The physical existence of things in reality is absolute. This is not to say that things in reality do not change. The “absolute nature of physical existence” is not a time-sensitive idea.
When we say things exist absolutely, we are saying:
- They are what they are
- They are not that which they are not
- They do not exist in some kind of intermediate state between what they are and what they are not
These are the three laws of logic:
The absolute nature of real things exists physically. Their physical existence is sensually known to exist, and they are called the objects of reality. The existence of the physical existence of that which is sensually known to exist is denoted by the use of words. Words are audio/visual symbols created based on what is sensually known to exist in a real physical way. Words denote the physical existence of real objects and their real relationships.
Importantly, the word created is not the thing it was created to denote the real nature of. It is merely an audio/visual symbol purposefully created to denote the absolute nature of that real thing’s physical existence.
A word permits us to transmit, and thereby place within the brain of another, symbolic evidence of that which we know to exist in a real physical way.
It is of particular interest to note that purposefully created human sound symbols can be transferred into the brains of certain non-humans. A dog, for example, can be trained to respond to the human sound visually symbolized as sit.
It is also of particular interest to note that the reverse has never occurred. There is not even one instance where a non-human (a beast) has, or has even attempted, to train a human to respond to its sound symbols. And yet, animals have been observed to communicate with others of their own species. The reason is clear and will soon be explained.
As previously noted, it is not until we become properly founded on the metaphysical rung of philosophy that we are prepared to advance to the epistemological rung. Having now become metaphysically proficient, we are ready to become epistemologically proficient.
To avoid becoming confused about what it is we are talking about, when we change the focus of our discussion from one rung of the philosophical ladder to the next, we must change the terms we use.
Each rung of the philosophical ladder has its own unique set of terms. For example, metaphysical terms are called words, whereas epistemological terms are called concepts. Ethical terms are considered to be proper concepts, where moral terms are considered to be rational concepts. Esthetic’s is the application and use of the terms previously created to form a reason-based explanation.
Under metaphysics, our interest is on the absolute nature of physical objects. Under metaphysics, we speak about that which is known to exist or that which can be known to exist. The means of knowing that an object exists is brain-sensing. The human brain has five sense organs extending from it. It is
the sense organs of the human brain that form a physiological and electrochemical connection with the other objects of physical reality. It is in this way that the existence of a physical object is electrochemically transmitted into the rest of the brain, where its existence is further processed.
However, when we speak epistemologically, we are using concepts. Concepts reveal our intelligence as opposed to revealing what we sensually know to be the case. Concepts are derived from ideas, and ideas are based on that which has been understood to be the case. They are based on what we understand about what we know to be the case. The means of knowing that reality exists is
sensual, but the means of understanding its nature is reason.
When we apply our reason to understand the nature of human nature, the result is a concept. Concepts are created from that which has been rationally created rather than that which is sensually known to exist. Concepts don’t denote something that is real, they denote something that is
ideal. Concepts denote the idealized existence of something that is known to be the case. The important issue is not whether or not an idealized creation exists, but why it exists.
Because ideas are creations of the human mind, they don’t make sense—they can’t make sense. This is because what they denote the existence of doesn’t exist in a physically sensual way. Only physical objects can make sense. This is saying that only the physical existence of an object can make a physiological and electrochemical change—a sensual response—occur to and within a brain.
Ideas don’t exist in a sensually observable way; they exist in a rationally understood way. The source of the material from which the human mind creates its ideas is provided to it by the five sense organs extending from its brain. Ideas are created from sensual fact rather than from physical reality. Recall that the sensual influence of reality on a brain is its fact. In other words, the sensual influence of reality on a brain does exist and its existence is called fact.
Under metaphysics, the known existence of objects is said to be absolute. It is what it is; it is not something other than what it is, nor is it some kind of intermediate something between what it is and what it is not. Under epistemology, the rational existence of ideas is said to be abstract. An abstract existent is that which has been abstracted from a something, the existence of which, is sensually known to exist. In other words, ideas are abstracted from fact.
As previously noted, it is the physical existence of the absolute nature of objects that is denoted with words, and it is the rational existence of the abstract existence of ideas that is explained with concepts. Words denote the absolute nature of reality; concepts explain the abstract nature of
To provide the absolute meaning of a word only requires pointing at that which is responsible for its existence. This is called an ostensive definition or definition by direct physical referencing. For example, when I point at this object and utter the sound visually symbolized as chair, you sensually know what its meaning is. The meaning of the sound symbol chair is automatically available to you. You don’t need to think about what it is; you only need to know that it is.
To explain the abstract meaning of a concept is a much more difficult task. This requires applying the preexisting conceptual content of one’s mind to that task. The nature of the term concept is itself conceptual. The term concept must be explained; its meaning can only be understood.
To define a concept requires uttering and/or scribing the conceptual content of one’s mind back into reality. This does require thinking. It is thinking that results in one’s conceptual content. But what do we think about? We think about that which we sensually know to be the case. To not think is to either hallucinate or believe—or perhaps it involves a little of each.
Again, on the metaphysical rung of “The What Group,” the focus of our interest is, “What is knowledge?” Knowledge is not what the objects of reality are; it is what their existence is.
We acquire knowledge sensually via the sense-organ extensions of our brain. We acquire knowledge as we sensually observe the objects of reality. We acquire knowledge as we purposefully direct the sense organs extending from our brain, enabling them to know that the objects of reality actually do physically exist. The method of their knowing is sensual. They sense the absolute nature of the physical existence of real objects.
However, the sense organs extending from our brain have a finite sensual range. This is saying and acknowledging that the human brain’s sense organs cannot know the physical existence of—and therefore do not know the physical existence of—everything that is available to be known about even one real object. We therefore do not acquire all the knowledge that physically exists. But we do acquire the knowledge that is sensually known to exist.
