| Author | Message | ||||
     Humancafe/janus |
Concepts, misconceptions, and Principles of Belief.  Janus? Watch this space for future ideas on how our concepts color our beliefs, and vice versa, where our beliefs control our concepts. It could be interesting, where laws principles become circular to self serve their axioms, and dogmas dominate with sophistry the unweary.  Plato at his Symposium (interactive) All concepts, and mis-conceptions, are welcome. Caveat Lector!  | ||||
| Ivan/woman beauty |
And God Created Woman...  (interactive) Gina Lollobrigida, a beauty on set, Trapeze She is a girl, a woman, a human fineness of femininity and beauty.  (interactive) Marilyn Monroe, American beauty A woman is complex, difficult, vulnerable, yet strong in our attraction to her.  (interactive) Brigitte Bardot, and God Created a goddess She may torment us, or please us, yet in herself she is a gentle, human being.  (interactive) Sophia Loren, beauty within A little girl, a daughter, a friend, a mother, an icon of complexity with infinite depth we men can only marvel at. Whatever concept we may think we have come to understand about a woman, strike it, for it is wrong. Our beliefs about women, the little girl grown into full blossom of womanhood, is incomplete, of necessity inadequate, in whatever mental image we may have. She is always more, and more, challenging our male egos into more sublime spheres, such that we can never truly understand her. She is beautiful as a creation of God, sometimes beyond belief, that no man may ever put her down, nor exploit her. Each woman is who she is, with her own dreams and loves, from a wonderfully mysterious soul, given to us in her love. The tragedy of womanhood through all times, of the whole human experience, is she had been under-appreciated, mistreated often, abused into torment by men who could never truly be like her, nor understand her. So she was kept down. What pleasure is had from forcing her into submission? What is the reward of taking a little girl's dreams and turning them into the nightmares of violent abuse, of sex slavery, often a slavery not only to the man who possesses her but for money to strangers? What greater sin against humanity can be done than this? And yet, in that beauty, often a haunting beauty of sleepless nights, even after terrible abuse, she is still that finely sensitive feminine soul that wishes to nurture and heal, to mother the hurts of loved ones. There is the tragedy of what men had come to do, to believe in their erroneous concepts of women, that they failed them. And failing them we fell short. We can never be allowed to hurt a woman, ever, no matter how in our delusions we feel we had been wronged, or hurt. That hurt is entirely from within ourselves, and not from her. She is only who she is. Let a woman be a woman, and the rewards of her feminine beauty, her soul, can be greater than anything we imagined in all our preconceptions. Let women be women, and enjoy them for the truly beautiful human beings they can be. A woman's freedom is all gain, and no loss, but only the creation of God in our midst. Let her be, fine and beautiful. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/Sol Invictus |
Not all principles of beliefs are created equal -- an innocent Christmas parody.  (interactive) Christ as sun-god Helios, third century, Rome What people come to believe is often contingent upon their capacity to believe. Any concept can be understood by anyone, if of normal mind, and then incorporated into that person's belief system. This is true even for scientific concepts proven empirically to be true, so believed as true, though in principle science is founded on the idea that no scientific principle can ever truly be 'believed' in a blind faith kind of way, but must always be subjected to the rigors of skepticism and doubt. This is a natural law, that to believe in something as true, it must be true. However, some people have trouble with this natural law, and instead find greater comfort in believing something that cannot be proven true. This is a dilemma of the human mind, that not all beliefs are created equal. I believe there are people who cannot find comfort in true ideas, in concepts that though complex can be reduced to simple ideas, such that they are understandable and believable by any normal mind. If this is true, then such minds are given to fantasy over reality, in that they find what they fancy as more real than concepts proven by true observations of reality. This of necessity becomes tricky, because what the mind comes to believe as true is totally within its own acceptance of such truths, so if the mind is then 'tricked' into believing something, it may not be true, though to that mind the truth is self evident. Once the mind accepts something as self evident and true, it becomes difficult to unseat this idea, which then leads to fantastic ideas, often unproven or unprovable, which now becomes the mind's basis for believing what it thinks is true, even if there is no possibility of proving it true. Yet, the comfort level can be so high that no argumentation, or proofs, to the contrary will ever change that person's mind, because then that belief is now an unshakable principle immune to reason or real evidence, so it stands as a believable 'truth' on its own right of existence within that person's mind. In effect, it becomes a belief in magic, or myth. A condition of belief in something unbelievable, meaning it cannot be proven as true logically or empirically, creates a condition of acceptance, or submission to, whatever the unbelievable idea might be. This is often encountered in children, such as a young child truly believing in Santa Claus, for example, where a critical reason is still too immature to understand that Santa is an imagined character but not real. Until that mind is old enough to reason it critically, the belief is real, though to others it is quaint, even humorous, and not to be believed as real, except as a charming tale. The same principle might apply to some religious beliefs, those that transcend historic facts of the religion, especially proven facts empirically, and ideas that can be accepted as true entirely on faith. The historical characters of religions may be proven to have existed, though what is claimed to have been said by them may not be proved true except as hearsay, even written down hearsay by witnesses of the times, so they exist entirely in our imaginations, since we cannot bring the characters back to life to question them. What some historical religious figure was claimed to have said becomes, de facto, as a matter of belief, of faith, rather than hard evidence that it was so. To the true believers of this faith, if questioned or doubted as to the truth of their claims, then becomes an emotional issue, one which often creates an angry response. This is so, I believe, because once it is accepted as 'true', no matter how far removed from any possibility of truth, it becomes that person's belief system internally, so challenging it disturbs the comfort level such belief engendered in the person, and it disturbs them to question it. Why is this interesting? One way to understand a person's belief in the fantastic, or irrational, or unprovable, is as an emotional issue, not a reasonable one. For whatever reason, that person's mind stopped at that moment of belief, and accepted the 'truth' of this belief without further questioning or examination. This of necessity places a limit on that person's mental maturation, because once that belief is accepted, no other beliefs may conflict with it, no matter how true the challenge. But something most interesting happens then: the accepted belief becomes paramount, so any other concepts that challenge such a belief become not only viewed with suspicion, but may actually be feared and despised. Once a challenging idea is feared, then it loses traction to reason, and the truth of the matter takes second place to the belief of the matter. If someone, for example, truly believes in Voodoo and feels threatened by this magic, to try to explain that such a fear is irrational will have no effect on that person's mind, and it may still succumb to the fear, whereby all rational arguments fail. By analogy, if someone believes that their failure to accept a common belief in some dire punishment in death will surely lead to that punishment in death, then there is no logical reasoning with such a fear, because it is now a closed circle that no argument can break. What if there is no dire punishment after death, like a 'hell', in which the person who is failing to believe in this punishment will be tormented for eternity for this failure to believe? There is no logical argument about this if the person believing it truly accepts this as true. They 'know' that to fail to believe in this afterlife punishment of 'hell' they will be punished for eternity! Try to pry that mind away from this conundrum, and it becomes nearly impossible. Such is the power of belief, especially in negative self-fulfilling belief of fear, because now the emotional response is more powerful than reasonable argument. Worse, such reason may now be suspected to be from that evil place, induced in our minds by the 'devil' to doubt the punishment and torment they are sure to undergo, and so in their belief it must be rejected a priori. This is a closed circle which cannot be broken. Most religions of the past had been very clever at using this ploy to keep its adherents in line with the religious order, for fear of punishments, and thus maintain control over the minds of its believers. But this is not only in religion, but in principle can apply to any belief system. The beauty of this example is that it also applies in a similar way to beliefs that are not threatening, such as some had come to believe in the fantastic sciences of astrophysics, which cannot be proven because they are derived mathematically of great complexity, and deal with conditions so far away in space that we cannot test them locally. But to challenge such 'scientific beliefs' can often evoke the same emotional response, where reason is put into doubt in favor of the accepted beliefs, or what had been come to believe as true. The power of the human mind is that it can both come to understand complex concepts, but also to cut off such understanding at some preconceived point where that understanding is now believed to be complete. Try to argue with a religious true believer, and it soon becomes self evident that no rational argument can sway their position, because it is a total belief system for them. They actually truly believe it. It may be a very simple, even naive belief, but for them it is the total truth, a total system that they see as self evident and true. Now take that to the most complex ideas, such as how the universe was created from some imaginary, mathematically derived, origin of sudden expansion and cooling of energy into the baryons of existence, and argue that this is not only fantastic but untenable, and watch how the response is often as dedicated to defending such a position as of any truly religious believer. In effect, this is where complexity itself takes on an aura of belief, in part because it is so complex the rational mind 'surrenders' itself to it, though it does so not from fear of punishment as in religion's fear of hell, but from sheer exhaustion. We can only think so much before it becomes nearly impossible to understand, so it becomes 'beautiful' or elegant instead. That too is a form of belief based principle, where reason becomes so complex it now dominates its own ideas. How the complexity was arrived at takes on a new life of its own, where now it dictates how one is to approach its ideas. In the same way a religious system will dictate how its believers are to approach the tenets of their beliefs, usually through scriptures and priests who 'know' the truth, so it can be as well with ideas of immense complexity, where they can be approached only by its believers in that complexity via texts and practitioners who know the nearly incomprehensible rules. Try to argue otherwise, and you will be told that you simply 'do not understand', and told to go back to the scriptures to 'get it right.' So there is the conundrum, that we can understand something conceptually up to a point, and then it turns into acceptance, almost on blind faith! If the mind is more simple, it will give up on conceptualizing fairly early on and find acceptance there, like when a child believes in Santa; while a more complex mind will find acceptance at some more complex level, such as 'submission' to our religious beliefs; but the most complex idea imaginable becomes accepted only after it had exhausted all possibilities of understanding, and then it finds acceptance on almost blind faith, like the Big-Bang-Strings theory universe. And if anyone doubts this acceptance, they are told at all levels from the simplest to the most complex, that they simply 'do not understand', or are weak in their 'faith' of understanding. They are stubbornly refusing to accept all the 'proofs' out there, whether religious and biblical or mathematically scientific proofs, that they are not getting it. In effect, it is always a closed circle, that to fail to believe becomes a failure of understanding! Get with the program, in effect, or remain a heretic. Well, this is an amusing idea for Christmas, and I hope all who read this understand it as a parody of our human condition, because no matter what anyone tells you, once it is in your head to accept it, there is no arguing about it. Each person's belief is their own, and only they themselves can break the circle. Such is the principle of beliefs. Merry Christmas to all, Natalis Solis Invicti! Ivan Also see: The Messiah paradox | ||||
| Ivan/sexuality |
Free sex, sexism, and teenage sexuality.  Ghada insists she has no agenda in wearing hijab, BBC News It was only about half a century ago that young girls on their first date would not kiss, or else they were considered 'fast'. Since those socially more conservative days of teen sexuality the world had changed its moral bearings, as it applies to sex, in much of the western world. So today, if a girl not only kisses on her first date, but not do sex, or oral sex on her boyfriend, she may be considered not 'fast enough'. How could the world have changed so drastically in half a century? The rapid shift in social acceptance of teen sexuality from a world where virginity and abstinence were considered desirable, even mandatory, to a world where adolescent sex is now more or less normal, must have taken many by surprise, if not with some level of revulsion and alarm. Not only in conservative Christian circles, but even secular society, the idea of 'fast sex' is somewhat shocking. Our western liberal sex is especially shocking to the more conservative Muslim world, where they watch our sexuality liberties in horror, and do what they can to shelter their daughters from it. Hence, in part at least, is the reintroduction of girls, some as young as twelve, wearing the hijab. Though we may have our reservations of believing that a Mohammad inspired idea of women covering to protect themselves from male predators, especially given some of the teachings that women are sexually 'what the right hand possesses', and may be sold in slavery, or married off in childhood, there is an appeal to a renewed conservatism of Islam's traditional attitudes towards female sexuality. However, this cannot be applied today in a world where personal liberties are valued higher than social repressions, so even in the other religious conservative movements, in Judaism and Christianity, there is no easy solution by turning back the clock. Abstinence and virginity are difficult to maintain if the schools are giving out condoms to their teenage students during sex education classes. Young men and women, though below statutory age, will still seek to explore each other sexually. But 'fast sex' is another matter, because it betrays the individual's personal sanctity as a valued human being.  At a hippie festival, 1978, Nambassa Something happened back in those innocently naive days of the 1960s in the West, and carried into fast forward until the 1980s, when AIDS became a pandemic threat to teen sexuality, that our social and religious brakes on 'fast' sexuality were released, and sex before marriage became normal in the public mind. In the United States and European countries, sex education was introduced into the public school systems, so taking sex away from parental or religious education into the public domain. Dr. Freud's neo-army of psychologists descended on society, right down to Dr. Ruth public sex therapy education, so the world of sexuality was brought out from inside the home out to the public square, with calls for sexual liberation. It was a sexual revolution, which our more traditionally oriented religion based worlds had not seen since Pagan days. But in this revolution was lost the reveler's right to their sanctity, and this is what harms society today with 'fast sex' for teens. Sexuality, especially adolescent sexuality, had gone from being taboo to overly explicit, but both ways are wrong. There is no taboo when it comes to protecting an individual's rights in sexuality. When the Kinsey report on sexual behavior came out in the 1950s, there was little suspicion of the coming revolution. Mostly, people assumed that they would continue much as before, except without the pretenses, and individual women would still be respected as they had been by social convention; as young girls and teens, they were off limits. However, what this report may have launched, unbeknownst to Kinsey et al, was a sudden public awakening that it is okay to talk about sex openly, which led to popular literature about sex, featured more prominently in novels and films, and ultimately all the way up to congressional laws and the Supreme Court allowing for more public displays of sex. While at the same time society was exploring sexual freedoms, a new counter development was in gender 'sexism', from both the male and female perspectives, where the other sex was somehow considered lacking in some way. This may have been in part, or perhaps part and parcel of, the gradual erosion of sanctity of the individual, in sexual relations, so that a natural and historical respect for women, and conversely for men, was gradually supplanted by a kind of sexual gender militancy, where the concept of human gender equality was subsumed to gender superiority. Each such small step in turn led to a larger fractal result, that in the end the individual became less a valued person but more a political person, to be often exploited by political forces and commercial interests. Hence, the overt liberalism of sexuality which now permeates almost all aspects of society, from television commercials selling cars and women's underwear, to scantily clad women on magazine covers, to open sexuality in films. This was a process that took decades, but once it was loosed, there was no reverting back. We began to conceive open sexuality as normal, and the fall out from this was young teenage girls becoming fair game for date sex, even the victimization of women on 'date rapes'. How can we have fallen so far so quickly? Liberty in matters of sex does not mean liberty in devaluing the individual's sanctity as a free human being. A young woman has the right to remain chaste if that is her choice, to save herself in her personal dignity as an individual, without having to 'put out' for her male, or female, companion when such is demanded of them. There is nothing 'free' about the freedom of sexuality when it comes to our own person, but rather the responsibility of respect for the individual, both male and female, is sacrosanct. No one of any age may be violated sexually for the pleasures of another, ever, in any society, whether conservative and socially repressive, or free and liberal. We all have the right to remain free because we are respected as free, and no amount of social pressure can take that away from us. No woman should ever be expected to gratify another with sex, even if she were standing stark naked. The covering up of the female body, whether with a minimal hijab or full dress chador, should have no effect on the male's desires for her, if he respects her as an individual human being. She has the right to be herself, and her boundaries in both psychological and physical terms are not to be trespassed against. In the conservative world of social repression of sexuality, this issue of human freedom, especially female freedom, never arose because it was never allowed. But we are not moving backwards in time to sexual repressions. We cannot, because freedom does not allow this. But we can move forward in our sexual relations with a greater understanding and respect for the other, at all levels of interaction. This is what freedom demands, respect. So if children in schools learn of sexuality, and are handed out condoms, are they at the same time being taught to respect one another? Here is the major challenge for future societies, especially the more free societies of the Western world, that each individual, male and female, is equally considered a human being worthy and desiring of personal respect. The Kinsey report never meant to overturn this, and sexual commercialization is not endorsement of personal disrespect, but rather is the freedom to understand and appreciate our sexuality as something that can be beautiful, but only if the other person is treated with the full respect their humanness represents, that they have a right to personal sanctity in their body. Freedom means nothing less than that. Each person has a right to their own body, as sacred. What are the misconceptions here, that had allowed over the past half century such openness in sexuality that it began to endanger our young? Women are more than sexual objects, something to be hidden away behind the cloth of hijabs or thick coverings. They have a right to their bodies as beautiful human beings, in the full bloom of their beauty as individually sacred. Their sexuality may not be repressed socially or religiously, but it must be protected by law from exploitation and sexual assault. If society is to be more open towards our sexuality, which I believe is should be, it must at the same time teach the responsibility of what it means to be a free individual with respect for the rights of oneself and others, so that none may trespass on that right for their own gratification, sexual or otherwise. The principle of our human sanctity means that it comes with that responsibility, that in enjoying each other's company, even sexuality, means that the other person must be treated with absolute respect. This of necessity means the person may never be trespassed against their agreement, nor violated in any way that demeans who they are, but is always approached with the idea of their sanctity being inviolate, no matter how beautiful, or semi naked, they may be. That right is theirs as a natural right of freedom, and all who desire to be free must absolutely respect each person for Who they are. This is our right, whether male or female, if society is not to regress back to sexual repressions of a time before the Kinsey studies, where the truth of our sexuality was kept in a closet or behind closed doors. We humans are sexual beings, and women are beautiful human beings, and neither fact may ever take away that beauty away from us with unwanted trespass against our personal being, both in mind and body. To make women cover up their sexuality is as damaging psychologically to their self worth and personal dignity as any attack on them physically. We may not go backwards because young girls are lured into 'fast sex' by social convention of liberalism in sexuality. Rather the opposite is true, that because of our sexual liberation, we must be more painfully aware than ever before that her body is something to be valued and treated as a sacred right for her to be Who she is, and protected as such. And with this principle of respect for the individual, both man and woman, she can then mature into that rich femininity she has by natural right, as a full and beautiful woman. There is no age limit upon when such self respect can be taught, even to young children. No one may take her self respect away from her, because that is her right to her self, as a free human being. Her sexuality is a deeply personal and sensitive thing, and no one has right to take that away from her. Her love is hers alone to give, to share with whomever she chooses of her own free choice, with a deep respect for herself. This all must understand, as a basic principle of her human rights, if women are to be equal and free, as is their right. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/dilemma |
