What is Reality? What is Existence? What is Consciousness? Is Consciousness a prerequisite to experience? Here is an infallible argument…here is Consciousness…
Note: the words known and knowledge are synonymous
Note for this article: alternate terms for knowing are thinking, pondering, cogitation, mentation, contemplation, ‘learning’, transcendence, philosophy
‘Reality’ is what your mind re-cognises ‘the most’. The Sensorium Reality is termed our ‘foremost Reality’ by certainly no chance or surprise (see Empiricism or Physicalism)….should it be alternatively termed our minds ‘laziest reality’ or the ‘least Thought ambitious’ Reality’, sensorial thraldom? The ‘reality of least resistance’ or the ‘reality of most forbearance’; the one we so cock-surely ascribe the Mind state of ‘awake’ too? If sensors by definition pertain to change in electrical state then do we not have near infinite senses like that of the Sun? (that is if Thoughts are – Neurologically – said to be a change in electrical state). “Seeing is believing” indeed in the Sensorium Reality…
Colloquially, when you feel Consciousness, Existence, what is happening? Do babies feel Conscious? Can they experience an Existential moment?…Can we state infallibly that a requisite for Consciousness is (at minimum 1 piece of) Knowledge? That to which babies do or do not have? You see we look at babies and recognise Existence or Consciousness (our Knowledge recognising Knowledge within the baby) though at what point is a baby recognising Knowledge per se and thus Consciousness? We can safely state that when we ‘grow up’ we acquire Knowledge yes which becomes hard-crusted Egoistic Knowledge yes which we can re-cognise yes and thus experience our first Existential moment yes? Seems true…we can safely state therefore that Knowledge is a requisite for Consciousness and Consciousness can be sensibly termed Re-cognosis; that-is, Knowledge recognising Knowledge. (See article – A Recipe for Consciousness)
A priori a posteriori you ask? Knowledge before Experience or Experience before Knowledge? Well Experience is predetermined to be a Realism Other or Nouemona. It is a false dichotomy or indeed a dichotomy post subscription to Realism or post a solved mind/Mind problem (see article – The Religion of Plato and Aristotle). Experience is another word for Knowledge (read on…)
Define Recognosis: Knowledge recognizing Knowledge. Existence (Knowledge) ‘seeing’ Existence (Knowledge) (Existentialism).
Note here: Imagine if a horse ‘all-of-a-sudden’ spoke and referred to its-self as a self, as an “I”. One could argue that the primordial first Known is self, is an ‘I’ and acknowledgement of its recognition is ‘Am’. I, I-ing, the recognosis of I. That is, I know-tice-ing (noticing) I in time. Thus the first Knowledge Recognosis is the expression ‘I am’.
To re-cognise is to decree Knowledge; that-is a Knowledge re-cognising Knowledge re-cognising Knowledge and so on; self-being-aware; self-aware.
How do we recognise robot AI? Our Knowledge recognises the Knowledge the AI presents. Thus if the AI presents an Unknown (to us) that is in-fact ‘Knowledge by a hypothetical absolute smarter omniscient alien’ then is it within our definition of intelligence, of Consciousness?…well no and this is the Problem of Consciousness pointedly that our (us, I, you, Consciousness) finite defined Consciousness can only re-cognise that within the definition of our own (pre)defined, afore-defined Consciousness. It is the case of the dependent variable requiring belief in order to produce an independent variable; where ultimately, the independent variable is Super Axiomatically substantiated by the belief substrate in the dependent variable. (Notably a function of the Mind Mode Belief…see article… Oh Wow…Atheist have a God). A defined Consciousness is therefore a decree of absolute; a Super Axiom and it has a ‘no entry’ sign on it and is Xenophobic. This is overwhelmingly plausible given we can state our Knowledge of Consciousness is-and-can-only-be via Recognosis, Knowledge recognising Knowledge and we know all Knowledge is based on a Super Axiom to which is spirited by the ‘Mind Mode’ of belief. Verily, Consciousness per se, is… a belief! Staggering!!
The Waxing and Waning of Knowns
To build on the framework above, we now look at some modes of Recognosis and how they preserve, activate or deactivate Knowledge and thus Consciousness. Knowledge remains Knowledge when re-cognition superimposes the Knowledge so much so that it radiates a force outwards – termed Centrifugal Righteousness (that is Self Righteousness, Masturbating Knowledge in the Proknowlerate framework), such as light. Hard Knowledge is so bright, emits so much energy that the ‘thinker/knower’ must look away to which inevitably results in not-looking that is NullThought (see Essay – Living Knowledge and the Meaning of Life). Thus Knowledge is like a light emitting hard body and is survived by Centrifugal Righteousness and consequential NullThought.
