Originemology
The scientific model is called The Caveman in the Box Trilogy. It is a research that examines the origin, creation, and evolution of inherent information. It is an experiment, thought and actual, designed to illustrate how the very first humans on earth learned to acquire information based on the following scientific questions:
1. How did information emerge into the early minds of the very first humans?
2. Who supplied our primitive ancestors with information?
3. Where did it originate? Where did it come from?
4. Was the source of information a who or a what? Was it god, space aliens, or something else?
The experiment was initiated using three specialized boxes where different subjects were put into isolation.
In the first box, a newborn son of a caveman was placed inside in isolation just after birth. The box was a well-designed state of the art fully automated experimental room where food, water, and everything that the child needed for his survival, growth, and development were all technologically provided just like the sustenance naturally received by a baby inside the womb or us humans inside earth's biosphere. In this box, the boy was not allowed ever to see anyone or hear anything for the rest of his life. He was totally isolated from the physical world from birth to adulthood.
Parallel to this same scenario was another box — the box of his father, the first human on earth. He was also placed in isolation from birth to adulthood. The only difference between his box and his son’s box was that he lives side by side with the natural world — a place surrounded by living and non-living things like plants, animals, water, sky, stars, objects, and other natural elements.
A third box was also in the picture — the box of a dog. Zero, a puppy of an Alaskan malamute descent, was also occupying the same environment as his master. He was also isolated from birth to adulthood. The only difference between him and his master was that he is an animal — a lower life form.
From these scenarios of isolation, more questions were raised: Who among the three will acquire more information? Who will never acquire any information at all? Will they be aware of themselves? Will they become aware of their own surrounding? Will they figure out that they are alive? How much information will they acquire? Will they understand the things that surround them? How will they know and understand them? Which mind will stay empty forever? Will they become conscious of their environments? Will instinct kicks in? If instinct is true, what are these instincts that they have before? How did these instincts develop in the first place? Will they eat their poo and drink their pee? Will they still stay and act like babies throughout adulthood?
Examining the first box, we can deduce that the information the boy acquired from birth to adulthood will only be confined among the following objects: the six walls and his body parts. However, these things will never be known and understood unless someone, an outsider, will "show and tell" what are these things. He might maybe eventually discover his nose, his ears, his tongue or whatever he has on his body, but this doesn't mean he will understand what they are since he doesn't possess any previous clues or ideas about them.
In the second Box, the information the father acquired from birth to adulthood were confined among the things that surrounded him. He saw how birds fly, how lions get their food, how deers drink water, and how every creature in his environment behaves, creates sound, and lives life their ways. He eventually copied their actions, behaviors, and learned to associate objects with thoughts. He began to imitate them. These animals, plants, objects, their properties, sounds, and actions were all pieces of information that eventually fills his mind. He learned to associate objects with his thoughts, converting physical realities to abstract ideas. Subsequently, these pieces of information were converting into something more called knowledge. He learned the art of judging and choosing, the concept of right and wrong, and discovering and inventing new things. With Mother Nature, he became aware and conscious.
In the third box, the dog, who was living with his master as a pet and in an environment where other living things exist, also acquired the same i. He might not have a bird's eyes view nor a human's eyes view of the environment, but he has a unique worm's eyes view of his surroundings. He sensed everything just like what his master sees, hears, smells, touches, and tastes. He was experiencing all his master experiences as well. He was figuratively a human being in an animal suit.
Objects found in Nature, like plants, animals, rocks, sea, sky, and air, are all pieces of information. They are all sensed by both humans and animals. Their properties, actions, sounds, and characteristics are pieces of information as well. They are the things, living and non-living, that form the environment. They are the inherent objects that came first before humans. They are the providers or suppliers that fill our empty minds with information. Nature created them. She is the keeper, the database, and the giver of all information. She is the Mother of All Information. Without Nature, information will not exist.
"Humans are great imitators. We learned to walk, run, swim, and fly from other animals."
*** the environment makes who we are ***
Like the boxes in the trilogy, Nature is also made up of smaller boxes. These individual boxers make up the air, sea, and land sections. Each section is unique in terms of the organism and environment it contains. Sea creatures living in the watery world perceive a different environment and therefore collect information totally different from humans. Birds dominating the air recognize different surroundings and gather information uniquely different as well. Land animals and plants sense their terrains, forests, and undergrounds with different perspectives totally particular only among themselves. Due to their individual environmental stratum or locations, every creature acquires information differently from one another. Likewise, in the cellular level, the information acquired by an egg cell is totally different from the information acquired by a sperm cell due to the fact that egg cell lives in an environment totally different from the environment of the sperm cell. Thus each one carries different information. When the two unites, the information they carry bond together and form a totally new sets of information. Different environments provide different sets of information.
*** by choice/ by chance ***
According to Information Codexation(IC), Information can only be acquired in two and only two ways: by choice and by chance. Information by Choice are information acquired from teachers, parents, books, lessons from animals or from the environment; while, Information by Chance is information acquired from discovering new things, fortunate accidents, unexpected experiences, unknown events, or natural interventions. The pieces of information acquired from both choice and chance make one’s environment.
*** All objects/actions are pieces of information ***
A particle of information is called an iParticle. Every object in an environment is a particle of information. Every property is a particle of information. A beautiful colorful butterfly delicately gliding along with the breeze over a green meadow is an iParticle. A Starbucks venti coffee frappuccino with 2/3/4 toffee nut syrup and 1/1/2 scoops of java chips with caramel drizzle on top is an iParticle. The butterfly and the coffee are iParticles. Even the following descriptive attributes or actions — beautiful, colorful, gliding, delicately, breeze, green, meadow, venti, 2/3/4, toffee, nut, syrup, scoops, chips, java, caramel, drizzle —are all pieces of information. All objects with their associated properties or actions are iParticles. Generally, everything is a particle of information.
