(pp. xi-xiii)
A scientist specializes in achieving scientific facts, while a metaphysician specializes in triggering inferences. A bad scientist could fail in advancing experiments or studies expected to lead to accurate results, and an inauthentic metaphysician may advance arguments of pure imagination that do not match the way things actually are or were. After all, imagination and observation often team up to create misconceptions, mistaken beliefs, or other deceptions. Consequently, taking either of those potential negative scenarios into account, it could be natural for a metaphysician to claim the insufficiency of the method of observation to reach certain types of knowledge, favoring inference instead, and for a scientist to avoid metaphysics altogether. Such scenarios make collaboration between the two fields difficult but possible in cases in which a given metaphysical persuasion, such as mine, claims some part of the necessary explanations is scientific while another part is metaphysical. The authenticity of human observation, the results of sensing, and even the method sensing works under could be the subject of suspicion simply because the system is hidden, self-contained, and gives no hints about its actual nature other than its obvious results, which are found already functioning when an individual wakes up to sudden awareness in life. Awareness of the alleged external world but not of the facts that govern the senses. We get hints from the scientific study of the senses, but the senses themselves hide their nature with no negative consequences for their practical everyday use.
If human observation is under suspicion mainly because the senses could very well have a purpose different than what is assumed just by observing results, which is what strongly ordains what is presupposed about them, the next suspects should be existence and being as possible fictions presumed to exist only on the basis of what the senses lead people to believe. If you have eyes, it must be that there is something in the external world that can be seen, right? If existence and being are in fact fictions, well concealed by the deceptive impression given by the senses, this delusory scheme must have a directing and controlling master performer, and I advance mind as such governing power; however, mind is not totally independent; not initially; it is propelled by programmed genetic instructions. Again, the fictional nature of existence and being is a very serious matter for anyone who would suddenly consider its implications, since such a claim stamps out the physical domain, making mind the omnipresent circumstance behind anything located in the universe. The extirpation (in one shot) of the physical domain altogether from the big picture and the consequent discrediting of its pretentious existence is something you could readily accept and live with thereafter?
(pp.45)
What is externally located—standing in the external world—of an observed or unobserved object and the external pole of the subject/object relation are all pertinent instances of the external target scientific stimulus promoters, namely, the object-candidate that turns into existent by act of mind. Such essence lacks appearances of its own. I have concluded the closest thing to an “appearance” the external world projects without mind intervention is force, which appears at various levels of affectation. For example, force appears as pressure or as temperature; temperature is a type of pressure (over surroundings); however, these manifestations are invisible and, thus, lack a descriptive appearance other than the effects of force proper as surroundings are interacted with.
(pp.47-48)
My choice of force as the primary state or element of the unobserved-by-mind universe is influenced by the fact of pre-existential-to-existent potency, which I infer rules before mind intervention and creates doubt on whether pre-existential states can be defined as anything more than effects in diminishing the role of mind, which, after all, provides all the sense-aware elements that actualize the mental impression of substance, even though such mental impression depends necessarily on the external pre-existential source. In respect to the potential application of metaphysical inference in the manner ancient philosophers used to exercise it, I now regard it as irrelevant to attempt to figure out what the actual levels of force leading to all substances and effects that become existents after mind intervention could be. The practical thing to do is to go by modern scientific definitions of elements in physics and chemistry. We need to balance two types of potential personal offenses: on the one hand, respect is in order for the considerable aptitude of the philosopher, and on the other hand, respect is in order for the considerable progress of scientific knowledge, avoiding giving offense to either side.
(pp.49-50)
Since no object exists independently (because no object includes what is required to exist, namely appearances that display physical details), every potential object is no more independent than a bundle of forces, a concept entertained by George Berkeley. Thus, what we commonly believe to be direct human apprehension (vision) of external world existing-in-themselves appearances must be something else. Before figuring this out by yourself, let me express some objections to my own claim, in significant opposition to what could be regarded as an outrageous affirmation. I would first like to state that my claims are outrageous only as a result of how basic traditional education forms individuals intellectually. It could also be said that such education is outrageous in the means it utilizes to achieve its ends. But, of course, in this crucial and unavoidable scenario, the ends achieved justify the deception involved, right? There are historical trends behind the outrage—the way traditional education took shape. Let me ease your concern: it is clearly wrong to claim the end justifies the means when the means are any type of crime or unethical action. The concept itself justifies a criminal personality seeking to act criminally with impunity. But if the intellectual development of individuals from an early age has taken a particular shape worldwide with no premeditated criminal intent behind it and has become a tradition, the required deception is neither a crime nor an otherwise unethical action, so looking the other way is no big deal. I am just clarifying why my claims seem outrageous. Suppose, now, you think I am going too far and decide to stop me in my tracks, claiming the following: “Human vision is a scientific subject that is very well understood; there are many specialists and experts, and extensive research is done on the subject.”
(pp.74-75)
The philosophical position I take on the constitution of being upholds essentialism, a view of essence being prior to existence, and rejects existentialism, a view of existence being prior to essence. The genetic makeup of human beings is the essence that leads to existence on the basis of the programmed instructions it contains, and the transition needed between those two states is human awareness, which allows for the judgment that actualizes existence. From the initial presumption of essence being prior to existence, someone could assume a naturalistic attitude, believing what influences and leads the human organism is the environment, namely the universe, leading to genetic makeup by default. Though, I regard that as impossible, and in my version of essentialism, I assume a complex role for the genetic makeup, which begins with it having been created by supernatural means and programmed to control not only the body but also mental functions, beginning with the programmed emergence of mind.
