How Does The ‘Tabula Rasa’ See & Know Itself…?

What am I if I wipe the slate of my mind totally clean of content__not it’s mechanics and what it’s really bio-neurally made of(don’t wish to make Descartes’ mistake), but to a state of purely zero information content…?(except of course, memory) Let’s take a hypothetical look at such a pure state possibility… I think it can easily stand in for the theorizing we often attempt, at removing historical information from our minds, to speculatively see the much more wild, native and ancient states of man and community__yet imo, this method of the ‘tabula rasa model/blank slate model’ offers the same means, while staying in the state changes of ones present life__which may just offer a far more direct method… It may even offer a clearer and truer state of speculation and possible hypothesis building, of mental actions and evolution__hopefully allowing a new slant on an old story…

If a pure fundamental state of mind exists, then what does initial or 1st state thought consist of, and where is its proto-source/s…? I think this is the question we must answer, to answer to history’s quest both in philosophy and psychology, the two most investigated areas of this equation. The late 19th century saw the greatest flury of activity by not only the newly forming field of professional psychologists, but the long standing logicians, as well. The battlefields were being drawn all across the European, as well as the American continents. Of course many will easily recognize this as the old battles of and between rational thought and empirical thought, more well known as the study of epistemology, and often extended to include some aspects of teleology, ontology and mereology, and for such facts, this expose will bear fruit from all four, as I intend to show an eclectic ‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori’ logic, protecting its slightly weaker sibling__psychology, and this same psychology protecting its stronger sibling__logic, from becoming too full of itself…

Now, some may say that’s a bold statement__but, it’s already been articulated over a 50 year period, in the later 19th century, and the first part of the 20th century, by and within the formal and private writings, and professional letters of Charles Sanders Peirce__to many of the world’s most famous then living personages, of his era… I am simply stating that Peirce actually discovered the entire inference mechanics path of our total thought processes, back then__but, I’m not certain if he actually realized it or not, though it is clearly stated when anyone tasks themselves to take in all his and others’ ideas and papers, over the period of his life, especially when viewed from today’s much extended secondary investigations__with our much extended scientific capacities and abilities into classical, quantum and relative mechanics__not even counting today’s much extended logics and maths, but in all fairness, CM, QM and RM certainly depend on these new extensions of and within the modern logics and maths, of these complex physical systems…

Anyway, not to go any deeper than necessary, for our fundamental inference path mechanics__much of the modern logical and mathematical complexity can be ignored__as I intend to describe our inquiry trail much easier, with our simple natural logic, or the ‘logica utens’, as Peirce wrote about it. Yes, the ‘logica utens’ does contain our ‘a priori’ mathematical abilities, and this can be reduced to our simple ratio-logic, for its most fundamental path mechanics' necessities, to be put forward in this paper. Now, don’t all you psychology leaning readers run off at this stage, as no inference enters the brain/mind__without 1st passing directly through our psychological/empirical senses, by way of our physical senses of sight to intuition/perception/intuition, ‘a priori/a posteriori’ rational intellect, subjective/objective judgment, will and finally leaving at the gates of mental or physical action__either by being stored in memory for later retrieval, or said thought activating our muscles into new physical actions, of either play or work. My job will be to discern how and where these 1st perceptions and proto-thoughts are determined, to become psychological or logical judgments__and exactly how and from where all initial information enters the brain/mind states of such psychological and logical processes__but, my job is made much easier by having discovered all of these inference paths in Peirce’s already written massive correspondence and writings…

Of course, what the above paragraph is addressing are the hardest problems in philosophy__not yet solved, whether that be ‘total inference mechanics’_‘foundations of psychology, logic or both’_‘free will’_‘epistemology, teleology, psychology or all three, possibly plus ontology and mereology’_and ‘just how much is empiricism directly involved in rationality and why?’ These questions will only be settled by a new ‘meta-semiotic methodology’ of this science being directly applied to these difficult philosophical questions, debates and ever so serious arguments__no matter where and what media these dialogues, dialectics and conversations take place, and in. We just seem to love to argue over the seeming incommensurabilities of these, otherwise simple superveniences__But, where do the boundaries lie, and how can we understand these, seemingly so, complex aporias__anew…? Is it possible to develop an open eclective normativity of such views, expressed through a simpler ground of general common sense…?

