CONSCIOUS DESIGN AND INNATE NEED FOR MYTH

CONSCIOUS DESIGN --


Regarding a notion of Conscious Design:

Each perspective of Conscious Will has innate capacity for continuously receiving and storing new information, enabling it continuously to organize and accumulate abstract rationalizations upon rationalizations, in ways to help it map and navigate that external world which is shared by every perspective that can operate in respect of its frame of reference.

As each perspective seeks to make its rationalizations successful, such rationalizations gradually comport with what one may call “reason.” The mental mapping gradually coordinates more closely for certain purposes with external reality. IOW, reason about non-trivialities tends to be more a product of trial and error, i.e., inductive feedback and experience, than syllogistic deduction. As induction proceeds, information in respect of a fuzzy potential for abstract modeling is represented and carried forward in the mind. However, every one of these inductive models proceeds by way of refining such myths as may best facilitate its bearer’s successful pursuits.

All perspectives idealize (i.e., store information in respect of) each model in respect of some fundamental, yet unclear, notion or myth, which, in respect of an inherent aspect of consciousness, recedes like the end of a rainbow in the fuzzy distance (*like an ever-receding ultimate particle or ultimate concept). This is akin to a never-ending natural selection of “the fittest” among rationalized myths. However, this kind of natural selection is obviously guided by the interplay of intuition and empathy among perspectives of consciousness. It is not evolution by dumb chance, nor is it intelligently-set pre-design. It is selection by a course of design that unfolds in respect of a parameter-limited interplay among perspectives of a field of consciousness.

This unfoldment of mental models by way of “conscious design” also fits easily with a notion of natural selection among material bodies. “Conscious design” (unfolding design, as opposed to dumb random design or intelligent pre-set design) avails a different perspective for defining what is meant by the natural survival and replication of “the fittest.” Conscious design is also consistent with the selective unfoldment of groups of functions, beyond merely individual functions. IOW, conscious design of mental models avails a way for considering both the evolution of individual behaviors and of group (ant like) behaviors (that is, the interplay of like-minded perspectives within a parameter-limited field).

As for Darwinian (or dumb) design, it relies on a notion of “the fittest,” but it defines the fittest only circularly. That is, whatever happens to survive and replicate, it deems fittest. With that kind of trivial conceptualization, one always “wins” (just as it is always correct to say that 2 is 2). It is amazing that the Darwinian shell game continues so easily to confuse so many who feign to be thinkers as opposed to simplistic god deniers.

*****

*For example, even the model above is necessarily incomplete, because it avails no rigorous or measurable definition for an individual perspective of consciousness, capacity of consciousness, or purpose of consciousness. Rather, it models as if consciousness and its capacity and purpose were self evident, and then employs its own myth: that each otherwise undefined perspective of consciousness is a fundamental unit, in respect of which a purpose of reality can be expostulated. That said, for me, a model (or myth?) of "conscious design" seems, by and large, to be as scientific, and to perform as well for satisfying many of my purposes, as any myth-model I have thus far seen deployed by vaunted atheists. For example, it appears the Higgs boson for the standard model is no more useful a myth than the Klingman model for conscious design, referenced below.

**A quite interesting model for conscious design is explicated by Edwin Klingman, in his "Gene Man's World." I suspect it sets forth at least as good and practical a mathematical and testable model of reality and consciousness (in the aggregate) as any other model. So long as it remains non-falsified, it may be considered whether that is by trick of self definition of consciousness (akin to a trick of "insider information" as postulated by C.S. Lewis). Still, I fail to see how one may expect to do better ... especially so long as one intuits that the underlying trick is God's trick. Note: This is not to be confused with "goddidit" or superstitious models. Rather, the Klingman model appears to be as fully serviceable for practical, as well as moral, application as any other. It is sufficiently grounded so as to deserve to be as tested for mathematical consistency, empirical reliability, and practical application as any other model.

***Each new accumulation of information is a stressor, until it is somehow synthesized with each persons’s system of rationalizations, or world view. Each new synthesis tends to follow the emotionally simplest path, so that the person’s mode of synthesis will tend to paste onto his existing world view. This is why one can often predict how a long time acquaintance will react to any challenge posed by a certain kind of new information. IOW, each new synthesis respecting moral values is not based so much in respect of logic applied anew as it is based in respect of what is needed to perpetuate the survival of the person’s world view, based on his own particular accumulation of experience. This is why, based only on logic or reason, it tends to be so difficult to change a person’s fundamental views about morality. This is why voluntary forums of churches and civic clubs for leading, exercising, and assimilating intuitions and empathies are so important to the development of a reliable citizenry for sustaining a decent civilization. This is why a strategy of divide and rule and ridiculing and ungluing traditional values is so effective for dismantling a civilization, in preparation for imposing a substitute ("change") form of big, centralized, hegemonic, and arbitrary governance. This is why dissembling atheists, whether liberals or libertarians, are so dangerous to civilized liberty. In real practice, Big Atheistic Dogma and Secular Legalism tend hardly to be more respectful of, or more conducive to, individual or ordered liberty than Sharia law. Both soon bring us to the same place: Dispiriting collectivization. To try to hog tie or banish the kind of god memes that respect each individual's and each family's relationship with God (higher values) in order to substitute memes based on myths of a lawyers paradise, a workers paradise, a sex addict's paradise, or a religiously fascistic paradise, is not just counterproductive and not just unholy --- it is to place individual and family-based freedom and dignity in grave peril. It is to serve the kind of meme that dithers with dismantling borders, exporting industry, choking energy independence, enriching enemies, and inviting agents of destruction. It is how we have, within a mere 22 years, become perilously close to becoming a vassal of regimes that have low, if any, regard for individual freedom of expression. It is American Conservatives who are now the conservers of liberty. If they fail, America falls.