In opposition to my essentialist frame of mind, I see the existentialist position as a naturalistic assumption about the environment being the source of existence in its own right and of essence being discovered by existing subject-observers. It happens to be the claim that has gained the upper hand around the world when combined with the concept of biological evolution, that is, when natural selection is taken to be a natural process caused by the universe in its own right. I reject existentialism and claim natural selection is not natural, and I also deny the universe—the environment—is the cause of existence, natural selection, or awareness. Philosophizing about being presents risks because one could be accused and condemned on the charge of lacking sensibility towards human beings. The implication is that objects are fair game for metaphysical definition, whereas human subjects are not equally so. I’ll take my chances when it comes to facing intimidation. There are human and nonhuman beings. Nonhuman beings lack awareness; they are beings only by virtue of human judgment. Newborn human beings also lack awareness and are beings only by virtue of their parents and other individuals’ judgment until they acquire awareness, which emerges with activation of their semantic faculty. Being originates, among other things, by act and virtue of actualizing judgment within awareness, but the emergence of awareness is impossible by natural means. I am convinced a belief in the emergence of awareness—having a chance occurrence as its initial source and from such an accident to assume it can evolve over time into higher planes—is pure superstition.
(pp.76-77)
My argument is not that the Big Bang is impossible to have occurred by chance; I do not have scientific knowledge to make a claim of such sort; alternatively, it is a call for common sense considering the exceptional hierarchy of human potential, which greatly surpasses the necessities of survival. That from the Big Bang something so sophisticated as the human being could follow seems to me an utterly ridiculous subterfuge. To make things worse, considering potential embarrassment, a created human being is required before someone could negate creation. I would not concentrate on negating the possibility of the Big Bang as a physical event; I would preferably point out how what came after (what developed) makes it totally unfeasible as a natural occurrence. You are overwhelming proof that the Big Bang was not a natural event.
Supernatural action, nonetheless, could surely be attributed to the Big Bang. Both natural and artificial explosions include, by necessity, pre-elements leading to after-elements. Whether or not the pre-elements of a given explosion could be determined in detail is a different matter; pre-elements could be inferred at the very least as a necessity of any current event, and when doing so, current events are updated as being after-elements. Therefore, it is safe to assume the Big Bang was not a random detonation; on the contrary, it could be inferred that it was an act with a lot of planning behind it and clear intent. After the nature of the originating act is inferred, there is still room for discussion on whether chance in the universe (besides and in exclusion of the type of chance allowed by free will) is operative at all, and if so, to what degree it is pure chance. It is conceivable that life, which is reputed to have begun in the ocean, could have been programmed in what later became water, as a planned property of it (instead of just occurring out of an ocean shaped by chance), as part of the design of the Big Bang. In other words, water leads to lifeforms—at the very least, simple lifeforms—but why it leads to lifeforms is the larger question, which no evidence can answer; there can only be theories about it.
(pp.77-78)
Allow me to make up three theories to facilitate our discussion. One hypothetical theory is that the characteristics of water (leading to both simple lifeforms and the species) are just a natural manifestation, period. Biological evolution follows from that. Another hypothetical theory is that water was designed to have such characteristics (leading to both simple lifeforms and the species). That possibility requires the Big Bang to have been designed to lead to, among other things, water as we know it. A third hypothetical theory is that water was designed to have such a characteristic (again, the Big Bang was designed to lead to water as we know it), but the resulting water only led to simple lifeforms; hence, a very special self-reproducing biological prototype leading to the species was introduced (perhaps in the ocean) after planet Earth was already formed. Using the example of explosions again, if after planning and carrying out an explosion you wanted to leave behind some specific residues, you would prepare the bomb with the components needed to produce such residues—the Big Bang could have been designed in such a way to lead to the emergence of life at future dates. What is my personal opinion on the three hypothetical theories mentioned?
I accept that the beginning of the chain of species could have begun in the ocean and would discuss the matter with scientists who affirm it, but I doubt very much that the genetic instructions for the development of mind would have been carried by ocean water and by the elements prior to ocean water. The way I see it, programmed genetic instructions are a mandatory condition for the development of the species. I reject the first theory; natural water on its own cannot produce a life form that would evolve to the level of human beings, and more fundamentally, there would be no natural planet or universe without creation. Regarding the second theory, water was designed to lead to simple lifeforms, but it seems too farfetched to me that water would include promotion of the emergence of the genetic makeup of the species, including the formidable amount of programmed genetic instructions needed for transmutation leading to speciation. Therefore, I favor the third theory: water was designed to lead to simple lifeforms, but the chain of species began with a special, self-reproducing biological prototype introduced by supernatural means after planet Earth was already suitable for life.
(pp.104-105)
My latest claims may seem strange if you do not know how the recognition or identification of the content took place. Should you believe with confidence that looking at an object a second time around corroborates the first time as an instance of having seen it? Would you be open-minded enough to entertain the idea that external-to-mind content (assumed content) visual or auditory, is never seen or heard, only recognized or identified as visual or auditive product of mind? Since what we call seeing and hearing are functions limited to what mind produces as a result of external world stimuli promotion, it follows that recognition and identification are the main tasks of seeing and hearing. Would you agree with that? Discovering how the external world looks like and sounds like is not an available option; it does not look or sound in any particular way; but once you look at an external target, you could recognize it in future views of it or identify it, and the same goes for hearing; what you hear, you could recognize it in future hearings of it or identify it. The future recognition or identification (any instance after the first) is not based on seeing or hearing the external target but on comparing memory of how the target “impressed” your cognitive system (emanation input) up to the latest time a visual or auditory interaction took place, to the way the source impresses you now. Thus, seeing and hearing involve recognition or identification, and recognition and identification are executed in comparison of a copy against the source incoming stimuli.
(pp.107-108)
Therefore, a mental image (two-dimensional image or three-dimensional image-object), when created by direct confrontation with the external object-entity, is the most perfect image possible, since it embodies the intellectually recognized external source, as only mind can actualize it with the addition of epistemological values to the whole. Having said that, the “imperfection” of the devices is not a modification of the image produced in mind but only the fact that the image’s logical nature stands alone in the absence of the actualized existence of the source. The image created in mind is the only arrangement that actually achieves the hierarchy of “image-of-its-own,” not only when the source is the original object-entity represented or emulated in mind but also when what is confronted by mind is a device-produced composite, mirror configuration of such a source. Nonetheless, the mental image created by the confrontation of a representation or emulation of the same external source should be regarded as a secondary image, in recognition of its being based on a source of appearances separated from their external world essence.