Robert Nozick and the 'Messiah' dilemma: Would the Messiah admit he's the Messiah?  Moses by Ribera, 1638 In Robert Nozick's excellent book, "Philosophical Explanations" (1981), where he discusses human 'identity' and the subjective's free will, which I read about the time when it was first published, there was an interesting footnote, almost anecdotal, that brought up a dilemma: What if the Messiah was asked if he was the Messiah? How would he, or she, respond? Here is the actual from the footnote, 597:
That he doesn't remember is Nozick's advice to the Messiah, or else the dilemma as to whether his is the first coming, or second coming, becomes an unresolvable paradox. (In another version mentioned in passing by a rabbi, it had the response slightly different, that Nozick's advice was to not answer, rather than claiming to not remember.) When I read this some twenty five years ago, it stayed with me as a curiosity, though the main reason for reading Philosophical Explanations was to compare Nozick's treatment of an individual identity with my treatment of the same in the philosophical theory of habeas mentem, especially the interrelationships of form that 'define' each thing within a whole, to infinity, with mind. However, this was where we parted company, because whereas Nozick left the "I am" identity as axiomatic of our free will, I defined "I am" as being a condition of the universal mind formed from that infinite interrelationship to give each living entity an identity, which when conscious (in the mind) became "I am". But I digress, the main issue being what would, or what could, a 'Messiah' say to the question posed by both the Christians and Jewish clergy? Is it right for the Messiah, assuming such a thing is actually true that there is a 'messiah' in principle, to say "I don't remember"? Or would that answer create another problem, that in not remembering, he is failing to be what the Messiah should be, that he is all knowing and closest to God? It is in the 'Prophethood' tradition of the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that the Prophet is someone closest to God, and thus a human spokesman for God to teach and enlighten humanity. However, in rereading Nozick's dilemma on how the Messiah should answer, it occurred to me (all these years later) that the Messiah had a deeper dilemma than just answering the question of his being the first or second. The deeper question is more potentially contentious, since it would have to challenge whether or not he is actually the Messiah, or a 'false prophet': Can the Messiah claim he is the Messiah, without becoming a false prophet? This dilemma for a 'Messiah candidate' was a curiosity which never really satisfied with an answer as to how would we know? If he is truly Messiah, meaning he is speaking for God, then he should know how to convince us that he is truly who he says he is. But this presupposes the 'condition of prophethood' that God actually uses humans to speak for Him, hence the messiah spokesman, or woman, as opposed to a false prophet posing as such a spokesperson. But what if He has no need to do this? Whether this is his 'first' or second coming becomes secondary, when the question turns to whether or not anyone is qualified to speak to humankind for God. How do we know? If God must use human spokespersons to teach and enlighten humanity, then the basic principle of prophethood is tenable, that some individuals rise to the occasion of speaking to humanity for God. But this then creates a new dilemma, that if such an individual rises to that occasion, to speak for God, then how can there be any independent, or falsifiable, confirmation that his or hers are truly words from God? If the Messiah is both 'divine messenger' and teacher of God's law to humanity, in the Biblical tradition of Adam, Abraham, Moses, etc., then humanity should have a right to challenge and question the 'messenger' with its own understandings, in particular its moral ethics understanding, of what it means to be a 'word of God'. How did the Messiah qualify for this post, to be the 'word of God' for humanity? How could God prove this? In the Abrahamic faiths traditions, the Prophet or Messiah had to undergo certain tests to prove his worth. But these were man made designs by predecessor prophets and their adherents as to what the Messiah, or final Prophet, is supposed to do to prove his Truth as the word of God. This worth was not based on some testable theory of whether or not his 'identity' was from God, but on a long and elaborate trail of how the preceding prophets tradition had laid out a path for him to follow in, and thus prove his merit as a 'God spokesperson'; all of which seems to indicate that it was not God who laid out this plan but men, unless, and only unless, the laid out plan of prior prophets was already from God. But how do we know? If we do an infinite regress on prophethood, back to the first human man who was spokesperson for God, viz. Adam, then how do we know that each one of those prophets and prophecies were in fact from God? We only have their word for it, because there are no independent tests other than those prelaid by previous traditions of prophethood, so it becomes a continuous chain of 'beliefs' in the Prophethood traditions from Adam to the present. But none of it offers any kind of proof of their being true prophets, except their saying so! How do we know they are telling us the truth, and not some made up nonsense? Once again, I must part company with what Nozick says about how the Messiah would answer to the question of whether this is his first or second time. But this time it is on the grounds of personal 'identity' itself where the question rests: How do we know he is Who he says he is? If the Messiah answers to the affirmative, that he is Who he is, then by what proofs can we accept this as God's messenger that are 'independent' of the self professed line of prophets going back to Adam? Can there be better proof that God wants to speak to humanity through one of His human agents? Or is the dilemma opposite to this, that rather than validating all the prophets lineage back to Adam by having the Messiah live out the preconditions of his 'messiahood' as laid out, the true messenger of God is he who not only does not answer to this lineage of prophecies, but actually denies it? So the answer Nozick ascribed for the Messiah, that he does not remember, is not a nearly as good an answer as the rabbi's suggestion that he cannot answer that. But taking it to the next level, the best answer, in my opinion, is that the Messiah claims he is not the Messiah! Was not this Jesus's answer to Pilate's question if he was the Messiah? "That is what you say," was Jesus's answer, or some paraphrase of it. In effect, the true Messiah claims that he is not Messiah, if his claim is to be valid independently from the lineage of prophethood that he is supposed to occupy with his being, his Who he is. Or, to make it more succinct, the whole idea of a Messiah speaking for God to humanity through the lineage of prophets is a false concept on principle, that one cannot be a spokesperson for God, so the only answer "I am not a spokesperson for God" is the only possible answer a Messiah can ever give, and still be the Messiah! So here is the 'Nozick dilemma', as it applies to the Messiah being asked if he is the Messiah: If you answer that you are the Messiah, the Chosen one, the messenger of God, the seal of the Prophets, the one everyone had been waiting for, etc., in the affirmative, you are of necessity immediately declared a 'false prophet', because any admission to the affirmative betrays acceptance as the true speaker for God, which is unacceptable. So how do you get around this dilemma? Only if you answer that you are NOT the Messiah can you be the Messiah! However, the conundrum now is a totally different one, that you have to lie to be a Messiah, which is automatically unacceptable, once again. So there is only one possible outcome for all this, since all others contradict themselves in being the Messiah: There is NO Messiah. No other answer will do, to answer for a Messiah, except to answer in the the denial of a whole tradition of prophethood as spokespersons for God. There is no spokesperson for God, ever, anywhere, not in any time of human history or pre-history, without violating the Nozick dilemma, that anyone who answers in the affirmative is automatically disqualified, of necessity, by the law of self-contradiction. However, this too is unacceptable, and why the Messiah dilemma is so enduring, because if truth be known that God does not talk to humanity through His special messengers of 'prophets' and messiahs, then the whole Abrahamic tradition going back to the days of Adam are thrown into doubt, and thus cannot be reasoned but must of necessity be acceptable only as a condition of faith. So either one believes in the Abrahamic faiths and their succession of prophets and messiahs, or one does not believe. There is no reasonable argument that can sway a believer away from their belief, once they believe it, because the reasonable argument becomes unreasonable, that there can be no Messiah. Therein lies the real dilemma. Reason cannot validate belief, so any such belief in the tradition of the Prophets must of necessity be a very personal faith, but not justifiable by any means of reason. And in fact, how would one identify the Messiah? Forget all the prophecies that would herald him, keeping in mind that many people no longer believe in Biblical prophecy. But there might be a way to identify if He is theProphet. It would go something like this: there is a sudden spontaneous awakening of ‘this’ being the time of prophecy, each religion claiming their special Prophet had returned. To some it would be Buddha, to others Krishna, or Jesus, or Moses, or Mohammed, etc. Each would think this man (or woman) is the true incarnation of their Prophet. But how would this newly acclaimed Prophet respond to all this attention? He (or She) would simply deny it. Why not? You have to have faith in the paradox. So where does this leave all the great world religions, as it applies to Messiahood, or Prophethood? It leaves it where it had always been, a pure matter of faith. There is no reasonable argument for their faith, nor any reasonable argument away from their faith, but only pure faith. And the 'true Messiah' knows this by heart, so he can never claim to be what he says he is. That to me is a dilemma that would bring a smile even to Nozick's face in spirit (he died 2002), in the spirit of a new dawning year: The true Messiah, man or woman, can never stand up! Ivan Also see: The Messiah Paradox Kingdom of God is secular | ||||
| Ivan/hidden truth |
A hidden truth?.. This paragraph sticks out, like something I can't quite put my finger on, but I suspect there is a 'hidden' meaning in this.
It (the hidden) may go something like this: If to answer to the 'Messiah dilemma', viz. "the true messenger of God is he who not only does not answer to this lineage of prophecies, but actually denies it," then to answer in the affirmative is to arrogantly claim to speak for God. But if answered in the negative, that one cannot speak for God, then this is the absolute opposite of arrogance and instead ultimate humility before God, whether or not he is a Messiah or Prophet. That such a conundrum could exist makes the whole concept of 'prophets' most dubious, because the only way such a prophethood can be validated is to deny one's ability to be a prophet. Prophethood, in this case, requires total submission to humility in ways most ancient prophets never displayed, since they often claimed overtly to be speaking for God, or at the very least with God. This is unacceptable. Humility of prophethood, as demanded by any spokesperson of God, demands of necessity that the concept of prophethood cannot exist. That makes it a most interesting conundrum indeed! But that's the 'hidden truth' of the whole cloth of prophecy, isn't it? And there is no way around it but to be totally humble before it, to remain in total submission to humility itself. Or else, if that fails, to remain silent. So anyone who claims to be a 'prophet' cannot be a prophet of God, for this reason. The hidden truth is that it cannot be spoken, ever... Why had the ancient never seen this? Most interesting indeed, that they missed it. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/historicity |
Abrahamic Faiths - historicity.  Massacre of the Innocents, by Giotto di Bondone Some related readings on the historical methods used to evaluate the 'historicity' of Jesus the man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus Here is the historicity of Buddha: http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM Historicity of Muhammad: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad Historiography of Moses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moses#Historiography_of_Moses On the possible 'hoax' of historicity in all Abrahamic religions: http://www.hoax-buster.org/ Is the Bible the 'word of God'? Maybe not a 'hoax' but rich in human embellishments? ... "Amen" is Amenhopis? It is all up to a matter of Belief, in principle. | ||||
| Naive |
I have given up the hopeless trek of arguing logic with those who have faith. The book is the source of their logic, thus anyone who presents ideas contrary to the book is illogical and doomed to suffer outside the realm of salvation. Naive | ||||
| Ivan |
Ain't that the 'absolute' truth! Naive, arguing with reason against their 'logic' becomes a merrygoround of cross-purposes: you're trying to use reason for the truth; they're expressing their 'reason' to clinch their belief. Unless one accepts 'belief' as absolute 'truth' there is no dialogue, nor any understanding, so it becomes pointless. Let them have their 'salvation' and their 'prophets', and the 'book, as long as they wish, but away from us who seek the truth. We are free to choose our faith, and risk our salvation on truth rather than belief. I wrote on the other thread on the Future of Islam:
This is the only place I care about, when it comes to the 'book', that it does not compete with our laws. The rest is theirs to keep. It's their 'heaven or hell' and not mine. We who are free hold lives in higher value, both here and in thereafter. Ivan | ||||
| Naive |
I just don't understand the thought process of a person who argues that God must be, and that God has granted us free will, but then proclaims that we must live according to an exacting set of principles. Is that not contrary? Would not an omni-benevolent entity be proud of its creations no matter what their beliefs? Would that not be the point of creating something with free will? I honestly believe most people of faith, really harbor doubts and questions, but they fear ostracization, or they're just too lazy to learn something new. I believe religions set it up so that followers are not expected to really think about the scripture, but instead are almost socially required to be spoon-fed the party line regarding scripture interpretation. Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad, do not belong to organizations. There has been a monopoly of the divine. It doesn't take much to see that humans seek words of truth, morality, and love, especially within a world where individuals are not taught to honor or practice these concepts. This is how organizations have used honey to snare flies, so to speak. Ancient philosophers belong to humanity! It is our choice to sift understanding from their words as we so choose. I don't really think the discussion about belief, revolves around religion at all. Instead (as these organizations have already learned and exploited), it centers on human frailty. Frailty leads to the desire for strength, sought in the bosom of those who appear strong. Once within the fold, social pressures and fear of expulsion lead to homogeneous group thought and action. These become ritual, which when applied to life events such as marriage, birth, and death, eventually become cultural phenomenon. Culture is transmitted in-family, and the cycle of belief is born. Can this even be called belief or faith? Naive | ||||
| X-post/Jim White |
Cross-post from Our Modern Universe in G-flat, by Jim White. Posted on Wednesday, January 16, 2008 - 12:24 am: Greetings Ivan, Forum Participants, It is left here as an Axiom principle, open for discussion on both threads. Ivan | ||||
| Jim White |
Ivan, Esteemed Members of the Forum, Greetings, To begin a short explanation of that perceived as Perfect Logic. Perfect Logic is only possible because of it. Logic is the method used by intellect to do, it whatever is possible, and intellect is potential when it is derived of intelligence possessed by a living host. Hosts must be capable of understanding that intelligence available, then believed useful. Intellect can process the intelligence, which is potentially possible if, or, and whenever a host such as is in the case of human beings of necessity possesses normal biological functions, which allows the user of the thought processes known as rationale to resolve issues, which results in problem solutions. If the statements presented are valid and others of the forum agree, I can proceed with the next stage. Thank each of you, Jim White | ||||
| Ivan/the paper |
In Principle, !! LIFE IS !! - the paper: http://www.whitesnet.com/Life.html Jim, I've read your paper, and will reread it again, so hope to give my insights, such as they may be subjectively, or objectively be, in a few. Very well presented, and most challenging to my sensory perception of MIND, interesting indeed all your '30 premises' also. In short, at least in principle, what we conclude as Principle of thought, after processing sensory perceptions, is what reduces down to the most common basic demominator in all our reasons of logic. What powers it all as an idea, that is same for all ideas associated with it, as a principle? In yours, you say there are three basic principles: sensory pain, right response, and responsibility. If that is correct, then the basic Principle here is that the host body of a natural being, healthy and of sound mind, then processes these three categories into right action, which may in fact be subjective and subliminal, but in the end proves objective when successfully assessing the situation. If I got that part right, perhaps I can comment more later, like in a few days when I have some free time. All others who wish to comment are welcome as well. Is there a 'beginning and end' or not? That is the question... Cheers, Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/in Principle |
'Life and Death' struggle of the intellect?  (interactive) !!Life!! Is there an Axiom?