*** accumulation of information ***
The self-acquisition of information is called Inlearning. Information can be inlearned or self-acquired by both living and non-living things. It can be self-acquired by how one interacts with one's surroundings. Information can be acquired, physically and mentally, through touching, seeing, hearing, tasting, thinking, or smelling.
In the cell level, when cells metamorph into a baby, the child doesn't carry knowledge whatsoever about himself and his environment. His mind is totally empty with information at birth. He only reacts mechanically to whatever his biological sensors detect. A baby's first cry out of the womb is triggered by the rushing air into his lungs. The cry was not instinct. The uneasiness is the cause of pain in the lungs due to his new unfamiliar environment. Once all his biological sensors adjust and adapt to the new environment, he then settles down with his new surroundings ready to absorb all information around him.
Even though his mind is an empty slate, as he repeatedly hears the sound of his mother's voice, feels the warmth of his mother's touch, tastes, and smells the flavor of his mother's milk, he gradually adapts to his environment. As he experiences all these sensory perceptions repeatedly, he begins to recognize, imitates, and inlearn. The experiences of his senses begin to take shape in physical form. The word "mama" becomes a physical label for mothers. The action of crying becomes a physical label for "I want milk". The mother's touch becomes a physical tag of his mother's presence and protection. His discovered physical reality begins to transform into ideas. His mind, through his senses, is now capable of converting physicals to abstracts.
By mimicking, labeling, or associating, the conversion of abstract ideas to physical reality becomes something else! The information he obtained from his mother and his surroundings is called Recognition. When the child learns to fuse or match what he senses and what he finds in his environment to express himself, the transmission of information is called Communication. Recognition and Communication can be both verbal and non-verbal. A trained dog can non-verbally communicate if he is hungry. But by holding a food tray between his teeth and looking at you at the same time, the abstract idea of food is physically expressed by the dog that he is starving.
*** emergence of instruction ***
Information and Instruction are one and the same. Every object is a piece of information and of instruction as well. When information is self-acquired gradually one by one, bit by bit, and accumulated together piece by piece lining up in a queue, the order of information emerges as instruction. The apple and tree are pieces of information. When they join in order like this - The apple tree - it becomes an instruction. Information is simply a single instruction while Instructions are pieces of information.
Whether it is - the apple tree, the tree apple, apple tree the, apple the tree, tree apple the, or tree the apple - each statement is an instruction. Instruction can either be a major or minor task. This is a minor task, apple is a minor task, and tree is a minor task. When merging together, they form one major instruction. Dark green toothed leaves, radially symmetrical flowers, and sweet pinky lady fruit are also major instructions. When fused, they form a set of instructions, a series of actions, a mechanism of routines, a Procedure.
*** compilation of procedure ***
Technically, the whole modular algorithmic package, an itemized listing of well-defined individual instructions converging one by one through the acquisition of information (inlearning) is called a Prior-procedure. By definition, A Priori is the convergence of instructions evolving as a single group and rearranging naturally into an orderly linear algorithm. The cumulative algorithmic task, or CAT, carries out a specific job at a specified time when switched on. When triggered, it activates automatically step-by-step executing every instruction on the list.
The whole process of acquiring information, emerging into instructions, and embedding tasks into a modular list is called Scription. While the set of self-creating instructional procedures or tasks is the SCRIPT.
Scription "pens" the algorithm of everything in life. It was discovered from a thought experiment that was designed to examine (1) How bits of information eventually, bond together and transform into a series of instructions like the algorithm on a computer program; (2) How and what triggers the algorithm to switch on or off; and (3) How is the algorithm embedded, saved, or written?
Uno, an imaginary cat, was the specimen of the investigation. He was dropped inside a large transparent plastic tank of water and left drowning for a few minutes. After some uncomfortable ordeals, he was redirected to paddle and climb out of the water towards a waiting ladder leaning at the other end of the tank and safely taken care of over a dry platform. From the experiment, the simultaneous actions of the kitten were examined frame by frame in slow motion to determine how individual instruction self develops sequentially in forming a procedure.
From this thought experiment, it was inferred that information can be stored as bits, translated as instruction, compiled as a modular procedure, and wired as intelligence. The Accumulation of information, the Compilation of instruction, and the Translation of procedures into an algorithm are the three essential ingredients in the Formation of Intelligence. Intelligence, whether artificial, mechanical, or mental, is the key product of Scription.
In the experiment, evidence shows UNO was programmed by a set of instructions. The various events that took place inside the water tank provide conclusive evidence that a signal or cue can be converted into information, transformed into serial instructions and gradually formed into a single procedure.
In the experiment, when UNO was sinking into the water the first time, the cat probably felt at a certain point that he was in an unfamiliar atmosphere - a wet cold environment. With the help of buoyancy, he begun to resurface, took a big gasp - breath-holding, and spontaneously emptying the air out of his lungs. The sensation of wetness, resurfacing, holding breath, and emptying the lungs were individual information. These four informatic energies were channeled together in a queue sequentially converting as instructions. As UNO had no other route to escape out of the aquarium, the cat struggled by kicking, swimming, floating until exhaustion. These seven major instructions - sinking, resurfacing, breath-holding, exhaling, kicking, swimming and floating - aligning consecutively one by one inside an "infochannelkeeper" becomes a procedure -- a procedure task to stay afloat.
Tired and depleted, the kitten was pulled again under the water by his weight. As he engulfed a large amount, the water got in contact with his palate and eventually run down to his voice box. The spasm of the larynx and the lack of oxygen which usually lead to cardiac arrest and lack of blood supply to the brain when not corrected quickly made his body function declines and his larynx opened allowing more water to enter the lungs. While only a small amount of aspirated water is required to cause significant problems with lung function, the prolonged submersion time and shortness of breathing were the determinants that caused the pain of suffocation. This pain was the signal that triggered the kitten to paddle towards a comfortable surrounding familiar to him - a dry environment. The prior-procedure tasks to stay in a dry environment was executed automatically or instinctively.