A device-generated pre-existential 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-existential image, in general terms, is to allow recognition or identification of the source’s visual (or auditory) appearance promoters, and it could be said that the quality of products from visual and sound devices at present is very satisfactory. In strict technical details, a device boards the logical characteristics of the source’s scientific stimulus promoters in potency and reproduces the stimulus-promotion context, producing a pre-existential image promotion. Such a pre-existential image promotion cannot be equal to the pre-existential image promotion of the external source’s own set of scientific stimulus promoters (though it can be very similar in psychological impression promotion), because it is a representation or emulation of it.
(pp.113-115)
Linear representation in outward mirror projection is what objectifies the external object-candidate—in two dimensions under reception and in three dimensions under perception. The mirror projection part of the process is from the object of awareness to the linear objectification. Semantic encoding creates the object of awareness, which re-manifests as the result of recalling the linear objectification; accordingly, with the eyes open, the linear objectification is what operates in vision, and with the eyes closed, it is the object of awareness (the memory of the linear objectification) operating in recall of the actualized object. The explanation presented in the last three paragraphs refers to the way a perfect copy is made of an inexistent image, which belongs, in a specific fashion, to the particular external source of it. In vision and hearing, what is seen or heard directly that is not the object proper but allows itself to be recognized or identified correctly? The images created by mind, which are synchronized with the focused-on sources of external pre-existentials, are what is seen or heard directly. The synchronization of images and pre-existentials fits consistently (unless a dream or hallucination is the environment of recognition), but could an error take place? To answer that question, we could divide the manifestation of becoming personally aware of sensation-concretizations into general and particular, in which case recognition would be of a class, while identification would be of a given member of a class. Recognition of a class is provided by mind automatically, although in a very basic sense, while identification (of a member of a class) is a complex analytical process.
Basic recognition is pre-analytic, and as soon as recognition moves up from instinctive triggering of reflexes to willful analytical events, it becomes identification of a member of the class in question; consequently, the answer to the question is that there are no errors in basic automatic recognition by mind. Why not? The basic general recognition provided automatically by mind feeds on the current hierarchy of the individual’s activation of the semantic faculty, as indicated by the extension of semantic encoding (at the current level of personal intellectual buildup) at each point of the cognitive grid as it is ruled (and also determined) by the conversion of scientific stimulus promoters towards intellectual values. How good is that basic, general recognition? It depends on the intellectual buildup of an individual, ranging from a newborn’s basic reflex triggering with no awareness to considerable peripheral recognition (while the individual focuses analytically on the identification of a target) in individuals with high intellectual buildup. An example of basic automatic recognition by mind, commenting on how it could affect two different individuals, follows. Let’s suppose some type of animal appears by surprise and approaches an individual. If the individual is someone who has never seen such an animal and has very little intellectual buildup—perhaps a child—he or she would see the animal as it compares to other known animals, noticing it has a face and a body but ignoring what type of animal it is. While another individual who knows the type of animal and has considerable intellectual buildup would recognize the animal as a given class (animal type) and could go on quickly to identify a particular member of such a class, should something stand out about it in particular.
(pp.142-145)
“Cognitive representation” is a somehow inaccurate term, but it’s one I could use to avoid changing scientific terminology beyond what is absolutely necessary. The assumption the word “representation” naturally leads to in vision and hearing is of an image substituting for another image. Thus, 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 of the external world. If the existence of images in the external world were to be questioned and negated, such eventuality would eliminate the possibility of direct cognition for obvious reasons, but it would also 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 for two compelling reasons: 1) 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, only for noticing internal, system-made cognitive appearances; and 2) the external world lacks traits or appearances that can be seen or heard directly or indirectly. Having made those claims, from here on, I will refer again to cognitive representation, since mental images still represent (complement) external manifestations.
An evolutionist, atheist, or scientific materialist could entertain a belief about evolution leading an organism to develop eyes and ears. If so, the fact would obviously mean that what you see and hear exists in the external world, because why would something as sophisticated as eyes and ears develop unless there were in the universe actual things ready to see and hear? Well, how about the following alternative? Intelligent design genetic instructions lead to the development of eyes and ears, not because there are (obviously) actual things ready to see and hear in the external world, but preferably because the opposite conditions apply; there are no traits or features that can be seen or heard directly in the external world. Therefore, your eyes and ears allow to see and hear, but other than what stands independently in the external world. If you choose to oppose cognitive representation, favoring direct cognition instead, consider that my arguments build on certain positions, and when following such arguments, the attainment of the highest level of understanding depends on assuming such initial positions are certain to see what results from them. It should be noted that there is still time to deny them later, if mistaken. Cognitive representation creates an internal intellectual environment that leads to awareness, and prior to such an intellectual environment—composed of semantic elements and logical operations—there is an instinctive environment human beings and animals are born with. My reasoning on the absolute need for cognitive representation in the tasks of recognition, identification, discrimination, and so forth is based on the way the substratum of objects-to-be behaves outside the very special conditions of planet Earth. When a conversation begins about the origin of species and the conditions of planet Earth that facilitate their life on it, the conversation and the facts discussed are somehow negatively influenced by after-the-fact assumptions, as discussed next.
