Riding the Curves of Infinity

More on Anti-Realism

2005-07-26T11:24:01Z

In Charles Sanders Peirce’s essay “How to Make Our Ideas Clear,” the issues of conceptual clarity and discovering truths are addressed. Within the essay, he states that there are three levels of conceptual clarity: acquaintance, definition, and the pragmatic maxim. Peirce then further postulates that a concept is only clear (i.e. understandable, sensical) and truth-embracing if it follows the design of the pragmatic maxim. Peirce’s model, despite its well-thought-out nature, is very inaccurate. In order to understand the lackings in Peirce’s pragmatic theory, said theory must first be examined. Then counter arguments, such as a priori truths, the imbalance of intelligence, the infinity model, and anti-realism, will be discussed to better illustrate the invalidity of his theory

To begin, it is useful to define clarity. Peirce explains a clear idea has been previously defined as: “…one which is so apprehended that it will be recognized wherever it is met with, and so that no other will be mistaken for it. If it fails of this clearness, it is said to be obscure.” (26) In layman’s terms, a concept is clear if and only if individuals, regardless of their background, are able to understand the major points of said concept. For instance, the concept of the color “blue” would be, under the above definition, clear if when explained to another individual, they would be able to fully understand what is meant when the term “blue” is invoked.

Additionally, according to Peirce, if a concept is to be clear, then it also must be distinct. Distinctness, in his essay, is defined as the ability to differentiate one concept from another. For instance, “blue” and “red” are two distinct colors because a difference is perceivable in them. “A distinct idea is defined as one which contains nothing which is not clear. This is technical language; by the contents of an idea logicians understand whatever is contained in its definition. So that an idea is distinctly apprehended, according to them, when we can give a precise definition of it, in abstract terms.” (26) In establishing grounds for what was previous to him considered clear and distinct, he is able to formulate his theory on how to truly make concepts such.

Peirce explains that previous attempts at making concepts clear and distinct were inadequate. He then describes what he views as the three grades of conceptual clarity and distinctness: acquaintance, definition, and pragmatic maxim. Finally, he explains that the latter two methods are inferior to his “pragmatic maxim” and supplies his rationalization. To truly begin this argument, the three grades of conceptual clarity must be defined.

An acquaintance with a concept is best described as a familiarity with the item in question. For instance, the statement “the sun is yellow” reflects a familiarity with the concept “sun”. While the sun is, in fact, of a yellowish tinge (at least in my perspective), this statement provides participants in a discussion with little useable information. Essentially, the speaker of the above statement has made others aware that he knows a small amount of information regarding the concept, but nothing more. Furthermore, the above statement raises several problems. For example, under those terms one could conceive the notion that if yellow = the sun, then perhaps all things yellow are the sun. At no point does the speaker come to any definitive statements concerning the color yellow or the sun.

Peirce himself uses the example of an audible piano note: when an individual hears a piano note, they are aware that what they just heard was a sound. Similarly, they understand that the piano can generate different sounds. However, Peirce explains, just by hearing a note alone, the listener does not fully understand the fundamentals of the concept “piano note.”

These two sorts of objects, what we are immediately conscious of and what we are mediately conscious of, are found in all consciousness. Some elements (the sensations) are completely present at every instant so long as they last, while others (like thought) are actions having beginning, middle, and end, and consist in a congruence in the succession of sensations which flow through the mind. They cannot be immediately present to us, but must cover some portion of the past or future. Thought is a thread of melody running through the succession of our sensations. (32)

A conceptual definition, according to Peirce, describes a concept more effectively than just acquaintance. Even still, a definition is lacking in complete truth and clarity. Peirce describes the purpose of a definition as:

…to determine what habits it produces, for what a thing means is simply what habits it involves. Now, the identity of a habit depends on how it might lead us to act, not merely under such circumstances as are likely to arise, but under such as might possibly occur, no matter how improbable they may be. What the habit is depends on when and how it causes us to act. (35)