On the purely subjective level of "I am" there is no such thing as beginning or end. I cannot remember being born, nor can I really envision dying. Though, on an objective level of knowing what I know of reality through my reason, I know I was born, and I am quite sure I will die. This is the 'alpha and omega' of my total existence, though subjectively I cannot know it. However, does this translate then to my objective knowledge, so that in the end, as per Jim's Axiom, there is really no such thing as a 'beginning or end' except in a transitory state? Viz., the 'transition' from one state to another may have a beginning or end, such as water turning to ice or vapor, but it is still the same H2O water. By extension, if I allow my reason to take it here, there is also no beginning or end to my "I am" if my birth and death are mere 'transitional' states of my total being, that I am still "Who I am". In Jim White's paper, it says:
So if there is a concept of something being 'right or wrong' and there is no "Authority" who can decide this for anyone, except the authority of nature and reality itself, then the concept must become more than merely a subjective 'feeling' but also respond to objective reality, such as we can deduce from our interactions with it. Feel pain of falling into a cold river, and something is 'wrong', at least for us; build a bridge to span a river, and something is 'right', at least in real terms; and finding a way to cross this cold river by bridge without getting wet, then something is likewise 'right' for us, in effect. So taking this concept back to the first question, of whether or not there is a 'beginning' means we examine it from both the subjective-feeling as well as the objective-conceptual modes, to determine if such a beginning or end can exist. This is a durable question, because the answers may vary based on what 'transitional' state are we considering. Is the building of a bridge a 'beginning', for example? And is the successful crossing of the river an 'end' by this reasoning? Jim's paper gives one clue that I think is important, seeing how he wrote this up as Premises: In particular is Premise 6, which is predicated on Premise 1, that "Pain is not subjective" but per #1 is "objective". It all comes back to the 'subject' for whom this condition is being experienced, at both levels of subjective and objective, that 'pain' is something that must be resolved, or to convert a wrong into a right by our actions. The host in this case is ourselves, who can both feel and understand, both subjectively and objectively, that something needs resolving, in this case a discomfort of pain. The Premises ends with #29, "An intelligent host can only be a live entity", and #30, "A live entity cannot create itself." So it takes an intelligent 'host', a live entity, to be able to take the pain from the subjective, like a baby crying, to the objective, that we understand conceptually what is wrong, and solve the problem to make it right. So now, getting back to the 'beginning and end' problem, who can resolve this? Logically, it can only be the 'host', which in this case is me, my "I am" live and intelligent person, to find the answer. There is no 'Authority' to dictate this to me, but only my own being, as best as that being is able to find resolution. My personal beginning does have a point in time, when I was born, and it does have an end, when I die, but is this the end of the story? My intelligence tells me that the Authority of all things is the universe itself, my reality of being in all of reality, and that such a reality in fact has no apparent beginning or end. Same as the example of water earlier, there are transitional states, but the substance made up of atoms and energy endures regardless of transition. So can it be with my life, that though it may be short lived, it nevertheless is merely a transitional state of something that does not lose its 'substance', whatever that may be. Taken as an infinite regress, my existence of being may predate my birth, and it will survive my death, in some essential way that I do not understand, but can reason it to do so. So an infinite progress may continue on, though my body's life will in fact have ended, same as it began when born, by changing back into some essential substance the universe had made of it. What can that substance be, that immaterial energy of life that activated my body in this life? In the past, we called it 'soul' or spirit. Perhaps in the future, there will be a better explanation or term that will better describe this condition, without beginning or end? That is still an unresolved question. Intellectually, as a live and reasoning human being, I can see how the universe is made up of change, but also of unchanging elements of existence, of which I am but a tiny part. But this knowledge always comes back to myself, to my "I am" subjective understood objectively, that I exist in a much wider reality than myself. And it is this knowledge that forces me to revert back to my reality as a basis for understanding myself within this much wider context. I may have a beginning, but the "I am" factor of this much wider existence may not have a beginning, nor end, and this I can only arrive at objectively with a concept, that reality is unchanging at its wider existence. Or, in effect, the "I am" is defined by something much greater and larger than myself, which did have a beginning and will end, so that the definition of my being is in the hands of a much greater Authority. Some call it God, others infinite existence, or universe, which in the end of things is unchanging, with no beginning or end. And the necessary result of this is that it is my 'responsibility' to observe and obey its unchanging reality, while I live through all the changes of my life in this existence, so I must choose, of my own free will, how I will exist in it. If there is pain, I must of my own accord work to alleviate it, or ignore it, but no other authority, especially humanly derived authority, can do this for me. It is my pain, and my responsibility to work a way out of it. That condition, that responsibility, in effect has no beginning or end, since it is a condition imposed on us by the much wider reality of All existence. All I can do is then be aware of it intellectually, and work with it whenever I can. Therefore, when Jim writes: There is only one conclusion: Only to an intelligent being consciously aware of the self can such a concept of 'responsibility' exist, and it cannot be imposed on anyone by anyone else. This is a condition of all living intelligent beings, that the inter-relational concept of right and wrong demands responsibility, not only to oneself, but also to all other live and intelligent beings equally. In effect, we must both have the freedom to this concept in our own being, both subjectively and objectively, as well as to allow that same freedom for all others, in their subjective-objective beings of "I am", of necessity. Is it any wonder then that to fight for this 'freedom' had been a life and death struggle for humanity all through the ages? Even less intelligent sentient life will fight for its life. These are universal principles, and though I may not have done full justice to what Jim's thesis is about, I think that in some matters there truly is no beginning or end, because once it is a universal Principle, it is unchanging for all of reality's existence. That is the soul of the matter. Nice work Jim! I am sure there is much more to be said about this... like where does the 'supernatural' concept of pain come from... if pain cannot create itself, same as per #30 a 'live entity' cannot create itself? For example, what is the axiom of 'pain'? Ivan | ||||
| Jim White |
Ivan, You wrote: "My personal beginning does have a point in time, when I was born, and it does have an end, when I die, but is this the end of the story?" First, we must break your multi-claused statement into logical sections whereas, to prove an Axiom, a singular statement clause is necessary. I modified the first individual clause thereof for simplicity. I. "My personal beginning does have a point in time" Arguments Your personal beginning and or life did not begin with you Ivan. Your personal beginning was with the 1st pair of male and female human beings. Thereof, life is a continuum that cannot end unless all human life ends. The spark of life within you - is neither of your volition or origin, nor the volition of your parents, or grandparents. Each successive generation is a ... continuum of every previous generation. Axiom is simplistic by means of a straight line with beginning point. Axiom: Life__________________________ Concluding arguments: To prove the Axiom false, and not self-evident: a logical being must conceive of and develop the self-evident proof that ... life ... manifested of ... no life ... out of ... no thing ... based on existing Intelligence available to logical beings to make such determinations. The beginning is eternally locked inside the end, and the end is eternally locked inside the beginning. There is no escape possible from the obvious conclusion. Conclusion: All Life forms are continuums.... Jim | ||||
| Jim White |
Ivan, You wrote: "What is the axiom of 'pain'? The knowledge of pain is embedded in your central nervous system ... the axiom is simple! Axiom: I hurt Pain ... is real and is known to every creature with a central nervous system ... it is seldom imgained, and results because of injury, illness, disease, or malady peculiar to the host. Pain is absolutely ... objective; thereof, proves Pain is an independent entity of necessity. Example: Fresh live oysters ... when extracted from its shell, the oyster when attacked by lemon juice or vinegar before cosumption causes visible ... distress ... validated by them that eat live oysters by observation of the quivering of the flesh of the oyster. Pain ... does not create ... pain; thereof, pain is an Entity in its own right and existence! Yes ... Pain is ... highly intelligent ... it is the identifier that intervenes whenever it occurs and proves to be the mediator to eliminate it ... by correctly identifying the cause of it, where and why the cause of it originated. Jim | ||||
| Ivan/awareness |
Jim wrote:
Interesting 'continuum' for Life, but my life specifically did begin at my birth, though it too is part of a continuum going back not only to the first two human beings, one male and the other female, but also to all preceding life that brought these two beings into existence, all the way back to first molecular 'life' of our continuum. However, that said, my life began at my birth, since I in my present human form did not exist before that. Now, my 'subjective' self may predate this birth, but my 'objective' mind, that portion of me that can reason and respond to outside stimuli, started with this existence in this body, at this time of my life. I first felt life, even before I could reason, but my objective self began with my ability to think about it. I remember for the first time being aware of snow, or thinking if two negatives make a positive, or first being aware of music, but not much before that. So though I know I existed in this body before these cognitive markers, I have no recollections of worth, or anything which my mind could wrap around, though I existed. So subjectively, I existed before this objective cognition, but of what value objectively did this existence register? Mostly, I probably cried when hungry or cold, smiled in return at faces peering down into my crib, but not much more than that. What was the 'continuum' of my existence before the point of awareness that made me realize that "I am"? What was I objectively before the start of my conscious intelligence? I don't know, because I cannot remember. So as a 'life' the continuum predates my existence in this living form, but as my own awareness of being in this form, I must place it at some beginning, which probably starts with my first awareness of myself. Does this violate the Axiom, that there is no beginning, and no end? But the axiom of pain may be another story, since I responded to pain subjectively in my early infancy, but could not verbalize or conceptualize it until my objective mind came aware. And if I had died in infancy, like an oyster washed in lemon, then would I ever have evolved enough in my consciousness to even know whether or not I ever existed? So there must be some 'beginning' to our being, especially if my objective concept of 'responsibility' was ever to take form. Did my sense of responsibility exist before that moment of awareness? If pain is 'objective' the answer must be in the affirmative. But is it? Was my personal existence 'objective' before my mind matured enough to become aware of itself? In effect, we may live in so many transitional states of being, from youth to old age, and ultimately of mind, but until my consciousness can become aware of these transitional states, it is a subjective continuum, predating my objective self. But at some point, when my mind reach a milestone of reason, my objective self did not exist until I became aware of my existence. So for me at least, that was my beginning in "I am" as an obejctive being, but my subjective being goes further back, to my birth. Beyond that, I can only surmise it objectively in the third person, that I know I existed before such awareness, but it can only be considered as a subjective continuum, perhaps tied all the way back to first life, and not my cognizant being capable of responsible actions. So there is a beginning, objectively, though not as clearly a beginning subjectively, I think. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/pain felt |
But can anyone else feel my pain for me? And if not, then it is not an 'objective pain', since it cannot be experienced in the third person, but entirely a 'subjective pain', since only the host of a living entity can feel that pain. Is this not so? Ivan | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, Contrary to your … subjective life … it is not Subjective … while you experience your own life … it is wholly … objective … and it is independent of every other person, and not subject to the same internal perspective as you have, by other people. You can, and will have a much different perspective of self, as observed from within your own being than will other people who observe you, from outside your being. In other words, your own being as observed … is different … than the observations of other people. Using pain as an example – Pain, is not dependent on you being able to think rationally, or even use your reasoning ability. Can babies reason? Of course not but babies always recognize and know pain, which is honestly observable; thereof what additional proof is necessary? Contrary to popular opinion … every theory concerning evolution are forever dead, and permanently so. Modern DNA studies have killed Evolution deader than a hammer on a gnat, and did so through validated proofs far beyond mere speculation. Amino acids has totally destroyed any conceivable concept of Evolution theory in that the Intelligence as is embedded in any and every particular DNA cannot modify itself as every intelligence BIT of every particular DNA is a closed system, is not subject to change, adaptation and or mutation. This proof is undeniable, and proves one significant fact … us humans did not evolve from some exotic dead slurry mixture and mysteriously come alive in a form usually identified as a … simple single celled creature. Yes it also killed the theory God created human beings. Axiom I … A closed system cannot be created of no thing within the rational concept of nothingness as understood by intelligent human rationale. Axiom II … A closed system cannot manifest of it’s own self in concept of nothingness as understood by intelligent human rationale. Axiom III … The Universe is Infinite and Eternal. Axiom IV … Life is Infinite and Eternal Individual life of each human being as experienced is but a short interlude in an infinite and timeless universe and is not dependent on any individual leaving ancestors behind, but is wholly dependent on other living human beings leaving ancestors behind. Thus a continuum is not dependent on a single aspect that comprises it, but is dependent on the multitudes of plentitudes of other resources within it, to continue it. Outside the confines of Planet Earth’s domain … Time … does not exist. Thereof, the very essence of Eternity is absent in Planet Earth’s environ because we as rational and intelligent beings have a built in biological clock mechanism based on the amounts of sunlight at differing cycles of Earth’s yearly orbital rotation about the Sun, and we use calendars further broken down into seconds, minutes, hours, days, and months. Those systems of calendars are Arbitrary Decisions of human conception and do not exist in environs outside that of Planet Earth. Jim | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, Pain - is the ... subject Pain - in both sense and context is ... objective ... objective = object, which you are the object that experiences pain with your own sensory perception mechanisms, which are innate as embedded in your central nervous system, and cannot be taught, or learned. The word … Objective according to Webster as defined: relating to or existing as an object of thought >without< consideration of independent existence…. Concerning your existence … you as a fetus could, did, and continue to experience pain and discomfort after the 71st (nominally) day after conception. No, I cannot experience your pain, but I can empathize with you in your pain when or if my being has had a similar or like painful experience. A comparison of pain common to each of us would be … subjective … while your and my painful experiences would then be subjective in context … but … the content of our experienced pain is … objective. Jim | ||||
| Ivan/subject-objective |
Which is Subjective, and which Objective? From a clinical psychology point of view, the Subjective can be objectively observed. But can the Subjective ever be truly known by a non-subject, except in a third party sort of way observationally? I think this is where my observation of an idea, a concept, of the Subjective perhaps differs from Jim's. But let us look more closely. Jim writes: Is this merely another Subject-object problem? If so, then it is a very long standing philosophical debate, whereby the subject can be objective, but the host's subjective experience can never be separated from the living host, though it can be understood objectively with sufficient reason and logic. But I think in this case, where we are considering 'subjective life' the assertion that "while you experience your own life... it is wholly... objective...", which may be the sticking point, since I see it as remaining a mostly subjective experience, but objective only at the point of reason. I can observe objectively, and test in theory, another being's subjective experience, much as would a clinical study, and I can do the same for myself as a study in the third person (examining myself intellectually as 'he does this' type of study); but this requires my sense of reason to do so. But if I am more than merely my reason, then my self-observation objectively is only scratching the surface, since my subjective experience goes deeper to levels my mind may not even understand, to an unfathomable depth, I never really 'know' myself, though I experience 'being' myself. It is that other-self, the Subjective, that remains forever a mystery, and deeply personal to me, which no objective study can ever truly penetrate. That other-deeper-self is also what I think is my connection to the Continuum, that which makes my being in some way connected to all of Existence and infinity, as per Axiom III.. 'The Universe is Infinite and Eternal'. So per Jim's to say my own life is "wholly objective" is something I cannot agree with, because it appears to me that this term 'objective' had been given without logical support. Why would I say my life is wholly objective when it is first subjective, and only in a secondary manner objective, through the use of reason? Objective to whom, in what way, or how is anyone else to judge my life in some objective manner without penetrating deeply into myself? Since no one else can ever live in my body, nor experience my life, they are not allowed into my subjective life experience except at the level of which I allow them to, or I accept their intrusion into my being, by agreement. Is this not so, that only I can allow this? My life can be Objective only to the point of where I allow it to be objectively examined (like going to a shrink), but can I call it that if my life is first Subjective? I do not see how I can, objectively, without violating a principle that no one else can know me for me. To claim otherwise is illogical. So the only conclusion I can come to, in effect, is this is a matter of semantics, that the word Objective has a different meaning for me than Jim's, since I see obejctivity as something that can be independently and falsifiably confirmed, while Jim's definition is that if a subjective being exists, it is of necessity an 'object', so it must be Objective. Am I right in understand it this way? For example, on Pain, Jim writes: By my reasoning, and use of semantics, Pain is a subjective thing, because no one else can ever know it objectively for me, nor falsifiably test what I feel, except in an observational sort of way to test the limits of my pain. However, if Pain becomes the 'subject' then it cannot be at the same time the 'object' without falling back on the old conundrum of 'subjective-objective' philosophical debate. But to surrender my sense of self as experiencing my subjective being, whether or not in pain, in order to become objective requires I treat my pain in the third person, which then makes it something outside my subjective experience, such as one would study clinically. However, then is Pain still the "objective=object", or has this label of Objective been given to my pain arbitrarily? You may choose to call my pain Objective, but it does not change the fact that for me it remains Subjective, right down to the last screaming neuron in my head. I think the conceptual problem here is a misconception, that to call Pain objective makes it separate from my subjective being, what I experience in my life as "I am". The sensory perceptions experienced by my brain's neurons of pain lasts only as long as this subject, me, is alive. If I were tortured with pain to the point of death, the object of pain stops. Though perhaps the subjective being continues ad infinitum as part of the universe's Continuum, the pain would stop at the point of death. So I am forced to concluded, logically, that the 'object' of pain for me is a totally subjective experience; what my life experience can call objective is an analysis of such pain, but the feeling of pain is totally mine, and nobody else has the ability, nor by right reason claim it, as anything other than mine. And once it is mine entirely, in toto, then it really cannot be called Objective, since it is entirely a subjective thing. One can play with semantics and call Pain "in both sense and context... objective", but it does not change the fact that other than in the 'third person' it remains totally a Subjective thing. But this had been the forever debate philosophically, going back to Kant and before, so other than a debate of semantics, I cannot see how I can surrender what is intimately mine into the 'third party' of Objective. I claim my pain as my own!... and you can't have it. I would say it differently, as it applies to Axioms I and II: "A closed system cannot create of itself, nor be understood of itself by any reasonable means, except as a cognitive experience within a universal Totality," which then dove tails into Axioms III and IV, "within a Universe that is both Infinite and Eternal, and Living." This I find acceptable because it does not violate my Subjective right of being "Who I am"; but I cannot call this Objective conceptually because there is no way to prove this hypothesis in any reasonable manner except as a subjective experience, that I know "I am" and therefore, Who I am exists. Can a Subjective me also be an Objective? Only to myself, but not to anyone else. Why? Because for each one of us our mind is our own. But then, Jim, what does this do to your thesis, if my personal existence is not objective, but purely subjectively experienced, and only secondarily observable in any objective sense? We are all 'cognitive beings' as objectively observed, but that does not take away from us the fact that such beings are universally totally subjective beings, or each one of us being a separate and living entity aware of itself. And this is a fact not created by semantics or philosophy, but a fact of Life. Each living entity is whole only within its own experiences, even if they cannot reason it, and whole within the experience of all Life, since there is a living continuum for all living things born, and also within the continuum of a universal existence, what is Nature and the infinite reality of a Universe. Beyond that, we are truly on our own, in our own Subjective existence, and only by applying reason and logic can our ideas and concepts then become Objective. How we communicate and interact is then a complicated set of stimuli with which we either agree or disagree, or feel comfort or pain on many levels, but it never violates the reality that each such feeling or thought is truly and always 'experienced' as a Subjective thing. So back to the beginning: What about 'fear'? What about 'love'? All these things are inherently Subjective, though they can also be observed conceptually as objective things, but only secondarily of what they are, that they are experienced only by the subject. To think of it any other way becomes semantics, because it then takes away the intimacy felt from the Subject, the mind, the heart and soul of the living being, and imposes on it an objectivity which is unwarranted, except to make a statement and call it "Objective". But is it really? Or is this plugging in round peg into a square hole to satisfy a particular thesis? Religion had done this very well for a very long time, and look where that got us! (Religion tried to impose an artificially 'objective' morality on us, which can be oppressive to us, such as 'heavenly' rewards or eternal punishment in 'hell', neither of which is an objective falsifiable reality.) In the post-Enlightenment period, the individual became a Subjective being, and the whole idea of our freedoms is based on this subjective not being trespassed against with any kind of objective label. Communism and Nazism, or some religious cults of 'total submission', tried to impose this 'objective' label, which led them to think they could now redefine humanity, but it did not work, because it trespassed on the inherent right of the individual to be Who they are. No one can impose objectively on another being what they feel, nor replace in their being Who they are. Why? Because we are each individually connected to a much greater Being, as part of an infinite Continuum, which defines for us both our being and life. In our minds and bodies, this is Who we are: Subjectively 'Who'. It is this Who, the "I am", that is then the responsible host, without apology nor explanation. Free, we simply are. And this, to me at least, if I may submit humbly, is Perfect Logic! Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/ pain is? |