(pp.145-146)
For example, when arguing that the appearance of a species on Earth is a natural occurrence, it is said on the basis of it already having taken place with a “natural-looking” result, and I argue such after-the-fact rationalization is not a trustworthy argument leading to accurate conclusions. Another example is the already-noted assumption about what having eyes and ears means. The universe does not allow for life, only for chaos, and more to the point, any two or more entities standing next to each other—for example, two rocks found moving in space—have no interaction, one with another, other than force; nothing but force could be shared or exchanged. Therefore, instead of concentrating on the after-the-fact conditions of Earth, which, according to the way the rest of the vast universe is, obviously could not have occurred by chance, one should concentrate on what is more extreme and exaggerated, namely, the possibility of awareness occurring naturally anywhere in the universe. A suggestion of awareness, or, more to the point, consciousness being a natural occurrence anywhere in the universe, offends my intelligence as a metaphysician.
Naturalism has a strong appeal to educated people, and before I realized it is an atheist ideology, I was lured into it because to observe and study animals and plants is a fun activity in which I find nothing wrong, except to attribute animals and plants to a groundless mystical nature. Just take a look at the universe outside of Earth and seriously ask yourself, “Could planet Earth have been a natural occurrence, appearing out of the blue in that vast wasteland of chaotic manifestations that is the universe?” To that, in a polite mode, I say perhaps it is possible as a logical ramification of a created Big Bang, as a consequential result of the deterministic framework of a planned in advance Big Bang. A conceivable alternative to the supernatural alteration of planet Earth (long after the Big Bang) to make it suitable for life in contradiction to the rest of the universe. But if you push me to go further and to accept as possible the emergence of species, mind, civilization, and consciousness as (natural) consequences of planet Earth having the right range of temperatures and raw materials, I would begin to get offended. Now, my very negative appraisal of the universe ends when mind enters the picture, because mind—owing to its very special design—achieves what otherwise is utterly impossible or, if common sense were exercised, inconceivable.
(pp.154-157)
The transfer of a mirror configuration, visual or auditory, which is promoted by an external source and moves from one medium to another does not actualize an image—visual or auditive—unless the (final) receiving medium is human awareness. Mirror configurations of a visual nature are known to transfer from original object-candidates to water surfaces or artificial mediums, such as mirrors or electronic or photochemical displays. However, none of such mediums is aware of mirror configurations being transferred; what is acquired in the process of transfer are pre-existential-image configurations or images-in-latency, since only human awareness actualizes images. What those mediums store in this context are replicated scientific stimulus promoters. The method of emanation input introducing external stimuli promoters to the cognitive system, mental creation of representative fields, conversion of genetic values into intellectual values, and intellectualization of sense pre-existential-contextualize/able stimulus property towards a cognitive product that achieves two-dimensional awareness is defined in absolute realization as meaning attachment. This is a process that begins with external world stimuli promoters and leads to intellectual awareness when semantic values are encoded into mental frames generated in connection to incoming sense pre-existential-contextualize/able stimulus property.
The building of human awareness depends on the synchronization of particular semantic values with intellectualized sense pre-existential-contextualize/able stimulus property, giving external stimuli sources certain meanings out of genetic expressions. The human cognitive system at birth is a hardware processing mechanism built on top of the instinctive system, and it could be regarded as initially empty of the intellectual content it later processes. However, since the external world only provides stimuli promoters, not actual sense data or intellectual components as they stand in the cognitive system, the intellect that is built in it is a three-part conversion: external stimuli to genetic values to intellectual values, that is initiated by the use of the human senses. When someone studies and learns a given subject, the senses input emanation in the form of stimuli promotion. The stimulus promoters related to the subject studied could consist of language and math components recorded as intellectual memory. And for such memory accumulation activity to result in intellect buildup, a conversion of genetic values (genetic expressions) to intellectual values must take place. Consequently, we could think of a cognitive arrangement going on periodically in the cognitive system, requesting genetic expressions to rationalize the flow of incoming stimuli leading to information. You must bear in mind that learning is not something acquired from the external world; the external world is an intermediary in the process of learning. If we divide learning between a) the memorization of the answer to particular questions, and b) the capability of calculating correct answers within a range, the knowledge involved in (a) is based on intellectual memory created by external world exposure to the right answers. However, the knowledge involved in (b) is a genetic issue for which the external world could only help with tasks meant to incentivize the triggering of genetic expressions that reveal the correct answers.
(pp.169-170)
I make such comments to point out, first and foremost, that I am a philosopher interested in figuring out, defining, and asserting how things are or were. You could trust me to tell you how things are, regardless of the consequences, but someone else in my place could simply give up the inquiry or avoid personal exposure when figuring out that the consequences found in such an inquiry could be severe. Therefore, when it became clear to me that having wisdom, being reasonable, and perceiving were the key elements of transcendence, it also became clear that the whole affair is an elitist scheme, so to speak. As I see it, when the intelligent design conception was put together, the potentialities assigned to human beings were seriously meant to become actualizations, not sporadic exceptions. The fact that human beings initiated their journey as unconscious creatures of habit does not diminish the original intent; conversely, it grants a measure of greatness to those who persevere against major odds. If the tenets behind my particular version of intelligent design—indirect creation of the species and transcendence of death by virtue of turning mind into soul—were scrutinized, seeking to determine what type of political ideology applies to their consequences, most likely they would be judged as conforming to a conservative political ideology. I believe elitism stands on the right side of the political spectrum and away from the moral licentiousness commonly found in a liberal political ideology. Yet, elitism around the world has earned a very negative reputation just because most people are not members of an elite. Furthermore, some people who have suffered under the power of any elite could resent even the existence of elites. So for me to advance the concept with any measure of optimism, I must stick to the facts of intelligent design thinking they are irresistible, and further concluding that the concept of elitism should be given adequate consideration.
