Satan: Behind The Psychopath, A Philosopher (Part One)

[Author’s Note: The following and all future chapters presented in ILP are excerpts from the chapter: Psyche from my upcoming e-book: God of This World, a psychological and philosophical analysis of Satan the Devil and a Pantheopsychic revision of the being. It is my hope that when finished, ILP correspondents may see the book on the site in its complete, illustrated glory.]

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

-Job 2:4

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

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

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

-Wikipedia: History of Psychopathy


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


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

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

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


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


[size=85]From the HBO series: Six Feet Under Season 5 Episode 11; Fair Use invoked.[/size]

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

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

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

If objects and environments perceived by a dying subject cease to exist alongside the subject when the subject dies, godless death is tautological evidence that objects and environments experienced by a subject of experience are not objects and environments existing outside the person’s consciousness, i.e. objects and environments composed of something other than the person and the person’s consciousness as the latter exist outside the person’s brain, skull, and body and thus are not creations of the person’s brain.

Phenomenal or consciousness-composed objects, environments, and events the subject erroneously believes are one and the same as objective objects, environments, and events (for those that believe in the existence of objective doppelgangers of the content of visual perception), given that they are in (tautological) actuality mental creations of the brain (for those that believe the brain creates consciousness), given that their appearance is supported and maintained by the brain, in the advent of non-function and/or destruction of the brain cease to exist alongside the subject in godless death.

The concept of godless death, in terms of the logical fallout or consequence of believing in godless death, inadvertently “reveals” that consciousness–if it is something that comes into and goes out of existence while everything that is not consciousness does not (being composed of an indestructible and eternal substance that according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics cannot come into existence from previous non-existence or cease to exist)—is only a visitor to existence and as such cannot, thanks to godless death, be one and the same thing as the objects, environments, and events consciousness supposedly “perceives” (as conscious experience, if it is something that a moment ago does not exist then pops into existence, must arbitrarily and luckily bear the form of objects and events in the external world), as representative conscious experience does not “come from” or “out of” the external world. They are two separate things if distal objects, environments, and events are composed of a substance that cannot come into nor go out of existence and percepts come into and go out of existence.

In Panpsychism consciousness takes the place of physical energy, thus the 1st Law of Thermodynamics becomes the 1st Law of Psyche:

Energy Consciousness can neither be created nor destroyed; it merely changes its form

-The 1st Law of Thermodynamics The First Law of Psyche

If a Panpsychist were to believe there are external objects, environments, and events that influence phenomenal or person-experienced objects, environments, and events—given external objects are composed of the same substance that composes person-experience, the relation between external objects and consciousness is logically consistent and transparent as opposed to the absence of logic in a relation between consciousness and something composed of something other than/that is not consciousness.

Godless death, then, conceptually demonstrates that person-consciousness is an artificial reality (a simulated reality in the belief that visual consciousness or perception mimics or represents psychic objects and events in the external world) or “Matrix” world as person-consciousness comes into and goes out of existence and must be created within and produced by a brain.


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

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

But if consciousness or first-person experience does not exist before it’s existence is granted by the brain, it is unknown how the brain, itself made up of somethingother than first-person subjective experience could produce first-person subjective experience—given first-person subjective experience does not exist in the universe outside the brain, consciousness is purportedly produced by the brain, and the brain itself is not composed of subjective experience. How can subjective experience “come from” or “come out of” something that is not subjective experience?

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

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

For example, the visual image and experience of someone unexpectedly pulling up to one’s house in a car for a visit ten minutes in the future does not in the least resemble the the brain giving rise to the experience of the unexpected visitor. It is odd that one’s brain possesses neurons that have the power to produce from themselves something that is not just more biological material previously existing as part of the neuron. It is odd, given the question of what exists within neurons prior to their creation of a conscious experience, that the ephemeral, intangible, visual image of a car driving up to one’s house and the body of the person exiting the car should reside within tiny neurons cramped within a skull.

