LEVELS OF AWARENESS III


relativistic thought and the problem of relevance




A Study in Thought

sa070



by





Marius Heuff

Chapter 1

Content

What is "the truth"?
A facetious question and a fruitless discussion?
There comes a time, when we like to know more about how and why we believe.
What is a "simple fact"?
The ability to recognise and classify sense impressions.
A "fact" is the conscious acceptance of a succinct, but rather complex interpretation of a specific awareness.
Facts and beliefs; examples.
The ability to name a familiar sense-impression.
The difficulties associated with labeling motivations.

If I would ask you the question "what is truth?", you would probably laugh at me, and say, that such a question is a worn-out platitude. Indeed it is, and, such a question will rarely provoke a serious answer, because it has been used, too often, in a facetious manner; to cut through someone's train of thought in a crude and tactless attempt to disarm a good argument. If the question is used this way, it deserves scorn, because it is then nothing more than a rather helpless, defensive posture, when the debater is not able to refute an argument in a more direct and meaningful manner.

However, the question may not have to be raised in such a defensive or facetious manner, and, it may reflect a genuine sense of wonderment at the apparent certainty of the truth, which, nevertheless, crumbles so quickly under tenacious and honest scrutiny. Even so, the question may provoke a weary response from the other members of society, if the innocent, budding philosopher expresses a sudden awareness of the fact, that the truth is not as certain and as unquestionable as he thought.

Why would the response be weary from the more experienced and older members in society? Probably, because we all have experienced, how, even a well-meant discussion amongst friends, who were genuinely interested in shedding some light upon the nature of a truth, led, nevertheless, to a vague, aimless and wandering discussion, which did not seem to bear any fruits. No wonder, most people learn to refrain from taking this question seriously, as they rely, increasingly, upon their intuition and common-sense, when deciding, what to believe or not to believe. If the questioner persists and wants to know what truth is, and, how he can be certain about the facts and opinions we unquestionably believe to be true, a slightly irritated answer will refer the questioner to the many channels of authority, where a fairly clear but dogmatic picture of the accepted religious and social reality perceptions can be obtained.

In view of all these difficulties, and, in view of the fact, that this question may deter people from reading further, is it justified to ask, once again; "what is truth"? I think, that there is a good justification for asking such a question, because there comes a time in nearly everyone's development, where we have obtained sufficient skills to unmask a rather crude and unsophisticated attempt to deny an apparently logical conclusion or consequence, and, we reach, then, a stage in our mental capabilities, where a referral to the officially accepted sources of authority will evoke a quick and accurate rebuttal, exposing, in a few sentences, the reasons, why such a simplistic and thoughtless reliance upon "the authorities" is not considered to be satisfactory, any longer.

There comes a time, at least, for many of us, when we are really interested in, and, even, fascinated by, a clear and logical exposition of all the factors leading to the formulation of a structure of beliefs. There comes a time, that we like to know, why something is "true"; why it is a fact or an unquestionable reality, etc. For these people, as well as for myself, I will try to review the factors involved, when coming to a judgement of truth. Let us see, whether or not it is possible to come to a clear understanding about the origin and role of belief structures, as well as the reasons, why we rely upon these structures of belief. Perhaps, we will be able to make the question "what is truth", once more, an exciting adventure in thought, as well as an illuminating excercise in building-up a concise mental imagery. Perhaps, we will learn, once again, not to laugh sarcastically or in ignorance at this question, but, to respect the powers of thought and the importance of having articulate ideas and a choherent point of view.

Perhaps, we should start by analysing and discussing a "simple fact"; a statement we usually do not argue or think about; something, we accept without questions in the routine existence of our daily lives; something, that is a truth upon which we rely without any hesitations. Indeed, a fact implies a certainty, which we can state verbally and describe in conceptual images, but, we should mention, briefly, "the fact", that we live in a sea of apparent certainties, and, this sea of certainties is far larger than the certainties we are consciously aware of. There is a sea of sense impressions, and their routine, largely subconscious recognition and interpretation allows us to move quickly and confidently in familiar surroundings.

Without the ability to recognise or classify our sense impressions quickly and surely, we could not even make a move, because, any movement of our body depends upon the monitoring of a large number of sense impressions, such as those of sight, touch and equilibrium, as well as those, which indicate the state of tension or contraction of our muscles and the position of our limbs. Without recognising daily objects as familiar, we would, literally, "go crazy", because we would be completely paralysed and wracked by an extreme anxiety, since nothing is familiar anymore. We know, how certain mental disease processes, as well as drug-induced hallucinations and perceptual alterations are capable of inducing a crippling paralysis of the normal mechanisms of recognition. When these mechanisms of recognition are disturbed, a reliance upon the truthfulness of these sense impressions, together with their classifications and judgements, becomes impossible.

However, under a "fact" we understand the conscious acceptance of a verbalisable awareness. This verbalisable awareness may assume some of the characteristics of a "belief structure", if it is a rather complex item of awareness. Usually, we mean by the words "belief structure" a large series of "facts" and observations that have been woven into a fabric of coherent inter-relationships, while a "fact" is a "simpler statement" that stands on its own. As a rule, a fact is not the result of a series of deductions and conclusions, or, the final outcome of a larger series of "smaller" or less clearly verbalised facts. We may, perhaps, agree amongst ourselves, that the distinction between a belief structure and a fact can become somewhat blurred, and, indeed, we see, that, in actual practice, no clear-cut distinction exists. Therefore, I feel that it is justified to classify "a fact" under the general category of a "belief", with the qualification, that, a fact is, as a rule, a more rationally accepted structure of beliefs.

Let us look, now, at the various groups of facts we can recognise. Often, the definition or the statement of a fact is nothing more than the labeling of an item or a phenomenon, and, it falls, therefore, under the category of "conscious classification". If I look around me and say; "this is my pen, or, this is my book, or, there is a chair", then, I state three simple "facts", but, these facts are nothing more than an identification. I label the objects of my sense impressions, and these sense impressions have to be shared by the person to whom I am communicating these facts; by identifying their class or category. I indicate an object and say; "a pen, a book, or a chair", and, this labeling is, then, acknowledged and accepted as "a certainty", which does not need any further elaboration or discussion. If I say; this is "my pen", I am stating actually two facts; I label an object as a pen, and, I indicate that this object belongs to me. As a rule, the "definition of ownership" is much more controversial "fact" than the fact of identification, and the fact of ownership is, therefore, more likely to be disputed.

The point we want to make, here, is the fact, that, "facts" are often, perhaps, in a majority of cases, merely a labeling or recognition of familiar sense impressions. In this category, the fact is rarely controversial, and, it is certainly is not "explanatory" in nature. Other identifications, such as "ownership", the intended use of an object, or the projected results of an event, are far less certain. If we try to "label" or identify the motivations of someone's actions, we arrive at "opinions", rather than "facts". We usually agree with a motivation that has been attributed to us, if this motivation is considered to be honourable or favourable, but, we will strenuously object, if the motivation implies or expresses some sort of criticism. Therefore, if someone interprets my actions, I will easily dispute any motivation which can be considered a criticism, while it is possible that, indeed, my motivations could be interpreted this way.

However, it is often very difficult to prove, that I acted in the manner indicated by the label of a certain motivation. For example, it may be difficult, or, nearly impossible, to prove, that I was afraid, or, that I wanted to take a somewhat unfair advantage. While I would recognise such behaviour clearly, and with a great degree of certainty, in someone else, I will immediately and automatically protest, if these same motivations are attributed to me.

.......

Chapter 2

Content

A fact depends upon agreement.
Weaving a number of facts, or data, into a comprehensible unit.
Rotating celestial bodies.
Complex scientific images are accepted on the basis of authority.
An emphasis on the aspect of verifiability.
It is fairly easy to argue about the facts of commonly shared experiences, as long as there is no conflict of interests between the parties.
A curious linkage between facts and emotions.
The facts of absolute beliefs, and an inevitable slide into conflict.
We all want to get rid of a thorn in our side.
A willingness to accept facts has a tendency to bolster our sense of confidence.
The essence of "propaganda".

When is a fact then a fact? Does it depend upon the degree of agreement the statement receives from other people in the social environment? We have argued before, that this is indeed the case, and, we know, that a fact is not a fact, if the belief in the validity of a statement is not shared by others. I may state my unshakable belief in something I consider to be a fact, but, if this fact or belief is not widely shared by the people around me, it will not be considered a fact, regardless, how hard I try to convince other people of the validity of "this fact".

For example, if I state the fact, that I saw a creature from "outer space" or, rather, from another planet, I will come-up against a great deal of skepticism, and, I will have to provide extensive evidence, as well as a laborious proof of the truthfulness and reliability of my observations. If I fail to do so, my statement will easily be classified as a dream, a hallucination, a fantasy, a fraud, or some other form of deception. However, if I make my statement to an audience that believes in the existence of space creatures, and, if this audience believes, that these creatures visit us on earth, at least, once in a while, I will not have the slightest difficulty getting my observations accepted, provided, that people have a good reason to believe that I am telling the truth, and, that I really saw such a creature. I should be able to give details and further observations, which weave the whole story into a comprehensible and, for them, believable experience.

We know, that we observe the environment and interpret our sense impressions, indeed, according to our beliefs, and, if we believe in the existence of creatures from another planet, or, in the existence of ghosts, we will not find it difficult to interpret certain awarenesses and sense impressions in a way that confirms the truthfulness of our beliefs. If we believe in ghosts, it will be inevitable, that, some of our sense impressions are, eventually, interpreted in such a way, that they confirm the existence of ghosts.

People have seen, for thousands of generations, that the sun, the moon and the stars come-up in the East and move across the sky, to go under, or disappear, below the horizon, in the West. This is a fact we all experience to be true, and, none of us experience "the fact", that the rotation of all these celestial bodies around the earth is only apparent, and is, in reality, caused by the rotation of the earth; the platform of our observations.

Is it, therefore, illogical, that man's first interpretations of "the reality" were based on these unquestionable and verifiable sense impressions; such as the fact, that the celestial bodies move and not the earth? Is it, then, illogical, that all these thousands of wondering generations of man have looked for, or thought about, the source of energy, or the cause of these movements of celestial bodies across the sky? Only much more recently, when our observations became quite sophisticated and comprehensive, only, then, became it obvious, that the motions of the sun, the moon, the stars, and the "wandering stars" or planets, could be explained in a much more "elegant" manner, based on the laws of gravitational attraction.

The "fact", that the earth is round and turns around its own axis, is now so well establisehd in the minds of most educated people, that we tend to accept this statement as an unquestionable fact, but, we forget, that most of us would be hard-pressed to "prove" this fact, and, most of us do not realise, that we have accepted this "fact" as a belief structure that has been taught at school. We have accepted this belief without much questioning, and, we have forgotten, by and large, the reasons, why people, in previous generations, came to the conclusion, or "fact", that the earth is round, and not flat, and, that the earth turns around its axis, giving rise to the apparent encircling of the earth by all the celestial bodies in the sky.

As a matter of fact, most images of the sciences have become so complicated that we accept them as facts on the basis of the authority of our teachers, and, therefore, these images are, really, not all that different from the religious reality perceptions, where the structure of the spheres of existence that lie "beyond" the realm of the observable world (meta-physics), are also taught on the basis of authority and tradition.

Most of the facts of science have come to lie beyond the grasp of an easily verified reality, and, therefore, the facts of science assume a "religious quality" for most lay-people, and, it has been an error in judgement by those in charge of education to let the essential verifiability of scientific observations and conclusions become obscured by the complexity of the scientific imagery. The inevitable vagueness and divergence of interpretations that arise, as soon as the scientific fields reach into the frontier areas bordering on the speculative and the unknown, have contributed to the difficulties of grasping the essential verifiability of the sciences.

I feel, that the ordinary people in society have been short-changed, when the sciences became taught by the force of authority, rather than the more laborious and difficult process of personal observation and experiment. Certainly, there is a movement afoot to re-introduce an element of direct observation and experiment into the class-rooms, and, it will remain necessary, for a long time to come, to emphasise the essential verifiability of all scientific observations and interpretations.

Let us go back to a more general discussion about facts, and, let us examine what makes a fact, indeed, a fact. We have discussed one important aspect. This is "the fact", that a fact can only be considered a fact, if it is accepted as a truth by a large part of the community in which this fact exists as a valid and undisputed concept. We have also indicated, briefly, that it is fairly easy to agree amongst ourselves about the validity of a familiar sense impression, as long as it does not involve our own motivations, emotions, goals or behavioural interpretations. The reason is quite obvious. We all function in the same manner in relation to familiar objects and surroundings. We all move around obstacles, and, we all have to gauge distances the same way and use our daily objects or utensils in a similar manner. We even try to streamline our contacts with other people by a system of mores and guidelines, and, therefore, it is much easier to agree about these conventions as "facts", than it is to agree about motivations or goals, in particular, when motivations and goals show, so quickly, our competitive nature, as well as the existence of a large number of conflicts of interest.

Perhaps, it strikes you as odd, that the definition of a fact should become entangled with the mechanisms of existential anxiety or conflicts of interest, but, we are all are familiar with the fact, that, two parties, who are at odds with each other, will have a different perception of the events that led to the conflict-situation. Both parties will cite a remarkably different series of "facts". As an outsider, it is not difficult to note, that both sides argue the interpretation of a series of events in such a way, that it justifies their belligerent response and their particular judgement of the situation. The "facts" show, then, that their particular interpretation is "absolutly right", while the point of view of their opponents is, of course, "absolutely wrong".

