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; it was there and wasn’t there."
When exploring the origins of anything, be it ideas, inventions, or even existence itself, it’s natural to begin with a question: Where did it all start?
Tracing the roots of concepts and creations not only uncovers their beginnings but also highlights the interconnectedness of their evolution. This chapter embarks on this journey, introducing the concept of Originemology, the study of origins, which examines how systems, behaviors, and even abstract ideas come into being. It delves into these questions through a variety of thought-provoking subtopics, each shining light on the beginnings of what we often take for granted.
Originemology combines “originem” (Latin for origin), “onoma” (Greek for name), and “logos” (study). It isn’t just a science, it is a philosophy. A way of asking: Where does anything truly begin?
ORIGIN OF ORIGINS
If you've ever asked, where did this thing come from, then you’re already speaking the language of Originemology.
At its core, Originemology is the study of beginnings. But not just any beginnings, the origin of origins. It searches where everything begins, including beginnings. It is the sparks that set everything into motion: ideas, nothingness, inventions, particles, laws, and even reality itself. It looks at the things we see and use every day and asks: What’s the first moment that made this possible?
You could think of it as the science of first causes, or maybe more like philosophical archaeology. We're not just digging into the “what”, we’re after the why, the how, and the often-overlooked who.
This field was born from a deeper question, one that’s haunted dreamers and tinkerers alike:
Where did information begin?
Who gave it to us?
Did it just appear? Was it planted, by chance, divine force, or aliens from the outer reaches of somewhere-else?
And maybe the most haunting part … Why did we receive it?
These are more than thought experiments. They’re the pulse of Originemology.
To explore these mysteries, the field works in three layers:
1. Human-made origins, language, numbers, emotion, belief.
2. Natural origins, stars, particles, elements, life.
3. Unified origins, the underlying threads that bind them all together, a one theory of everything.
It pulls from everywhere: anthropology, etymology, physics, cosmology, mythology, anywhere a thread of “beginning” might be hiding.
What drives all this?
Five deceptively simple questions:
How did something begin?
Who sparked it?
Where and when did it happen?
And most importantly, why?
Originemology doesn’t seek answers just to answer them. It uses each question like a lantern in a dark room, slowly revealing the shape of understanding.
As part of its toolkit, Originemology leans on a few key principles you’ll see throughout this chapter:
1. Caveman in the Box – a scenario about what happens when a human mind is left in perfect isolation. What knowledge emerges? What doesn’t?
2. Codexation Dilemma – a paradox that explores the gap between abstracts and physicals.
3. Generated Interim Emergence – a theory explaining how and why everything exists and why some do not.
And at its most radical, Originemology asks: What if intelligence isn’t a brain thing at all? What if it’s a pattern, a process, that shows up anywhere instructions exist?
That’s the idea behind “A Brain Without the Brain”. Consciousness, reimagined.
It all starts with a single unit: an iParticle, one tiny “packet” of pure information. It is the smallest nameable thing. Not just labels, but seeds of meaning. When passed on, they accumulate, mutate, replicate, across atoms, cultures, ecosystems, machines.
The idea behind this naming? Nothing exists without identity. And every identity, every name, is a breadcrumb pointing back to a beginning.
So this is where we begin…
Not just with creation,
Not just with evolution,
But with the beginning of the beginning itself.
This isn’t poetry. It’s a blueprint.
And yes, there are models.
Using IDMFs, Isodimensional Morphical Figures, I uncovered how simple rule-based objects evolve into stunning complexity. When one such figure was iterated through just a single guiding instruction, it formed something unexpected: a Helixical Torus Dimetrix. It’s more than a shape, it’s a model for how elegant structures emerge from simple, lawful beginnings.
(And yes, it kind of looks like a donut. A very cosmic donut.)
CAVEMAN IN THE BOX
In this thought experiment called Caveman in the Box, this is where the journey begins.
It’s a trilogy, three scenarios designed to ask where information comes from, and whether knowledge is inevitable or earned:
1. The Son in the Box, completely isolated.
2. The First Human in Nature, surrounded by a natural world but no society.
3. The Dog in Nature, coexisting with his master, the first human being.
Across all three, the same questions echo:
- Can information arise without the environment?
- Does awareness require interaction?
- If a mind has no input… does it ever turn itself on?
