2. The Origin of Consciousness
Graham Little PhD
The answer lies in knowledge wisdom in the next question.
3. 2
Have you ever wondered what happens inside you that results in how you
feel, what you think and what you do? Views abound on our mind, spirit, conscious-
ness, and ideas like ‘higher’ consciousness. What is real and what not… and how can
we know? Is some idea real merely because someone says so and others believe
them? Must understanding reduce to ‘I’m right you’re wrong’? Or is there a better
way to decide which ideas we need embrace and which we put aside? How do we
judge? More importantly, what method can we use to collectively judge what is right
and what is wrong?
In the past 100 years, social science … such as Freud, Jung, Skinner and be-
haviourism, Marx and Adam Smith … has failed. Is in fact a social SCIENCE possible?
Do we even want it, with the scary images of killing whales in the name of science,
the spectre of A-bombs, abuse of animals, the arrogance of the military in its use of
technology, and many other things that can only be described as ‘soulless’? Is science
necessarily unethical and self-serving?
When we think in a reasoned and coherent manner, apply reason and objec-
tivity to better understand ourselves, does one necessarily have to give up on all the
gentle, spiritual and ethical things that make us deeply human? Is the idea of ‘spir-
itual science’ in principle a contradiction in terms? It is certainly a contradiction in
terms today, but does it have to be this way? Will ‘science’ and our humanity, our
inherent spirituality always and necessarily be in conflict?
What about our spirit? Do we have one…and does religion necessarily hold
the top hand in the game when it comes to our spirituality? Let’s assume we can build
a ‘spiritual science’. When we apply the methodology to understanding ourselves,
what does it say about ourselves, where we came from, why we do what we do, why
we are here, how we evolved as we are, the nature of our spirit, the links between
our body, brain, mind and spirit, the formation of ideas, the nature of knowledge, the
role and power of feeling within us, intelligence, our personality, and consciousness?
The Origin of Consciousness answers all the questions and more. Be prepared
to be surprised.
5. 4
Contents
Preface.............................................................................................................................................. 6
Background..................................................................................................................................... 9
The intellectual tools and method .......................................................................................26
The power of method................................................................................................................33
Is there an independent Reality?..........................................................................................49
When I perceive what do I perceive?..................................................................................55
What types of differentiation exist?....................................................................................63
How do things happen in Reality? .......................................................................................66
Interlude ........................................................................................................................................72
Where did ideas come from? .................................................................................................73
Variables in a theory of psychology ....................................................................................98
An Ashby diagram of psychology......................................................................................106
Mind and culture......................................................................................................................134
The construction of the human spirit..............................................................................140
Do I have freewill?...................................................................................................................148
The fundamental of the human condition .....................................................................151
Am I conscious?........................................................................................................................154
How do I understand me?....................................................................................................164
Did I develop or was I born this way? .............................................................................181
Are dreams meaningful?.......................................................................................................190
What happens when I learn?...............................................................................................194
Where did I come from and why am I here?.................................................................199
What is intelligence? ..............................................................................................................200
Can we build artificial intelligence? .................................................................................208
Spirituality and levels of consciousness.........................................................................211
What is mental health and mental illness?....................................................................228
If we are all the same, why are we different?...............................................................253
Relationship of theory to clinical practice.....................................................................256
Detailed understanding of cause.......................................................................................264
What is it to be a scientist? ..................................................................................................271
The search for congruence ..................................................................................................278
How do we interpret modern physics?...........................................................................290
6. Can we ever know the truth? ..............................................................................................296
Last word ....................................................................................................................................301
Appendix .....................................................................................................................................303
A new paradigm redefining physical and social science..................................303
Toward a better standard of judgment than peer review...............................339
Why we do what we do.................................................................................................362
Mind over matter ............................................................................................................371
A general theory of psychology must explain everything...............................377
The structure of truth....................................................................................................384
The psychology of freedom.........................................................................................390
More hope for victims of stroke ................................................................................394
Understanding and managing depression.............................................................397
How do I think and can I do it better?.....................................................................412
Do our genes determine who we are?.....................................................................430
About Graham Little................................................................................................................447
Intellectual background................................................................................................447
Books....................................................................................................................................448
The intellectual foundation.........................................................................................450
What am I?.........................................................................................................................451
Summary of intellectual background ......................................................................453
Formal CV...........................................................................................................................454
Research .............................................................................................................................455
Publications.......................................................................................................................456
Employment history ......................................................................................................461
Family and hobbies ........................................................................................................461
Intellectual evolution 1974 to 2015 ........................................................................461
Future work 2016 - ........................................................................................................464
7. 6
Preface
We become the ideas we apply.
Imagine a house. Now imagine viewing the house with the intention of buying
it. What would you see?
Now imagine the same house but viewing it with the intention of burgling it.
What would you see?
This work has been done1.What the researchers found was that the lists were
totally different, that what people ‘see’ depends on their point of view.
What we see depends on the thoughts we use to ‘look’. We see with our mind
not with our eyes.
We can go further since we take action depending on what we see. But what
we see depends on what we think. Therefore, what we do depends on what we think.
We can create an Ashby diagram what we think→ what we see → what we do. I will
discuss Ashby diagrams later, but this equation states that a change in what we think
has an effect on (which is what the arrow means) what we see which has an effect on
what we do. We could complete the loop by noting that the response to what we do
from others and from our environment has an effect on what we think.
If we refer to all we think as the ideas we have, and if all we do and say and
feel defines who we are, then we are the ideas we apply. As said by Einstein, ‘we be-
come what we think most of the time’.
Is this really how we are? Is this another opinion, another philosophy to add
to the many? Or is this something more?
There’s the rub of it. How do we know? What can we trust? Much has been
said about who we are and why we are, how do we know which is true and which
not?
Is our understanding of ourselves a matter of faith, opinion, and self-experi-
ence?
Or can we get beyond such individual, idiosyncratic points of view. Can we
have a scientific explanation of ‘a person’? I use the term ‘person’ to separate what I
am trying to say from both psychology and psychiatry, both of which have some
depth of history in our ideas, and neither of which have quite delivered as perhaps
we may like.
1
Anderson, R.C. and Prichert, J.W. Recall of previously un-recallable information following
a shift in perspective. J.Verb.Learn.Verb.Behav.1978, 17, 1-12.
8. So we come to the first question addressed in The Origin of Consciousness is it
possible in principle to create a general theory of the person?
In chapter 3 I explore a modern point of view that implies it is not possible or
at least the modern point of view where those interested or should be interested are
no longer searching or trying. In chapter 2 I summarize the fundamental platform
whereby it is possible, a platform called a ‘methodology’. The remainder of the book
then falls into two, first the application of the methodology to the question of creating
a general theory of the person, second exploring the consequences of the theory cre-
ated and relating it to the living realty of humankind. I say ‘humankind ’since any
theory of the person must apply to all people in all circumstances.
Perhaps by now, cynical due historical claims and failures of virtually all the-
ories of people, you may be wondering what a general theory of the person could
possibly tell us and what use it may be.
Please be prepared to be surprised.
For example, consider some rather obvious issues typically not bought thor-
oughly to account in historical theories. Knowledge is created by people. It follows
that any general theory of a person must account for knowledge. I call this the reflex-
ive requirement of any general theory of the person. When one explores further the
reflexive requirement is a lot more demanding than just the rather obvious point that
a theory of the person must account for knowledge. Precisely the theory must ac-
count for itself, since it is knowledge. But account for itself in some detail.
How and in what way does some knowledge we call science differ from the
garden variety knowledge we use every day. As we question deeper where did
knowledge come from, does it have a structure, why the structure we have? Then
developmental questions such as how is knowledge passed on, how does it evolve,
what is the relationship of knowledge to culture, and where do we acquire our
knowledge from?
Then of course there is consciousness. We each know what it is, we each ex-
perience it. Where did it come from? How does it arise in each person and in the
species? Why did it arise in us? Is the same in other animals as in us?
If we evolved, then consciousness had to be an aspect of that evolution, why?
What is the relationship between evolution and consciousness? Evolution occurs
against something, it occurs in relation to some aspect of the environment, what as-
pect of the environment could conceivably give rise to consciousness?
These general questions on humanity are fine and interesting, but you ought
to be wondering ‘what about me? What about my experience of me? Is that the same
as everyone’s experience of themselves? How do I differ from them?’
All the questions are fully answered. Historical failure at addressing the ques-
tions is shown to be failure of methodology. Historically social science had a
9. 8
methodology that was at best weak, at worst self-defeating and misleading. Due his-
torical methodology I see modern social science and even much of physical science
in an intellectual dead end. Of course I hope for this work to address that offering an
alternative direction.
Method is crucial. It was unravelling the methodology that took much of the
forty years of work, it was much more complicated in mind, since I began with the
historical method decided that was not up to it created an alternative while simulta-
neously disengaging from my engagement with the old method… but enough, it is
done and presented here. To explore the power of method I offer the quotes from the
book and the conclusion that follows.
…Imagine that bridge across the river, the flood washed out the supports so that
it is no longer safe. The safety of the bridge is dependent on the strength of the supports.