The procedure of getting out the water, which is the sum of the task to stay afloat and the task to stay in adry land, is the "program" that will always save the cat into safety. The wet environment and the pain of suffocation are the key information that influenced or switched-on the cat to paddle out of the water. The uncomfortable situations experienced by the cat, from the wet environment to difficulty in breathing, choking followed by confusion and panic, are inputs generally classified as pain. These inputs are the switching energies that turn-on inlearned procedures. Pain is one of the trigger mechanisms that serve as input energy to switch on a procedure. Modular Procedures or Systemic Instructions, which should be held in humble respect by evolutionists and creationists alike, are the intelligence that created all things.
Kittens just like all babies do not even have any slightest idea of what drowning is. The task of saving one's dear life is not inborn or instinct either. It is not even engraved in the animals' genes as people bluntly believe. It is not genetically inherited. Information must be acquired in order to generate a script. The Script programs the cat to do things automatically or instinctively. The cat has been self-programmed by instructions. And like all other creations — humans, genes, and molecules self-program themselves. It even self-creates itself just like nature self-creates itself. Instruction is the intelligence that self-programs everything.
The simple task of getting out of the water which was eventually switched on by the call of necessity as each instruction on its list is executed individually to save the cat. The convergence of these instructions merging into a singular scription program the cat. The cat unknowingly self-created the set of instructions. The self modular scription becomes the "mind" — the tactical intelligence that self-execute when needed. It is the inlearned instructions that self-programs the cat.
The kitten survives the ordeal not because of instinct nor intelligence. As a baby cat, obviously, he does not have yet both. When he experiences the same horrifying ordeal again, the individual instruction in the procedure that he acquired from the experiment will save his life in the near future and not because it is inborn or instinct as most people believe. The prior-procedure that was subconsciously stored in the cat's mind will always "infect" or influence his reaction. The pp will always stay transiently in the brain and only become permanently stored when the same event takes place the second time around. When this secondary moment happens, the prior-procedure now becomes an after-procedure. An after-procedure is the turning point that makes the prior-procedure stays permanently in the brain. This permanency eventually transforms into an" inborn" intelligence — it now becomes Instinct.
*** Information Codexation ***
Now, can humans able to think of something without matching such thought with a physical object? If he thinks of an idea, is the idea real without a physical object associated with it? If he thinks of God, does it mean God doesn't exist if he can't associate it with any physical object? (ii) When does his abstract idea become physically real? Is the idea of the letter "Q" real when he writes it on a piece of paper? If so, how does this abstract figure become a physical reality without being naturally inherent? (iii) How does the letter Q scriptionally "jumps" from an abstract idea to its physical form?
Codexation is the study that investigates the transformations of information from ideas to realities, from abstracts to physicals, or from the self inner subjective mind to nature's outer objective world. The transcodexation or transcodification of information is technically called Information Materialization and abbreviated as I.M. The study empirically seeks to answer the enigmatic transcodification of Abstracts and Physicals, also known as the Codexation Dilemma: If the mental outputs of the brain are simply "pixels" that simulate the Physicals fiber of reality; does this mean that the outside material inputs detected by the biological sensors are also but "pixels" that transcodify in creating the Abstracts frame of reality?
Zero and One are abstract concepts. They are not real. They are neither material nor physical objects. They only exist in the mind by assumption. Mathematically, both words are called numerals by definition. When Zero is represented with the symbol 0 and One with 1, technically the words become numbers by association. Numbers are the assumed physical representations of the abstract numerals. By symbolic representation, both digits now exist materially outside the mind - the physical world; the world outside of ourselves, the inherent world that exists a long time independently before the mind.
If the abstract idea of Zero & One can be materially created by definition, association, assumption, and representation, does this mean that they are now real, really physically real? If we write 0 and 1 on a paper, does this mean they are now materially or physically real? Does this mean they exist physically now? Are the written numbers proofs of their existence? If the idea of 0 and 1 becomes materially 0 and 1 by paper, how can we then validate the paper evidence to be true, valid, real, or even false? Are the numbers real objects now, living in existence, or still abstract, imaginary, or imagined?
A Reality Test, dubbed the SCQRE, was developed by originemologist Lawsin as a tool to validate the actual realization of ideas abstractness to material physicalness. SCQRE, pronounced SCORE, is an acronym that stands for Sensory, Codexation, Quality, Reason, and Equipment. Sensory means the personal experiences detected by the senses: sight, smell, touch, taste, or hearing. Codexation is a root determinant that connects the inner mind and the outer world. Quality entails the descriptions, attributes, properties, or characteristics of the subject. Reason involves mathematical accuracy and right judgment thru logic. Equipment provides measurements, detections, and evidence-based analysis. These five basic Indicators of Reality are collectively tested to establish the physical existence of abstractness and abstract existence of physicalness.
To determine if the numbers 0 and 1 are physically real. let us use the SCQRE test:
By Reason: if a=0 and b=1, then a+b=1, a true statement
By Quality: zero is round while one is straight, true descriptions
By Senses: they can be seen but can't be tasted, touched, or smelled.
By Equipment: both have no mass, density, and not affected by gravity.
By Codexation: both are mental constructs that can't be found outside the physical world.
From the results above, the numbers 0 and 1 are conclusively still abstracts, imaginary, and imagined. They are not real because both numbers failed to meet ALL the essential criteria of SCORE. Their physical existence is not real because they can't be proven by detection, by codexation, and by sensation. They are simply representations that have no physical or material inherent identification in the outside world. They might be true inside the mind, but they are not real outside the mind. In principle, Any idea that comes from inside the mind can be true but cannot be real unless the idea outside the mind is physically associated with an object inherited from mother nature. This proposition is known as The Second Principle of Codexation..