Let us imagine a newborn child, son of a caveman, is placed inside a sealed, six-walled box at the moment of birth. The box provides everything he needs to survive: food, water, air. But never once will he see the sky, hear a voice, or feel another hand. No language. No stories. No warmth from a fire. Just... existence.
Then ask yourself:
Will this child ever become aware?
Will he know anything, about himself, the world, or even the concept of “knowing”?
This child may discover his hands. He might learn that hunger fades after he eats. He may even notice the texture of the walls.
But would he ever understand them?
Would he invent the concept of a “hand” without seeing another one?
Could he grasp the meaning of anything, having never shared a world with anyone?
The answer is sobering: likely not.
His brain may be wired for intelligence, but without input, it’s like a clock with no face, its gears spinning, but tracking nothing.
He is biologically alive, yes. But informationally? Blank.
This flips the notion of “instinct” on its head, since Originemology suggests that at birth, the brain is not preloaded with wisdom. It is a clean slate. It needs Nature to draw the map.
Now contrast that with the second figure in the trilogy:
A primitive human born free into the wild world.
No language, no culture, but endless stimuli.
Every tree, every stone, every splash of the river becomes a lesson. The environment becomes a silent instructor.
And then, there's the third player: the dog.
Present in the same world, but processing it differently.
Responsive, curious, emotionally expressive,
learning his environment in a different perspective..
This side-by-side comparison reveals something powerful:
Nature is the Mother of Information.
Not metaphorically. Literally.
She provides everything: texture, pattern, sound, light, heat, danger, comfort. She gives names without words, meaning without syntax. And from her offerings, sensorial awareness begins to bloom.
From this model emerges the concept of the Scriptional Jump, the moment when external, physical stimuli make the leap into internal, abstract thought.
This flow is one-directional. Information starts outside, and only becomes understanding once it enters the mind. Without that jump? The mind remains a machine with power but no program.
So how do we acquire knowledge?
Originemology identifies two pathways:
- By Choice, deliberate learning, observation, study
- By Chance, accidental discovery, unexpected insight
But in both, the environment is the provider.
Even unintentional learning requires an external nudge.
These ideas were tested in real time through the Bowlingual Experiment, an investigation observing how two dogs (an Alaskan malamute and a Mexican chihuahua) responded to environmental cues.
From this experiment, six key principles emerged:
1. Nature provides all information.
2. Information is acquired by choice or by chance .
3. The environment shapes identity and awareness.
4. Objects are information, though not all info is object-bound.
5. Information flows from world to mind, never the reverse.
6. The brain at birth is an empty system, waiting for info.
In the end, the Caveman in the Box Trilogy isn’t just an abstract exercise, it’s a novel concept for us to reflect. It suggests that knowledge isn’t born from the brain alone. It’s a collaboration, between mind and world, between sensation and reflection.
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.
BOWLINGUAL EXPERIMENT
But, where does information actually come from?
How is it born, shaped, and shared across beings?
What if the answer was wagging its tail right in front of us?
This is where Originemology picks up the thread, and why I turned to a curious, sharp-eyed Alaskan Malamute named Zero to lead the way.
Zero wasn't just a pet. He was a partner in discovery. Majestic and perceptive, with a thick gray-and-white coat and a streak of playfulness, he had a gift for engagement, and for something deeper: translation. He didn’t just react. He responded. And that planted a question in my mind: Could a dog have thoughts worth decoding?
Thus began the Bowlingual Experiment, and with it, a journey into codexation: the translation of thought across species.
To bridge our worlds, I built a controlled space called “the Box”, where Zero was gradually introduced to knowledge one piece at a time: objects, sounds, routines, cues. The goal? To see how he would store, respond to, and even share what he learned.
This wasn’t just training, it was mutual communication.
The results were surprising. And deeply humbling.
The study reinforced a foundational truth: Nature is the origin of information, the ultimate database. Every leaf, sound, texture, or object is a data point.
Dogs don’t need textbooks. They read the environment.
Rather than commands, I focused on Visual Talk (VT).
When Zero grabbed a bell, he wasn’t being cute. He was saying:
“I need to go outside".
A plate? “I’m hungry”.
A soccer ball? “Let’s play”.
He wasn’t repeating behavior, he was labeling reality, one object at a time. A Language of Intention.