The strength of the supports depends on the volume of water. We can use the Ashby
tools and write the Ashby equation: Volume of water → strength of the supports →
safety of the bridge. This equation states that a change in the volume of water can pro-
duce a change in the strength of the supports, which can produce a change in the safety
of the bridge.
… So what exactly have we done here…? We have created some variables … vol-
ume of water, safety of the bridge, strength of the supports… and we have linked those
variables in a sequence to offer understanding of what can happen, a sequence with
definite survival consequences. We have created knowledge of Reality we have sharp-
ened our reality relative to Reality making our reality more congruent with Reality.
So what…? Well. Imagine there had been several days of rain a real downpour.
We have to cross the bridge to get to friends on the other side. But we understand the
links above…then putting two and two together, we think perhaps it would be smart to
just check the bridge supports before we try and cross, and so we did, and we do not
fall! Of course we still have the problem of getting to the other side…Perhaps after we
have fixed the supports.
In later sections I will show exactly how knowledge like this comes about via
interaction with perceptual fields. That the existence of exactly this type of knowledge
with this exact structure is no accident but due evolution working on the brain of spe-
cies such that the neural structures of the brain developed the capacity to think in
exactly this manner. Also in later sections I will argue that science is of this exact struc-
ture.
Please read on and learn why you are here and why you are as you are.
And please, be prepared to be surprised.
Graham LittleGraham LittleGraham LittleGraham Little
Auckland, March 2016
10. Background
I begin with some background on why I ended up doing this work. About
1969, I was newly married and half way through my PhD in organic chemistry at
Canterbury University in Christchurch, New Zealand. I was from Runanga a small
mining community just north of Greymouth. A mining community with no claim to
intellectual endeavor. The last person who had gained a degree from Runanga was
Robert Dane, near two decades older, and back at Greymouth High school as Head of
Science. At Grey High I was interviewed by the Careers Counsellor from the Univer-
sity and advised not to go to University, I would never cope. No great measure in
that except it paints the sort of background to my upbringing and hence psychology,
a certain lack of self-esteem and part way into my PhD I was a young man still finding
himself. I had found chemistry easy at school and followed it, with excellent grades,
gaining a scholarship to do a PhD. But, I decided I did not want to be a research chem-
ist. My professors sort of nodded, and were greatly helpful in me gaining a PhD that
was succinct and done in near record short time.
I handed in my completed thesis the first Friday in February 1971 in Christ-
church, my wife and I got in our car and left Christchurch on the journey into life, and
on the Monday I began with Shell Oil NZ Limited in Wellington as a Chemicals Rep-
resentative. Shell invested heavily in me, sending me on a host of training courses
involving sales, supervision, and leadership. Over the next two years I grew up, and
to Shell’s surprise and mine, we found I was good at being a sales rep and a leader.
Shell promoted me into a Head Office position as Training and Recruitment
Officer. Running training courses up to and including senior middle management,
and directing recruiting for high school and university graduates. It was not a per-
manent position, but one created occasionally for ‘bright young men’. But it was a
position that would direct the rest of my life. I became interested in the human side
of enterprise, and the understanding of human behavior generally.
Shell and I found I was also good in a training room. I had a talent at reading
people and enabling their growth and development. At about that time Shell Group
had done a major global survey of the fate of those who had retired at 60 (the then
retirement age). It shook the group, with the average life expectancy on retirement
of about 2 years. I was given the task of designing and implementing a planning for
retirement workshop for all staff, including the Managing Director then David Tud-
hope.
Shell NZ also wanted to revise its core training so I had several visits to Shell
Australia with the brief to bring back the best of their training and implement it in
NZ.
At that time in NZ the Unions held significant commercial power, the driver’s
union in particular gave Shell a hard time. I was delegated as a support person in
several negotiations with the union, and from one I was required to create a training
course for drivers on the chemicals they transported, providing some elementary
11. 10
background on what they were, what they did and if they were dangerous, which
some definitely were.
I was and still am a scientist, I need to know how things work. So I began read-
ing social science. Chemistry in my day was taught as a precise discipline, X+Y went
to Z, writing down a yield of 74%, and conveniently ignoring the 26% gunk in the
bottom of the test tube. But what that did was develop a way of thinking that was
precise, tight conceptualization.
Around mid-1973, I discussed with my then boss about communicating with
Shell London on training materials and information. We finally decided on the ‘desk’
to which we would address the text. Then, Shell London occupied two sky scrapers
and had 5000 staff, unless one located the right ‘desk’, as the address, then the fax
(no emails, fax was then state of art) could spend its life being redirected. We heard
nothing. I gave up, then about four months later the elderly chap from the mail room,
a 28-year veteran with Shell whom everyone knew and liked, trundled up to my desk
with a two-foot square and deep heavy box. It was full of Shell Group newsletters and
research notes on training and development, team behavior, T-groups, sensitivity
training, structured and unstructured training, general development, leadership de-
velopment, commercial behavior, and theories and assessments of research
directions. In short, a gold mine. Much of that in the notes had never been publically
published… much was significantly ahead of that in the formal academic literature.
This was many years ago, I do not know if that still persists, but there is obvious pro-
priety advantage in having better HR policy than the other guy.
In 1974, after extensive reading in social science, including Shell Group notes,
I found social science lacking, intellectually poorly grounded on fundamental in-
sights. It lacked the sort of precision I was trained to expect of science and the
excuses in the social science literature that it was ‘different’, did not ring true to me,
I disagreed. I was offended by the lack of conceptual precision, an emotional state
arising from my own education. I decided to develop my own intellectual position. I
drafted the following questions to guide my reflection and research.
The research questions
1. If we had an apt and thorough general theory of knowledge what
would it tell us of knowledge and the relationship between our
knowledge and the object of that knowledge?
2. If we had an apt and thorough general theory of psychology what
would it tell us of two people having a conversation and people gener-
ally?
3. If we had an apt and thorough general theory of groups of people
(large or small) what would it tell us of a particular group and of the
direction of development of that group?
12. 4. There is only one actor, therefore what is the relationship between the
solutions to the first three questions?
After about ten years of research and reflection and deeper reading into reli-
gion, I added a fifth question:
5. What is the human spirit, can it be conceptualized, located in our psy-
che and its influence identified?
Practical experience applying the initial insights
Between now and then, I have built businesses and made money and lost
money, fathered and assisted raise two children, married twice and divorced twice,
written a dozen books, and scored two world records in salt water fly fishing. The
permanent focus in my life has been the questions.
The businesses were both in social science. The first, Institute of Theoretical
and Applied Social Science (ITASS) was a psychological counselling company which
grew to six full time registered psychologists. It was one of the first counselling busi-
nesses in Auckland, and was applying the approach and view of psychology emerging
in my philosophy work. During the day the business was devoted to one-on-one
counselling, and in the evenings ran group courses on topics such as stop smoking,
assertiveness, relationships and male and female sexuality. Our source of clients was
from doctor’s referral. Our marketing was by evening seminars conducted by myself
to the local general practitioners. This was so successful that we were invited to dis-
cuss what we were doing at the Auckland Medical School since they had nothing like
our success at getting doctors to attend their evening professional development sem-
inars. What we offered was very simple, practical, offering insight into how we could
work with doctors to help their patients.
As a business, ITASS was very successful, unfortunately there was an ideolog-
ical split among the four owner/directors. I was the founder and CEO, but with equal
share, the other three were registered psychologists. Two directors wanted a busi-
ness and two wanted a ‘psychology practice’. The differences emerged for example,
in service delivery, in a ‘practice’ it was acceptable to have coffee while clients sat in
the waiting room significantly beyond their scheduled appointment time, and the de-
mand, less acceptable in a practice that clients had a service contract specifying the
outcomes, the time and the costs (over several years, we had become rather good at
assessing complexity of a psyche and the potential effectiveness of our intervention
processes). Relationships deteriorated. The tensions culminated in a board meeting
at which I was offered 51% of the shares, I declined, it is the only commercial decision
I regret.
The group split up, ITASS the holding company was returned me, and I com-
menced with the ‘commercial’ side of the business, focused on short courses in sales,
interpersonal skills, supervision and leadership training. Another of the directors,
Ian Hodgson joined me in and we formed The New Zealand Business School (NZBS).
Over the next eight years this was also very successful, growing quickly to train
13. 12
14,000-16,000 people each year in short (2-4 day) commercial courses, and employ-
ing 45 staff in six training venues throughout New Zealand. At the beginning I had
made the strategic decision to focus exclusively on cross-company courses, what we
called ‘public’ courses as opposed to courses run within a single company. In tough
economic times this type of training service proved to be last on and first off. The
business failed in the 1991-93 recession in New Zealand following the 1987 share
market crash.
In the years as CEO of NZBS I broadened my expertise away from just individ-
ual psychology, and developed expertise at what I now call ‘behavior change in
authority systems’, further adding to my understanding of the theory and practice of
psychology in real situations.
In the time since I drafted my questions I have observed the world retreat
from reason into new age mysticism. In my estimation, this due in large part to the
failure of social science over the last 50 years (Marx, Freud, Skinner, Jung for exam-
ple, and most recently the failure of the ideology of Adam Smith, dragging the world
into significant recession). To explore, put ‘failure of social science’ into Google and
follow the links. There are many reasons posted, from the irrelevant topics too often
selected, to not emulating physical science enough or trying too hard to emulate
physical science.
