Third National Flag of the Confederate States of America |
P. A. Stonemann, CSS Dixieland |
National Jack of the Confederate States Navy |
CSS Dixieland
Probing the depths of knowledge
These essays by P. A. Stonemann, CSS Dixieland, cover a wide range of
historical, philosophical, scientifical and technical subjects. Each page
deals with a particular topic, divided into sections and explained by itself.
Every page shows at its top hyper links to every other page. The Start page
also has short descriptions of the other pages. CSS Dixieland expresses
gratitude to the readers that make this work meaningful.
This Web document has been tested with KDE Konqueror, graphic HTML interpreter
for Linux. It may not be rendered correctly by other graphic HTML interpreters.
It will probably be correct when rendered by text-only HTML interpreters (visual,
aural, or Braille tactile interpreters), but if feasible, please use KDE Konqueror.
Uniform Resource Locator:
Solipsism Philosophy page
The awful suspicion of an unreal reality
Sections in this page
Solipsism: The Lonely Mind
Technical note: In languages other than English or Latin, but which use mainly
Latin characters, some characters are taken from other alphabets, or some Latin
characters are modified with diacritic marks for representing different phonemic
sounds or other orthographic conventions of those languages. Those characters,
when used in this document, have been encoded as entities of Hyper Text Mark-up
Language or sometimes in Unicode UTF-8. Therefore computers using other character
encodings may render some characters inaccurately, but hopefully, it will still
be possible to read non-English words without too much difficulty.
Important warning
This philosophical essay assumes the reader to be familiar with terms and
concepts used in Philosophy. It contains sophisticated expressions that are
not part of the common language, plus notions and ideas that require a high
level of mental abstraction. Some readers, wholly ignorant of philosophical
disciplines, unused to elaborate thinking, and thus completely incapable of
following the reasoning line of the text, have complained that it is "not
clear". The writing is perfectly clear to the trained mind, but certainly not
to the common mortals who take a casual look, to the many who cannot THINK.
Rather than attempting to elucidate the path for them, they are advised to
instruct themselves in matters philosophical before tackling complex reading
such as this one. If in spite of this warning they delve into it, they should
at least keep a dictionary close at hand, and be prepared for slow perusal of
the wording, pausing as much as necessary for mental digestion of perhaps
shocking statements that, very probably, they have never encountered before.
At any rate, once they have embarked into this difficult task, they lose all
right to say that it is not clear. The unclarity is in their own brains only.
Solipsism: The Lonely Mind
Question for a Philosophical Mind
Have You ever wondered of the possibility of "dream" and "reality" not being
so clearly different concepts as most people usually regard them ?
Or even of the more extreme chance of "reality" not existing at all ?
Solipsism, in its metaphysical meaning, is the doctrine that casts serious
doubts on the real existence of everything outside the individual observer
who thinks. For the hardest line of Solipsism, nothing exists beyond the mind
who believes in Solipsism. Needless to say, statements such as "I am the only
being that exists, all the rest are merely the product of my imagination",
deserve to be listed as perhaps the most extreme philosophical, religious or
political notion that has been idealised in the whole History of Thought.
That extremism guarantees, in itself, a page for Solipsism in this collection
of historical, philosophical, scientifical and technical texts.
The Years of my Philosophical Childhood
When I was a child, these notions nested in my mind. I say "nested", because
until today I seriously consider them a possibility, even if not properly
speaking a probability. Perhaps they be only a remote possibility. They are
not a certainty for me, at any rate, or else I should not be writing this
essay.
I am absolutely sure, beyond any shadow of doubt, that the ideas that I am
ready to expound here ORIGINATED IN MY OWN MIND. This assertion is made in
order to encounter and refute those individuals who, being themselves of an
almost totally nill capability for philosophical thinking, and permanently
void of any relevant or deep thoughts, might erroneously speculate that at
some point in my childhood I might have casually and passingly come in
contact with one of the philosophers who had at some time exposed such ideas.