As soon as we, as observers, are drawn into a conflict-situation ourselves, we do the same. We can not avoid the conclusion, that our adversaries are wrong, or "evil" in their intentions; that they have broken treaties and promises; that they are trying to take an unfair advantage, and, that our actions are purely in defense of our interests and our allies.

It amazes me, how, time and again, the leaders on each side of a situation of conflict are, not only, able to believe their own propaganda, but, they seem to believe, in all sincerity, that "they had no choice", but unleash the ravages of warfare. Time and again, leaders tell their people, that they had no choice, but to go to war; that they have done everything in their powers to reach a peaceful solution; that they have bent-over backwards to understand their adversaries and accomodate their interests. Time and again, we are told, how necessary it was to take this step or that; how unavoidable it was to send troops, here or there, to attack this or that target as a matter of "self defense". Time and again, leaders begin to believe their own biased perceptions, and, they shed tears as they send their citizens onto the battle-fields.

Let us not only blame our leaders, however, but, let us look at ourselves as well, because, most people do not hesitate to go to war, as long as they think that it is possible to defeat their enemies in a first, surprising blow. Most people are quite willing to let themselves be swept-up by the winds of war and the emotions of belligerence, because, we all want to get rid of a thorn in our side, or a challenge to our comforts, security or supremacy. Most of us really want war, or, at least, we want the decisive solution of a quick victory, and, only, after we are faced with the dead and wounded, the suffering and the senseless destruction of warfare, only, then, do we ask ourselves, whether or not all this carnage was really necessary.

In short, we like to interpret the facts and events of our individual, as well as our collective existence in such a way, that it makes us feel confident, decisive and justified for whatever drives or impulses we may be subjected to. As long as the facts are conditions of existence and observation, which we all have to deal with in essentially similar ways, we may come to an agreement about a reality along the lines of a rational discussion that has been conducted in an atmosphere of emotional near-neutrality.

However, as soon as we are swept-up in a conflict-situation, our reality perceptions begin to diverge and start to serve, increasingly, as a rationalisation or justification for an act of hostility. Then, our communications are not anymore a reliable and honest effort to present an interpretation in an objective manner, but, communications become part of a war-effort to convince our allies that we are right, and, they become centered around an effort to bolster the courage of our friends, or, it becomes an attempt to intimidate and accuse our adversaries. Then, we are dealing with "propaganda", which serves purely as an instrument to justify a foregone conclusion, but, these activities have nothing to do, anymore, with a fact, or a truth, that is relevant to an outsider.

.......

Chapter 3

Content

Is a fact always a subjective judgement?
A series of arguments about validity.
Is it necessary to distinguish between a reality that is "humanly possible", and, a reality "as it really exists"?
Becoming impatient with interminable arguments.
A cautious plea for the supremacy of the scientific reality perception.
Is knowledge only a "shadow" of the Absolute Reality?
The evolution of scientific insights is a biological phenomenon.

Is "a fact", then, always a rather subjective interpretation or judgement, which has been made, either, in a more or less emotionally neutral manner, whenever there is no siginificant conflict of interest, or, as a propaganda effort, when societies or people in conflict are trying to line-up their allies and supporters for the up-coming fight?

You may want to challenge the statement, that a fact is a simple label or definition of an entity we are consciously aware of. We have discussed, how the environment is filled with awarenesses that can be labeled and recognised. You may want to argue, that the recognition of a "cup" as a cup, or, the recognition of the many familiarities of our existence, does not invalidate the truthfulness of these facts and awarenesses. "We exist in a specific manner", you will argue, "given by the possibilities and limitations of our physical existence, as well as on the basis of the content of concepts and ideas we have assimilated from our social environment. We grant you this, but, since there is no other way we can perceive reality, and, since we all form beliefs and facts upon which we rely, as if they were absolutely true, why should we continue to make such a laborious distinction between a reality that is "humanly possible", and, a reality "as it really exists". As you have argued yourself on many occasions, we can not know a reality "as it exists", independently from human existence, and, why is it, then, important to keep emphasising the fact, that the reality perceptions we do have, are limited, not only, by the overall physiological range of our organism, but, these reality perceptions also vary from one individual to the next, depending upon what we happen to believe to be true?"

"This is all obvious, and, we know, that we have to gather knowledge via sense impressions and their interpretations. We know, that we think in terms of mental images or ideas, and, we know, that we "create" many separate entities as abstractions or qualities, which function as the common denominators of a number of categorised items and events. We know all this, but, why should we, then, not say, that this is the reality "as the human being sees it"? Why should we not be able to delineate a core of sense impressions and interpretations as "facts", which can, then, be shared by all people with a measure of intelligence and education, because they are prepared to make an effort to understand this basic core of knowable knowledge?"

"In the sciences, we have already developed such a core of coherent images, explaining a large number of observations and awarenesses in a logical manner. Why should we not consider these abstractions, insights and beliefs to be "proven reality-images", and, why should we not say, simply, that the sciences represent the reality as we, normal human beings, are destined and designed to perceive? Why do we have to make a distinction between what we can know scientifically, and, the reality as it may or may not exist, apart from the existence of a human observer? It creates an atmosphere of artificiality, if we keep reminding ourselves, that there exists such a distinction between the scientific realities, on the one hand, and, this elusive, unknowable reality "as is". If we say, that the proven scientific reality is "the reality", then, we give ourselves a basis of certainty we all need, and, we avoid a lot of useless and fruitless discussions about things we have already agreed upon".

Such may be your arguments, in particular, when you have been schooled in the sciences, and, you are, obviously, somewhat impatient with the interminable discussions, which philosophically inclined people are prone to engage in. You fail to see the benefits of prolonging a discussion about the reality of the scientific imagery, and, you like to get-on with the task of gathering hard and factual data about the particular field in which you are interested.

I can sympathise with your attitude, and, I agree, that philosophical discussions have a tendency to become interminable. I also agree with you, that the fruits of a philosophical discussion are often so small, so transient, and so difficult to grasp, that it seems a waste of time to indulge in these discussions. Your are right, if you think, that, many, if not most philosophical discussions, including these, are, primarily, the result of the author's fun and desire to indulge in them.

However, let me ask you a few questions. You are inclined to say, that, for all practical purposes, the reality "as we have discovered in the sciences", is the same as the reality "as is"; at least, for us, human beings. First of all, I like to observe, that you have stated the case for the supremacy or absoluteness of the scientific reality, very cautiously, and, your arguments show a great deal of awareness for the fact, that all our knowledge is "mental" or conceptual in nature. You have also stated, very clearly, that you are aware of the fact, that all reality perceptions, truths or concepts of truth, are specifically human. You have acknowledged the fact, that a possible reality, as it exists outside human existence, is essentially unknowable, because any idea we may have about it, is necessarily a human thought or concept.

You may have been asking yourself in this series of questions about the need to emphasise the specifically human aspects of our reality perceptions, whether or not it is justified to come to the conclusion, that the human reality, (as we can perceive it under the best possible circumstances), converges upon, or, is a reliable "shadow" of, the reality "as it exists", independently from our own existence. It seems, indeed, tempting to come to this conclusion. If we are able to grasp reality in such a beautifully coherent structure of logical relationships, as we see in many scientific fields, then, these logical coherences must also exist even more beautifully and perfect in this external "absolute reality", as it is foreseen or, perhaps, "created" by a Superior Intelligence.

Indeed, we will discuss these questions, because they touch upon an important point. We have to ask ourselves, to what extent the creation of abstractions, common denominators or conceptually independently existing entities have a reality in the world of existence around and within us, and, to what extent these abstractions are creations of the mind. To what extent are they mental devices of ordening and classification, where we "create" a far greater, far more complex and more coherent reality than exists in this vast world of randomness and haphazard existence of orbital and radiant forms of energy?

We should also ask ourselves, to what extent the "growth", or, at least, the continuous changes in scientific concepts, reflect a "biological phenomenon". Are they a reflection of the fact, that a biological species, Homo Sapiens, creates the world of his mental imagery in an act of communication and thought? Are these abstractions from our sense impressions totally wthout a parallel in "the world outside", or, is the creation of our reality perceptions an "asymptotic approach" to the eternal wisdom of an absolute reality, where we come closer and closer to this absolute truth, as we learn more and more about nature, the Universe, the living organisation, as well as the insights that govern our own existence and mental capabilities?

This, too, is an important point to discuss in detail, because, both interpretations, those, maintaining that all reality perceptions are purely a product of the human mind, and, those, accepting an ever closer approximation of reality perceptions to an absolute truth, have found large followings, in the past as well as the present. Finally, we will see, that any effort to get past the act of labeling or defining a fact in terms of other words and concepts, requires a truly detailed and philosophically far-reaching discussion about the nature of perceptions and awarenesses, because, only then, will it be possible to discuss, at least, somewhat intelligently, whether or not our concepts and ideas are, in any way, shape or form, a faithful mirror-image of an "absolute truth".

.......

Chapter 4

Content

Facts and "information".
What happens, when strangers meet.
The "credibility rating".
A large number of mainly subconscious judgements.
The problem of "hear-say".
Making a sharp distinction between "first-hand" experience, and secondarily obtained or "learned" information.
When an audience wants to hear, what, it thinks, happened.
Risking "ex-communication".
Making sure a communication is "well received".
Various ways of "doing research".
Synthetic and analytic aspects of scientific work.
The role of philosophy.

In our conversations with each other, we exchange a lot of "facts" or factual information. These facts are collectively called "information". If I meet someone I have never seen before, my first act is to identify myself, while the other person does the same. This process of identification includes, primarily, an exchange of names, but, frequently, the process goes much further, as we tell each other, where we are from, what we are doing, whom we know, what our plans and goals are, etc. We assume, that we tell each other completely factual information, but, since the story of our lives, activities and contacts, as well as our ambitions and plans have frequently somewhat embarrassing features, as well as aspects we are proud of, it is logical, that we emphasise the positive and acceptable features that are non-controversial, or, even, generally admired and envied.

At the same time, we have learned to be somewhat skeptical of the information we get from other people, in particular, if we do not know the individual we are talking to. We are, therefore, subconsciously or intuitively, engaged in a "credibility rating". We try to determine to what extent we may believe the individual we are communicating with. This credibility rating is accomplished in a number of ways. We try, first of all, to "place" this individual; by fitting him or her into a category we are familiar with. This is the reason, why it is important to know, where someone is from; from what kind of a family or social background the individual comes; what he or she does, what schooling or education the person has had, etc., etc.

In addition, we try to gauge this individual's behaviour. Does he or she say things that are "out of line" with the accepted norms, or, does the behaviour indicate a boisterous personality, inclined to rely upon "important connections"? Does he try to impress or disarm us by presenting an unusually humble and ignorant facade? Does he talk sensibly? Does he relate facts, feelings, experiences and thoughts we can identify with? Are the impressions indicative of a "normal", clever and intelligent personality, or, does he give the impression of being somewhat dull, reflecting the common platitudes and prejudices of his particular environment? Is the individual reticent or outright suspicious about us and what we tell him, or, is he smooth and suave, neither giving much more information about himself than is customary, nor indicating any particular curiosity about us, which could reveal his intentions and motivations?

All these judgements take place, primarily, subconsciously and intuitively, but, in retrospect, or, in communicating with our friends about the stranger we met, we can usually verbalise quite well all these evaluative mechanisms, whenever we try to form a clear picture about someone's personality and intentions.

The results of such a credibility evaluation has a significant influence upon what we believe to be true, or, what we accept as factual information from such an encounter. If we meet someone who is considered an authority or a leader, and, if we agree with this judgement, we will be highly impressed by such a meeting. The words spoken tend to be accepted as dogma and are remembered as a valuable experience. Every utterance, becomes, then, "a fact"; something we believe to be true, because so and so said it, and, when communicating these facts, we are quick to mention the source of our information.

In an encounter between equals, especially between members from the same community who know each other well enough to be able to communicate with a degree of openness, we notice, that, statements made by us or the other party are usually taken as a fact, if the statement is based upon a personal observation or experience. If someone tells a story and says; I saw it "with my own eyes", or, I experienced this or that, or, I heard someone say so and so, then, these facts of information tend to be believed without any questions, but, in the last example, we see, already, how easy it is to slide into an indirect form of "information transfer". If we relate what we heard someone say, then, the contents of the story contained in these words, become "hear-say". It does not have anymore the convincing power that is associated with the direct observation or experience by someone, who is considered to be reliable and of sound body and mind. The reduced reliability of hear-say is well recognised, and will be vigorously rejected by the judge of a Court, who has to decide what is true and what is not true.

It would be wise, if we, members of society, would also make a habit of distinguishing, sharply, between what we saw, heard, felt or experienced ourselves, and, what we heard or learned from other people. The propagation of hear-say leads, so quickly, to significant distortions of "the facts", and may, even, lead to unreliable speculations and rumors which no-one wants to be asociated with, but, which are eagerly communicated, nevertheless. Rumors and hear-say, transmitted over a long chain of people, lead to increased hostilities and attitudes of suspicion, if the rumors are negative, but, if these rumors and hear-say stories are positive, we see the emergence of a legend, hero-worship, or, the fueling of hopeful expectations.

