Sunday, November 7, 2010

The Evolutionary Theory of Being (ETB)

by

Lothar Kleine-Horst


My contribution to this discussion forum will predominantly be to present my "Empiristic theory of visual gestalt perception" (ETVG) and discuss it by comparing it to other theories of visual perception. But since the ETVG is an integrated part of a higher order theory, the "Evolutionary theory of Being" (ETB), it can not really be understood without being related to this supertheory. So I am going to present the ETB before presenting the ETVG. Unexpected and far-reaching conclusions for visual perception, for example, can be drawn from the ETB.


The "Theory of Man" is a theory of Being as well, as it describes the structure of Being in which evolution of "all that is" happens, and Man is the highest "thing" created by the evolution. This theory is a part of a bookchapter (KH 2008, 2010) and also to find with its URL:
http://www.enane.de/ETB1.htm

20 comments:

  1. Welcome, Lothar to the Blog!
    I have one comment on a part of your systems theory post. When you say

    “Phenomena are lacking not only in energy/mass, as are the functions, they are also lacking in space. Perceptual consciousness (PC), i.e. visual experience, for example, is not located in space, it is not spatial itself –only its contents are often spacially organized, as for example, when we visually perceive any spacial "configuration". The phenomena themselves, psychic consciousnesses, are not spacially three-, two- or one-dimensional.”

    you distinguish between the experience (“perceptual consciousness (PC). i.e. visual experience” and what is experienced (the “contents” of experience): yet you call only the former ‘phenomena’. Whereas most people would call the latter ‘phenomena’, as in “phenomenal consciousness”. Would it not be true to say that it is the Self that does the experiencing (and itself is not extended in space). What it experiences are sensations of various kinds, of which the visual and somatosensory ones are extended in (perceptual) space.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Indeed, welcome Lothar!--and what nice synchronicity that you should join the discussion just before David McGraw's posting that provides some useful (even badly needed) context for Cartesian dualism, because it seems to me that you are arguing for mind and things mental (sensations included) as being unextended, just as Descartes did (or as he is generally understood).

    Of course John Smythies has long argued that visual sensations exemplify extension, as visual space (VS) itself demonstrates. Perhaps therefore it might be helpful if you could explain how you have concluded that (visual) sensations, and visual space as a whole are not extended after all.

    Alternatively is it a problem of terminology or a different conceptual scheme (i.e., perhaps you are separating consciousness from phenomena as some thinkers do)? This is naturally of great interest of us, considering that we have already discussed at some length here how many (spatial) dimensions visual space seems to exhibit. I don't think any of us are prepared to accept at this point the idea that it lacks dimensionality altogether, because that flies in the face of conscious experience itself, or would seem to do so, of course, barring some clever argument to the contrary.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you very much, John and Bill, for your invitation to participate in the Blog discussion and for your first comments on my theories. Since you (and the following readers) support concepts, theories, or even terms that differ from the mine, a number of misunderstandings are to be expected. However, since we are dealing with the same object (Man, Being, Universe), and words are not as important as what is meant with them, we might be successful in reducing such differences. Yet before answering your concrete objections, I prefer to dealing with some higher topics, and generic terms, that can help in throwing light on unclear relationships.

    There are a number of terminological opportunities to misunderstand each other as the following llsts show:

    1. This list contains 8 terms (including their derived forms), that are used somewhere by both you and me, but possibly in a different sense: phenomena, space, perceptual, consciousness, experience, function, dimension, psychic.
    2. The following list contains 9 terms, that are used in a certain sense by me, but (probably) not by you: level/stage, manner, actualized, energy/mass, temporal/time, content, progressive deactualization, matter-condition.
    3. And here there are 2 terms often used by you but not by me: physical space and phenomenal space.

    I am sure to be the main troublemaker as my ideas took a side stream far from the mainstream, half a century ago (1961), and it is me who has to overcome the language barrier. So it is my job to prevent, or eliminate, misunderstandings. I will do it predominantly by showing which ETB-"world" an entiy, or thing, belongs to we are speaking of, independently of what it is called by the one, or the other.

