The Turner Hypothesis:
---------------------------------
The evolutionary function of human reason, e.g. such as is extended by human
linguistic logic, is _not_ to ‘say’ what the world ‘is’, but rather to specify
(‘say’) how we should react to our experiences to better enhance our survival
capacity. Note that the logic of the former ("is") assumption is, by
definition, rigid and inflexible, thereby leading to ‘behaviors’
(experiential-reactions) which are likewise; while the logic of the latter is
suggestive of adaptability, revaluation, and update of reaction logic
specifications (‘beliefs’; ‘world view’; ‘ideology’; ‘theory’; etc.) based
upon consistency with further experience.
If you do not immediately recognize the potential ramifications that the
‘reaction-logic modification’ embodied in the above paragraph has for human
‘philosophy’ and
‘politics’, not to mention the complete re-self-definition of the human animal
and our
society, then I suggest you give yourself a thrill and ‘mull it over’ for a
few minutes. :)
Christopher L. Turner 10-16-98
>From previous posts:
------------------------------------
Subject: "Intelligence" Self-Design
Prepare to experience a paradigm "shift":)
What you think the world (or a 'thing') "is", is not. What you think the
world "is" is the configuration of your brain's reaction circuitry, the
synaptic logic which directs your brain's reactions to its experiences. The
configuration of your brain's experiential-reaction circuitry (ERC) is
something over which you have potential control -- i.e. it has the capability
of "designing" its own configuration. As a "human being", your primary tool
for configuring your ERC logic is your language. And the first step to
consciously, deliberately, and intelligently engineering your own ERC logic,
or "intelligence", is to know what you are referring to when you say (and/or
"think") what the world "is".
Christopher L. Turner 10-03-98
-----------------------------------------------------
Subject: Humans as "reaction machines":
We react to our new sensory experiences based on our past experiences. This
is the principle of 'learning', the survival strategy of neurologically
'mapping' our environment, at which we humans excel as a species.
We react to our words. We react to a thing or a person, etc., as we react to
the word(s) we call that thing or person. Our language is the tool we humans
have developed (or perhaps blindly 'evolved' would be more accurate) for
programming our reactions to our experiences. We tend to fail to recognize,
however, that the words we use to describe a thing, and the thing itself, are
not the same thing. We tend to fail to recognize this because, culturally, we
do not express this distinction in our usage of our language. (Reference g-s
reasons why our language cannot say 'all' about anything, etc.)
This is why we must extend the scientific method to our lives in
general. We must not be blinded by, or slaves to, our words and our reactions
to them. (Etc.)
Chris Turner 9-15-98