If I had a nickel for every time I’ve re-read Peirce’s scientific methodological ideas, after reading others’ ideas, just to get my head screwed back on right__I’d be a millionaire by now. Just finished reading Joseph Esposito’s, Christopher Hookway’s, Irving Anellis’ and Mathias Girel’s excellent papers on these battles I speak of above, back in those days and up to today__and what a joy it’s been after reading hundreds of other really bad scholars in between, while leaning on a few good Peirceans just for life-preservers__such as Susan Haack, T.L. Short and Karl-Otto Apel__but, most were of the Frege' school which just about completely lacks a necessary modal logic and any reasonable and sensible distinctions between mathematics and logic__per say__which happens to be, imo, absolutely necessary for such philosophy to make any true and sound sense, so is there any unknown reason__that analytic philosophy__is off on such a silly linguistic witch-hunt…? They badly need re-introduction to simple language, images and analogies, etc__I do so humbly fear… And yes, I’m just giving smug personal opinions here, but Frege did give a great contribution to philosophy and logic, by distinguishing the necessity of separating psychological content from logical content, to do proper formal logic__Then__but, that is no longer feasible or necessary, in our over-conflated and confused semantic-web-world. We’ve long ago graduated from the fear of psychology destroying our logic__iff we’ve understood Peirce entirely, so I’ll try to keep my prejudices in check__but, really my problem is about one logic school of thought against another logic school of thought__Peirce vs. Frege__The older vs. the younger__and Peirce, by far imo, had the wiser supervisors of his education__plus the added advantage of being a real and true scientist__which gave him the advantage of a thoroughly real-world grounded logic…

Let me add in here, a few comments I wrote a few years back, that just may add a little clarity to what I’ve written above:

How Does A Brain See Itself, Without A Mind...?

Btw, excellent note you wrote to me... The title may seem strange, but seriously ask yourself; 'Do we need a mind, if we have a brain...?' If everything in the brain exists within the neural biological perception network, and I do mean everything, every essence agent tool we use, and every aspect of possible essence__Then what's mind but an extra, completely unnecessary word, to confuse us...? Can brain see mind...? No...! How does brain know mind exists...? It doesn't...! Is mind necessary for anything, beyond the capacities of our brains...? No__Not that I can find...! Is mind just pure imagination...? Is mind as a conceptual system necessary...? Is mind what we refer to as Intellect...? Is mind the conceptual system, absolutely separate from brain...? Imo, brain sees itself, without a mind, through perception...! Does perception see concepts...? Yes...! Does perception see feelings...? Yes...! Does perception see intellect...? Yes...! If all functions are performed by brain, perception and all their physical essence agents and tools, then what's mind do...? Nothing I can find, as it's not necessary__so far, to any of my investigations...! So maybe, iff we stop confusing and conflating brain and mind, brain with mind, mind with brain, etc., on and on__Just maybe, we could make some real sense of physical and mental intelligences...! Intelligence is nothing but the physical processes of the meat-ball sitting on our shoulders, processing meat, rocks and em-waves, etc...! Intelligence finds no minds or consciousnesses to process...! Intelligence finds only the physical world__externally and internally__all else is imaginal space exaggerations...! What is imaginal space...? Perception's ability to see beyond the finite, into oblivion(any physical mirror book system can do this)__Necessary for theory to see the possible ideal, and non-ideal, futures, for our very rational survival as a species...! What is rationality...? Perceptions fundamental a priori arithmetic ability to process lesser and greater magnitudes and multitudes, and their mathematical cousins__Best orders...!