Effectively, a definition is a summary of a concept grounded in how the concept causes an individual to feel, and when it causes them to feel in such a way. For instance, take the dictionary.com definition of “book”: “A set of written, printed, or blank pages fastened along one side and encased between protective covers” (dictionary.com). This definition follows does precisely what Peirce says a definition ought to. The when (i.e. when the concept is used) in this definition is: when an individual sees a series of printed pages bound together, they call it “book”. The how (i.e. how the concept is used) in this definition is: that books are meant for a conveyance of information. Even still, according to Peirce, the concept of book would not be fully clear.

To rectify this “lack of clarity and distinctness” Peirce developed the pragmatic maxim. A pragmatic maxim is a description of concept based upon how it can be tested and then results of said testing. For example, using the previous statement regarding the color of the sun, under the terms of a pragmatic maxim, we would not say that “the sun is yellow.” Rather, we would say something like: “Under a spectra examination for the star which we call the Sun, the peak of the visible-light wavelengths for the sun is less than 700nm but greater than 400nm, producing a yellow-like color.” Peirce uses the concept of hardness in order to better illustrate the usefulness of the pragmatic maxim:

Let us illustrate this rule by some examples; and, to begin with the simplest one possible, let us ask what we mean by calling a thing hard. Evidently that it will not be scratched by many other substances. The whole conception of this quality, as of every other, lies in its conceived effects. There is absolutely no difference between a hard thing and a soft thing so long as they are not brought to the test. (36)

Peirce then concludes his essay, stating that once a concept is addressed in terms of the pragmatic maxim, only then is it distinct and clear because, under appropriate testing, the concept in question should be truly unique and sensible. However, there are significant problems with this mode of thought! Consider the following arguments: the existence of a priori truths, the imbalance of intelligence, the infinity model, and the anti-realist perspective.

Rationalization (effectively subjectivity), or the a priori means of obtaining truth is something which Peirce painstakingly sought to defeat, hence the rationale behind creating such elaborate schemes of defining clarity (e.g. pragmatic maxims). However, in creating such schemes to clarify things, he actually promotes the a priori view. Consider the following example: Peirce explicitly states that a definition is ineffective at clarifying a concept because “such beliefs are nothing but self-notifications that we should, upon occasion, act in regard to such things as we believe” (35). Definitions do not make concepts clearer because they are merely rationalizations, or “self-notifications,” of what the item in question is. Effectively definitions are a priori and they do not appeal to a higher order. The terms hard and soft are, in Peirce’s view, only different because there have been means devised to test hardness and softness of object. These two terms, by themselves, are meaningless; they only refer to subjective feelings that are invoked when discussing items. However, it would seem that after in depth thought on the topic that the pragmatic maxim and the definition are one in the same. After all, while infinitely more complex, the pragmatic maxim is ultimately just a series of self-notifications under the guise of “scientific tests.”

Peirce makes the critical mistake of assuming that the pragmatic maxim has the ability to appeal to truths which are independent of the world (i.e. non a priori). He states that a concept can only become clear once it is exposed to a battery of empirical testing. However, as alluded to, this raises an interesting notion: is not possible that Peirce’s empirical testing just an incredibly elaborate means of rationalization? Perhaps it is true that hard and soft are distinct because they have been tested to be so. However, in designing a test to address such concepts, we are really just devising a means to prove (to ourselves and if applicable, to others) our theories of hardness and softness. Is a diamond hard because of some intrinsic value it bears, or is it only hard because we have devised a test to prove our theory that it is hard? It would seem that in creating a means to test these concepts, we are again only trying to make more elaborate a priori self-notifications.