Pain is?  (interactive) Guernica- 'Suffering' - by Pablo Picasso, 1937 Here's another conundrum, on Pain. In Jim's: So here's a problem: Two equal conditions for causing 'pain' exist for two individual live human beings: the cold shower pain. Okay, I take a cold shower and can't wait to 'relieve' the pain by turning on the hot tap; while a member of the Polar Bears Club takes a cold shower and sings a song in sheer delight! We're both exposed to the same conditions, but where one person feels 'pain' the other feels 'delight' in the same experience. Does this make Pain objective, or subjective? Real question, because I think the semantics here is the real question mark. Or, what is Pain? Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/Belief |
Why do people love Religion? - on a Principle of Belief.  (interactive) Sistine Chapel, Michelangelo, Vatican Rome I know why I love religion, and it has many reasons. First of all, I love the way people come together at church or temple in a sense of camaraderie and good will. I find this coming together something magically spiritual, like an aura that forms around the small community. I am sure the same takes place in a mosque, though I never attended prayers there. Secondly, I love the sense of prayer. It is a kind of opening up one's soul and heart to something big and mysterious, perhaps even to the universe itself, in religion mostly this is called God. Prayer is universal to all religions. Third, it is a sense of historicity, that here is something holding human beings together in common bond going back centuries, even millennia, and it still holds together. I love the ancient manuscripts. Last, it is the sense of architecture and art, the beautiful sculptures, vaulted ceilings and columns, great ornate and stained glass windows, the grand majesty of the whole structure, and its lit candles over painted icons, and wonderful frescoes, all beautiful. And when the church or temple is empty of people, it remains grand and magically mysterious with its own aura, or perhaps in the stones and rafters a mystic memory of all the songs and prayers lodged there, though silent. So these are my loves for religion, though in truth I am not an overly religious person. But that is me. For others, religion has more meaning. For many it is a sense of order and structure. There are religious laws that define for them meaning, both in this life and the next after death, and these laws are to be obeyed so that their lives feel fulfilled in the richest sense. The Torah, or Ten Commandments, are powerful legal documents for its religious observants and believers. The Quran is both Allah's holy book and a legal codex of human behaviors that must be obeyed to the letter by its true believers, at times in conflict with modern laws, but powerful regardless. In other religions these laws may not be codified as such, but carried out through traditions and religious conventions, so all who belong to the religion understand what is demanded of them in their human actions. The criticism of religion since the Enlightenment is that it poses a powerful political force in human society, often which may not agree with more modern standards of humanistic and liberal ideals, that humanity is free to seek its own destiny and not be tied down artificially to some ancient standard of what human behaviors should be. But these are evolving sentiments due to change of our human perceptions of our reality, both in social terms and scientifically in our understandings of our universe. The fact is that for many people, religious laws are a reality in their personal lives, though today we frown upon religiosity in our modern sentiments if these conflict with our social laws, so in many modern societies there is a clear separation of religion and governance, or 'church and state'. Theocracies, except for the Muslim world, are in fact becoming more a thing of the past. But that is now, and tomorrow things may change again. But there is a more enduring thing about religion, something I too love about it, and that is the principle of belief itself. Human beings seem to need to believe in something. It is a belief for its own sake. And think how powerful that is, to create a body of belief based on only belief itself, so that it must be accepted not through necessary reason and logic, but on pure faith. One cannot argue with belief because no argument will hold. (We had discussed much with a true believer of Islam on these boards, and finally discovered that there were 'irreconcilable differences' so no longer do so, so most are now closed. Regardless, it was not a fruitless exercise, and for this we are grateful to our friend Mohideen.) A belief on its own principle of belief is something sacred to the believer, and no one may take that away from them. For this reason, perhaps more than any other, we in the modern world have a 'freedom of belief' so that religion becomes a personal thing rather than politicized into public actions. We do not believe in theocratic law as a rule for humankind anymore, but many still act upon their belief, in principle, to rule their personal lives, as long as such actions do not violate public laws. (Those who want to impose Sharia law on the world have great difficulty with this, because they are then forced to choose between religious laws and public laws, often in conflict with each other, for example.) But the principle of the principle of belief is of necessity a closed circle, since to even doubt of its validity may elicit punishments by the religious authorities, which becomes a personal conundrum of which laws one must follow. There is no simple solution to this, since any law that is not universal becomes a competing law within society, and society cannot exist with two parallel set of rules of human behavior if human equality, rather than exclusivity and inequality of one superior to the other, is to be observed. So the principle of belief runs into difficulty under such conditions, that no man may lord over another against the law of equality in our human rights, that we are all equal before the law. Hence slavery no longer exists, legally, universally. Still, the principle of belief is its own law almost by definition, that to believe religiously is its own justification of belief. We believe what we believe because we had come to accept it as such, sometimes simply on pure faith. I believe we love religion for all of these reasons, that they are at bottom, fundamentally, what we believe. Religion is a way to tap into that fundamental human need, that we love to believe what we believe, in essence, what is our core belief system in our hearts and minds. We believe in something, of necessity, or else we wander about in life like lost souls without any safe harbors in which to anchor during our times of stress. Whether we believe in a world ruled by scientifism and objectivity, or one ruled by ancient texts, or by fantasies, they are in principle the rules that power our minds to believe as they do. Magic is as real to someone who believes in miraculous revelations, as non-religious belief is real to an atheist. Some believe by rote, while others believe by prayer alone, and still others will believe because they want to belong to a community of believers. We all have our reasons why we believe as we do, some historically durable such as the great world religions, and some intimately personal in a kind of inner spirituality, that connects us all to a greater whole. The size of that greater whole then defines the level of our belief. In religion, the ancients created the largest size of belief they could imagine, and called it God, which in turn was then redefined through ancient scriptural holy texts as being the model for how this belief in God is to be carried out. Believers then, if part of such religion, must then follow these rules if they are to be good religionists, or face condemnation as heretics in this life, or damnation to 'hell' in the next. But is this not the most sinister of closed circles? Believe as you are told to believe, or be punished in this life and the next! So religious thinkers going back to ancient Egypt already harnessed most intelligently this principle of belief by codifying it into rules that enforce the basic principle, that we love to believe on belief itself. So they used this to harness human minds to their belief. Smart, but in today's world where many possible beliefs are available to us, it is also threatening to some, because the monopoly of religious belief over people's minds is now being challenged, in the same way a 'heretic' would challenge the principles of true belief. And so now, in our modern age, we have a conflict building where our love of belief is being pulled in many different directions simultaneously, especially now that the whole globe of humanity communicates and travels with great ease, that the power of belief as encoded in world religions is being challenged at the core. In a religious sense, who now defines 'good and evil'? Christianity made a necessary adjustment to these changing modern conditions, because it then fell back upon not its religious laws, since secular social laws dominate its societies, but upon the core belief system itself as taught by Christ, to love one another. So the whole fundamental belief system shifted from religious laws and their legal enforcement to personal moral responsibility and clarity of conscience in our beliefs. This represents a major step forward in the Principle of Belief, that it is no longer a punitive system, though some Christians still fear eternal torment in 'hell', but became a personal system of conscience, and the freedom to believe per their conscience. To do right actions helpful to others, as in love thy neighbor became more important than a fear of 'hell'. And that is beautiful, because now we have an evolution in the principle of belief, whereby it is no longer something enforced by fear (of hell and punishment) but by love (and courage of personal conscience) of each other, and ultimately (in a non hedonistic way) of ourselves as valuable human beings. This then of necessity brings the Principle of Belief to a higher standard, since now it is powered not by some outward religious Authority, but individually by each person's inner belief. There is the beauty of it, that Belief is now internalized without violating our equality of human rights, that we are not 'slaves' to a belief in total submission to Authority, but rather are independent free agents of belief with a freedom of conscience to do what is right. In the end, Christ's message is to simply love one another same as we are loved by God. What simpler belief, in principle, can be had than that? And for that I love religion most of all, because it is sublimely beautiful and elegant. Love, not fear, is the Principle of Belief that rules the universe, fundamentally, as I believe in it. Ivan | ||||
| Le Chef |
Nice kitty... easy, easy kitty... nice kitty   Muslim pussy What did you expect? ... feed me, or else... on Principle. Le PC (principly correct) Chef | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, The problem or difference in our thinking process is twofold. 1. Methinks we have different perceptions of what is … Pain 2. Philosophically speaking, objective supposedly died during the Middle Ages Objective: Being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject Subjective: Existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought Psychological speaking … Pain when you think of it is subjective Psychological speaking … Pain when experienced is objective Do you need to … think … to experience Pain? Of course not, thereof Pain is evident and determinable in a healthy fetus when about 26 weeks into the gestation period. Fear and love are much different than … Pain. Fear and love are emotions. Pain is not an emotion. I wholly disagree with the example of the Polar Bear Club and your cold shower. Tell me, how long do the Polar Bear Club members go without … warming up? And yes an honest Polar Bear Club member will tell you the … dunking and swimming in icy cold waters … hurts … anyone claims otherwise is a liar. Yes masochists (2nd definition) will disagree with me. The old practice of infant male circumcision without some form of anesthetic died many years ago. Follows is a short synopsis of fetal pain, which is undeniably and without any doubt whatsoever experienced … without thought. Fetal “Pain” — A Look at the Evidence Stuart W.G. Derbyshire, PhD In 1987, The Lancet published an article that demonstrated neonates receiving fentanyl anesthesia in preparation for surgery have improved clinical outcomes compared with neonates receiving nitrous oxide and curare (Anand, Sippel, & Aynsley-Green, 1987). This research, and subsequent studies, led to a major reconsideration of neonate analgesic practice (Fitzgerald, 1987; Anand & Hickey, 1992). The New England Journal of Medicine ran an editorial calling on clinicians to “Do the right thing,” concluding, “it is our responsibility to treat pain in neonates and infants as effectively as we do in other patients” (Rogers, 1992). Since then, it has become normal practice to assume neonates feel pain, and this has inevitably led to speculation that the fetus may also experience pain (Anand & Hickey, 1987; Giannakoulopoulos, Sepulveda, Kourtis, Glover, & Fisk, 1994; Richards, 1985). Discussion of fetal pain has attracted the attention of the media and governments because of links to abortion practice (Derbyshire, 1999). This year, the Minnesota Senate enacted legislation requiring physicians to inform women of the possibility of fetal pain prior to performing abortions (Minnesota Senate Bill 187). This article evaluates the evidence for and against fetal and neonatal pain, considering the implications for current clinical practice (other than abortion), and the contemporary understanding of pain. Evidence the Fetus or Neonate Can Feel Pain Anand’s seminal work with neonates undergoing surgery demonstrated the major hormonal response to invasive practice could be significantly reduced with fentanyl added to the anesthetic regimen (Anand et al., 1987). Plasma adrenalin, noradrenaline, glucagon, aldosterone, corticosterone, 11-deoxycorticosterone, and 11-deoxycortisol levels, however, were significantly elevated in the non-fentanyl group up to 24 hours after surgery. Reduced hormonal response was viewed as responsible for the improved clinical outcome of the fentanyl group, which required less post-surgical ventilatory support and had reduced circulatory and metabolic complications. Anand and Hickey (1992) advanced these findings in a subsequent report indicating that neonates receiving deep anesthesia during surgery had improved post-operative morbidity compared with neonates receiving lighter anesthesia. The reduced hormonal response and improved clinical outcome following invasive surgery—in conjunction with anesthetics used for pain relief in adults—led to the conclusion that neonates could feel pain and that this pain needed to be controlled (Rogers, 1992). Further support comes from the work of Fitzgerald (1987, 1994), who has reviewed the biological development of the fetus and examined the possibility of fetal pain at each stage of development. At 7.5 weeks’ gestation, reflex responses to somatic stimuli begin, and touching the perioral region results in a contralateral bending of the head. The palms of the hands become sensitive to stroking at 10.5 weeks, and the rest of the body and hindlimbs become sensitive at approximately 13.5 weeks. Shortly after the development of sensitivity, repeated skin stimulation results in hyperexcitability and a generalized movement of all limbs. This hyperexcitability has been interpreted as evidence for the presence of a functional pain system, reflecting an immature but intact pain response with early hypersensitivity to stimulation (Barr, 1994). This view is not widely accepted, however, and is rejected by Fitzgerald herself. Prior to 26 weeks, the thalamocortical fibers have not yet penetrated the cortical plate, and it seems unlikely the cortical structures considered necessary for pain are responding to noxious stimulation (Mrzljak, Uylings, Kostovic, & van Eden, 1988). The evidence for cortical involvement post-26 weeks is enhanced by behavioral studies that have demonstrated focused and organized responses to noxious stimulation that can be better discriminated from other distress responses (Craig, Whitfield, Grunau, Linton, & Hadjistavropoulos, 1993). As with the hormonal response to surgery, the behavioral responses can be reduced with the use of appropriate anesthetic (Fitzgerald, Millard, & McIntosh, 1989). Source: American Pain Society Jim | ||||
| Ivan |
Agreed, Pain Is... Of course, Jim, our differences are more semantic than real. We both know Pain is real, at least very real for the person experiencing it. I think my take on it was that 'pain' as an Objective thing is more a 'value judgment' call as it applies to anyone else, though we know full well the other person, or living host, can experiene pain as real. The trouble with taking it away from the Subjective and making it Objective is that unless we are wired together with electrodes in our brain, or unseparated siamese twins, we can never really fully appreciate another's pain. Hence, I call it Subjective, while you call it Objective, though I do understand why. However! We drifted away from the 'beginning' (pun intended) as to whether or not there is a beginning and an end, or not. Ivan | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, You cannot have it both ways unless ... object is as is in this particular case ... both, objective and subjective. Thereof, my thinking concerning the subject of pain is without contradiction. The words subject and object when defined in noun form are difficult to extract a valid comparison; however, the words subjective and objective in adjective form are clearly contrasted in such manner, subjective is the domain of thought, objective is the domain of experience without thought. Concerning Beginning and End, the Axiom used earlier cannot be logically defeated, but can be validated simply using the straight-line proof. Begin------------------------------------ Proof: After something begins, at what point does the end … begin…? The proof is visible … the … end … is forever locked to … the beginning and cannot be separated from it. ----------------------------------------End The proof is again visible … for anything to end it obviously had a beginning; thereof the Axiom of Perfect Logic is Perfect, and cannot be proven wrong and inaccurate or false by any type of logical system. This is why all of science is totally lost in astronautics, physics, and all research based on any numerical calculation … for … numbers are incapable of working a valid proof when concerning Universal Theory … the Universe is purely Analog in function. Moreover any or every numerical system has one inherent fallacy … no thing inside the Universe moves from … O … no thing to … 1 thing … in incremental steps. Every thing - originates as a Whole Unit and G—R—O—W—S … as a Whole Unit … until growth ceases. That is the reason you cannot solve your Gravity problem. The numbers that you use are failing you at the critical point during calculations; thereof … uh, er, duh, calculus mucks and is at best a band-aid in that particular domain … any two whole sets can be proved as a perfect match if the sum of the sets are equal, but when one set is not equal to the other, neither set can be validated or proven as being true. The huge problem for numerical systems is the cute little critter identified as place holder or … O … for no such thing in the Universe even knows what a place holder is, and don’t exist in the Reality of … Life. Same contextual problem as … Time … strictly a figment of our human biological clocks that does not exist in the Universe. It all very simple really … without time … the Universe is Eternal. The Universe was not created; thereof, the simple Axiom as outlined above validates the proof of an Eternal Universe … and proves the Universe is a … closed system, which is infinite in every aspect. Some of them Ancient peoples had brains just full of smarts and proof is in the form of modern languages that have come forward. Uni = one, not more, thereof, whomever devised the notion of multiple universes was a blithering idiot, of no common sense. Ditto String Theorists (I call them Einsteinium’s brain blowouts). That known as the HUC is simply Fantasia perpetually locked deeply in the abyss of hilarious nonsense of possessors of a delusional disorder commonly known as imbecilic wishdom. Didja ever wonder why computer systems use a base eight numerical systems to measure memory and hard drive storage functions? The answer is simple … there is no … O … in the base eight numerical systems, but you sure have problems whenever you dump in one of them O critters..!! Didja ever try to calculate the Square Root of any number using a base eight system? How old the Milky Way? It too is Eternal as are all major galaxies. And someone once said: parts of the universe are flying away from one another? Wonder where all of them parts are going … oh yes, it was Edwin Hubble who died September 28, 1953. Wonder if Halton Arp ever calculated the distance between Ursa Major and Canis Major? Jim | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, New scientific definition: Black Hole ... Universal Vacuum Sweeper.... Jim | ||||
| Ivan/noun-adjective |
No, Jim, I don't see that. This could be true if we are dealing with inanimate objects, but it fails when dealing with human beings endowed with a mind presence, and body presence, where the two are inextricably combined into the same host, a thinking and feeling human being - Subject. That is Subjective both in noun and adjective; but it is Objective in adjective ONLY when that person is using the mind objectively, by the Subject noun, which is the living and conscious being of the host. So I do not think you are allowed to say that "objective is the domain of experience without thought" when the absolute opposite is true, that to have an "objective thought" one must be conscious and reasonable, or logically objective, and that is something the mind can do, if it is able and chooses to do so, in effect a conscious mind. Unless we are co-joined physically, I can never know your pain, or any other feelings, and can only observe them at a distance, Objectively, and perhaps empathize, but never truly 'know' it. Only as a Subject can you ever experience yourself, and to say that this is Objective is to remove it from any verifiable experience. If no one else can ever 'know' this for you, then it has no business in the 'objective' realm, if objectivity is something that is independently verifiable, except as a 'pure belief' that it is Objective, as you say. So if you say "subjective is the domain of thought, objective is the domain of experience without thought," that is the absolute opposite of reality, and therefore I must conclude you are squeezing a square peg into a round hole to 'prove' your theorem. That is why I earlier said this is something done via religions, that they try to 'objectify' their tenets for your Subjective being, but this is not objectively supporable on any level, since no religious tenets are verifiable and must be accepted on principle of belief alone. Reality of being, of a consciously mind being, cannot support this. Furthermore, it is dangerous ground to tread, because you are giving an artificial definition to Objectivity unsupported by any independent means, except that 'you say so'. Not acceptable. To be Objective, it must be independently verifiable. Otherwise, it must of necessity remain in the Subjective, which is what YOU feel, and you feel alone. The way you have it, "subjective is the domain of thought, objective is the domain of experience without thought," is exactly backwards! That is a bad precedent, and bad axiom, because it twists the truth into whereby what 'you say' must be accepted on faith. And that is not objective truth, as it applies to a Subject, but is in fact a religious appeal to 'believe'. Scientifically, and philosophically, that is unacceptable as being Objective. Only YOU as a Subject can know and feel what is inside you, the Who you are, and no one else has any Objective ability to do so. So Pain, or inner knowledge, or feelings, they must all of necessity be Subjective, and cannot be verified by a third party, so can never be Objective. This I see as a glaring hole in your thesis as it stands, that you cannot declare unilaterally that Subjective inner being is somehow Objective. You can if you want to start a religion, and say that your Subjective is Objective, believed on faith alone, but it cannot be supported objectively. There is no verifiable proof possible to know what is known only to you. To call that inner knowledge Objective, for anyone else other than you, the Subjective, is to accept it on faith. But then how can it be 'objective'? Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/being there |