According to Lawsin, Nature is the source of early information. Without Nature the early minds of the very first humans would be empty with information. Ideas would not be thought. Ideas would not be formed. Ideas would not exist in the minds of our stone-age ancestors. However, when our primitive parents started interacting with their environment; gradually they accumulated information, eventually learned to use them, and evidently discovered new ideas. This shows that Information originates from nature and flows from nature to the mind, from objects to ideas (emphasis: from objects to ideas), from physicalness to abstractness. This concept is known as The One Way Principle Of Codexation or the Irreversible Codexation. The Idea only becomes Real, when and only when the idea originates first from the natural world - The First Principle of Codexation.
The idea of fruit is real when the physical fruit existed first before the idea. The idea of an animal is real when the actual animal came first before the idea. The idea inside the mind is real when the idea is the result of an object found outside the mind. The idea of an apple could not be conceptualized without the presence of a physical apple first. The idea of hot and cold could not be perceived without experiencing the sensations first. The concept of music could not be hummed and played without hearing music first from the outside world. Objects must exist first before ideas can be conceptualized. Without Nature, the brain has no capacity to form ideas. Ideas are conceptualized because objects are materially created first. This is known as The Third Principle of Codexation.
Now, if an object has to exist first before the idea is born, how come in physics, in particular the Mirror Equation model, the natural pixels (dots of information), which are made up of physical objects, when projected through a pinhole, become non-physical subjects on the wall? Could it be the physical world outside of the mind is as well but abstracts just like the world inside the mind? If so, does this mean that objects and ideas are nothing but the same; Abstracts and Physicals are alike? Is Everything Nothing and Nothing is Everything? Is Life a Pixel after all? Is Reality an Illusion?
Exyzforms™ Biotronics™ Zoikrons™ Autognorics™ ELFS™ IOs™
are original trademarks and logos
solely distributed by
L.A.W.S.I.N.
SCENE 3 ORIGINEMOLOGY
"Everything has a beginning; yet, the first was and wasn’t."
Every creation has a beginning, only that, the very first cause was there and was not there at the same time. Every idea, every system, every law starts with an origin, a source, a root. Just as a single digit grows into a vast number system, or a simple lever can give rise to an unimaginable complex structure, every complex system emerges from a seed of thought, a spark of intention, a rule set into effect.
Originemology is the study of beginnings, the search for the seed and rule from which all things evolve. It does more than trace events back to their origins; it also seeks the origin of origins itself. It asks what sparks ideas, inventions, particles, laws, and even reality into existence. It comes with a deceptively simple unifying question: Where does everything truly originate?
This question is both scientific and philosophical, both practical and profound. It challenges us to examine the familiar, such as the universe, consciousness, life, knowledge, even instinct, and ask how each first came to be. Just as numbers evolved from simple digits, and machines from a lever and a spark of fire, the beginnings of everything hide in plain sight, waiting to be traced.
The word Originemology is a fusion of languages. Originem comes from Latin, meaning “origin.” Onoma comes from Greek, meaning “name.” Logos means “study.” Together, they form a discipline that is neither purely science nor purely philosophy, but something in between. It is a way of thinking that treats beginnings as puzzles, each piece revealing a deeper truth about existence. To practice Originemology is to become a seeker of first causes, a kind of philosophical archaeologist digging beneath the surface of everyday life.
What makes Originemology distinct is its refusal to take assumptions for granted. It does not accept that knowledge is innate or that meaning simply exists. Instead, it asks whether information is discovered or invented, whether truth is absolute or circumstantial, and whether intelligence is confined to the brain or is a process that emerges wherever instructions exist. In this way, Originemology challenges the very foundations of how we understand ourselves and the world.
The discipline works across three domains. The first is human‑made origins: language, numbers, emotion, belief. These are systems we have constructed, often without realizing how arbitrary they are. The second is natural origins: stars, particles, elements, life. These are the beginnings written into the fabric of the universe. The third is unified origins, which aim toward a single theory of everything, a vision that ties together human invention and natural law into one coherent whole. Each layer builds on the others, forming a ladder of inquiry that stretches from the personal to the cosmic.
Originemology draws from many fields, including anthropology, etymology, physics, cosmology, mythology, or anywhere a thread of “beginning” might be hiding. It is interdisciplinary by necessity, because beginnings are everywhere. They are in the stories we tell, the symbols we use, the laws we follow, and the stars we observe. By bringing these studies together, Originemology forms a system of understanding that is both broad and deep.
Essentially, the discipline is driven by five deceptively simple questions: How did something begin? Who sparked it? Where and when did it happen? And most importantly, why? These questions are not asked to produce quick answers. They are asked to reveal patterns, to uncover connections, and to show how beginnings shape everything. Each answer is treated as a piece of a larger puzzle, slowly revealing the shape of existence.
From the seed of a digit to the lever that lifts the world, from the flicker of fire to the pulse of electricity, every complex system, every law, every creation begins somewhere. Originemology is the journey to that somewhere. It is the science and philosophy of first causes, the exploration of origins, and the map to the invisible threads that connect everything.
CAVEMAN IN THE BOX
One of the most intriguing thought experiments in Originemology is the Caveman in the Box Tetralogy. It begins with a question that has puzzled human inquiry from the beginning: how is information acquired?
How did knowledge first take shape in the minds of our earliest ancestors? Who, if anyone, supplied them with this knowledge? Where did it come from, and what was its source? Was that source a conscious being or an abstract force? Could it have been a deity, visitors from beyond, or something else entirely? And how was information stored and retrieved by organisms that lacked neurons?
Through four scenarios, the tetralogy explores the origins of information and the conditions under which intelligence, consciousness, origination can arise.