    I am just going to do so before answering your questions. Visual perception happens at the third evolutionary level, in the worlds PF and PC. Certainly, all entities at the second and even the first level take part in the perception as well: Photons (UCM) impinge on the eyes (VM) the vital functions (VF) of which have been evolved to psychical functions (PF) at the next-higher, the "psychic evolutionary", level. The PF entities produce psychic consciousnesses (PC), when actualized. In this state a living being is able to "experience" something.

    ReplyDelete
  4. As your comments on Jean Nicod show, John, one of your own statements seems to refer to the fundamental difference between two kinds of space, physical space and phenomenal space, and you seem to assume that I do not know, or accept, this difference. And you, Bill, confirmed the importance of John's statement and was right also to consider a possible terminological problem.
    1. It is true, that I did not use these terms, but I used the term "space", and this always in the sense of your term "physical space".
    a) However, what I am calling "space" is of more fundamental importance than "physical space", as in the ETB space (S), time (T), and energy/mass (E) are dimensions of matter and thus came into existence as material things (UCM) at the first evolutionary level.
    b) Even more: these three dimensions are hierarchically ordered in the sequence T-S-E from the bottom up.
    c) And this sequence co-determines the kind (manner /mode) of the three further evolutionary levels, and their entities, when each one of the three dimensions of matter get lost in the sequence T-S-E from the top down, and are called the functional, phenomenal, and ordinal manner of being.

    2. What is about your term "phenomenal space", which is in respect to visual perception also called "visual space"? It is true I did not use these terms
    a) However, in my book "Empiristic theory of visual gestalt perception" (ETVG)
    www.enane.de/cont.htm
    I described extensively the structure of this phenomenal (visual) space (PC). I described its basic structure as a 10-level hierarchy of 25 entities called "gestalt qualities" that are the contents of the world PC. And
    b) I described the 10-level hierarchy of 25 entities called "gestalt factors" (or "gestalt functions") that produce those PC-entities when "actualized"; they are the contents of the world PF. And
    c) I accounted for this 10-level PF-hierarchy of 25 gestalt factors as the result of a learning process that happens in the first weeks of human life. This is why I designate my theory of vision an "empiristic" one.

    ReplyDelete
  5. In your comment, John, you wrote::
    "You distinguish between the experience ("perceptual consciousness (PC), i.e. visual experience") and what is experienced (the "contents" of experience): yet you call only the former 'phenomena'. Whereas most people would call the latter 'phenomena', as in 'phenomenal consciousness' ."

    No, not the "contents" of experience (PC) are thought to be experienced as PC, but that material thing (UCM/VM) from which the photons (UCM) are flying to the eyes (VM). Our eyes cannot do anything else than mediating (conditioning) the visual perception (PF/PC) of matter (UCM/VM). One part of visual perception is the (subjective) visual experience (PC).

    With "contents" are meant all the more or less concrete entities visual experience, and consciousness, consists of ("visual qualities", "visual phenomena", "geslalt qualities", and so on), that constitute an image of that material thing. This image tends to exhibit the same spacial relationships which the material thing's form is constituted of. Insofar is this image "spacially extended", and it might be justified to speak of a "phenomenal (visual) space" in which phenomenal entities are extended and located, contrary to the "physical space" in which material entities are extended and located.

    Yet with these notes a possible (or even probable) cause of misunderstandings has not moved out of the way. Later I will try to give some helps to prevent misunderstandings.

    There is another question you asked, John:

    "Would it not be true to say that it is the Self that does the experiencing (and itself is not extended in space) What it experiences are sensations of various kinds, of which the visual and somatosensory ones are extended in (perceptual) space."

    Although I myself did not use the term "Self" until now, I can assign the Self to the world MC. It seems to be a construct deduced from a MC's ability to refer to itself, so that it gets a knowledge of itself ("self-knowledge"). In the ETB diagram, this reference of a MC entity to itself is symbolized by a reflexive arrow. (All entities of a primary hierarchy.refer to themselves and thus show a reflexive arrow.)