It is important to mention that, contrary to what occurs to most people, I
never had the metamorphosis of mind that tends to march along with the
metamorphosis of body during puberty. I see myself as quite the same thinking
mind, now as well as fifty years ago, regardless of having had the physical
characteristics of a child, of a teenager, or of a grown man. Of course, new
ideas I have developed, new things I have kept learning, and new experiences
I have met in my life for all these years. But in essence, there has been no
marked difference, from the intellectual point of view, from my existence in
infancy, to adolescence, or to adulthood. My mind is the same and my ideas
reflect the same fundamental reasoning and beliefs.
Dream or Reality: Which One is "Real" ?
One of my lonely meditations carried me to the notion of "dream" versus
"reality". I suppose that my elucubrations on this dicotomy might have
initially been elicited, or at least inspired, by my own oniric experiences.
I was a devout of Scientific Fiction, Fantasy, Terror, and other genres of
the weird and unreal in Literature, Comic Strips, Wireless or Cinematography,
as still I continue being up to this day whenever I happen to have a chance
for it. After a breath holding session of "bug-eyed monsters" coming to me
from books, pulp comics, radio, cinema or television, it was almost for
certain that my imagination would continue keeping hold of them during my
sleep. Or the monsters kept hold of me. It often meant a sudden awaking,
bathed in sweat and trembling nervously, feeling thrills of fear and looking
all round me, including the under-bed, in anxious search for those freaky
creatures that surely wanted to fetch me for some horrible purposes. So far,
fears of this kind are common to other children. It proofs that I was not
devoid of an infantile imagination, after all. In fact I possess a fertile
imagination down to the present time, although now I try to convince myself
that such engendres are only the product of the inventive mind of the authors
who wrote those stories, that those beings do not even exist.
OR DO THEY EXIST ?
This was the unanswered question that stroke my mind. Or rather this one:
OR DO I EXIST ?
Because, once that I had gone to the point of doubting of the existence or
non-existence of those creations of fantasy, it would follow quite naturally
that I also might doubt of MY OWN EXISTENCE. I am totally certain, repeating
what I have already pointed out, that at such an early time in my life I was
completely unaware of that well known reasoning: "cogito, ergo sum", of Rene
Descartes (1596-1650) in the "Discourse sur la methode". It means that the
spark that began my reasoning appeared spontaneously in my mind, without the
feeblest connection with the similar reasoning of the French thinker.
And for being truthful, also with a very deep divergence in the conclusion to
which Monsieur Descartes arrived and that to which I arrived myself, regarding
the concept of divinity. For Descartes it is a monotheistic concept, it is an
anthropomorphic god who has personal attributes and who "creates" everything
out of nothing. For me, it is a self-aware Universe (Pantheism), it is an
intelligent Nature (Hylozoism), and it is a sentient matter (Panpsychism).
The names in parentheses came from my later reading, years afterwards. I did
not know them when I was a child, but the ideas involved in them struck my
mind nonetheless.
How could I be sure that the terrifying situations that I met in my dreams
were only "fantasies of my own mind" ?
The anguish that I felt while I endeavoured to escape, in a kind of unreal
slow motion film, from those indescribable monsters of unfathomable and evil
intentions, the bottomless chasms into which I fell, wrapped by a lofty space
of emptiness round me, the fearful nothingness itself, they all seemed to be
only too real.
The instant of awaking was a tremendous relief, for it meant to have made my
escape from the world of nightmares to the world of "see and touch". Of
course, it did not go unnoticed to me that the feeling of seeing and touching
also existed in the dream, maybe in an undefinably different form, but it
existed anyway.
Efforts for Finding Other Thinkers
The few times that I commented these concerns to someone, I was promptly
discarded by adults as a child of too feverish an imagination. By other
children I was not even understood, let alone comprehended. Children had a
remarkable tendency to deviate from the seriousness of my preoccupations, and
to indulge into a trivial talk about some story that they had read or some
film that they had watched. Adults, in general, completely avoided such
conversations, for they did not know what to say. Or they decorated their
faces with a contemptible smile, ranging from something as encouraging as
"This child may grow into a writer", to the more pragmatic "He may become a
good-for-nothing. He should forget those futilities and study his lessons".
The fact is that I was the first student of my class, and probably of the
whole school, that in some disciplines I equalled or even knew more than most
students of higher levels, or even more than my teachers, who were proud of
me and simultaneously uneasy because of my attitude of defiance against their
guidance, and of self learning after my own judgment. But these facts did not
seem to deter my occasional obstreperous critics from their stupid pragmatism.