The fact of this discussion of itself highlights something not right. The issue is
what to do about it.
My personal web site notes on the questions are here www.grlphiloso-
phy.co.nz. I have also communicated with various international thinkers over the
years, likely most notable being Karl Popper, in the eighties, just before his wife died.
University had taught me three things. A habit of conceptual precision. Confi-
dence in my judgment, even when others did not agree. Finally, university years
bought out the emotional tendency to follow my own vision, to walk my own path,
the decision to shape my life to the beat of my own drum. My time with Shell consol-
idated leadership skills, unfortunately however, I was rather too free thinking to be
a good follower.
What is the status of this work?
Why should you bother to read this book? What is the status of this work com-
pared to that of many other authors, most of whom would on the surface offer a more
prestigious resume?
There is a very strong argument that asserts that consciousness can only be
discussed from within a general theory of psychology. In fact, I cannot see how this
argument can be refuted. I set the argument out below.
14. To begin, imagine a system in a ‘box’, the only requirement is that no part of
the system is outside the box. Then all outputs depend totally on the internal mech-
anism (whatever it is) processing the input.
We can now imagine the system of our psychology (no matter what it is) as
within the box. There are three and only three realistic options as to the position of
consciousness relative to our psychology.
First, consciousness is independent of the box. This is not exhibited, in that
when we are without our psychology we are without consciousness. Therefore, this
option must be rejected.
Second, consciousness is inside the box. Which means that consciousness is a
variable equivalent to other variables, such as emotion, attention, and thought. These
variables are linked but independent of each other, so we are aware of our attention
and focus on a thought or emotion. We can experience thought free of an emotion
and vice versa. But we do not experience consciousness free of an emotion, or free of
thought. It is our consciousness that is doing the ‘experiencing’. This option must also
be rejected.
Third, technically consciousness could be an input into the box, outside in
front not behind, which would mean consciousness is an input into our psychology,
like photons generating a visual image in our brain. So consciousness is an input into
our brain that generates consciousness…? And consciousness is separate from and
before our psychology…? That we experience our consciousness before we have any
psychological structures, which would mean a baby is born fully conscious and de-
velops the psychological structures as it grows and the dev elopement of those
psychological structures is independent of and does not influence consciousness.
This does not happen, does not make sense and is ignored.
Fourth, consciousness is an output from the box. This is the only remaining
option. It states that consciousness is an output/product of our psychology.
The conclusion is that a general theory of psychology is the necessary, essen-
tial precursor of any discussion of consciousness that is any discussion on
consciousness can only be from within a theory of our psychological system. We have
to solve the inside of the box first before we can even begin to discuss consciousness.
I would be most interested in how anyone can see this argument as flawed or able to
be refuted.
What is the current status of a general theory of psychology?
There is no general theory of psychology, evidenced for example in the major
level of discussion on the issue of ‘unifying’ psychology. Put ‘unification of psychol-
ogy’ or ‘theoretical unification of psychology’ into Google and follow the links. The
fact of the discussions make it clear there is no unified psychology. Some authors
even argue it is not possible to unify psychology, an issue I deal with comprehen-
sively in chapter 3. Previous efforts to unify psychology failed because they did not
go about it the right way with the right tools.
15. 14
It follows that any and all prior discussion on consciousness in the absence of
a general theory of psychology must be prefaced … “In the absence of a general theory
of psychology the creation of which could change everything herein stated, it is hereby
speculated that… If this statement is not made, then the work is deceitfully presented.
There is the excuse that before the ideas in ‘Origin’ then authors did not know. That
is failure of yet another sort touching a theme of this book, namely the ‘system’ of
intellectual institutions and publishing houses foisting on the general population in-
adequate ideas that when lived fail to enable improved fulfilment from life and at
times worse, foisting ideas enabling human abuse. If our global ‘intellectual/publish-
ing system’ is not overseeing the quality of our intellectual output, then who is? Any
individual may say as they choose, I am objecting when inadequate ideas are rein-
forced by the prestige and social status of the institution. More on this in chapter 3.
Ask yourself, how many books on consciousness do you know which are pref-
aced with the statement: “In the absence of a general theory of psychology the creation
of which could change everything herein stated, it is hereby speculated that… No seri-
ous scientific works I know, but what about the ‘new age’ works? I know of none of
those either. Should we accept thinking on a topic that is clearly and irrefutably
shown to be inferior, that fails the most elementary test of what I will later call ‘intel-
lectual integrity’?
In summary: There is no general theory of psychology therefore all previous
and current discussions on consciousness are speculation of very limited to non-ex-
istent scientific status.
What is the status of the work in ‘Origin’?
To create any general theory of psychology one must face crucial methodo-
logical issues which I summarise in this chapter and consider in detail in the next two
chapters. To illustrate, for example, knowledge in the form of widely available ideas
is a dominant driver of human development today (consider the web, technology,
and atomic weapons). A crucial issue follows, one I refer to as the reflexive issue,
namely a general theory of psychology is knowledge, people produce knowledge
therefore a general theory of psychology must account for itself. Another argument I
regard as irrefutable, but seldom if ever previously considered.
I will guide you comprehensively through the methodological issues essential
if a unified theoretical psychology is to be created. I will then apply the method fol-
lowing the direction determined by the method. To understand this, I enjoy TV crime
shows such as NCIS and CSI. In these shows it is stated repeatedly to not assume
anything, just follow the procedures and evidence. Well, the same applies here, do
not assume anything just follow the procedures in the method, fundamentally the
processes of conceptual reasoning set up by the method. If the crime lab detective
assumes they know who did it and the evidence shows otherwise, hard luck, do not
best guess the procedures. For exactly the same reason if you do not like the result
produced by the methodology in ‘Origin’, hard luck. If you want to argue the result,
then you will find yourself arguing against the methodology. That does not mean to
16. say the method is perfectly applied, but I have been at this a long time, and I am con-
fident I have been reasonably thorough in applying the procedures of conceptual
reasoning as they emerge from the method.
It follows that I have built the only general theory of psychology that lays any
serious claim to that title. It then also follows that the only valid discussion of con-
sciousness that has ever been drafted is the one in The Origin of Consciousness, since
it the only one to date that is from within a well-constructed general theory of psy-
chology. Which is to say the only general theory of psychology built using method
and intellectual tools of sufficient power to do the job.
Hence the claim that this book is potentially a paradigm shift for psychology
and social science generally, with further potential to rewrite how humanity thinks
of itself.
What practical value is there for someone reading this book?
You should be able to read the book and to understand what is offered. You
should ‘see’ how and why we are here, and the nature of what we are as a spe-
cies…’see’ yourself clearly as an example of the species and not find it ‘scientifically
offensive’… that you find it supportive even uplifting experience to understand your-
self as discussed in the book.
One intention is to enable you to better understand you, and hence able to use
and apply that understanding to build more fulfilment into your life.
Ethics of reason and search for ‘truth’ and balance
The point of this book is not to convince you. I am not responsible for what
you choose to think. My role is solely to work to ensure what I have to say is clear
and understandable. Other people then must choose, and scientific ethics are embed-
ded in that choice.
The only person with access to their mind is them. All ideas and thoughts they
hold in mind are totally their choices. I have a broad view that humanity's salvation
lies in reason leading to reasonableness, that is if humanity still needs salvation and
the current global tensions surrounding Ukraine strongly suggests it does.
I hold that science should be the global role model of reason. A key ethic that
follows is that a scientist is one who fights their own existing thinking, fights their
own predilections, fights the popular view, fights the politically correct view, fights
the current view foisted on them by peers for example, to seek out better ways of
understanding. A scientist as defined by these ethics seeks ‘truth’ (inverted commas
meaning the word be read as ‘toward improved verisimilitude2’).
2
In the book I do not define verisimilitude, but I do discuss congruence between reality and
Reality. Within congruence we have ‘scientific congruence’, which is the selection of variables in
some system linked so that they accurately reflect the flow of change through that system, the
17. 16
The scientist then holds their existing ideas as tentative, able to put aside all
prior views at the suggestion that the new ideas offered hold greater truth. They do
this since they know ideas in mind are by definition prejudicial and will cloud judg-
ment of any new idea.
I will do my best to make it clear, you are expected to do your best to put aside
all prior views and seek to build understanding and clarity in your mind of my view,
then you decide which system of thought holds greater ‘truth’.
Social science in particular has failed at this for decades, with Marx and Freud
for example, very poor ideas foisted by an informed intellectual community on the
general population with a significant aspect of the output that can only be described
as human abuse, the residues of some of which is still with us today. A tragedy today
is to continue to see these men as ‘intellectual greats’ which I argue offers major dis-
respect to those who died or had their lives eroded in anyway by the ideas generated
by such people.
Where this determined ethic of reason and understanding that ‘I am fully ac-
countable for my thoughts’ is not evident, where in say an hour a person skims a view
very different from their own and then declares it invalid, then I will not offer disre-
spect, but I will lose respect since they are people unreasoned and prejudiced, and
hence not deserving the name scientist.