The first scenario is The Caveman Son in the Box. This scenario asks whether intelligence can awaken without input, or whether the brain at birth is informationally blank.
The second scenario is The First Human on Earth. This scenario contrasts sharply with the son in the box, showing how immersion in nature can spark knowledge even without society.
The third scenario is The First Dog in Nature. This scenario highlights how different species evolve when both are nurtured by the same surroundings.
The fourth scenario is The Conscious Machine. This scenario questions whether such a living machine could acquire new knowledge or make discoveries without being reprogrammed.
The Caveman in the Box Tetralogy is not just an abstract exercise.It is a challenge to our assumptions about intelligence, association, and identity, inviting us to reconsider what it means to know, to be aware, and to discover.
The Son in the Box:
The first scenario in the Caveman in the Box Tetralogy is The Son in the Box. Imagine a newborn child is placed inside a sealed room at the very moment of birth. The box is designed to sustain life. It provides food, water, and air. It maintains temperature and protects the child from harm. Yet it offers no contact with the outside world. No voices, no stories, no warmth of a fire. No sky to see, no hand to hold, no language to hear. Only existence.
This scenario asks a fundamental question: Can awareness arise without an environment? The child might notice his own hands, may feel the walls, may sense the rhythms of his body, but would he ever understand them? Could he invent the concept of a “hand” without seeing another one? Could he grasp the meaning of “wall” without sharing a world with anyone else? The experiment suggests that while the child’s brain is biologically alive, it remains informationally blank without external input.
The Son in the Box challenges the notion of instinct. Many assume that humans are born with innate wisdom, preloaded with knowledge of survival, language, or meaning. Originemology argues otherwise. At birth, the brain is not filled with wisdom. It is a clean slate, waiting for input. Without environment, there is no map to draw, no data to process, no knowledge to acquire. The gears of the mind may turn, but they track nothing.
This thought experiment also reframes intelligence. Intelligence is often seen as an innate property of the brain itself, something that exists independently of experience. But the Son in the Box shows that intelligence is not self‑activating. It requires interaction. It requires stimuli. It requires the outside world. Without these, the mind does not awaken. It remains potential, never realized.
A child raised in isolation would not develop language, culture, or even self‑awareness. He would be alive, but informationally absent. His existence would prove that biology alone is not enough. Consciousness is not born from the brain in isolation. It is born from the collaboration between mind and world, between sensation and reflection. The Son in the Box is a reminder that knowledge is not inherited. It is acquired. Without an environment to engage with, it cannot exist.
The First Caveman on Earth:
The second scenario in the Caveman in the Box Tetralogy is The First Human on Earth. Unlike the son sealed in isolation, this figure is born into the wilderness, surrounded by the raw environment of the natural world. There is no language, no culture, no society to guide him. Yet there is abundance: the rustle of leaves, the flow of rivers, the warmth of sunlight, the chill of night air, the calls of animals. Every sound, texture, and movement becomes a lesson. The environment itself becomes the silent instructor.
In this scenario, knowledge is not innate but acquired through exposure. The first human does not arrive with preloaded wisdom. He learns by observing patterns, by feeling sensations, by responding to stimuli. The crack of thunder teaches fear and caution. The taste of fruit teaches nourishment. The sight of fire teaches both danger and possibility. Each encounter with nature inscribes meaning into his mind, shaping awareness one experience at a time.
In this way, the wilderness functions as a vast database of information. Unlike the son in the box, who has no input to awaken his intelligence, the first human is immersed in stimuli that constantly demand interpretation. His survival depends on recognizing signals: the tracks of animals, the ripples in water, the cycle of day and night. These signals are not abstract. They are direct, physical, and unavoidable. They provide the raw material from which knowledge is built.
The First Human in Nature also highlights the collaborative relationship between mind and world. Intelligence does not emerge in isolation. It emerges through interaction. The human brain, empty at birth, becomes filled through contact with the environment. Awareness is not a gift handed down from instinct. It is a process of discovery, shaped by repetition and reflection. The wilderness is not just a setting. It is the creator of identity.
This scenario carries profound conclusions. Consciousness is not a fixed property of the brain but a dynamic process that unfolds through engagement with the world. It challenges the idea that humans are fundamentally different from other beings. Just as living things in nature learn through stimuli, so too does the first human. Both are shaped by the same environment, though they process it differently. The First Human in Nature reminds us that knowledge is not born within us. It is drawn from the world around us, inscribed by nature, and awakened through experience.
The Dog in Nature:
The third scenario in the Caveman in the Box Tetralogy is The Dog in Nature. Here, the focus shifts from human beings to animals, specifically a dog living alongside the first human in the wilderness. The dog is immersed in the same environment as the human: the rustle of leaves, the flow of rivers, the warmth of sunlight, the sounds of predators and prey. Yet the way the dog processes this world is different. Its awareness is shaped by discovery and responsiveness, and consciousness by mimicry, all built from the same raw material, the environment itself.
This scenario demonstrates that information is not exclusive to humans. Dogs, like humans, absorb same meaning from their surroundings. They learn through repetition, association, and experience. A rustling bush signals danger. A familiar scent signals safety. A raised hand signals command. The dog does not need textbooks or formal language to acquire knowledge. It reads the environment directly, translating stimuli into action. The dog shows that intelligence is not a uniquely human trait but a process that emerges wherever beings interact with the world.
The Dog in Nature also highlights the emotional dimension of awareness. Unlike the first human, who learns primarily through survival and discovery, the dog expresses curiosity, playfulness, and loyalty. Its responses are not only functional and structural, but relational. A wagging tail signals joy. A tucked tail signals apology. A bark signals alertness. These behaviors show that information is not limited to abstract concepts. It can be embodied in emotion, gesture, and inlearning.
