Newtonian bodies and consciousness - Hierarchical Construct Theory by Mark Pharoah

Mark Pharoah

Essay Abstract

Hierarchical Construct Theory advances the thesis that the maintenance of stability through the acquisition of an equilibrium state is a fundamental characteristic of physical interaction. It proposes that Newton's application of this principle to material bodies of mass is limited in scope and can be further applied to other classes of physical interaction and dynamic bodies. The consequence of exploring this thesis is that it indicates that interaction leads to the evolution of form through the reacquisition of equilibria, and subsequently to the emergence of transcendent dynamic physical constructs that possess contrasting types of environmentally interactive mechanisms. These mechanisms inevitably evolve in a way that ultimately qualifies the qualitative significance of environmental particulars and even to subjective individuated identities. Each construct class in the hierarchy has its own evolutionary paradigm and characteristic behaviours. It is a simple and unified model that explains the dynamic that generates the phenomenon of experience, which humans call consciousness.

Author Bio

I have been working on this idea since 1986 and in that time have had the good fortune of discussing its concepts with distinguished academics including Peter Strawson, Daniel Dennett, Peter Carruthers and Ilya Prigogine. In the intervening years I have had a few careers including performing as a concert violinist throughout the world, teaching bridge and writing for the American Contract Bridge League. Despite my early interest in philosophy, it was not possible for me to pursue an academic career due to disability.

Download Essay PDF File

Satyavarapu Gupta

Dear Pharoah,

We can publish a combined paper, later...

Best

=snp.gupta

Joe Fisher

Ignorance is bliss.

Mark Pharoah

Joe... "ignorance is bliss" is that right? We can analyse something at last:

You have left 4 posts on my essay thread. Have you actually read the essay? Prove it and make comment about it!

I have looked at your essay... I came to the conclusion you might be bipolar but thought I would not say as much because it would be inappropriate. But as you keep on pestering me with inane comments and since the administrators have ignored my reporting of them and my concerns that people are being blocked from rating my essay, I thought I might as well rise to the challenge and respond to you... Any thoughts?

Bishal Banjara

Dear Mark Pharoah,

I am the realist so,I believe in real facts and observation...though I should n't argue on others' philosophy but my post directly have a consequence on yours, dealing in terms of equilibrium or say state of inertia.. please read once my essay, you will be more conscious about the reality.

Edward Kneller

Mark,

Thanks for the well written essay on the Hierarchical Construct Theory.

You present a logical argument that in some instances may parallel my essay, 'The Cosmic Odyssey of Matter'. Specifically, the Hierarchical Construct Theory has broad similarities to the 'Assembly of Precision Formations of Matter' described in my essay. We also use similar terms: you use 'replication' to support your 'stable structures' argument, and I use 'repeatability' to support my 'precise forms' argument.

If you have a few minutes I would very much appreciate your review of my essay.

Regards, Ed Kneller

Mark Pharoah

Ed,

I have read your essay and made notes on it. I am away from home but will look them up on my return

Giovanni Prisinzano

Dear Mark,

I read with interest your essay, and I appreciate its originality and richness of implications. I also saw the first of your videos on youtube and I'm going to see the other two. The attempt to link the laws of motion of Newton to the evolution of systems in terms of information and complexity seems fascinating. I do not know if you can fully prove it, but we know there are phenomena of interaction, even at the level of elementary particle physics (e.g. quantum entanglement), which, although well-known experimentally, have not yet been framed in a convincing theoretical context. I like the reference to Bertalanffy's general systems theory, that I have not yet studied very well, but that I see as an interesting alternative to the mechanistic and reductionist approach, which seems insufficient to explain the complexity of reality (natura non facit saltus).I find also convincing the connection you make, even in evolutionary terms, between language and self-awareness and, lastly, I cannot but appreciate your references to Kant, who explained in an exemplary manner the role that self-consciousness plays in the complex of cognitive activity, although not even he could solve the hard problem of how actually self-consciousness arises.

I wish you all the best,

Giovanni

Mark Pharoah

Giovanni

Thanks for your encouraging comments.

I'm not sure that the youtube videos are going to be much help. I actually did them for an individual who had found my writing difficult to comprehend.

Interaction and entanglement... I've not explored this area mostly because I haven't the mathematical background. My ideas can be extrapolated to that discipline.though.

I haven't read your essay yet but intend to shortly.

Giovanni Prisinzano

Dear Mark,

As for the mathematical background, mine too has its limits! By naming quantum entanglement, I just wanted to make an example of interaction between elementary particles, which does not seem to be explicable in terms of customary causal relationship, but would require somehow an immediate exchange of information.

By the way, you've already posted, about a month ago, an appropriate comment on my essay, which allowed me to clarify some aspects of my view. Perhaps you did not remember it, which is possible, given the great number of papars in the contest.

Thanks and and best regards again,

Giovanni

Mark Pharoah

Giovanni,

Yes, I went to look at your essay and realised I had already read it and left a comment. I am glad you found it of help.

I am currently preparing a paper for peer-review on the subject of information. A tough subject to write about.

pjackson

Mark,

A very good essay, all a good essay should be plus an insightful and well argued thesis. Your proposal isn't controversial or revolutionary at face value but very often looking afresh at something familiar and assumed self apparent leads to important new understandings. I think yours fall into that class.

I particularly liked the effective way you connected the fundamental interactions and effects with teleology. I also do that in mine but it's been too rare here so is well appreciated. Also worth good score I think.

I'm a fan of Daniel Dennetts work and we both also I think conform to his excellent foundational approach, valid equally for science and philosophy.

Mine also extends my previous essays to derive a classical reproduction of the predictions of QM via interactions, though I expect cognitive dissonance will prevent emergence for some time to come! I hope you may read, follow and comment on that.

Very best

Peter

Mark Pharoah

Peter

Thanks for your positive feedback. I will endeavour to lookat your essay. I have been working my way through all the essays.