The first thing scientists need overcome is the view of the majority, the cur-
rent paradigm, and ensure that in their heart there are no uncertainties, that the
views are not held because they are the current paradigm, that the view is held be-
cause one thinks it is the correct view. When social science sees itself as not acting
out some sort of intellectual game then it is more likely that people will begin to take
notice... but people have been hurt and societies damaged by historical social science
views and will not readily come back to the fold. That is social science stops seeing
'academe' as the 'market', and accepts it is dealing with ideas on humanity itself, and
people seek explanation, but have historically learned they cannot trust academe to
accuracy of the relationships and the variables then determines the accuracy of the results of pre-
diction of the outputs from the system. Full congruence between reality and Reality is the full
match of all aspects of the images in mind, our reality, generated by differentiated perceptual
fields, with Reality. The problem of course, given the rule of relations, how can we ever know…?
For some discussion on the history of verisimilitude see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verisimili-
tude, accessed march 14, 17 2014. The issue discussed in Wikipedia is how one of two false
theories can be ‘truer’ than another. I do not see that as a significant issue, since all scientific
theory only grasps a particular aspect of congruence, and so is by definition a particular sort of
approximation in reality to Reality. As is all science. Therefore, it is not hard to see how one theory
could be a better approximation to an approximation than another, hence contain greater verisi-
militude. That is one theory holds closer congruence than another to the actual mechanism in
Reality which we are seeking to replicate in reality with variables and relations between variables.
Accuracy of outcome is one method of assessing such congruence, with the proviso that the vari-
ables themselves bear directly to the system and do not need ’interpretation’ as in case of quantum
theory, another method is explanatory power, independent of accuracy of prediction. As I argue in
the book, the final decision as to which is the better theory can only be an act of judgment.
18. present ideas that when lived, result in an improved way of life. I suggest this to be
the major reason why the world has retreated from reason into a new age mysticism.
Criteria for any solutions
By late eighties I had identified several conditions the solutions must meet:
Integrated solutions: The questions are not independent therefore the solu-
tions had to be related and fit together as a hand fits a glove.
Causal solutions: The solutions had to be causal, hence what is cause, and
what is the relationship between cause, physical necessity and knowledge?
Second Law: The universe is ruled by entropy, the interpretation used here
being that in any isolated system, left to its own devices, energy will flow to the low-
est available energy state. Where does the second law of thermodynamics fit into the
solutions?
Build congruence of image with object: We know all perception of the ex-
ternal world depends on our interaction with factors in the external world.
Specifically, without photons we cannot see. This leads to the definite position that
there is an internal image, I call ‘reality’ (small r intended) and an external Reality
(Large R intended) from which reality derived. There are significant issues of the re-
lationship between reality and Reality, but these issues are that which any theory
must resolve. It follows that the focus of the effort is to build reality congruent with
Reality. There remains the issue of ‘how?’, but at least we are clear as to the desired
end result.
I had explored current theories, and knew them lacking. I had read epistemol-
ogy, noting that it was the period when Popper was making the point of ‘knowledge
without a knowing subject’, and also attacking positivism with falsification. I under-
stood all current insights and knew them inadequate for solving my questions.
The breakthrough
The breakthrough came when I read W Ross Ashby Design for a Brain (Chap-
man-Hall, London, 1960).
Following Popper, knowledge exists independent of the knower. All things
that exist have an internal structure (there is the question of a photon for example,
but the final result of my epistemological analysis questions the assumption that a
photon has no internal structure, implying it has, and that internal structure will and
does interact with the environment).
I intuitively, immediately understood that Ashby ultimate and immediate ef-
fects were the conceptualization of scientific knowledge itself, Ashby had created a
scientific theory of scientific knowledge.
19. 18
I spent the next few years getting very clear how to apply the Ashby process,
what sort of result it produced, and working out how to apply Ashby process to my
questions. I discovered that on its own the Ashby process was only part of the re-
quired methodology.
The complete methodology
The discussion presents a logical progression that is not realistic, there were
many dead ends, points of despair, and false trails. But the picture slowly emerged.
As I considered my work in relation to that of Karl Popper, I came to under-
stand what I call the rule of first things first. That is, my hypothesis that Ashby tools
are a model of scientific knowledge is only possible because Popper had established
knowledge existed independent of the knower, therefore had a structure independ-
ent of the knower. I also came to more fully understand the issue of ‘first things first’,
and the associated limitations of peer review, in relation to the ‘Sokal affair’ (dis-
cussed fully in chapter 3). I call this methodological rule ‘first things first’, or
‘strategic science’ in that it links new ideas with historical ideas in a direct logical
manner.
First things first: The rule states that discussion on any topic must fall within
the bounds of what is known of the ground of the topic. The ground being those prior
factors that must be resolved before discussion on the topic. For example, the topic
may be the question ’does knowledge have a structure independent of the knower’,
the ground being the question ‘is knowledge independent of the knower’ since if not,
then it is unlikely to have structure independent of the knower. If the suggestion on
the topic is beyond the bounds of the ground of topic, then the suggestion is specula-
tive, that being particularly so if the resolution of the issue of ground could change
or impact the suggestion. If there remain issues of ground that could impact the sug-
gestion on any topic, then scientific intellectual integrity requires the suggestion be
prefaced: In the absence of … (issue of ground) ...that could alter the suggestion of-
fered here, we speculate that….
A further methodological issue emerged in trying to justify the existence of an
external Reality. I refer to this as the rule of relations.
Rule of relations: The rule states that no relationship can be determined be-
tween two objects unless each object is independently discernible. This has two
crucial circumstances. First, we only perceive Reality via reality, existence of photons
determines that. Therefore, we are unable to separate reality, the image in mind from
Reality, the object of the image in mind. It follows that as a matter of methodological
principle no single person, nor group of people can establish the existence of an ex-
ternal Reality, which can only be done with technology where both image and object
are independently discernible. Such technology does not currently exist. The second
instance is where we are unable to separate an object of Reality from its environ-
ment. Imagine a horse in a paddock, we can separately identify object (horse) and
20. environment (paddock). Now imagine a photon in its environment, we cannot sepa-
rate the two. Which means we cannot establish a relationship between the two.
Therefore, we do not know if the two interact and hence have no idea as to the nature
of any such interaction.
The intellectual tools: Finally, we come to the actual intellectual tools. I had
Ashby process, but needed to clarify and define the nature of variables, how they
were abstracted from reality, and their relationship to Reality. The Ashby tools as I
named them, begins with variable selection, and then using a defined technique
called ‘primary operations’ to conceptualize the relations between those variables.
The result is the conceptualization of the flow of change through any system, in short
the ‘mechanisms’ of the system. Imagine any system as a box…the input into the box
is ‘processed’ within the box to produce the output. The ‘mechanisms’ is the term
used to describe the processes within the box (the only requirement is that there is
no aspect of the system outside the box). Then mechanisms equal physical necessity
implicating the second law of thermodynamics. Conceptualization of the mecha-
nisms using the Ashby tools is conceptualization of cause defined as what we know
about the mechanisms and hence what we know about physical necessity of any sys-
tem. I also explored the other set of potential tools, mathematics, and the
relationship they made to Reality. Consider E=mc2, and HΨ=EΨ, the mass energy
equation from relativity, and the Schrodinger equation the foundation of Quantum
Mechanics. The first is an Ashby relationship between two definite variables (energy
and mass) drawn from Reality, the second is a mathematical representation of what
happens that gets very good answers. One is a conceptualization of Reality, the
other…it required a conference in Copenhagen to decide what this wave equation
meant in Reality, with the probability interpretation never accepted by Einstein. We
have then the two crucial aspects of scientific models, accuracy of prediction, and
congruence of reality with Reality. Use of Ashby tools always gives both, and we can
be confident we have in reality the understanding of what is happening in Reality.
With mathematics we cannot be sure, and merely using mathematics to generate ac-
curacy of prediction does not mean we understand what is happening in Reality,
since there is no necessary relationship between mathematics in reality and the op-
eration of the mechanisms (physical necessity) of Reality. In short we cannot assume
that because some mathematical formulation gets the right answer that it is causal
(the conceptualization of the mechanisms of physical necessity in Reality).
Ashby tools creates Ashby diagrams as causal descriptions of Reality, congru-
ence assured, with the quality of variable selection assessed in the accuracy of
prediction. The flow of change as determined by the process of primary operations
ensured the second law integrated into the Ashby diagram. The method now
matched the criteria set for any solutions, I did need to ensure integration of the so-
lutions since there is only one actor, people, but with these tools and rules of method
I was confident I was fully equipped to tackle the questions.
The intrinsic circularity and failure of Descartes’ method
I was now near 20 years into my research program, and had begun to under-
stand that these rules and tools are knowledge, people produce knowledge therefore
21. 20
these tools had to be derived from the theory that was being created by applying the
tools. The inherent circularity dawned on me. It is expressed later in the book as fol-
lows:
“I summarize the circularity below. Begin at any point you are inevitably guided
back to your start point.
1. We need a general theory of psychology.
2. But for it to be causal we need to understand cause.
3. We need a general theory of cause to enable a general theory of psychol-
ogy.