    While PC is a necessary prerequisite of MC, MC is not a necessary prerequisite of PC. There are living beings (animals and human infants, for example) that are developed up to the third level and thus being able to perception (PF/PC), but since they are not developed up to the fourth level, they are not able to cognition (MC/MO).

    The term "experience" has to taken on a wider meaning as used up to now. In Nr.1, "experience" has been referred to perception, here belonging to the world PC. However, taken it literally it does not belong to the psychic level (PF/PC), rather it beelongs to the phenomenal manner of being (PC/MC) so that "experience" characterizes consciousness in general. Since there are two kinds of consciousnesses; "experiencing" characterizes both "psychic consciousness" (PC) and "mental consciousness" (MC); each of them is able to "experience".

    ReplyDelete
  6. As shown above, the object (the "what") of "experience" as done by the world PC is matter (UCM/VM). The object (the "what") of "experience" as done by the world MC is that MC-experience, on the one hand, and PC-experience on the other. This means in the last case: with MC-experience of its PC-experiences a human being is able to "think" (MC) about what it is "perceiving".(PC), i.e. he "knows" the images he is perceiving. Thus he is able to draw and to verbally describe the PC-experiences. If it is true that the Self (MC) experiences "sensations", as you mean, John, and if it is true that MC-experiences are the "content of PC", as I mean, then "content of PC" and "sensations" are synonyms. However, MC can directly experience only PC, but not matter. Directly experiencing matter is the job of PC.

    I must admit not to have recognized the danger of the following misunderstanding I am responsible for: On the one hand, in the ETVG, I am describing the structure of the visual space as being extended in space. On the other hand, I am claiming that the phenomenal manner of being is not dimensioned in space although the visual space belongs to the phenomenal manner of being. This is a contradiction in terms which I have to clear up. At the moment, it may be sufficient to say, that in the first case I have meant the "phenomenal space" as used in the ETVG, while in the second case I have meant what you call the "physical space", indicated by the letter "S" in the upper row of the diagram. However, I feel that a theoretical problem remains which I have to solve some time.

    I am exspecting a number of further misunderstandings occurring during the further discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thank you, Lothar, for taking time to clarify some of your terms, at least as they are used in your theory, as obviously definition of terms is essential to avoid misunderstandings and confusion. However, in this instance it is more relevant to presenting a whole theoretical system, rather than in presenting specific ideas as we are mostly doing here for purposes of discussion and critique.

    As I see it, the main purpose of the blog is to review and critique existing findings and ideas, and to ascertain why they are unable thus far to explain the nature and structure of visual space very adequately.

    For that reason, it might be easier for us to understand your ideas if we knew how they depart from existing ones in the study of perception. For example, your "Empiricist Theory of Visual Gestalt Perception" presumably builds upon the work of the Gestalt school, but it is not clear how your views may depart from theirs, or from the Ganzheit school, which emphasized that whole experiences were more fundamental than Gestalten, seeing the latter as a special case of the former.

    Given what you say about the role of learning in your theory, the term "empiricist" relative to your theory refers to so-called *philosophical empiricism* ("there is nothing in the mind not first in the senses"), rather than its common scientific meaning, that scientific knowledge is based upon observables.

    This raises a basic question as to what extent your theory is based upon empirical findings and to what extent it is a rationalistic formulation, as you seem to be offering a metaphysical (or ontological) theory to explain observables (perception). I say this because when you state that what you are "calling 'space' is of more fundamental importance than 'physical space,' as in the ETB space (S), time (T), and energy/mass (E) are dimensions of matter and thus came into existence as material things (UCM) at the first evolutionary level [= basic cosmology]" you are really offering a kind of ontology. Perhaps you might explain why you have turned to ontology/cosmology to explain perception.