*********

INFORMATION:

Interplay and feedback between the Field of Consciousness and the particular perspectives of consciousness summons or produces information. The information couples with perspectives of consciousness, either in form of indirectly measurable mind, or in form of more directly measurable body or matter. Sense of "I-ness" results as a perspective of consciousness couples with information in such a way as to experience mind coupled with matter, producing sensation of distinctness in mind and body. The distinctness is artifactual of the coupling of each perspective of consciousness with information.

TRINITY:

Thus, there is a trinity: Field, Perspective, and Information. The interplay of this trinity produces the universe we share.

I-NESS:

Each sense of I-ness can experience injury or death, either by the gross dismantling of the body that is coupled with its mind, or by such disruption of the organization of information for its mind as to throw the identiy (I-ness) into shock --- shock that may even be fatal to that particular Identity that is constituted of an in-form-ationally organized expression of conscious will. Kill the information, kill the mind; kill the mind, kill the body; kill the body, kill the mind.

HEREAFTER:

So, what happens to the accumulaton of an Identity's information, upon its death or disassemblage? Well, the particular context of organization of information would seem unlikely to recur. Yet, some aspect or potential of the information and the identity and the perspective of conscious will that accompanied it ... would seem somehow to be recycled.

IDENTITY OF INDISCERNIBLES:

After all, each perspective of consciousness, stripped of all informational organization, would seem to be the same as any other, and subject to the same sort of re-coupling to recycled information as any other.

SACRED ALLEGORIES:

In that light, who is to say whether such a model could be interpreted as being reasonably consistent, at some level, with most religious metaphors?

EVIL:

What happens when, for whatever reason -- nature or nurture -- the foundation for a person's world view begins to be built on enmity instead of empathy? Well, that appears to be how evil persists in the world ... how we get an imbalance in the field ... how the lid gets twisted off the dark side. The result is an unstable, dark, hole infested, world view.

IDENTITY SUPERIOR TO LOGIC:

Each person's synthesis or idea of self, from his particular perspective, seems less based in logic or eternal reality than in the accumulated and fleeting context of his limited point of view and frame of reference. Each perspective's entire context and experience seems comprised in appreciation of information that is produced in dancing with one's counterpart for the field of consciousness. Enjoy the dance.

WORD GAMES ABOUT GOD:

Atheists seem likely to imagine that denying God and ridiculing ideas about God helps to expunge God, as well as all myths about God. But that is never what happens. Instead, atheists simply trade one set of myths for another of their own making. Then, they call the new myth about their basis for morality or values, which is of their own making, "Reason" ... or some other label by which they imagine they expunged God. However, when their new code cannot be shown to be logically or mathematically consistent, coherent, or complete, then, to be intellectually honest, it is necessarily not entirely a product of reason, but, at least in part, a product of uncertain rationalization ... which they nevertheless, on faith, try to believe, advocate, or follow.

PRIMORDIALLY EVOLVED EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENT TO WORLD VIEW:

Atheists defend word games for replacing every God myth, which they are conditioned to abhor, with alternative myths, which they feel, at least on challenge, compelled to defend. They seek an alternative myth at all costs -- even if it entails imagining space visitors or multiples of parallel universes --because they are human. And a human being is unable to preserve sanity or identity without taking a leap, in words or acts, to rationalize and live by some sort of code or world view. An inherent, emotional need stresses and compels each person to defend his sense of self, which has coupled to the world view and extant organization of information that constitutes his body and mind.

Regardless, no one, with regard to his system of values or moral code, can replace his need for a myth of God except with another myth. When it comes to rationalizing values, one who denounces God simply makes a replacement with a label for much the same thing, which he then chooses to reference by a different name (perhaps as "reason," or as "higher atheistic values"). Indeed, one may reorganize or reprioritize one's sense of values, but one's "justification" will always be rationalized either on myth or on simple, unprincipled, inhumane, glandular call of the moment. Regardless, one whose mind retains images and representations connected with emotions will necessarily indulge rationalizations entailing myths, however illogical.

MIND DEATH:

Were one to allow one's world view to be too suddenly knocked hard off its hinges, one may suffer nervous breakdown, mental shock, perhaps even mind death.