4. But what we know of cause is knowledge.
5. We need a general theory of knowledge to guide us identify a general
theory of cause.
6. But knowledge is created by people.
Therefore, we need a general theory of psychology. And the circle closes.
To deny this circularity is to deny for example that there is no link between a
general theory of knowledge and a general theory of psychology. To deny this circular-
ity is to deny first things need to be done first.
To resolve the circularity demanded an iterative method not a linear method.
The iterative method is to create a solution then apply it around the circle until a theory
was created that resolved all three issues of psychology, knowledge and cause, simulta-
neously.” Quoted from the later section ‘Issues of method’.
The progress of humankind
I believe strongly that humanity tomorrow will be shaped by the ideas we
promote today. We have a capacity for self-filling prophecy. It is a major reason I
think Wikipedia is so important, it is our chance to look into a mirror to see what we
really think of ourselves. Available to everyone, if we make what is in that mirror an
improvement over what is there now, and we adopt it, then we have a technology for
advancing the quality of existence of humanity. As said by Einstein, we become what
we think most of the time.
For example, in 1776 Adam Smith wrote Wealth of Nations, arguably the foun-
dation book of modern western free market economies. The last few years and in
many prior episodes the ideology failed, but most dramatically recently, as the whole
world suffered. In Smith’s time Scotland was culturally dominated by Calvinism, with
emphasis on hard work, respect, and thrift. And among the power elite, a commit-
ment to the ‘greater good’. Within this cultural backdrop Smith wrote his book,
22. arguing the ‘invisible hand’ would ensure moderation, social good, and market fair-
ness.
Now, think of today. Imagine all news and information measured in column
inches…now estimate what percentage of those column inches devoted to wealth,
wealth expenditure and life style and wealthy people (with all celebrities falling into
category of wealthy people). I have never done this research, but with say a normal
news day, I suggest at least 50%. This is a huge focus on anything but the common
good. And this has been occurring for at least my adult life time, 50 plus years. Near-
ing two generations.
If people are repeatedly told that what everyone is really interested in is get-
ting as much as they can and spending it and being celebrated in the news as a
result… what will they do…?
Smith’s Calvinism is long gone, and will never return. I believe the world will
come to be driven by a single idea “I want what is best for me” … and the emergence
of this is already evident. Second, I suggest this is a perfect attitude on which to base
our society, but we do need learn the ethics that go with it. That is, society enables
me to pursue my fulfilment then I must respect the effort of all others in pursuing
their fulfilment. My actions in pursuit of my vision must not impede actions of others
pursuing their vision.
The problem is the lack of ethics that appropriately draw lines of respect and
dignity. A perfect example is the phone tapping scandal in UK, rapacious owners and
editors seeking salacious news of celebrities overstepped any bounds of reasonable-
ness and social respect and decency. ‘I want what is best for me’ at the expense of
anyone. Social management of such a cultural moral code demands both social con-
demnation of inappropriate conduct, so we all need begin assume some
responsibility and not admire or applaud or salaciously watch and give ratings to
those exhibitions of unethical self-serving conduct; and appropriate regulation.
Notions of ‘right’ and ‘left’ often refer to the requirement for regulation, right
argued as less, left as regulatory controlling as in the nanny state. If as I suggest the
world is driven by an attitude of I want what is best for me then such ideas, make no
sense. All political parties need to ensure regulation to punish rapacious self-serving
behavior.
We will never again have the cultural backdrop experienced and assumed by
Adam Smith. We need get used to it, and recognize that in the modern world, and
forever forward we will need regulation to land heavily on those who excessively
serve themselves at the expense of everyone else. Regulation in the moderation of
greed when the appropriate self-disciplined ethics flowing from the foundation atti-
tude of a free culture are not exhibited.
Where do we start?
Humanity lacks clear, scientific insight into itself, and creating and populariz-
ing such insight would assist us to develop improved self-fulfillment, moderate
23. 22
violence, and enable greater peaceful co-existence. We need understanding and rea-
son to describe why we are, how we are, where we are going, and why. Argument
that tells us not to believe in God or that He is a fairy tale, or that as moral beings we
should or should not do this or that, does not cut it, we need reasoned position to
begin with, to build from, a base all agree with.
We need an intellectual base through which we ‘see’ ourselves. A base within
which we are all exactly the same. And we need that base in Wikipedia.
The end of the beginning…
Churchill famously stated that “...it was not the end or even the beginning of
the end, but it was the end of the beginning.”
If the beginning of social science lay in intellectual incoherence, then I offer
“Origin” as the end of the beginning and a step toward social science intellectual co-
herence.
What can we expect of a general theory of the person?
One of the issues that has become much clearer to me during the exchanges,
particularly with members of the Society of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychol-
ogy, that needs considered more carefully is epistemological, that is ‘what is the
necessary relationship between a theory and the empirical circumstance to which
the theory applies?’ The issue is the expectation that a general theory of the person
will in some way offer understanding and insight into a person, when in fact that is
not possible due epistemological principle.
The starting point of understanding the methodology is to understand the re-
lationship between the formula for the period of a simple pendulum at sea level and
an actual pendulum at sea level. The formula is T (period) equal to a constant times
the square root of the length T=K√L (we can refer to the equation as our 'theory' of
the pendulum).
Now, if I want to know the period of a pendulum in Rangiputa, a beautiful bay
and beach settlement in far north of NZ, I need go to the location and measure the
length and place it in the formula. In advance of that, all I know is the formula, which
just guides me as to which data to measure.
The first two questions specified in my quest are:
If we had an apt and thorough general theory of knowledge what would it tell
us of knowledge and the relationship between our knowledge and the object of that
knowledge?
If we had an apt and thorough general theory of psychology what would it tell
us of two people having a conversation and people generally?
24. Note, they ask what theory can tell us… the point is crucial. Hence the order
of the questions which is not arbitrary nor an accident. So one needs sort the episte-
mological issues first, specifically the relationship between theory and empirical
circumstance to which the theory applies. But, humans create knowledge, so how do
you build an apt general theory of knowledge in absence of an apt general theory of
psychology within which a general theory of knowledge is a detail. I refer to this as
the 'reflexive issue' in the situation, it is not simple and I fully believe it has not been
addressed adequately in any previous work, until now, it is fully addressed in
‘Origin’.
My point is that any theory of psychology must sit in the same epistemologi-
cal relationship with actual people as the 'theory' of the pendulum sits in relation to
any actual pendulum. To suggest otherwise is to suggest we can know of empirical
data and circumstance before it occurs, which we know we cannot.
No theory can make any comment on any particular person, which follows
from the general epistemological position that theory can only describe empirical
circumstance by guiding which data to measure and place into the theory. I argue
that it is this epistemological principle which has eroded much previous efforts at
theory construction including notables such as Freud, Skinner, Lewin and others as-
sociated with attempts at 'unified' theories. This epistemological principle plus the
issue of the reflexivity of the situation have not been fully integrated into virtually all
previous attempts with theories of psychology, and these issues tend to erode much
of the intellectual foundations of social science.
Therefore, the book is about what general theory can tell us… and as such is
very limited on what it can tell us of any actual situation, what I take as reference to
'specifics'… actually I deal fully with the question of ‘The specifics necessary to un-
derstand a person'. If we return to the analogy of the pendulum, the equation is the
theory, the data is to measure the length. Variables and their relationships into which
we place appropriate data. I create theory, then to describe a person I refer to gath-
ering the data on them to place in the theory. I refer to this data as the 'book' on the
person (inverted commas intended). People are significantly more complex than the
length of a pendulum, but the principle is exactly the same.
Having said that, 'Origin' theory defines the structure to our psyche, defines
consciousness and its source, specifies the structure of our spirit, defines how and
where ideas came from and how they were used in survival, specifies human evolu-
tion and the environmental circumstances that gave rise to us effectively specifying
why we are here, defines knowledge and its structure, offers clear definition of men-
tal health, and mental illness, and many more issues.
The reach of the theory is astounding, and it took me many years to get used
to that, I finally accepted that any general theory of the person that is apt must touch
on all that people do in some way, hence if it does not have reach, and an easy com-
fortable reach, without needing to 'stretch' to explain, then it must be regarded as
suspect and limited. So for instance, the theory must have comment on the interpre-
tation of quantum physics... since people created it. And on the existence of time, for
25. 24
example. This level of reach is essential if the theory is to be valid... but it took me a
decade to come to accept that proposition.
The argument is as follows: All knowledge is created by people, therefore the
understanding of how knowledge comes to be and how it is related to the objects of
that knowledge must be a defined within any valid general theory of the person. If
that is not the case, then we cannot have faith in the theory since it is substantially
incomplete. All physics is knowledge, including what we know of time, it now follows
that all understanding of all aspects of physics including time, must be a detail within
the general theory of knowledge and must follow the principles set for the relation-
ship between all knowledge and the objects of that knowledge.
Summary: A general theory of the person to be valid must contain a general
theory of knowledge which specifies how our knowledge relates to the objects of that
knowledge. Therefore, any interpretation of physics and time etc., can only be a detail
within this theory.