    Thus far from what you have written in your comments it seems we mostly share common ground, which is not surprising as we are building upon a body of shared concepts and empirical findings from the study of perception, rather than starting from scratch.

    So I think the most helpful thing you could do is to explain your reasons for changing definitions of existing terms used in the literature, and by giving concrete examples, rather than just defining terms without examples as you have done above.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Let us gather, Bill, the views we have in common. (1) You said: "we are building upon a body of shared concepts and empirical findings from the study of perception." (2) We agree in accepting that the ontological supertheory ETB should be presented before presenting the psychological perception theory ETVG, as "in this instance it is more relevant to presenting a whole theoretical system, rather than in presenting specific ideas as we are mostly doing here for purposes of discussion and critique." (3) You and I know to a certain degree the same theories, perception theories as well as ontological theories, that we have found in the literature. (Although you know them better than I do.) (4) We share further empirical and theoretical knowledge in the fields of Gestalt and Ganzheit psychology.

    Now we can "allow" us to confront ourselves with differences in our views. In your comment you referred several times to my "theory", my "ideas", or my "views", however, without considering that I have conceived two absolutely different theories (ideas, views): the ontological theory ETB and the perception theory ETVG. I am suggesting at first to restrict our main discussion to the ETB, the topic of my posting, and therefore at first to exclude the ETVG and gestalt psychology.

    You are expecting from me to explain how my theories (ideas, views) depart from existing ones. I think this is a job of yourself and the other blogreaders as you are well-trained scientists with a lot of knowledge of existing theories and being accustomed to reading new theories and comparing them with the known ones; I do not think you are dependent on my help. The ETB differs from other ontological theories in a great number of aspects, which you will "automatically" recognize while reading it. Besides, what might be the advantage of knowing how the one theory departs from the other? In order to get to know a theory there is no need to know in what it differs from others.

    You wrote:
    "You seem to be offering a metaphysical (or ontological) theory to explain observables (perception)". And: "you might explain why you have turned to ontology/cosmology
    to explain perception."
    As the ETB-diagram shows (and the text describes), perception consists of the two worlds PF and PC, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, it is a part of the Being, that consists of all eight worlds from UCO up to MO, including PF/PC. The Being is so to speak the Ganzheit in respect to all its worlds (UCO-MO), as perception is the Ganzheit in respect to all its worlds as well (PF-PC). To understand the "normal" effects of PF/PC, one has to consider to a certain extent the worlds UCO up to VF on which PF/PC are founded. But to understand possible further effects of PF/PC - beyond perception - one has to consider the worlds MC/MO, that might have an backward effect on PF/PC. These (and many further) additional relationships) follow from that Ganzheit. The Ganzheit UCO-MO (i.e.ETB) does not directly explain perception, but can help to understand it. As a highly abstract theory, the ETB cannot be tested with facts, as I already stated in my posting.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I can not remember ever to have used "Ganzheit" as an own scientific term. Why? I think because the throughgoing hierarchical order in both the ETVG and the ETB. Since in this kind of order the entities of every higher level are a combination of the entities of its sublevel, the higher level is per se a Ganzheit in respect to its sublevel.

    In the ETB, I described also the TSE-hierarchy of matter as a Ganzheit (without applying this term). However, in this case the entities of the lower level are not combined to the entities of the higher level. So I suggest to designate this kind of Ganzheit a "unity" rather than a Ganzheit. The term "unity" would be valid at least for both, the TSE-hierarchy and the Being. Perhaps there might be further entities that should called a "unity" rather than a "Ganzheit".
    ----------_______________________

    Thank you, Bill, for your (kindly hidden) suggestion to replace "empiristic" with "empiricist".
    However, when I "googled" for these two terms and "nativistic" as well, I found that "empiristic" exactly means that I thought it should:
    nativistic - of or relating to or advocating nativism; "nativist theories"; "the traditional controversy between the nativistic and empiristic theories"

    Well, chosing suitable scientific terms is a hard business, especially when they shall help to describe a new theory. The newer the theory
    - the fewer existing terms that you can use
    - the more existing terms that you have to define,
    - some of them having a "weak" meaning, i.e. go into the direction of the new
    meaning so that you reatively easy can change their meaning by defining the
    new meaning.
    - some of them having a "hard", i. e widespread wellknown, meaning, so that it is
    better to invent quite another term und define its meaning
    - the more existing terms that refer to an entity that is absolutely unknown in the existing
    theories.
    In my first comment I listed exmples of such terms.


