Kevin Brian Carroll

This conversation is closed.

If we do not establish and enforce fundamental reality anchors, we will never survive as an intellectual species.

"Energy cannot be created nor destroyed"

"Perception is Reality"

The first statement - taken completely out of context from its original application, as part of Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics, in reference to energy usage within a closed mechanical system - has been used to argue for the notion that infinite physical existence is not a logical aberration, and the second statement is an irresponsible colloquialism that's been elevated to axiomatic status and is now used to deny the fact of ramification, progressive development, time, and reality itself as being real.

And this is regularly occurring among people whose job it is to translate reality indications for the rest of us.

The implications, as these kinds of blatant errors are propagated throughout all levels of modern culture should be obvious, but it seems as if the insidious effect of these sorts of fundamental level errors are actually blunting the obviousness of these implications as well as promoting additional errors that would normally not be allowed to persist in an intellectual atmosphere that's more responsible and less casual.

If reality itself can't be, or won't be, successfully defended, then what chance do we have as a thinking species? It seems as if, as our advancing technologies debunk our wisdom inaccuracies, we respond by dismissing the notion that accuracy exists at all. Quantum mechanics challenges our traditional truths concerning reality, so we declare reality to be whatever we perceive it to be. And the crowd goes wild with approval.

Reality exists, and it's not malleable per individual perception. Nothing exists that did not first come into existence. Eternal existence is not the same as infinite presence. There is a foundation that allows for the existence of all that exists, and that foundation can be determined. Someone needs to make a stand on behalf of reality, or we're not going to survive as the only intellectual species on this planet. The foolishness has to stop.

  • thumb
    Mar 4 2012: Why would we need to survive as an intellectual species?
    We are connected with nature through our feeling properties where intellectualism is a mere tool to create order in our perceived world to work in it to our contentment.
    As any tool is ever replaced by better one's to serve our needs this will not be different with the intellect but it is dangerous to see the mind as our being where it is only a momentarily state of perceiving our existence. The mind is filled with content of different origins as only the part that we can talk about we call reality while the larger part we call unconscious is neglected and blanked out.

    We evolve as a species by becoming more aware of that unconscious parts and extend our mind as a tool to work with it.

    By fixing reality we prevent ourselves from developing. More the opposite of what you fear as I understand you well.
    • thumb
      Mar 4 2012: [Why would we need to survive as an intellectual species?]

      um...because that's the kind of species we are. We don't get to choose the nature of our own corporeal existence, and the indications are that once we've tossed the corporeal husk into a box and shoveled dirt over it, the human being that once gave that husk sentience carries on as a 100% Intellectual life form. This suggests that the fully viable human being (the version that exists when all the gestational processes have completed) is nothing but Intellect as a physical form of information.

      Believe me, your ultimate expression as a human being is your Intellectual expression. Deny it if you want to, but even denying it is an intellectual expression that you create. You can't wish it away and you can't escape it.
      • thumb
        Mar 5 2012: As I see it, intellectualism only is a feature of our species that has to be transcended by love as the heart is reinstalled at its rightfull place. The intellect is the servant, handy but limited.
        If we as a species survive some time longer it isn't because of our intellect but by our ability to care for eachother and life in general.
        The motivation of our actions is what counts in the end.
        • thumb
          Mar 6 2012: Hear hear! Well said.
        • thumb
          Mar 6 2012: Intellect is what your brain produces as dynamic informational bursts, and it can contain love, hate, joy, sorrow, wonder, regret, anger, compassion, and even blends of many emotions and reactions at once. You can't NOT generate Intellect with your brain. It's what your brain does, and it does it in service of the rest of your corporeal body. It's a survival system.

          Caring about others is a uniquely human quality that only exists within indivisible bursts of Intellect. Animals can achieve a symbiosis with other animals, but they haven't the capacity for genuine compassion - agape love. That's an intellectual quality, and is what makes human beings unique. If a corporeal organism IS capable of that form of transcendence, then - to be accurate - it also qualifies as human, even if it's not a Homo Sapien human. It's that capacity for intellectual transcendence - the ability to act against the DNA survival protocols on behalf of something or someone else is what separates the human being from other brain-equipped creatures.

          Intellectualism isn't the same as being an intellectual being any more than racism is the same as being the member of a specific race. Terminology is important, and you're not working with the same terminology that I am. I never said anything about intellectualism. I'm going to assume that you didn't introduce that canard intentionally.

          Oh, and the heart...it's a blood pump. Yep, that's all it is. It's not a center of love or wisdom. Just a blood pump and that's the reality of what it is.
      • thumb
        Mar 7 2012: I see your point Kevin.

        My view however is a universal one or holistic if you like. Intelligence builds up from the first atoms, molecules and cells up to our human form.
        Anything exists because of everything else wherewith it shares the same history of development and participates in the totality of being.
        The heart in this is that singularity of origin, the source of a life force that pushes through the arteries of time and space. This point contains all force and knowledge as a potency which it communicates through our feeling senses. The older part of our nervous system is more susceptible to its unspoken language than the brain, it mostly is heartfelt and the body's responses we call emotions.

        To be connected to the heart is the way to be in harmony with the universe and play our unique part in its orchestra. The theme is love and as we see it, we see beauty.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: The "older part of our nervous system" is dominated by the DNA "residual" information dictates, and we do feel this more viscerally than the ruminations that busy our brains as we make our way through life. That said, what you're describing is our more carnal, animal nature and that part of our total selves is less transcendent than the "intellectual" part.

          Freud called it the Id. It is focused on survival of the corporeal whole - period. It is only capable of that very specific focus, and little else.

          I don't know. I think that while the human intellect is capable of truly malignant thought, it's also capable of authentic selflessness and unconditional love. It's that amazing range that makes human intellect the epitome expression that it is.

          Yes, the human intellect exists as the result of an amazing progression of physical development. We can agree on that at least.
      • thumb
        Mar 9 2012: Quote: "Freud called it the Id. It is focused on survival of the corporeal whole - period. It is only capable of that very specific focus, and little else."

        I never was much impressed by the ideas of Freud. He wasn't capable of following Carl Jung into the depths of our psyche as few people were at that time.

        What you call carnal, animal nature is that level where we are connected to nature. Modern people often are disconnected from it by the all energy consuming intellectual faculty, oblivious of the heart of things..

        Meditation can restore this separation. By blocking the stream of input from our senses we empty our mind to perceive the more subtle impressions that will reveal the true nature of self.
    • thumb
      Mar 9 2012: I Agree with your views Frans!
  • thumb
    Mar 4 2012: This is very interesting.
    The funny thing is that humans are biologically drawn to the idea that there is "more to this", something out there that was to be computed out into existence, instead of directly interpretated by our inborn software.
    Until very recently the "thing out there" was fiction, parochial concepts, a toolkit for spiritual survival. With science, the "thing out there" has become "objective reality".

    The thing about the idea of objective reality is that, unlike myth, you never know anything for certain. This bothers the people that need the spiritual toolkit. Hence, as you say, quantum physics is reduced to some kind of consciousness-centered explanation of the cosmos by intellectually lazy gurus who are still drawn to the fictionnal "outside of the cave".
    And I completely agree with what you say. And so far, the only thing that has been saving us from total destruction is the concept of reality. The reason why this planet can support 7 billion people is that some guys are constantly building theories, constantly closing in on an infinite set of problems, with objective reality as their target.

    The idea of progress is only possible with the idea of reality. Though we were not originally evolved to deal with this, objective reality is our perk as a creative species.