A misconception of the above would be the notion that an individual can, in fact, prove themselves to be definitively “wrong” (i.e. after extensive testing, the data becomes completely useless and is discarded). However, again consider the example of a diamond’s intrinsic softness and/or hardness. Suppose we create a test that counters our original notion that diamonds are hard (i.e. diamonds are, for whatever reason, soft). We do cast away our notions of the hard-diamond and blank our minds. That would be impossible and a supreme waste of time. Rather, we simply modify our theory so that it satisfies these new findings. Similarly, we could also modify the means of testing so that we could indeed find that diamonds are hard (i.e. something about the previous test was inadequate to prove that the diamond was hard, so we come up with a “better” test). As John Dewey best-said: “a theory cannot out-live its usefulness; when a theory becomes useless for a situation, it is changed.”

Following this pattern, the pragmatic maxim assumes that there is a “right” and “wrong” way of approaching a given concept (i.e. scientific method is the ONLY correct mode of assessment). If this were true, there should then be an imbalance of intelligence in the world. Consider that if the empirical model, which the pragmatic maxim promotes, was the only correct means of discovering truths, that fields such as English, Art, even Philosophy would become useless. If this was true, these fields should have made no impact upon the world because their claims are not necessarily true because they do not reflect extensive amounts of testing. However, this is certainly not the case! Erich Maria Remarque, author of “All Quiet on the Western Front,” has inspired many individuals, yet it is doubtful that he sat in a dark room testing to see which words he used would invoke the most feeling in other people. It is presumed that he wrote to express his feelings on World War I.

Further exemplifying the invalidity of notions such as “truth” and “non-truth” which the pragmatic maxim suggests are the numerous examples throughout human history. The ancient Greeks believed that a rock would fall when dropped because it was the nature of the rock. Newtonian physics, which was developed later, suggested that the rock would fall because gravity acted as a force upon the rock. While each of these concepts are wildly different, the cultures which harbored them were able to function successfully. Peirce’s pragmatic maxim would suggest that the Greeks could not adequately function because they would have no absolute truths to function upon. The same would apply for the culture using Newtonian physics. Yet clearly, cultures past, present and future have and will have different concepts of the truth than our own but they still function, implying that perhaps the ultimate truth which the pragmatic maxim seeks to uncover either is trivial or does not exist.

If the previous arguments are considered weak, then examine the following. The pragmatic maxim’s goal is to test a concept until it is completely clear. However, a concept can be tested an infinite number of ways. Essentially, under the terms of the pragmatic maxim, the more we test a concept, the close we get to obtaining the “truth.” This statement can be represented mathematically as the following function:

Based upon this model, we can see that a concept can never become absolutely clear, as the tests can become infinitely more refined. Similarly, on an infinite scale, concepts can become infinitely less refined. What is even more enigmatic about this function is that one can never determine precisely how clear a concept is at a given moment in time, because the scale is infinite (e.g. infinity minus one and infinity plus one are still infinity). There exists nothing, currently, in this universe to compare the truth of one concept to another.

The counter argument to the above might be “we can compare the truth of concept A to the truth of concept B.” However, again, if both concepts exist on this infinite scale, which they do, there ceases to be a means of comparing them. Similarly, because more people agree with A does not make it any more or less right than B. If this were the case, the minority would never be heard and we would in effect become a stagnant body, which we clearly are not. Even if we assumed that concepts can become more or less absolute, they can never become absolutely clear because they can always change. Effectively, to say that a pragmatic maxim directs us towards absolute conceptual clarity would be defying the model which Peirce himself alluded to.

Perhaps the most powerful argument which one can raise against the pragmatic maxim is the notion of anti-realism: that there is no fundamental nature to the way things are. The concept of the pragmatic maxim harps on the notion that there is a fundamental nature to the way things are. However, there is an intrinsic problem in basing a concept upon a principal that is not known to exist: it can potentially completely invalidate the entire concept. How can one legitimately prove that what they are experiencing is actual reality, or actually reflects an experience-independent reality?