When telling a story to an attentive audience, we may, even, get the curious impression, that this audience wants to hear what it thinks or imagined, and, it may not want to hear what actually happened. In particular, if the communication is somewhat emotional, or, rather, if the subject is highly significant for the audience, it has certain ideas about what should have happened, or, how certain characters, such as admired heroes or despised villains, should have behaved. A factual communication that does not conform to the prejudices or expected "facts", becomes difficult to classify and accept, and, these facts will easily be rejected, or, the author of the communication becomes discredited. Therefore, an author who wants to become and remain popular, has to develop a keen sense for what the public wants to hear, and, he better delivers as expected, or, he risks "ex-communication", as well as a severe drop in popularity, and income.

In the field of scientific communications, we are especially sensitive to the scrutinising questions of an intelligent and knowledgeable audience. We want to make sure, therefore, that a communication will be believed and "well accepted". We can do this by taking the following precautions. We clearly describe the purpose or intent of the communication in advance, in order to avoid the impression, that we are going to deliver more than we are. We delineate, carefully, the questions we are addressing, and, by making the field of questions or considerations sufficiently small, it becomes easier to avoid an embarrassing scrutiny. We can then point-out, that a particular question or consideration falls outside our presentation. The technique of making the area of scientific concern more restricted, has also the advantage, that it becomes easier to oversee the number of communications that have taken place in this particular field, and, we become, therefore, easier "an expert", who can handle any particular question with ease.

However, even, the smallest fields of science have to make statements of fact, and, these statements of fact are always based on premises, or other facts, which are, at this particular time, not a subject for discussion or scrutiny. The communication is, usually, based upon the careful observation of an event, such as an experiment, or a number of objects that have been the subject of an effort of classification. Or, the communication may just add a number of details, which had not been described before. In a way, the last method is the easiest way of "doing research", because, as a rule, these details depend, solely, on the application of a special "magnifying" instrument that allows us to record details or data that were not recorded or observed before. Then, we are dealing with a purely analytic or "factual" communication, which has little "discussion value", because the audience can do little else, but take note of the details mentioned. Perhaps, a few questions will arise about the nature of the recording or registering instruments, or, the relevance of the details, but, otherwise, there is not much to "chew on".

At the other end of the spectrum is the communication that makes a bold attempt to place a large number of "facts" or interpretations that are more or less agreed-upon, into a coherent whole. Here, the author of such a communication is extremely vulnerable, because his audience will rarely agree outright with the interpretation given to such a pattern of large-scale correlations. If the author gives a personal twist or interpretation to an aspect, or, to a particular coherence, he must be able to back-up such an interpretation by quoting numerous authorities, who have made supportive statements or observations.

As we have discussed before, these "synthetic" aspects of a field of science are usually carried-out by senior members of the various scientific disciplines, who, during a life of long experience and familiarity, have developed the broad scope of knowledge, and, who have mastered the even broader field of literature and investigating techniques needed to carry-out such a synthesis with a measure of success. Success has to be measured, then, in the degree of appeal and attractiveness, which the synthesised image experiences in the minds of the other members of the profession, including colleagues in neighbouing fields, as well as informed lay-people.

The philosopher goes beyond the scope of clearly delineated scientific disciplines, and, his synthetic efforts have to forego the laborious quotations of other authorities. He has to make use of a more intuitive method of intellectual synthesis, because his views and ideas are not meant to deal with the specific reality of any one particular field of science, but, with the reality of a fact, any fact, as well as the many factors that can, and do, influence the meaning and stature of such a fact.

.......

Chapter 5

Content

A statement of fact is a form of communication.
Using knowledge to assert dominance.
The debate between experts.
The ability to quote precisely.
The art of "dropping names".
Careful scrutiny of a question is a rather unnerving experience.
The problem of unquestioned acceptance.
Living in a "sea of certainties".
Facts we can personally vouch for.
Building-up an unknown image for the audience.
The art of synthesising "the unknown" with known attributes.
The essence of secondarily acquired knowledge, or a synthesised image-transfer.

The statement of fact is, in essence, a form of communication and a tool for our behavioural objectives. Therefore, the purpose of this statement is, often, not only, to "inform", but, also, to stake-out a position of dominance. Just as we can be cooperative or belligerent in our attitudes towards other people, so can we use verbal "behaviour", either, for the purpose to help or inform someone else, or, we can use the powers of communication and knowledge to assert our dominance and intimidate those we are communicating with. Anyone, who has ever looked around himself with an attitude of keen observation, in particular, when the tools of competitive strife were intellectual in nature, will agree, how quickly the tools of communication become weapons in some sort of intellectual warfare. In a serious game of intellectual jockeying for dominance, we test each other's knowledge, and, we see, therefore, that it is, partly, a battle to show, who knows most, and, partly, who is the most believable.

Credibility is boosted in two different ways. The most convincing method is the ability to speak from direct, personal experience, and, if we are able to give an account of our experiences that is precise, to the point and relevant, we will not fail to make an impression upon those, who do not have such personal experiences. If we encounter someone, who also has personal experiences about a particular topic of conversation, the communication centers, quickly, around a few detailed points which are incomprehensible or irrelevant to "outsiders", because outsiders are, primarily, interested in the overall outlines of an experience, story or event.

However, most of the time, none of the discussants or debaters have sufficient experience themselves, and, the battle for credibility shifts, then, quickly, to a recital of facts and opinions we can obtain from listening to, or reading about, someone who has first-hand knowledge or experience. It helps our credibility, if we are able to quote, precisely, what we have heard or read about someone's observations. We quote, then, what so and so has said or written. The mere fact of quoting someone else's name is often sufficient to impress the opponent in a debate to the point, that he or she will concede "defeat", in partiular, if one does not know the individual, who has been quoted, or, what has been said or written. The tacit assumption is, then, that this individual must be an authority, and, that the opponent, who quoted him or her, is quite familiar with the arguments and facts, which the quoted author has stated in support of the position taken by our opponent.

Both assumptions may be incorrect. The author quoted may not be an authority at all, and, even, more frequently, our opponent has only a vague idea, what this particular individual has said. Therfore, the "name-dropper", (the individual who resorts to the tactic of trying to bolster his prestige or credibility by quoting someone else), can often be placed on the defensive by questioning him or her closely, and persistently, about the author, who has been quoted. If one asks for a short but succinct resume of the relevant points made by the quoted author, we discover, frequently, that the knowledge of our opponent about this author is quite sketchy or even non-existent. Therefore, let us not be intimidated by the careless name-dropper, but, let us call his bluff and show-up his or her ignorance, quickly and decisively, by questioning the name-dropper, closely, about the points, arguments or facts, that have been attributed to the quoted individual.

Indeed, facts can be classified into two broad categories. Most convincing, and with the highest credibility, are those facts, events or bits of information, which the communicator can recall from personal experience, and, in addition, there is a very large group of concepts, ideas, notions, judgements and prejudices, which we have accepted as true on the authority of someone else. This last group is, unfortunately, by far the largest category of facts we "know". Occasionally, we know, exactly, from where we got the notion, idea or information, and, if we encounter a degree of skepticism in the listener, we can absolve ourselves from the responsibility to guarantee its truth by the simple referral; "according to so and so....".

Most of our notions, customs, judgements, beliefs and habits are taken-over from the cultural environment, and, we have accepted them without much thought about the reasons, why they have been accepted. We do not question, whether or not they represent a truth, a condition of justice, or an adequate and acceptable opinion or attitude. The reason, why we never learned to question these attitudes, concepts and notions, is due to the simple "fact", that these largely subconscious or intuitive truths were transmitted to us as self-evident, unquestioned and unquestionable truths. We never encountered someone, who questioned them, and, frequently, the sanctity of their truthfulness was so strong, that any scrutiny, or questions about their validity, would be considered a sacrilege, or, at least, it would viewed with a great deal of suspicion and disapproval by the social environment.

These two categories are not sharply divided, of course, since we tend to interpret our personal experiences in the light of the belief structures we have accepted from our social environment. Besides, most of us become sufficiently differentiated during the course of our existence in society, to be able to give some sort of personal twist or interpretation to the many commonly accepted beliefs and notions. There is, therefore, a cross-fertilisation between these two categories, but, I feel that it is valid, and useful, to keep in mind such a broad classification of all these experiences and notions we like to state as an undeniable fact or truth.

Let us remind ourselves, that we emphasise in the concept of a fact, those ideas, concepts, beliefs or experiences, which we can verbalise fairly precisely, but, in addition, we live in an even much larger "sea of certainties" upon which we rely every moment of our existence, because, without such certainties, we would not be able to come to any reasonable or adequate behavioural response.

If we look at the "facts" we can personally vouch for, we see, how closely the statement of a fact is related to the mechanisms of our sense impressions. If we look at the category of facts that have been accepted on the authority of someone else, or the society at large, we see, that this "second hand" information, (or, the transferred conceptual structure of what is believed to be a fact or a truth), still depends on the fact, that someone has been able to sense or experience it. However, this category of facts has, then, become so convincing, that, other people believe the stated facts to be unquestionably true. We come to the conclusion, once again, that we can not analyse the nature of a factual statement or a believed-in truth any further, unless we begin to review, briefly, the essential mechanisms of human perception, as well as the ability to form symbolic representations and concepts, together with the ability to transfer these concepts and ideas secondarily to the conceptual grasp of someone else.

If I say to someone; "I saw a dog", the other person will immediately see a dog in his mind, in spite of the fact, that, this dog may not be the same dog as I saw. However, my experience is so common, that, someone else in my community has no difficulties recognising what I saw. However, if I come back from a long journey to a strange and far-away land, many of my experiences can not be recognised by the members of my community, because they never saw anything like it. Therefore, the "unknown" for the audience has to be carefully synthesised by the author of a communication, by describing, in detail, every unknown item or experience in qualities that are known.

The author has to describe "what it was like". In doing so, the "unknown" is translated, with the help of abstract qualities and known attributes, into a mental imagery that can be grasped by the audience. Each detail and description forms part of this particular cultural vocabulary, and, it depends on the skill of the author, who is "re-telling" his story and describing the experiences of himself and others, whether or not the audience gets a glimpse of the exciting realities the author has seen. However, the audience can only get a synthesised mental image. It is an image that has been synthesised from known qualities and attributes. This, in a nutshell, is the essence of a secondary or synthesised image-transfer, where the audience lacks the primary experience-base or memory-traces of the experiences or facts that are being communicated.

.......

Chapter 6

Content

A short summary of what has been discussed.
The important ability to provide "supporting evidence".
A structure of coherent relationships may be powerfully persuasive.
Making the audience "see" reality as the author sees it.
Limitations of the technique of deductive reasoning.
The special status of mathematical concepts and symbols.
The need for a check against reality.
"Explaining" the mechanisms of perception with the help of its own findings.
We are not trying to formulate an absolute truth, just a useful imagery.
The purpose of understanding ourselves is to create a broader base for mutual agreements.
Will the relativistic imagery be relevant for a long time to come?
The problem of trying to remain valid, even, if many details still have to come to light.
We all have to develop some dexterity in the art of acquiring insight.

We have seen, then, that a statement of fact can be grasped as a series of words, arranged in a meaningful sequence or sentence, expressing a conceptual certainty. We have also discussed, that the total number of certainties we "live with", is much greater than we can verbalise, because many of them are subconscious, intuitive or barely verbalisable; at least, they can not be grasped in a clear, concise sentence, which we can confidently present as a fact to our audience. We have seen, that we can classify facts as statements that depend on personal experience, or the transfer of information from an authority.

We are often engaged in a battle of wits about the credibility of a statement, and, we can enhance the credibility of our statements in various ways. The most convincing way is to talk from personal experience, but, the sphere of personal knowledge or experience of each one of us is quite small, compared to the wider range of topics we may be concerned with. The next best way to enhance the credibility of a statement is to quote somone else, and, to recall, precisely, what this person said. Often, we are only able to recall what sort of book or article we read, where we encountered something that was relevant to a particular topic of discussion. Often, we are unable to recall, in any detail, what we read or heard, where we read or heard it, or, whom we heard it from.

Yet another way to bolster a statement is the ability to point to a large series of other "facts", observations and opinions, which act as "supportive evidence" for our statement. This is, actually, a very natural way to argue the validity of a statement or a belief, in particular, when we are somewhat surprised to see, that a statement is encountering skepticism or disbelief. By the ability to advance supporting arguments in favour of a particular statement, we are "illuminating", so to speak, the other features of the overall perception, or the coherent perspective in which this statement of fact, fits. Through a process of association and logical thinking, we may be able to recall many of the other features, facts and characteristics, which make it so self-evident, and plausible, that the facts of our statement represent a reliable truth, and, we are showing, then, to our opponent in a debate, the reasons, why we think that a particular fact fits-in well with the rest of our concepts and ideas.

The technique of supporting a particular statement with many other observations or facts forming, together, a powerfully persuasive structure of coherent relationships, is one of the best ways to conduct a debate, or, to elaborate a series of "points" or arguments, but, we should be careful not to abuse this ability to show supportive or circumstantial evidence as a means to intimidate our opponent. We should try to make a particular point of view clear, or clearer, by such a recital of supportive arguments, and, we should only consider ourselves successful, if the audience, or the individual with whom we are discussing a particular topic, is able to "see" the reality in essentially the same manner. The members of the audience are then able to supply from their own framework of conceptual relationships, additional supporting arguments or observations.