In such an environment of donkeys, soon I discarded the wish of serious
interchange of ideas altogether, preferring to close myself into my own
reflections and keep longing for, perhaps some day, coming across more
receptive minds.
Those minds that I did not find near me, I found in the pages of books.
Thinkers of bygone eras, men who, like me, had not been comprehended by their
nearby contemporaries, and who had resorted to the pen in the hope of,
perhaps some day, being at least understood, maybe even comprehended, by a
reader of a future time, of a later generation. This was an intelligent
foreseeing, because such readers in fact do exist, although being few and far
between.
I was one of those readers, who commenced my philosophical journey from
myself, and continued it with the help of giants from the past, as Isaac
Newton (1642-1727) once said. This was an unavoidable course, since the
"deepest philosophical reasoning" to my quest for an answer to the enigm of
"dream or reality", came from an old Catholic priest who argued along these
lines:
"But if I smash Your brains with a heavy club crashing hard on Your head, it
painfully hurts ! Therefore You are in the reality, not in a dream".
To this profound cephalgic argument, there was not much to add. It was the
tenet of the colloquies that I enjoyed the few times that I attempted to
initiate an intellectual intercourse with those "brilliant" minds, my nearby
contemporaries. No wonder that most of my childhood was spent alone.
A Shocking Discovery
In my vagaries, I hit upon the startling idea that what I thought of as
"reality" might be only another dream. Sure enough, if there be a dream, then
there is a dreamer. I undoubtly possessed some kind of existence, as being
that dreamer. Someone pointed out, or I read somewhere, that I might be part
of the dream of another being or entity superior to me, something like "a
superior dreamer who has a dream, and this dream acquires its own self
conscience as another dreamer". The second dreamer is thus an inferior one,
but this inferior dreamer is not aware of the fact of being only a dream. It
thinks to be a dreamer in its own right. Clearly, this sequence might go on
for ever. A character of one of my dreams might regard itself as "real",
although its reality might perhaps be an ephemeral one. So might I be myself
too. This notion set up the scenario for a chain of thoughts that ultimately
ended into the shocking discovery. I had some form of existence, at least as
a dream that thinks, and who considers itself gifted with the capability of
generating thoughts. So far, so good. But how could I be sure
Do the Others Exist ?
I was a thinking entity in a way or another, dream or non-dream, that fact
seemed irrefutable against any arguments. But how could I know, beyond all
reasonable doubts, that the material objects that apparently impressed my
senses were real ?
How could I rest assured of the existence of those with whom I spoke ?
Were they only the product of my imagination, just fairy creations of my
mind, no more than an unreal part of my dream ?
Did they think by themselves, or was it only myself, dreaming that I was
enjoying a conversation with someone, but really questioning and replying to
myself, and myself only ?
Did my senses, my hands, my body exist ?
Or was I a lone mind in a universe of void, a thought that thinks itself as a
thinker, and everything and everyone round me were as unreal as a dream ?
Were they, in fact, only a part of my own dream... ?
The Dead Ones Come to Help
I was justifiably adverse to the temptation of communicating these thoughts
to anyone. For one thing, because those people might actually be only the
unreal fancies of my mind, without any thinking existence of their own, and a
dialogue with them would therefore be in truth only a monologue with my own
individual self. But on the other hand, assuming the possibility that they
really had some thoughts of their own, that they really existed, I confess
that I was somewhat afraid of the risk that they would consider me mentally
sick, and deranged beyond all hope of recovery. Not that such opinions would
modify me in the least, for I have always been impervious to the empty and
silly conventions of ordinary people. What truly impeded me from disclosing
my deepest thoughts to them, was the fact that they were, indeed, ordinary
people.
Which is to say, acephalous imbeciles.