An objective definition of the subjective: Being.  Being there This is a philosophical definition with which one may or may not agree, but it is fundamental to how we view ourselves as a 'being' in this existence, both objectively and subjectively, if "I am" is to have any human meaning as a basis of our Being. Objective=being: one who occupies a space in time, a verifiable physical body, a living, breathing entity with a heartbeat, a person in the third person who 'is' there, verifiable by any observer as true, that there is a live 'being' present. Subjective=being: what one experiences in his or her life as one's being, the self awareness of being alive, a thinking and feeling personal experience unverifiable to anyone else's observance of that personal 'being', being alive with a sense of self, an "I am" awareness which cannot be experienced by anyone else that there is an "I am" awareness present. So where the Objective is totally verifiable as a separate and living existence, the Subjective is 'verifiable' only to oneself and nobody else. This basic principle, of an objective definition of 'being' can then be transposed on any of the other sensations of one's being: pain, emotions, fear, love, happiness, joy, envy, compassion, hostility, etc. These are all Subjective when they are internalized in a living being, but are Objective where they are observationally confirmed independently of that being. Subjective, objectively, is known only to that being, and nobody else; while Objective is objectively known to all, independent of that being, so is 'objectively' verifiable. Now, how about the 'beginning and end' question? As a Subjective "I am", it may be infinite in both space and time, and there is no independent verification of any of it, since we simply cannot know. But as an Objective, there is definitely a beginning, at birth, and an end, at death, that anyone can objectively verify without any problem, unless there is some question of whether or not someone is dead, for which reason people traditionally hold a wake. Otherwise, the two philosophically cannot be confused, though some argue that unless 'being' is also called 'nothingness' there can be no such being. 'Being in itself' is therefore different from a person's 'being there', which is a whole topic of Hegelian philosophy in itself. But for our purposes here, Being Is, same as "Life Is", and both are defined objectively as a Subjective Being when internal to that being, and Objective when verified independently as external to that being. Then, in principle, this can apply to all other aspects of a living host's being. Taken to the ultimate Being of the Universe, it can then be understood that no one cannot understand God, or understand God, nor be God, nor speak for God, Subjectively, though there may be many instances of where God can be understood Objectively, in the third person, by observing beings present in the universe. That Being, however, subjective being in each and every living thing, that may indeed be eternal and infinite. But there is no way to prove that because it is not objective and defies independent verification as Objective. Subjective is therefore always a personal being, and never an objective being, except to the person or living entity experiencing that life. Therefore, without speaking for God, "I am" in an eternal and infinite 'being' that is Subjective of necessity, but Objective as an independently verifiable being while a person is alive. If so, the Subjective being has no 'beginning or end' , while the Objective being does have that, for certain, because we do die. Ivan | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, Ivan wrote: “No, Jim, I don't see that. This could be true if we are dealing with inanimate objects, but it fails when dealing with human beings endowed with a mind presence, and body presence, where the two are inextricably combined into the same host, a thinking and feeling human being - Subject.” My response: The problem is – you ignore the fact that we as human beings are in the Reality of Life, in the Essence of our existence … a real object that exists in the Real Time on earth; it does not matter if we can think or not in the context of truth. I have a very difficult time in dealing with people that do not understand the distinct difference between the various modalities of the peculiar brand of philosophy she or he uses and practices. This is the one argument I hoped, we would not get involved in, but it is exactly where we landed. You are mixing nominalism and realism into a muddle, which to you seems to merge into what is … a valid answer, but in reality that as you present it is non-provable via a logical proof. This is precisely where philosophy and all philosophers have has been since the Dark Ages. No philosopher can mix the two distinct different protocols, and then successfully validate a logical proof because there will be obvious contradictions within every proof they attempt to present. The Definitions used came from The New Collegiate Dictionary of Webster. Is it possible for any living human being to be … objective when thinking? Next quoted from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy…. objective / subjective “Distinction between propositions or judgments about the way things are and those about how people think or feel about them. The truth of objective claims is presumed to be entirely independent of the merely personal concerns reflected in subjective expressions, even though is difficult to draw the distinction precisely. Thus, for example: "Spinach is green" is objective, while "I like spinach" is subjective. "Seventy-three percent of people in Houston don't like spinach," however, seems to be an objective claim about certain subjects. The legitimacy of this distinction is open to serious question, since it is unclear whether (and how) any knowing subject can achieve genuine objectivity. Nevertheless, because objective truth is supposed to carry undeniable persuasive force, exaggerated claims of objectivity have often been used as tools of intellectual and social oppression.” End quote…. I never made the claim … one way or another concerning … Objective thought and I personally do not believe any human being can think objectively … and I relegate all thought to … the Subjective. But, Pain is an Object in that … it is real; it exists, and is known to a baby that is not capable of processing intelligent thought in the sense and context of thinking about a Pain that causes extreme discomfort to the point … the baby cries out loudly. What I am trying to say is … Pain is an … entity … therefore it is an object regardless if it is a material or immaterial entity. Ivan wrote: “So if you say "subjective is the domain of thought, objective is the domain of experience without thought," that is the absolute opposite of reality, and therefore I must conclude you are squeezing a square peg into a round hole to 'prove' your theorem.” My response: Does the baby cry out for no reason when it experiences … Pain? The question here is: Who is attempting to fit the square peg in the round hole? I don’t believe you can prove the baby crying out in pain is opposite of … reality. Jim | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, Other Members of the Forum, Objective thought is the awareness of why we are thinking, which in essences is no thing more than it identifies a goal of that thought about be it problem solution, pleasure, or for a reason unknown to us. However, despite how hard we attempt to control our own human thought processes, we, as human beings are incapable of - controlling our own thoughts. Thereof, the objective of thought is objective thereof yet delivered only through the subjective thinking process. Are those my concepts and notions derived of my own volitions? No, the discoverer of the concepts and ideas died April 21, 1042. Jim | ||||
| Ivan |
Independently 'verifiable reality' is what describes 'objective'. If so, then Jim you lost me entirely. Ivan | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, Now you understand. I believe that identified as objective thought is an impossible state for a rational human mind to achieve for there in no means or method available for use to prove, indicate or suggest it is potentially possible to obtain it. By that, I relegate all thought to the subjective category. Thereof, all real existing objects and entities be it material or immaterial can be rationalized, and validated using conventional proof means and methodology. Pain when experienced in a fetus or young baby is wholly an objective experience because Pain is an entity, and exists when caused in the world of reality of a host, which can be fully independently verified by observation of another person. I agree I cannot know your pain, but I can observe it if I am present dependent on severity and or duration of it. Pain is observable in nearly all living hosts with a central nervous system including cold blooded species such as fish and reptiles. I also think Pain can be observed in very low on the ladder living creatures such as earthworms, and I know it can be observed in most if not all insects. Not too much interested though in digging some worms and sticking pins in them to prove the case however. Jim | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, Different subject for the moment: The Philosophical Challenge website known as ... inexpressible.com... The challenge quoted: "We cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we are, in part or in whole, and be who we are at the same time." The challenge is illogical in that … the inclusion of bracketed [more reasonably] is fully dependent on whoever judges the competition, is the sole judge of exactly what it is that constitutes and validates the phrase … more reasonably. The question is: More reasonably than whose description and definition of what it is that constitutes … understanding … of the phrase? An associated problem is the distinct absence of the word … what … that proves what it is that an individual person … consists of, which is used in the explanation and requisite to knowingly comprehend … whom we are. Our own human physiology has absolutely no thing to do whatsoever within our personal knowledge of identity and knowing of self. The entire theme of the challenge is based on what I identify as Kantian Insanity in that, Kant went well beyond the realm of reason for his explication of what constitutes self-identity. Your thoughts greatly appreciated. Jim | ||||
| Naive |
Jim, Indeed our physiology does have everything to do with our personal knowledge and experience. Bodies can be trained to tolerate or even tune out pain entirely. I may agree with you only in the instance of death. This is because death = the end of perception and thus is the end of our subjective experience. Can instinct or perception count as objectivity? Let us take the example of pain: If a man is paralyzed such that his brain does not receive feedback from a wound inflicted on his leg, he will still bleed. In this case the body responds, the brain does not (at least not until the loss of blood becomes too great). If he notices the wound, he may begin to panic. If he does not notice the wound, everything is status quo. Every human being may react in a different way to stimulus, depending on the information being received by the brain, and that individual's subjective past experience. Babies with no such experience on which to draw will react based upon stimulus and instinct. Does this make reactions to stimulus objectivity? It depends on the definition of objectivity. If objectivity is defined as a PERCEPTION of stimulus, then O.K. If objectivity is the REACTION to something without bias from previous experience, then there is no such thing as objectivity beyond infancy. In fact, as soon as we are born (probably sooner) and begin to receive stimuli, our brains begin to categorize, stereotype, classify. The very nature of our brain to organize information along neural pathways is the death of objectivity, because this process is unique per each human being. I believe then, that objectivity can only be reached at a physiological level at which all humans start of with the same basic brain structure, (and even at birth there are exceptions to this being possible). For example we will all turn our heads, when we hear a loud noise (unless we are born deaf), because we all have that similar brain structure for hearing. On the other hand, our brains will interpret the noise based upon previous experience, and our set of reactions will vary. True we will all agree that we heard something (although we could never say what we heard with agreement unless we had a past experience to compare the noise to). Indeed, we couldn't even answer the question without the language paradigm we have created to express ourselves. Thus THERE IS NO OBJECTIVITY EXCEPT THE ATTEMPT TO BE OBJECTIVE. Reaction to the same painful stimulus, will never be the same for any two individuals. The fact that all of us may perceive stimulus does not equal objectivity. This is because at the moment of PERCEPTION, a consequent experienced based REACTION occurs, and that is called SUBJECTIVITY. I will capitulate to sensation and perception. 99.9% of us are hard-wired the same way. I will not, however, call agreement upon physiology, objectivity. Naive | ||||
| Jim |
Naive, You merged my post about the Philosophical Challenge into the subject of Pain, which are two different subjects. Our individual physiology does not have anything to do with our personal identity, which was the point of my post concerning the Philosophical Challenge. You citation concerning the Paralyzed man misses the mark in that ... if when concerning the thought processes issues such as illness, disease, and or injury cannot be fairly used as points of argument as those circumstances placed the afflicted person outside the realm of normal conscience awareness. Jim | ||||
| Naive |
Sorry for my misunderstanding. On the other hand, our individual physiology is who we are. I challenge you to have or know your personal identity without it! Sarcasm aside, I was not addressing the challenge, but your comments about human physiology. In the past philosophers have attempted to make distinctions between body and mind. That is a mistake. Body and mind are one. Illness, disease, and injury all count as normal conscience awareness. In fact the point of human subjectivity being subject to the individuality of our experience-developed neural pathways was the demonstration of that point. No need to argue distinctions of knowing ourselves. We simply are. Mind and body are one . . . no distinctions. Naive | ||||
| Jim |
Naive, I agree, our physiology is the mechanism that allows us to know who we are; however, it is not necessary for us to understand the workings of it to know who we are. I also agree with you that mind and body are one, and impossible to separate one from the other for our awareness includes the perception of moving fingers, walking, the impact of running on our knees, and even blinking our eyes. I disagree with the Philosophy Challenge in that, the phrasing is problematic and places total control in the hands of whomever defines ... [more reasonably]. Jim | ||||
| Ivan/inexpressible |
Inexpressible's challenge is... well... 'inexpressible'. You got that right, Jim. Or as I wrote 22 Sept. 2002, when we were discussing this years ago: As you said: "I disagree with the Philosophy Challenge in that, the phrasing is problematic and places total control in the hands of whomever defines ... [more reasonably]." So they control all the cards, and no matter how good a hand you hold, they will always outbid you. It's a loser game, so I stopped playing long ago. The bottom line, as Naive so eloquently stated, "No need to argue distinctions of knowing ourselves. We simply are. Mind and body are one . . . no distinctions." That pretty much sums it up, and anything otherwise is there only to prolong discussion, which can be fun, but in the end, because they control all the cards, also pointless. Who cares? We know we are who we are and know that we are at the same time, regardless of what they think. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/Isaac |
Sir Isaac Newton's 'objectivity' statement.  (interactive) Principia Mathematica title page In his famous book Principia Mathematica Newton wrote: Note that to be 'objective' he said "we ought to step back from our senses, and consider things themselves", which means we step outside our 'subjective' selves to do so, in order to consider only what are "perceptible measures of them", which means only what is 'verifiable and falsifiable' with real data, as opposed to what we feel or think about it. This sentiment of Newton and his scientific contemporaries launched the Western world into a new direction of separating Subjective, that which one feels inside oneself (including pain) and the Objective, that which studies things in themselves (including pain) as separate from the subject. Therein lies the greatness of modern civilization, that in separating the two we were able to take ourselves away from dogmas and religious 'sciences' based on Aristotle, etc., but entered the domain of understanding the universe on its own terms, as a 'thing' in itself, which is separate from what we feel in ourselves. It is not a perfect system, because we are also attached 'subjectively' to what we study outside ourselves, as well as what we perceive 'objectively' inside ourselves, so the separation is never totally complete. But in principle, we can apply ideas to our own internal subjective feelings, and perhaps in some distant future will find ways to discover the ideas of a universe that made those internal feelings possible, and even how they are connected. But to call the Subjective 'objective' is not the best way to approach this, since it undoes centuries of good science and replaces it with semantics. Sir Isaac would not have approved it, if so. Ivan | ||||
| Naive |
Apparently life IS the universe's mechanism for knowing itself. In our case, it occurs when sensing organs relay electric signals to the brain for processing. I suppose evolutionists would tell us organs such as the eyes and ears were developed by environmental selection pressures, and so they probably report fairly accurate information for our earth-based environment. But what about emotions that lead to subjectivity? Science tells us emotions are from the primitive regions of the brain. Thus, it may be that subjectivity is the mixture of primitive survival instincts, objective observation, and creative higher order processing. After all, it takes all of these things to make us see something "our way". Think about the times people make subjective statements: Its usually when they are emotional, and attempt to rationalize from that emotion. Furthermore emotion has a funny way of distorting recollection of our so-called objective faculties! What purpose could this serve? And what might have inspired it in our biology? What is the benefit of this freelance type of thinking? Is the ability to think subjectively the very essence of humanity, the cornerstone our civilization has been built upon, or is it the source of our greatest woes, or both (like the metaphorical devil and angel sitting on the shoulders of mankind so to speak)? What do you think? Ivan? Jim? Naive | ||||
| Ivan/micro-macro |
I tend to agree, Naive, that life is the mechanism through which recombinant DNA adjusts itself to endow us with the ability to know our universe, when the mind is sufficiently developed with consciousness, which by extension is the universe knowing itself. Why does the universe produce life? Is it something inherent to its self-construct? Then if the Subjective responds to this construct with its own feelings and ideas, is it inevitably 'communicating' with the universe, perhaps at some level of which we still have no understanding? And if so, does that make the universe, in effect, alive? There may be some very subtle forces at work in our makeup as living beings, things that happen so subliminally we are not yet in touch with these electromagnetic forces communicating to our senses, and back to their expressions in our occupied reality, back to the universe, that makes us into intensely 'interactive' beings with our reality. We just do not yet know how. Perhaps each decision made by our minds in response is already preconfigured at some micro-macro level where we actually 'know' what we are doing without ever being consciously aware of it. Could this be in our future foretelling dreams, for example? Or for some who are endowed with a certain 'clairevoyance' perhaps? Since we study the universe 'objectively' we tend to separate out our subjective selves from what is the objective universe outside ourselves. In a way, what Jim is suggesting that our Subjective is also the Objective can make sense, but since we are not 'connected' at the cognizant level to that other reality where such micro-macro relationships, and interrelationships, take place, we essentially remain disconnected from reality, except in the reality of our being in it.... Does that make sense? Ivan | ||||
| Naive |
Yep. Makes for an interesting theory! Naive | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, You wrote: Ivan: “In a way, what Jim is suggesting that our Subjective is also the Objective can make sense, but since we are not 'connected' at the cognizant level to that other reality where such micro-macro relationships, and interrelationships, take place, we essentially remain disconnected from reality, except in the reality of our being in it.... Does that make sense?” The first factor everyone must consider when processing notions that concern what is real and existent in reality as we observe it … is Time. Time is an arbitrary concept based on our human biological clocks, which is based on the amount of light received daily wherever we are on Earth. Our biological clocks do several things for us, but once we leave the environs of Earth, Earth time disappears, for there is no such entity or thing known as … Universe Time. Thereof is a validated logical proof I defy anyone to overcome. Everything we do is based on the biological clocks inside us, which is embedded in the most primitive part of our brain. It is that mechanism that regulates our daily lives. We use an arbitrary method to measure it, and the method is strictly arbitrary based on the physical rotation of Earth along with its orbit around the sun. We further break time up into segments, which in Reality do not exist … thereof time is the problem that stymies cognition of understanding what is, and what is not real. We are not disconnected from reality. If we were, we would have no sense of true or false, and no concept or notion of where we are, what we are, who we are or why we even exist. My reality is much different than yours in that our physical locations are different in a place where all of us exist. Reality is possible and is validated by ongoing interactions between us as we post to this forum; however, we can discuss our reality as all of us experience it as we are now doing. I cannot experience your reality, but I can and do understand and comprehend your … experience of it … because I too experience it. The question is: If we are not connected to Reality by existing inside of it what is the purpose for the words … in … of … to? Your heart is inside your body … are you connected to it? In context, the premises are identical. Jim | ||||
| Ivan/time |
Well Jim, how do you account for 'counting' change of any kind? Does our Earthly sense of time have anything to do with natural changes taking place in the universe? Stars are born and die, galaxies merge or fly apart, planets go around the sun marking off their (non-Earth) years, things are born and die, the handle on my clock goes round and round; all these are marking "time" in their own way that are unrelated to my biological clock. But there's the catch: these are all happening 'objectively' irrespective of my subjective self. Whether or not "I" experience it, with this objective observation, the events marking 'time' go on with or without me. My connection to this independently objective time is there only if I am there; otherwise, it goes on without me. But Time does exist, whether or not you or I or anyone else says so. It exists independently of us as its own event of change. All we humans did was identify it, and thus quantified it into years, days, minutes, seconds, nanoseconds, etc. But our discovery did not 'create' time, it already existed, and all we did was find it exists. And, if time exists, then so do beginnings and ends, of necessity. So I must disagree with your concept of "Time is an arbitrary concept", because it is merely something identified as a measure of change; but the change is NOT of our making necessarily, since it already exists, pre-existing us, and will continue to exist as change for all time to come. Ivan | ||||
| Naive |