    I stand with you on behalf of reality.
  • thumb
    Mar 16 2012: I'm ready today how about the rest of you?
  • thumb
    Mar 11 2012: we live in a world of laws that are not logical start their its true are civilization foundation was law know its the world economy so what the next stage? i support your effort and thank you for tell your view progressive thoughts need authority in the world system. but it must united acceptance first of we are just typeing frustration and blame.
  • Mar 6 2012: I find the very notion of "Reality is" very absurd since it would suggest inherent value to reality, which reality cannot have, as reality cannot be anything but a reality to truly be 'objective reality'. On the contrary, "Perception is Reality" would suggest that reality does NOT have an inherent value as we only can create the 'is' through perception - a subjective process in which we give things values, in this context.

    For the remaining part I tip my hat to Frans Kellner for his insights, as I too believe that intellectuality only is one aspect of the human (mind).
    • thumb
      Mar 6 2012: And this is exactly the problem that I'm seeing. Convoluted phraseology being presented as intricate wisdom. Your statement "I find the very notion of "Reality is" very absurd since it would suggest inherent value to reality, which reality cannot have, as reality cannot be anything but a reality to truly be 'objective reality'." appears at first glance to be a profound statement, but upon closer analysis, it really starts to come undone.

      Let's look at it - "I find the very notion of "Reality is" very absurd since it would suggest inherent value to reality, which reality cannot have,"

      Suggesting inherent value? And in what way is allowing a factually established contextual relationship between two or more existential wholes to be labeled with a identifying term suggesting anything other than what any such term - given to anything at all - suggests? I'm stumped. Maybe if I examine the 2nd half of your assertion I can make sense of what you're suggesting.

      Okay...here goes - "as reality cannot be anything but a reality to truly be 'objective reality'."

      Huh? um....what? I'm completely baffled as to how the 1st half makes sense with the 2nd half of your declaration, and how either (or both) presents anything at all relative to the topic being discussed. It's as if you threw a box of refrigerator word magnets down the stairs and then cobbled together something that sounded profound to you from the pieces that were face-up in the wreckage. I really can't connect the 2nd sentence with either half of the 1st sentence, so I don't know if you agree with "Perception is Reality" or not.

      It's not wisdom if it doesn't make sense, and to be blunt about it, it's not good that this kind of Yodaism is what is passing for philosophy and profound thought these days.
      • Mar 6 2012: It's not meant as wisdom, it's presenting the problem in the way that I perceive it.

        I find it extremely hard to define reality as (so to say) "being" objective, because once we define something we give the word(symbol) an inherent value, meaning that once we say the word we tell others how they should (in their interpretation) perceive whatever we are talking about. At that point, we may not even be talking about the same thing any more, and then who knows what reality really is supposed to be defined as?

        "Suggesting inherent value? And in what way is allowing a factually established contextual relationship between two or more existential wholes to be labeled with a identifying term suggesting anything other than what any such term - given to anything at all - suggests?"
        Yes, words have the value that we give them. So how can you be sure that you are talking about the same thing? You cannot, so that is why I think "Perception is Reality" is a better as a common middle ground. Why? Because then we can truly have an objective middle ground, that our reality is subjectively created, and that there is "something unspoken out there" that we can measure so that we can merge our realities together in the best possible way. And that would in my opinion be a much stronger ground for objective studies as it can acknowledge subjectivity and objectivity at the same time, without confusing one for the other, ie the base problem of "reality is".

        ", so I don't know if you agree with "Perception is Reality" or not."
        Don't worry, I don't know either.

        "It's not wisdom if it doesn't make sense, and to be blunt about it, it's not good that this kind of Yodaism is what is passing for philosophy and profound thought these days."
        If I didn't hold high respect for you I'd go on much harder, but consider this: If it is true that our Universe exists inside of a singularity, and it doesn't make any sense whatsoever, then tell me, would that still not qualify as wisdom?
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: [meaning that once we say the word we tell others how they should (in their interpretation) perceive whatever we are talking about.]

          Not necessarily. Language is required for detailed communication, and yes an agreed upon glossary is helpful, but terms aside, the defined something is still a true something - regardless of the label. That means that a person's perception cannot change what it is.

          [ I think "Perception is Reality" is a better as a common middle ground. Why? Because then we can truly have an objective middle ground, that our reality is subjectively created, and that there is "something unspoken out there" that we can measure so that we can merge our realities together in the best possible way.]

          You don't have that authority. Sorry. I know that this seems unfair, but reality exists and you are only one aspect of reality. It doesn't belong to you and it's not subject to your interpretation of it. This is what's wrong with neo-philosophy. It's not responsible and it's not even trying to determine the true nature of reality. Go as hard as you wish. It won't reconfigure reality to suit you. You're not holding the cards that you think you're holding in this hand. Believe what you like. It doesn't matter what you believe in this case.
      • Mar 8 2012: Have you never wondered why so few can read your writings? And even fewer actually bother to read your book? And then again even fewer actually understands you? Because they don't share your vision of how the nature of reality is. They don't even share base definitions on all words with you. Heck, most doesn't even know what you are saying, to them you may just as well be speaking French. They don't understand you, Kevin. I do, and I offer you an alternative interpretation of your precious reality that still would keep your sense for objectivity happy, while at the same time, people who think you may be speaking French also can be, within the same definition without having to affect or change anyone else. Until I looked it up in the dictionary, I thought that corporeal was some sort of incorporeality, and this is just the tip of the iceberg when words, and in particular doggerel expressions are used and distort the core message, the essence that you want to speak about. I'm looking you in the eyes, here and now.

        I never claimed to have any authority whatsoever. The only authority that I claim to have is over my own opinion.You don't have to agree with me, because I understand that an unstructured world may be uncomfortable to some in the same way that a structured world is uncomfortable for me. I simply offer something that can unify us both, but if you rather keep insulting me I can't help you to look outside your concrete box. The cards that I hold are not of unquestionable logic and truth, but that of emotion and subjective perception, and yours is out of sync with most other people. That's why no one understands you, and you try to resort to more accurate wording, when in reality (no pun intended), you alienate yourself further from everyone else and reality.

        I don't demand that you from now on have to appreciate abstract concepts, but the very least you can do is to open that bubble, or concrete box of yours, and look me in the eyes when you say something.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: Ha!

          Well, I certainly got your attention.

          Corporeal is a very common word. Doggerel - not so common, but I do know what it means and it's pretty derogatory, but that's okay. I did invite you to be blunt with me. No harm done or perceived.

          We all have our perceptions, but the fact that those perceptions exist demands the existence of a rigid and immutable structure of contextual precedence, and whether you believe it exists or not is not germane to the issue of whether it does exist or not. Your belief is your own creation, and only you can possibly experience it. You can try to share it, but since it is subjective to begin with, any perception translation of that belief will be inherently incomplete or erroneous in some manner. That's the nature of subjectivity. Especially within the realm of communication.

          You make the claim that "no one understands" my writing. That's quite a statement, since you have no idea who it is that has ever tried and succeeded or failed to do so. I wouldn't have ever made such a statement, since I realize that I could never know such a statement to be true about anyone else or about how their written views have been received by others. I do not have a capacity for impossible knowledge, and I wouldn't ever claim such capacity.

          As for your authoritative opinion, this is the TED community, and all opinions are welcome and open to challenge. You're free to express your opinion and so am I. I welcome your challenges here, and see them as an opportunity to vet my own assertions. I have no illusions concerning the original nature of my ideas, but I have published a very concise and - so far - extremely sound logical argument for the veracity of my ideas as a defined and fully developed theory concerning the true nature of physical existence within the reality confine that contains all of us. Over 30 professionals have offered to debunk it, and none have succeeded (by their own admission).