For the neural circuit said to give rise to the image, where was the image in the parent neurons or what was the vision like within neurons before it became something viewed by a subject of experience? Are there tiny images of cars and visitors, etc. residing within neurons prior to the existence of a visual experience? Does the brain contain the potential, before the fact, to create experiences of things that do not yet exist in the external world (for those believing visual consciousness is a doppelganger of objects and events in the external world)?


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

This phenomenon, Neural Predeterminism, is generally overlooked (or worse, ignored for its inconvenience) by believers that the brain creates conscious experience and that visual experiences are doppelgangers of the real-time states of a consciousness-absent external world. Neural Predeterminism is particularly damning when it comes to immediately-approaching future experience–such as an unexpected knock at one’s door one minute (or less) in the future.

The brain, by the most arbitrary chance, happens to possess neural circuits that by the most arbitrary chance happens to have the ability to produce conscious experience of an unknown, future event that shall occur one minute in the future: the neural circuits responsible for the not-yet-occurred/about to occur experience fortuitously formed and synaptically connected and capable of proper electrochemical function in the past, as it presumably takes more than 60 seconds to form each neuron in the circuit and those neurons to synaptically link prior to the experience that is about to occur one minute from “now”.

Given that, in general, all the neurons one shall have in the brain were formed at birth and given the unlikelihood of fortuitous and accidentally appropriate “Johnny-on-the-Spot” neurogenesis, the neurons that happened to form the circuit having the ability to give rise to the unexpected knock on the door about to occur in one minute existed in the brain from birth, and happened to exist in sufficient proximity to give rise to the experience of the knock at the door since birth.

At least, each neuron making up the circuit about to form experience of the imminent knock at the door, if not situated in the appropriate proximity and if not synaptically connected from birth, must somehow move (despite material resistance from other neurons and biological matter in the brain) into proximity, then synaptically link in the nick of time prior to the imminent knock at the door.

(Note: 100 billion neurons crammed into a 3 pound object in a skull makes for an extremely small space for the neurons responsible for the soon-to-happen knock at the door to squeeze around each other to get to the “appointed place” before the “appointed time”).


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

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

-Wikipedia, Perception

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

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

If one responds by positing that the particles did not carry the information in the distant past but incredibly discards past information (or had no prior consciousness-replicating information) to somehow gain or form the information in the relatively immediate future (say, following the subject’s birth) or immediate future (seconds before transduction), this is merely on-the-fly make-believe compensating for former distant-past irrationality by positing a seemingly appropriate but just-as-irrational informational immediacy (the irrationality demonstrated in what follows).

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

Luck in the representation of distal objects by percepts lies in the conceptual fact that transduction is ultimately useless as, regardless of the process of transduction, the appropriate percept does not exist and must be created ex nihilo. Conceptual evidence of this lies in the negative proof provided by the logical fallout presented by belief in godless death: if consciousness ceases to exist at death, every instance of conscious experience formed by the brain is therefore created ex nihilo. If percepts are created by the brain ex nihilo, their informational connection to distal objects is ultimately illusory as the existence and qualities of the percept is derived from non-existence rather than the distal object.

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

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

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

If one were to amazingly hold that the brain has a “superconsciousness”—introduced by economist Frederick Hayek as a consciousness belonging to the brain independent of the person-consciousness the brain creates—it is difficult if not impossible to explain how even a conscious brain having the idea of a particular type of person-consciousness can communicate its idea to something that does not exist (the not-yet-existing percept) to “tell it” to come into existence with the desired appearance and behavior.


In effect Satan, having foreknowledge of the philosophy of Man (foreknowledge derived from the mind of the Crucified Man and the Lucid Dreamer) and realizing Man is possessed of a strange delusion that continuously prevents him (by and large) from rationally concluding the existence of Panpsychism (the primary delusion being that something other than consciousness exists and can irrationally interact with and cause the existence of consciousness), he laughs at the idea the brain creates consciousness and that something other than consciousness exists, but saves the delusion for later use as an instrument of the Obfuscation.