(pp.170-171)
I shall point out that I came to the United States when I was 20 years old, and hence my political frame of mind is not the usual American frame of mind; I could be regarded as having a foreign or international perspective, and under such an alternative perspective, I am not sure whether American conservatism or liberalism stand uniformly aligned with the generic meaning of conservatism or liberalism, respectively. For example, I was surprised to learn that, from its beginnings, the Republican Party was in favor of the abolition of slavery, while the Democratic Party was in favor of slavery. My inclination was to believe the opposite; according to the generic meaning of conservatism, it should have been the conservative party who would defend slavery as a tradition, while the liberal party would oppose slavery, claiming a progressive posture willing to challenge tradition. Consequently, I must clarify that the tenets of my persuasion are likely to be classified as conservative under the meaning of the generic term, not necessarily in clear identification with American conservatism. The absolute realization tenets conform with traditional values, but with limitations placed on tradition when a conflict appears between traditional customs or postures and metaphysical facts. An important factor in the consideration of political positions is whether a political ideology is extremist in its goals, and such a factor has given right-wing and conservative ideologies (the ideologies that project a stronger obligation to duty) a negative reputation. At the very least, their members are seen as being “less nice” than their left-wing or liberal counterparts (by a centrist, modern, critical audience), and such determination could be correct when the members in question are, in fact, nasty people, but wrong when “being nice” is advanced as signifying licentiousness or tolerance of wrongdoing. In distinction to what is the representative ideological nature of the right wing, left-wing extremism is not about personal duty; rather, it is about a negation of the traditional concept of duty (perhaps denouncing it as a snobbery insensitive to social circumstances) and a justification of moral weakness, which could be presented as altruism (allegedly in “fair” reflection over human nature).
(pp.174-175)
The absolute realization position is as follows: educationally speaking, people must be good or the intelligent design effort would be discredited, and they better be good for their own best interest if wanting to transcend; being good is difficult only for those who have no natural inclination to be good or for people living in a political system that leads people to be evil. I should also mention an individual’s family, which, if not suitable for promoting goodness, could be a negative factor under any political system, and the education system the individual grows up in. The education system, if harmful, could be blamed either on the political system (public school or private school) of the individual’s family (home schooling). It should be taken as fact that minors depend on their school or family to develop, and only when reaching adulthood are they responsible for further development. This order of priorities affecting minors is the weakest link of the intelligent design educational organization, for several reasons. As stated previously, the political right (conservative adults) needs to confront the fact that transcendence is not mandatory; there could be people who have no interest in transcendence at all. The political left (liberal adults) needs to confront the issue of development, first in contrast to a mentality of behavior permissiveness; with respect to giving minors a suitable education, they could see the issue of duty as constituting “someone else’s problem,” when conservatives concentrate on proper behavior or duty. At first, it seems like there is no conflict; conservatives could look the other way at liberal behavior practiced by others (some people could call it a free society where people could be good or bad with no major consequences), but only if all people were adults (and perceptors?).
(pp.223)
The death penalty is consequently a useful social instrument that would be appreciated by people who have experienced suffering in situations in which it is very difficult to deal with recurring crime that goes on in the absence of evidence to stop it, and when the necessary evidence is finally attained and capital punishment is applied, the problem is solved for good. The other side of the issue is the possibility of executing an innocent individual owing to an erroneous conviction. An erroneous conviction could take place in any period, but initially, capital punishment was not a controversial measure because of the way society functioned in the early United States. As American society changed towards more liberal views and crime increased (population growth having some responsibility?), challenges to the death penalty began to appear, for example, from those who would rationalize crime as something pushed on or incentivized by society proper, claiming rehabilitation is the only suitable treatment, voicing doubts about the fairness of the criminal justice system, or alleging police officers cannot be trusted to handle evidence, etcetera.
(pp.227-229)
Although other countries have worse population problems, climate change and air pollution are American problems as much as they are global problems, and I believe they should be classified as population problems; if the global and US populations were small, we would not be talking about climate change or considerable air pollution (air pollution would be manageable). Consequently, in my opinion, an example set by the American people is required to influence the rest of the world about doing what every country must eventually do. You could still be skeptical and claim it would take too much work to impose mandatory population control for the portion of procreation-age females out of more than 160 million American women, so perhaps you would say, “Imagine the large number of American women of procreation age who, by virtue of having already procreated two children, would have to visit a federal facility on a regular basis to get a contraception shot,” supposing that was the contraception method used in the national plan. Perhaps you would add, “Yes, I accept that it would be nice to eliminate unwanted pregnancies, abortions on demand, and birth defects, protect the environment in advance of overpopulation reaching the United States, and even wage war on several types of pollution to seriously protect the health of the American people, but it seems unfeasible to get Americans to accept it.” To this, I would reply, “If you think it would be too complex a task to do it now, how about later on when the population doubles or triples? Would you rather make it even more complex by procrastinating and hoping the problem will go away eventually? Do you think you can get away with not doing it and that it won’t be necessary in the future?” I understand your concerns; the problem is something new, something you are not used to, so you worry about the complications of a big undertaking and about how much it would cost. That is fine, but earlier in this work, I gave you some important hints: if a good portion of the inhabitants of the world are lifetime receptors and their numbers increase, things will not get any better. I also mentioned some qualities perceptors develop: foresight, various sensibilities, good judgment, etcetera. Now I must ask you to seriously consider that population growth around the world could be bringing out the opposite characteristics in many people, and that could affect you.