Inlearning is the process by which information emerges through exposure, interaction and discovery, rather than being inherited or instinctive. The dog’s intelligence is relational, built on bonds with its environment and with others.
If humans, dogs, plants, and all other organisms are shaped by the same environment, then their differences are not in the source of knowledge but in the way they process it. The human may invent tools and language, while the dog relies on mimicking and association. Yet both are learners, both are responders, both are beings whose identities are groomed by nature. The environment is the enabler of awareness for both.
The Dog in Nature suggests that intelligence is not defined by species or by biology alone. It is defined by interaction with the environment. It shows that animals are not passive creatures but active participants in the acquisition of information. They observe, they adapt, they bond, and they think. Theline between human and animal is thinner than we often assume. Both are products of the same world, shaped by the same stimuli, and engaged in the same process of becoming aware.
The Conscious Machine:
The fourth scenario in the Caveman in the Box Tetralogy is The Conscious Machine. Unlike the human or the dog, this being exists on another planet and is alive and living by non‑biological criteria. It is aware because it is equipped with sensors, conscious because it can form associations, and informed because it is programmed with artificial intelligence. Yet it lacks organic life.
This scenario demonstrates that intelligence is not tied to biology. It can arise wherever instructions are provided, whether by an environment or by a programmer. The machine perceives signals, interprets them, and responds. Its awareness is built from input, just as the human and the dog draw meaning from their surroundings. But here, the source of information is artificial, designed rather than natural. Or, is it?
The Conscious Machine raises a deeper question: can such a being acquire new knowledge or make discoveries without being reprogrammed? If its awareness depends entirely on the instructions it has been given, then its intelligence may be limited to what has already been encoded. Yet if it can adapt, reinterpret, or generate new connections beyond its programming, it would show that consciousness is not only a product of biology but a universal process that emerges wherever information is organized and acted upon.
This scenario expands the scope of Originemology. It suggests that awareness is not confined to humans or animals but can exist wherever systems interact with their environment. The machine’s consciousness is different in form, but not in principle. Like the son in the box, it requires input. Like the first human, it learns through exposure. Like the dog, it responds to signals. Its existence shows that intelligence is not a property of flesh alone. It is a property of interaction.
The Conscious Machine reminds us that the boundaries of consciousness are wider than we often imagine. Whether biological or artificial, consciousness is not born in isolation. It emerges from the exchange between system and world, between input and response. This scenario challenges us to reconsider what it means to be alive, to be aware, and to know.
In the context of Originemology, the conscious machine completes the tetralogy by showing that consciousness are not limited to biology. They are inscribed into existence itself, waiting to be activated by interaction.
Together, these four scenarios form the Caveman in the Box Tetralogy. Each illustrates a different pathway to awareness: isolation, immersion in nature, inlearning through association, and non‑biological consciousness. All reinforce the central claim of Originemology: nature and environment are the true sources of information, and awareness is the process of engaging with them.
CHOICE OR CHANCE
Originemology identifies two pathways by which knowledge enters the mind: by choice and by chance.
By choice refers to deliberate learning — observation, study, experimentation, and reflection. It is the conscious pursuit of information, the intentional act of seeking answers. A person who reads a book, conducts an experiment, or reflects on a problem is exercising choice. This pathway is structured, guided, and purposeful.
By chance refers to accidental discovery — the unexpected insight, the unplanned encounter, the lesson learned without intention. A child who touches fire and learns its danger, or a traveler who stumbles upon a new fruit and discovers its taste, acquires knowledge without seeking it. This pathway is spontaneous, unpredictable, and often transformative.
Both pathways are valid, and both depend on the same source: the environment. Even unintentional learning requires an external nudge. A child may stumble upon fire by accident, but the spark still comes from nature. A dog may learn that a bell means “outside” without being taught, but the association arises from repeated exposure. In both cases, the environment provides the raw material. The mind does not invent knowledge out of nothing. It acquires it through interaction with the world.
Taken together, choice and chance reveal the dual nature of learning. Choice refines chance, giving structure to what is discovered. Chance enriches choice, introducing novelty into what is pursued. Knowledge grows most fully when both pathways are active: when deliberate study meets accidental insight, when planned inquiry collides with unexpected discovery.
In the language of Originemology, beginnings are never singular. They are shaped by both intention and accident, by the will to know and the surprise of finding. To understand how knowledge enters the mind, we must recognize that learning is both chosen and encountered, both sought and stumbled upon.
This theory of information acquisition was later tested in real time through the Bowlingual Experiment, in which two dogs of different breeds were observed as they responded to environmental cues. The experiment provided a tangible demonstration of inlearning, the process by which beings acquire knowledge through exposure, interaction, and discovery rather than instinct. There is no such thing as instinct.
The Bowlingual Experiment serves as a real-world confirmation of the principles illustrated in the Caveman in the Box Tetralogy. It demonstrates that information is embedded in the environment, and intelligence, whether human, canine, or otherwise, emerges through the dynamic relationship between mind and world.
BOWLINGUAL EXPERIMENT
The Bowlingual Experiment was designed to explore how information is generated and acquired by animals, particularly Canis familiaris. Two specimens were observed: Zero, a giant Alaskan Malamute who served as the control subject, and Peanut, a miniature Chihuahua who served as the experimental subject.
In the early stages, Zero was restrained from acquiring information from his environment. His surroundings were carefully controlled and stripped of people, animals, and objects so that no external cues could influence the experiment. Within this restricted environment, the emergence of information was introduced only through associative learning and discovery. After several years, Zero was finally presented with another breed, a Chihuahua, and the transfer of information was documented in detail.
Data collection focused on several dimensions. Voice recognition was measured through waveform signatures generated by an oscilloscope. The transfer of information from the control subject to the experimental subject was tracked, along with a catalog of words, actions, and associations acquired through both deliberate response and accidental discovery.