          That might be an important indication.
      • Mar 8 2012: lol, well Swedish is my native tongue, not English, so I used a dictionary in both directions.

        I agree with you, but my reasoning is that there is a significant and more beneficial objective truth to the statement that everyone has their own subjective reality. Then we can agree on the fact that we experience things differently, a highly objective observation. Trying to mash subjective and objective reality together as one is pointless, as it only will create more confusion. Let me give you a concrete example: If it's real to me that subjectivity is important, and it isn't real to you that subjectivity is important we can actually agree to disagree, and from there have a platform to stand on together, we have then successfully created a common reality between us.

        And this bears repeating, the cards that I hold are not of unquestionable logic and truth, but that of emotion and subjective perception. Something told you to go here, and it wasn't logic: "Since then I've been nearly everywhere in search of someone who can successfully debunk the information and conclusions that are contained within that book."

        You bent the universe to your will, didn't you? I hold some of the keys that you have been yearning for. We're not all that different you and I, the best thing we know is when we are proved wrong, because we simply love the sensation of expanding our consciousness even more. You had someone who always seemed to know things that you never could understand, didn't you? Isn't that what took you here, to me, on your journey for wisdom? I'm not genuinely authoritative, I'm just trying to shatter the box you made for yourself out of concrete, because you really did pray for it to happen. Don't ask why, ask how. I can confirm that you're not delusional, you're just a bit tied down at the moment.

        Oh, I almost forgot: Challenge accepted. (But you have to meet me half way though, I'm not good with cold facts and can easily wander of to daydreaming)
        • thumb
          Mar 10 2012: The human mind is naturally gifted with the capacity for subjective experience, and while this is its brilliance and priceless value to the objective realm, it has to deal with the fact that the rest of reality is not subjective and is incapable of subjectivity. We, as human minds, are exceptional. That said, we are at a crossroad - as Earth-centric Homo Sapien human beings - where our scientific and technological advances have created a true perception/perspective crisis within the societies that embrace those modern scientific and technological advances as being proven and dependable translations of what does and can exist as opposed to doesn't and cannot exist.

          My effort has been to find commonality between what has traditionally been believed and what has come to light in recent times as being obviously true. And I believe that I have found that common ground. That said, it does require a very different and fundamental way of approaching the nature of physical reality and the structure that provides stability and consistency to that reality as a physical manifestation of progressive development.

          Subjectivity - in this case - is acknowledged and even celebrated. However, what I'm working to verify is not the nature or limitations of human subjectivity, but the true nature of objective reality and the impact it has on the human being as a subjective perception author that exists within an otherwise objective reality.

          In the meantime, what I've run into is a lot of negative reactions to my efforts to validate fundamental reality anchors, by those who see my efforts as oppression of human imagination or, even worse, the imprisonment of the human mind; preventing it from taking command of reality and configuring it to serve its own view of what it should be. It's become quite an experience, and even somewhat threatening in isolated instances.

          If you or anyone else is interested in helping me vet this notion, then let me know. It's published and available.
      • Mar 10 2012: You know... I think I can see what you are going for. The problem is however, that there isn't any practical way to differentiate between objective and subjective reality. Subjective reality will always interfere with the objective reality, and the objective reality will always interfere with the subjective reality. And this is what your work is all about, if I'm not mistaken?

        Then let's be rational and see reality as a duality. That's probably the only way that we reality can grasp the true nature of reality. You can't really separate Subjective and Objective in the same fashion that you can't separate Satan from God, they both are dependent on each other and have different views, yet there is only one universe. How can they both fit in to one universe? Religious people have been trying to debunk this for thousands of years in a logical fashion.

        The problem is, now we face a similar duality with Science vs Religion, they both describe the world, but there only is one universe. So how can they both exist at the same time? One has the Thinking Logic, and one has the Intuitive Feeling. Could it perhaps be that they share the same source, that we subjectively only can experience one OR the other the same way that we experience matter as solid OR energy, never both at the same time. we can only determine the speed OR position of an electron, and the list goes on.

        Just maybe, should we try to understand our own limitations before imposing a judgement on how reality is? I think that we have to close our eyes for the Universe to truly try to experience it, because if we don't we only get one half OR the other.

        Humans have a good sense of duality, we somehow feel that it's true that both objective and subjective reality exists, yet we don't feel the need to ask why, because that's how we feel it to be. Once you start applying logic you take the route a OR b, and that is the biggest human limitation of all, and of science as a whole.
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2012: Regardless of whether we can establish the full nature of objective reality, what can be established is that reality is objective, and what constitutes the objective nature of reality. That can be accomplished, with the value achieved that what is easily determined to not be real can be qualified as such to prevent such fallacies from being introduced within debate and/or examination in the future.

          Case in point - the claim that "energy cannot be created nor destroyed" being introduced within a debate concerning the eternal existence of the human consciousness or of consciousness in general. The issue here is that the statement (in quotation marks) is not being accurately applied to the argument under examination. This is an objective fact, since Newton never made that statement in reference to the physical existence of energy being eternal or primordial, but made it in reference to energy production within the confines of a closed mechanical system (1st Law of Thermodynamics). How its improper application is revealed is the logical implications inherent within the nature of ramification, with all relative emergence requiring impetus and incident. Energy is measurable and has a dynamic effect upon that which is physical and relative, therefore it can't posses an absolute being state (or be infinite, which is what is being suggested). Simply put, the statement's improper application is immediately exposed when a very broad and well established reality anchor is applied as an objective comparison/qualifier.

          This is what objective reality reveals by inference and how it does it. The establishment of objective staples will allow this sort of logical inference to stabilize even the most subjective interpretations of what is and what simply cannot be. Why this is something to be objected to is beyond me.
      • Mar 14 2012: How can we establish that reality is objective? Where is the hair that separates objective from subjective?

        Our minds polarize reality, we view it as X or Y when we in reality cannot separate X from Y. We can't even find the defining and dividing hair that separates death from life! We view them as different, but we still hasn't been able to separate them, so what we have now are practical definitions.

        You are so focused on the objective reality that you don't acknowledge the subjective reality being part of it, despite being different at the same time.

        You are trying to draw a map of a paradox, the only one who get's disoriented is You. People who accept subjective and objective at the same time as equals seems to feel so balanced, they don't have to split themselves in two, they just want To Exist and experience everything that comes their way.

        Don't get it? Then think about this:
        Let's say you are to find the hair that separates Black from White on a gradient color scale. At the ends it's very well polarized and you can easily tell, well, that's black and that's white. After you do that you cut away the pieces that you concluded are more Black or more White. Once you start hitting Grey on both ends you can probably tell one from another, but the further you go towards identifying the hair that splits the two, the harder it becomes to separate Black from White. Eventually you'll probably be slicing molecules just to find that "exact spot" where Black and White are separated. I'm not saying that it's impossible, I'm only saying that it's highly impractical to do so. What we can conclude is that we have Objectivity (Black) and then Subjectivity (White) at each ends, but somewhere along the transition it's simply not practical to distinguish one from the other. The most practical thing to do is to call it Grey and let people decide for themselves.

        We don't need to establish anything about objective reality that hasn't already been done.
        • thumb
          Mar 14 2012: The basics are what matter, and the basics are definitely determinable. Here's a quick list of reality basics.