Existence is time! Jim, Time does not stymie cognition of understanding what is and is not. Cognition is the way we experience time. As you said yourself, "We are not disconnected from reality." On the other hand, time is not cognition. Our experience of what happens is faulty only because we cannot always prove what we perceive is similar from person to person. This includes our labeling system of the passage of time. Sure our labels may be human-centered, but that does not make time the villian in perception of the reality of things. Perception itself is the villian. This is the frustration Ivan is suffering from. Various physicists, have created and added to a labeling system which has become a familiar paradigm. The next generation continues to work within this framework as if its progenitors understood universal relationships (rather than local, observable phenomena). Einstein himself said that any system based on observation is relative to that observers perspective. We simply do not understand time, but instead measure its effects upon objects, upon ourselves. In essence time is not an entity as much as it is the consequence of existence. We have labeled some of those consequences (hours, minutes, etc.). Our bodies have adapted to some of those consequence (the motion of local stellar bodies). No matter where we go in the universe, consequences will continue to happen, or we will find evidence of consequences that have happened. If indeed there is an edge of observable phenomena (and we happen to reach that place, then I will say that in that location, time is arbitrary (but then we will be there, and once more evidence of consequence will exist. For then we can surely say, "we weren't here before and now we are!). Until then, I've got to go . . . I'm running out of time! Naive | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, You wrote: “Well Jim, how do you account for 'counting' change of any kind? Does our Earthly sense of time have anything to do with natural changes taking place in the universe? Changes have nothing to do with time whatsoever. Thereof, change is evident every place observers are present, but those changes occur with, and without time being a constant of any consideration. Therein, a dictum can be established: Time is irrelevant in the overall scheme of the universe based on three laws science has validated to the extent, I know of no scientist that disputes the laws established, and upon which, then considered to be true laws, not theory. We identify them as three Thermodynamic Laws, of which the first two are primary, supplemented by the third. Axiomatic Laws of Thermodynamics: I. First Law states that energy cannot be created or destroyed II. Second Law states systems have a tendency to increase entropy" rather than to decrease it. III. Third Law states as temperature approaches absolute zero, the entropy of a system approaches a constant. The first law is primary in that, it destroys existing theories about origins of the universe, and annihilates every concept and notion of it having a beginning or end. The second law of thermodynamics validates the third law in that, the temperature of absolute zero, is not possible to achieve, which the second law suggests and validated again with the third law in totality. In essence, the laws of thermodynamics prove the universe is Eternal, and that it is a Closed System. This brings into consideration two words … infinite … & … finite, and we are not selective in definition by simply stating: Infinite: Extends indefinitely or is endless Finite: Having definite or definable limits Here we need to try to, and establish a point of mutual agreement. “A finite entity or thing cannot exist inside of another finite entity or thing without being a part of that thing or entity.” Logical argument to validate the afore iterated statement: Argument: No two entities or things can exist in the same place simultaneously. Please note … I did not use any reference to Time of necessity to validate that statement, for I stand on the premise: Time is an arbitrary established concept, notion, or idea and is impossible to … mark … inside a place that is Eternal proving it is Infinite in each aspect of it, which includes the size or dimensions, and endurance of the universe. Is it remotely even possible to calculate, contrive, or conjure A universal Time? I do not believe it is possible to establish, validate, or prove … universal time. Here is where we disagree: I say: Events in the universe mark change, visible, real, and honest changes as they occur, which take place and happen regardless of observation by any entity be it material, and or immaterial. We are still hung up on the subject of … objectivity in thought. To me objective thinking is without potential, and not even remotely possible. Even Einstein in his faulty theory stated, Time does not exist, which was his objection to the notion of the Big Bang theory, which he had absolutely noting to do with whatsoever, and died attempting to fight that theory. In your own words come the contradictions within your reasoning: Ivan wrote: “But Time does exist, whether or not you or I or anyone else says so. It exists independently of us as its own event of change. All we humans did was identify it, and thus quantified it into years, days, minutes, seconds, nanoseconds, etc. But our discovery did not 'create' time, ----- “””it already existed, and all we did was find it exists.”””-------- In the above quoted paragraph, you openly proved the contradictions, but in essence your argument as presented seems real and honest to you … but cannot be validated as being a true and or honest belief. For time to be a viable entity, the concept, or notion of it, thence must apply universally throughout the universe despite locale of the observers of it. And, I personally do not believe that is possible for it is 8:47pm, February 2, 2008 here where I live, but it is 6:47pm, February 2, 2008 where you live. Therein, the concept of Time is a true Arbitrary decision based strictly on the physical … locale … of an observer of what I identify as … Reality … in the place of my existence, or my domain of Reality. If I asked the question: Ivan, what were you doing at 8:47pm, February 2, 2008? It is an obvious conclusion, what you were doing at that specific time was much different by two arbitrary hours from what I was doing when I recorded the times as iterated. Thereof, is my argument and basis that Time is a serious problem when considering the workings of the Universe, and events that occur within it. Time is also the reason you cannot solve what little problem of Gravity that continues to evade you, and many thousands of other people of such scientific endeavors. Ivan further wrote: “And, if time exists, then so do beginnings and ends, of necessity.” If you use the … of necessity … argument, you cannot rationally deny, and then disprove the concepts as stated herein, for reasons explicated next. Necessity is the cause of events that transpire in the universe. Necessity serves the purpose for existence of the universe. Purpose proves the reason for existence of the universe. From the three statements we can conclude: The universe has a purpose, but for purpose to be a valid argument, Purpose then becomes entwined within itself as Necessity, which then proves to be a contradiction in that … purpose or necessity … cannot be one and the same entity, thing, or whatever word of choice is used … simultaneously The question is: Did the universe pop out of … no thing whatsoever, manifest in no thing, out of no thing, and is without … purpose? Jim | ||||
| Ivan/logic time |
Logical Time: Some conceptual notions in question, per Jim's: 1. "We are still hung up on the subject of … objectivity in thought. To me objective thinking is without potential, and not even remotely possible." Objective thought is independently verifiable, regardless of subject, so a passage of 'time' is independently verifiable... "what time is it on your watch?" 2. "Even Einstein in his faulty theory stated, Time does not exist, which was his objection to the notion of the Big Bang theory, which he had absolutely noting to do with whatsoever, and died attempting to fight that theory." The notion that 'time' was created at the Big Bang origin of the universe can be true only if no change pre-existed the moment of 'creation' of the universe, so that Time was born... at that beginning.. if it actually happened. 3. "Axiomatic Laws of Thermodynamics: All three laws apply to what we observe locally, though Life seems to break entropy through photosynthesis and the food chain; and birth of new life; we do not know what happens at the black-hole gravity center of galaxies, nor how stars come into combustion (insufficient gravity at flat-G) to reverse entropy when a star is born... new energy starts all over again. 4. "In the above quoted paragraph, you openly proved the contradictions, but in essence your argument as presented seems real and honest to you … but cannot be validated as being a true and or honest belief. For time to be a viable entity, the concept, or notion of it, thence must apply universally throughout the universe despite locale of the observers of it." Of course, we assign a unit of time to changing events, like the vibrations of a cesium atomic clock, but these units can be used anywhere; unlike 'relativistic time' which is a limitation due to using electromagnetic energy to observe accelerated events, so only an 'observational' phenomenon; we can assign any unit of time we wish and use it... universally... regardless of our beliefs. 5. "Necessity is the cause of events that transpire in the universe. Of necessity is a condition imposed upon the logic of one thing following from another, so it is an objective condition, and not open to personal interpretation, like it or not; only the "of necessity" can be disproved, not the logical sequence. 6. "From the three statements we can conclude: The universe has a purpose, but for purpose to be a valid argument, Purpose then becomes entwined within itself as Necessity, which then proves to be a contradiction in that … purpose or necessity … cannot be one and the same entity, thing, or whatever word of choice is used … simultaneously Probably not, not out of nothing that we can understand, or hope to understand of necessity; though, the universe may have a purpose which it may grudgingly reveal to us... over time. Or, as Naive stated above, "Existence is time!" We are only privileged to be participating observers of it, both subjectively and objectively, if we wish... but nobody has to... their choice. Ivan | ||||
| Naive |
Jim, Thermodynamics is provable where? Only where we observe these rules. You can't quote it as if it is the gospel of physics. If your logic is based upon a system that may not be universal, it is not logic at all. You may only speculate as to the answers, not make sweeping absolute statements. Logic becomes flawed when uncertainty enters the picture. I will give you, that there is no tangible entity that we can call time. But there is motion, change in the universe. As these changes occur, a period relative to other events in our existence passes. Thus measurable TIME passes. We must have a point of reference from which to measure these things. This is the way our brains accept information (before this point, from this point, etc.) Sure it is subjective, when taken from a human point of reference, but what about matter? It is subject to change, based upon observations we see here. Perhaps these changes are not universal everywhere in the universe. Who knows? If the constraint of the passage of this relative frame of reference does not exist however, I would like to see you go backwards within this system. Now you will say It is not physically possible because . . . Because you are locked into a point in space that only exists at that particular location once. The passage of YOU through that point can never be reachieved . . . at least not with every other occupied point in space being occupied in exactly the same manner. This is the relative nature of time. It is the passage through particular points in space by objects, and the effects of (and during) that passage. This is all we can say about what WE observe for time. Nothing is set in universal stone, and thus the thinking man knows he must remain humble before the uncertainty produced by his lack of knowledge of the rules in other locations in the universe.. Logic based upon modern physics is not absolute, because it is not absolutely provable for all points in space which may be subject to very different rules than we observe. As to objectivity . . . We can play word games all we want. The reality is our brains work by similar principles, yet are all individually organized. Our experience of the observable is colored by the roots we have in frameworks (cultural, scientific) that came before us. There are events, however, upon which we may all come to objective agreement (unless we want to play games with semantics). For example: We exist (objective statement) There is existence (objective statement) If there is existence, there are spatial frames of reference . . . If events occur in these spatial frames, then those spatial frames become markers for the measurement of change. In our subjective need for labels, we have called the change that happens in a spatial frame of reference . . . time. Naive | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, Naive, A few days before he died, Einstein in defence of his theories stated: "The distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion." Ivan, you will never solve your gravity problem so long as Time is included in the equation. Remove Time from the equations and the answer will startle you half out of your wits. Jim | ||||
| Naive |
Jim, Einstein did not have the benefit of having an Einstein before him. If he felt the need to defend his theory, then he knew something about it was imperfect. Our minds (and the science/culture we've attained thus far) allows us a fixed amount of certainty when attempting to understand the physical realm. Sure Einstien may have had more neural connections, and thus a slightly greater perspective on universal phenomena, but his theory was not enough to help us understand gravity (no unified field theory). I suspect there are many more forces than the 4 we identify, and understanding them all probably will entail understanding the totality of how they interact. Sounds like a task for God if you ask me! We are allowed to take our best shot at it. Hindu and Buddhist sages called this existence an illusion as well; not because it is an illuson, but because our perception is based upon fallible will that must be consciously guided to gain understanding. They understood the objective/subjective dilemma quite clearly. It will take many thousands of generations for us to reach comprehension of universal truths. The human genotype is unlikely to change (too diverse a gene pool to allow for group wide mutation/evolution), and groups of us are too attached to previous paradigm to allow for scientific advancement. In the case of Ivan's quest, I suspect that time may not be as crucial as knowing the totality of universal mass (or energy) and knowing the relative distances and speed of all stellar bodies. Once again, our minds are too limited, and God seemingly enjoys seeing us trying to see him! Naive | ||||
| Naive |
Or her! Or both! Naive | ||||
| Jim |
Naive, Sorry, but I still do not buy into the premise that time exists. No arguments, just some quotes for this post. Simon Saunders, a philosopher of physics at the University of Oxford.... “The meaning of time has become terribly problematic in contemporary physics, the situation is so uncomfortable that by far the best thing to do is declare oneself an agnostic.” -------------- Journal of Theoretics Vol.3-1 Feb/March 2001, Editorial by James P. Siepmann "The concept of time is probably the most misconstrued and misused concept in science. Most scientists as well as the public think that “time” actually exists, just like the physical dimensions of length. Some have gone so far as to even give these 'particles of time' the name 'chronons.' Many of the so-called reputable journals even publish articles by these ignorant practitioners of voodoo science. The concept of “time” is actually quite primitive with early man recognizing that their were repeated cycles of natural events which could be used to measure the duration of other events. From the recognizing that the four seasons were such a repetitive cycle, to that of a cycle of day/night, which we later came to understand was one revolution of the Earth about its axis. Then came the falling of sand in an hourglass to the repetitious swing of a pendulum, and currently to the oscillation of a quartz crystal. From all of these definitions of a “unit” of time, we have been able to artificially divide it. The most basic subdivision is that of a second which is 1/3600 of one revolution of the Earth, which we have most recently defined as 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium - 133 atom. The smaller the repetitive natural event that we can measure, the more accurate our measurement of time can be. But in all of this where is Time as a physical entity. Nowhere. All we have done is to define the duration of a physical event." ------------- Gottfried Leibniz and Immanuel Kant both stated, "Time cannot be measured." ------------- From Discover Magazine, June, 12, 2007 by Tim Folger.... "Time, in this view, is not something that exists apart from the universe. There is no clock ticking outside the cosmos. Most of us tend to think of time the way Newton did: “Absolute, true and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably, without regard to anything external.” But as Einstein proved, time is part of the fabric of the universe. Contrary to what Newton believed, our ordinary clocks don’t measure something that’s independent of the universe. In fact, says Lloyd, clocks don’t really measure time at all. I recently went to the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder,” says Lloyd. (NIST is the government lab that houses the atomic clock that standardizes time for the nation.) “I said something like, ‘Your clocks measure time very accurately.’ They told me, ‘Our clocks do not measure time.’ I thought, Wow, that’s very humble of these guys. But they said, ‘No, time is defined to be what our clocks measure.’ Which is true. They define the time standards for the globe: Time is defined by the number of clicks of their clocks.” Rovelli, the advocate of a timeless universe, says the NIST timekeepers have it right. Moreover, their point of view is consistent with the Wheeler-DeWitt equation. “We never really see time,” he says. “We see only clocks. If you say this object moves, what you really mean is that this object is here when the hand of your clock is here, and so on. We say we measure time with clocks, but we see only the hands of the clocks, not time itself. And the hands of a clock are a physical variable like any other. So in a sense we cheat because what we really observe are physical variables as a function of other physical variables, but we represent that as if everything is evolving in time." ------------------ Time, is relative only to an observer; moreover, that particular part of Relativy has in fact been verified many times by NASA experiments with Cesium Clocks aboard several vehicles sent into space including the Shuttles. NASA has several excellent articles documenting time experiments in space. Ok, one statement: There is no past, there is no future, all there is, is, what is. Jim | ||||
| Ivan |
Jim, how do you disprove the existence of something you use all the time? I suppose as a philosophical 'purist' you refuse to wear a watch? Ivan | ||||
| Naive |
Jim, I agree with you. I don't believe time is a physical entity. However, how do we measure distance? Point A to point B. Time is the same . . . event A happens, then event B. True this is the "what is", but the series of "what is" happenings, happens sequentially, spatially, dependent upon each other. By the very nature of motion, a series of events called time exists. Our minds record the "what is" from when? The geological record of "what is" is from when? We KNOW things have happened. You were born! You will die! We can anticipate the motion of stellar bodies. We know where they are going to be in the "anticipated what is". We have to label these things. We call it time. If there is no time, then why do we age? How do we change? No physical particles cause this? Every particle in the universe is subject to some law (whether observable or not). These rules dictate what time is. Time is the effect of the rules of the universe on every particle that exist within it. Time is existence! Naive | ||||
| Ivan/question of time |
Objective vs. subjective 'time'? Not to challenge your message, Jim, since I am sure you have a sincere desire to communicate something on Time you understood, though so far we have not understood the same way as you did. But I am curious: How would you treat 'objective time' of the kind that has a high degree of predictability and scientific application, such as used in the GPS system; versus 'subjective time' of the kind we feel in our biological makeup, though it may not have much more predictability than waking up at a certain hour in the morning? How do these two types of time fit into your thesis that Time does not exist, though you do say "Life Is". But it "is" what? lf "isness of being" does not exist in time, what does it exist in? And if a biological subjective clock does not exist, then why do so many species migrate, at the right time? And if objective time does not exist, then how is it we can make predictions and test theory with good results, over time? Perhaps you can clarify what you mean better? Thanks. Ivan | ||||
| Jim |
Naive, Ivan, Science is lost. Science is terribly lost playing the numbers game identified as calculus. Time is not universal, and cannot be universal for to prove it would demand the universe could be measured. To prove Time an entity … Science must answer one question that demands two answers: 1. Weigh the universe 2. Measure the dimensions of the universe How is it possible to measure the universe? I am amazed that some scientists actually believe it is possible to determine or establish the weight of the universe … if that is possible, how much larger is Earth today than it was 500,000 Earth years in the past? How much heavier is it today, than 500,000 Earth years in the past? No doubt that the Earth continues to G R O W, which is calculated to be approximately five feet every 165 Earth years. Tell me, what does that say about the diameter of Earth 50,000 Earth years in the past…? If the calculations are even close that is nearly three miles that Earth grew in those 500,000 Earth Years. What about Earth’s gravitational field if considered from that aspect? We have a remarkable ability to remember events in our lives ... that gives us the "sense of before, now, and past events." But, there is no future, and there is no past ... there is only now, which cannot be measured...! What is the duration of … now…? If we cannot measure now, what are we measuring? We are measuring the radiation rate of the Cesium 133 atom, which regardless of how people think of it … an arbitrary abstract concept. Einstein did get one thing right ... Time, as we measure it is ... relative ... only … when an observer is present. Why do you think nobody has been able to come up with a unified theory...? The answer is: Time ... is the very reason nobody will ever come up with a unified theory because the ... N U M B E R S ... inevitably break down and fail before an answer can be computed or compiled. Migration patterns of animals, birds and other migratory its such as insects, and is based on TEMPERATURE, not time. Here in the Midwest, Whitefronted Geese migrate south regularly from the Artic Tundra to Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In California they are known as Tule Geese. When the weather is warm late in the Tundra the Whitefronts will not show up until mid November ... if it gets cold early on the Tundra … they show up in early September. The Monarch Butterfly is another valid example of which, their migration patterns vary wildly from year to year based on temperature. Hubble claimed the Universe is expanding … question is, expanding to where? Where are all the galaxies and stars going that are so madly flying way from one another? They are going nowhere, and if modern science would only listen to Halton Arp, science then could possibly get in step with reality. What about Gravity Probe B…? Miserable failure, and the word is mum, or hush – hush on that fiasco … Gravity waves…? Hyper inflated imagination of hyper egos that cannot understand … Gravity is the simplest of all equations to calculate, and comprehend. But, so long as … Time … is mixed into the equations concerning it, calculations always fail. Everyone chases Weak Force, Strong Force, Gravity, and Electromagnetic Force, but in essence and Reality there is only … one Force in the universe…! And it is unified within itself, and no other force is potentially possible, or even remotely probable. The real kicker … Gravity does not propagate…! Matter of fact, Gravity is … a parasite. Jim | ||||
| Ivan |
Analog time? I think I understand what you are trying to say, Jim, that the universe is not digital in a numbers sense but analog in a relational sense. So at any one moment of time, say something like Planck time, which is t=~5.39E-44 second, an extremely small number, the universal reality exists as a relational, or infinitely interrelational, state of being in all possible dimensions, so time becomes irrelevant. But think of this as being a 'static' state without time, and since the universe is made of change, all the time, there is a measurable progression from one instant of Planck time to the next, which is numerically measurable if imperfectly. So to make a blank statement that time does not exist is absurd, since it clearly exists to mark change. Whether or not such change is then meaningful in terms of the age of the universe, or size of the universe, does not invalidate its existence over time. We are in the perpetual now, subjectively, but we do have memory of past time, same as we can forecast a possible or probable future time. Objectively we can do the same, which is what science does numerically, and this cannot be ignored because it had been so successful. The reason I can write this on a computer and post it on the web forum is proof enough for me. So in the end, I am not sure what you really are trying to say about time, or Life. If I were to take your idea that time does not exist to its logical conclusion, I must conclude that I do not exist... which I am quite sure is false. I hope you understand my dilemma in trying to understand yours. To take this further, you may say that pure mathematics, which is an analog system of relationships such as proven in geometry, cannot employ time because there is no geometric relationship to define time. An analog clock is still digital, for example, but how do you prove time geometrically as a dimensions relationship? I don't think one can. But then that narrows time into that specific application, geometric relationships of mathematics, so it cannot be defined by this application, but it does not mean the universe is merely pure geometric space for all time, and for no time. Because there is change, the geometry mathematics change all the time, and it is this change that the units of time, as defined by us, help us measure what that change is. So just because we cannot define time using the pure mathematics of geometry, which like pi as a relationship of circumference is purely analog with no exact digital representation (no matter how many decimals taken), it does not mean that non-geometric definitions of time cannot exist. In fact, because we use time all the time, it does exist! Time is a conceptual tool to measure change, whether a notch on a stick to mark days in prehistoric times, or nanoseconds used in quantum physics, time does exist. As far as Hubble expansion, GP-B flop, Four Force unification, Gravity, etc. are concerned, I too agree that we are probably off course, but eliminating time from those equations will not solve the issue. Any accelerated system must have time per time, or t^2 involved, if it is to be any kind of understandable concept. To believe otherwise, that time does not exist, becomes a 'belief system' of dogma, but is not connected realistically to what the universe, our reality, is really about. Ivan | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, You have memories of past events ... not time! There is no such thing as analog time … time is purely digital, always has been, it, always will be purely digital, and cannot be any other whatever but, digital. It is wholly based on … digits … as is the very numbers used to mark the duration of an event. The one area you have not touched upon is … Time Dilation … If Time is a … Constant in the universe – why is it clocks speed up or slow down with increase or decrease of speed…? Even the mighty Cesium 133 Atomic Clocks do this, with more than 100 verified space missions to prove it a reliable and credible event. Planck time … is one of the poorest jokes ever played on people of science … it is not even theoretically possible, yet it occupies mainstream physics in the same sense the New Testament amongst Christians. Tell me, what is the duration of t=~5.39E-44…? It is impossible to compute Planck Time accurately enough to validate the last two digits in the equation, which is the Real Problem with numbers that everyone sets aside and refuses to deal with the Reality of the BASE ROOT problem…! The problem is … there is no method for … 0 … to become … 1 – in other words, it is not possible to begin with … 0 … and make it into anything other than … 0 …! To do so demands fractions or decimals to … G R O W … the … 0 … to … 1. Show me one entity in the universe that begins with … 0 … and ends up being a star, planet or whatever. I dare say the universe is not made with … change. It is very difficult to logically cope with contradictions such as the following example…. “But think of this as being a 'static' state …. without time …. and since the universe is made of change,” Then come back in the same sentence “all the time, there is a measurable progression from one instant of Planck time to the next, which is numerically measurable if imperfectly.” If I understand you’re thinking, you are using time as a … dimension …, which proves why you have not solved the gravity problem. Time can be thought of in two ways – circular … or … linear – both methods have serious problems in that … both are …. Infinite ,,, and has one or two dimensions – if circular, it is a closed system, has a diameter and circumference and is without end points, therefore is endless; if linear it is an open system without end points, and it therefore is endless. Regardless, of which way a person conceives of time, it is Endless, therefore to measure it demands an arbitrary factor, and in the universe there are no arbitrary limits unless you bring God into the equation as chief or head arbiter. Jim | ||||