Conversely, at any point in time, Knowledge is not NullThoughted and trialed/prosecuted by Thought/knowing and has the potential to de-exists/collapses/de-knowledge into Un-known/not-knowledge or void-knowledge or Black-knowledge (such as light in a black hole). This mode of Recognosis, the un-doing of Knowledge is termed Centripetal Righteousness, the Path of Righteousness, the Path of knowing or simply Transcendence.
Recognosis is a type of Circular Thinking or just Temper Thoughting/knowing, where the Knowledge is Re-cognising itself momentarily. What proceeds this fleeting moment – as a consequence of an intolerable unsustainable Thought/knowing rate – is either Recognosis modes, Centripetal or Centrifugal Righteousness. The Knowledge as a result, remains with existence via Centrifugal Righteousness and NullThought, or the Knowledge collapses into Unknown/not-Knowledge via Centripetal Righteousness and Thought/knowing.
Consciousness Experiencing Consciousness
The experience of Existence or Consciousness is when one Recognises (re-Thoughts/knowings) Knowledge, to where the force is neither Centrifugal nor Centripetal Righteousness but Equi-Righteousness; right in between. As defined above, this is termed Re-cognosis. However, Recognosis is only for a moment, an Existential moment, a fleeting moment before the homeostatic Recognosis proceeds into Centripetal or Centrifugal Righteousness and proceeding Thought/knowing or NullThought/not-knowing. Recognosis recognising Recognosis if you will. This is what gives the seemingly ‘INDEPENDENT’ recognition of what we have speciously termed experience where, once again, the so called Independence is truly – Mind Mode – believed in. (see article… Oh Wow…Atheist have a God)
Evidence of Recognosis
Playing with the above idea to test utility, we intuit if you will, we recognise signatures of Recognosis. For example, the ‘ity’ in Reality, a Linguistic Inflection of Real, says the term is in Recognosis and – by virtue of it existing hitherto – survives in Centrifugal Righteousness. This is a statement that the words are in existence, in Being, are not deceased and are thus in Recognosis. Likewise:
- “ence” in Exist-ence
- “ness” in Conscious-ness
- “Ity” in Real-ity
- “sis” in Gno-sis
- “ion” in iterate-ion
- “ing” in Know-ing
We take a closer look at the familiar Linguistic Inflection ‘ism’. When an “ism” is appended to a term, this implies that the notion and its doctrines are in Recognosis. An alternate interpretation of an “ism” is its proponents believe in the “ism” that is its doctrine, they are indoctrinated, equivalently to that of a Super Axiom. The “ism” therefore forms the basis, the denomonent of their consequential Knowledge; that is Proknowlerate. As mentioned, these terms are in existence, an existence no more or less similar to what one (humans) is with life, experience lifeness. The ‘isms’ are ultimately spirited by belief and are alive! Pointedly, the same alive thereof that one constitutes existence in or attributes to oneself!!
Recognosis seemingly infallibly and seemingly safely says that Existence/Consciousness/Experience is all Knowledge recognising Knowledge and are progened from the same primordial, the same root agency that is knowing. How oh how can one prove otherwise? How can one prove that Knowledge is not required in order for one to recognise one-self where one-self must be Knowledge prior to recognition thereof (perhaps apriori where experience per se has been also proven to be Recognosis...see also Meno’s Paradox)? The Existential moment is thus when Knowledge recognises itself; that is Recognosis! A profound revelation.
Further, most of us who have experienced an Existential moment ‘have Knowledge’ that it is indeed just a moment, a highly fleeting one at that. This is when Equi-Righteous Recognosis occurs . We then know Centrifugal or Centripetal Righteousness proceeds where the Knowledge survives, remains with existence, is alive or looses life and dies.
Our very Existence is truly the Knowledge of all Knowledge; the divine Super Axiom that the Knowledge of Life/Existence/Experience/Consciousness proliferate from. In other words, this fleeting Equi-Righteous Recognosis moment produces the divine Knowledge of Existence (Knowledge), that to which we name Life/Existence/Alive/Sentient/Conscious. What a splendid revelation!
To Know (have Knowledge of) is to experience Existence in which we incorporate Consciousness. In its simplest unadulterated form, if Know = Exist = Conscious we convert the phrase as follows:
… it’s all the Super Axiom, Knowledge!
Further, Scepticism states that no-thing can be Knowledge. Are we safe in infallibly stating that, Knowledge can be Knowledge; that is, we have Knowledge of the effects of Recognosis, that is we Exist?
“One can only recognise the progeny of ones Super Axiom! In other words, one experiences existence by recognising the progeny, the Proknowlerate proliferated from ones Super Axiom!” – somanywhys.com
“Knowledge is a species” – somanywhys.com