To clarify, Peirce assumes that reality does in fact exist and that in testing, we are attempting to get closer to the “real” model. But when was he ever given a legitimate reason to “know” such a reality existed? Never. One could argue that based upon his social interactions with other entities that he came to understand that a reality existed. The individual asking this question should then ask themselves: where did those entities come up with their concepts? Eventually, if we continue to ask such questions, we come to a point where we can say these concepts or theories were designed not to actually “prove” reality exists, but to organize and to more effectively continue existence. If this is doubtful, consider the case of the number “one.” One itself is simply convenient word to organize our thoughts about a quantity of an item. One ceases to exist when there is not an individual to designate something as “one.”

Clearly, Peirce is mistaken in his methods of addressing clarity. While his attempt is well thought out, it seems to entirely disregard numerous factors, making it an incomplete and hole-ridden theory. It almost seems as if, because he so hated the a priori means of assessing “truth,” that he became blinded to other possible solutions. If he were still alive today, it would be very interesting to examine his personal responses to the above arguments. Perhaps he would realize the error of his ways!

*All parenthetical references are from Louis Menand’s Pragmatism Reader. They reflect Peirce’s original essay.

The Letter

2005-07-26T11:18:48Z

I thought I would reassess the "creature lacking sensory modalities" scenario. I examined my first version of my argument again, and looked over its problems. I believe I have constructed an even better argument that illustrates that this nebulous creature would, in fact, be intelligent and I am very curious to what you think! Admittedly, it sounds a little out there at first, but I think this theory legitimately makes sense.

To being the reassessment, first I need you to think of all of your thoughts, your notions…your entire existence, as composed of tiny particles. These particles are composed of other particles, and so on, infinitely, but basically the idea is that everything is composed of something. The only reason I cam calling these things “particles” is because I would say I am more scientifically minded, however, you can call them whatever you want.

In order for any event to occur, a reaction must take place. This is to say that the particles of once concept and the particles of another concept interact, and this interaction is the experience. However, it is necessary to point out that again, these particles are completely amorphous; there are no rules for them, they follow no specific patters, there’s no definite number of them- they’re immeasurable. Following this train of thought, because there is no objective pattern to them, they do not exist objectively. Rather, they’re completely subjective particles, able to invoke any sort of feeling or experience imaginable because of their random and infinitely changing nature.

All thoughts follow this continual changing theory. If you chose to address this concept scientifically, you could examine reactions such as mixing phosphorous and oxygen, or sodium and water. These are chemical reactions. Initially, one would think that the measurements to such reactions are entirely meaningful. After all, one reaction might yield X amount of heat in Y time and another would have different values. However, if one records all measurements ever taken on these elements, they will notice that all of the recordings slightly deviate from one another. So much so, that if it was possible, if one gathered all recordings made on the elements, the numbers effectively lose their meaning. They become so changed that they no longer follow a pattern. Each number represents an entirely different reaction, despite its usage of the “same” chemical X and chemical Y. One should note that while the times 9.4s, 9.542s, 9.111s, etc. seem to all be within nine seconds. However, these numbers are all different from each other. What we are not arguing, however, is that several reactions occurred. The reactions did not have ultimately any one final meaning (as it was truly random), but for each individual reaction, there was thought and “meaning” assigned to them. Similarly, before all data could be gathered, the parties involved thought they could take an average of the data they had. Sure enough, they did discover an average. This average, however, was not the average of ALL of the data, just some of it. To take the average of an infinitely random number is to get an infinitely random average. Effectively, as a whole, this argument is to illustrate that it is possible to create meaning out of the meaningless. Meaning is just a temporary organization of thoughts, and like Dewey said, once this meaning becomes less substantial, new meaning should be sought out.