In any search for the intellectual foundations of a general theory of the person
necessarily and essential must embrace these issues. It is not the 'specific under-
standing of people', but the search for variables and the relationships between those
variables, and then interpretation of that theory.
What took many years for me to understand was pursuing this intellectual
foundation was nothing less than pursuing the intellectual foundation of human ex-
istence. The theory had to reach to everything humanity did and had done.
The reflexive issues and other factors make methodology the critical start
point in any effort. Again, I point out, it took a decade of wrestling with these and
related questions before I came to terms with them and felt I had come to really un-
derstand what I was trying to do.
For more understanding of my background I suggest a paper written around
1983, and published in the UNESCO Journal, Impact of Science on Society (no longer
in publication). The article was called Creativity and conflict in psychological science
(‘impact’ 1984, 134/135, pp 203). In it I discuss the then accepted theories of psy-
chology, and I sketch the sort of program needed to use the key insights in each of
them to unify them. The paper can be found here: www.grlphilosophy.co.nz/psycho-
logical_science.pdf. It is a scan of the paper into my personal web site. Unfortunately,
back then we did not have the sort of technology we have today.
The aim of the book
To offer full solutions to the questions.
The solutions had to explain or provide the overarching rationale of every-
thing to do with humanity, including its evolution. It was not enough to explain us as
we are, but how did we get to become as we are. For example, Homo erectus was on
the earth for near 1,200,000 years. We have been here as Homo sapiens sapiens a
26. mere 200,000 years, and behaviorally as us, a mere 50,000 years. Why? Was their
consciousness different from ours, if so, how and why? And what capacities do we
have that they did not?
I began with the model of self-correcting feedback system from Design for a
Brain, by Ashby, and redeveloped the model to take better account of human psy-
chology and physiology. I took several years before I had the system as it is in
“Origin”. It took several more years to interpret that which I had created, and unravel
the final solutions to the questions (note, questions 1, 2, 5 and 4 as it relates to these
are finalized. Question 3 solution remains in draft form).
Please note, the book is written for a ‘general readership’, it is intended to be
read by anyone interested in the topics of why we are here, why we are as we are,
where we came from.
I have tried to make the book engaging and readily understood, but please do
not underestimate the depth of intellectual issues it explores. Where appropriate I
try to bring that out. It is not an ‘academic book’, no text book, hopefully a ‘lively
read’, full of wonder, solutions, and lots of unanswered and/or implied ques-
tions…since we just do not know it all … And tomorrow when we know much more,
then we will still not know it all….
27. 26
The intellectual tools and method
Imagine going to an art exhibition. Let’s assume you like art, but do not like
some types of art. You have definite preferences you are clear about. You know the
artist presenting at the exhibition does not usually do the type of art you most ap-
preciate. You go to the art exhibition to enjoy, but looking for those pieces that fit
your criteria. We can describe this as an ‘open mind’ with criteria to guide judgment,
criteria that form a platform of thinking enabling clarity of judgment.
The Origin of Consciousness offers a different view of what it is to be human. I
offer three criteria that are important in the evaluation of the ideas, the rule of rela-
tions, first things first, and the need for intellectual tools. These three are a platform
of thinking that enables clarity of judgment.
Rule of relations
Imagine two identical glasses on a rotating table such that no matter how we
positioned ourselves all we could ever see was one glass. Imagine the table floating
in air never mind how, with the glasses exactly aligned. Then the table rotated, tilted,
and change position such that no matter what we did only one glass was ever evident
to us. How would we determine there were two glasses?
We could measure the weight distribution, speed of rotation of the table, etc.
propose two glasses and predict the distance between them, however this would be
a theory until such time we were able to establish unequivocal proof. The only way
we can be sure is to sight each glass, and then research the relationship between
them.
The rule of relations formalizes this and states a relationship between two ob-
jects can be established if and only if each object is independently discernible.
The principle is crucial in two important instances.
First, how do we separate our image of an object from the object? There is an
assumption that what we see is in our mind and is different from the object. Hence
two objects. This is proved in virtual reality where say a tree is not a tree but a com-
puter generated image. No matter how we think about an object we can only ‘see’
what is in our mind.
The rule of relations means relationship between an object and the image in
mind can only be established by observing each – object and the image – independent
of the other, then assessing the relationship between them.
Hence forth I will use the terminology Reality, capital R, to describe the object
outside our mind, and reality, small r to describe the image in our mind.
Because of the rule of relations, it is not possible to establish the existence of
a Reality beyond our senses without technology where an image in mind, reality, can
28. be viewed simultaneously with the object of that image, Reality. Currently such tech-
nology is not available. Even if we had the technology I can only imagine it applied
to one mind at a time. Just because we could see image and object in one mind does
not mean it applies in all minds. The rule of relations dismisses as impossible in prin-
ciple all prior attempts to argue the existence or non-existence of an external Reality.
We will return to this point in later sections.
The second important instance is on what we can and cannot know.
Imagine a horse in a paddock. We can ‘see’ the horse and the paddock. Hence
when we imagine the horse alone and we can ‘see’ all the links it makes with its en-
vironment, we can even ‘see’ the horse against a blue screen background and we can
insert the horse into any environment we choose.
Because we can ‘see’ horse and paddock independently we can ‘see’ the links
the horse makes with the paddock, we ‘understand’ the horse in its environment.
Now imagine the fences could move, and could close in on the horse. Then
imagine all we could see was the horse. We could not ‘see’ the environment. Initially
we could see the horse moving freely about, but slowly it moved less and less, until
finally it stopped moving. Because we could not see the environment, only the horse,
we may be tempted to speculate on the ‘properties’ of the horse, when in fact the
horse was trapped by the movable fence. The ‘properties’ of the horse did not alter,
the environment altered and all the horse could do was respond by standing still.
We can ‘see’ the properties of the horse and paddock and how the two inter-
act. We can do a thought experiment and show that when we cannot distinguish
between horse and paddock we cannot ‘see’ the situation at all; we cannot distin-
guish when events are caused by the horse or by the fences and paddock.
Now try and imagine a photon. It is impossible. We can imagine it as a particle
but the slit experiments say that it is a wave. We can imagine it as a wave but then
quantum properties say it is a particle.
Now try and imagine the environment of a photon. We are not even sure what
the environment is at the level of a photon, with creation and destruction of pairs of
virtual particles and the suggestion that space consists of Higgs bosons, etc.
It is impossible to imagine a photon in its environment. Even in mathematics
there is no clean and clear distinction between the photon and the environment of
the photon. Photon and environment are entangled.
Our ability to ‘see’ photons is doubly complicated. The photon and the envi-
ronment of the photon are not independently discernible therefore we are not able
to assess any relationship between them. Second, we are not able to distinguish be-
tween the ‘photon in its environment’ in Reality and the image in reality. We hardly
have any image in reality. Therefore, any events involving the photon could be due
the photon, could be due the environment could be due both in some way, we simply
do not know.
29. 28
In terms of our understanding the rule of relations becomes a crucial funda-
mental principle. Where the rule of relations is not obeyed and we cannot
independently identify two objects, then we are unable to assess the relationship be-
tween them.
When the rule of relations is broken, we must accept our ignorance and not
speculate. Speculation is science fiction not science.
First things first and the strategic demand on science
Imagine building a house. Where do you start?
No one would set out to build a house from the roof down. The idea is silly. To
be secure things need be to be built from the foundations up.
Consider for example a business plan on the launch of a new product. Few
boards of directors would sign off on a plan without assessment of the opposition
product, identification of the market, projection of pricing, cost, gross margin, as-
sumptions about consumer acceptance and volume off take etc.
The general principles of this process can be identified as a way of strategic
thinking about topics.
There is a topic, for example the new product, and there is a range of issues
bearing directly to the topic such as pricing, opposition product, consumer ac-
ceptance, costs, etc., we can call these issues the ground of the topic. We can now
formalize the relationship between topic and ground as Discussion on any topic must
be bounded by what is known of the ground of the topic. To discuss the new product
without knowledge of the market is not acceptable, and few managers would put for-
ward a business plan with this obvious component missing.
The principle is called ‘first things first’. In business the principle of ‘first
things first’ is well established and understood as imposing a strategic demand that
discussion on any topic be related to the ground of the topic.
Does ‘first things first’ apply in intellectual endeavor?
The intellectual process is often summed in the idea of ‘seeing’ further by
standing on the shoulders of the giants who went before. The principle of first things
first formalizes that idea.
We can list questions that illustrate the idea of first things first in intellectual
endeavor.
Is it possible to discuss motivation in business without a valid general theory of
psychology within which motivation is a detail?
30. Is it possible to discuss development of society without a general theory of soci-
ety and the relationship between a general theory of society and a general theory of
psychology, seeing people are the only actors in both?
Is it possible to use the word cause, meaning some level of necessity, in any cir-
cumstance, without a general theory of cause?
Is it valid to build diagrams in social science involving boxes as variables with
arrows between without defining the meaning of the arrow?
To obey the rule of first things first means the answer to each question is ‘no’.
