Into The Mind of SATAN (Part 1): Behind The Psychopath...A Philosopher

INTO THE MIND OF SATAN

PART ONE:

BEHIND THE PSYCHOPATH,

A PHILOSOPHER
______________________________________________________________________



And Satan answered the LORD, and said,
Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will
he give for his life.

-Job 2:4


Job 2:4 offers an example of the worldly philosophy of Satan, but what of his metaphysical philosophy—the philosophy of the nature and mechanics of existence?  Save for Job and certain verses in the Synoptic Gospels and New Testament, the Bible is virtually devoid of statements made by Satan and is altogether silent regarding the content of his mind from his point of view.  When it speaks of Satan at all, it references his cosmic role in the scheme of salvation or makes moral judgments regarding his psychopathy and its traumatic effect upon mankind.  

Labels for personality and behavior patterns consistent with psychopathy exist in most cultures.  In rural Nigeria, the term Aranakan, was used by the Yoruba people to describe an individual who "always goes his own way regardless of others, who is uncooperative, full of malice, and bullheaded."  Similarly, the word Kunlangeta was used by the Inuit to describe "mind knows what to do but does not do it."  The psychiatric anthropologist Jane M. Murphy writes that in northwest Alaska, the term Kunlangeta might be applied to "a man who… repeatedly lies and cheats and steals things and does not go hunting and, when the other men are out of the village, takes sexual advantage of many women—someone who does not pay attention to reprimands and who is always brought to the elders for punishment."

In 1801, French psychiatrist Philippe Pinel described without moral judgment patients who appeared mentally unimpaired but who nonetheless engaged in impulsive and self-defeating acts. He described this as insanity without confusion/delusion (manie sans délire), or rational insanity (la folie raisonnante), and his anecdotes generally described people carried away by instinctive fury (instincte fureur).

-Wikipedia: History of Psychopathy
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________
BEHIND THE PSYCHOPATH, A PHILOSOPHER

Is the first and most famous psychopath also a metaphysical philosopher?  Given manie sans delire, psychopathy shares an apartment with reason, intelligence, and a specific worldview that is the consequence of the repetitive conditions and properties of a particular world.  Malice and need for dominance aside, Satan is a reasonable philosopher that suspects Panpsychism governs and underlies reality.  

PANPSYCHISM

Panpsychism is a rational induction of the nature of reality based upon observation of the manner in which existence obviously and continually manifests.  Satan is most likely Panpsychist as he observes that existence continually and consistently appears in the form of consciousness: a subject of experience, the subject’s experience of being a subject of experience, and everything other than the experience of being a subject of experience the subject experiences.
______________________________________________________________________

A subject of experience and that which the subject experiences must be made of something, i.e. consist of a material substance used to construct the circumscribed structure that is a particular person and that which the person experiences.  As a person is essentially an experience that experiences, existence appears, always appears, and has only ever appeared in the form of experience shaped into the form of a particular person and its experiences.  The simplest deduction, devoid of the concept of something that is not or other than first-person subjective experience, is the deduction that subjects and objects and environments experienced by subjects are made up of first-person subjective experience.  

Thus objects and environments experienced by a subject are not things external to the subject but derive and extend from the subject, and consist of the subject’s own first-person subjective experience:  i.e. objects, environments, and events experienced by a subject of experience are actually the subject’s first-person subjective experience assuming the form of the objects, environments, and events the subject perceives.  

Proof or evidence of this assertion?

There is conceptual proof that objects, environments, and events perceived (experienced) by a subject of experience (chairs, mountains, CERN views of colliding atoms, funerals, etc.) derive from/“come from”/“come out of” the subject and are made up of the subject’s own consciousness: the logical fallout that is a consequence of belief in the godless view of death.

SUPPORT FOR PANPSYCHISM BY THE IRRATIONALITY OF GODLESS DEATH



The godless view of death holds that when a person dies, the person and objects, environments, and events perceived by the dying person cease to exist:

"[H]uman death, understood as the death of a person, is a state in which the function of consciousness has been irreversibly lost as a result of one of several possible combinations of damage to the brain substratum[150].  The individual's essence consists in the possession of a conscious, yet not necessarily continuous, mental life; if all mental life ceases, the person ceases to exist [emphasis mine]; when the person ceases to exist, the person has died" [157-58].

