At all times I have tried to keep the vocabulary and grammar as simple and clear as possible. Please refer to the definitions given in the Index for key words, but also read around in books, perhaps on the internet, to see alternative points of view and to make your own impression of the meanings - especially regarding Heidegger and any concepts of his I borrowed since there is certainly no single interpretation of his work. The book Being and Time was of course originally written in German. All my study, understanding and references come from the English translation made by Macquarrie and Robinson, originally published by Blackwell in 1962 (ISBN 0631197702). I am certainly no scholar of Heidegger, nor of German, but this translation I consider to be fantastic, as clear as can be with excellent notation by the translators. I unequivocally recommend this book; no other philosophy book is so practical, revealing or elemental. A word of warning however, it is not a book that yields its fruits in a single reading nor without substantial contemplation, and the casual philosopher shall most likely find it a rather hard read, though this is nothing that persistence, reason and a flexible mind cannot surmount. All quotes are given according to the convention in Macquarrie and Robinson of citing the page numbers from the later German editions whereby, for example, page 20 is denoted "H.20". Structure As I have no wish to conceal what I am trying to convey in writing, and the subject is difficult to grasp, it may help the reader to understand the basic structure of the site. As the contents on the main page lays out, there are several sections, each with three or four subdivisions. Rather than present everything in detail or summary from the start, or in my own esoteric chronological order of understanding, the model is looked at in its entirety, repeatedly in increasing detail. Underlying this structure are two principles. First, the functions of the human brain, like all science, can be understood on different levels. Secondly, science is classically taught as it is discovered, by starting with a high order level and gradually working down to more fundamental levels. By taking this approach I hope the reader can build up (or "down") a functional understanding of the mind that becomes clearer and more complete with each pass. Guidance for Scientists Educated as a scientist myself, I understand that approaching the philosophy required for this topic can seem arbitrary or sophistic, and one may rightly ask oneself, "Why should I bother with this?" The reason for the philosophical language employed and the answer to the question are one and the same, which we might summarise simply as the necessary practice required for gaining a hitherto undiscovered logical insight. Science, as described by Bacon in Novum Organum, consists of two simultaneous practices; the stepwise incremental advancement of technological knowledge within the current system model (see Book 1, Aphorisms 103, 104) and the inductive leaps of reasoning, supported by experimental evidence, that define that model (see Book 1, Aphorism 105). The way science is taught, the skills that scientists practice today, are almost exclusively geared towards addressing the first part of this science. There is good cause for this, since there is much research to be done in this department, and not everyone has the mental ability to engage in the second type of science with success. Nevertheless, to come to understand something new, a change in the current system model of science, one must digest the insights of this second type and necessarily absorb new concepts, new language, and new logic. It is beyond the remit of this note page to argue for Heideggerian ontology over any other approach as the "missing link" in conscious research, and on the face of it seems unlikely as this philosophy is nearing a hundred years old. I shall only say that, in line with the physical notion of relativity, this philosophy takes no datum, and no law of nature save natural selection, yet functonally describes every emergent function of the mind, something that is only possible within a self-supporting logical framework such as this. Guidance for Philosophers Philosophy as taught in most institutions at present is, rather like science, not instructive of how to solve problems but of what problems have been solved, ie. philosophical history. It is likely that most philosophers have heard of, or read, Heidegger, his name looms over 20th century philosophy like an obelisk, as often praised for brilliance as criticised for obfuscation or politically-incorrect personal views. Heidegger was adopted fairly early in AI research by American schools, but supposedly turned up a dead end and is pursued today by, perhaps, a rather small number of philosophers and scientists. I cannot comment on models previously used, for I have no knowledge of their content, but I believe Heidegger to have been completely misinterpreted by those before. The philosophy presented here differs from traditional Heideggerian philosophy (or just philosophy in general) because it is computational and testable. In translating Being and Time to a computational framework, this site reveals Heidegger's work to be simpler and more elegant than he ever conveyed it, or others read it. Philosophy, as a subject, has too long been estranged from science, such that it has become impotent and irrelevant. It must meet with the scientific method to become a useful cog in the machine of technological progress (or just seek for applicability to reality in general). Philosophers who do not have a scientific background would do well to note the trend for inter-scientific study and the poverty of answers provided by sophistic philosophy on this subject to date. Created 21st August 2008 Revised 28th June 2009 |