[subversion]

The most important thing to know about psychology is that the only way the mind knows anything is by what it is able to believe. As such all knowledges and truths are merely simple beliefs. In this manner scientists are kidding themselves to think that their knowledge is not based on belief. Knowledge is belief; there is no arguing the fact.

Now when we see things which substantiate our beliefs it makes us believe very strongly in our beliefs. Some may call this proof, but it is not so, it is merely very convincing. So in reality proof is a misnomer, and there is only belief.

Therefore science is a misnomer which believes itself. Science is no more than a dressed up religion that is very convincing. Until science can admit to belief, it is weak, and it is self limiting. Now this is not to say that religion is better per se, religion has it's drawbacks as well in the way it is actually rendered. Sometimes religion thinks it is more than a system of beliefs, and that is when religion gets out of bounds. Plus sometimes religion is less convincing than science with regard to examples which serve to convince.

The Theory of Everything on the other hand is better than science OR religion. It is not so much an awkward fusion of the two, as it is something completely different and unprecedented, which takes the best of both worlds. The TOE acknowledges the foundation of belief, and this is why it does not believe itself as science does. The TOE is based on virtue and nothing else. To understand it you must believe in it, but to do that is irrelevant, for the TOE is true no matter what you believe in. Thus belief is only logical.

[TinyTree]

Originally Posted by subversion The most important thing to know about psychology is that the only way the mind knows anything is by what it is able to believe. As such all knowledges and truths are merely simple beliefs. In this manner scientists are kidding themselves to think that their knowledge is not based on belief. Knowledge is belief; there is no arguing the fact.

You are correct in that science is a form of religion which adheres to a set of precepts which are considered inviolate and unapproachable. I will attempt to define what these precepts are and contest them:

1) If many individuals experience the same thing, in a consistent and reproducible way, there is an underlying reality to that experience.

If everyone rubs their eyes, and sees little dancing white lights (which anyone can do), you can see them dancing around. Now if we did not have the notion of the physical body affecting perception, we would have to look externally to find an explanation. So it may be suggested that these "lumens" come into our eyelid when we rub them, perhaps because of the heat. This seems reasonable, but is clearly wrong with our "extra knowledge" that the physical body can itself create sensation. But how much of science is like this- reasonable and correct, but ultimately wrong because we are missing the extra knowledge?

2) If a set of foundational assumptions are taken to be true and logical deductions made from these assumptions, then the later stages of logical deduction are correct.

Whitehead attempted to formalize mathematics, and thus prove all of mathematical thought using logical deduction. He succeeded, but only for a small branch of mathematics. Thus, even if this second assumption is true, there may be vast tracts of mathematics which are false due to an overlooked error in the deductive process, which is "assumed to be obviously true" but is not in fact. If the assumptions turn out to be wrong (which they may well be for physical law) then this opens a whole new can of whoop-ass on our perception of the physical world. Finally, can we really trust the deductive process as a way at arriving at truth? Is it not really a way of arriving at a "human acceptable" truth, which may not have a bearing on reality after all?

3) There is an underlying consistency to reality which can be apprehended.

It certainly is nice to believe in a consistent reality- I mean after all- it must be, right? If it were inconsistent, it would show up as "bugs" in life, or as incomprehensible things. Also, it can be apprehended. You can imagine walking up to someone who was considered quite stupid, and asking them questions about the world. You might be able to easily trap them in an inconsistency (I had a friend who would do this to me, and actually it is quite annoying but also entertaining if you can get over your pride). At this point when you trap them in an inconsistency- they always admit they are wrong somewhere, to themselves, or secretly, or else abandon the consistency of the world. I have seen many abandon the consistency of the world, often in meetings at my various jobs, and it always makes me chuckle (on the inside, on the outside I just nod). But is the world actually consistent? It always seems like inconsistency is due to logical error, mistaken thinking, or stupidity- but is this true? What if it actually is inconsistent?

[subversion]

Thank you very much TinyTree for extending what I have said. I don't think I could have come up with better examples so thanks a lot for providing those because I think it proves a very crucial point that science is somewhat of a misnomer for not considering everything.

