entity. However, when it comes to implications of a tangible entity, perception allows access to a large set of implicit ramifications only evident in the sphere of reality.
Existence presents considerable difficulties for the comprehension of its nature owing to the way the human model was designed, giving the impression of observed objects existing in their own. An organism who wakes up to awareness with no knowledge whatsoever of the complex structure and functioning required to become aware would hardly doubt the results of what was carefully designed to impress as existing, unless he or she happens to become a metaphysician who achieves above average results in the task of figuring things out.
It was only about 2,500 years ago that some individuals began a serious inquiry of metaphysical issues of the more than 300,000 years of the intellectual development of homo sapiens. Regarding the question of what could be the reason for how the particular design becomes aware (with no idea of how) and which results in getting the wrong impression about existence, it could be a simplification of learning, avoiding complex metaphysical matters that would obstruct basic learning. Such simplification could have been a critical factor for survival in earlier times.
However, a student of metaphysics now needs only to carefully consider some theories put together by others (unless a desire to develop a new theory is strong) and the one theory I recommend to take into account about existence is that there is no existence on its own in the universe.
External world pertains to the environment which surrounds mind. It extends to the totality of the universe and includes the physical body and brain that are particularly related to a given mind. A distinction between external and internal environments is useful for metaphysics and philosophy of mind purposes, taking the external world to be the sphere of physical potential, while the mental environment is the sphere of mind manifestations.
The structure of the unobserved external world (pre-mind structure) in general is a pre-existent substratum in which force, which does not require mind to manifest, is the primordial property, and in particular, under intellectual scrutiny, the substratum’s force manifests in force surfaces which, although invisible and silent, comprise levels of inferred extension relief.
From the moment of becoming aware, the external world we are used to recognizing when observing it, hearing it, and so forth, emerges from mental objectification of force surfaces—some leading to tangible objects and some to effects. Sensing of the external world is in part a subjective activity, and such basic directly unverifiable subjectivity has propelled the use of scientific instruments to decide some outcomes.
External world tangible objects, beginning as object-entity-candidates, are the focus and source of perception based on their three-dimensional foundation (three-dimensional force surfaces), which allow for actualization of their presence by perceptors, and constitute the core external world foundation of the sphere of reality.