‘First things first’ is rational thinking applying in intellectual endeavor as
much as any other. The implementation of the principle of first things first in science
I refer to as ‘strategic science’. If we accept strategic science, then we can state that
science itself enforces a discipline to which the scientist must adhere. The term sci-
entists then applied only to those who accept the discipline, and to be ‘scientific’ is to
ensure what is said on any topic is strictly within the bounds defined by the ground
of the topic. I will consider this issue in more detail in later sections.
Marx, for example, discussed the development of society in terms that implied
necessity and causation yet had no general theory of cause or of psychology, solu-
tions to either could impact his assertions. For Marx to have obeyed this first things
first rule of science, he would have needed to preface his work with the statement,
“…in the absence of general theories of cause and of psychology, either one of which
could influence my analysis, I speculate that…” I suggest had he prefaced his work with
this statement he would not have had the influence he did.
The discipline of first things first guides us from being carried away by infe-
rior thinking creating inferior ideas particularly those with emotive appeal.
The principle of first things first can also be formalized within a cybernetic
framework as follows.
Imagine a system, with all the system in a box, the output is the result of the
input plus the internal mechanism.
Now we apply the Ashby tools to conceptualize the internal mechanisms, and
thus create a causal description of what happens within the box. We now have scien-
tific theory/laws on the operation of the system in the box.
The rule of first things first states that the theory of the system will apply if
and only if there are no unresolved factors of ground that if resolved would influence
our theory of the mechanisms.
There are now two aspects to the rule. For example, imagine the solar system,
now imagine it as a system in a box, we understand it rather well, and can predict its
31. 30
states if an only if nothing from outside the solar system intervenes to alter the mech-
anism operative within the solar system. This is Reality intervening and invalidating
our prediction.
The second situation is cognitive, in that when we created the theory of the
system we did not leave unresolved any issues that if resolved would alter the theory
of the system. If we have then for us to act with integrity we need preface the hypoth-
esis with … “…in the absence of … which if resolved could influence my analysis, I
speculate that…”
When there are no issues of ground able to influence a theory, then I define
the theory of ethically constructed, and is theory with intellectual integrity.
Need for intellectual tools
When you go to do something, do you think it important to have the right
tools? Would you go fishing with a paint brush?
Imagine we carefully obey the rule of first things first and carefully avoid the
pitfalls implicit in the rule of relations, now, how do we build knowledge that has
clarity and precision?
First things first is readily understood as ethics imposed by the nature of sci-
ence. The rule of relations is not so much ethics, rather an intellectual guideline to
avoid some types of intellectual pitfalls. The rule of relations is immediately evident
in the example of the glasses on the rotating table, or in a system of twin stars where
we never sight the second star … is it a star or is it a black hole, or something we have
never seen before?
Application of rule of relations to the relationship between our image of an
object and that object is independent of any theory of psychology, to deny this prem-
ise is to suggest we perceive the object, and not our image of it, which does not
remotely match modern neural understanding.
First things first and rule of relations are tools providing a platform ensuring
our position is ethical and avoiding errors of thinking that can so easily occur. This is
a good start, but on their own not sufficient.
Imagine we are going to explore some system in Reality, such as in The Origin
of Consciousness where we are exploring people in their environment. We need intel-
lectual tools to be able to get onto paper the ‘nature’ of the system and how it works.
Again, imagine the box with all of the system inside the box. What is in the box is the
mechanism that turns the input into the output. We need tools that conceptualize the
mechanism.
32. The intellectual tools need to create knowledge of the system that is clear and
understood, to build knowledge with known and specified properties, and consoli-
date understanding and lead to new and testable relations between aspects of the
system.
There are just two intellectual tools currently available that meet these strin-
gent criteria. The first is the well-known tool of mathematics that has served physics
for centuries. The intellectual processes of mathematics are well understood and will
not be considered further. I will explore in later sections the question of whether
there are limits on the application of mathematics as an intellectual tool.
A second set of tools meeting the criteria is from the British cyberneticist W
Ross Ashby3.
The process of Ashby is as follows:
Define the system under study. That is, create a box in mind that contains the
mechanisms and processes the input into the output.
Select the variables judged to represent the operation of system (this is
strictly not fully from Ashby, but is a crucial step.)
Apply a change to one variable in the system and follow the flow of this change
through the other variables of the system. The process called ‘primary operations’.
Separate the links between variables into immediate effects where the change
in one variable has an immediate effect on the other, and ultimate effects where the
change in one variable has an ultimate effect the other via intervening variables (alt-
hough the intervening variables may not be immediately known to us). For example,
if A→B and B→C are immediate effects, then A→C is the ultimate effect. The converse
can also apply, namely where we identify A→C, then identify it as the result of
A→B→C.
Draft the understanding into diagrams where the boxes are the variables and
the arrows precisely mean ‘has an effect on’. The arrows are either an immediate
effect or an ultimate effect.
I refer to the process above as ‘Ashby tools’. They are the tools used through-
out The Origin of Consciousness. As we explore the origins of consciousness the
usefulness of Ashby tools will emerge. Applying Ashby tools results in diagrams as
sets of variables and relations between those variables (I call Ashby diagrams).
An Ashby diagram is knowledge of known properties and definite rules of
construction. It describes variables and relations between variables that relate to the
3
W Ross Ashby. Design for a Brain: The origin of adaptive behavior. Chapman & Hall,
London, 1960. Introduction to Cybernetics, Chapman & Hall, 1956. See http://en.wikipe-
dia.org/wiki/William_Ross_Ashby accessed 6 & 7 January, 2013.
33. 32
operation of systems. I will explore the properties of Ashby diagrams as the argu-
ment are unfolded.
The Ashby diagram is the systematic description of the operation of the sys-
tem distinct from the value of the variables in any actual situation. No variable can
set its own values as a matter of principle. This draws a firm line between science
and the empirical circumstance where science enables prediction.
Science is theory of operation of systems as in Ashby diagrams. Content is the
values of variables in any circumstance used to predict the output from the system.
Ever tried learning a card game by reading the rules… it always seems complicated,
but once shown it is usually simple.
For example, the time for period of a simple pendulum at sea level is equal to
a constant multiplied by the square root of the length. T=k√L. We can now ask: What
is the period of a pendulum in Auckland, London, Boston, Manila, or Dubai? Answer, go
to each place, measure the length and place the value in the formula and calculate the
result. The formula is the theory, the actual pendulums the ‘empirical circumstance’.
The theory gives us the relationship between variables and tells us what detailed
information we need to measure. But we know nothing of any actual situation until
we go and get the necessary data and place it in our theory.
The relationship between Ashby diagrams and an actual situation is always
exactly as the relationship between the theory of the pendulum and any actual pen-
dulum.
In later sections I will argue that this is the relationship science must always
make with actual situations. Science deals only with variables and the relationship
between variables.
34. The power of method
These three foundation principles together form the methodological platform
of The Origin of Consciousness.
First things first
First things first require the discussion on any topic is bounded by what is
known of the ground of the topic.
This is a strict ethical constraint. I elaborate below, but in summary imagine
we propose a solution to a topic, yet unresolved are issues relevant such that when
resolved could influence our solution on the topic. To be ethical we must declare the
limitations of current thinking. For example, assume we have a plan for the launch
of a new product, and present the plan. But we have done no market survey or seri-
ous analysis and the projections in the plan are no more than guess work. To present
such a plan and declare it sound and valid is unethical, not to mention likely career
destroying. I know it seems nonsense that someone would do that, but exactly this
type of unethical conduct has been offered in intellectual work for decades.
Rule of relations
The rule of relations specifies that a relationship between two objects can be
established if and only if each object is independently discernible.
If we add the understanding that in the absence of perceptual fields we do not
perceive, so we cannot see without photons, then it follows that the image in mind
and object of that image are separate and independent and we cannot as a matter of
principle separate them. It follows the existence of the external world is a theory yet
to be fully validated. It further follows that the simple practical, experiential position
is the most rational one to adopt, namely if you stand in front of a bus you are at risk
of being run down.
The reasoning has a second step, given that if the image and object are sepa-
rate, then we have two types of things in the world, what is in our mind and what
actually exists. I call those things Reality, that which exists, or technically as dis-
cussed next, the source of the perceptual field, and reality as our understanding of
that which exists.
Third is that we need live in the world, therefore we need act. Action can only
be based on reality, since that is all we have. In later sections I explore in detail the
relationship between reality and action.
Imagine we assume the bridge is safe and go to cross only to find it is not, and
we fall. Our reality was not consistent with Reality. Let’s imagine the bridge supports
were clearly eroded by the flood. We did not notice, or maybe did not even look. Then
clearly if we had looked we had the opportunity to make our reality more congruent
with Reality, we had the opportunity to make a better judgment, we would not have
crossed, and we would not have fallen.
35. 34
I argue that the very earliest humans understood the relationship between
what I understand of Reality being my reality and what is there in Reality, then the
judgment as to what I will do. These are the core of survival behaviors.
The more congruent we make reality with Reality the greater the opportunity
to improve our judgment.
Definition of congruence
• Quality or state of agreeing, coinciding, or being congruent. See
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/congruence
• Agreement, harmony, conformity, or correspondence. See
http://www.yourdictionary.com/congruence
Definition of congruent
• Superposable so as to be coincident throughout. See http://www.mer-
riam-webster.com/dictionary/congruent.