          * Time exists and while it can be perceived as malleable, in reality it isn't. Planck's Constant established the consistency of progression, and by direct logical inference the stability of Time.
          * Logic is the yes/no development foundation of reality's necessary structure and consistency.
          * Ramification can't be "unwound", which means that Time's forward progression can't be reversed by anything that exists as physical in nature.
          * Perception (human consciousness) is an isolated experience that can only be entered into by one human mind.
          * Consciousness, in general, is not primordial, but is the result of an epitome level of progressive development within a contextual environment.
          * Truth exists, even if it generally serves as a relative qualifier.

          So, what is the problem with these basics being agreed upon? What's the problem with their vetting as accurate and immutable anchors? If you can prove any of these assertions to be inaccurate, then have at it. And be sure to include links to responsible (peer reviewed) arguments that definitively support your disagreement with what I've listed above.

          None of the above violate anyone's freedom to fully express themselves or act in a way that they want to act. No one is restricted from doing or being anything that they can actually do or be. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. Reality only allows a specific latitude when it comes to what can and can't happen. Impossible isn't just a word.
      • Mar 14 2012: - We seem to be able to "unplug" from the linear time somehow. Daydreaming, astral projections and OBEs seems to acknowledge this. But this is highly theoretical and abstract, but shows why I disagree.
        - Logic is illogical. Logic is just a polarized paradox, like black and white. Applying logic to reality is like forcing a square root out of 25, you get both -5 and +5 at the same time, a logic polarization. But how practical is it to impose one over the other?
        - Perception is not an isolated experience, it's not unheard of for people intoxicated by psychedelics to walk in to each others minds. theoretical and abstract again, but I'm just giving you basis of disapproval.
        - How can you conclude that a 500 year old oak doesn't have a consciousness? I'm interested in the reasoning here. Being unable to express itself intelligibly by us is automatically disqualified as explanation.

        I've listed a few problems with it, more people will probably have even more objections. You wouldn't have to be on a goose chase if you instead had worked on an enclosure for it to be in.

        The straight-up problem with your definition of reality is that not everyones reality can be contained within it, and that is a huge flaw in the concept. If you still go about the A/B logic stuff, then you have to make sure that exactly everything in this universe can be fit to either A or B in a practical manner (think of the black/white gradient scale). Most goes fine, but eventually you'll run in to serious issues.

        If I define reality as "Everything and Nothing" I kind of win this game, because my definition can fit all other explanations of reality within it. It's bulletproof. By it, logic is just a byproduct of polarization.
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2012: So much of what you've posted here is based on absolutely nothing whatsoever.

          "it's not unheard of for people intoxicated by psychedelics to walk in to each others minds."

          What does that even mean?

          "How can you conclude that a 500 year old oak doesn't have a consciousness? I'm interested in the reasoning here."

          That's patently ludicrous, since the damn thing hasn't got a brain. Sentience isn't a casual byproduct of longevity. If it was, then rocks would be the most brilliant things on the planet. Then again, maybe you think they are. Hell, I can't understand how this last post of yours could be anything other than a joke, so I'm going to let it alone. If you want to believe that you "won" then whatever makes you happy, y'know?

          As it stands right now, there's no available platform here for continuing this exchange. It's just devolved to the point of there being no basis of communication whatsoever.

          Have a nice spring.
      • Mar 16 2012: I didn't say that it was based on science, it was showing how much we can miss if we see philosophy and more subjective realities as nothing but mumbo-jumbo.

        We know that an intellect requires a proportionally large brain, but have we ever established the exact definition of consciousness? Trees are alive after all, they probably can't understand logarithms, but that's not something that is mandatory to even be considered to be part of an intelligent specie. So where do we draw the line? We have to draw a line in the sand if we want to be logical about it, but most people probably don't give even the slightest care if the world isn't logical.

        I haven't "won", if I am to "win" I have to make you understand my viewpoint. I don't have to make you think different about whatever you call "reality", I just have to show you how I think.


        Just for a brief moment, let's simply assume that fate exists.
        Fate, is a ruthless lover. If you are doing right according to the path that was laid down before you Fate will indeed reward you for following through, but if, or rather when you fail, Fate will ruthlessly and with brutal force smack you down to earth, covered in blood, bruises and broken bones. The harder you work against "Fate", the harder you will be punished as a result. If you run around confused, disoriented that is a clear sign that you are heading the wrong way in life.


        This may seem like a paradox to you, but, mental clarity can only be achieved when the thinking mind is silent. You get inspiration and your "Aha!"-moments when you stop thinking logically. Gazing out over yonder at the landscape from the window of a train can easily induce this state of mind, and as such it's also why inspiration and sudden understanding of a complex problem comes "when least expected" by the norm. This is one of many practical implementations of the way of being that I promote.


        I think, therefore I am not;
        Only when the mind is silent, I am
        • thumb
          Mar 16 2012: By your definition of Fate, Jesus battled against Fate his entire ministry until Fate nailed him to a cross and killed him. Gandhi absolutely worked against his own Fate until finally someone took him off the planet entirely. The soldiers who took the beach at Normandy were certainly violating their pre-determined fate when they stormed the guns and got ripped to shreds in the process. Hell, everyone that's ever accomplished anything in defiance of oppression and withering opposition has been uselessly wasting their lives in pursuit of their own ego-driven delusion concerning what their lives were all about.

          Really?

          Achieving serene mental clarity is not the only reason that the human brain is gifted with sentience. In fact, a lot of crippling delusion can parade as mental clarity, but that's something that only life can teach anyone. I certainly can't make that case in 2000 characters or less.

          Here's a link to an essay that I wrote on the nature of human consciousness. It's online and at 8,000 words (8 pages - check the menu button at the bottom), it makes an argument concerning the physical nature of the human brain's production of dynamic sentience. I'm just starting to populate that site with more substantial material, and maybe this piece will show you that I'm not a true reductionist when it comes to the human being and how it develops during the corporeal stage.

          http://www.takingdownthecurtain.com/#!__essays

          I believe in intuition, but I don't believe that it's primordial or universal. I am very familiar with the basics of your view set, and it's not as if I have never investigated its validity.
      • Mar 16 2012: Wow... Just... Wow. I read through all that unintelligible text just to reach a conclusion that pretty much is the exact same as found in standard western hermitic esoterism? Call it what you will, but somehow you reached the exact same conclusion, that your lives purpose is to create a better You, or an Eternal You. That is synonymous with being a magician...

        It's very hard to read, not only because you use unnecessary words, but also because you constantly keep mixing subjective and objective in an extremely confusing fashion. And then after trying to gather enough attention to sift through it all, I am to buy a book written in the same, or possibly worse language?

        I'm speechless... Because it's so funny that in the book that I have right here "Kabbala, Kliffot och den Goetiska Magin" by Thomas Karlsson of Dragon Rogue ( http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Rouge ) that are using "your conclusion" as an important corner stone to the book, where esoteric practices in general from a bit different perspective is presented and is is chock full with what you would call "Yodaism".

        Your work is far from scientific, so take your pick: red pill or blue pill.
        "You take the blue pill – the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill – you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes."


        Oh, the irony.
      • Mar 17 2012: I want to apologize before the thread ends as well for my latest post. You do have some very strong points in your essay, it's just that I think that you are over-complicating things. It's just so much easier to have a more 'spiritual' belief that deals with the same issues in a more simplistic, natural manner. Like the brain-mind split, I can't do anything but to agree, although I may not agree with the reasoning that you used to get there.

        After the thread has closed, go check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JiYLR0tSp4
        I think that's right up your alley, and it should show you, that things doesn't have to be overly complicated, yet still reach the same result. Intellect/Logic is overrated, and I think that is the flaw of your theory in general.

