Mind Confronts Reason Iii

Mind Confronts Reason III Mind Confronts Matter. Knowledge: What is it? what is wanted for?. Is knowledge: Awareness of a thing? Or: Recognition of a thing? Simple awareness is produced through a highly complex system of neuron-image recognition traced to atoms responsible for the recognition. What are atoms of recognition? How do these atoms return together to make the final object? And finally, how do we recognise a thing? This leads to the question of what an object is, and howcome an object is. Should everything be reduced to atoms, as the case is, we face a colossal challenge of identification.

The object, be it a tree, an animal, a planet or a galaxy, becomes non-identifiable. If we accept cords' or strings' at the structure regarding the atoms we are even face with a withering distant identification where neither shape or colour, structure are recognisable. atom structure the dilemma of awareness at its most simple question where no sense shall be produced. What is an atom? Howcome should there be different variations of atoms? What is the difference between atoms? Howcome should there be atoms at all? And where do these atoms return from, their origin? And howcome should they at all be?. The question becomes most enigmatic when we demand the similar to questions about cords and strings estimating that a cord is 3 to 3 million times smallerthan a quark and a quark 3 hundred thousand times smallerthan a neutron.

If we demand to have knowledge of at every step of every inquiry the final sense looses itself into the realm regarding the unattainable. If our system of neurons perceives the presence of an aspect we confront immediately the questions of what is a neuron. How a neuron does recognise something? Howcome should a neuron recognise a thing? There exists no answers to any of these fundamental questions. We basically are within the realm of linguistic terminology, pretending to whatever is regarded as knowledge. What is awareness? How do we have knowledge of of our awareness?.

We are unable to recognise an aspect should we inquire into the most the means of recognition and the nature of awareness as well as into the nature of a thing?. If the term nature' bothers' some scientists, then a simple confrontation together with the simple element of a thing' the atom or the physiochemical structure regarding the neuron, in terms of what' is it, why' is it and how' is it as well as where' does it return from and what for', loses its method into the unknown'. Do we accept that our mind's awareness of an aspect to be regarded as knowledge? If so, then, does the accumulation of awareness of things comprise our knowledge?. If we do accept the how' explanation of our awareness' of things', that is next to impossible, the question of why' should we be aware of things, imposes itself without satisfying answers. The why' query concerning our awareness of things reveals the inevitability of things being imposed constantly upon our consciousness without any possibility to free ourselves from this obligation.

What significance can we attribute to this inevitability? Howcome should there be things? And howcome should they be imposed on our consciousness? Our questioning can continue to the following point: howcome should there be a consciousness of things? And, ultimately, howcome should we exist?. If, presumably, interaction between the mind the universe is inevitable, then howcome should there be such an interaction. We seem to live in a closed reasoning circle namely: we are conscious of things and this is supposed to be knowledge. Knowledge is the result of interaction between man, and the mind specifically, and the universe, that is identified as awareness. If this awareness is inevitable then our own existence is inevitable a priori.

This is true if we accept the premise that we are here sequential to be aware of things. The question of whether or not person exists sequential to acquire knowledge becomes interdependently explicable. That is if we not ever inquire into the nature of our existence as well as the nature of what consists existence itself. But reasoning cannot be limited to this, even though the answers, up to the present time, are inaccessible. In as distant as the nature regarding the atom constituent element of all matter, its presence, its origin, its structure, is still unknown.

As if we are presumably meant to remain in this state of unknowingness' or ignorance regarding the essential. In no method we attempt, in this work, to justify the status quo, but only to bring it out into consciousness. The fact that ultimate knowledge is unattainable at the present state of mind and knowledge does not permit a futuristic prognosis. What is interesting is that, and up till now, knowledge regarding the ultimate essential, that is clean and subject to anyone, remains a total mystery. We have knowledge regarding the genetic system regarding the DNA but we have no knowledge of its presence, simple atomic structure, its manage and what laws apply to its own existence and functioning and lesser still of neither its origin nor its finality.

In this we are always on the limits of our presumptions to knowledge. Whatever the mind is and whatever reason is we are within the realm regarding the unknown. As long as these objects belong to the website regarding the done enigma we are, ourselves component regarding the mystery, subject to conjecture and illusionary presumptions. We are subject to identification processes of communication. Neither the identification is real, lack of ultimate knowledge, nor is the communication is valid.

If 3 individuals agree to name an apple as such they identify the apple according to their system of identification. Once the apple becomes subject to inquiry it looses its real capacity to release its secrets. How return it is what it is? Where do their constituents return from? Howcome should there be an apple anyway? What creates a tree a tree? How did it return about? What for?.