[baudrunner]

1) If many individuals experience the same thing, in a consistent and reproducible way, there is an underlying reality to that experience.

That may be, but the reality is that invariably the experience is had by one and the revelation of that experience merely believed by many. Religion is a prime example: Islamic believers hold that Mohammed received the word of God when the book called the Koran literally came down from the sky, actually fell from the sky according to some. So there is ostensibly an established reality, that the prophet received the word of God from the heavens. However, a review of the nature of non-believers before the time of that event with reference to the historical context even to the present reveals that were a man of that time to claim to have written this book and presenting it to people for their approval he would probably have been lynch-mobbed and stoned to death, so the story was a safe form of self-preservation so that he could stay alive, after all, there were certain lessons to be learned from the life of Christ. So reality is or is not truth, or religion is or is not reality, you decide, for it is obvious that Mohammed was a literate and gifted genius whose study of writing compelled him to use what he had learned to make an attempt to teach an ignorant people how to live and whose imagination allowed him the time wherein to do this.

2) If a set of foundational assumptions are taken to be true and logical deductions made from these assumptions, then the later stages of logical deduction are correct.

Elementary logic: on the one hand, mathematics is an indispensible utility to explain theory but a mathematical conclusion cannot be allowed to initiate theory. I trust that you agree.

3) There is an underlying consistency to reality which can be apprehended.

The attribute of empathy may be an evolutionary throwback to the true wonder of reality, the birth of babies, the evolution of life, the beauty of nature, the warmth of the sun, the cleansing and sustenance of the waters - wonder has its roots in bewilderment, the apprehension of one's environment, one's reality. Reality is like a complex discipline, like the science of chemistry. It doesn't change, once the facts are learned, they form the basis for the acquisition of new knowledge, and empiricism is the consistency that rules.

Real science is truth. Truth leads to understanding. Tolerance is acceptance of the truth. Intolerance is denial.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by subversion The most important thing to know about psychology is that the only way the mind knows anything is by what it is able to believe. As such all knowledges and truths are merely simple beliefs. In this manner scientists are kidding themselves to think that their knowledge is not based on belief. Knowledge is belief; there is no arguing the fact. Now when we see things which substantiate our beliefs it makes us believe very strongly in our beliefs. Some may call this proof, but it is not so, it is merely very convincing. So in reality proof is a misnomer, and there is only belief. Therefore science is a misnomer which believes itself. Science is no more than a dressed up religion that is very convincing. Until science can admit to belief, it is weak, and it is self limiting. Now this is not to say that religion is better per se, religion has it's drawbacks as well in the way it is actually rendered. Sometimes religion thinks it is more than a system of beliefs, and that is when religion gets out of bounds. Plus sometimes religion is less convincing than science with regard to examples which serve to convince. The Theory of Everything on the other hand is better than science OR religion. It is not so much an awkward fusion of the two, as it is something completely different and unprecedented, which takes the best of both worlds. The TOE acknowledges the foundation of belief, and this is why it does not believe itself as science does. The TOE is based on virtue and nothing else. To understand it you must believe in it, but to do that is irrelevant, for the TOE is true no matter what you believe in. Thus belief is only logical.

Well written my friend,I agree with this also.

rgards michael

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Elementary logic: on the one hand, mathematics is an indispensible utility to explain theory but a mathematical conclusion cannot be allowed to initiate theory. I trust that you agree.

Excellent post Tiny Tree. I would just like to expand a bit on the above. I agree that mathematical conclusion cannot be allowed to initiate theory, but the initial intuitional opposites of theory are innately mathematical, in and of themselves, whether by greater and lesser magnitude logic, or actaul arithmetic. Thus the two are entangled in the very essence of logic, and cannot operate separately. Logic, mathematics and sound intuition are triplets, and all function on the same one principle - the essence union of self-operational-mechanics. Judgment seems to operate in this same equation at the same time, and never seems to not. So when we start truly trying to figure out what goes into original thought and principles, the answer is much more complex than simple deduction and induction. It is also the multiplycation of the necessary entanglements. Emotions, if believed, are also present. If we continue, we are going to need a quite powerful computer to just figure out a single initial thought. It seems, the more we use reduction the more we destroy the true functioning of mind. Mind must function as an isomorphic whole to function properly.