As long as we consider our conceptual images or beliefs to represent absolute truths, we have an extra-ordinary degree of faith in arguments that follow a certain structure of logical deductions and conclusions. The technique of deducting and concluding, logically, a large series of results or events, is really only successful in the field of mathematics, where, by conceptual agreement, we have set-up such tight definitions and rules for the relationships between mathematical symbols, that, indeed, we can rely, to a great extent, on the certainty or validity of a series of logical conclusions and deductions. Nowhere else in the sphere of our mental manipulations, do we see such a strict meaning of conceptual symbols, or, such a precise relationship between them.

The method of arguing logically and deductively about the reality or truthfulness of a fact or a series of facts, should be approached with a measure of caution, because the technique of strict, logical reasoning leads us astray very quickly, and, we need a constant "check against reality", in order to keep our thoughts and conclusions on a realistic and representative track. After all, the facts and statements of the reality we believe in, are, indeed, based upon experiences; the experiences of someone else, or, the collective experiences of previous generations, which have found general acceptance as the cultural currency of our social environment. We come back, time and again, upon the fact, that "a fact" is based upon, or related to, an experience, and, we should, therefore, look into the world of experience and explore some of the mental imagery that has been developed by the sciences in recent years.

Perhaps, you want to argue a point, here. You may object to the fact, that we are going to use a set of images, which we have developed as a result of the collective experiences of several generations of scientific observers, to "explain" the mechanisms of perception and observation in general. It is like asking a computer to collect data about its observations, especially, about itself and other computers, and, then using these data to "explain", how this computer functions. Is it valid to use the products or results of a tool to explain the functions, or "essence", of this tool?

Certainly, if we would be trying to fathom an absolute truth or an ultimate explanation, such a circuitous argument or technique of trying to gain insight, would not be very convincing, but, we remind ourselves, that we are only trying to trace a somewhat coherent imagery of the way we, human beings, inter-act with our environment; how we arrive at behavioural choices and decisions, and, how we have to interpret the phenomenon of "conscious awareness".

We have discussed in the first essay what conscious awareness means, how it came about, and what its functions are. We are already able to see, in a broad perspective, the role and meaning of a "belief structure". Rather than behaving according to what we believe to be true, we can now reflect, for a moment, and see, how, and why, we behave according to what we believe to be true. We can formulate the abstract concept of a structure of beliefs, which can then become an object of study and observation.

Certainly, it is far easier to see the importance and role of beliefs when observing other people, but, eventually, we should have the ability to examine "objectively", and, emotionally as neutral as possible, those structures which happen to be our beliefs; the facts we believe; this essential framework of concepts and beliefs, which determines the nature, extent and content of the sphere of our particular world of reality perceptions.

This is the purpose of analysing ourselves; of analysing our behaviour, concepts, beliefs and ideas with the help of the images which the sciences have given us. Certainly, we have to scrape together these images from many different fields, and, the way I have scraped them together may be regarded as a highly personal point of view by many readers. However, I hope, that, in essence, the imagery used by me will be considered correct, and, I hope that this imagery will remain relevant for a long time to come.

As you know, I am not writing for today; I am not trying to recall or re-tell the story of scientific discovery and concept formation. I am not interested in all sorts of details we could see, when focussing our scientific mind upon one particular aspect or another. I am interested in tracing the broad outlines and essential features of the way we function, and, it is my sincere hope, that this imagery will, not only, be considered essentially correct by a majority of my readers, but, that it will remain a valid framework of concepts for some time to come, in spite of the fact, that many details and insights will come to light, which I am not and could not be familiar with.

This summary sketch about the essential features and mechanisms of perception and conscious awareness, is, therefore, largely a collection of intuitive statements, which are, hopefully, recognised as valid by those, who have familiarised themselves, to some extent, with the scientific imagery that is available. It is not reasonable to expect, that it is possible to follow these dicussions without a working knowledge of the scientific imagery of the relevant fields of concern. Neither is it reasonable to expect a member of society to function adequately, if one has not been given, or made use of, the opportunity to acquire, at least, an elementary education in the cultual currency of one`s social environment.

.......

Chapter 7

Content

A review of the human being as a living organism.
Behavioural fine-tuning and memory-recall.
Capturing an evolutionary over-view in a few sentences.
A maintenance-flow of energy, and the phenomena of entropy.
Mechanisms of natural selection.
No trace has been left in the atmosphere of the countless severe storms that took place in the past.
The concepts of natural evolution represent an attempt to bring numerous observations into a coherent context.
The three instinctive poles of animal behaviour.
Sophisticated capabilities of the modern computer.
General and special sensory capabilities.
A discussion of the overall, philosophical importance of the function and purpose of sense-organs.

When trying to explain the nature of our perceptions, we have to keep in mind, that we are a living organism, and, we are a member of one of the many species' that evolved from this primordial source of life; the world of pre-cellular or biochemical evolution. The organisation of life found a possibility to exist on our planet because of a fortuitous set of physical circumstances.

We are a living organism, and, we share most of the physiological and instinctive mechanisms that govern the lives of other species'. In addition, we are heir to a remarkable experiment of natural selection with "behavioural flexibility", where the behavioural instructions of an individual member are only given "in outline" by the genetic code. Such a member "finely tunes" its behaviour according to the specific local circumstances that happen to exist.

This capability of behavioural fine-tuning requires an extensive development of sense-organs, as well as an elaborate central nervous system, in order to store a large number of sense impressions in a reservoir of memories. These memories are used to classify incoming sense impressions. Individual behaviour becomes, therefore, a composite of the genetic outline, including more precisely outlined instinctive behaviour-patterns, the content of past experiences, as well as the examples of parental behaviour or the members of the social environment.

So far as we know, the human being is the only surviving species of a trend that evolved many millions of years ago, when anthropoids, or human-like species', began to experiment with the ability to recall memory-traces voluntarily. This recall was made possible with the help of gesticulations and vocalisations, which, probably, took the form of elaborate, dance-like pantomimes.

Here, in a few sentences, we have an evolutionary over-view of our position in the spectrum of living existence, and, we will discuss the ability to perceive stimuli from the environment, as well as from the body itself, in more detail. We are a living organism, and, this means, that we act or inter-act in response to our environment. After all, we have to be able to secure a minimum level of energy in order to keep our cells happy and our body intact.

On previous occasions, we have sketched, why a cell is characterised by the requirement to obtain or "consume", constantly, at least, some energy, and, we have seen, how the internal mechanisms of the cell, as well as the many complex inter-relationships between large cell-groups in a multi-cellular body, would irrevocably fall-apart and decay into an irreversible state of "death", as soon as the organism fails to secure such a maintenance-flow of energy. However, even, if we are successful and avoid serious damage to our existence by securing a minimum supply of energy all through life, we are still vulnerable to diseases, accidents, predation by other life-forms, as well as the irrevocable changes of "old-age".

The inevitable deterioration that comes with "old-age" is responsible for the fact, that each and every living system, be it a single cell or a complex multi-cellular organism, will, eventually, die or dissolve, and make room for the younger generations. As a corollary, each member, or, at least, a sufficient number of the adult population in each generation have to reproduce, in order to replace themselves and compensate for the inevitable event of death.

Every living organism faces a large number of dangers and adverse conditions during its life-time. The concepts of natural selection envisage, how a selective survival of only a small segment of a generation allows the mechanisms of natural selection to bring into prominence those features or genetic instructions, which enhance the viability of a species or a population of a species, while genetic traits that are indifferent or a handicap, will be quickly weeded-out, or, at least, fade from prominence.

These principles allow us to visualise in a conceptually coherent manner, how the large multitude of divergent species' came into being. We have sufficient data to trace, confidently, the overall outlines of natural evolution, but, in many instances, we lack sufficient data to link one species with another. Therefore, we can not expect the sciences to trace a complete picture of natural evolution for us. While we have no idea, of course, how much more evidence the sciences will be able to discover in support of specific incidences of evolutionary change, we are fairly sure, that, a large portion of this natural experiment with protoplasmic evolution has been lost forever to our scrutiny, because it has left no trace.

Just as we have no traces left in the atmosphere of the many millions of severe tropical and winter storms that have occurred over the ages, so are many forms of existence in the realm of the living organisation gone forever, without leaving a trace of their existence. However, sufficient traces have been left to formulate, confidently, the overall concepts and ideas of natural evolution. Perhaps, we should state this somewhat differently, and emphasise, that the concepts of natural evolution were an inevitable result of our attempts to bring all these traces, which have been uncovered over a long period of time, into a coherent conceptual framework.

Adverse conditions and fluctuating circumstances, sometimes favouring a particular form of living existence, and, sometimes hampering it, have also been at the root of the development of the division between animal and plant life. The ability to seek and maintain favourable circumstances and avoid or resist adverse conditions, were the main reasons for the development of "mobility", and, we know, that this evolutionary step of mobility was so successful, that all animal life could afford the luxury to forego the cumbersome processes of photo-synthesis. All animal life-forms became, thereby, "obligatory predators"; destroyers of other life-forms, in order to satisfy their own energy needs. These needs are fulfilled by destroying or eating plant-life, animal-life, or both.

The existence of adverse and beneficial circumstances, together with the ability to move, explain the basic ouline of all animal behaviour. Indeed, all animal life-forms, except for a few secondary adaptations towards a non-mobile form of existence, have developed the ability to move, and, they can, indeed, move towards a beneficial stimulus in order to prolong contact with such a beneficial environment, or, they can turn-away from a harmful or threatening stimulus or environment. We see, therefore, three main poles of behaviour arise in the animal organism; the aggressive pole, or the movement towards a beneficial or potentially beneficial circumstance; the defensive pole, avoiding or resisting a harmful stimulus and moving away from a potentially dangerous situation. Last but not least, there is the sexual pole, where the behaviour of the organism becomes centered around the existential requirements of the species as a whole.

In our discussions about the human personality, we have seen, how we can classify the phenomena of human behaviour around the same three poles, but, we have also noted, that human behaviour becomes much more complex, because it is heir to the development of behavioural flexibility. In addition, it is the only species we know of, which has developed the behavioural tools of conscious awareness and structures of belief for the guidance and synthesis of an overall behavioural response.

In order to make this type of complex behaviour possible, the members of the human species must have extensive sensory capabilities to monitor everything that is relevant in their external as well as "internal" environment, and, in addition, human beings must have sophisticated, computer-like capabilities, in order to synthesise a behavioural response that takes into account, not only, the circumstances or situation of the moment, but also, the experiences of the past, as well as the anticipations for the future.

These capabilities include the following; the ability to sense environmental conditions over most of the body; e.g. the size, temperature, texture and degree of firmness of the objects an organism comes in contact with. In addition, the body monitors, carefully, the state of its muscles, tendons and joints in order to synthesise, via the cerebral computer, an appropriate motoric resonse to the stimuli that are coming from the environment. A large number of monitoring functions go-on about the integration and function of our internal organs, but since these functions by-pass our awarenesses almost completely, we will not discuss them, here, any further.

We can divide the sensory capabilities into two categories; general sensory functions that take place over a large part of the body, and, special or specialised sensory functions, localised in special sense-organs, such as vision, hearing, equilibrium and the sense of smell. All these special and general senses deserve a more detailed discussion, but, once again, we will not try to compete with biological, anatomic or physiological texts, which have to be consulted, if the reader does not have a basic knowledge of the functions of these sense-organs. We will only discuss the sensory capabilities and special sense-organs in a generalised and philosophical manner, highlighting the essential purpose of these capabilities, while trying to make it clear, why they developed the way they did.

.......

Chapter 8

Content

Discriminatory mechanisms in the single cell.
Chemical substances that inhibit or facilitate metabolic processes.
Increasing or decreasing the fluidity of the protoplasmic "gel".
Changing the degree of protoplasmic viscosity, and the formation of "pseudo-podia".
The development of "propulsive oars" and other specialised cellular structures.
Specialisations of cell-groups in the multi-cellular organism.
An increasing sophistication of the living organisation.
A variety of nerve-endings.
Chemical communications that bridge the gap between nerve-cells.
The "pain pathways" of the central nervous system.
The development of pressure-sensitive cells.
Light-sensitive cells, and the grouping-together of a large number of such cells in the formation of the "eye"; the ability to capture an image of the surrounding realities.

If we look, again, at the single, free-floating cell, which has already developed a tendency to "explore" the possibilities of motion, we see, that it makes only sense to develop the ability to move, if there is some sort of a discriminatory mechanism that distinguishes between a beneficial and a harmful stimulus. Yet, in the single cell, we can not find any sort of "sense organ", because we are not dealing with a group of specialised cells or functions. Exactly, how we have to visualise the ability of the cell to make such a distinction, is not clear, but, we have good reasons to believe, that chemical substances that can be used, will be allowed to diffuse into the cell. Perhaps, they are, even, actively absorbed or transported across the cellular membrane.

These substances will then facilitate the biochemical processes of the cell in the neighbourhood of the segment of the cell-membrane, which is letting through such "facilitating" compounds. These useful compounds may activate a variety of chemical functions. They may, primarily, function as a source of food or energy for the metabolic functions of the cell, or, they may be a "respiratory agent", facilitating the "burning", or oxidation, of foods, as well as the liberation of energy. Or, they may act as an essential ingredient in a metabolic chain-reaction, or, the compounds may be used to repair or build-up a part of the structural organisation of the cell, etc., etc.