(pp.229-232)
I would tell you this: if you were walking down the street and a lifetime receptor came by and killed you, capitalist success would not be there for you to enjoy anymore; the economic benefits that, according to you, were owing to population growth would be gone in a second. However, to be fair, you do not need to die. Instead, it would be bad enough if your quality of life was reduced due to the failings of other people. That is what is in store for you, unless something is done about the population problem. I would also tell you that the economic system must adapt to a population that will not grow anymore in the United States and will be reduced in other countries, because it is a matter of life or death, not exactly of people, but of the lifestyle of cultured people. You are probably familiar with some of the problems that get worse as time goes by—for example, the aforementioned global warming issue—but have you considered that overpopulation could be what is behind global warming? Claims about the global warming problem being man-made or that human activity causes it are correct; however, the big picture scenario and underlying context is that overpopulation is the most significant cause. If the global population were smaller, there would be no major problem, so the explanations given could be selective explanations to avoid naming the big-picture source of the problem. We are living in a world where people are born believing it is perfectly normal to breathe poisonous gases that are discharged 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and 365 days a year by coal power plants, factories, buildings, gasoline and diesel vehicles, to name a few well-known sources. The effects of air pollution on humans and animals are unknown other than being recognized as anticipated risks for getting cancer or the obvious—the stuff will certainly kill you under direct, prolonged exposure. If you know something will certainly kill you under direct, prolonged exposure—and for over 100 years in the case of oil and longer in the case of coal—there has been a continuous production and discharge of it into the air, it could be the case that people have been miseducated to be unconscious to the problem. I do not claim there is total unconsciousness to the oil and coal air pollution problem; a movement has emerged in favor of a switch to renewable energy; but the necessary change is slow to come, and if there is no rush to do it, it must be because the issue is not given enough importance yet. Additionally, something else is obvious to me: since industry is needed for modern society, the probability of health problems is always determined in conjunction with the needs of industry to survive. Some people may say that is the price or cost of modernity; if there was no industry in need of protection, health problems would be anticipated by looking at the “possibility” of occurrence rather than the “probability,” and consequently, under current conditions, health problems are allowed up to a certain percentage of potential harm.
The argument posed by those who profit from several polluting industries is economic necessity; a lot of people work for such industries, so to decrease pollution would mean to decrease jobs and ultimately to decrease economic prosperity in general. Again, the big-picture cause of high pollution production is large populations; if power plants, factories, and vehicles were fewer, pollution problems would mostly go unnoticed, and of course, most industries could move from polluting methods to nonpolluting methods if the switch from nonrenewable to renewable energy actualized. As it turns out, both solutions—population control and clean energy—are strongly opposed by major interests. But don’t ask me to name who opposes what needs to be done; just figure out who would lose investment money, who would lose a business, or who would lose a job, and you could safely assume they would oppose ending their source of income.
(Original Term) (pp.18-19)
Actuality is the sphere of all logical events: logical propositions and their outcomes, logical facts, their argumentation, and their conclusions. The nature and environment of actuality is a figurative, verifiable state of descriptive correspondence to appearances that could include such things as quantification, mathematical operations, and correct logical outcomes—that which delineates the world to the observer in the correct measure by virtue of psychological impressions. Under actuality, no object-candidate is realized, but recognition and identification of objects (logical objects even if in correspondence to physical targets) take place strictly on the basis of stimuli promotion, leading to cognitive-system-generated appearances and further recognition of such appearances.
Cultural manifestations could be referred to as being composed of logical values for the purpose of argument, but values of morality, ethics, and social propriety do not belong in the category of logical events or facts. There is no logical operation or formula to prove a moral conviction is correct; it is comprehended as proper (corresponding to propriety) by perceptors, while receptors could understand it as a mandate, necessity, or convenience but not as an authentic, purely perceptive tenet. Therefore, in matters of morality, ethics, or social propriety, the environment of actuality acts as a device which makes morality, ethics, and social propriety available to receptors as a logical-representative alternative, those who cannot reach the level of conviction that perceptors reach in such matters could still understand them as necessities or conveniences. A given external world event that includes a set of nonlogical circumstances (perceptive valuations or emotional valuations) could be simplified in reference to a set of logical facts, but in so doing, the scope of potential judgment (of it) is limited to the actuality of the situation, not necessarily the perceptive realness of it as comprehended by perceptors.
Science works within the boundaries of actuality, and any process, device, or machine that follows or is controlled by logical facts functions within the sphere of actuality. However, indirect transcendence of actuality into reality is possible for some logical processes. A remarkable example of indirect transcendence is a written music composition performed with acoustic instruments. The composition as it stands in awareness (written and read) is a logical fact of actuality that remains within actuality as long as it stands within awareness or in a medium of latency that allows for potential retrieval into awareness, such as a printed musical staff or a computer file (holding the musical staff), until acoustic instruments or voices perform it and it becomes a fact of reality while the performance is perceived by perceptors.
(Original Term) (pp.19-21)
Appearance-potency is the inferred quality of the external world foundation of objects-to-be (force surfaces), which allows for the synchronization of mentally generated appearances when mind supplies the necessary mental attribution. Intellectual memory is also a source of appearance-potency that has no concurrent direct causation from the external world and becomes the content of dreams, hallucinations, and awake thinking (other than recognition-based thinking). The mental attribution that actualizes appearances noticed in the external world is controlled by genetic makeup expressions. It occurs automatically in the case of basic visual contours (as noticed in the periphery of vision) and is led by intellectual requests for genetic expression in the case of the visual actualization of particular members of classes (turning appearance-potency into appearances). The results of such actualization come from cognitive intellectualizing of the stimuli-promotion of external force surfaces, which is internalized by way of emanation input through the senses. Therefore, the appearance-potency’s foundational source of appearances seen when visually sense-targeting the external world is located in the external world, while the appearance-potency of thinking (in observation mode) is located in the cognitive system as a feature of intellectual memory. The image seen (or heard, or discerned by the other three senses) connects the external and internal worlds on the basis of both sides having appearance-potency, and the cognitive side having intellectual memory support for image making, recognition, and identification.
Such an organizational system limits the scope of imagination to what is allowed by the intellectual memory stored in the cognitive system (what is extracted from it for imagination purposes), and in turn, what is stored as intellectual memory depends on learning and semantic faculty level of activation. Genetic expressions of actualized external world appearances are automatic (although based on intellectual requests for genetic expressions). External things look the way genetic makeup’s expressions instruct awareness about them, but part of the “look” (especially when focusing on details) is an understanding of it; however, the automatic part is as objective as something can be. External world appearances are based on external appearance-potency that is invisible, silent, tasteless, odorless, and touchless but adopt mind’s attributed countenance as its own, while the understanding of detailed appearances depends heavily on the intellectual buildup of the observer. If you think touch does not fit in with my assertion about external appearance-potency, consider that what we usually regard as physical objects or substances are constituted by force arrangements that exert pressure when “touched,” but in being immaterial in their own, they are touchless. We touch what we actualize in reception (tangible objects) or realize in perception (realized objects) and prior to our actualization or realization, the object-candidates in question are immaterial and touchless. If you wish, you could say that force “touches” you, but you cannot touch force.
