To simply say cognition transcends the physical in no way proves or demonstrates that it does. I would argue that the evidence clearly shows that cognition is wholly dependent on the physical makeup and function of the central nervous system.
Transcendence does not require independence from it's origin. It is defined by the array of possibilities it manifests that did not otherwise exist. The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. That is, the resultant possibilities presented by the whole transcends the possibilities offered by any and all of the individual parts.
Configuration generates the new phenomena. Not the constituent materials. This is the failure of the materialist philosophy.
To hypothesize about what may be discovered in the unknown in any meaningful way, it would be based on extrapolating from what is know. To assert that something exists beyond our ability to verify it is meaningless, since we can assert an infinite number of imagined and untrue things.
Yes, we can. And any of them could be true, or untrue. That is the inevitable result of our unknowing. We must extrapolate from our limited experience and intellect, because we have no other choice. But this does not make our doing so a pathway to truth. And we need to understand this. Most of us do understand it. But there are a few, but increasing number of us that have fallen into "scientism"; thinking that via the scientific method, we have gained a new pathway to truth. We have not. We have only gained a better pathway to understanding physical functionality. And physical function is only a part of the truth (of
'what is'). Philosophical materialism then tries to assert that physical functionality is the whole of
'what is', and is therefor the only truth worth pursuing. That anything else is simply meaningless fantasy. This is a false and very dangerous intellectual path for we humans to enjoin, as it denies the essence of humanity, and drives us to very inhumane behavior.
Many small group/pack mammalian species compete between same-species groups. If any were to aggregate in the numbers that we do, maybe you would see similar behavior. To be a good scientist and draw sound conclusions you need to look at all the variables.
There are no other life forms threatening to wipe themselves out.
I'm not sure what you mean by cognitive transcendence. If it is your personal hypothesis, I would need the terms definition and some supporting evidence or examples to evaluate it.
As soon as you stop presuming that 'transcendence' requires non-dependence on it's source you will be able to understand and recognize cognition as the transcendent phenomenon that it is.
Yes, we think, we imagine, we have cognition. None of that is in any other realm that the physical reality in which we exist. What you think and imagine is the express product of your unique central nervous system.
"Product of", and yet transcendent of. Because it generates a whole new realm of possibility that did not and does not otherwise exist.
As described above, cognition is intimately tied and dependent on your physical makeup and your experiences.
Dependence is irrelevant. Your argument is based on this point, and this point is not relevant. Until you let go of it, you will not be able to grasp the idea of phenomenological transcendence.
No other realm is required to explain what we observe, and the creation of one does not fit with what we observe.
It's not about "explanation", it's about existential possibility.
Any thoughts, ideas, or imaginings that reside in your head, are trapped there unless you physically share them in some way. They have no reality outside of that.
Look at any city on Earth, and try to tell yourself that, again.