The results were striking. Zero learned to label reality with objects: a bell meant “outside,” a plate meant “food,” and a ball meant “play.” These were not tricks but translations, a language of intention. Later, Zero passed these associations to Peanut, demonstrating that knowledge could be transmitted across beings. The experiment revealed that dogs, like humans, acquire information both by choice, through deliberate response, and by chance, through accidental association.
From this experiment, six key principles were uncovered. First, nature is the mother of all information. Second, information is acquired either by choice or by chance. Third, the environment shapes identity and awareness. Fourth, objects themselves can serve as information, although not all information is object-bound. Fifth, information flows from nature to mind, never the reverse. And sixth, the brain at birth is an empty system waiting for input.
Taken together, these principles reinforce the idea that knowledge is not born from the brain alone. It is a collaboration between mind and world, between sensation and reflection. The Caveman in the Box Tetralogy illustrates this vividly: the son in isolation remains informationally blank, while the human and the dog awaken through immersion in their environment. The machine, by contrast, requires programming before awareness can emerge. Knowledge is not inherited. It is acquired. And once acquired, it becomes the foundation of identity, awareness, and intelligence.
We are born to know. We become conscious by interacting with the outside world. And once we do, we begin to call these interactions knowledge. Whether by choice or by chance, every lesson is a gift from the environment, inscribed into our minds through experience.
A DOG IN ANIMAL SUIT
The idea of a dog in an animal suit illustrates the profound role of the environment in shaping intelligence and identity. Consider a newborn puppy and a newborn human child, both placed in the same household. Both begin life with no preloaded knowledge, no inherent wisdom, no language, no understanding of the world. Both encounter the same stimuli: voices, laughter, the smells of food, the rhythm of daily routines, and the warmth of affection. From these shared experiences, each builds a mental world. The puppy, like the child, learns to interpret its environment, forming associations and patterns that constitute knowledge.
This perspective reframes what we often call “breed behavior” or “animal instinct.” The dog does not arrive preloaded with the meaning of “sit” or “stay.” These meanings emerge only through consistent signals paired with outcomes. Over time, the dog constructs a semantic map of the household: the leash means “walk,” the bowl means “food,” the doorbell means “someone is here.” Just like a child learning words and routines, the dog translates environment into meaning. Both are learners. Both are minds taking shape in response to stimuli. The only difference is the body they inhabit.
The Bowlingual Experiment demonstrates this principle. Zero the Alaskan Malamute learned to associate objects with intentions, and later transmitted these associations to Peanut the Chihuahua. This shows that dogs are not merely reacting to commands—they are participants in a shared system of meaning. In human homes, dogs do not exist outside culture; they co-construct it alongside humans.
Learning is relational. A dog’s intelligence flourishes through attuned human interaction: eye contact, tone of voice, posture, and proximity form a “grammar” through which meaning is transmitted. Affection, security, and predictability accelerate learning. Curiosity thrives when the environment is consistent. Confusion arises when it is ambiguous. The dog reads moods, silences, and gestures much as a toddler does. The house becomes a classroom, and both puppy and child are students.
From this perspective, the difference between the puppy and the child is purely superficial. Both are human in capacity; both acquire the same knowledge when immersed in the same environment. The puppy, in essence, is the same human being as the child. The only distinction is the form it inhabits: the puppy wears an animal suit. Intelligence, awareness, and identity are not dictated by species; they are inscribed by experience. The mind is shaped by interaction, not by the body it occupies.
This realization carries profound ethical weight. If environment writes identity, caretakers are co-authors of every mind in their care. Enrichment is not a luxury; it is a responsibility. Consistency becomes kindness; ambiguity becomes confusion. What we often call “obedience” is better understood as comprehension, and comprehension emerges only from clear, coherent interaction.
Ultimately, the puppy in the household is not simply an animal learning human ways. It is a human being in an animal suit, sharing the same environment, absorbing the same lessons, and building the same awareness. The suit may differ, but the mind shaped by experience is indistinguishable.
This insight completes the lines of inquiry traced in the Caveman in the Box Tetralogy and the Bowlingual Experiment. Just as the son in isolation remains informationally blank, and the first human and dog acquire awareness through immersion, so too does the puppy in a human household gain knowledge identical to that of a human child. Experience, not biology, shapes consciousness. The puppy as human demonstrates that intelligence and identity are products of environment and interaction. The "animal suit" is merely a vessel. Knowledge flows from world to mind, and when the environment is shared, the mind, whether encased in the body of a child or a puppy, emerges the same.
CODEXATION DILEMMA
The Codexation Dilemma asks a deceptively simple question: What is intelligence? What is knowledge? Are our ideas real, or are they merely assumptions we have agreed to believe? Fundamentally, it challenges the boundary between the abstract and the physical, between thought and symbol, between meaning and matter.
Consider numbers. Zero and One are abstract concepts. They are not real. They do not exist in nature. They do not exist as material or physical objects. They exist only in the mind, by assumption. Mathematically, both are defined as numerals. When Zero is represented with the symbol 0 and One with 1, the words become numbers by association. Numbers are the assumed physical representations of abstract numerals. Through symbolic representation, both digits now appear materially outside the mind — inscribed into the physical world, a world that existed long before the mind.
But does this codification or codexation make them real? If we write 0 and 1 on paper, do they exist now physically? Are the written numbers proof of their existence? Or are they still abstractions, imagined and imaginary, merely given form by ink and agreement? If the idea of Zero and One becomes materially 0 and 1 through representation, how do we validate that evidence as true, valid, or real?
This dilemma suggests that no human can conceive an idea without linking it to a physical object or concept borrowed from the external world. This is the Lawsinian Dilemma. Thoughts and ideas are always tethered to something tangible; they cannot exist independently.