In sad corroboration of my worries, the scarce contacts of this kind that I
ventured to start, promptly halted without any conclusion. Or else veered, by
influence of the pre-conceptions of my dialoguing partners, into waters where
they felt more at ease, without having to tackle the unsolvable riddles that
I posed to them, because they took my mental explorations for paradoxical or
contradictory reveries, beyond their comprehension and of their wish for
comprehending. In this heart-cooling atmosphere, I durst not insist on any
further digging for philosophical awareness amidst my contemporaries. Not
unwarrantly, I turned my attention to books, in the expectation of being
rewarded with an enriching intellectual intercourse.
In this enterprise I was not disappointed. The wisdom of sages from the
nearer or farther past was exhumated from the slumber of their centennial
tombs, and they came to talk to me. They could only say what they had during
their lives foreseen as rousing the interest of future readers, or what had
instigated their own intelligent curiosity. They could not, of course, answer
my questions in a direct manner. But by patient perusal of their writings,
many of the words that they had recorded on their venerable papers, rugged
parchments, or mummified papiri, astonished me as being MY VERY THOUGHTS,
amazingly similar or even identical to what I had conjectured myself.
The awful suspicion of an unreal reality had not solely originated in my
mind. It had stricken other brilliant minds as well.
Solipsism makes its name known to me
I learnt that the shocking notion of being alone as a thinking entity in an
otherwise unreal universe, receives in Philosophy the name of Metaphysical
Solipsism. There is a milder variation called Epistemological Solipsism,
which does not question the existence or non-existence of the universe round
the thinker, but that affirms the impossibility of knowing anything outside
the thinker as that thing really is, even if accepting its true existence.
Epistemological Solipsism also emphasises the difference that will always
exist between the perceptions of different observers focused on the same
object. For instance, a colour or an odour will be perceived differently by
different people, there is ample evidence for this. This difference in the
perception felt by different individuals is of course extended to the whole
environment surrounding the subject who perceives, sustains Epistemological
Solipsism. The term "Solipsism" comes from Latin "Solipsum", which we might
perhaps translate (for the benefit of those who do not know the language of
Seneca) as "alone" or "isolated". It is an appropriate vocable, for in any of
its two main acceptions, either the softer Epistemological or the harder
Metaphysical line of thought, Solipsism stands for "being isolated from the
rest of the Universe" or for "being alone, in a non-existing Universe".
David Hume
Epistemological Solipsism started perhaps with David Hume (1711-1776). His
quandaries on what is feasible of being known, and what will remain arcane
for ever, had a lasting influence not only on the philosophical school of
British Empiricism (based mainly on the ideas of John Locke in England, David
Hume in Scotland and George Berkeley in Ireland), but also on philosophers of
other doctrinal affiliations, such as Immanuel Kant (in Koenigsberg, East
Prussia), and the whole school of Historicism-Idealism that starts with Hegel
in Germany. To some extent, Epistemological Solipsism touched even the school
of Continental Rationalism, that is considered by many as the antagonist of
British Empiricism. The Rationalist school is primarily based on the works of
the already mentioned Rene Descartes in France, of Baruch Spinoza in the
Netherlands, and of Wilhelm Leibnitz in Germany. Those three giants of
Philosophy died before the publication of David Hume's treatises, but their
followers continue until today. The pen of Hume developed a notion that I had
also independently entertained myself (but not developed) in the philosophical
dives of my childhood.
I can recall that as a child I was reflecting on the celebrated case of the
apple falling from the tree, which according to an account written by Voltaire
a century afterwards, stimulated Isaac Newton in 1666 into his epoch making
research on the Force of Gravity, and that ultimately lead him to his immortal
"Principia Mathematica de Philosophia Naturalis". I honestly ought to confess
that I entertained a disrespectful glee, maliciously gloating at Mister Newton
as I pictured the whole scene with a rotten apple catching him unawares,
unexpectedly smashing against his face as he was indulging in a pleasing nap
on the fresh grass of his cottage at Woolsthorpe. In Voltaire's story, this
serendipitous incident sets Newton into a sequence of logical connections,
which revealed his powerful genius as one of the greatest mathematicians and
physicists that have ever existed. In my seemingly absurd mental whereabouts,
I found not unreasonable to ask to myself: "What if the apple had never
fallen ?". Beware of what I have said. Not exactly that the apple had not
fallen because of still remaining attached to the tree, but rather, that the
apple had not fallen
The Apple May Not Always Fall
I fancied that the observed fact of an object falling to the ground every
time that it is released from a height, is not in itself a guarantee of the
absolute certainty that the object will, by needs, always fall when released.