        Don't hesitate to contact me if you still would like to keep up a discussion with me (although at this point I realize that you probably feel like rather having a seizure :)
        • thumb
          Mar 17 2012: The truth is that proving what many of us "feel" to be true is very different, and requires much more work, than simply asserting that what many of us "feel" to be true is - in fact - true. That essay is only 8,000 words, and while it does make assertions, it also states where (specific established theories and research) those assertions came from (assuming that one might have the ambition to go check out those sources if one actually cared enough to do so). In short, it's an essay, not a dissertation. It certainly isn't meant to prove anything, and I state that very clearly throughout the essay itself. I offered it to you as proof that I am not a reductionist, and as nothing more than that.

          You are an obvious psychological predator, and a very fragile person. You need to take a moment to examine your powerful urge to take other people down a peg, and what forces you into action when you run into anyone who seems to have any capacity whatsoever. You were correct in realizing that your previous post was abusive, but you need to realize that you were not able to prevent yourself from typing it out and hitting reply - and for you, that's a much more important issue to examine. Especially if you want to have any shot at achieving your goal of building a healthy, capable human being as your eternal expression.

          I made my points and I'm satisfied with what I've shared in this thread. My goal in life isn't the same as your goal and that's fine with me. We don't agree and I'm satisfied with that. I hope you can be satisfied with that as well.
      • Mar 17 2012: It's not your sources that I accuse, it's your way to write. Often I stopped and thought "Hold on! How did you reach this conclusion?" - that is problematic for me when I read, I don't understand if I can't see the underlying reasoning.

        As in psychopath? Hm, I guess you are right in a sense, I can get lost in the heat of battle. There's a balance between being offensive and weighting that against guilt/consequences for me personally. In this case I did go out very offensive to make sure that you will have a basis to evolve further upon. If people doesn't understand you, then your work is useless to them if they don't get it. That is very important to remember. I clearly see where you are coming from, but I'd say that my motives to that of a predator. I made the decision to let it through. Responsibility - that is one thing that is one trait that I want for my "Eternal Self". (Though if there is an afterlife I assume reincarnation to be a possibility)

        I agree to disagree, it's just that I feel potential in you that is lost without proper communication in and out. I'd say that you need someone (though probably not me) to help you express and explain these ideas, and criticize you along the way to bring out the best in You. for example, logic is not fundamental, "survival of the fittest" is not logic as it didn't require any thought process. That makes your definition of logic different from everyone else, and you need to be able to both understand and explain that to them. That is hard, and is one of the reasons why people simply object and refuse everything else that you have to say.

        I wish you the best of luck, whatever you will do in life.
  • thumb
    Mar 5 2012: Ah i understand now, i apologize,i thought you were lost in a photon,so forgive me for not having a grasp on the language being used.it's nice to see though.
  • Mar 4 2012: I am not even certain I understand the entirety of this conversation. But, there is an element to it that I grasp and I am not sure has been covered. We currently do suffer at a civilizational level from the Thomas theorem's natural outcome. If that which is believed to be true is true in its consequences then the reality that many humans cannot even agree on the most basic scientific facts and instead cling to outdated and disproven colloquial mythologies we will fail to move forward in any meaningful manner to address the crises facing our species.
    • thumb
      Mar 6 2012: It's become even more of a concern because at a visceral level, we know that the outdated and disproven mythologies are wrong, and it actually causes many people to double-down on those myths as a psychological defense mechanism. Imagine the unconscious stress that those brains are dealing with every minute of every day. The human brain is rigidly logical, even if the human mind gives logic the bird in utter contempt of its perceived restrictions. And what the brain suffers, the mind ultimately suffers as well - even if it works to protect itself via cognitive dissonance.

      There are highly successful professional people who absolutely insist that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, and that dinosaur bones exist only to lead the faithless astray. To me, that's almost as terrifying as it is astounding. These are people that make enormous decisions for millions of people, and beneath those judgment calls is a patchwork of fairy tales and bald-faced lies that their brains know full well are fairy tales and bald-faced lies. That battle between mind and brain must be exhausting, and yet they also - and honestly - believe that if they don't keep that war raging within their psyche, there's an ethereal monster that will take everything they love away from them, and ultimately torture them forever.

      And they make enormous decisions for millions of people on a regular basis. In fact, our culture has decided that these are the only people we trust with these enormous decisions. And one wonders why modern life is so aggressively schizoid.
      • thumb
        Mar 7 2012: Kevin, It is somewhat alarming at how you judge people of faith/religion.
        Don't you understand that the reason they need to believe their 'mythologies' is because it fulfills a need and gives structure to their universe that logic DOES NOT! That cognitive dissonance exists in the logic because it is incongruent with experience. Like I said, corporeal reality is never enough. Most of the time they have tried it and found it wanting.

        "The human brain is rigidly logical, even if the human mind gives logic the bird in utter contempt of its perceived restrictions."

        You may be describing your experience and how your brain works but many people will say we are spiritual beings bound to a logical world. They are describing their experience and how their brain works.

        You cannot go around ordering everybody to think the same. Our brains are so much more than logic.
        .
        Your just going to be disappointed that not everybody thinks like you do.
        • Mar 7 2012: Linda, I would say that there is a major difference between having a strong sense of sprituality and believing a "religion". Spirituality is the humbling sense that there are many things about the universe which we do not know and possibly cannot know. It is the sense that there is something much larger to this universe that we can not readily perceive but to which is helps us as individuals if we are open to it. Religion is a series of fantastical ideas made up by humans and passed on to later humans as irrefutable fact handed down by a god made in their own narrow image. The god of the old testament and the god of the q'ran are petty, jealous, power hungry, spiteful, people. Essentially, they are remarkably human. It is perhaps my own vanity that insists that if I were to worship some greater being I would want it to be tremendously better at being human than I can be. If i can be a better human than my god can be, I need a new god.

          It reminds me of Ghandi. He was once challenged to read the bible (I do not know which version). Afer he did as he was asked he said, "I like your Jesus. I do not like your christians, they are not much like your Jesus."

          There is a proven part of our brain which seeks to surpass our logical physical sense of our selves. But, I suspect what it is after is so much more than anything that is offered in most organized religions.
      • thumb
        Mar 8 2012: I agree Sharon 100%. But I also know many many people that need the structure that religion provides. It is still around for very good reasons. Those ancient texts still provide comfort. And people who are seeking to surpass that logical physical self and seek meaning feel safe when the journey is structured for them.

        Not everyone finds logic reasonable. I know that may be weird sounding but it is true. It is not a psychological defense mechanism. They understand the world from that part of their brain.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: The need to transcend reality is one thing. Teaching people that reality is not definitive is something else entirely. Religionists can believe what they wish and I have no opinion whatsoever concerning what they believe. My issue is not with religion. I have a problem with "theoretical physicists" being presented as scientists, and scientific claims being based on imaginary premises. The "10th dimension" is not a proven fact of reality, and yet entire physics theories are based on inane assertions of that ilk. Do a quick Google search of that phrase and you'll find all kinds of junk science being eagerly embraced by devotees of impossible plausibilities and blasting anyone who suggests that reality doesn't bow to their imaginations.

          I'm not attacking religion or imagination. My concern is about reality staples. Time. Causation. Ramification. Contextual juxtaposition. It almost seems like you and I are arguing over different conversations than the one we're actually having.