-Karen Gervais, Defining Death
New Haven: Yale University Press (1986)
______________________________________________________________________

If objects, environments, and events perceived by a dying subject cease to exist when the subject dies while external world or ‘real’ or doppelgangers of the objects, environments, and events “perceived” by the dying subject do not cease to exist in response to cessation of experience of the subject and its perceptions, godless death (if true) provides tautological evidence that objects and environments experienced by a subject of experience are not one and the same as objects and environments existing outside the person’s consciousness, i.e. objects and environments composed of something other than the person’s consciousness that are not creations of the person's brain.

If conscious experience is something that a moment ago does not exist then pops into existence, it can only arbitrarily and accidentally bear the image of objects and events in the external world, as representative conscious experience does not “come from” or “out of” the external world as representative conscious experience—as a logical fallout of belief in godless death—does not exist before it comes into existence and as such cannot derive from objects and events in the external world.  

Godless death, then, conceptually demonstrates that person-consciousness is an artificial reality (a simulated reality in the belief that visual consciousness or perception mimics or represents physical objects and events in the external world) or “Matrix” world, as person-consciousness comes into and goes out of existence and must be created within and produced by a brain.  
______________________________________________________________________
SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE AS MATERIAL SUBSTANCE, AND SATAN’S DEDUCTION OF THE IRRATIONALITY OF NON-EXPERIENCE

Something that is not or that is other than first-person subjective experience cannot logically create first-person subjective experience, as something that is not first-person experience cannot use itself to form first-person subjective experience, or extract first-person subjective experience from itself, as it is not first-person subjective experience.  

In the secular or godless view of the world, first-person subjective experience did not exist before non-subjective experience in the form of atoms accidentally formed cells, then specialized cells called neurons that electromagnetically clumped into brains.  The brain purportedly creates consciousness which did not exist before the brain, thus everything prior to the existence of brains must have consisted of something other than first-person subjective experience, as first-person subjective experience did not exist prior to the existence of the brain.  
______________________________________________________________________

But if consciousness or first-person experience does not exist before it’s existence is granted by the brain, it is unknown how the brain, like God calling light into existence in Genesis, can perform the magic of creation ex nihilo, magically summoning conscious experience into existence from non-existence (reversal of the negative magic of consciousness ceasing to exist at godless death).

There is no logic to the concept that something that does not exist, if believed to come into existence by the power of something that already exists should, being non-existent, have the ability to respond to and obey the dictate of something that exists.  Further, it is not clear why something that does not exist before it comes into existence, given it did not exist (thus could not use the substance of anything that exists to construct itself and as such has no logical causal relation to things that exist), should bear the appearance of something that previously exists.  Something that did not exist then comes into existence would share the appearance of something that already exists only by unrelated, arbitrary chance.

Conscious experience is commonly believed to occur in a sequence from birth to (godless) death, i.e. there is conscious experience occurring “now”, and conscious experience that shall occur ten minutes into the unknown future (barring godless death).  In the belief that brains create conscious experience and that conscious experience cannot exist independent of the brain, the unknown conscious experience that shall exist ten minutes in the future can only exist if, by the most fortuitous chance, there pre-exists a neural circuit in the brain that conveniently happens to have the power to create the unknown experience that shall occur ten minutes in the future.  
______________________________________________________________________

For example, the visual image of someone unexpectedly pulling up to one’s house in a car for a visit ten minutes in the future does not in the least resemble the brain giving rise to the experience of the unexpected visitor.  It is odd that one’s brain possesses neurons having the power to “airbag deploy” something that is not physical matter making up the neurons in a circuit and surrounding biological material.  It is odd, given the question of what exists within neurons prior to their creation of a conscious experience, that the ephemeral, intangible, visual image of a car driving up to one’s house and the body of the person exiting the car should reside within tiny neurons cramped within a skull.  



For the neural circuit said to give rise to the image, where was the image in the parent neurons or what was the vision like within neurons before it became something viewed by a subject of experience?  Are there tiny images of cars and visitors, etc. residing within neurons prior to the existence of a visual experience?  
______________________________________________________________________

NEURAL PREDETERMINISM

Even if one were willing to ignore the magic of something that does not exist being able to respond to the call of something that exists to stop not-existing and come into existence, there is an overlooked irrationality in the concept that the brain creates consciousness in the form of the logical fallout of the "fact" that if conscious experiences are created by brains, the brain must contain neural circuits capable before the fact, of forming experiences that depict states of the external world that have not yet occurred.