• The definition of congruent is something that agrees with or is in harmony
with another. See http://www.yourdictionary.com/congruent.
As an aside, in later sections I will argue that science is a social activity of im-
proving the congruence of a shared (scientific) reality with Reality. That science as
social shared process is conducted according to reasonably precise rules and proce-
dures, and it is only the precision of the rules and procedures that separates the
search for scientific congruence with our individual search for congruence.
We do not need any deep sophisticated psychological analysis to make these
points it follows substantially from the principles of method with addition of a very
simple fact that I suspect even the earliest human understood, namely for example,
if it is dark we cannot see.
Intellectual tools for theory creation
Precise intellectual tools in the form of the processes of Ashby give rise to
Ashby diagrams. The Ashby tools track the flow of change through pre-selected var-
iables.
What is this thing ‘flow of change’?
Imagine that bridge across the river, the flood washed out the supports so that
it is no longer safe. The safety of the bridge is dependent on the strength of the sup-
ports. The strength of the supports depends on the volume of water. We can use the
Ashby tools and write the Ashby equation: Volume of water → strength of the sup-
ports →safety of the bridge. This equation states that a change in the volume of water
36. can produce a change in the strength of the supports, which can produce a change in
the safety of the bridge.
So the idea of the flow of change is not the flow of ‘something’, it is the analysis
of how a change in one variable has an effect on the other variables linked to it.
If we take the Ashby equation above, then we can separate the immediate ef-
fects and the ultimate effects and we can write: Volume of water →safety of the
bridge. That is the volume of the water has an effect on whether or not the bridge is
safe. The way the volume of water has an on effect the safety is via erosion of the
bridge supports. We can now say that the ultimate effect of the volume of water on
bridge safety is via the mechanism of the erosion of the supports.
This relationship between ultimate effects and mechanism is crucial within
the methodology applied throughout The Origin of Consciousness. Much more will be
made of both of these concepts as we explore the arguments.
So what exactly have we done here…? We have created some variables … vol-
ume of water, safety of the bridge, strength of the supports… and we have linked
those variables in a sequence to offer understanding of what can happen, a sequence
with definite survival consequences. We have created knowledge of Reality we have
sharpened our reality relative to Reality making our reality more congruent with Re-
ality.
So what…? Well. Imagine there had been several days of rain … a real down-
pour. We have to cross the bridge to get to friends on the other side. But we
understand the links above…then putting two and two together, we think perhaps it
would be smart to just check the bridge supports before we try and cross, and so we
did, and we do not fall! Of course we still have the problem of getting to the other
side…Perhaps after we have fixed the supports.
In later sections I will show exactly how knowledge like this comes about via
interaction with perceptual fields. That the existence of exactly this type of
knowledge with this exact structure is no accident but due evolution working on the
brain of species such that the neural structures of the brain developed the capacity
to think in exactly this manner. Also in later sections I will argue that science is of
this exact structure.
Please read on and learn why you are here and why you are as you are.
The state of modern affairs
Use the helicopter technique, climb in imagination to 50,000 feet and imagine
the development of social science since say, 1860. There is no special relevance in
the date, it is just a point with which to begin, although it is about when Maxwell was
formulating his laws of electrodynamics4 and it could be argued science was gaining
4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%27s_equations. Accessed July 15 and 20 2013,
37. 36
a modern type of social momentum. We are picturing some 150 years of global intel-
lectual development.
In that time, we have seen come and go Marx, Freud, Skinner, Tolman, Jung,
Pavlov, etc., and many key people perhaps less well known in Durkheim, Weber,
Pierce, James, and Dewey etc.
Staying in our helicopter and scanning the articles in Wikipedia5, what do we
see?
What strikes me is twofold: First significance of the early days, late 18th, 19th
and early 20th centuries imbued with a sense of optimism. Second, in the late 20th and
into the 21st centuries the emergent pessimism associated with a failure of social sci-
ence, and problem of finding and applying an effective methodology.
Consider the quotes6:
Coupled with this pragmatic need (…to fill the growing demand for individuals
who could quantify human interactions and produce models for decision making on this
basis…) was the belief that the clarity and simplicity of mathematical expression
avoided systematic errors of holistic thinking and logic rooted in traditional argument.
This trend, part of the larger movement known as modernism provided the rhetorical
edge for the expansion of social sciences.
…There continues to be little movement toward consensus on what methodol-
ogy might have the power and refinement to connect a proposed "grand theory" with
the various midrange theories which, with considerable success, continue to provide
usable frameworks for massive, growing data bank.
At this time (July 2013) the moderators of Wikipedia do not think there is
sound methodology, and imply that the world has moved beyond the need for one.
That is not quite the end of it, the situation is deeper than implied in the
quotes above. This chapter on the issues arose because of what I uncovered as I sent
this book to various universities. I contacted at least a dozen of the top twenty. Only
Harvard finally agreed to examine the ideas, the rest dismissed the ideas without
ever examining them. But even Harvard failed to find the time, and offered what can
only be described as a patronizing and dismissive opinion. At the time of writing
(February 20, 2014) I await the final response from Harvard.
Why such lethargy to new ideas?
Exemplary is the email exchange with a senior person in Yale University; his
first response was “I’m afraid I’m congenitally suspicious of any book that purports to
‘provide a complete and scientific general theory of the person’. Not my cup of tea.”
5
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_social_sciences. Accessed July 15 and 20, 2013.
6
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_social_sciences. Accessed July 15 and 20, 2013.
38. This was then followed by an elaboration: “It does have to do with our distrust of uni-
fied field theories of almost anything.” Please note these responses are made without
any reference to or examination of the ideas. I received several other responses along
almost exact same lines. I did not bother to engage with any of those.
We have today a view that a general theory is not possible, that the method-
ological principles of the first researchers (18th and 19th centuries) is all there is or
all there can be.
The exchange with Yale terminated as follows.
Little:
The question then is… okay, are there limits to unified field theories? And where
do they arise, how do they arise, and when do they arise?
My full scientific resolution of the mind-body problem rests on a separation of
domains of science that is precisely the resolution of the issue of why unified field theo-
ries are a difficult issue.
All such considerations are fully covered in the book.
I have a friend, sharp philosopher, he says things like - when in a hole stop dig-
ging, if the is horse dead get off it. I suggest you accept your own bias as unreasoned,
and stop digging …
Either that or find time to read the book… it rewrites the global intellectual po-
sition in every area to which you refer
Yale:
Your friend is wise.
I did not expect the response. Now perhaps my challenge was too hard, too
direct, but then this is a senior person from one of the world’s prestigious intellectual
institutions. What should we expect from such people? What should we expect from
such institutions? If they are not committed to the pursuit of congruence and preci-
sion and the improvement of our ideas and understanding, then who is?
Of course we also have the issue of status… I have, well, no status, no money,
no influence, no political power, merely ideas. And they are senior people in one of
the world’s most prestigious intellectual institutions…?
When knowledge becomes redundant
How can we understand what happens…?
Imagine again that box… it does not matter how big or small, and it does not
matter what may be in the box. The only requirement is that the box is a fully closed
system that everything that happens in the system, happens in the box. Now imagine
39. 38
we make inputs into the box, there is nothing outside the box relative to the system,
therefore whatever outputs from the box is the result of the input plus the operation
of the processes in the box.
I call the processes in the box the ‘mechanisms’. At this stage we do not know
what they are, we just know they exist.
From human history and experience from tens of thousands of years on this
planet, we also know the world as regular, so that any other similar box will have
much the same processes etc. It is this regularity that gives rise to quips like ‘If it
waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck then most likely it’s a
duck.’ In a more serious vein the very term ‘scientific law’ implies regularity, I discuss
this more fully in later sections.
We can conceptualize the relations as follows: Input→system→output.
Now imagine discussion about both the internal workings of the system and
the outputs. Undoubtedly much could be written. But imagine that there was no ef-
fort with first things first or with rule of relations. There was no fully developed
methodology taking account of the link between current and past ideas, at least in
the sense of the conceptual, strategic and structural link between the ideas. Where
does that leave the discussions about the system in the box?
We know that everything to do with the system is inside the box. We know
that the operation of the box is regular, and we have researched and accumulated
any amount of data about the input–output relationships across the box. We refer to
the internal operation of the box as the mechanism of the box, we also refer to the
internal mechanism of the box as physical necessity inherent in the system, so we
have mechanism=necessity. We have no theory of cause, and have no real under-
standing of the links between cause, mechanism, and necessity.
How can we improve our understanding of the operation of the box?
Let’s assume we can preselect variables that offer understanding of what hap-
pens in the box. Now we apply Ashby tools to those variables and we track and link
variables via the flow of change through the box. If the variables are well selected
and we conceptualize the flow of change through the variables, then this becomes a
model or theory of the mechanisms of the box.
Input→system→output.
Input→Ashby model of the mechanisms of the system →output.
We have a model of what happens in the box. Our insight and clarity is in-
creased. We still have limitations in understanding the box, since we have no theory
of cause, but let’s assume that we have established that our model/theory of the box
will not be altered by any emergence of a theory of cause. Progress has been made.