In any event, it seems justified to visualise the most elementary forms of discrimination to take place as a result of the ability of certain chemicals, coming from the environment, to facilitate or hamper the biochemical machinery of the cell. A disruption or hampering of the biochemical machinery takes usually the form of a "blockage" in a metabolic chain, because the harmful compounds may take the place of useful ones, without contributing to, or, actively interrupting, the flow of biochemical energy. A harmful compound may also damage the fragile biochemical structures of the cell by forming or breaking essential linkages between molecules; linkages upon which much of the characteristic fluid or semi-fluid, gel-like features of the protoplasm depend.

The first type of "movement", or, the first noticeable ability of a cell to "flow towards" a concentration of beneficial chemical substances, may, indeed, rest on such changes in the fluidity, or viscosity, of the protoplasm. If a certain area of the protoplasm becomes chemically more active, it may also become more "fluid-like", and, it will then stream into the direction of the concentration of beneficial chemical substances. We see this process reflected in the ability of many primitive, uni-cellular organisms to extend "pseudo-podia", or arm-like extrusions, from their protoplasm.

Whatever the exact chemical reactions or happenings may be, it seems fair to say, that the concept of a chemical facilitation or blockage of metabolic processes by beneficial or noxious chemical compounds, together with the accompanying changes in the fluidity or viscosity of the protoplasm, underlie the most fundamental characteristics of cellular discrimination and behaviour. It is interesting to note, here, that the protoplasm already provides areas with a specialised function. The synthesis of proteins and enzymes, the break-down or build-up of energy-rich compounds, as well as the structural organisation of the genetic code are concentrated in specific and specialised areas of the protoplasmic structure, in addition to the specialised functions of the cellular membrane.

A little later in the evolution of the single cell, a profusion of specialised functions and appendages emerges, as the cells develop small, intra-cellular "organs" for a variety of functions, such as the development of "propulsive oars", driven by contractile proteins, all sorts of protective shells in and around the single cell, the development of sacs or containers with powerful enzymes, which can sap or destroy another cell, etc.

The road towards specialisation of function was clearly entered, well before we see the first tentative groupings of symbiotically living colonies of cells, which, we think, were the precursors of this momentous evolutionary break-through; the development of the multi-cellular organism. Here, the possibilities of specialisation came really to the fore, because large groups of cells could now devote their entire structure and function, exclusively, to the performance of a specific task. We see, e.g. the specialisation of the skin, with its many functions, appendages and specialised sub-structures, such as teeth or scales. We see a vascular system that provides all the cells of the organism with their food and oxygen, and, it also provides a pathway to get rid of cellular waste-products. A skeletal system developes, providing the necessary rigidity and the possibility for muscles to anchor themselves, and, of course, there is this all-important muscular system, which provides the many sophisticated forms of movement that are the main characteristic of animal life; in the sea as well as on land.

Together with these developments, the ability to sense a large range of stimuli became also much more important, because it was a great advantage for an organism to distinguish between a large variety of stimuli, and not just between a beneficial or harmful chemical substance or concentration. Let us not forget, that life developed in the sea, and, it is clear, that the break-through of multi-cellular life occurred well before life invaded dry land. Life penetrated into "dry land", not only, in the form of the large, multi-cellular reptiles and amphibious creatures, which were the ancestors for a large variety of animal species' on land. Sophisticated single cells, eventually, penetrated as microbes in areas that were remarkably different from the conditions that existed, and still exist, in the sea.

These are all slow processes of penetration and adaptation, which took place in the shallow lagoons, marsh-lands and tidal-zones, where land and water meet. These areas formed a gentle transitional habitat for those species' that found fertile possibilities of existence in the widely varying ecological conditions of these transitional zones. Of course, it is logical to assume, that the animal species', being obligatory predators, could only invade the land, after the plants had already established themselves, there.

We want to come back to the development of the sensory systems. We still see, in all animals, including ourselves, a system of sensory nerve-endings, where small nerves seem to end in a rather non-specific, "twig-like" network of fine branches, ending in between the cells of the deeper layers of the skin. These twiglike nerve-endings give a generally unpleasant or painful sensation when they are stimulated. Anything that damages the skin is likely to activate or stimulate these "pain-fibres", but the stimulation is, primarily, caused by chemicals that are liberated by a damaged area of skin. However, there is good reason to believe, that these nerve-endings can also be stimulated directly by such damaging events as a severe pressure or tension, or stretch, high temperatures, or chemical irritants that penetrate the skin quickly.

These nerve-endings form a "network"; not in the sense that the cells fuse into a single celllar body. Cells remain, by and large, individual entities, and, while they are often in very close contact with each other and joined by "mechanical bridges", their contacts remain largely "physical". Nerve-cells can certainly transmit a state of excitation or irritation from one to the other, but, the "gap" between the cells has to be bridged by the diffusion of a chemical compound, which tranfers the state of excitation, and, sometimes, the state of depression, or inhibition, from one cell to the next, as the chemical compound travels across this gap. The chemical compound then excites the neighbouring cell, which propagates the excitation across its often extended body, from one end to the oher. This represents, frequently, a considerable distance, because some nerve-cells are as long as an entire limb.

We will not even try to sketch the essence of neural function or anatomical structures of sense-organs and nerve-endings, because the respective branches of the sciences provide detailed and lucid images about these phenomena. We only want to remind ourselves, that, in addition to a "philogenetically old" system of nerve conductions that functions as a "general alert" against a large variety of harmful stimuli, (the pain system), we see, also, a variety of much more specific sensory functions develop.

For example, in the skin, nerve-endings developed, which became specifically sensitive to changes in pressure. This was undoubtedly a result of the fact, that it became highly beneficial for a living organism, floating in the sea, to maintain a certain depth. We also see the development of a sensitivity to temperature; again, highly beneficial, since the colder, darker areas of the waters would be poor in nutrients, while the lighter, warmer areas would indicate a profusion of sunlight, a large number of cells that could photo-synthesise, and, therefore, good hunting grounds for those life-forms that had already taken the road of predation.

As an off-shoot of the ability to gauge temperature, we see an even more specialised receptor develop, which became specifically sensitive to a rather narrow segment of the electro-magnetic spectrum; the range of visible light. Originally, light-sensitive cells, or "organs", were rather diffusely placed over the body of an animal, but, in the more sophisticated animals, in particular, the land animals, these sense-organs grouped themselves into a highly complex and sophisticated pattern, allowing the organism, not merely, the ability to distinguish between the presence and absence of light, but, it allowed a completely new function to come to the fore; the ability to receive and record an "image" of light-beams, which would, then, serve as an indication for the location of certain important stimuli that were originating at some distance from the organism itself.

.......

Chapter 9

Content

A philosophical over-view of the ability to see, hear and smell.
Allowing the organism to locate stimuli "at a distance"
The basis for a three-dimensional reality-experience.
Sophisticated behaviour-patterns require sophisticated sensory capabilities.
Long-distance and direct-contact sensors.
The chemical "tracer substance".
Smell never became a three-dimensional sensor.
The evolution of the "motoric computer"; the hind-brain.
Stereoscopic vision and stereophonic hearing.
Sound, used as a navigational instrument.
A limited number of details in the focus of our visual field.
A much larger area of vision is used to "scan events".
Data from the special sense-organs are "projected" into a three-dimensional sphere of reality perceptions.
The fourth dimension of "time"; but, a dimension with a difference.
Time progresses into one direction only.
The importance of the sense of familiarity.
The essence of being "de-ment".

Indeed, let us review, in a general manner, the importance of the ability to see, hear and smell. For the human being, the sense of smell is not as important as those of hearing and vision. Perhaps, the main reason is the fact, that, hearing and vision have developed into very precise and finely discriminatory organs, that allow us to place the source of a visual or acoustic stimulus into a three-dimensional sphere of spatial relationships. The sense of smell never developed such a three-dimensional feature.

The overall, philosophical importance of the development of vision and hearing, in particular, their stereoscopic capabilities, lies in the fact, that these senses form the foundation for a three-dimensional perception of reality. We have seen, that, a conscious awareness of such a spatial reality perception depends on the human ability to verbalise and concepualise these awarenesses, but, we have good reasons to assume, that a sophisticated animal, like a dog or cat, experiences the same type of spatial or three-dimensional reality, because it has the same physiological capabilities of locating visual and acoustic stimuli at a precise point within the sphere of awareness that extends around such an animal. We have also discussed, how the requirements of a complicated and diffcult "hunt" have been the main instruments to shape the evolution of the capabilities of vision, hearing and smell.

These three special sensory capabilities have in common the fact, that they are "long-distance" sensors. In the sense of touch, temperature, pressure or pain, the animal can only react to these stimuli, if the source makes "direct contact" with the skin of the organism. The organism can only react, when the stimuli and the source of origin of these stimuli are close-by, or in actual contact with the surface of an organism. In smell, we see already a remarkable refinement of the principle of a "direct contact" sense perception. There, the accent shifts from the primary discrimination, whether a chemical concentration is harmful or beneficial, to the use of the chemical substances as a "tracer"; as an indicator of the existence of something significant at a distance. This means, that the emphasis is placed on the ability to detect very small concentrations, which in themselves would not harm or benefit the organism, but they derive their signficance, solely, from the fact, that they may indicate the presence of a source of food, or danger, some distance away.

The sense of smell never became a precise three-dimensional or spatial experience, but, it remained an important indicator of direction. We see, that many animal species' still depend very heavily upon the sense of smell to locate their prey, or to avoid their predators, and, it is also interesting to note, that the sense of smell remained a dominant sense-organ in those species' which lived on solid ground. Species' that had taken to the trees or to flying, required a much more acute sense of vision in order to sense, accurately, relative distances and spatial configurations.

Obviously, an anthropoid could never have learned to swing from branch to branch, if it did not have a very precise stereoscopic vision, allowing such an animal to gauge, accurately, the position and distance of a branch or holding point. Similarly, the demands of muscular and skeletal coordination required an extra-ordinary ability to integrate all the sensory data from muscles and tendons, and we see, indeed, that such animal species' develop a special "hind-brain", functioning, primarily, as a center for the integration of the motoric response.

The sense of hearing became also stereoscopic, enabling the accurate location of the origin of a sound signal, and, in some species', such as bats and whales, the production of sound signals began to function as an aid to navigation when visual cues were insufficient.

Another remarkable feature of the senses of vision and hearing, is the ability to register a large number of stimuli simultaneously. For example, we are quite well aware, how our visual system is able to register a photographic impression of a large number of discernible details, but, we also know, that we can only pay attention to a small number of details at any one particular moment. If we "focus" our attention upon something that catches our interest, we automatically focus our visual system upon this area as well. The center of our visual field is extra-ordinarily sharp, and, we can distinguish a large number of minute details that lie in the center of this field. However, if we want to evaluate or enumerate all these details, we have to adopt a "scanning procedure", where we focus our attention upon one item at the time; one after the other. We also notice, that the visual field outside this area of center-vision is less precise, and is merely meant to scan large events. Then, we can immediately change the focus of our vision, as soon as something happens that attracts our attention. Something attracts our attention, whenever it may be important for us to take note of it.

The features in the center of our visual field are presented, in detail, to our brain via a complex system of neural connections. The visual stimuli that fall upon the retina are transformed into a series of electrical impulses, which are then presented to a specific area of the brain. As long as we are awake and keep our eyes open, this primary visual reception area of the brain receives constantly the images that present themselves to the center of our vision. Here, again, we do not want to describe the physics and physiology of the events that take place in the sense-organs of the visual system, because these scientific facts have been described extensively in a number of specialised texts, including every comprehensive encyclopedia.

We like to discuss some of the implications of the registration, and, perhaps, recording, of a large number of sense impressions, or, stimuli that are gathered by the scanning devices of vision and hearing. Together, they make it possible for us to experience the existence of "space", with distances in a three-dimensional framework of reference. This is the sphere of our reality perceptions, which is filled by visual and auditory data. These data are continuously "projected" against our memory-banks, and, we recognise, and "know", the nature and meaning of all these stimuli instantly. We are also aware of the stimuli that happened, or were present, a moment ago, and, we "expect", therefore, certain stimuli to happen in the immediate future. Because the stimuli are experienced, not only, at the moment they occur, but form an integrated framework with those that just occurred and those that are about to take place, we experience also another "dimension" in this sphere of reality; time.

The sphere of reality is made-up by the three spatial dimensions, as well as the experience of time, which is a "fourth dimension". However, the dimension of time is not quite identical to the three dimensions of space proper, because it is not reversible. We can now appreciate, why this reality perception disappears, as soon as our conscious awareness, or the ability to receive and process all these stimuli, ceases to exist. When we suddenly lose the ability to see or hear, we will experience an acute anxiety, because we realise, suddenly, how important this constant stream of sensory clues is for the perception of reality, as well as for our behaviour. Because our memory mechanisms and other evaluative mechanisms are still intact, we do not experience a total loss of awareness. Therefore, we do not get the impression that the sphere of reality has suddenly disappeared, or partially disappeared. Our memory and conceptual faculties are still working and support this sphere, at least, for a while, but, we have immedately a much greater difficulty deciding, whether or not this reality sphere corresponds accurately with the reality of sense impressions, based on a contemporary and continuous registration of visual and auditory stimuli.