          Logic isn't reasonable. It's not debatable. It's primordial. It sits at the base of everything that exists and provides the necessary consistency that allows for progressive development of physical existence. That consistency is much more important than reasonableness. Especially since what's reasonable is a judgment call.
      • thumb
        Mar 8 2012: SEE! I knew you could converse! I get it I really do. I understand the whole "People can we please all be on the same page" desire. Holy cats do I understand it. I just had a talk today with my son about the Quasi science surrounding the whole 2012 end of the world stuff. It's not even up to quasi science it is just BS.

        I also understand that logic is primordial but its not the only thing. So is fight or flight and feelings have a lot to do with what we are discussing. You will never be able to tell someone fear is not real. You can provide a different experience but you will never convince them by logic. There are a couple of other primordial human experiences.

        But even with understanding all of the above I still think we cannot say this is real and this is not. And truly truly it is because we are a thinking being.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: I think we're approaching agreement here. :~D

          Human beings are capable of subjectivity and that's the brilliance of the human mind. I write songs and poetry and short stories, and I often live for long stretches within the confines of my own imagination as I'm working on a project. And the things I create are real. Very real. They do exist, and to be very accurate about the physical nature of ideas - like all information that exists, they are the only form of physical existence that persists after the instant of occurrence (the specific instant that we call "now"). Generated information (from a brain) is a form of information that isn't completely passive, but like residual information, it does persist indefinitely once it has been brought into existence.

          Yes, my notions are somewhat different than many traditional notions, but they are based on rock solid fundamentals, as are all things that actually exist as physical. Logic bases everything, but you're right, it's not everything. The human mind transcends the structure that logic maintains, and that's the miracle of the human being. It, alone, is capable of leaving the structure behind and experiencing its own interpretation of what's real.

          That said, its interpretation is only a perceived experience. It doesn't affect the actual nature of objective reality. Nothing can actually do that. That reality is the result of too much that's already occurred. The capacity to unravel all that cause and effect just doesn't exist.
      • Mar 8 2012: "The "10th dimension" is not a proven fact of reality, and yet entire physics theories are based on inane assertions of that ilk. Do a quick Google search of that phrase and you'll find all kinds of junk science being eagerly embraced by devotees of impossible plausibilities and blasting anyone who suggests that reality doesn't bow to their imaginations."

        Can you really argue with Stephen Hawking? He got 200+ IQ. You are bright, no doubt about it, but he is like a human computer. And the collective force of scientists can quite easily out weight you and your arguments, not only with peer number, but also because they don't see any basis for your statements.

        "It [logic] sits at the base of everything that exists and provides the necessary consistency that allows for progressive development of physical existence."
        Do you even know what logic is? I'll cite: "The study of the principles of reasoning", and then, what is reasoning? I'll cite again: "Use of reason, especially to form conclusions, inferences, or judgments." and "Evidence or arguments used in thinking or argumentation." So what you are talking about is starting to sound a lot like "there is this intelligent mind behind everything", with the difference that you don't take dogmas for facts, which is an important difference between you and creationists.
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: Stephen Hawkings hasn't and can't prove the physical existence of the "10th dimension". I'm not sure what his IQ has to do with whether that assertion can be proven or not.

          The impact of logic on reality is too well established for us to actually be debating it as a reasonable controversy. Seriously. Math is the study of Set Logic. There are entire industries that base their capacity to survive as products and services providers on math and the consistency that Set Logic provides. Your computer's mechanical and software structure is based on Boolean Logic. If not for logic, most of what you take for granted as being concrete and dependable wouldn't be possible.

          Humans exploit the dependability and consistency of logic to accomplish technological feats of amazing proportions. Reason is valuable, but logic is primordial. It's how default operates in the physical world. Logic isn't intelligent. It's the difference between progressive development moving in one of two directions when it hits a split in the road (so to speak). Precedence (in the form of residual information) indicates which direction was successful and which direction wasn't the last time development came through, and logic is the default "yes" that is imposed by the existential imperative "Survival" when the A/B choice is presented.

          Physicists know this. It's 1st year stuff. We know that this process exists because it's right there in front of us. We've even mimicked it with our digital electronics. AND and OR gates. Nothing more than replicating the basics f progressive development.
        • thumb
          Mar 11 2012: By the way, Stephen Hawking's IQ is only 160. Not 200+. It took less than 30 seconds with Google to determine this to be true. Just a heads up for future debate exchanges. Don't offer facts that can be debunked quickly and definitively if you want to succeed in defending your larger points. Most debaters will eviscerate your credibility by targeting careless assertions like that.
      • Mar 8 2012: Hm... Well, I guess that depends on if you think of mathematical formulas as evidence. e=mc^2 didn't start of with physical evidence behind it, but after testing it in reality we attained nuclear power and nuclear weapons.

        You may say that we had fire long before that, but to be completely honest, we thought that we knew how fire was created, but a new theory came along and we accepted the new, improved explanation of why burning wood gives of heat. And now we're starting to understand how matter can turn in to heat waves. S. Hawking obviously can't provide any physical evidence *giggle*, but somehow he managed to stop ALS from killing him, making him the very incarnation of subjective reality in to this corporeal reality that you are talking about, with the Abstract Thought as his tool. He didn't want to die because of his work, so he simply decided not to. Most people in his situation would probably be tempted to give in to the suffering and simply give up, so that he isn't dead yet really can be seen as miraculous. I mean, is it placebo? If we say yes, maybe we should pay more respect to it and start investigating it for real, because somehow peoples subjective reality affects the corporeal reality (good term btw!).

        Defining details isn't really my cup of tea, but if we're splitting hairs, does Hawkings fit in to the model of either A or B? A) He has a ALS in which he should die only a few days days after it made him paralyzed, or B) He doesn't have a disease and therefore can live.

        Don't question truth when it's right up your nose, taunting you. He is a walking dead by standard biology and medicine, yet he lives. If we play A and B on this one, which one is true? Logic would like to say that A is more true, because he's an error according to logic, but really now? How can someones will to live be an error in logic? Maybe logic isn't fundamental after all, because it still can't explain what we are feeling, and how feelings can distort the corporeal reality.
        • thumb
          Mar 10 2012: That still doesn't say anything about the claim that there is a physical 10th dimension. I'm glad he's still alive, but what's that got to do with anyone's claim that a math formula can provide verification of the physical existence of a 10th dimension?

          Science is about the verification of what is real and consistently dependable. I realize that science is a dog that is forever chasing a car, but even that dog doesn't chase what has no indication of existence - or, at least it never used to chase such things. Now days, there are physicists making absurd claims on the History Channel and Discovery with absolutely nothing at all behind what they're claiming, and other physicists building their claims upon the "foundations" being "built" by those fantastic assertions. Both "scientists" are chasing the money that comes from providing scientific entertainment to reality TV junkies who favor more technically oriented fare over the human drama stuff that litters the rest of cable and broadcast TV. Hell, nothing else is being chased down, that much is pretty obvious.

          Logic is primordial. We humans are an epitome expression of physical development. We're capable of subjective experience, so it's kind of useless to gauge the authority of logic within the structure of physical reality by way of its impact on what we're capable of imagining to be real. The human mind is an existential game changer, but only in the senses of its freedom to experience subjectivity. It can't change the game for the rest of reality. It exists within the confines of reality. It's real, and therefore just a part of reality. Logic provides the structure that is reality. The human mind can go nuts within that structure, but it can't affect that structure.
      • thumb
        Mar 9 2012: Kevin, this is in reply to your comment that starts 'I think we're approaching agreement here.' The reply button sent me here.

        Scientists for the most part understand objective reality. I am personally a big fan. But perception is a bugger and needs to be addressed. For instance, take an object.

        The mathematician says: look this is a dodecahedron, it is composed of 12 sides divisible by...