(Modified-Meaning Conventional Term) (pp.71-73)
Biological transmutation, discovered by Charles Darwin, was the biological/developmental means chosen in the supernatural intelligent design plan to indirectly create the species. Darwin’s work in biology provided scientific evidence that seriously contradicts the concept of direct creation of the species, and on the basis of such strong contradiction, it could be inferred that the species were created indirectly by speciation, which began out of a created biological prototype (inserted in Earth after the planet became an environment suitable for sophisticated life) and actualized in a long chain of programmed transmutation/development processes. Let me add that the process of biological prototype-to-speciation could have been actualized more than once, first with poor results and then, after modifications, with the results we are familiar with.
Absolute realization defines biological transmutation as a supernatural process of designed development toward a number of planned-in-advanced species guided by programmed genetic instructions. However, what has turned out in practice is that what is observed about such organization is interpreted by the scientific community as “random” mutations leading to biological “evolution.” Biological changes could be triggered by environmental pressures, and genetic instructions could have been set to act as a result of environmental pressures. However, I believe that when a biological selection is determined to be a fact, only programmed genetic instructions can be the cause of it. Concerning Darwin’s claim about the “survival of the fittest,” if so, it would be part of the intelligent design plan and common sense if the development of the species comes about as the fulfillment of a one-way biological outcome imposed by genetic instructions. In other words, indirect creation by biological transmutation leading to speciation is not a one-shot event, as direct creation was presumed to have been. Rather than being a genetic organization that triggers an instance of creation mandated to occur on a set date, it could be a range of required outcomes; if the outcome is within range, life remains; if it is out of range, life ends. That is no different than death caused by too much heat or cold exposure. Also, common sense suggests that healthy organisms tend to survive, and ill ones are more likely to die than healthy ones. Therefore, when I say that the species were designed to be as they are (meaning they are not the product of evolution), my explanation here needs to be taken into account as a suggestion that for the species to reach the state that was planned and designed for them, they needed to survive first.
Behind biological selection (as proven by scientific evidence), there can only be programmed genetic instructions. Intelligent design in the form of programmed biological transmutation was put into motion by a supernatural act: “indirect creation,” as denominated in absolute realization. However, since biological rules governing speciation impress observers as being “natural” manifestations, someone who claims biological evolution is a fact could argue that the course of evolution, being a natural process, cannot change, nothing has changed, and evolution remains a force able to alter species toward more evolved states.
I disagree not only with biological evolution being a fact or with the biology of the species being a natural manifestation, but also with an opinion claiming the species can improve, the species are as they were programmed to be, and biological transmutation has already ended its course. However, if experiments are performed to apply artificial environmental pressures on any species, being that the rules of transmutation are always active by design, biological alterations could take place over time, which would constitute distortions of originally intended outcomes rather than evolution.
(Original Term) (pp.21-22)
As a contender to materialism and idealism—and in alternative to cognitive representation—cognitive attribution assumes an invisible and silent universe, explaining how object-candidates are sensed; by mental attribution of visual or auditive features, they lack themselves. If a system of cognition confronts manifestations that are not external world images and produces mental images in (assumed) mirror correspondence to what is confronted, the product of such interaction 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 are 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 differences between metaphysics and science when the subject at hand is one that includes both metaphysical and scientific issues, and also because cognitive representation is a well-known term in both science and philosophy.
The attribution of appearances proceeds with sufficient speed and precision to suggest direct representation of mirrorlike 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. Seeing or hearing directly is not possible for two reasons: the external world lacks visible or audible features, and human design does not include the ability to see or hear external manifestations; only internal, cognitive-system-generated manifestations can be seen or heard. Seeing or hearing external manifestations is a myth carefully concealed by the vivid nature of internally generated visual and auditive manifestations.
Intelligent design in cognitive attribution highlights the synchronization of mentally made images to the external world substratum of objects-to-be, directed by emanation (scientific stimulus promoters) and supported by genetic expressions, while giving the impression that external world images are the fundamental basis of vision and hearing. The fact is that there is no vision or hearing of the external world; they are impossible. But if you settle for synchronized, internal, visual, or auditory sensing of substratum-based object-candidates, which are actualized into existents while you recognize the product of sensing of them, such alternative “vision” or “audition” takes center stage, and your conclusion should be that the arrangement was designed because vision and audition are very important for the intelligent design enterprise. It just happens that the universe does not allow it to take place directly, but all significant things considered, what difference does it make if they are impossible?
(Modified-Meaning Conventional Term) (pp.77-81)
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. Although essence lends itself to be boarded within reception in the actualization of tangibility, a fact of great benefit to receptors, and is open to instrument measurement and replication of its scientific stimulus promoters, its full potency becomes, rather than “is,” under perception; therefore, what is available of it before realization by mind are all the valuations that correspond to it within the sphere of actuality. If, under the influence of modern physics, you wonder whether I am missing something about the atomic structure related to manipulation of energy, which perhaps may seem to you to have a greater potency than realization by mind, I must remind you that the external world is “constituted” by forces, and “essence” is an intellectual term related to reception and perception; therefore, essence is defined within the sphere of human cognition. What you get here is my own definition, in which essence rises from its universal foundation of bare force, propped up by the nomenclature of sense-driven human cognition and what matters in this work is discourse on the status of essence within reception and perception—within actuality and reality. Since any scientifically classified substance or state is recognized on the basis of its appearances, externally as direct sensing of them by humans or devices, or internally by human inference of inner properties or by scientific device measuring/displaying of inner properties, such classification pertains to the actuality of the substance’s (or state’s) outermost or innermost appearances—what is promoted by it in the way of stimuli—and not to its essence.