After illustrating this point, we move onto the argument about if it is possible for a perfect vacuum (absolute zero) to exist. Absolute zero’s polar opposite, absolute everything, is the same thing as absolute zero. How can this be possible? Well, in both circumstances, the systems are perfect. This is to imply that there is no change possible in either system. This statement is analogous to having an entirely black piece of paper and an entirely white piece of paper. On first inspection, they appear different (the colors), however, we come to say that they are the same because they are both pieces of paper, they are both solid, we can write on both of them. The only difference we have between these pieces of paper are their labels “black” and “white” which are essentially meaningless.

What we’ve come to now is that both ends of the “absolute spectrum” are effectively the same. Now let’s examine why it is impossible to have an absolute. As alluded to earlier, each concept or theory is composed of tiny “particles” that react with one another. Well, using that logic, in order to even establish the idea that nothing and everything exist, a reaction in the mind has occurred. Much like the example with chemical reactions, no two reactions are truly similar. They can have temporary meaning or patterns, but ultimately, they were all random.

My thoughts on nothing are different from your thoughts on nothing, which are different from everyone’s thought on nothing. At a moment in time, everyone’s thoughts seem initially similar, but over the course of infinite time, they become wildly different. In effect the concept of absolutes is a myth.

Now that the groundwork has been laid, let’s address the intelligence of our sensory modality lacking friend. We’ve established that the creature does exist, and we’ve established that it has intelligent capacities. However, we are curious if it is possible for the creature to develop thought. I am again, certainly inclined to say yes. For this creature to exist, again, reactions have to occur between itself and its environment. This is to say that the “thought” particles in the general area are reacting with one another. Essentially, when this creature is subjected to something, it will in some form, react to it. So our creature might not think about what it will be eating for dinner, or the news, but the notion that this giant intelligent ball of gas exists implies that it interfaces with its environment in some way or another. If it is inconceivable that the creature would be thinking about the environment it is in, consider that the particles of gas which compose it react with the particles of oxygen in our atmosphere. In reacting to this environment, it becomes what we call “intelligent life.” Certainly not on the human scale, but it can have its own intelligence because all intelligence really is, is the reaction of one thing from another.

If this is unbelievable, then examine why you consider yourself to be an intelligent being. Effectively, everything that you’ve learned, everything that you’ve done, has resulted from personal interactions with your environment. You are academically intelligent because at school, you did your work. There’s the reaction. You can speak because you were put in an environment which was spoken in, etc.

With this logic, someone might say that rocks or as you mentioned before, dolphins, are far more intelligent that humans are. They very well could be, however, I know I lack an ability to communicate with them, so I would never know. If I can’t effectively communicate with them, I disregard them and call them part of the environment. But ultimately, they are on some levels intelligent.

The only reason we consider our pets to be more intelligent or acceptable than rocks and dolphins is because pets have developed the ability to better communicate with us, or perhaps because we are subjected to their existence much more often. Ultimately, the family dog isn’t that much different than a wild dog, it just has more interaction with humans. To apply this to personal life, who do you consider to be the most intelligent people you know? I would imagine that you think they are so intelligent, primarily because you can relate and communicate with them. It is highly unlikely that a tribesman from some remote village in the Congo thinks Einstein was very intelligent because he has no means of communicating and/or relating to him.

We’ve established that every idea that ever has been or ever will be is composed of smaller ideas or “particles”, which are composed of smaller parts, and so on. We’ve also established that new concepts are made by the interactions with other concepts. And we’ve established that that the nebulous ball of gas would be intelligent because it would be interacting with an environment. All right, so where do all of these thoughts come from, and why are one individual’s thoughts different from another’s? Again, using the random model above, we are able to say that we are subjective beings. Why? Well, can’t subjectivity be compared to placing a bunch of numbered leaflets in a hat and drawing one? Each of the numbers are different (initial personal conceptions), some are closer to others (similarities with other ideas), they’re all numbers (these ideas are human), but they’re all different at the same time (no one idea is exactly the same as another).