Since we cannot and therefore do not acquire all the knowledge physically available to us, it is not a proper claim to say that we do acquire knowledge. This is because the term knowledge is an all-encompassing term. When we say that we do acquire knowledge, we are implicitly claiming that we acquire all the available knowledge. The sense organs of our brain simply do not have that capability.
To solve this dilemma, we need to have a term specifically created to denote only that aspect of knowledge we actually do acquire. That term is data. Data is that aspect of knowledge falling within the sensual range of the sense organs extending from our brain.
As we direct the sense organs extending from our brain to observe the absolute nature of physical reality, they automatically know that it exists and thereby automatically transmit its data into our brain for further processing.
When a scientist, doctor, engineer, student, parent, infant, or other is collecting data with which to draw a conclusion, make a decision, offer a recommendation, or simply know that something exists, that individual is collecting data from that which their brain actually knows to exist in a sensually potent way.
Knowing that knowledge exists is an automatically occurring sensual event between two objects when at least one of these objects is a brain. In other words, the sensual acquisition of knowledge by a brain is not optional. The sensual acquisition of knowledge by a brain is an innate aspect of how all
brains operate and function.
To test this claim, simply look at an object. Now, without doing anything else, don’t see it. You now understand what the automatically occurring data acquisition function of the sense organs extending from your brain is. You may not understand how it functions, but you do know that it is functioning and that you do not and cannot have any influence over how it functions. Data acquisition by a brain occurs automatically and continuously.
Again, considering the epistemological rung of the philosophical ladder, the focus of our interest is intelligence.
Note here that epistemology is a step up on the philosophical ladder. The epistemological nature of intelligence represents an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical nature of the knowledge upon which its conceptual nature depends. In other words, intelligence is knowledge conceptualized. Where the physical nature of knowledge is known to exist, it is said that the conceptual nature of intelligence is created from it. Intelligence is created only from knowledge that is sensually known to exist; it is created from sensually collected data. To exist metaphysically is to exist as a physical absolute. To exist epistemologically is to exist as a rational abstraction. The abstract nature of intelligence is derived from the absolute nature of knowledge. Notice how rational is physical intellectualized, and also how abstract is absolute intellectualized.
The creative process responsible for abstracting intelligence from knowledge is conceptualization. Intelligence, then, is the epistemological concomitant of the absolute nature of the knowledge upon which the abstract nature of its conceptual existence depends. It is impossible to be considered intelligent in the absence of knowing what it is one is talking about.
Note here that the term concept is the epistemological concomitant of the metaphysical term object. Like the epistemological term intelligence represents an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical term knowledge, so does the epistemological term concept represent an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical term object.
We transmit the physical existence of the data our brain has sensually acquired to another by creating specific kinds of audio/visual symbols called words.
Note that under the idea of communication, we don’t transmit intelligence—we transmit knowledge. It is as if the word symbol and the knowledge it was created to denote the existence of are one and the same.
Caution: they are not!
Under the idea of metaphysics, we create audio/visual symbols called words to denote the real existence of knowledge—but under epistemology, we create audio/visual symbols called concepts to denote the ideal existence of intelligence.
A concept is different from a word; it is its epistemological expansion. In other words, the epistemological nature of concept represents an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical nature of word. Concept extends the sensual nature of word from knowing to understanding. Where words are based in and therefore reveal reality, concepts are based in and therefore reveal intelligence. In other words, intelligence is knowledge conceptualized, and knowledge is existence conceptualized.
When we use words, we reveal the absolute nature of knowledge, and we are externally focused. When we use concepts, we reveal the abstract nature of intelligence, and we are internally focused. When we use concepts, we are explaining that which we understand to be the case about our relationship to and within our physical environment. Note: An explanation has neither physical nor
time constants, meaning that an explanation is rational rather than real. An explanation cannot be found in reality, no matter how long one looks for one there.
It is the sensual influence of physical reality on our brain that our mind perceives as being the “facts of reality.” Alternately: The sensual influence of reality on a human brain is called fact by that brain’s mind function. The existence of sensually known fact cannot be denied by a mind, but it can be ignored—to its peril. The sensual nature of fact cannot be denied, because it actually does exist. Fact exists as the point of sensually potent contact between a brain and some other physical aspect of reality. That sensually potent point of contact is called factbecause it actually does physically and electrochemically exist. The denial of fact by a mind has no effect on its physiological and electrochemical nature.
The reason none of the beasts (non-human animals) has ever taught us their language, or has never even demonstrated an interest in doing so, is because beasts don’t have a language. And this is because they don’t have—have not demonstrated the existence of—a perceptual mind, an understanding mind, a rational mind, a conceptual mind. They have not demonstrated that mental
activity termed conceptual-reasoning. Meaning, they are not able to rationally translate objective knowledge into conceptual intelligence. And it is the ability to conceptualize knowledge into intelligence that is a prerequisite for the creation of language. Language is evolutionarily different from what communication is—it is an epistemological expansion on its metaphysical nature. Human language represents an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical nature of beastly communication.
In the following pages I am going to bear down on the philosophic grouping of ethics and morality. My purpose is to eventually uncover the nature of human happiness and that upon which its eternal existence depends.
This will likely proceed in a manner you may not have experienced in the past. It is this author’s seriously considered view that the existing manifold volumes of the philosophical works of countless others, covering many hundreds of years and written by those who are considered to be experts in the field of philosophic investigation, is not only grossly inaccurate and very misguided but may represent some kind of special, as yet undiagnosed, mental illness.
Then, in the remaining pages, I will reveal God.