It apparently happens every time, but there might exist some hidden law or
principle that, in an unimaginably minuscule proportion of those times, might
prevent the object from falling. We do not know for sure that it will fall,
we may only presume that it will do it, because in our past experience it has
done so every time. About future experiments of this kind, strictly speaking
we can only accept a probability. An overpowering, extremely high probability
perhaps, but still a probability and not a total certainty. We infere the
laws or principles of our scientific knowledge by induction, and on the
assumption that such high probabilities have the force of certainty in the
Universe that we know. If being otherwise in another universe, existence or
reality, we obviously cannot know, and therefore we regard ourselves as
unaffected by it.
To my delight, David Hume had written similar ideas about two hundred years
before I had thought about them, but still a few more years had to pass until
I discovered how much he and I had approached on this notion, Mister Hume and
myself. I wonder how many other thinkers may have existed throughout History
(or throughout pre-History, for the matter), who may have reached important
philosophical conclusions of this kind or of another kind, but who for one
reason or another never wrote anything, or if they did, then their writings
did not survive the mists of Time. Of impossible comprehension to their
contemporaries, those solitary souls probably saw themselves as unique
thinkers as I also saw myself before my digging into dusty book shelves, in
whose pages I discovered a few other thinkers who could be considered as
unique as myself.
Johann Gottlieb Fichte
Metaphysical Solipsism seems to have been proposed for the first time, if not
clearly defended as a philosophical truth, in Germany by Johann Gottlieb
Fichte (1762-1814). The most important work of this inventive and original
thinker was published in 1794. Together with Baruch Spinoza, Fichte is one of
the philosophers of most difficult comprehension and interpretation that have
ever existed, for their deep ideas are not to be grasped by everyone, let
alone explained to those who have not read the books written by these Masters
of Thought. The central idea of Fichte is the importance of the "I", or
"myself", as a subject who thinks and as an object that is thought. This is
not to be confused with the concept of "ego" as proposed by other authors
(like the "ego" of Psychoanalysis, for instance). In Fichte, "I" or "myself"
is an absolute. He very naturally became entangled into the wraps of
Metaphysical Solipsism, being one of the very few philosophers who seriously
presented the notion of his own loneliness in the Universe as a "thrilling
possibility", whose truth or whose falsety, however, can never be
demonstrated.
In the XX Century Rudolf Carnap (member of the school called "Circle of
Vienna"), also commented on the undemonstrability of Metaphysical Solipsism,
either for or against. This is the position that I hold myself, as well.
There is no known way to demonstrate the existence of the universe outside
the individual mind of the thinker, or else its non-existence. I am writing
this essay in the hope that someone might understand the words, comprehend
their meaning, appreciate my effort, and think by himself. But I am fearfully
aware of the possibility, even if I concede that it may only be a remote
possibility, of being myself the only thinking entity in existence. Therefore
there would be no one for reading this text, simply because no one else
exists at all, beyond myself. They all would be fairy creations of my
imagination, regardless of how real they may seem to me when I engage in
conversation or any other kind of interaction with them.
It is obvious that I am pointing to that non-existence of my contemporaries
only as a possibility, same as Fichte did, and not as a certainty. If Fichte
or myself would have believed in Metaphysical Solipsism AS A CERTAINTY,
neither Fichte nor myself would have written anything, except perhaps as an
aid to each of our personal memories. There would be no point in writing for
others, since those "others" quite simply would not have a real existence for
a true solipsist. I ask myself if ever existed a true solipsist. It is clear
that we could know it only with great difficulty or we could not know it at
all, because a true solipsist would rest assured of his absolute loneliness
in the Realm of Existence, and consequently would see no reason at all for
explaining his belief. No other thinking entity would be there for listening
to him. This would be the conviction of the most authentic of solipsists.