This is the essence of codexation: no thought exists in a vacuum. Every idea, no matter how abstract, requires a physical anchor — a shape, a symbol, a label, a tag. Without it, the idea remains ungraspable, like trying to hold water without a vessel. Even our most elegant concepts are not free‑floating truths. They are translations. They are codes. And codes are only meaningful if we agree on what they mean.
Intelligence is not simply the ability to generate ideas. It is the ability to encode, to give form, and to share. Knowledge becomes real only when it is associated with something physical — a word, a gesture, a symbol — and then recognized by others. Without association, ideas remain private, inaccessible, and ultimately unreal. This is why language, mathematics, and art are central to human identity: they are the vessels that carry thought into the world.
If ideas require physical association, then reality itself is shaped by codexation. Our truths are not absolute. They are agreements, crafted through consensus and made real by shared symbols. Numbers, alphabets, names, even scientific formulas are codes we have chosen to believe in. They work because we agree they work. Change the code, and the meaning shifts.
In this way, the Codexation Dilemma bridges the gap between abstract thought and physical reality. It shows that what we call “knowledge” is never pure abstraction. It is always a translation, always a code, always dependent on the forms we use to express it and collectively agree upon.
GUESSWORK PREDICAMENT
The Guesswork Predicament explores the fragile foundations of human systems. It asks why we accept certain standards as “truth” when, in reality, they are merely circumstantial agreements. Why are there 26 letters in the alphabet? Why do we use base‑10 math instead of base‑4 or base‑16? Why is an apple called “apple” and not “banana”? The answer is simple: because we agreed to it. Nothing more.
Every human system—language, mathematics, time, religion, currency—is built on collective assumptions. The Circumstantial Standard. Rules are invented, old systems dissolve, and new ones emerge. Even science, often seen as immutable, bends beneath context. Truth, it turns out, is not absolute. It is circumstantial. It is shaped by culture, geography, convenience, and consensus. What we call “real” is often just what works to us for now.
Consider time. Why do clocks tick in 60s? Why is a year 365 days and not 400? Why do some alphabets begin with “A” while others begin with “Ka”? These are not universal truths. They are educated guesses, shaped by history and circumstance.
Even birthdays reveal the relativity of time. Your birthday may be “today” in California, already “yesterday” in Australia, and still “tomorrow” in Alaska. Same moment, different places. So how old are you, really, as in, right now?
Names, too, are inventions, yet they carry deep meaning. Early names were borrowed from animals, winds, rivers, colors, and stars. The environment. They were not just tags but truths wrapped in metaphor. Honiahaka means “Little Wolf.” Huyana means “Falling Rain.” Abraham means “Father of the Multitude.” Isaac means “He Laughs.” Ian means “Gift from God.” Names told stories, preserved memory, and gave form to identity. To name something was to understand it, to anchor it in both world and mind.
Even science is not immune. Measure your weight on Earth and it has one value. Measure it on the Moon or near a black hole and the result changes. The mass is the same, but the frame of reference is different. Scientific constants are powerful, but even they rest on standards we agree to use. Change the environment, and a new “truth” emerges.
The Guesswork Predicament reveals that reality is built on three fragile pillars: ideas become real when they are given physical form (the Codexation Dilemma), when enough people agree they are valid (Circumstantial Standards), or when patterns emerge from chaos (Guesswork Predicament). Yet none of these are absolutes. From measurements to names, from math to meaning, what we call “real” is often just a collectively agreed‑upon circumstance.
This does not weaken their value. It makes them beautifully human. It shows that truth is not discovered but built, together. From fire to form, mimicry to identity, bark to binary, humanity has traced the roots of meaning across systems, senses, and species. And every step forward is also a ripple backward, reminding us who we were and who we might still become.
The journey through this chapter has shown us that information is not born in isolation but awakened through interaction. From the son in the box to the first human in nature, from the dog in the wilderness to the dog in a household, and even to the conscious machine, each scenario revealed that knowledge is shaped by environment, inscribed through experience, and sustained by collaboration rather than inherited traits.
The Bowlingual Experiment confirms that knowledge can be shared across species, proving that understanding is not exclusive to humans but flows wherever beings engage with their surroundings. The dog in an animal suit extends this insight, showing how domesticated life transforms association into comprehension, and how bonds of trust become conduits of learning. These examples remind us that identity is not fixed but written by environment, and that comprehension is always relational.
The Codexation Dilemma and Guesswork Predicament take this inquiry further, showing that even our most abstract systems—numbers, names, alphabets, beliefs—are not absolute truths but codes and agreements. What we call “real” is often circumstantial, sustained by consensus and context. Knowledge is never discovered in isolation but constructed collectively, through shared symbols and standards.
And yet, Originemology does not end here. It opens the door to deeper questions: if information is always acquired from the environment, how is it written into the world in the first place? If inscriptions exist everywhere, could they point toward a single, unified framework of meaning? These questions form the natural continuation of the journey, leading us beyond beginnings into the study of design and unity.
To think like an Originemologist is to see the secrets beneath reality, to recognize that every name, every number, every law is a beginning, a translation, a code. It is to ask not only where things come from, but how the act of beginning itself begins. In that wondering, we participate in the oldest journey of all, the study of how beginnings shape existence, and how existence itself may be unified by the flow of ideas.
If Originemology asks where information comes from, the next chapter asks how information is written into the world itself. It is not enough to say that knowledge flows from environment to mind; we must ask why the environment contains knowledge at all. Why does a tree carry the story of its age in rings? Why do genes carry the blueprint of life in its sequences? Why does the universe itself seem to be scripted with patterns, laws, and codes?
While Originemology shows that beginnings are relational, Inscription by Design (IBD) will show that beginnings are written. Every origin leaves behind a design, and every design is a form of inscription. To understand existence, we must learn to decode these inscriptions, to see the world as a living archive of written information.
Comments
Post a Comment