So then, what makes us truly different from this nebulous being, apart from it appears to be a ball of gas and we can’t talk to it? Well, using the above logic, we wouldn’t really be that different from the being. In fact, we could be giant nebulous beings and never know it. The nebulous being has reactions with the environment around it, those reactions create more reactions, which eventually create a mental universe. It’s theoretically possible that you or I could be a giant ball of gas in space that reacted with the space around it and the particles inside itself until it has created a picture of life for itself. Perhaps the only reason I call myself human right now, and see things the way I do now is because it seems to be a good way to organize thoughts. Due to this ability for infinite change, things in this universe can change continually, and we are able to theorize to better make sense of this change for a point in time.

It seems that this argument all reflects upon the age old paradox: “Everything is the same and different.”

Myth of the Expert

2005-07-19T00:25:59Z

After awhile it becomes critical that we ask ourselves a very serious question: “What is an expert?”. Dictionary.com will tell you that an expert is “A person with a high degree of skill in or knowledge of a certain subject.” In fact, most people will tell you something in that regard. However, the topic of expert needs to be more fully explored.

How does one achieve the rank of expert? Currently, it would appear that one becomes an expert through experience- specifically schooling. As you rise through the echelons of higher level education, earning your bachelor's, then your masters, then your doctorate, you become more of an expert. But we must ask ourselves this: what are we really learning?

Many of you who read this livejournal are going through, or have gone through your undergraduate degree. Do you really feel smarter than you were in high school? I don't mean have you experienced or met more people...but do you really feel as if you know more about the world than everyone else? Many of you will say yes, but I beg to differ.

Does taking a few years of, for the most part, field specific classes make you smarter than the guy next to you on the bus. I mean, how do you really know more than middle-America? You might say, “Its because I took these classes!” But really, then we're calling ourselves experts because we paid to get a rank, or we sat through a few lousy classes. It seems rather pompous to call ourselves experts because of that.

We are experts because we have the ability to talk more about the world which we apparently have learned so much about. So again, what is an expert? Perhaps, what an expert really is, is a mentality. A mentality which is earned through higher education. It is a mentality or a training which teaches you to talk in such a tone so that you are able to dictate your ideas clearly and with authority. Note that I have said nothing in reference to these ideas of yours being correct or true. Rather, as you rise in the echelons of education, rather than becoming more learned, you become more authoritative.

If this is under dispute, I ask you to recall one college class of yours in which you had a professor which you regarded as being intelligent. Didn't they have a certain tone of voice, a certain way they carried themselves, which signified to you that they were an “expert.” Or how about those political experts on television? They do much of the same, despite our distastes for them. For instance, some regard Chris Matthew in Hardball as an expert in his field because he carries himself in such a way. Would he be an expert if, despite his apparent knowledge in Political Science, he was unable to convey his thoughts with such authority. Really, it seems that anyone we consider an expert is really just an authoritative speaker.

All of our theories, our bleeding edge concepts are derived from experts. But realistically, if these people are only experts because as a society we view them as such. If these people are really not fundamentally experts and everything we know as a society is dependent on theories which they chalked up, then realistically ...we don't know shit about shit.

...but everything which we hold dear to our intelligence was created by our experts. And if our experts are just people like you and I who think they know something about something, and were able to convince other people they were right, then really, we don't know anything.

Reality Isn't So Real - Part I

2005-07-15T01:07:03Z

I am writing this because I feel that when I sit in my room and do nothing with my time off from work, that I am wasting my time. Why? I don't know. I have forgotten what it feels like to truly enjoy relaxing. I am certainly not a workaholic...no thats I lie. I enjoy working towards reaching my goals. Unfortunately, my summer job nor dicking around Shrewsbury gets me anywhere. Sure, I get money but that goes all towards my bills and my college year. I feel like there is nothing to really enjoy this time of year. The hot weather, maybe but whatever.