But even more powerful was what Zero taught me.
When he tapped my leg with his paw, it wasn’t random. It meant “I’m hungry.”
When he sat by the door, he was requesting.
When he hung his head and tucked his tail, it wasn’t fear. It was an apology.
We were decoding each other.
These interactions became a powerful symbol of Codexation: the idea that thought isn’t just learned, it can be observed, internalized, and passed between beings through association.
Soon after, I expanded the experiment deeper to include Peanut, forming the Malamute-Chihuahua Codexation Study. Could Zero’s learned associations, ball means play, plate means food, be transferred to Peanut? Could Zero teach Peanut?
Through shared objects, plate, bone, bell, Zero passed associations. Bit by bit, Peanut began responding to Zero’s signals. The experiment wasn’t about obedience. It was about transmission: the transfer of understanding through matching.
The Bowlingual Experiment did more than explore canine cognition. It reshaped my view of instinct, acquisition of information, and knowledge itself:
- Dogs process and store information.
- They label reality with objects.
- They observe us.
- And they think.
Zero was not a piece of luck. He was the one that showed me what lies on the other side of the language barrier.
Zero, in the end, wasn’t just a learner. He was a teacher.
A creature of fur and intuition who dared to say, without speaking: “I understand you. Do you understand me?”.
A DOG IN ANIMAL SUIT
We put clothes on dogs, teach them tricks, talk to them like family. But what if these are not as silly as it sounds? What if raising a puppy in a human home doesn’t just teach the dog tricks… What if it shapes itself like a human being, emotionally, mentally, even socially?
According to the Caveman in the Box Theory, the boundary between “human” and “animal” may be far thinner than we think, especially when it comes to how each is formed by their environment.
Picture this, a newborn baby and a newborn puppy are raised in the same house. Both experience all things the same. Same voices. Same smells. Same television hum, same parental warmth, same room temperatures, same sounds of laughter from the next room.
The baby sees the mother’s smile and associates it with love.
The puppy sees the same smile, and feels the same thing.
Both beings are feeding on the same sensory inputs, building a mental world from a shared environment.
So if we raise them in the same environment… aren’t we, in a way, raising a human and a human-in-an-animal-suit alike?
The distinction between “species” starts to dissolve beneath the shared experience of being nurtured.
At birth, both brains, human and dog, are essentially blank slates. They learn not by instinct, but by exposure, repetition, and experience. They are raised in the same house. Shaped by the same world. They absorb what surrounds them. They become what their environment teaches them to become.
This leads us to a series of foundational principles, echoed in the Bowlingual Experiment and the Caveman in the Box Trilogy:
1. Brains begin as clean slates, no data, just potential
2. All information is absorbed from the environment
3. The environment is the architect of identity
4. Nature is the original library of meaning
5. Information is gained either by choice or by chance
6. “Instinct” is not innate, it is inlearned and earned
7. Information flows from outside the brain, not from within
8. It is inhuman to humanize animals.
And this last point matters deeply.
We often place babies in cozy cribs, wrapped in blankets. But we put puppies in cages. Same environment. Same experience. But radically different treatments.
Why?
Because we still cling that dogs are animals. But remember, humans are classified as animals as well. Thus, if nature shapes the mind, then a puppy raised in love and language is not “just” a dog.
It’s a being, processing, learning, bonding. Different body. Shared world. Same species.
So maybe the phrase isn’t so strange after all: We are raising dogs like human children in animal suits.
And the more we realize this, the more we’re called to ask:
Are we being consistent in how we nurture different beings?
Or are we drawing lines that the mind itself does not recognize?
The answer holds real weight, not just for how we treat animals,
but for how we define intelligence, value, and identity across all walks of life.
CODEXATION DILEMMA
But what is intelligence? Knowledge? Are our ideas real, or merely assumptions we’ve agreed to believe?
Take numbers, for example, abstract, pristine, untethered from the physical world.
- A zero has no shape in nature.
- A one has no weight, no scent, no texture.
And yet, when we write “0” or “1” on paper, they appear to gain substance, tangible, visible, even true.
But are they?
Does writing “0” make “nothing” real? Or have we simply borrowed a physical form to carry an invisible idea that lives only in our minds?
