The Genetic Universe brings to light a host of enlightening arguments giving the concept of intelligent design a new level of unprecedented respectability in surpassing of previous promotion efforts that usually end up defeated with ease by the influential global reach of the biological evolution lobby. Rather than defending intelligent design as “scientific” or making references to design with no proper explanation of consequences, the work goes on to elaborate on the “indirect creation basis” of human origins and what the future holds. The universe is invisible and silent and there is no independent existence without express intervention of the supernaturally created structure of mind which acts by means of programmed genetic instructions. Therefore “existence” is up for an update that impacts intentionality directly and personal demeanor indirectly. The facts of the matter as argued in The Genetic Universe warn about the imposing nature of intelligent design suggesting both the possible gains of prudent compliance and the unavoidable pitfalls of a shortsighted attitude towards what “is” by virtue of design, agency, and plain—deliberate intent.
…It is quite possible the main obstacle an average reader could find to understanding my metaphysical persuasion in its more fundamental issues could be summarized in a question: What do I mean with my many references to “mind”? In that sense, I must first confess that my references to mind were written in a very confident mode of expression, knowing exactly what I wanted to express (as I understood it) but with no careful consideration of what could be the general public’s receptivity towards the concept of mind, and while “looking the other way” to what could be a level of aversion of a portion of the scientific or philosophical communities against the concept of mind.
Since my initial lack of such an important consideration could hurt my chances of success in disseminating my book and glossary to understanding and welcoming audiences, I must clarify the concept of mind I put forward in my texts beforehand, right here in this introduction: Mind (and the universe) are the two principal “implements” of the intelligent design plan, formalized and utilized to achieve the purposes of indirect creation of the species. The universe is the background of biological creation, and mind is the performer. Mind has its purposes but also needs to adapt to the conditions the universe imposes. Thus, a description of mind must include what mind intends and what mind needs to comply with…
Chapter One
…Absolute realization, makes an important distinction between two modes of cognitive interaction. The first mode is reception, handled both by mind and instruments, in which instruments have an edge on precise boarding and recognition of the representational values of scientific stimulus promoters. The second mode is perception, only achieved by mind in the direct boarding of object-entity candidates. Reality is the sphere of realized essences (realized by mind in the actualization of presence), while actuality is the sphere of all logical events and scientific facts (within which scientific instruments have a considerable mathematical edge over the human cognitive system). Bear in mind that the duality of reality and actuality does not mean real versus unreal; preferably, it can be seen as two different world perspectives. On the one hand, there is the human mind’s perspective, covering both perception and reception, and on the other hand, there is the perspective of a scientific instrument or computer covering reception alone. What is certain about the object is its essence, although it is invisible, not its appearances, since the latter constitute subjective actualizations of mind, and additionally, the essence of the external world makes the difference in whether the appearances seen are externally synchronized or constitute a hallucination or dream…
Chapter Two
…What is not confronted directly under the human subject/object relation could not be defined correctly as existence. However, all manifestations that have taken place outside of human observation can be taken to be factual manifestations (statements of fact) when changes are verified, for example in cases of modifications to physical entities or organizations or involving changes in environments, shapes, relations, or locations, in which contexts observed prior to the (logical) fact claimed change into something else when observed after the fact. What I claim on such an issue is that when a context is observed twice and the second observation presents modifications to the content of the first observation, the intermediate steps of such change can only be inferred as actual events—that is, as logical facts. The period between the first and second observations forces certain limitations on the determination of what took place then; only directly observed events or facts have an “existing” hierarchy, while what is claimed without direct observation is circumstantial and at best logically consistent. We could divide the period into three segments: 1) what is remembered (or correctly recorded) about the first observation; 2) what can only be inferred, which amounts to anything possible and everything possible between the two observations; and 3) what is remembered (or correctly recorded) about the second observation, unless the second observation takes place now. Any correct reference to past events is a reference to logical facts, and logical facts have as much value as existential facts. However, a claim of logical facticity is always circumstantial, while a claim of existential facticity could be about a physically evident fact corroborated directly. The important factor to understand in this issue as it relates to our current discussion is what I mean by actuality in contrast to what I mean by existence. Why do logical facts fail to reach a hierarchy of existence?..
Chapter Three
ON THE BASIS of a fundamental metaphysical fact, as I have claimed previously, there are no images in the external world, visual or auditive. If the universe is invisible and soundless, what would be the nature of “seeing” or “hearing”? Seeing and hearing include 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 recognition or 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…
Chapter Four
…The best way to quickly defeat the habit of concentrating on the after-the-fact conditions of Earth and making unfeasible assertions is to concentrate on how mind confronts the limitations of the universe. But of course, the first step is to realize that mind cannot possibly be a natural occurrence; it must be a created source of manifestations based on a sophisticated design. Since the work of Charles Darwin, we’ve known it was not created directly; mind emerges out of indirect creation based on biological transmutation leading to speciation, and only the top species—humankind—includes mind as part of its particular design. The nature of human awareness is an epistemological construction that develops through the activation of the semantic faculty each human is born with and is, in turn, a synthesis of his or her parents’ semantic faculties. Briefly explained here, the fact that languages could be translated into other languages demonstrates a range of learning capabilities for any human being. However, I claim that all world languages, instead of being outcomes of evolution, were programmed to surface at the human level of the genetic makeup of the chain of species. Such programming was done for the specific purpose of leading certain individuals, in each particular case a member or members of a given race and geographical zone, to initiate the development of ethnic social groups, each of them associated with a particular idiomatic member of the set of world languages…
Chapter Five
WHEN CONFRONTING THE matter of awareness, I was forced to redefine very old concepts and to adopt reception in my lexicon in place of the ordinary perception term, elevating “perception” 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. Awareness and reception stand together because they both deal with arrangements of two-dimensional relations. Similarly, consciousness and perception 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 the reason others do not is that I have adopted the word reception to redefine cognition under two titles: basic cognition versus high-order cognition. To clarify the resulting duality, I shall explain a few things about what a related issue, 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 a lack of significant depth could only be noticed by perceptors, since they instantiate three-dimensionality as an embodiment (physical depth 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 cultured receptors could and often understand the logic of physical depth without reaching the embodiment of it…
Chapter Six
…The issue of overpopulation has something in common with some problems confronted in philosophy—permanence, as once the world population reaches a certain point, negative consequences thus become a fixture that will not go away; the planet has some structural limits that should not be exceeded. As a result, population control will always be needed, unless some overwhelming event drastically reduces the number of world inhabitants. In order to fix and keep the world’s population under control, I advocate the implementation of mandatory birth control methods administered by the governments of each country willing to confront the problem with common sense. The problem is too big to resolve by voluntary birth control, and I am against abortion for such purposes. I regard abortion on demand as a serious moral offense, although I favor it in cases in which genetic defects are known to be a certainty at birth, in cases of rape, or to save the life of the mother. But there should be a law mandating that the procedure be under government control and not left as a choice for prospective parents. I also favor the death penalty and see no conflict between the two positions because the death penalty is imposed for serious crimes, while abortion on demand is chosen for convenience…
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…
…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.
…External things look the way genetic make-up’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.
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…
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…
…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…