| Ivan/nemesis |
Thanks Jim for explaining, don't mean to be your nemesis. This is all still work in progress, so just askin. My gravity ideas, well.... they're still work in progress, and won't know until we measure for variable G beyond Earth's orbit region. Here's another place you can commernt on this variable G idea, if you're in the mood, by My Blog Brain Teaser Too bad the Axiomatic equation is hard to read without Greek letters, alas. We keep workin. Cheers, Ivan | ||||
| Jim |
Ivan, Concerning ... Time ... science is at a crossroads, and a decision must be made which road is the correct super highway to follow. Recent (within the last 35 years) discoveries since validated independently by various scientific researchers have proved Earth when first formed was much smaller, had no oceans, and consisted of a single land mass. The estimated size of earth when formed varies somewhat, but averages about 40% smaller than it is today, which suggests an original diameter of 4756 miles instead of 7926 miles, and a circumference of 14,932 miles instead of 24,888 miles. When earth first formed, it consisted of a single landmass, and no oceans. Today, land mass comprises approximately 30%, and water comprises approximately 70% of earth's surface. (Need further proof of the great flood?) We also know the magnetic polarity of earth shifts periodically from north to south, and such reversals occur frequently. That is partially explained by the amount of new or old magnetite present in any given locale. It is the presence of ... old ... and ... new magnetite that determines earth’s polarity reversals as each layer of magnetite imprints stripes and patterns on the mountainous regions of the ocean's floors where it is deposited fresh if it is new or recently delivered via volcanic action, or the older magnetite sinks into earth's core where it is consumed. NASA and the USGS don't want to discuss or publish valid research information contrary to taught established standards in the tax-funded or land grant universities. I know of one instance that NASA blackballed a well respected researcher of more than thirty years and hung her out to dry for ... going against the establishment. Thereof, there is sufficient evidence available to destroy all existing theories concerning origin of the universe, time, and what is Reality as it is, instead of what we perceive it to be. The answer is ... Time when included in calculations destroys integrity of any particular calculation in that ... time, which is arbitrarily based on the amount of time it takes earth ... presently ... to rotate about the sun on its orbit. If earth was 60% of its present size as it first formed, the age of earth is off considerably, by as much as 150 billion years. Furthermore, the distance the moon moves away from earth as earth grows proves that I am correct in the premise ... time does not exist. It is validated by one fact, the distance the moon moves away from earth steadily increases as ... earth grows...! That happening certainly and effectively proves the length of earth days are increasing as the earth slows down not only in the duration it takes to orbit the sun, but also as earth slows the speed it is rotating about its axis. If earth was 60% of present size when it formed the orbit around the sun would have then taken approximately 219 earth days ... versus ... 365 earth days as is presently calculated, and based on existing time measurement systems. Thereof, to use time as a constant in calculations is not wise, for time is not of necessity; therefore, it serves what ... purpose? The next big stumbling block of science is the ... particle. Long have I fought against the establishment in that particles are nothing but figments of human contrived bewilderment Yes, I have substantial proofs in hand, and it takes only a few minutes for me to shake the existing frameworks of evolved physics and cosmology violently. The response so far by them approached to allow me to explain the fact is, "What you cite is not scientifically possible." What I am citing is not theory but a fact, which is validated by no less than five thousand different research papers by independent institutions worldwide. They include several by the various research groups at FERMI covering more than 40 years of particle research. Three factors are blinding true honest science 1) ignorance; 2) belief in a dead theory that does not unify all existence into a single composite formulation; 3) corrupted people who earn his and her $$ through the practice of bad science. Jim | ||||
| Naive |
Jim, Earlier you mentioned that there probably is just one force. I tend to agree. The question is what might cause the variety in the way force works (if not particles)? Perhaps a better label than particle is properties (of energy in a certain state). Perhaps what we need to figure out is, why Energy even moves from one state to another. I suppose the particle model attempts to do that from a (conceptual) point of view. Both you and Ivan are correct, in that it is the dependency on old paradigms that keep most trapped in their beliefs. Whether it is religion or science, most people can't seem to escape their dependency on some authority. New ways of viewing the world need to emerge. I believe this will arrive when we stop focusing on teaching facts, and begin to to teach people to use their brains more efficiently. Ancient Hindu practioners of yoga figured out how to disciple the mind long ago (with significant benefits in memory, concentration, mathematical calculation, musical ability, etc.). Why is this not taught to students now? We already know why. Economics! How do you maintain an advantage or capitalism, when every citizen is enlightened? It is unsound governing to truly educate people how to reach higher states of consciousness. Alas, no groundbreaking advances in thinking have manifested! It really is sad. Naive | ||||
| Jim |
Naive, I worked out the force problem long before I met Ivan on a different philosophical forum. He earned my respect there because of his attention to details others often overlook. There is no need for the Strong or Weak forces. Astute study of the electron proves me correct in that, the electron is not a particle, and does not ... orbit ... the electron is an integral function of EM and is held in place by the Omega Medium. Yes, I coined the term ... Omega Medium ... many years ago, before 1992. It is similar to the old "aether or ether" concept but is significantly different in that, it is the single basic building block of all matter, and it is also the means and method of recycling (energy conservation) in the universe. Gravity is a parasitic of Electromagnetic force which occurs naturally with emission of light waves at the source. Once light hits an object it is illuminated for the duration of photon activity. Thereof, Gravity does not move, and cannot travel ... Gravity Probe B was a miserable failure whereas concering gravity waves, and now NASA is planning to expend more than $20 Billion to validate Gravity Waves, which are figments of ailing physicist's brains. Gravity fields can, do, and will shift based on the precise center of the densest Neutron concentrations within the object that sets or establishes the Gravity field. A gravity field always surrounds the object an equi-distance away from the variable Neutron concentrations of the object involved. Earth has 19 such concentrations which are easily validated by testing the expanse of her gravitational fields. I am sure there are more, yet that is where my interest stops. I believe honest evidence of 19 differing concentration points of Neutron mass inside earth is sufficient to validate my research. Gravity fields are unlike magnetic fields in that, polarity is always neutral whereas, gravity is always an attractive force. Proof that gravity is always an attractive force is evident when considering the relationship between earth and her moon. As the mass of the earth increases, the moon moves further away because the moon's neutron mass coefficient differential proves it cannot ever remain constant of that with earth for the moon grows at a slower rate than earth. We can thank Edwin Halley who in 1665 his observations proved the moon is moving away from earth. He discovered the fact and proved it so by using accurately validated eclipses spanning hundreds of years. Today we use the three mirrors left on the moon to measure the expanding moon orbit, which is approximately 3.8 centimeters per year. Because of the differential between earth, moon and sun, time as most people conceive of it must again be changed during the next 100 years as even the faithful cesium atom cannot maintain exact time. No, not much of an adjustment ... just 2 milliseconds ... but at 40 thousand light years distant, 2 milliseconds could mean the difference between a hit or miss if attempting to land a migrating spaceship on another planet. Jim | ||||
| Jim |
Naive, Ivan, I almost forgot ... Schroedinger's cat reigns supreme...! Jim | ||||
| Ivan/world peace |
World Belief systems, and sudden leaps of mass Consciousness.  Lenin speaking at a rally I had written on Emergence that "any totality of complex systems is more than merely the sum of its parts, but it grows, or emerges, into something greater than itself." World belief systems are the same, that from a vast population of individualized ideas, when coming together in some point of history, there is a massive paradigm shift in human beliefs where a large population suddenly accepts something that had not existed before. This is a function of Emergence. This can be said to be true especially of world religions, where a massive belief system comes to dominate humanity in some way unforeseen, where it takes root in public consciousness on an unprecedented scale. This happened in history a number of times, from Moses and his predecessors in ancient religions predating the present era, to Buddhism and Christianity, and more recently on a historical world scale Mohamedism, where an idea or confluence of ideas come together into a universal belief system. It is a natural event, a vast human drama that suddenly unfolds on the world stage to change human consciousness at a new level of understanding, and fundamental beliefs. No such major shift is ever painless, as the world must adjust to the massive paradigm shift in human consciousness. The most recent such paradigm shift happened during the Age of Enlightenment, where major reforms in human thinking and the use of reason ushered a new world civilization of freedom and scientifism on an unprecedented scale. Today, the universal idea of human rights and love of our common humanity, which to some degree defines 'multiculturalism' and acceptance of all world cultures, is such a paradigm shift. Society worldwide is being changed by this sea change of ideology, often in conflict with preexisting mass belief systems, where the new and the old either coexist, at times uncomfortably with the Age of Reason, while at other times it is in direct conflict, such as Western civilization is now experiencing with Islam. But these are totally natural events evolving from Emergence, so what had come together did not exist before a new paradigm came into mass human consciousness, and the reverberations of this change must be seen in a world historical context, that change can also cause social frictions as well a civilizational benefits. What we are witnessing in the world today is a process, which is what Emergence does, to bring together a vast new idea into public consciousness. Today's world belief is being changed through a new awareness of the value of the freedom of the individual, what we call universal Freedom, which has revolutionized world societies in ways unforeseen. This Freedom is a sudden leap of world consciousness. When Moses brought down the Ten Commandments a new world order resulted, that of rule by moral laws. The Romans extended their ideas of 'rule of law' throughout the Mediterranean world, reaching as far as Britain and northern Europe, to North Africa and the Middle East, where fundamental to their idea, though a Pagan society, was that each free born was "innocent until proven guilty" and had the right to a due process of law equally. Jesus brought another world paradigm, to "love one another" as the Father (God) loves us, which changed the world order in favor of compassion and equality of humanity, though at the time this was not the paradigm envisioned; rather, the idea was to improve upon Moses's rule of moral law with a new sense of the worth of the individual. But this took centuries to evolve. By the time of Mohammed, another idea was born, to obey God (Allah) in full 'submission', though this germinal idea was not a direct continuation of Christianity and Judaism, but incorporated Arab cultural values which the Caliphate adapted for its own purposes. In the earlier 'Social radical Islamism', as it was created by the Caliphate, became a political force where the paradigm shift was not necessarily spontaneous but spread through the conquered regions by force of war. Today's universal paradigm of the value of the individual as a free human being challenges this idea, that we cannot war on one another, so the political nature of Islamism is being challenged in ways unforeseen even half a century ago. This in itself is cause for much of the world's conflicts on a civilizational scale, as daily world news is witness. Had the Caliphate not overtaken Mohammed's visions with the use of force to spread that idea, the Emergence of Islam would have taken a different turn; and the world drama of conflict between the Age of Reason and Islamism would not have manifest as social conflicts, some of which are onerous with suicide killings for their faith; so perhaps World Peace would have already established itself in the public mind as a universal paradigm. But this is still in the future, as the world emerges from its dark ages into one of true universal Enlightenment. The evolution of a mass world belief system takes time, but with each such paradigm shift on a world scale, something big happens in the human drama. The recent attempts for Communism to establish itself as a world paradigm for social change was one such event, though Marxism-Leninism was in the end found badly flawed, and it failed as a concept. The human drama that followed caused millions of deaths by starvation and war, and untold suffering of the human soul in a soulless system of society built not of the individual value of each human being, but as a functioning unit within an organized society. Failure to participate correctly in this system led to arrest and ostracism, or purges of 'counter-revolutionaries', so many perished in the Gulag for failure to adapt to this oppressive social paradigm. This system was tried on a vast scale in Russian and China, and a number of smaller states, but abandoned in the end as unworkable, even in China. A more enduring system was the paradigm shift of Christianity, a Judaic idea coming from the Middle East in Roman times, with its own mass drama. Christ's redemption for mankind on the cross was such an event, where humanity was propelled into a new world vision of itself, one of love and compassion. The Age of Enlightenment was another more recent such world event, where the mind found expression not within the context of holy scripture but as a free entity able to look directly with its reason into all creation, and ultimately into the universe of God, as empowering us to understand with our minds what that universe is about, including our place in it. Our democratic values of a universal humanity endowed with the rights of the individual, our human rights, is a direct evolution of both our Judeo-Christian values, as well as our Age of Reason, that each person has an equal right to the use of reason in our human interactions, an inalienable right by law, such freedoms as enshrined in our constitutional governments. This is a new idea, one Emergent from all our preceding ideas, so there is a new world consciousness evolving, that we each have a right before the law to be Who we are as individual human beings. Where will this Emergence take us as a world? That is still an open page on which history is being written today, and the outcome of this history in the making is still unclear to us. But it is happening, and with the spread of information easily accessible to all, such as powered by the world wide web, and the ease of travel throughout the world from our technological advancements, including mass international markets and flow of goods, the world is changing at an accelerating pace which for some more traditional and orthodox societies is too fast. Can humanity adapt to such rapid change, where even the ecological effects of modern technological change can have either positive or negative consequences? World hunger is being ameliorated, but also at the cost of possible ecological degradation and global warming as unwanted side effects. We write history in ways of which we may not be fully aware, and what emerges from present trends may take us in directions unforeseen, as it changes over time. Some of these changes are so rapid as to occur within the span of one lifetime, as many of us alive today know full well. What is the world belief today, as a mass world consciousness? The use of reason liberates the mind to access truth in ways never truly experienced before, nor totally understood today. What we have come to believe is now tested against reality, the reality of our existence in the real world, and the universe's reality, so there is a direct cause and effect of our belief systems on the state of the world. Can peace come of such a belief in reason? Can tolerance of others who do not believe as we do emerge from a world sense of compassion for our common humanity? Can freedom liberate the mind from past superstitions and enslavements? This is the paradigm shift we are now witnessing, and the outcome of this will be most interesting, something future generations will look back upon in their history of the world, the world we live in today. Freedom without responsibility, or reciprocity of such freedom cannot succeed; but without this freedom humanity cannot advance to its next level of Emergence, that of a humanity that has full respect for itself, and takes responsibility for all its actions, not merely at the mass social scale, but for each one of us individually in all the things we do. We have a grand future ahead, whether or not we are now conscious of it, because there is emerging a world consciousness that will take our old belief systems and shake them to the core. The Age of Enlightenment was its prime mover, but its Emergence is yet to be defined for Who we are as a world society. Freedom is far more powerful a concept, or belief system, than many today can understand. The democratic ideals spreading throughout the globe, where the vote of each individual counts, is not yet universal, same as the idea that each one of us as a free human being is far more powerful together than our history had ever witnessed before. We haver a great future ahead of us, because it will emerge for us in ways most surprising, as a world awakening of human consciousness. We are all One people of planet Earth, and in God we trust, that our freedoms will prevail. Once humanity realizes its common bond, and finds tolerance for its common good with personal responsibility for each thing we do, and reciprocates with this goodwill for all, then the world will have changed again in a sudden leap of consciousness. There is a future sense here: We in Freedom will emerge as a world in Peace. We are all connected in ways we cannot even understand... to universally outlaw coercions. I think it will be Beautiful. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/principles |
Principle as a rule. Why is it important to explore 'principles' more than current events? A Principle is a rule, whether in science or ethics or philosophy. Any set of ideas or events reduced to their basic common denominator forms a principle, in principle. That is what drives the rest, the basic fundamental underlying principle. For example, to make a simple illustration, take the phonograph record, and by extension today's recorded electronic media on CDs and DVDs. The original principle was shown in the earliest recording made of a human voice with a phonautograph, which in principle recorded voice vibrations as etchings on a soot-covered paper, circa 1860. This was followed by a better version of the same principle when in 1877 Thomas Edison recorded children singing. But the principle was the same, to record the vibrations on a medium of sound made. Fast forward a century and vinyl records with high fidelity are all the rage, and then another couple of decades later they disappeared altogether, where now vinyl records are a garage sale item. What replace these were first tapes players and later CDs, and finally DVDs, all of which employ the same 'principle' of recording the vibrations of sound onto a medium. Except now rather than being a solid vinyl disk with groves in it, it is a solid disk recorded with light recorded digitally. The system changed dramatically in 148 years, but the principle of the system remained the same. It is the same with principle of any kind, whether in politics or economics or world events, or religious beliefs and speculations on the universe or God. The principles, which is what we explore here on Humancafe as much as possible, are what endure, whereas the events taking place today will come and go, and even in time become forgotten. But the basic underlying principles of what is happening today is the same as it had always been. In science, the basic underlying principle is that theory must be tested against reality with predictable results. In religion, the faith of the believer must never question the basic tenets, or the faith is compromised, even if the basic tenets make no rational sense. In politics, the will of the people governs over the will of the ruler, at least in modern democratic societies. In law, the principle is that we are innocent until proven guilty, and the burden of proof lies on the accuser to provide evidence of the accused guilt. Einstein's famous E=mc2 is a principle, in that it applies to many different scientific fundamental ideas of mass and energy. All principles govern over a large territory of ideas, and in their applications we can then judge whether events or ideas themselves fall within a principle of outside of it. Freedom of the press is a principle, as is freedom of speech, or freedom of religion, principles our democratic freedoms live by as protected by our government's Constitution. These are rules of underlying ideas that reduce to their own truisms, and thus they are principles. What makes principles durable is when they pass the test of time. The original idea of Earth being at the center of God's heavens in time failed the test, and that ancient principle of the perfection of the heavens in their perfect spheres proved inadequate, so was discarded. All principles are always subject to review. So if a modern day principle based upon ancient superstitions surfaces and wants to take dominance once again, it is time to challenge it and review. We do not burn witches at the stake anymore, nor do we kill heretics, in principle. That world is gone. Nor do we have public executions, or stonings, except in still primitive parts of the world where modern day principles have not yet penetrated, for a variety of reasons. Equality of gender is a principle, as is equality and freedom from oppression for all humanity. These are enduring principles.  Salem witch trials, c. 1690 Where principles fail is in magic and superstitions. They are illusions, and no principle can redeem their falsehood, except as a principle of illusion. Same for false beliefs, or for men to say they speak for God. These are ancient superstitions, or illusions, unsupported by any principle except that of illusion, or madness. We do not burn witches today, nor do we execute heretics, because there is no principle for this kind of action to punish anyone based upon their beliefs, mistaken or otherwise, because it is their error alone. But when any one, or any group, calls for action against others on principles of illusion, then their actions are unsupportable and must be stopped, on principle. Events come and go, and some of today's madness will too be forgotten, but the principles that guide us as a rule will endure. Principles work because they are true, and endure; while falsehoods in time prove illusion, so fail. For this reason alone truth is more powerful than lies. Ivan | ||||
| Anonymous |
A sub-class of humanity is ignorance. | ||||
| Naive |
What we have accomplished so far - is the limit to which we haved pushed our DNA's potential. Tomorrow we will stretch this limit a little more . . . for better or worse. What is interesting is the methods that society has adopted to find individuals who will push those limits. We give incentives such as money, better lifestyle, etc. It is rare that an individual is allowed to explore the limits, for any altruistic reason. Worse still, someone is always trying to benefit financially from innovation. Is that form of incentive a commentary on our culture, our DNA (and thus brain structure organization)? Or is it the natural order of things that those who are willing to control others, will ultimately dictate the direction of cultural development (and thus human achievement)? Who is pushing the limits of our DNA potetial? Explore that. Naive | ||||
| Anonymous |