This phenomenon, Neural Predeterminism, is generally overlooked (or ignored due to its inconvenient, Panpsychism-driving logic) by believers that the brain creates conscious experience and that visual experiences are doppelgangers of the real-time states of objects and events in a consciousness-absent external world.  The logical disconnect provided by Neural Predeterminism is particularly damning when it comes to immediately-approaching future experience--such as an unexpected knock at one's door one minute (or less) in the future.  

Neural Predeterminism states there resides, in the present, neural circuits in the brain that strangely are capable of forming conscious experience of external world events that have not yet occurred.  
______________________________________________________________________

Of every other conscious experience the neural circuit(s) could or might have the power to create, they happen to have the ability to form conscious experience of the very future one comes to actually experience prior to the external world’s realization of that future.   It is as if the brain "knows" what is going to happen before the external world, and has neural circuits in place that happen to have the ability to form experiences of things the external world itself "has no idea" it is going to create.

A good example of this neural “fortune telling” is the case of the aforementioned sudden, unexpected knock at the front door that surprises one a minute in the future.  

One’s brain must, before the fact, “know” that there will be a knock at the door in one minute, prior to the external world forming the person that knocks and the event of the knock itself.  Of every other experience that might occur a minute into the future, the brain happens to contain a neural circuit capable of forming experience of what the external world will form in 60 seconds.  In neural predeterminism, neural circuits are in place ready to form experience not of a possible future, but an actual future the external world will assume before the external world forms that future (this must be so, otherwise how could the brain mimic the actual external world state about to arrive in one minute?).

The “actual future knowing” neurons, moreover, are not plausibly imagined to form in the brain seconds, minutes, or even hours prior to the about-to-occur external world event.  If one believes the neural circuit, in a move that further strains logic, fortuitously forms in the brain in the “nick of time” such that the neural circuit forms and sits “ready to rock and roll” seconds before the future event, there must be a race between the brain and the external world in which the brain works at the rate it takes neurons then synaptic connections to form, and stages this formation at a time that will enable the circuit to be finished seconds before the external world creates the knock at the door.

Aside from this “Johnny-on-the-spot” or “in the nick of time” neural circuit formation, neurons having the ability to create the experience of the about-to-happen knock at the door, for example, must have existed with the ability to form this experience, as opposed to any other experience that would or could have occurred at the time of the knock on the door, at a distant point in the past, as the knock on the door will occur in 60 seconds and it presumably takes longer than 60 seconds for each neuron in the relevant circuit to form, and for synaptic connections between each neuron to form and initiate action potentials in the number and frequency that inscrutably coincides with the appearance of the unknown person and it’s knock on one’s door.

(Note: The irrationality of “actual future-knowing” neural circuits is exacerbated by the logical fallout from belief in godless death: actual future experiences “predicted” by actual-future-experiencing neurons are not derived from states of the external world that have not yet happened but from non-existence, through the magic of creation ex nihilo.)

Given that, in general, all the neurons one shall have in the brain were formed at birth, it is unlikely there is present, fortuitous and accidentally appropriate "Johnny-on-the-Spot" neurogenesis in which the neurons that happen to be able to create conscious experience of an imminent event, such as the hypothetical knock at the door, form five minutes prior to the knock as opposed to lying dormant in the brain, synaptically connected and having the ability to form the knock on the door that shall occur 40 years in the future (for example), since birth.

A physical resistance problem also exists: each neuron making up the circuit about to form the experience of the imminent knock at the door, if one believes each neuron in the relevant circuit was not in proximity and synaptically connected from birth, must race the knock at the door and move toward each against narrow intra-cerebral space as they squeeze around uninvolved neurons and biological matter to gain proximity and synaptic connection in the nick of time.

(Note: 100 billion neurons crammed together to form a 3 pound object in a skull makes extremely restrictive space for the neurons responsible for the soon-to-happen knock at the door to squeeze around billions of space-impeding neurons to reach each other to form synaptic connections that will enable creation of the “appointed experience” before the “appointed time”).  

EXTERNAL WORLD DOPPELGANGER-ISM

The process of perception begins with an object in the real world, known as the distal stimulus or distal object .  By means of light, sound, or another physical process, the object stimulates the body's sensory organs. These sensory organs transform the input energy into neural activity—a process called transduction .  This raw pattern of neural activity is called the proximal stimulus . These neural signals are then transmitted to the brain and processed.  The resulting mental re-creation of the distal stimulus is the percept .

To explain the process of perception, an example could be an ordinary shoe. The shoe itself is the distal stimulus. When light from the shoe enters a person's eye and stimulates the retina, that stimulation is the proximal stimulus. The image of the shoe reconstructed by the brain of the person is the percept.