        The geologist says about the same object: look this is a fine example of quartz crystal. It is dated approximately...

        The chemist says: look this is a fine example of the combination of silicon and oxygen...

        The cosmologist says: look this is a model of the universe. It explains the cosmic microwave background...

        My son-in-law says: look you found the missing piece to my dungeons and dragon set! Where did you...

        All about the same object. All claiming objective reality. All of them are right.

        I know the analogy is somewhat basic but the same statements arise in all sciences. Even within the disciplines themselves.

        That is why as scientists, we not only have to establish our philosophical basis but also our perspective. Objective reality cannot be prescribed. It would limit everything. Even the friend who would tell me to put it back under the couch because bad things began to happen ever since it was found... (being human I would probably give it a try;)
        • thumb
          Mar 10 2012: Perception and translation of that perception is one thing, but reality anchors exist regardless of what's being perceived and translated as having been perceived.

          This is about the linear nature of cause/effect, the permanence of ramification, the primordial nature of logic as a progressive development structural enforcer, the true impact of Set Logic within the relative state of being, Time as a reality staple with the relative being state, survival as the primordial existential imperative, and their dominance within the physical existential confine that we refer to as Reality.

          Nothing is limited. These anchors allow progressive development to exist and succeed. If these basic tenets were not concrete and dependable, the limitations would be insurmountable. Chaos can only exist in the interpreted perception of an observation that has inaccurately judged the scale required to view a selected whole as the whole that it truly is. Once properly viewed, all that exists as a defined whole displays order and relative symmetry, with all apparent chaos revealed as just the complexity that exists within the symmetrical whole. This is the nature of reality and why reality exists and persists.

          This fact is on display at all levels and scales of reality. One or two anomalous indications do not and cannot negate the entire balanced structure that persist. The more plausible explanation for such anomalies is that the established view needs to be broadened that much more to include that anomalous indication's balanced presence with an even larger symmetrical whole than was initially envisioned. After all, an established scale of perspective is much more subjective than the concept of a presence of physical symmetry within an existential whole. The survival of the whole is dependent on physical symmetry, not on the chosen perspective that one uses to perceive it.
  • thumb
    Mar 4 2012: Whoa dude, you have some control issues. I completely disagree with "Nothing exists that did not first come into existence" and you give no rational explanation as to why. Unless of course, you believe in finite space-time but you would have to prove that over infinite space-time. But I do thank you for sharing your belief system.

    I do not understand why you give the responsibility for translating reality to someone else. Have you heard of the Copenhagen Interpretation?

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-copenhagen/

    But I totally understand your concrete box. I would not want to push you outside of it creatively or anything. You can live in the box and clean it and rearrange the furniture to your hearts content. Abstract theory must be a really scary thing. Enforceable reality. Too funny.
    • thumb
      Mar 4 2012: This a moral issue, not a control issue. If it can be proven - with set logic and/or the very internal logical structure of the claim itself - that a specific assertion concerning the nature of humanity, reality, or the human being's relationship with reality, is not only false, but that its widespread acceptance is a detriment to the corporeal and eternal survival of human beings, then eliminating that assertion as a cultural belief anchor is a moral imperative - that is, if morality involves doing what is beneficial to the human species as a whole, and not just doing what is beneficial for a select few within that whole and to the detriment of the rest.

      If it can be proven that reality does and must exist, and if it can be proven that an axiomatic assertion - especially one that has a powerful impact on the survival decisions of billions of human beings - is, in fact, completely false, and even damaging to the overall psyche of a large % of human beings, then why wouldn't the eradication of that axiomatic assertion be a moral obligation? If this can be proven, then how is the greater good being served by allowing a powerful minority to leverage such a lie?

      This is about eliminating human control over other human beings. This is about allowing humanity to finally address the schism that exists within the deepest center of the mind. The one that tells most of us that what we believe is not supported by what we know. In fact, it's debunked by what we know.

      You see, we consciously don't realize what our brains have detected concerning what's real and verifiable. Cognitive dissonance protects us from that reality clash, but it doesn't prevent that processed information from existing within our brains' historical continuum. It just forces our brains to constantly struggle with the logical dichotomy, as more and more information contradicts what logic has established and verified as objective reality.

      Our minds can only pretend that the schism doesn't exist.
    • thumb
      Mar 4 2012: [ I completely disagree with "Nothing exists that did not first come into existence" and you give no rational explanation as to why. Unless of course, you believe in finite space-time but you would have to prove that over infinite space-time. ]

      Oh, and this can be proven. In fact, the presence of the existent something requires a relative being state to form - "this, that exists, relative to that, that either does or doesn't exist". The relative being state is not the absolute being state - which is the only other being state possible. The absolute being state is immutable, and therefore infinite. This is not true of the relative beings state, and can never be true of the relative being state.

      The only absolutes that are logically possible are comparative qualifiers and existential imperatives - being default responses of the existent something's presence within a factual, contextual relationship that has emerged as a result of that existence, and not being existent somethings in their own right. All else that can logically exist - especially that which is or can be dynamic or impactful within a contextual confine - must exist in a relative being state, which logically implies cause-effect and at least a defined emergence.

      A stable existential foundation is obvious (we exist) and that foundation requires raw, primitive logic to exist and provide that stability. Logic has requirements, and I just laid one of those requirements out for you. Reality can be established and this is how it's done - by verifying and defending the verification of one logical requirement anchor at a time.

      Neither energy nor a god can possess infinite existential presence. The stability of reality doesn't allow for either. This is just a very brief overview. There's a lot that exists to prove this assertion and well beyond any reasonable doubt..
      • thumb
        Mar 4 2012: OK Mr. Spock, in case you didn't get the memo, logical positivism has its limits. Logic is a tool. One tool that helps us explain and order the chaos that is our being. But it is not the only tool. Your requirement that everybody use the same tool kit limits science and definitely wisdom. If you want that to be the underlying foundation for reality we will never survive as a species. Limiting science, limiting being philosophically is just wrong.

        The morality issue is baloney. There are no imperatives. They left with Kant. Your survival imperative, the objectivist imperative of life. None explain the actions of the being that is human. Examples surround us of people who act outside of those imperatives which make them not be imperatives. And as far as science imperatives. If your survival imperative were true, how would we morally resolve embryonic stem cell research? Whose survival? You go on about imperatives and then you slip into the whole 'greater good' thing. Which is it? Kant or Mill? Categorical imperatives or utility?

        There is so much science that happens simply out of curiosity. Somebody wanted to know something for the joy of knowing and got it funded but not because of survival. I would hate to see a world where scientific decisions were made solely based on survival.

        True scientists know the different philosophies. Existentialist to Relativist to Positivist etc. They anticipate criticisms from differing sectors and they are better because of it. They usually outline which philosophical standpoint they are working from to facilitate communication between scientists.. Thank goodness.

        Your belief system is just that. A belief system. Your morality and reality beliefs are incongruent with mine and the desire to enforce your morality and reality on others is delusional at best. Foolish I think is the word you used.
        • thumb
          Mar 4 2012: Ha!!!

          I can't enforce reality on you or anyone. It simply exists, and what is needed is for the human race to acknowledge it for what it factually is.

          The only existential imperative that exists is Survival, and to be honest, there's no possible way I can detail the complexities of expression that exist to explain why people do the insane things that they do. It comes down - in the end - to the existence of the human mind and its own effort to address that existential imperative, which is often at odds with the drive of the corporeal Homo Sapien system that literally creates the sentient human being by way of its amazing brain.