Do we have mental intelligences...? Do we have physical intelligences...? Which is true...? Are they both true, or is just one true...? Is it necessary to have a mental fluidic continuum we can not physically define or see...? How could such a non-physical continuum field exist...? It couldn't...! It can't...! It doesn't...! There's only one real physical continuum, filled with real physical em-wave-matter, non-viscous, fluidic particles...! Oh, we can distinguish between the internal and external continuums, but they're really made of the exact same materials__em-rads, etc...! The only essence agent tool that makes them distinguishable is the brain's neural perception network...! So, what we mistake for the mental, is actually the brain's perception, mirroring the brain's physical visions, from one perception/essence agent tool to another, i.e., from external vision, to direct perception(internal vision), to memory storage, to judgments, to ascripted emotions, and back to perception, and finally to will and actions, etc...! The brain, perception and all her essence agents do it all__No mind required...! So what's the big deal about mind...? It's just an extra word we've tagged onto the brain's neural perceptual system__nothing more...!

The physical brain is processing nothing but physical systems__externally viewed, and internally viewed__by perception and brain...! What's the puzzle...? Relativity...? No...! That's just a minor, less than .5%, correction to standard classical physics...! The puzzle is arguing about mind and brain...! Throw out the useless words mind, and consciousness, and you can begin to understand the very simple brain of intuitions and logic...!

The missing link is not understanding word conflations and confusions...! Mind is simply perception...!

The Fallible Human Mind/Ego/Soul of Logic...

Again, you offer no definition of this, otherwise, mythical logic. You know, it seems everyone wants to assume their own perfection and completeness of understanding of ideas, when in fact all ideas and minds are truly incomplete___being itself___is incomplete___yet most speak from an ego as if it possessed complete omega knowledge and wisdom___I think this point quite important. Let's just say that possibly, the mind at omega point may be able to achieve such complete intelligence, how, and I stress how, would one develop the dialogue and language necessary to reach the world's diversity of minds? Is it even possible? I think the key would be in accepting, with humility, the absolute incompleteness of one's own being's knowledge, and the definitions of what is considered knowledge and or wisdom, to different groups. Now, we know from this site, that metaphysics and science are on opposing sides, quite often, not even counting the vast differences of spiritists, emotionalists and consciousnessists. Is there a solution to these mind/ego/soul differences...?

Now, I know there is a solution to these differences, but I don't know a way of getting the truths across to varying global points of views. All I can do is state my views, from the science side of philosophy and physics. Let me just point out that when anyone uses logic, it has different rules of use for all the opposing world points of view. It was Husserl who first recognized the different rules between scientific and psychological logics___he showed where they had opposite sets of rules. Others have shown also that music and comedy opperate on totally opposite logic functions than science, and of course, we well know the differences between spiritists and scientists, etc... Now, what exactly are these differences...? The scientist will say logic must function according to the established rules and laws of the historical use of philosophic and physical logic, as established by Aristotle on, i.e., A is A, A is B, and B is not not B, and the excluded middle, etc.. Since Aristotle, we have further increased the branches of logic to some 137 categories and 9 classes, functioning on varrying agreements and dis-agreements with the founding rules. On the other side of the fence are the psycholigists, metaphysicists, spiritists, emotionalists and consciousnessists, etc. who insist on a further undefined set of private language logics, as first described by Wittgenstien___and he also stated, it doesn't exist. Now, we really have quite a mix of mush to make sense of___where do we start...?

Let me again just state science's position. In order for logic to function toward facts and factually provable truths, only real object ideas can be inferred into the otherwise fallible human logic, due to the fact that if opinion is allowed to be inferred into logic, all that is possible for logic to return is opinion. This does not mean the scientist can not use theory to find fact. It only means that the final logic must only have real objects' ideas inferred into logic to return absolute facts, and nor is it possible for any subjective realities to be inferred into logic, with an outcome of absolute facts___subjective inferrences will always return nothing but unprovable opinions…(except of course, as pertains to our feelings of the heart, then even that's still highly debatable)