So onto something more meaningful. Often times I find myself asking “What is life?” Nothing deranged and manic, but I think asking yourself what existence is is a very legitimate question. Call me crazy, but I think I have come up with an answer. But bear with me, it involves stabbing into the dark for a moment.

Existence is the perpetual interaction and reaction between concepts. For instance, lets analyze a moment in time. We'll use a very real example. All of us have injured ourselves accidentally. For instance, I've stubbed my toes more times than I can count.

Our first reaction is to get angry, maybe curse out the wall. Then we feel pain, then the list goes on. But why do we first feel pain initially? We stubbed our toe. Why was the wall there? We decided we needed a house. Why did we stub our toes? We weren't paying attention. Do you see how each of these reactions feed upon the interactions between other concepts?

I've always been the one to push the envelope. I am not satisfied with this physical of an answer. Why? Because all interactions, or whatever you'd like to call them are not physical. What about your thoughts? Or your desires? Or what makes you you? Well, these concepts that govern our world are in effect, just thoughts- they're not real. Sounds crazy, doesn't it?

Lets ask ourselves some pretty fundamental questions though. Why am I human? Why am I not a dog, or a bat, or a mongoose, or a particle? Why am I human? Well, I think one of the fundamental things that people forget when they ask questions such as these is that “human” is just a word. You, the reader, are not in fact actually human...unless of course you are the word. How can I say this? Well, take into account this. What if the word human did not exist in the English vocabulary? What if we called ourselves Blorgs? We certainly would not be human then, now would we? Again, lets push the envelope.

As mentioned earlier, nothing is absolutely real. Rather, what we're dealing with is the reaction and interaction between concepts. What makes things “real” or “reality” is how we decide to place meaning on said interactions.

So, what makes up the human body? Organs, limbs, blood, etc. Yet, if we can make ourselves not human by simply changing the word, wouldn't it be interesting if we changed our perceptions of ourselves? I am not just talking about ones personal perception, rather, the perceptions of those around you as well. In effect, your immediate society. What if everyone you knew said we had cords instead of arms? You really wouldn't have anything to go against this concept if you existed in said society. Hell, you wouldn't even know what arms are, would you? And it wouldn't be so far fetched to think that your visual patterns would changes as well. Your “arms” might just look like a bunch of rubber cords! Why? Because thats what everyone around you says they are and you have no external input to see differently.

You might question this, but think about this. Why do you speak in the dialect you speak in? Or why do you dress the way you do? It would be interesting to note that it is highly likely you, say, dress the way you do based upon the norms applied by yourself and your friends. Your ideas, what makes you...isn't entirely self generated. In fact, what makes up the individual is not really the self at all, rather, as I constantly reinforce, its the reaction and interaction between concepts. A bunch of things are going on, and you happen to be an ever changing product of those “things.”

Now you must be thinking “OH MY GOD! THIS GUY IS SAYING I AM A SERIES OF NUMBERS! I HAVE NO PERSONALITY!!!!” And thats where you'd be jumping the gun.

See, these interactions and reactions do not necessarily have any rules or finite beat to them. They are simply interactions, we're the ones that put meaning to them. There's your wild card factor. And really, the gauge of meaning you can put on a reaction is infinite. If you dispute this, consider this.

Think of something simple, say...a table. Now what is the table made of? Wood, maybe? What is wood made up of? Fibers. What are fibers made up of? Elements. What are elements made up of? Atoms. And atoms? Subatomic particles? And those? Something even smaller. You might be thinking now that you eventually reach nothingness. But, even nothing is made up of something. How can I say this? Well, how did you come up with the notion of nothing? Probably by some thought interaction. And even when you think of nothingness...you're still thinking of something? What? You call black space nothing? That sounds like black space to me. And what if something is going on in that black space, but you're just not bothering to be creative enough to explore it? See where I am going with this? Essentially, the meanings you decide to put on these reactions of thoughts...thats what makes you you. You're the infinite wildcard.

Well, I am running out of steam. More on this later.