I once asked a man who was a body builder. "Why do you do it?" I expected a narcissistic answer. Maybe he did it for money, or fame, or look good for the girls. But his simple answer caught me by surprise. He said "I don't do it for myself, I do it for God." What was he saying? In the big picture, what was he saying to me? Even today I think about it. "Not for myself, but for God." Is his belief in God the ultimate altruism? Is this his DNA speaking to me? He does not do it for himself --- What does that mean? | ||||
| Naive |
A better question: Isn't our DNA just a program developed by God, for humanity, through eons of exposure to nature? For those who believe, the essence of the way we live our lives is "for God". It means we are appreciative of the chance to be what we are or could be. Naive | ||||
| Ivan/Freedom of God |
What is your life worth? Naive: "For those who believe, the essence of the way we live our lives is "for God". It means we are appreciative of the chance to be what we are or could be." Anon: ""Not for myself, but for God." Is his belief in God the ultimate altruism?" What would you sell your life for? A million dollars? A billion? But when it comes to fighting for freedom, we lay down our lives without thinking. Why is that? Why is Freedom so important to us? Is this not the ultimate altruism of any human being, to lay down their life for Freedom? Is this a fight for God? I think it is. Who really understands this need for freedom for human beings? We are NOT slaves, never were and never will be again. We are creatures of God, and only in Freedom can we be truly from God. And then it is "for God" truly. Ivan | ||||
| Anomymous |
Ivan: "What would you sell your life for?" I would never sell my life, but would give it gladly if called. Life is in God's hands. Like the body builder said, we must do it not for money or fame, but do freedom "for God." --- Is this a Principle of Belief? I think it is a principle to live by --- or die. | ||||
| Ivan/God's DNA program |
Posted by Naive Interesting point Naive. I am currently reading Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" where the 'cellular automata' generated by a very simple program can change with an introduction of any new random variable to the simple program. This is analogous to the way DNA works, where apparently random mutations can have dramatic effects on the evolution of the species over time. However, and this is an important consideration, is the 'random' change in DNA truly random, or is it conditional upon the life circumstances of the living body, so its 'input' from survival efforts and conditions will 'program' the changes to DNA. In other words, is its "exposure to nature" the reason for the changes taking place? Or more specifically, is each organism living within its natural habitat connected to a greater 'cellular automata' system of reality that then minutely redefines its internal DNA passed down to progeny? And if this were so, would that not be 'the hand of God' at work for each living organism? If our DNA is 'programmed' by God, through the natural process of our existence, provided we don't die out as a species, then we may very well be alive "for God" as Anonymous seems to suggest. Interesting idea, that we are truly "in the image of God" if this is so. And that, of necessity, means everything we do or think is part of that program, as it interacts with its natural environment for existence, and unless we act to undo that program, we are living within the universe dictated by God. So our freedom to do this, to make our lives as programmed in us over eons of time, since we are the survivors, is most important for us, if we are to do "for God". I would think there should be no doubt that we are endowed with "God's will" in our very existence, provided we don't do things to undo that, such as killing ourselves, or damaging that same delicate fabric of existence for others. Is this not another definition of human freedom, to reciprocally allow for the fabric of life to manifest in us from God's universe? Very interesting idea, truly mind enlightening. Thanks! But then comes the next point: To become conscious of this is to take it to the next level, because we are endowed with a thinking mind. And should it therefore not be our goal? Has religion failed us here??? The ancients who confusedly put together existing religions were groping around in the dark, with no knowledge of natural input performance of DNA, and ended up giving us dogmatic rules and punishments instead, which are a poor substitute for doing "for God". Indeed! But the real question then becomes: What is God's purpose in all this? Ivan | ||||
| Naive |
You know Ivan, I have often said God cannot possibly experience the passage of time, existing in a state of omnipotence. All events would seem simultaneous. By contrast we are the beings which provide a multitude of experiences and viewpoints of the universe to perceive itself. This gives extreme importance to the idea of free will. Without free will, there would be no point for the creation of humanity. I love your idea that perhaps DNA has a sort of conscious filter linked to the life experience of the particular individual. DNA may even represent the fragmentation of God's consciousness, in effect a choice by an omnipotent being to experience time-space in a spontaneous way. Just a thought. Naive | ||||
| Ivan/free-will deterministic |
"By contrast we are the beings which provide a multitude of experiences and viewpoints of the universe to perceive itself. This gives extreme importance to the idea of free will. Without free will, there would be no point for the creation of humanity." - Naive I would take it even one step further: Our 'free will' is a function of emergence of necessity, since the totality of the parts creates something new and unforeseen in the parts. So even if the universe, through its interrelationship totality, was to be fully deterministic, it would still emerge into something unpredictable in the future, ie., free will. And it is That what gets programmed into our human DNA, as determined by the universe, our Free Will in God... and that is why we would die for it... because our 'free will' is from God. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/new imperative |
Personal responsibility as a 'territorial' imperative.  Robert Ardrey's "The Territorial Imperative" True, this is a very strange title. But there is a way to understand this on a multi-dimensional level. This is not a direct link to Ardrey's theory of 'property and nations' as a territorial imperative, but conversely a theory of our personal behavior as a product of that same territorial-multi-dimensional imperative, in us. Think of a territorial grid. For illustration purposes, imagine a grid of back yards in your neighborhood filled with stray cats. They will form in prides, or colonies, which are independent of other prides, usually in conflict with them, but each sticking to their own territories for food scraps. Occasionally they will stray into other territories, especially the males for mating, but most often keep to their own. Now imagine that these 'territories' exist in each person's mind, so what is in that mind is essentially divided up into belief systems that regulate the mind's activities. Occasionally the mind will search elsewhere for new ideas, but mostly it is content to live on the scraps of knowledge it possesses in its own grid. Next, think of how the mind processes information in a primitive society. The ideas prevalent and accepted by the group forms a kind of grid within which individuals will perform their tasks, or form their beliefs. If they stray out of the grid by too far, the social group will then push them back into their proper place. Usually there are demarcations of dress allowed, or functions allowed, such as slave or master functions, and most often what ideas are allowed to be believed. But this is only one dimension. Then there is the dimension of how food is procured and distributed, or another dimension of how women are acquired for procreation. In a primitive society, all these are carefully spelled out, as a kind of multi-dimensional grid of the mind, so everyone knows their place and function inside the grid. Usually these are further spelled out through religious beliefs and practices, so such things as right behavior, or moral habits and thoughts, or right prayers routines, are again carefully spelled out for the group, where all will obey them. Submission to the group think, in effect, is the territorial imperative each individual must obey. That is how it is, and all through human evolution was, the imperative for individual behaviors. You were part of a grid, on many dimensional levels, that dictated every aspect of your life, whether or not you agreed with it. The social territorial grid, in effect, defined you for you. Now a major turning point in civilization takes place, where the group is still valued but of equal, and at times overriding imperative, the individual is accorded a special personal grid within which they can act at a personal level. This opens up a new horizon, where each individual is now able and expected to discover social truths not as defined by the group but by the individuals themselves. In each living person, in effect, is created a new grid map of the social imperative, an entirely new dimensional experience of the grid map, where by finding out truths for ourselves we now define our actions and beliefs per this self discovery of what is true, for us. This may be traced back to the European Renaissance, where the religious authority is challenged by scientific fact finding, and truths, so that the new grid map exists not within the social context exclusively but also as a new kind of territorial map within each person's mind. This as a totally new idea, a holistically different approach to finding out what is true, not as dictated by the social grid but now by the map of understanding cultivated within each person's experiences in life, and what they learned from them. This is the birth of the individual, and at times the individual's life lessons will conflict with the belief systems of the group. When this happened, civilization took a totally different turn, from the primitive to the modern, where ideas in and of themselves took on value, not as we are told to believe them but as we find out their truths ourselves. But this self truth comes at a price. Now the social grid imperative is not dictated by the group but by the individual's beliefs within the group. Stray too far outside the primitive grid imperative and the individual is either reprimanded or punished, in extreme cases banished or killed, for having strayed too far outside the grid map of what is socially acceptable. In primitive societies this could never happen, since the individual's beliefs is strictly defined, but in modern societies it falls upon the individual at all times to fit into the group per their own personal truths, or suffer ostracism and social punishment. So if gays want to be married, rather than stoned to death, or families want to have more freedom, rather than being ostracized, the group's power over their behaviors become subordinated to the wishes of the individuals who choose to live alternatively from how lives the group. The price, therefore, is that of personal responsibility, to not disturb the social fabric, or territorial imperative grid, but to find ways to coexist within it. This is a transitory step, and if no one is offended or coerced, there is not problem. Freedom is that which we are allowed to do with good conscience without disturbing the others. However, this personal responsibility imperative is not always easy to accommodate, and at times conflicts will result. The end product is a social network of laws and courts to have all parties accommodated per their personal beliefs and actions, without having to create conflict or hurt against others, so that social harmony can coexist with personal freedoms. This is transitional because it is not firm but a process, an evolutionary stage of human behaviors within the grid of our social imperatives, that we are free to discover our own truths and live by them, but at the same time must respect those same truths in others. The way this evolution has manifest thus far is through laws, constitutionally formed governments by social agreement, and ultimately an evolutionary process where the individual through education and reason is encouraged to truly discover themselves. Each person is worthy not because of how the group defines them, and all their beliefs and activities, but because each person is inherently worthy as an individual with a thinking mind. When formalized into laws that guarantee this freedom to be oneself, concurrent with personal responsibility of reason and actions in relation to others, and oneself to not damage one's life, the social network based upon such laws becomes the socially agreed upon constitutional government of the land. This is how freedom works. The conflict between primitive society, where the social imperative is entirely dictated by the group's ideology or religious beliefs, with modern society, where the imperative in now mapped within each person's beliefs and actions, is of necessity the evolutionary step humanity must make to reach full freedom of personal responsibility. Not all can do this. Some minds will find comfort only within the social map of group beliefs, which is why religions have had such a strong hold on humanity for so long, while other individuals will find greater comfort within the uncharted waters of personal freedoms. Nowhere is this conflict more evident than in the diametrically opposite lifestyles of people of the Muslim faiths and those of the secular world. These two worlds are now in a death grapple for dominance, one as a primitive submission to group think, while the other freeing itself from dogma to find its individual personal truths of reason. Which will win out? This is the great challenge of modern history, where Islam's groups submission is pitched against the Western values of individual freedom. Until it is resolved, humanity will be held back from reaching its full potential. The truths we find must be real, reasonable and true in a scientific sense, that they can be tested against reality, if they are to be absorbed by individual minds as true. No longer is what the group thinks, often superstitiously ignorant in its beliefs, acceptable to a modern mind. Our freedoms are too important to be given up to ancient superstitions and group think controls. We must reach for truth through education and reason, and through the outcome of our personal beliefs on a social grand scale, what is now the new social imperative grid map of what we may or may not believe as true. In effect, reality is now what dictates for us what is true, and not what had been accepted as true for eons of humanity in its primitive state. Christianity and Judaism, and to some extent the Eastern religions of Buddhism and Hinduism, had already made the transition towards leaving religion as a personal experience, but Islam is still operating within the old paradigm of a total group ideology to dictate to the individual. In Islam, the individual's sense of inquiry and discovery is discouraged, or even punished, sometimes with draconian punishments like stonings or hanging, or death, if it goes against the group total submission paradigm. This is in direct conflict with the new paradigm of finding out the truth for oneself. The old social imperative grid map was two dimensional, like the back yard grid for stray cats, contentious and clanish. The new social imperative is now inside each individual, at multi-dimensional levels from social interactions to questioning and explorations at a personal level, where the grid map is not only three dimensional but multi-dimensional. This at times leads to confusion, bad interactions with others, and even psychological unease. But this is a necessary step to move away from the primitive to the modern. If this can be done without fear of ostracism or punishments, then the individual can gain stature in his or her freedom to become one with his or her reality, in the truths they discover through themselves, and grow. But that requires the price paid, that of personal responsibility for all our thoughts and actions. When it does happen, then something new and grand opens up for society, and it shines in ways it had never done. Primitive society holds us back, while modern society allows us to grow to our full human potential. Look around, travel, visit with other cultures, and you will see this above thesis is self evident. I know, because after having visited over thirty countries I have seen it. We are on the threshold as a human species of this planet of something truly wonderful. Do not squander humanity to primitive restrictions on personal responsibility. Our freedoms are the future, where you define you for you. That is the new social imperative paradigm. Once this is accepted socially, a new evolutionary step of humanity has just taken place, where the individual responsible for his or her actions is the new basis of social belief, the new social imperative, of which tolerance and reciprocity are merely byproducts. And the resulting emergent future is brilliant. Humanity can now reach for its full potential in their individual mind paradigms, as fully conscious human beings responsible for themselves as individuals, universally. That is the true power of Freedom. Ivan | ||||
| Janu3 |
Three faces of Janus, from Ardrey's book.  JANUS of Latium, bust at Vatican Chapter 9:
I would say the subject of this world symposium will not be First Causes. It will be First Principles. There was no big-Bang. All's fair in love and war, to be who we are?
Janu3 | ||||
| Ivan/moral dualism |
The Good-Bad, or True-False Dualism-moralism under One God.  Ying-yang 'dualism' (interactive-Wiki) In the postmodernist concept there really truly is no 'good bad' or 'true false' dualism in reality, but many shades of what is 'tendency' towards one way or another. For example Ms. Coleman writes in her paper: From Models of God to a Model of Gods: How Whiteheadian Metaphysics Facilitates Western Language Discussion of Divine Multiplicity - Philosophia Journal
In this kind of "religious pluralism" there can be many areas where the 'good bad' will intersect, while the 'true false' may become obscured by the observer, such as happens in quantum mechanics observations, and a truly really hard reality becomes difficult, if not impossible, to define on purely dualistic terms. There are too many variables that conflict with the obviously observed to be absolutely true or false, and likewise good or bad. I like to think the best we can do in this Janus-like reality we live in is that it is totally interrelated as One Reality, and it is 'we' who are in it as observers to wrestle with some sort of dualistic nature seen; while in fact that dualistic nature exists only in us. We see things as true or false, while for reality it is for itself always true. Ergo, in reality it is all beyond the good or bad label, because for itself it is always what it is, and in and of itself it has no moral balance within which to measure itself. But we do! And therefore, ergo, it is for us to define what that balance between good and evil is to be, but not to pin the blame on the One Reality, which is forever, and has been forever, innocent of our duality. We must stop projecting ourselves onto God, which is the One Reality, with our two-faced Janus-like moral dualism. God is innocent of our moralist duality. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/Liberty Principles |
Five basic Human Principles of Freedom:
The Statue of Liberty, Liberty Leading the People 1. You are you, and have a right to be you. These Principles of Human Liberty apply equally to all human beings, safeguarding everyone's freedom of thought, of belief, of expression, of privacy, and of one's life pursuits as chosen willfully by all people of the planet. Our human reason is the mechanism that allows us to make choices in life that ensure these freedoms, both for ourselves and for others. When you are free, you are you, as life has granted you the right to be Who you are. Safeguard this freedom with your life, because without it you are spiritually dead, and a slave to others. Slavery is death of a human soul. Be aware and believe this in principle, that will set you free. And with this freedom of reason, go and discover the universe. That is our human legacy as free human beings. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/freedom internet |
Free speech on the internet protected. When our freedom of speech is threatened, it is necessary to step up to the challenge and protect it from attacks. This is what a consortium of Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo have sought to do. It is an important first step to safeguard this most fundamental human freedom to protect our human rights. Tech giants in human rights deal, BBC News.  "When you see the industry being caught up in the tactics of various regimes around the world, the business case is very clear. Freedom of expression and privacy is core to their business."
This is a matter of basic principles that drive our societies to achieve in freedom what they can never do in a censored politicized repression world. We must have freedom of expression if anything else is worth the dignity of our human being. No one, no government, or any group is exempt from inquiry and criticism. If they too value truth, they would welcome it of their own, and not condemn it. Freedom of information, like speech, is a basic human right. Ivan | ||||
| Ivan/not science Posted From: 69.237.42.83 |
A New Kind of Science? Not reality, not really.  (interactive) Turing machine, busy beaver computations I got to about page 400 on Stephen Wolfram's "A New Kind of Science" on which I had written earlier, June 7, 2008, but came up against a stumbling block in the thesis presented: Cellular automata make a good story, but it is divorced from reality in the end. Here is an edited entry into my book review at Amazon: "I very much enjoyed the first half of New Kind of Science, especially about the cellular automata. I think Stephen Wolfram is brilliant. But he falls short in the second half when he applies these principles to biology. It may work for crystalline structures, but not biology. The reason is that organisms have a larger environment, one NOT defined by cellular automata dynamics, that must defer to what reality presents for the organism's survival. That greater reality is what will shape success or failure in any derived products, whether stronger and longer limbs, or colors, or teeth. It is that which spells success or failure, not the randomness of what simple mutations from cellular automata will generate. I think in this way, Wolfram falls in love with his story, but is not being realistic as to what in the end defines survival of species. Nice story, great idea, but it is lacking depth of reality, which makes it too one sided to become science. Fiction perhaps, or art, but not science." So in the end, Wolfram's ideas fall short, because he cannot see something so obvious that without it all life would cease: The species, and individual organisms, must operate within the greater reality of environment within which they exist. Without that, anything is possible, and simple cellular-automata may work; but within context of that greater universal reality, only those things that 'survive' such reality in fact can exist. This is the great shortcoming of Wolfram's idea, which means it is fine as a computer model, or philosophical model, and art, but it seriously is not science. And seeing this glaring hole in his idea makes it very difficult to take the rest of it seriously, alas. The universe was there first, and Wolfram's one sided idea is a simple second. Therefore, this is not 'a new kind of science' but another interesting and fun speculation, no more, though it does reveal a certain inanimate order of things. But in reality, when alive with a successful biology, reality always rules. Here is a collection of book reviews on this book: http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~eclark/ANKOS_reviews.html Ivan Ps: See NewScientist article update on Wolfram: Stephen Wolfram: 'I'm an information pack rat' (Dec. 9, 2009) | ||||
| Ivan/Cosmic beings |
Be True to your Cosmic Space.  (interactive) Wonder... You may not believe in God, and neither can I truly define what God is to me, but there is something in the universe that is us far bigger than we are. For example, is the universe a wondrously complex intelligence conscious of itself, i.e., God, or just wondrously complex with intelligence, i.e., I am? Either way, each one of us has a special 'cosmic space' in this existence that is wondrously complex and, if we choose, wondrously intelligent with our intimate humanity. Each one of us is a Cosmic space that is intimately Who we are. That is the space we occupy cosmically, even spiritually, as a living, breathing, intelligent and feeling being, which is equally the same for all human beings. That space is sacrosanct as an inviolable temple of our existence, which one may enter only by invitation, and approached only with permission of the other. And once that space is entered, it is a loving place full of human intimacy, that true self which is offered to others, and which may be accepted only on condition of total respect for the other. This is our most holy place, our being open cosmically to another being, which is a gift of infinite proportions that let us into their soul. There is no way to describe this special Cosmic space but through an intimate agreement with the other, that their love lets you enter into their being so spiritual that to understand it fully would leave one in total awe. This is Who we are, and to this certain laws of life must apply, if we are to be ourselves as free human beings. Same as there are five basic principles of Human freedom, there are five basic principles of our Cosmic space: 1. Have the courage to always be true to yourself, and true to your word. I believe these are values of our existence as human beings that are innate to us and universal, that we all have the ability to do this. But for some of us this value is lost in the turmoils of life, and we forget. Do not forget how valuable you are as a human being, and remember the same for all others. Then a wonderfully magical thing happens, where you begin to see and understand each human being as a special Cosmic space reflecting all of existence, or God, Who made us into Who we are. There is no mystery once we become conscious of this, because it is how the universe made us into Conscious human beings. The rest follows of its own, we are Cosmic beings. This is what is meant by "Trust in God." Ivan |