The human mind/ego/soul is too fallible, as most will use their ego, polluted by the infinity problem of soul capacity, to pollute the mind's final positions___this is just as often true of science, as of religion, etc. So, herein lies the problem, as I see it___The human mind/ego/soul itself___being___is too fallible to be trusted, without verifiable objective facts of observation, to back up logic, to create any absolute facts of any realities…

Now, for a moment, just look at the other side. Let's take the most violating of science and logic___religion. They most all believe in an infallible soul, yet the soul can be exaggerated to any powers of delusions, especially the more emotional it becomes. These exaggerations, when added to the mind, only enhance the mythical power of the ego, and do not add to any true logic. These are absolutely subjective states of opinions, when inferred into logic, and can only produce more opinions. This isn't to say that opinions can not become facts, as they often do, but not until purified by the realities of the absolutely objective world.(opinions themselves don't actually become facts__we simply exchange our opinions for facts) This isn't to say emotions aren't real and can't be studied, as they are scientifically cognitively studied all the time, but it's through a massive historical database of objective observational case studies, which I may add, are usually ignored by the opinionists, lacking these and other scientific logical objective facts…

True logic only works factually true with absolute objective objects' ideas inferred in, first___always___period... Any other type of logic, is polluted by, quite often, false opinion... This has been the trouble and reason that metaphysics has been truly unable to enhance the study of being beyond its feeble state of incompleteness___being is absolutely scientifically incomplete... We must get off our big egos and recognize this fact...

Now, what is it we are truly looking at, as pertains to our selves, seeing themselves, as the pure ‘tabula rasa’ state…?

Are we physical…? Yes… Are we mental…? Yes…? Is our mental, physical…? Iff viewed from the known perspective of em-waves being physical__yes… Do we have scientific experiments of thought being physical em-waves…? Yes, we certainly do, with all the new and powerful magnetic field experiments being performed in labs all around the world__where different areas of thought can be enhanced and retarded by simple proximity applications of such powerful magnetic fields. And further, new memory experiments are also showing PKM Zeta’s abilities to enhance and retard, or even erase long-term memories. So, we actually do have real world experiments relating brain states to neuro-biological body states, for the first era in history__which in my opinion, clearly repudiates the mind-body duality. If so, then the epistemological and scientific question becomes__'How do we know the brain starts out as a pure state ‘tabula rasa’__and is only filled in by information from the external world’s database, the internal memory, and the objective epistemology of the neuro-bio-epistemic brain-body connections…?’ And stronger still; ‘How do we know the epistmic agent, ‘tabula rasa’ acquires its own free-will choices…?’

The ‘Tabula Rasa’s’ Free-Will Mechanics__How…?

Simply put; “It’s mathematically impossible for the ‘tabula rasa’ not to exist as the proto-state of brain/mind, and self-acquire its own necessary free-will…” First, were the proto-state of brain/mind to exist as a fixed state of pre-existing programming and knowledge in an innate neuro-bio-state agency__How would such an agency state, change and update itself, from such a fixed innate state to a changing and changed state…? How would such fixed innate states explain our simple and complex changing personalities, talents and creativities, especially the actor’s choice, to assume any personality available upon self-command__to exist and function…? How would a pre-set will update its survival needs, on the fly__which we know it certainly does__to meet all of life’s many multitudes of changing challenges…? How would a fixed brain/mind pick one of millions of data-bits entering its inference engine, every month__without becoming over-whelmed into outright schizophrenia__had it no free-will to pick and choose…? These, and many thousands of similar questions can only be answered by a thoroughly dynamic system, capable of constant and eternal updating, of the data-bits entering its inference engine__and in no way could such a fixed proto-pre-set mechanics achieve such massive dynamics, as that of a constantly up-datable fundamental ‘tabula rasa’ having its absolutely necessary ‘free-will…’ If you think it could or can, then you are working with an entirely different information base than I am, and yet, I’ve truly studied them all__so, good luck explaining a ‘non-tabula rasa’ and a ‘non-free-will’__Without the help of great magic… Btw, all ‘non-tabula rasa’ thinking has simply turned the historical knowledge on its head, by 'stealing' this long history’s hard work, and simply offering its false ‘counterfactual’ information, while necessarily using the very data of history’s opposite discoveries, as it false informations__in other words, turning truth on its head, as a lie, and calling it__its own new truth__Blaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh…!!!