-Wikipedia, Perception


In the belief that objects and environments appearing in visual perception are percepts or mental doppelgangers of objects and environments believed to exist outside the brain and body in the external world, it is unclear why something that does not exist before being called into existence (the percept) should resemble things that are not found within and do not originate within the brain (distal objects): the brain only creates and produces percepts; the brain does not and cannot create distal objects.  

In the belief that purportedly existing non-conscious stimuli flowing between distal objects and percepts carry information to the brain regarding the “appearance”, “behavior”, and “spatial position” of things that consist of something other than subjective experience, it is not clear nor logically demonstrated how energy-particles should, in the billions of years the particles existed prior to the birth and formation of the subject’s brain, happen to fortuitously carry within themselves the “appearance” and “behavior” of not-yet-formed distal objects and events the subject shall experience billions of years in the future (the logical obscurity is more pronounced if particles involved in transduction are somehow formed minutes or seconds prior to transduction from distal object to percept).  

If one responds by positing that the particles did not carry the information in the distant past but incredibly discards past information (or had no prior
consciousness-replicating information) to somehow gain or form relevant information in the relatively immediate future (say, following the subject’s birth) or immediate future (seconds before transduction), this is merely on-the-fly imagination created on the spot to compensate for the irrationality of the concept of information-salvage and informational immediacy (the irrationality demonstrated in what follows).

There is also the convenient luck-of-the-draw that the brain before transduction happens to contain neural circuits that happen to have the ability to form visual (as visual perception is the primary representative of external objects and events) doppelgangers of the distal objects and events that happen to surround the subject.  It does not follow that distal objects can have anything to do with the existence of corresponding percepts, as percepts are not created by distal objects but by the brain (for those believing that brains create consciousness or there are distal objects).  

Luck in the representation of distal objects by percepts lies in the conceptual fact that transduction is ultimately useless as, regardless of the process of transduction, the appropriate percept does not exist as it must be created by the brain ex nihilo.  
______________________________________________________________________

Conceptual evidence of this lies in the logical fallout presented by belief in godless death: if consciousness ceases to exist at death, every instance of conscious experience formed by the brain is therefore created ex nihilo.  If percepts are created by the brain ex nihilo, their informational connection to distal objects is ultimately illusory as the existence and qualities of the percept is derived from non-existence rather than the distal object.

Further, distal objects cannot directly give of themselves to form their corresponding percepts, as distal objects are generally larger and denser than the skull or brain and cannot breach the skin and skull to infiltrate the brain to take part in the formation of percepts without damaging or destroying the brain, removing its ability to form percepts.  



Finally, despite ex nihilo creation of percepts rendering the process of transduction illusory, it is odd to think of photons or other information-carrying atoms and sub-atomic particles transmitted from distal objects carrying within themselves tiny phenomenal “photos” (as we're talking the transference of something that is not consciousness to representation in consciousness) of the whole or fragments of the macroscopic object from which they were emitted.
______________________________________________________________________

That is, photons and other distal-object-information-carrying particles are not usually or rationally envisioned to carry within them tiny images of chairs, mountains, skateboards, magazine articles, etc. or even tiny images of fragments of these objects, as the particles fly from the distal object to the target body’s peripheral and central nervous systems before mechanically and fortuitously routing to the neural circuit that…causes information-carrying particles to have no purpose within and uselessly occupy the brain as percept-forming neural circuits create distal object-corresponding percepts ex nihilo.  Percepts are things that do not exist before they exist, thus consciousness-creating neural circuits do not (and indeed cannot) use distal-object-information-carrying particles (or images within the particles if these exist) to create percepts as percepts are formed without the use of pre-existing objects and material.  

If one were to amazingly hold that the brain has a “superconsciousness”—introduced by economist Frederick Hayek as a consciousness belonging to the brain independent of the person-consciousness the brain creates—it is difficult if not impossible to explain how even a conscious brain having the idea of the type of person-consciousness it wants to create can communicate the idea to something that does not exist.
_______________________________________________________________________

SATAN AND CLEVER USE OF THE DELUSION OF MAN REGARDING THE ORIGIN AND NATURE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Satan, having foreknowledge of the philosophy of Man and realizing Man is possessed of a persistent delusion that blinds him to the obviousness of Panpsychism, laughs at the idea the brain creates consciousness and something other than consciousness exists, placing the delusion in his pocket for future use in the Obfuscation.


END PART ONE