    I warmly recommend you and the other readers

    (1) to "learn" the Evolutionary Theory of Being (ETB) as thoroughly as you have "learned" all the other ontological theories that you know

    (2) to assign all entities that seem important to you to one of the 16 ETB-"departments" as to see in the ETB-diagram: 4 Evolutionary levels, 4 Matters of Being, and their 8 intersections called "worlds".

    (3) to assign the same entities to the "departments" of a number of other ontological theories you are familiar with, and

    (4) to decide which theory seems to be the most suitable one for putting all those entities into the most plausible order.

    My own actual interest in the discussion is to further develop (1) the ETB and (2) the ETVG.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you Horst for explaining your modus operandi and what you would like us to do.

    The problem with your suggestion to "just read the book" is that the purpose of the blog is to exchange ideas that are presented here, not elsewhere. Even though you have provided a brief synopsis of the ETB, it is really hard to know how to directly connect it with the topic of the blog in any way.

    Without providing any context that connects the topic (or subtopics) of the blog with your work provides us little incentive for reading your book, particularly when you are offering what today is sometimes called "a theory of everything" of which there are now many. That is no reflection on your theory, merely on the manner of presentation.

    Could you perhaps induce us to read more by connecting your work with the topics we have discussed thus far? A few examples would go a long way (or, as the Chinese supposedly say, one picture is worth 1000 words).

    ReplyDelete
  11. One brief comment on the use of "Ganzheit": The idea of it, at least as I understand it, was the *study of properties of wholes,* not of just one ultimate whole (or totality), as it were. Leipzig Ganzheit psychology regarded wholes as a more general class of phenomena than Gestalten, and that Ganzheiten do not necessarily represent unities, as for example the "whole" quality possessed by "completely unorganized data" (Krueger), thus an idea that is probably quite unfamiliar to most readers, who tend to think in terms of Platonic forms.

    So it would be interesting to know why you reserve the term for just one Ganz(heit). This might prove a relevant way of connecting your ideas with the ongoing discussion here, rather than just asking us to read your book.

    ReplyDelete
  12. In order to respond sufficiently to your comment I have to begin with quotations from your comment:

    1) "Thank you Horst [??] for explaining your modus operandi and what you would like us to do. The problem with your suggestion to 'just read the book' is that ..."
    I never suggested to "just read the book", as there is no book to read. To read is my posting on "The Evolutionary Theory of Being (ETB)" which contains the whole text. This text is a part of a chapter of a book edited by other authors.What I am suggesting, however, is that the readers who are willing to respond to my ideas attentively read my postings and comments before responding to them.

    2) "the purpose of the blog is to exchange ideas that are presented here, not elsewhere."
    This is obviously not true as
    (a) this limitation for participating in the blog has not at all been mentioned in the introduction.
    (b) Many postings and comments of participants really refer to own and other authors' theories (to STR and QM, for example) published elswhere, and the participants assume that their readers know and consider these theories.
    (c) Even you referred to external literature on gestalt and ganzheit psychology. Also John Smythies referred to his own paper: "Space, time and consciousness".
    (d) As for the rest, it would be nonsense to present a topic beginning with Adam and Eve.

    3) "Even though you have provided a brief synopsis of the ETB..."
    There is no "synopsis of the ETB" at all - and I did not ever mentioned such a synopsis. The ETB-text in my posting is the full description of the ETB in its last (corrected) version of 2008.