Here’s the five hurdles you’ll have to overcome:

1. Strong Determinism is a complete self-contradiction of its own self-necessity and self-consistencies__It uses the language mechanics of free-will choices, to attempt proofs against free-will, i.e., tis counterfactual, question begging, or the snake swallowing its own tail, or/and the conclusion is deriving far more from the statement mechanics’ premise/s than is present, to possibly deduct from it/them, i.e., tis a false deduction logic…

2. Strong Determinism is an infinite regress to a logical impossibility__It bases its arguments on cause and effect, yet when its cause and effect is chased to its true deductive foundations in absolute fundamental motion mechanics, there’s absolutely no fundamental prime mover mechanics known, to found such fallacious circular logic on, therefore__tis a pretentious logic, and impossible of absolutely true groundings…

3. Free-will is a perfect Q.M. engine__It’s indiscernible as to absolute foundation, except as to its general motion and simple choices, through highly possible frequency mechanics__Its foundation is indeterminism, randomness and/or uncertainty, etc., at base__We simply don’t yet know how it fully mechanically works, but are absolutely certain it works, as intuitive choice is a fact of human decision and judgment function, and also creativity__which can not be disproved, except by determinism's illogical feeble attempts by using this same free-will intuitive choice function, which certainly is no proof, but is its logical opposite, and such counterfactuals are dis-allowed in logic… A never equals not A…

4. Strong Determinism can never be intelligent, as it falsely attempts to eliminate the intelligence of its own necessary free-will choices, to be intelligent__and such attempts are highly offensive to all sound intelligence, without the determinist even recognizing the offensiveness of his statements, being identical to calling intelligent free-will’ers__highly stupid, especially when the sound logical proofs are on the free-will’ers side__Not the side of the determinists’ illusions and delusions of false scientific grandeur…

5. The Necessary Free-Will, to Be Subjectively and Objectively Intelligent, Exists__and oppositely__To advocate strong or absolute determinism, is to (unknowingly-implyingly) call everyone else who doesn’t agree__Stupid…! Strong determinism produces all its own logical self-contradictions__from its negative infinite regresses to nothing but pure ego, since its own logic kicks its own legs out from under it__Splat…!!!

HOW PEIRCEAN WAS THE “FREGEAN” REVOLUTION IN LOGIC?

(I strongly advise all logicians, analytic philosophers and linguists to please read this:)

Irving H. Anellis

Abstract. The historiography of logic conceives of a Fregean revolution in which modern mathematical logic (also called symbolic logic) has replaced Aristotelian logic. The preeminent expositors of this conception are Jean van Heijenoort (1912–1986) and Do-nald Angus Gillies. The innovations and characteristics that comprise mathematical logic and distinguish it from Aristotelian logic, according to this conception, created ex nihlo by Gottlob Frege (1848–1925) in his Begriffsschrift of 1879, and with Bertrand Rus-sell (1872–1970) as its chief This position likewise understands the algebraic logic of Augustus De Morgan (1806–1871), George Boole (1815–1864), Charles Sanders Peirce (1838–1914), and Ernst Schröder (1841–1902) as belonging to the Aristotelian tradi-tion. The “Booleans” are understood, from this vantage point, to merely have rewritten Aristotelian syllogistic in algebraic guise.

The most detailed listing and elaboration of Frege’s innovations, and the characteristics that distinguish mathematical logic from Aristotelian logic, were set forth by van Heijenoort. I consider each of the elements of van Heijenoort’s list and note the extent to which Peirce had also developed each of these aspects of logic. I also consider the extent to which Peirce and Frege were aware of, and may have influenced, one another’s logical writings.