Bertrand Russell
A long-lived philosopher of the XX Century. He had a sense of humour that
touched on the contradictions of frivolous people who enjoyed his society,
but who did not possess the minimal mental capacity for the comprehension of
his philosophy, or the philosophy of any other deep thinker. Sure, there were
such idiots in the fashionable cafes and parties of post-Victorian Britain,
just like there are everywhere. They merely are what I dare to call
"intellectualoids of Philosophy", this is, those snobs who pretend to be
intellectual, but they are not. They are just plain stupid. They only follow
blindly what happen to be the intellectual fashion of the moment, and illude
themselves into thinking that they think. Only empty presumption they show.
Russell delighted in telling philosophical jokes, like that witticism of the
"solipsist lady":
-"I met in a party a lady of fashion who declared to me that she was a
metaphysical solipsist. She had tried to find other people with that belief,
but to her amazement, she had realised that she was completely alone !!!"
Genial quip of Mister Russell, one of the best in the History of Philosophy.
Bertrand Russell did not sustain the possibility of truth in Solipsism as
clearly as Fichte had stated it, but the idea is offered for his readers to
ponder over it.
And so You should, reader of this work. Have You ever considered the awful
possibility of an unreal reality ? Might You be the only thinking entity in
existence ? Is this philosophical text that You are reading right now written
by a P. A. Stonemann, or is it only the imaginary product of Your own mind ?
Answer all that to Yourself, because if Metaphysical Solipsism be in fact a
truth, then You have no other one to whom You might answer.
The Mystery of Existence
Reflections on our own being
What were we before being what we are now ? Did we exist in some form that
was later lost in the mists of Time ? Were our thoughts clearly present then,
or diffused like in the vapours of a dream ? Does it remain in our current
thoughts some reminiscence of what they had been then ? Or may it be that
what we call "this reality" be not more than another dream ? Shall we ever
awake from it, or will the mystery continue in an endless, eternal dream ?
We do not know how other beings face these questions. It is only presumptuous
anthropocentrism that misguides some people into thinking that "only humans"
possess the intellectual capability or the curiosity of spirit for delving
into such speculations. However, thinking about the Mystery of Existence may
not be an exclusively human activity. And as a matter of fact, most humans
never dive seriously into the cold and obscure waters of their inner thoughts.
As children, they are occasionally hit by a flash of doubt, when they admire
the majestic vastness of the Universe, or when they contemplate the intricate
complexity of life in a water droplet seen through the microscope, during a
lesson of Biology in the school laboratory. They ask their teachers, they ask
their parents, and they often obtain insatisfactory answers from adults.
When they grow into adults themselves, they gradually forget their "childish"
curiosity, and accept the insatisfactory answers of the predominant "culture".
Most humans are not philosophers. Karl Jaspers said that religion is for
anyone, but Philosophy is only for a few privileged minds. When we speak of
humans, we can be on safe ground because we are also human and we possess
inherited natural traits more or less in common. Also because we can know the
ideas of a human, expressed in a human language. In spite of the limitations
of ANY language, thoughts that have been said or written in a human language
can be studied, its meaning understood, its implications at least partly
comprehended, by those who have the intelligence and the willingness to do it.
What about the thoughts of non-human entities ? From the whale to the amoeba,
from the gigantic sequoia to the microscopic bacterium or to the even smaller
virus, from the mountain to the molecule, or to the atom, or to sub-atomic
particles. Are they sentient, or just mindless machines ? Are our computers
aware of their own existence, or at least more complex future computers will
become gradually aware that they exist ? Are WE automatic machines ourselves,
with the delusion of thinking that we think ? The cells of our body also have
a life of their own. Are we "one" or "many" ? Or a sincretic combination of
both ? Is the Universe structured as a hyerarchy of infinite number of minds ?
The concept that matter may possess some kind of mental awareness is known in
Philosophy with the name of Panpsychism. It is not merely a void fantastic
speculation, or just a hypothesis, as non-philosophical people are inclined
to label it. There is some empirical evidence for it, if we interpret the
results of certain experiments in Physics or in Biology as indication of some
hidden self-willing force. There is also a sound scientific reasoning for it,
considering the lack of a clear boundary in the continuity of life, from cells
to non-cellular episomes ("plasmids", comprising viri, viroids and prions),
to crystals, to mineral matter regarded as non-living.