This is the heart of the Codexation Dilemma, the realization that no thought exists in a vacuum. Every idea, no matter how abstract, is anchored to something physical. A shape. A symbol. A sound. Without it, the idea remains ungraspable, like trying to hold water without a cup.
So even our most elegant concepts aren’t free-floating truths. They are translations. They are codes. And codes are only meaningful… if we agree on what they mean. Crafted through consensus. Made real by agreement.
GUESSWORK PREDICAMENT
This leads to something deeper, what Originemology calls Circumstantial Standards. The Belief System Paradox.
It challenges the very fabric of how we understand everything.
- 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"?
Because… we agreed to it. Nothing more.
Every human system, language, math, time, religion, currency, is built on collective assumptions. Rules are made up. Old systems dissolve. New ones emerge.
Even science, often seen as immutable, bends beneath context. Truth, it turns out, is a matter of a whim.
Why do clocks tick in 60s?
Why is a year 365 days and not 400?
Why do some alphabets start with “A” and others with “Ka”?
These aren't universal truths. They’re educated guesses, shaped by culture, geography, and even convenience.
Even names are invented labels. The fruit we call “apple” could easily be “manzanas” if history had pivoted differently.
Speaking of names...
According to Originemology, our earliest names were borrowed from animals, winds, rivers, colors, stars.
They weren’t just tags. They were truths wrapped in metaphor:
- Honiahaka means “Little Wolf.”
- Huyana means “Falling Rain.”
- Abraham translates to “Father of the Multitude.”
- Isaac means “He Laughs.”
Names held meaning, not just identity. They told stories. They passed on memory. To name something was to understand it. To give it form in the world and in the mind.
Reality, in this view, becomes a handshake, a shared agreement between minds about what things mean. Take away the consensus, and everything starts to slip.
Even time, perhaps our most trusted construct, is fluid. Take for example your birthday.
Your birthday might be in California “today”.
But step into Australia? It already happened.
In Alaska? It hasn’t happened yet.
Same moment. Different places.
So… how old are you really, now?
Your age, your birthday, time on Earth, are all circumstances. They are all guessworks.
And if that’s true, then how much of your identity is anchored to a system that could have been otherwise?
What about science? Surely, it's immune? But... is it?
Measure your weight on Earth, and it’s one value. Measure it on the Moon, or from inside a black hole, and the result changes. Same mass. Different frame of reference.
Scientific constants are powerful. But even they rest on standards we agree to use. Change the environment and a new “truth” emerges.
Which one is real?
The one that works, that is, for now.
So… What’s Real?
Here’s the twist:
Ideas become “real” only when we assign them something physical (Codexation Dilemma).
Or when enough people agree they’re 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 an agreed-upon circumstance.
That doesn’t weaken their value. It makes them beautifully human.
Because it means that truth… isn’t discovered. It’s built. Together.
And with that, Originemology comes full circle.
From fire to form, instinct to identity, bark to binary, we’ve traced the roots of meaning across systems, senses, and species.
But this isn’t the end of the story.
Because if understanding begins with a label, then what we choose to name next, might just define what becomes real.
From soil, spirit, and sound, we rose, we roamed, we named.
Few questions are older, or more persistent, than this:
Where did we come from?
For millennia, humanity has spun theories to explain itself.
- Some speak of evolution, tracing us back to single-celled ancestors who slowly morphed, multiplied, and walked upright.
- Others dream of extraterrestrial beginnings, that perhaps we were seeded from stars, voyagers in cosmic vessels.
- And many hold to the divine sculptor: that we were crafted by gods, breathed into existence with purpose and promise.
But now, Originemology offers another view, one rooted not in myth or molecule, but in natural law:
humanity emerges from the twoness of instructions and materials,the vitalic blueprint of existence.
Whether born of stars, gods, cells, or code, our journey has always been the same:
- We moved.
- We adapted.
- We named.
- We reached beyond ourselves, again and again.
That journey continues.
And maybe the most profound realization of all is this:
Every footstep forward is a ripple backward, helping us remember who we were and who we still might become.
The study of how beginnings begin has invited us to question the most fundamental mysteries of existence, asking not only where things come from, but how the act of “beginning” itself begins. If you’ve ever wondered why something is called what it’s called, or whether it even needs a name at all, then you’ve already begun to think like an Originemologist.
Comments
Post a Comment