However, if our faculties of alertness, attention-span, data-processing and recognition, evaluation and judgement are impaired, rather than the primary faculties of receiving the sense impressions themselves, or the ability to present these sense impressions accurately to the brain, we see a gross deficiency in the behaviour of such an individual. Such an individual presents, then, an imagery of being "de-ment", which means, literally, that one exists without the usual mental faculties, and, this individual does not have anymore a sensible and useful "sphere of reality". At least, one behaves as if this reality has disappeared to a large extent. One is confused, unable to talk sensibly, unable to carry-out the more complicated tasks. Memory falters and works haphazardly, and, in severe disturbances of mental functions, the individual does not know, where he is, how to dress, how to use the bathroom, or how to eat, etc.

Once again, we note, how important the sphere of reality is for our behaviour-patterns, and, we see, once again, how the experience of reality is related to the presence of an intact, living organism.

.......

Chapter 10

Content

All stimuli arriving at the sense-organs have to be "translated" into a "neural code".
Comparisons between a computer and the central nervous system.
There is a "flood of information" coming at us, as long as we are awake.
The importance of setting proper priorities.
A modulated stream of electronic impulses, carrying information to the brain in their patterns of sequence and rythm.
Most data-processing by-passes our conscious awareness functions.
The ability to focus our attention upon aspects that need "work".
Artificial stimuli, and the absence of recognisable or coherent patterns.
The brain still reflects the fact, that the neurological system has evolved upon the basis of the "reflex-arc".
Cerebral areas for the understanding and utterance of speech.
Many areas of the brain do not reveal their functions easily.
Just as the conceptual entities of computer functions can only be partially "localised", so are many cerebral functions taking place throughout the brain at lightning-fast speeds.
A continuous inter-play between memory, evaluations of incoming sense impressions, and the judgement of anticipated happenings in the immediate future.
From being "lost in thought" and "wishful thinking", to "day-dreaming".

From any point in this sphere of reality, it is now possible to follow the stimulus on its way to a sense-organ. It is either an electro-magnetic wave-front of the frequency of visible light, or a vibration of the air molecules, or "sound-wave", until it inter-acts with our long-distance sense-organs. Recent scientific investigations have allowed us to visualise these happenings in a remarkably detailed manner, and, on many occasions, we are able to trace a picture, not only, on a microscopic and cellular level, but, even, on a sub-cellular or molecular scale.

We know, that, in essence, all stimuli arriving at our sense-organs, have to be "translated" into a series of nerve impulses. These impulses travel, then, over the connecting nerves to the brain, where this "information" is processed. Just as it becomes impossible to follow what is happening, when a computer is given instructions or scans and processes data for one task or another, so is it impossible to follow the entire flood of information that is presented to us by our environment.

We have to remind ourselves, that we grasp the stimuli that are presented to us, only, in an overall, conceptual manner. We have discussed, on several occasions, that we have the potential to become aware of a nearly limitless number of details. However, this takes a long time, because we have to scrutinise, absorb and evaluate all these details in a slow, methodical process of registration and analysis, and, most of the time, we are not interested in such a detailed analysis. We only want to know the outlines of what is happening, and, we try to keep-up with the continuous flow of sensory information that presents itself to our senses.

When trying to grasp the events taking place in a computer, a radio or television-set, we have a general idea, how an extremely fast and complex flow of electronic impulses carry with them, in the form of a modulation in sequence and rythm, the type of information which interests us, and, we also know, that the information we are looking for, is only a small part of the total amount of information that is flowing through the electronic instrument, as it performs the requested tasks. If we concentrate our attention upon the computer, we see, that a large amount of the flow of information has to do with the regulation and integration of the many functions which have to be coordinated properly, before it is possible for the computer to provide us with the data or information we are looking for.

Similarly, the largest part of the information flowing through the modulated trains of electrical impulses of the nervous system, are handled and processed for the purpose of carrying-out some sort of an adjusting function with which our conscious awareness has little or nothing to do. We also recall, that, our conscious awareness, or, this intense focus of attention and alertness enabling us to express these awarenesses in a near-constant stream of verbal symbols, concepts or thoughts, is only important in the areas of our behavioural response, where such a conscious evaluation and deliberate synthesis are required.

Therefore, even, the vast, continuous data-stream that is presented to our central nervous system, is scanned and selected in accordance with its importance. Everything that can be classified as familiar or routine, and, which has no particular meaning for us at this particular time, is hardly noticed and virtually nothing of this stream of routine sensory impulses is recorded or retained for any length of time. Yet, many of these stimuli are used for "automatic" or habitual adjustments, which do not penetrate the level of conscious awareness to any extent.

We can summarise these mechanisms as follows. All sensory stimuli, regardless whether they arise from the special sense-organs, the general sense-organs of the skin, or the many internal sensory mechanisms and monitoring functions of organs inside the body, (such as the skeleto-muscular system), are translated into the same "neural language"; nl. a series of electrical impulses, and, we have to assume, that the interpretation of an impulse traveling over a nerve, depends on the area of the brain upon which these impulses are projected. Therefore, a non-specific stimulus or irritation of a nerve, conducting visual impulses, will give us the subjective sensation that we "see something", but, it may not be a recognisable visual pattern, because an artificial stimulation, either by an experimental design or a naturally occurring disease process, lacks this characteristic pattern of organisation or modulation, which would correspond to a recognisable object or sense impression.

Similarly, the artificial stimulation of nerve-cells in the brain will often cause sensations, or motoric effects, which depend on the localisation of the stimulated cells, but, outside the "primary" motoric and sensory areas of the brain, artificial stimulation often does not lead to any specific or recognisable results. We have seen, that the essence of the nervous system is the provision of a link between a stimulus and a response, the "reflex-arc", and, therefore, we still see, that the brain has areas for a "sensory projection" as well as areas, where the "motoric commands" are leaving from, on their way down to a group of muscles or other responding organ.

In addition to a fairly graphic representation of our body on certain motoric as well as sensory areas of the brain, (where an artificial stimulus gives a feeling or a movement in a particular area of the body), we see, that the faculty of speech is also represented in the same manner. There are a few areas, where the "understanding of speech" seems to take place. This is the sensory side of speech. Here, the auditory cues from someone else's spoken words are projected onto the brain, while there is also a distinct area of motoric integration, where the muscle groups of the throat and mouth are instructed in a precisely coordinated and flowing way, as we translate, without any obvious effort, the thoughts or visualised verbal symbols into actual words or written symbols. Only, when the receptive or motoric "speech areas" of the brain are damaged, or temporarily interfered with, only then, do we realise, how handicapped and isolated we are, as we lose the ability to talk or write; to understand what someone else is saying to us, or, what we are reading.

In addition to the areas of the brain to which we have been able to assign a fairly precise function, we see large areas of the brain, which do not reveal their functions so easily. First of all, we should not forget, that in artificial stimulation experiments, carried-out during brain operations on people under localised anaesthesia, we stimulate, primarily, surface areas. However, the brain cells work in conjunction with a large number of cell-groups that are often widely spread throughout the brain and involve deeper structures as well. While the stimulation of deeper brain structures is possible, and, often, carried-out in people as well as experimental animals, it still remains difficult to "map" the brain into geographical regions of function.

The reason is, that, it may well be completely erroneous to assume, that a function, which we can verbalise in a single concept or idea, is, indeed, a single or localised function of a small group of nerve-cells. Just as the conceptual entities of computer functions can only be partially localised, (such as the memory-banks or the read-out terminals), so are most mental activities characterised by a function that spreads lightning-fast through-out most areas of the brain. These processes are timed in micro-seconds, just like computer mechanisms, but the formulation of thoughts and ideas, or, the synthesis of a conscious response, may take many seconds, minutes, or, even, hours or days.

Yet, we have made some progress in our efforts to capture the functions of the brain in a conceptually coherent manner, and, to correlate its functions with the mental processes we are subjectively aware of. We know, now, how each sense impression is, first of all, classified and recognised, and, it only enters the area of alertness, or conscious attention, if there is "something wrong"; if the sensory stimulus arouses our attention for one existential reason or another. The stimulus may not be "classifiable", and, then, we have to make a deliberate effort to do so, or, the stimulus may represent something we were strongly expecting or afraid of. These sort of stimuli will enter the center of our conscious awareness.

If a sense impression enters our conscious awareness, the preliminary classification has already been carried-out by the brain, but, we may want to give it a much more intense scrutiny by looking at it in "conscious detail". We compare it, then, to a much larger repertoir of memories. This is done by the ability to verbalise our awarenesses as a more or less coherent series of thoughts, and, by projecting a number of behavioural responses, based upon this particular sense impression, and evaluating the possible consequences of these behavioural responses, before they are actually carried-out. There is, therefore, a continuous inter-play between our memory and evaluating or judgement functions, as long as a particular awareness exists in the focus of our attention.

Yet, this focus of awareness may shift from a "contemporary" or incoming sense impression, to an image that has been recalled to our conscious awareness by a process of association. If we continue to scan past memories for a prolonged period of time, we become "lost in thought", and, if the image-progression takes-on strong aspects of "wishful thinking", we are engaged in a process of "day-dreaming".

.......

Chapter 11

Content

The "silent areas" of the brain.
Dominant and non-dominant hemispheric functions.
Localising the more complex functions of the brain.
No exclusive emphasis on the "wiring diagram" of the central nervous system.
A combination of psychological, physiological and anatomical studies, together with a philosophical over-view.
A return to the perception of reality.
Reacting confidently in relation to a familiar environment.
From certainties to probabilities; from possibilities and uncertainties to the unknown.
The temptation to seek certainty in the concept of a Divine Revelation.
It is difficult to imagine the reality perceptions of ancient cultures.
A weariness and suspicious hostility towards the dubious fruits of modern science.
Confident reality perceptions are useful scaffolds for a behavioural response.
Reality perceptions always serve an existential purpose.

The more complex and somewhat vaguely defined functions of the brain, such as memory-recall, judgement, or the correlation of a variety of primary sense impressions, are assigned to those areas of the brain, which are not involved in the reception of a primary sense impression, nor, are they involved in the final synthesis of an out-going motoric response. In this way, we have a rough idea, how our brain works, and, by designing a series of complex tasks, we can, indeed, test the function of some of the more "silent areas" of the brain.

We have been able to distinguish between disturbances of brain function in the "dominant" and the "non-dominant" hemispheres, as well as between the frontal, parietal, occipital or temporal lobes of the brain. (The dominant hemisphere contains the "speech areas", which are predominantly located in the left hemisphere, especially, in right-handed people). Such studies are the subject of intense psychological research, and have been quite helpful in localising the more complex functions of the brain. These studies and tests have also helped us to understand, how the brain organises, in overall conceptual terms, the problems and challenges it is required to deal with.

If we keep trying to understand cerebral function, only, by tracing electrical impulses, or, by unraveling the "wiring diagram" of the brain, we will, inevitably, get lost in a hopeless labyrinth of connections and electrical events. They lose, soon, all meaning, because we can not oversee what is happening, and, we do not know, what these connections represent. On the other hand, if we try to analyse cerebral function, entirely, in psychological terms, analying subjectively and objectively a variety of psychological and mental phenomena, we will remain completely unaware of the "cerebral hardware" and the physical design features that make all these psychological phenomena possible. Therefore, a judicious approach from both sides, as well as a patient study of all the data available, be they psychological, physical, physiological or anatomical, should enable us to understand the essential unity between the function of the brain and its anatomical features.

Such an approach, from both sides of the reality experience, should give us a good "feel" for the nature of our reality experiences, including our thoughts, ambitions and aspirations, which are such characteristic features of the intelligent, inquisitive, and, above all, intact human being.

We want to come back to some of the crucial questions we have touched upon in the beginning of this essay, and, let us start by asking ouselves the question, to what extent there exists a convergence or similarity between the reality of the environment, as reflected by the stimuli that emanate from it, and, the sense impressions, or mental imagery, which, eventually, presents itself to our mind. We have seen, that this is an important point, because it relates to the question, whether or not we can see and observe, or be aware of, a reality "as it really exists". Are the sense impressions we receive and the mental images we, eventually, form, so completely determined by the nature of our own existence and our particular way of functioning in this world of the external reality, that we can not fruitfully come to any conclusion about a possible correlation or convergence between the reality "as is", and the way we perceive reality?

If we look at all the familiar objects around us, and, if we see, feel, perceive or inter-react with them in a completely predictable way, day after day, we come to the conclusion, that it is ridiculous to question the "reality" of these items, or, to question, whether or not these objects and experiences "really exist". As soon as an object has been moved, changed or has disappeared all-together, we notice its effects, and, we can not see any sense in denying the reality of their existence, or the change in perception brought about by their change in status.

This means, that we react or behave confidently in relation to the fact, that the reality we experience is "real". "Besides", you will say to me, "the concept of reality, means, that we truly believe that these reality images are real, and, we rely, by definition, completely on the assumption, that these reality perceptions are trustworthy. Certainly, we are also aware of the fact, that, many reality experiences are not as clear-cut, nor, as unquestionable and invariable as those familiar facts of daily existence. We realise, that, many qualities and abstractions exist, only, as independent concepts, but, they do not exist independently in "the real world". Nevertheless, they are real for us, in spite of the fact, that these abstract items or conceptual entities do not have the same independent reality as the chair I sit on, or the pen I write with".