    4) "it is really hard to know how to directly connect it with the topic of the blog in any way."
    The ETB does not "directly" connect with the topic of the blog, but indirectly: The topic of the blog is the "phenomenal visual space", and this part of perception is the content of the ETB-"world" called "psychic consciousness" (PC). Thus the ETB displays the general frame of reference for all entities you know (and for all entities you do not know) as these entities can be assigned to a certain "locus" within the ETB-system: for instance, to a world or an evolutionary level or a matter of Being. So the phenomenal visual space "belongs" to the "right" world of the third evolutionary level. As it belongs to only one of eight worlds it is just a small part of "all that is". This location of the world PC between the other seven worlds defines what PC (and phenomenal vsual space) IS and what it IS NOT.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 5) "Without providing any context that connects the topic (or subtopics) of the blog with your work provides us little incentive for reading your book [=posting, see above], particularly when you are offering what today is sometimes called "a theory of everything" of which there are now many."
    (a) Of course there are many "theories of everything": the ETB is only the last one being published.
    (b) Nobody must read this new ontological theory. If somebody is interested in ontology, he will be interested in a new ontological theory and will read it and think about it. If he is not interested in ontology, he will not read it. What is the problem? I myself do not want to discuss the ETB with somebody who is not engaged in ontology.

    6) "That is no reflection on your theory, merely on the manner of presentation. Could you perhaps induce us to read more by connecting your work with the topics we have discussed thus far?"
    Yes of course, but before posting a comment to any other theory in order to describe how it differs from mine, I had to describe (and to post) my own theory. After having now presented the ETB, I am preparing some comments to topics that already have been discussed.

    7) "A few examples would go a long way (or, as the Chinese supposedly say, one picture is worth 1000 words)."
    Exact! That is the reason why I saved 1000 words by conceiving and publishing the diagram on the Being's structure depicted in my posting on the ETB.

    8) "So it would be interesting to know why you reserve the term for just one Ganz(heit). This might prove a relevant way of connecting your ideas with the ongoing discussion here, rather than just asking us to read your book [=posting, see above]."
    It is not true at all that I would "reserve the term for just one Ganz(heit)" as you wrote. Because you seemed to me being interested in Ganzheit, I did not present only one but four examples for a reasonable usage of the term Ganzheit, not only once for the Being as Ganzheit over its eight worlds, over its four evolutionary levels, and over its four manners of Being, but also once for percpetion over PF and PC, once for the higher level over its sublevel, and once for the fundamental TSE-hierarchy over T, S and E.

    9) Among other things from your "brief comment on the use of 'Ganzheit' "
    I got the impression that you really have a keen interest in Ganzheit and that you know a lot about it. I would be glad if you investigated the ETB in respect to how it fulfills the tenets of Ganzheit psychology. Later, after the ETVG-book is better known to you, gestalt psychology might be a field of research for you. What do you mean? More on the latter topic in my Website:
    www.neue-gestaltpsychologie.de

    ReplyDelete
  14. There seems to have been some misunderstanding, Lothar, and for my part in it, I apologize (and also apologize for inexplicably calling you "Horst"!) So a thousand pardons.

    The topic of the blog is given at the top of each blog page, and most of us have presented ideas that more or less directly connect to the various subtopics that are listed. In so doing we have indeed referred to other writings (sometimes our own), but we have first stated why we are referring the reader to them after stating our own point(mostly: "for more information"). Unfortunately the contents of your theory is unfamiliar to us at the present time, and we do not know how it relates to our topic.

    So it would be helpful if you could choose one thread from your theory in order to show us its relevance here, and thus how it sheds light on the nature and structure of visual space. I think Aktualgenese and the original finding that a Vorgestalt is perceptually ambiguous and may give rise to many different perceptions, might be a useful point of departure. But that is just a suggestion of something concrete that we could have as an example to understand "where you are coming from," as we say in English.

    To use a phrase David likes, "That is all."