Cognition is indirect by necessity, since substance-candidates and object-entity candidates lack describable traits that can be observed directly or actualized from the source; all they “got” is force-based essence; therefore, cognitive attribution is the indirect way to actualize what they lack. Scientific instruments encounter the same problem as mind when targeting the external world, and they rely on “direct attribution” from their observers, which, as far as I know, is a standard result of how the instruments are designed. When the external world target (substance-candidate or object-entity candidate) is confronted by the instrument and the visual display of it is the intended outcome, the scientific stimulus promoters are replicated, or if the purpose is measurement of any type, they “impress” the sensory apparatus of the instrument directly. Therefore, in the case of instrumentation, the lack of describable traits is not an issue in science. Optical lenses (microscopes or telescopes) replicate scientific stimulus promoters in noncognitive subject/object interaction, which becomes cognitively active only under human observation, but they could transfer the replicated stimuli field to storage systems in which the fields remain in a latency state for potential human cognitive activation by observation. Regarding human observation of scientific device outcomes, although receptive actualization of the device replication is direct, cognition proper is indirect, since it depends on the device’s expectation of “direct attribution” of its subsequent observer’s sensing results in projection to the source; in other words, the device replication (which includes magnification or amplification impossible for humans to actualize in their own) legitimizes the observers observation (their mental actualization of the substance-candidate or object-entity candidate within reception). I shall give my opinion here on what the benefit of using the instrument is. The benefit is magnification or amplification of the target with direct attribution (the digital standard replication of stimuli promoters affected only by magnification) that no one could question. The drawback is mild; device-driven direct attribution requires the personal interpretation of any observer. If a team of observers agrees on what they see, they agree on a digital standard representation—the best possible semblance of the target’s stimuli for scientific purposes.
Regarding how the metaphysical frame of mind of absolute realization differs from that of science, it is that the scientific view—that of physics—concentrates on magnification as the way of discovering what the core or essence of a substance or physical extension is. Such an approach is a relative one, since it depends on how much magnification is available. If the magnitude of magnification increases, the core or essence of the substance or state changes accordingly, as it happens to be discovered under the current magnification magnitude. The metaphysical view advanced by absolute realization regards magnification as irrelevant to determining the essence of a substance or state. I advance two objections to the scientific approach: one is the fact that essence is a perceptive quality that is beyond the scope of scientific instruments, and obviously, this objection is valid only if a scientist happens to subscribe to absolute realization. The other objection relates to magnification, which, although useful for scientific purposes, operates on a focused on, separate partition of the essence-candidate targeted in contradiction to the generalizing consummation brought about by realization in perception; what is sensed by the instrument with direct attribution objectivity is not the essence-candidate as a realizable whole but what a segment of the essence-candidate projects in the form of stimuli. More to the point, essence is a product of mind that does not build on two-dimensional fields such as those offered by magnification; therefore, keep in mind that realization by actualization of presence of three-dimensional objectifications works in generalizing convergence rather than within a focused on, separate partition of the target fashion.
As examples of what is at stake in the issue of essence, consider the following questions and answers: Is the essence of this table wood? Is it maple? Or, is it a set of nuclear particles? The correct answer is wood, because the wood in question can be perceived. Then the correct answer is maple because the wood in question is perceived and maple is recognized as a member of the class of woods. In contrast to that, nuclear particles emerge to sight from the magnification of a small section of the essence of the table, which is wood, and are sensed in reception mode with results that belong to the sphere of actuality. The way the table is visually perceived is at close distance by a perceptor observing enough of it in verification of it “being” a table (a member of the class of tables) and made of wood (maple in this case) if the maple constitution is available directly (no paint or varnish). There is no need to look at the wood with a magnifying device to recognize it as being wood or to perceive it as being maple; however, while recognizing the table as a member of the class of tables concentrates on the table shape, and recognizing the table as a member of the class of wooden tables concentrates on both the table’s shape and its wood constitution, perceiving this particular table requires perception of maple as the essence of this table. This particular table is perceived when its presence is actualized, and such actualization of presence includes recognition of shape and class of material as the foundation for perception of its essence. If a piece of the table is cut off to look at the wood internally, the new view (the “interior” of the piece cut) will be no different; whether on the inside or on the outside, it is wood in general or maple in particular. However, keep in mind that if the observer is a receptor, the table, wood or maple, is actualized into an existent that belongs to the sphere of actuality, whereas if the observer is a perceptor, they are realized into existents with actualized presence and belong to the sphere of reality.
Essence is a physical manifestation constituting potential for presence, or pre-presentiality prior to it becoming presence, which is only actualized in perception (realization). Since the actualized (metaphysical) presence of an object-entity candidate is an instinctive state, any intellectual description of it seeking scientific precision or a proper logical definition would pertain to the actuality of the tangible entity. However, when it comes to the logical implications of a tangible object that turns into a realized entity (actualized presence), perception allows access to a large set of implicit ramifications only evident in the sphere of reality. The scientific discovery of the same nuclear structure in all materials and substances is presented in absolute realization as a primordial foundation of “force,” making up the universe’s substratum of objects-to-be prior to mind intervention. However, primordial foundation is not essence, since essence is a consummation of mind leading to all the materials and substances we encounter in everyday life (made out of force surfaces, which, if you wish, you could define in turn as nuclear particles). Therefore, taking into account the function of mind as presented in absolute realization, the scientific definition of nuclear structure is a scientifically correct, logical rationalization, determined in suitable measurement actualized within any partition of it, of the “common sense” essence of the object-entity candidate or substance-candidate actualized by mind, and mind is the power responsible for the possibility of materials and substances being existents at all.