Yes, we realise, at times, that our world of reality slides imperceptibly from certainties to lesser certainties, to question marks, and, eventually, and inevitably, to a vague realm of existence, which we do not know, and, whose presence we are only vaguely aware of. We come, then, to the conclusion, that we "still" have a lot to learn, and, that our reality perceptions are still a very vague shadow of the actual reality. However, we believe, confidently, that, some day, we will be able to know this truth, either by hard, diligent and careful work in scientific observations, or, by the Grace of a Divine Revelation.

If we review what people have believed to be true in previous generations, we see a bewildering variety of images and interpretations, and, in many instances, it is difficult for us to believe, that these images were, at one time, a "truth", or a fully believed-in reality. We forget, so easily, the enormous discrepancies between the conceptual vocabularies of ancient times and our own times, whenever we are trying to get a "feel" for the reality perceptions of peoples in historical times. We can not help, but "re-create" the beliefs and modes of behaviour of these ancient peoples in the light of our own, modern concepts. The reality perceptions of ourselves and the people we study are so far apart, that it becomes difficult to, even, develop a sense of recognition for the validity of these ancient beliefs. We may, somewhat impatiently, brush them aside in a judgement of "superstition", but, we forget, then, that these "superstitions" were just as much believed-in as absolute truths and completely reliable reality experiences, as we assume, tacitly, and, often, subconsciously, our modern reality experiences to be an accurate reflection of this absolute truth.

"Yes, but", you will argue, "We have now a far greater knowledge and comprehension than the peoples of ancient civilisations". To a certain extent, this is true, but, we see, throughout history, a slow but steady "accumulation" of knowledge, but, often, these accumulations were swept-away again by a much more intense picture of a "divinely revealed truth". Let us not forget, that the concept of a Divine Revelation is an expression of a deep mistrust and weariness for all sorts of rational approaches to the problems of obtaining a reliable reality perception, and, we would do well to remind ourselves about the fact, that we see, already, a similar weariness and suspicious hostility towards the dubious fruits of modern science.

It is, therefore, likely, that the rational or scientific aproach to acquiring a reliable and generally agreed-upon reality image will falter, once again, and, that it will be replaced by a resurgence of a religious fervor, where a renewed emphasis will be laid upon the need to receive help from a Divine Source of Information, if we ever want to obtain this blissful experience of comprehending an eternal, absolute reality. No, the historical review does not really support our instinctive feelings, that our reality perceptions are true, just because we feel, that it is ridiculous to question them.

Why question something upon which we rely wholeheartedly as a truth? Indeed, here, we touch upon the essence of our reality experiences. What is reality for us, is this constellation of images, beliefs and judgements, which we accept, unquestionably, as truthful and reliable, and, these images form a coherent framework of relationships upon which we construct our generally successful behavioural responses. The fact, that we "feel" this reality to be real, and, the fact, that we rely completely on the truthfulness of our beliefs, is, then, a suitable and accurate definition of the reality experience, but, it does not indicate at all, that these beliefs and judgements have any degree of "absolute validity". They are only useful as scaffolds to formulate a particular behavioural response, and, because we share many of these beliefs and judgements with other people in our social environment, they form a core of guidelines for the behavioural responses of a social grouping. However, rarely do these conceptual frameworks or structures of belief have a sufficient relevance to function as a behavioural framework for a different social environment, or, the world as a whole.

Reality perceptions and judgements of truthfulness involve, always, drives and instinctive patterns of behaviour, which are designed to secure our well-being; to score an advantage over our adversaries, or, to hold-on to a privileged position, and, we see, therefore, that reality perceptions clash severely in conflicts of interest or situations of competitive strife.

.......

Chapter 12

Content

A number of objections.
Is it possible to "overcome" human nature?
Behaving in accordance with accepted beliefs.
The common denominators in behaviour are based upon biological similarities.
Reality perceptions become more acceptable across cultural boundaries, whenever they are based on shared biological features, rather than cultural specifics.
A practical acceptance of an "absolute truth", whenever mankind as a whole agrees on a specific interpretation of reality.
Facile and erroneous conclusions, based on a "feeling" for the relativity of truth.
The narrow band-with of the spectrum of visible light; its purpose.
Being sensitive to a very large a range of stimuli would be confusing and counter-productive.

You may still feel, that it is not justified to tie-in our efforts and desires to believe in the possibility to grasp an absolute or eternal truth, with our existential anxieties and drives. You may argue, that, indeed, those existential drives make it very difficult to obtain the ideals of an Eternal Wisdom, or a blissful union with our Creator, and, you may insist, that the thrust of religious beliefs and practices is aimed at over-coming our belligerent and egocentric tendencies. You may say to me, that the reality perceptions of those, who are fighting with each other, have nothing to do with the experience of a "divine knowledge", and, you may dismiss the practice of millions of people, who pray to God on the eve of the battle, as foolish and short-sighted.

Yet, are you sure, that you would not behave in the same manner, if you were drawn into a serious conflict-situation, and, if you had to engage in a battle of life and death? I am not so sure, that it is, indeed, possible to "overcome" the "limitations" of our nature by a life of prayer and meditation, or, a fervent devotion to God. Certainly, an exceptional individual is able to control his or her instincts and impulses to a remarkable extent, and, such an individual may be able to bend his or her behaviour into any form, but, the average person does not function this way. The average member of society wants, and needs, leadership from his leaders, and, if these leaders become swept-up in hostilities with their neighbours, they will, once again, polarise their followers and goad them to do battle and die for the "honour of their country, and the glory of God".

If anyone takes the time and effort to study a large number of people, one will see, that, most people behave in accordance with the beliefs they have absorbed from their social environment. A failure to do so, would impose a severe strain, and, the average individual is not able, nor willing, to tolerate a severe strain between himself and the other members of society. Yet, at the same time, an observer will also be able to see, that there are many modes of behaviour which do not differ significantly from one social environment to the next, and, it becomes obvious, that these modes of behaviour depend, primarily, on the biological characteristics of the human being, rather than the cultural specifics of a particular society.

Conscious structures of belief are, however, primarily, products of the cultural code of a social environment, because the answers to the questions of life and death, of justice and suffering, of great upheavals and stress, result in concepts and ideas, that are based on past communal experiences and social inter-actions. They are, therefore, "variable" in the sense, that they begin to differ significantly from one group of human beings to the next, compared to either the more primitive, instinctive behaviour-patterns, or the more physiological events of human existence.

Are these arguments sufficient to make us accept the concept, that our particular beliefs and reality experiences have only a limited validity? Perhaps, they are shared, to some extent, throughout our social environment, but, they are certainly not shared by the members of a foreign society, but, can we accept, then, that these beliefs do not reflect, in any way, an independent, eternally existing truth?

Probably not. Probably, you are willing to agree with me, that our religious beliefs and many judgements and feelings of "justice", or the considerations of right and wrong, are coloured by our cultural code and our specific existential anxieties and requirements. However, you may still want to argue, that the reality of such familiarities as the presence of a particular utensil, the stars, the moon or the sun, the perception of time, as well as the facts of mathematical calculations and logical deductions, are features of a reality perception that is far less dependent upon cultural specifics, and is shared by peoples all over the world, provided, that they have had, at least, a basic education and exposure to such concepts and ideas.

Yes, this is true, and these types of reality experiences are, primarily, a result of our common biological heritage, which constitutes the common anatomical and physiological features we share, rather than the cultural specifics that set us apart. Still, the words we use for these concepts, and, the manner in which we express ourselves, are determined by the culural pool in which we have been educated, but, indeed, these concepts and ideas could easily be translated from one language into another, or from one culture into another, because these experiences and awarenesses are shared amongst all human beings.

We are back to the question, then, whether or not these reality perceptions are entirely the result of our particular anatomical and physiological existence; whether or not our faculties allow us, indeed, to formulate, slowly, over a period of many generations, a conceptual imagery that comes ever closer to an absolute, eternal, unchangeable and knowable truth?

It is certainly possible, that, mankind as a whole will, eventually, adopt a common perception of the basic phenomena of reality, and, these concepts will, then, change little from one generation to the next. If such is the case, the reality experience, as well as the authority of these reality images will be incredibly strong, and, it will be even more difficult to convince the average individual, that these commonly shared reality perceptions and seemingly unchanging images do not represent an eternal truth, but, are merely the result of the features and peculiarities of human existence.

True, for practical purposes, we may accept the notion, that such highly reliable mental images are the equivalent of an "absolute truth", as long as we realise, what we mean by this. It means, that we do not need to "work anymore on this imagery". It means, that we do not need to elaborate this particular imagery any further, at least, not for the time being, and, that we may, indeed, wholeheartedly rely upon its truthfulness. It means, that it is, indeed, ridiculous and meaningless to deny the reality of our commonly shared familiarities, and, that it is a mistaken effort and a wrong understanding of the principles of relativity, to deny the existence of such commonly perceived and "provable realities" as the paper I am writing on, or the pen which allows the ink to flow onto the paper and form the written word-symbols of the thoughts that go through my mind.

It is nonsense to say, that "such and such a thing does not exist", or, to deny the reality of the stimuli that can be perceived and grasped as sense impressions. If we analyse the visual stimuli, or the sounds we hear, record or capture on a photographic plate through an optic lens, or any other type of recording device, we can "confirm", that our ears and eyes give quite an "accurate picture" of what is happening in the outside world. However, by replacing our sense-organs with the many sophisticated technological transducers we have learned to design and build, we also come to the conclusion, that our sense-organs filter-out a narrow band-with of the stimuli that are present in this external environment.

Our vision is based on the selective absorption of, or sensitivity to, a very small segment of the electro-magnetic spectrum, and, our ears also select certain frequencies, while many, very fast or very slow vibrations of the air go undetected. This is the reason, why we can not hear the sound-pulses emitted by bats, as they navigate by echo-location in dark caves. The point is this. We, as a physiological and anatomical organism, select from the myriad of stimuli that are present in the environment, only a very small range. We select the stimuli that are useful to us. If we would be sensitive, for example, to a much larger segment of the electro-magnetic spectrum, the ability of seeing objects at a distance would be seriously undermined. Many other electro-magnetic wave-fronts would then make an impression upon our retina and the brain, and, all these "extra" impulses would completely obscure the image that is now available to us from an object at a distance, because most of the wave-fronts of the electro-magnetic spectrum would not reflect an accurate or faithful image of this object. Natural selection has selected only the type of sensitivity to electro-magnetic wave-fronts, which will lead to a sharp image of the objects in the environment, and, a sensitivity to many other wave-lengths would blur this image.

.......

Chapter 13

Content

All mental faculties are a "biological product".
The search for a possibility to exist.
The "prima facie" evidence of our sense impressions.
Why evolutionary changes are often hidden from view.
The wide range of observations made possible by scientific instruments.
Religious reality perceptions remain "the most logical" explanation for prima facie sense impressions.
God and nature.
Difficult proofs for fundamental beliefs.
What the sciences still have to acknowledge.
We will become more aware of our biological background.
The emergence of a moral code, based on evolutionary insights.
There is a great need to explore the possibilities for a global agreement on the basis of relativistic reality perceptions.
When we are less stimulated by existential concerns, our capabilities of reflective thought and philosophical insight may blossom in a manner that exceeds our contemporary comprehension.

The more we look around us, and take into account the numerous observations and thoughts of people, who have made an effort to describe their findings and experiences in an emotionally neutral manner, the more we come to the conclusion, that we are just one of the many species' that still find a possibility to exist. We come to the conclusion, again and again, that all our mental faculties, all our awarenesses and belief structures are a biological product, and are, in essence, a tool to let us make the best possible behavioural decisions under the prevailing circumstances. There seems to be an inevitability about the conclusion, that the myriad of living and non-living forms of existence have come about as a result of this gigantic process of natural evolution, where living as well as non-living forms of existence have "sought", and are still "seeking", for a possibility to exist.

In the past, the concept of evolutionary change could not arise with a significant sense of conviction, because most of the prima-facie evidence of our sense impressions does not lead to the conclusion, that evolutionary changes are taking place. By and large, the evolutionary changes of the living and non-living world take place on such a gigantic scale, and, over such a long period of time, that this perspective remains hidden from view. Only with the help of a long and patient series of investigations and observations, does it seem more logical, and much more in line with the numerous "isolated facts" we have established, to explain our own existence, as well as all other forms of existence, along the principles of natural evolution.

For the first time in the history of mankind, we have very good evidence to back-up these ideas, and, for the first time, the ability to see reality on such a large scale, as well as on a detailed, microscopic, molecular or atomic scale, has allowed us to tie-together, not only, the mental and physical worlds of our existence, but, also, the worlds of living and non-living matter.

The ideas of evolution have been advanced in the past, here and there, often, fragmented and speculative, but, these ideas were always swept-away by a religious explanation. Often, a religious explanation was backed by the authority of a specific, divine revelation, and the more familiar, more plausible, and, certainly, more "logical" conceptual structures, (seen from the point of view of prima facie evidence), re-established themselves.

The essence of all religious reality perceptions is the concept, that all existence is the result of a deliberate Act of Creation by a Supreme or Divine Being, and, that many events occur in the experiences of human beings, which are directly influenced by, or attributed to, the Will of such a Supreme Being.