Life originated from supposedly non-living matter, according to Alexander
Oparin, Stanley Miller, and many other researchers. If we admit that we think,
then necessarily we have to admit one of two possibilities: that either our
thought at some point originated from non-thinking matter, or that it was
already present in that matter, and the gradual appearance of life out of
matter is a reorganisation, restructuring, or increase in complexity, of the
mental awareness that already existed in matter, or that exists until today.
Keeping divine interventions apart, there is no other logical possibility.
Certainly, panpsychist ideas are of difficult explanation. First, because they
require a good knowledge of Physics and of Biology. Few people possess that.
Second, because they can only be comprehended in all their implications by
privileged minds, gifted with a deep abstract reasoning. Even fewer people
possess that. And third, because they frontally clash against firmly enrooted
prejudices influenced by certain religions. Most people possess that. Most
people prefer to take the comfortable position of believing in improbable
divine interventions, rather than the serious position of thinking on these
problems. Divinity does not help Science, it destroys it, presenting a myth
as if it were a scientific truth. Is the Earth or the Sun, the centre of the
"universe" ? Most people do not care. In the times of Copernicus, or today.
The paradox of the Chinamen and the insects
If I observe two Chinamen facing each other, gesticulating and emitting oral
sounds, I can assume that they are in communication, that they are speaking.
I do not understand any Chinese, but I am also a human, and therefore I have
some common characteristics with them. I assume that their gestures and their
vocalisations indicate the existence of a language. Paying more attention, I
perceive that they understand each other, that they speak the same language.
They assent or deny, they are reciprocally influenced by the conversation,
they show emotions of amazement, or sadness, or joy, or fear, or anger. They
may show unmistakable signs of agreement or disagreement on some point, but I
cannot know what the point may be, because I do not understand a word of the
language. I may gratuitously suppose that they have engaged into some trivial
chit-chat, a small talk of no consequence. But maybe not, maybe they have
touched one of the most complex points in the thought of Confucius, and they
are developing new and interesting perspectives on that ancient philosopher.
Then I continue my walk and I see two ants on a clear of the ground, not far
from an ant-hill. The two ants are also facing each other, each ant moving
rythmically its antennae and touching smoothly and frequently the head or the
thorax of the other ant. They are of the same species, without any doubt. The
question strikes me: are they speaking to each other ? I cannot hear sounds
from them, they may be of low intensity for me, or emitted in a frequency
that I cannot perceive. Of course, they may be in communication by other
means, not necessarily using sounds. Perhaps using chemical feromones, or
some other form of communication that I cannot guess. Or the movements of the
antennae are a linguistic code in itself, as the hand-language of the deaf is
for humans. I simply cannot know, not even if they really happen to be in
communication between them or not, because I am not an ant, because Nature
has not endowed me with the instinctive recognition of motions in the antennae
of ants. Nature has given me the instinct for interpreting human intonations
of voice, human facial expressions and human gesticulations. But not for
interpreting those of ants. Insects are taxonomically distant from mammals.
If I reach the stupid conclusion that it is impossible for ants to talk, or
even to think, that only humans can do those things, then I have fallen into
the absurd anthropocentrism where certain monotheistic religions have fallen.
Ant-hills with thousands of ants, or even millions of them. Organisation of
work, construction of complex structures, social hyerarchy, distribution of
food or other resources, defence against enemies, preparation for situations
of rain or draught, of cold or heat, of plenty or scarcity, or of many other
possible eventualities. Can they perform all those feats without coordination
by means of some form of language ? Or without any form of thinking ?
Then a fat priest of one of those monotheistic religions comes to me and says
with his big belly, beatific smile, his fat finger pointing to the blue sky:
-'It is the work of the "Creator". Those little creatures are mindless. They
only move by instinct. They exist only for the purpose of showing to humanity
the omnipotence of the already said "Creator" of the Universe'.
Such is the tenure of the ridiculous replies to which I alluded, when I said
that children often obtain insatisfactory answers from adults. According to
those religions, the ants have not a language and do not even think. I am not
exaggerating, it is really the notion that those monotheists believe. I was
a child when I read "The Young Observer", book written by Archbishop Thiamer
Toth, of Hungary, before the Second World War. Interesting and well written,
the book offered an example after another of how every representative of the
Zoological Kingdom, except humans, were mindless machines acting only by their
"instinct". Humans, he said, possess a "rational soul". It did not occur to
him that humans are as influenced by their instinct as the other animals are
by theirs, and that the other species may also possess their "rational soul".