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am completely perplexed by being confronted with such an amount of misunderstandings. Certainly, I am conscious of the difficulties scientists will have when reading a concept being completely unknown to them. So I have been expecting some misunderstandings since ever, but not just at the beginning and to such an extent. I am still expecting that the members of this group at first read a posting or a comment, and then perhaps ask a question when there is something unclear to them, or they mean to have something to criticize as John already did. This kind of response to scientific statements is what is needed to increase scientific insight into the world we are living in. John's criticism will get me to supplement (not correct) the ETB.

    Your are right, Bill, that "the contents of your theory is unfamiliar to us at the present time".
    Of course, BOTH theories (the ETB and the ETVG) are unfamiliar to scientists - since half a century - and they will remain being unfamiliar to them for the next half century unless at least one scientist happened to get the idea: "Perhaps - who knows? - perhaps have all our theories as published in 10.000 books and papers been thus successless because they are grounded on wrong basic assumptions. Perhaps - who knows? - perhaps does that fellow show us a line of thoughts more suitable to understand what we could not understand thus far. Let's just read the few pages on which he describes his new ideas!".

    You are criticizing not to know how the ETB relates to our topic, although "the topic of the blog is given of each blog page." O.k., although I do not know why you could not realize it, I will show you the relationships of the ETB to at least four (partial) topics:

    "The goal of the multidisciplinary Structure of Visual Space Group is ..."
    (1) "...to focus on the structural nature of visual space—its phenomenology, topology, geometry— what it contains, how it is ‘constructed’......."
    This main part of the entire goal can be directly referred to by the Empiristic theory of visual gestalt perception (ETVG) which might be done later in some detail: actual genesis, for example. But the ETB refers to three further relationships of the visual space:

    (2) "...its relation with ‘external’ physical space,....."
    According to the ETB, the physical space belongs to the material manner of Being which is composed of the worlds UCM and VM. In addition, every matter is dimensioned in time (T), (physical) Space (S) and Energy/mass (E) which are hierarchically ordered in this sequence from the bottom up (TSE). Thus the ETB directly relates to one of the blog's goals: the "external physical space".

    ReplyDelete
  16. There are two further points:

    (3) "...correlated brain events,"
    According to the ETB, the "brain" is more than a composition of particles, atoms and small molecules (which belong to the ETB-world UCO), rather it is a "living matter" (and belongs as such to the ETB-world VM). With the term "brain events" are here meant the excitements of the neurons the brain is composed of, in the contempory literature also called "neuronal mechanisms". While the brain and its neurons belong to the vital matter (VM), their "events" or "mechanisms" belong to the ETB-world of "vital functions" (VF). These functions are not identical with vital matter, rather they form a world of their own as they are the products of vital matter.

    However, according to the ETB, visual space (as belongimg to the ETB-world PC) and brain events (VF) do NOT "correlate". The belief in such a correlation is one of the fundamental mistakes of all the theories you are familiar with, and is responsible for these theories' breakdown. Rather a correlation is established of "psychic functions" (PF) and the contents of the (visual space) world "psychic consciousness" (PC).

    Unfortunately, the world PF is absolutely unknown to scientists and philosophers. From literature I know of only one hint on the possible existence of what I am calling "psychic functions" (PF): The German philosopher and psychologist Felix Krueger (well known to you, Bill) was expecially interested in feelings (Gefühle) (which belong to the world PC, as well). Once he speculated on a part of Being lying directly behind phenomenal experience (PC) and which he called the "transphenomenal psychic being". This is exactly what I mean with "psychic functions" (PF) that are lying directly behind PC, producing these phenomenal PC, although themselves being transphenomenal. If you view my ETB-diagram, you will recognize that there is no direct connection between PC and "neuronal mechanisms" (VM/VF), but to PF, while it is PF that is directly connected with VF. Thus the ETB directly relates again to one of the blog's goals: the "brain events".