The evolutionary imagery is a radical departure from these comfortable and, often, inspiring beliefs and ideas. Many of us do not believe, anymore, that a Creating God exists, but, let me hasten to add, that evolutionary theory does not make any judgement at all, whether or not a Supreme Being exists. All we can say is this; careful scrutiny of the available evidence does not seem to support the hypothesis, that a personal God creates individually existing things or human beings, nor, does the available evidence support the belief, that this God interferes, helps or communicates with certain people.

The loss of a belief in a personal God, means, of course, the loss of someone to turn to, when in dire need, and, we have discussed the fact, that our instinctive tendencies to believe in a personal God are so strong, that most of us will offer a prayer and command our soul into the hands of our God, whenever we are faced with imminent death. This type of behaviour takes place, in spite of the fact, that our rational faculties have led us to the conlusion, that such behaviour is merely a reaction to severe stress, and does not indicate, that God exists after all.

The conclusion, that existence is not the result of an act of creation, but, the end-result of a process of natural evolution, is still a difficult one. It is, first of all, difficult to "prove", even, for those, who are fairly familiar with the gigantic volume of supportive evidence that exists in favour of the concepts of natural evolution, and, it will remain a difficult, or, even incomprehensible conclusion for most people, as long as we are not able to summarise, adequately and convincingly, the concepts and ideas of scientific observations.

Even so, the sciences still have to acknowledge, by and large, that their particular imagery is, also, merely a human image; that it is a composite and highly complex perception of reality; a perception, that is not an absolute truth, but a poduct of human existence. The sciences still have to acknowledge the logical implications of their own findings and observations, and, they still have to learn to teach, that, all beliefs, as well as all perceptions of reality, including those of a scientific nature, are a form of human behaviour. We still have to see, clearly, how much the scientific ideas are subject to change and evolution themselves, and, how much of the reality is synthesised and created by the observing human mind in the form of concepts, ideas, as well as all sorts of abstractions and awarenesses.

Eventually, we will become much more aware of the physiological and psychological mechanisms that play a role in our conscious awarenesses, and, we will develop a good grasp over the many transformations, selections, classifications, as well as active suppressions, which our reality perceptions engage in. We will begin to realise, much more clearly, that many of our awarenesses are abstractions and qualities, which have found a separate identity and an independent conceptual existence in our minds, while they are "in reality" always part of a more tangible reality. We should, eventually, learn to describe, clearly, the various levels of our beliefs and awarenesses.

We will see, that it will be much easier to agree amongst ourselves about the validity, or reality, of an awareness, if this awareness is primarily determined by our biological heritage; by the shared characteristics of our genetic instructions, or, the shared features of our anatomical and physiological existence. If our beliefs and judgements involve existential concerns and anxieties, or, if we are dealing with belief structures that are primarily absorbed as a cultural heritage, we will find a greater degree of disagreement or discrepancy between reality experiences. Therefore, all moral judgements, including the judgements of right and wrong, good and evil, appropriate or inappropriate, honourable or dishonourable, all these judgements will lead us into conflicts with other peoples and societies, unless we learn to create a code of ethical behaviour that is relevant to all the peoples of the world.

To see our awarenesses as a behavioural tool, as a product of our experiences, as a result of the way we function and the beliefs we have adopted, should not lead us to the erroneous conclusion, that it is, therefore, not important what we believe, or, that we can not have valid moral judgements or valid norms of behaviour. It would be facile, superficial and essentially ignorant to come to the conclusion, that "everything is relative". We certainly have our practical and intuitive certainties, as we have discussed, and, we have a large body of facts and experiences, which we share with our social environment.

We also know, that there is a pressing need to explore the potential for a world-wide agreement about certain aspects of reality, especially, a reality that involves ethical judgements. We can create such a universal ethic by emphasising, first of all, the common biological features of our existence, and, secondly, the possibilities of a rational and logical discussion.

Such a relativistic approach to the perception of reality may leave us, initially, somewhat bewildered, in particular, if we are still grappling with the validity of the numerous scientific observations upon which such a relativistic reality perception has been founded, and, it will certainly be bewildering, if we are still strongly dependent upon the security and comfort of a belief in absolute truths and realities.

Perhaps, many of us will never really see the significance of such a complex exercise in thought, and, it may all look like mental acrobatics, suitable for those, who like it, but, certainly not necessary for the average individual, who wants to live in peace and quiet, comfort and security. Certainly, a more philosophical attitude of the general population may come in time, but, it will be important for our social leaders to have, at least, a grasp over the concepts of a relativistic reality perception. Indirectly, the ordinary people will profit from these insights, too, because their security and comfort, as well as their sense of justice, will, eventually, depend on the insights of their leaders, even, if their own awareness of the essence or significance of a relativistic perception of reality, remains vague and poorly understood.

However, it may be too pessimistic a view of the capabilities of the average individual to conclude, that, he or she will never be able, or willing, to master such a complex relativistic reality perception. The time will come, that we are not constantly aroused by existential concerns, and, in the future, we certainly will have more leisure-time to ponder our own existence. Then, in the quiet and emotionally tempered zone of well-being, the faculties of understanding and comprehension may blossom for a majority of human beings, to a point, we can not imagine during these confused times.

.......

Summary

1. What is "the truth"?
   A facetious question and a fruitless discussion?
   There comes a time, when we like to know more about how and why we believe.
   What is a "simple fact"?
   The ability to recognise and classify sense impressions.
   A "fact" is the conscious acceptance of a succinct, but rather complex interpretation of a specific awareness.
   Facts and beliefs; examples.
   The ability to name a familiar sense-impression.
   The difficulties associated with labeling motivations.
   
   
   
2. A fact depends upon agreement.
   Weaving a number of facts, or data, into a comprehensible unit.
   Rotating celestial bodies.
   Complex scientific images are accepted on the basis of authority.
   An emphasis on the aspect of verifiability.
   It is fairly easy to argue about the facts of commonly shared experiences, as long as there is no conflict of interests between the parties.
   A curious linkage between facts and emotions.
   The facts of absolute beliefs, and an inevitable slide into conflict.
   We all want to get rid of a thorn in our side.
   A willingness to accept facts has a tendency to bolster our sense of confidence.
   The essence of "propaganda".
   
   
   
3. Is a fact always a subjective judgement?
   A series of arguments about validity.
   Is it necessary to distinguish between a reality that is "humanly possible", and, a reality "as it really exists"?
   Becoming impatient with interminable arguments.
   A cautious plea for the supremacy of the scientific reality perception.
   Is knowledge only a "shadow" of the Absolute Reality?
   The evolution of scientific insights is a biological phenomenon.
   
   
   
4. Facts and "information".
   What happens, when strangers meet.
   The "credibility rating".
   A large number of mainly subconscious judgements.
   The problem of "hear-say".
   Making a sharp distinction between "first-hand" experience, and secondarily obtained or "learned" information.
   When an audience wants to hear, what, it thinks, happened.
   Risking "ex-communication".
   Making sure a communication is "well received".
   Various ways of "doing research".
   Synthetic and analytic aspects of scientific work.
   The role of philosophy.
   
   
   
5. A statement of fact is a form of communication.
   Using knowledge to assert dominance.
   The debate between experts.
   The ability to quote precisely.
   The art of "dropping names".
   Careful scrutiny of a question is a rather unnerving experience.
   The problem of unquestioned acceptance.
   Living in a "sea of certainties".
   Facts we can personally vouch for.
   Building-up an unknown image for the audience.
   The art of synthesising "the unknown" with known attributes.
   The essence of secondarily acquired knowledge, or a synthesised image-transfer.
   
   
   
6. A short summary of what has been discussed.
   The important ability to provide "supporting evidence".
   A structure of coherent relationships may be powerfully persuasive.
   Making the audience "see" reality as the author sees it.
   Limitations of the technique of deductive reasoning.
   The special status of mathematical concepts and symbols.
   The need for a check against reality.
   "Explaining" the mechanisms of perception with the help of its own findings.
   We are not trying to formulate an absolute truth, just a useful imagery.
   The purpose of understanding ourselves is to create a broader base for mutual agreements.
   Will the relativistic imagery be relevant for a long time to come?
   The problem of trying to remain valid, even, if many details still have to come to light.
   We all have to develop some dexterity in the art of acquiring insight.
   
   
   
7. A review of the human being as a living organism.
   Behavioural fine-tuning and memory-recall.
   Capturing an evolutionary over-view in a few sentences.
   A maintenance-flow of energy, and the phenomena of entropy.
   Mechanisms of natural selection.
   No trace has been left in the atmosphere of the countless severe storms that took place in the past.
   The concepts of natural evolution represent an attempt to bring numerous observations into a coherent context.
   The three instinctive poles of animal behaviour.
   Sophisticated capabilities of the modern computer.
   General and special sensory capabilities.
   A discussion of the overall, philosophical importance of the function and purpose of sense-organs.
   
   
   
8. Discriminatory mechanisms in the single cell.
   Chemical substances that inhibit or facilitate metabolic processes.
   Increasing or decreasing the fluidity of the protoplasmic "gel".
   Changing the degree of protoplasmic viscosity, and the formation of "pseudo-podia".
   The development of "propulsive oars" and other specialised cellular structures.
   Specialisations of cell-groups in the multi-cellular organism.
   An increasing sophistication of the living organisation.
   A variety of nerve-endings.
   Chemical communications that bridge the gap between nerve-cells.
   The "pain pathways" of the central nervous system.
   The development of pressure-sensitive cells.
   Light-sensitive cells, and the grouping-together of a large number of such cells in the formation of the "eye"; the ability to capture an image of the surrounding realities.
   
   
   
9. A philosophical over-view of the ability to see, hear and smell.
   Allowing the organism to locate stimuli "at a distance"
   The basis for a three-dimensional reality-experience.
   Sophisticated behaviour-patterns require sophisticated sensory capabilities.
   Long-distance and direct-contact sensors.
   The chemical "tracer substance".
   Smell never became a three-dimensional sensor.
   The evolution of the "motoric computer"; the hind-brain.
   Stereoscopic vision and stereophonic hearing.
   Sound, used as a navigational instrument.
   A limited number of details in the focus of our visual field.
   A much larger area of vision is used to "scan events".
   Data from the special sense-organs are "projected" into a three-dimensional sphere of reality perceptions.
   The fourth dimension of "time"; but, a dimension with a difference.
   Time progresses into one direction only.
   The importance of the sense of familiarity.
   The essence of being "de-ment".
   
   
   
10. All stimuli arriving at the sense-organs have to be "translated" into a "neural code".
    Comparisons between a computer and the central nervous system.
    There is a "flood of information" coming at us, as long as we are awake.
    The importance of setting proper priorities.
    A modulated stream of electronic impulses, carrying information to the brain in their patterns of sequence and rythm.
    Most data-processing by-passes our conscious awareness functions.
    The ability to focus our attention upon aspects that need "work".
    Artificial stimuli, and the absence of recognisable or coherent patterns.
    The brain still reflects the fact, that the neurological system has evolved upon the basis of the "reflex-arc".
    Cerebral areas for the understanding and utterance of speech.
    Many areas of the brain do not reveal their functions easily.
    Just as the conceptual entities of computer functions can only be partially "localised", so are many cerebral functions taking place throughout the brain at lightning-fast speeds.
    A continuous inter-play between memory, evaluations of incoming sense impressions, and the judgement of anticipated happenings in the immediate future.
    From being "lost in thought" and "wishful thinking", to "day-dreaming".
    
    
    
11. The "silent areas" of the brain.
    Dominant and non-dominant hemispheric functions.
    Localising the more complex functions of the brain.
    No exclusive emphasis on the "wiring diagram" of the central nervous system.
    A combination of psychological, physiological and anatomical studies, together with a philosophical over-view.
    A return to the perception of reality.
    Reacting confidently in relation to a familiar environment.
    From certainties to probabilities; from possibilities and uncertainties to the unknown.
    The temptation to seek certainty in the concept of a Divine Revelation.
    It is difficult to imagine the reality perceptions of ancient cultures.
    A weariness and suspicious hostility towards the dubious fruits of modern science.
    Confident reality perceptions are useful scaffolds for a behavioural response.
    Reality perceptions always serve an existential purpose.
    
    
    
12. A number of objections.
    Is it possible to "overcome" human nature?
    Behaving in accordance with accepted beliefs.
    The common denominators in behaviour are based upon biological similarities.
    Reality perceptions become more acceptable across cultural boundaries, whenever they are based on shared biological features, rather than cultural specifics.
    A practical acceptance of an "absolute truth", whenever mankind as a whole agrees on a specific interpretation of reality.
    Facile and erroneous conclusions, based on a "feeling" for the relativity of truth.
    The narrow band-with of the spectrum of visible light; its purpose.
    Being sensitive to a very large a range of stimuli would be confusing and counter-productive.
    
    
    
13. All mental faculties are a "biological product".
    The search for a possibility to exist.
    The "prima facie" evidence of our sense impressions.
    Why evolutionary changes are often hidden from view.
    The wide range of observations made possible by scientific instruments.
    Religious reality perceptions remain "the most logical" explanation for prima facie sense impressions.
    God and nature.
    Difficult proofs for fundamental beliefs.
    What the sciences still have to acknowledge.
    We will become more aware of our biological background.
    The emergence of a moral code, based on evolutionary insights.
    There is a great need to explore the possibilities for a global agreement on the basis of relativistic reality perceptions.
    When we are less stimulated by existential concerns, our capabilities of reflective thought and philosophical insight may blossom in a manner that exceeds our contemporary comprehension.

.......