          I don't expect most people to ever understand any of this, and frankly, I don't care if they do. What I do care about is whether this inane drive toward complete intellectual chaos ends up with a 21st century edition of the Dark Ages. In the US, we have an entire multi-million person segment of our society (over 30 million of them) who honestly believe that dinosaurs are a demonic hoax, and that the world has to end in a nuclear holocaust - triggered by war in the Middle East - before they can be with their God and finally be at peace. And these crazies have completely hijacked a full 1/2 of the political system of the entire nation, which means that if they manage to get into full power again, their hand-picked leaders will have to seriously consider their insanity as plausible national policy.

          And you don't think that establishing and defending accurate reality anchors is a moral issue? You don't see this as a survival issue? Science is the verification process that vets assertions as being accurate or inaccurate. Lately, there have been theoretical physicists whose notions have been granted the same consideration as vetted scientific facts, and yet without any scientific verification of them possible. If nothing is seen as factually real, then what's to stop complete insanity from being elected reality? The answer is - nothing at all.
      • thumb
        Mar 4 2012: You're the one that wants to enforce reality. You said so in your opening statement. Or was it anchors you want to enforce?

        The only existential imperatives are the ones people MAKE UP. A morality of survival excuses all kinds of behavior and decisions. Because it boils down to whose survival and who gets to decide that. I vote I do. It just makes no sense. I don't care how grandiose the prose or how tight the logic. The underlying premise is bogus. This is exactly why science and logic cannot be the only methods to determine reality. The anchor is useless if there is no freaking rock.

        I think you underestimate the comfort that people find in their belief. Look how hard you defend yours. Let them believe what they want and let them put people in power that believe as they do. Thats the whole point of a democracy. (I told you that you had control issues)

        I am so happy that your belief system includes science as the verification process for reality but again, it is only ONE way. There are other methods that are just as valid.
        • thumb
          Mar 6 2012: [2 days ago: You're the one that wants to enforce reality. You said so in your opening statement. Or was it anchors you want to enforce?]

          I believe that irresponsible conjecture and careless theory interpretations presented publicly by professionals (media or academia) as established fact (often for book sales) is happening a lot now, and I chose two such examples in my opening remarks. Reality exists and is definite, and if that fact isn't established and enforced, then we've got nothing beneath our feet to build upon. Reality anchors are extremely simple, extremely broad based, and do not impinge of anyone's right to express themselves.

          Time exists and affects each and every one of us. Perception is just an interpretation of reality, and that's just how it is. Contextual ramification cannot be undone - again, just a very simple and broad assertion that doesn't clash with anyone's desire to do or become anything that they can actually do or become as a corporeal human being.

          I suppose that if I stated that I'm against humans sprouting wings and flying through the sky unaided, you wouldn't accuse me of trying to oppress all the winged people and their god-given right to have their wings and to fly. But demanding that we don't allow hucksters to convince delusional people that they do have wings and getting them to leap off buildings isn't the same as preventing those people from actually sprouting those wings. Truth is they can't sprout wings. Period.

          No one can go back in time and reverse the past, but there are physicists who insist that the double-slit experiment has revealed that we can do exactly that. On some Internet forums there are people claiming that if you can't do that, then you're a failure as a person. And there are young impressionable people beating themselves up over not being enlightened enough to time travel. Hoodwinking people isn't a god-given right. If it is, then I have a right to shut the hucksters down if I can.

          Fair is fair.
      • thumb
        Mar 6 2012: You know, snake oil salesmen have been around since before there was written language. And I will admit to buying a bottle or two. But buying the snake oil really taught me a lot.

        Perhaps a better approach is to teach critical thinking skills so people recognize that snake oil is just oil. But critical thinking is not coming up with some justifiable standard. It opens up possibility.

        Don't you understand the reason they are so eager to buy the snake oil is that corporeal reality is not enough? It is never enough. So they try on different theories and practices to hopefully find what was always within their grasp. That is not going to change and there will always be people who will take advantage of that.

        (Oh sorry for those who do not understand the snake oil metaphor. It refers to the old American west when there were many people trying to make money by selling concoctions that were called medicines. Sometimes there was nothing in the bottles and sometimes there was even poison but for the most part it was useless and could not do what the salespeople claimed.)
        • thumb
          Mar 8 2012: Maybe I'm just hoping that the TED community will see the value in trying to end the institutionalization of snake oil as a dietary requirement for people. At least for those people who are actually trying to not simply buy into another narrative that will ultimately betray them in the end. So many people profess to be seekers of truth, and yet it seems like so very few actually allow new ideas to penetrate their defenses. Especially if those ideas begin to sound too closely associated to the mundane nature of what they know to be obviously real and reliable. Reality anchors. I never thought that such a notion would offend so many people.

          To be honest, I've been pretty surprised that I've actually had to defend the idea of an objective reality here. I've been engaged in this effort for a few years now, and on several other international forums, and was kind of expecting to encounter general agreement concerning the human need for basic reality stability here. This has been a bit of an eye opener. I can see that I have a lot more work ahead of me than I ever imagined possible.

          Who knows, maybe it's something that can't be accomplished? That'd be pretty tough to have to admit.
  • thumb
    Mar 3 2012: Maybe people should get a job in a psyche ward,it makes you appreciate the brain running within a certain ratio with your main input systems balanced and synced to it that reality for most of us is a solid object that can be altered with our physical input.

    I've watched Alzheimers patients slowly regress to a infantile state where they are walking around naked with faeces dropping out of them without realizing it.

    I mean if we create reality as we go then explain the trithilon stones? They shouldn't exist,no modern method can shift them so how can an ancient people have done it.They were there before the pyramids.

    If you run in a circular system of ever increasing circles that fold back upon itself while ever increasing itself then you've glitched yourself.

    Maybe we should rethink hubbles law,you'll be surprised that if you take things at their observed distances it makes sense.
  • thumb
    Mar 3 2012: Fundamental Anchor: Mathematics

    Funny, I just happened to be thinking along similar lines the other day when I was practicing music, preparing to record a song as I wished to play it with others. When I had determined the ‘feel’ of the song, I then used a metronome for recording to ensure a consistent beat. A ‘number’ I could turn to for checking the song as I intended it down the road. The fundamental anchor that would allow others to more easily explore leads within the parameters of the song.

    Music: A Mathematical Languaage Anchoring Us All
    • thumb
      Mar 4 2012: That's a good analogy. I was a performing musician for 30 years, and built my own bands for 20 of those years. It really is essential to get everyone on the same page, and create the "boxes" that each player will be free to decorate and use as their own expression vehicle within the confines of the shared performance. I don't know why some people become intimidated by the idea that the human being is a communal being, and that it actually thrives when allowed to embrace a stable structure that contains a positive fit within its whole for that human being.

      It's as if the western world has been brainwashed into isolation as the epitome existential expression, and the human intellect has created such an extreme version of that isolation requirement that the idea of an inescapable default adherence to the obvious tenets of a structured reality is being seen as akin to the brutal oppression of the unique and inimitable soul. The terrible truth is that the human brain knows better than to accept this notion, even as the human mind that it creates clings frantically to it as if it's some sort of life preserver.

      It's no wonder that 21st century humanity is under such intense existential stress. This "itch" can't be scratched by money, or love, or success, or achievement, or wars, or religion, or philosophy, or by any of the many other ways that we struggle to perfect our world. It's a core angst that can only be addressed by finally bringing the human mind and the human brain into alignment concerning the fundamental nature of reality. The modern human brain finally has the proof - provided by our technologies - that our traditional wisdoms are simply not true. The wisdoms must now adhere to the facts as they exist, or the damage will continue.