To have an idea of the heavy influence of absurd religions, even on otherwise
intelligent men, let us give the example of one of the greatest philosophers
and mathematicians that have existed: Rene Descartes. In his book "Discourse
sur la Methode" he deals with the Mystery of Existence. In his famous sentence
"Cogito, ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am), he correctly concludes that at
least his mind must have some form of existence, because he thinks. Then he
questions the existence of the world. "Is it only my illusion, or I really
have a physical body moving in a physical world ?", asks Monsieur Descartes.
After a long discussion on the notions of "Res Cogitans" (Thinking Substance)
and "Res Extensa" (Physical Substance), he reaches the final conclusion that:
-"I cannot have created to myself out of nothing. A 'Creator' has created me.
That 'Creator' must be a benevolent 'Supreme Being', who will not want to
illude me into believing in the false existence of a world, when there is
none. Therefore the world really exists, because the 'Creator' is benevolent
and will not lie to me... blah, blah, blah... blah, blah, blah...".
It is incredible, how even privileged brains swallow the predominant myths of
their historical times, and reach "conclusions" that even a child would take
as a fairy tale. Needless to say, Monsieur Descartes thought that even his
little dog had no thought. Only humans have. His pet was a "mindless machine".
I have some cats living with me, and I am convinced that they have feelings
and emotions more or less as I have. Love or hatred, joy or sadness, even a
sense of humour, are as part of them as those feelings and emotions are part
of me too. An ant is taxonomically farther from a human than a cat, therefore
I cannot say what feelings or emotions an ant might have. Or what thoughts.
But the fact that THEY FEEL AND THINK, seems to me as unescapable a conclusion
as the myth of the "Creator" seemed to Monsieur Rene Descartes, or to the
Illustrious Archbishop Thiamer Toth.
The above thoughts are almost completely mine, except when I quote other
authors. Those thoughts have been mine since I was a child. Contrary to what
happens to most people, I did not discard them as I grew from child to adult.
I immersed myself deeper into them, exploring their many possibilities.
However, I have not been alone. There have been other thinkers who preceded
me or are contemporary to me, and who put their thoughts in written form,
inmortalised for posterity. Probably still others who had similar thoughts,
but who for one reason or another never left their writings, or if they did,
then those texts disappeared at some point, and we are not aware of their
existence. I pay my tribute to those unknown thinkers.
Bibliography
"The Self Aware Universe", by Amit Goswami. One of the leading physicists in
India, explains a pantheistic view of the Universe and of our own existence.
Distribution and Comments
This essay may be freely quoted or distributed in all or in part by anyone.
The author expects the courtesy of having his name mentioned in quotations,
and also his electronic address in distributions, so as to make possible to
any reader to contact him for the elucidation of doubts.
Readers are invited to send their comments. Intelligent and constructive
comments may become the basis of fruitful collaborations. Electronic post
address at the bottom of the Start page.
Hyper links
Hylozoism, Panpsychism, Pantheism, Solipsism
Pantheism
Panpsychism
Robot or human visitors to CSS Dixieland are recorded in raw access log. This
is a passive register purely for statistical purposes, no cookies are stored
in the client computer.
Go to top of this page
Go to page with index, history, exchange policy, contact CSS Dixieland:
Start
Hosted by Neocities:
https://konqueror.org/
The void of existing as the only thinking entity
in a non-existing Universe
Walkyrie who takes our dead heroes to Walhalla in Asgard.
Wagner Frost Illustration
The Mystery of Existence
Hyper links
OF THE REAL EXISTENCE OF EVERYTHING OR EVERYONE ROUND ME ?
BECAUSE THE FORCE OF GRAVITY MIGHT NOT ALWAYS ACT AS EXPECTED.
The concept of a thinking, self-aware Universe
http://www.pantheism.net/
The concept that all matter possesses some form of thinking
http://www.panpsychism.com/
https://www.neocities.org/