What follows is what I know. It is not much, after so many years of study. These are neither systematically existential, nor deterministic models. I, you, we are not everything. We are not nothingness. We have an innate capacity to learn language, for we did not always know language. A simple mental experiment demonstrates that we learn language from external sources (primarily teachers, parents, books), for we need only search any dictionary for an unknown word to discover something we previously did not know. And there are so many words, from foreign languages and technical jargon, past and present that it is now impossible for an individual to know every word. I, you, we do not know everything. We know something, but not nothingness, because nothingness (by definition) does not exist. Language is not everything. Language is not nothingness. Language is material, for computers process language. This is a concept that Descartes could not have anticipated: That inorganic matter would process mathematics so accurately as to surpass the speed and accuracy of the programmers that program computers. The externality of language implies that our existence is not entirely subjective. There are some things, actions, events for which we can know. The accuracy of that knowledge is dependent upon the accuracy of language, of mental, and of external models (charts, calculators, miniature architecture, scaffolding) that we construct from language. Besides what language implies (that more than one being is necessary for communication), an externality should be obvious to us, since without food, water, air to breathe, rest, and protection from the elements we would die. Language changes: We have and can improve the accuracy of math, of models, of language. That we invented computers demonstrates this. The history of arithmetic, geometry, algebra, calculus demonstrates this. That we can invent, or create new things, such as computers, demonstrates that our imagination is not limited to that which we already know, exclusively from the past. Rather, using our memory, and recombining what we know about structure, we can create, or invent new things. We can also discover that which was previously unknown to us. We can infer, based on our capacity to imagine, that such (our capacity) is (in part) non-deterministic; for, if such was deterministic then there would be only one predictable, only one repeatable, and only one possible outcome for every set of scenarios from which we imagine, model, and select. And such would not ever be new, or inventive, or creative. Yet, computers, robots, spacecraft are new. We can infer, that since we cannot change our prior actions, our past, that such is (in part) deterministic. What is done is done. Though prior philosophers (namely Descartes, Kierkegaard, Sartre, Arendt, Derrida, and Searle) and indirectly scientists (Brian Greene, Stephen Hawking, Victor Stenger) have suggested similar concepts, from what I am able to discern, none have created or suggested or discovered a model, like this, such as I have described.
Posted on: Mon, 28 Jul 2014 04:19:01 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015