    Krueger did not elaborate his idea so that it got lost. Without knowing Krueger's idea, I conceived 1961 a psychological theory of visual perception (KH 2007). One of the important hypotheses of this theory was, that there is an area of psychic "functions" BETWEEN the area of "material" sensory stimuli and the area of "phenomenal" subjective sensory experience. From 1980 on, I broadened this "trialistic" view of three "manners of Being" into a "quadrialistic" one by conceiving a fourth area of "ordinal manner of Being". That area of "functions" corresponds exactly to Krueger's "transphenomenal psychic being".

    (4) "...and to corollary theories in modern physics and cosmology."
    The classical physics belong to the ETB-world UCM, while the quantum physics probably belong to the ETB-world UCO. The worlds UCM and UCO compose the lowest ("inorganic") evolutionary level of Being, Thus the ETB directly relates also to modern physics, and to cosmology, as cosmology describes the within-evolution of UCM.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lothar, the key here is the need for what are sometimes called "bridging concepts," i.e., concepts that will create "bridges" between your ideas and existing ones, so that we can understand how you came to arrive at your ideas, your rationales for them, etc--that's all. There is less confusion here than just uncertainty as to your meanings and the train of thought that has lead to your ideas. Feel free to refer us to your book as needed, so that we may understand your thinking.

    Also, there is the need for *relevance,* and it is your job to make your ideas relevant to the discussion here, not ours--that is, if you want us to understand your contribution to the field.

    It seems to me that you are really offering a complete metaphysical system of which perception is one part, rather than a theory of perception per se. Before we proceed further, am I correct to assume that is the case?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Meanwhile I would like to comment on one point you make, Lothar, about Krueger's notion of (the) "transphenomenal psychic being." In Psychologies of 1930" (Carl Murchison, ed.) there is a chapter by Friedrich Sander entitled "Structure, Totality of Experience, and Gestalt," which is significant in of itself because it was translated for the volume by the noted American philosopher, Susanne Langer, one of the only philosophers to my knowledge in America who was interested in Ganzheit theory (and it occurs to me that her magnum opus, a 3-volume work entitled "Mind: An Essay in Human Feeling," may have been directly inspired by Ganzheit theory.)

    The chapter by Sander begins with the following statement: "The demand upon psychology, the science of psychical reality in all its phases, to dwell no longer in the narrow confines of conscious phenomena, has become more and more insistent the more we have succeeded in determining, completely and systematically, the conditions or conditional relations of actual experiences and attitudes. An analysis of all relevant conditions has necessarily compelled a recognition of some real and active agency, besides the total complex of external conditions or 'stimuli,' on the one hand, and the physiological conditions, on the other--a psychical principle beyond the bounds of the mere phenomenal given. Regarding the nature and and magnitude of this transphenomenal, psychically active reality, opinions have been extremely divergent (p. 188)."

    Perhaps the essence of Ganzheit thinking is expressed simply in this statement by Sander:
    "Feelings, in the sense of indivisible qualities of consciousness as a whole [a conception outlined by Cornelius and developed by Krueger], are destroyed by analysis (p. 189). This poses a major methodological problem, need I say.

    It is thus feeling, understood this way, that Krueger called the "maternal soil" of all experience--a most interesting proposal, and completely alien to the punctate analysis that characterizes neuroscience, for one, and computer-oriented cognitive science for another, which are still pretty much locked into the thinking of Wundt, whose ideas Krueger was responding to with his own holistic approach as an alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  19. All is vibration in this Universe, gross matter depends on non physical, as Life /brains depend on Consciousness. Time has no effect, pressure on the eternal soul, no beginning nor end, just peace.
    We are conscious beings that have devolved in material duality realm, and the human form has been regressing for ages, and completely sabotaged by rulers eager to enslave us and control our reality; a Matrix well oiled.

    "I do not believe that a moral philosophy can ever be founded on a scientific basis. … The valuation of life and all its nobler expressions can only come out of the soul’s yearning toward its own destiny. Every attempt to reduce ethics to scientific formulas must fail. Of that I am perfectly convinced."
    — Albert Einstein

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thanks for sharing your metaphysical views. How though do they serve to elucidate the structure of visual space which is the focus of this working group?

    ReplyDelete