So, what does the above amount to. We must have principles of emotions, etc. for the mind to function. These principles must be of the whole centropic union of the functioning mind. The logically functioning mind must recognize what principles are necessary to create a logical theory. All this must work intuitionistically/theoretically at once. All choices and changes of mind in the theorizing/ideation stage are capable of the same principles as those of quantum mechanics - the many choices theories. So, the mind creates principles as it develops new theories, as tis its only choice to be logical, and in the end make any sense. Thus, any new TOE will require not only the theory, but its accompanying principles. I would suggest an absolute mathematics and logic, not belief, but true logos - knowledge. True and absolute knowledge should be producible from the above, by using simple arithmetic, as it has been proven complete by Godel's completeness theorem of first order logic and simple Euclidean arithmetic.

at least it's a start,
Lloyd

p.s.
For anyone to understand where I'm coming from, you'd probably need this information. I take only the infinite absolute as logos, or true absolute knowledge. This knowledge I see as intrinsic, innate "self" - the pure arithmetica logical self. Further, the entire infinite universal self-mind I see as the logical mathematical absolute. And finally, I see the absolute as being able to produce nothing but the absolute, i.e., self can produce nothing but itself. Show me anything that isn't absolute. Even describe an emotion, if you can, and I mean the essence of an emotion. I don't think you can, as I simply see emotions as false logic - the pain of injured essence, or pleasure of flattered essence, and nothing but. What most feel is emotion, I see and know as pathological dis-equilibriated logic, needing re-balancing. Now that really gives you people something to fire on me about. Fire away.

Sorry Michell and any other of the fairer sex, fire away.

[mkirkpatrick]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Gillespie Excellent post Tiny Tree. I would just like to expand a bit on the above. I agree that mathematical conclusion cannot be allowed to initiate theory, but the initial intuitional opposites of theory are innately mathematical, in and of themselves, whether by greater and lesser magnitude logic, or actaul arithmetic. Thus the two are entangled in the very essence of logic, and cannot operate separately. Logic, mathematics and sound intuition are triplets, and all function on the same one principle - the essence union of self-operational-mechanics. Judgment seems to operate in this same equation at the same time, and never seems to not. So when we start truly trying to figure out what goes into original thought and principles, the answer is much more complex than simple deduction and induction. It is also the multiplycation of the necessary entanglements. Emotions, if believed, are also present. If we continue, we are going to need a quite powerful computer to just figure out a single initial thought. It seems, the more we use reduction the more we destroy the true functioning of mind. Mind must function as an isomorphic whole to function properly. So, what does the above amount to. We must have principles of emotions, etc. for the mind to function. These principles must be of the whole centropic union of the functioning mind. The logically functioning mind must recognize what principles are necessary to create a logical theory. All this must work intuitionistically/theoretically at once. All choices and changes of mind in the theorizing/ideation stage are capable of the same principles as those of quantum mechanics - the many choices theories. So, the mind creates principles as it develops new theories, as tis its only choice to be logical, and in the end make any sense. Thus, any new TOE will require not only the theory, but its accompanying principles. I would suggest an absolute mathematics and logic, not belief, but true logos - knowledge. True and absolute knowledge should be producible from the above, by using simple arithmetic, as it has been proven complete by Godel's completeness theorem of first order logic and simple Euclidean arithmetic. at least it's a start, Lloyd p.s. For anyone to understand where I'm coming from, you'd probably need this information. I take only the infinite absolute as logos, or true absolute knowledge. This knowledge I see as intrinsic, innate "self" - the pure arithmetica logical self. Further, the entire infinite universal self-mind I see as the logical mathematical absolute. And finally, I see the absolute as being able to produce nothing but the absolute, i.e., self can produce nothing but itself. Show me anything that isn't absolute. Even describe an emotion, if you can, and I mean the essence of an emotion. I don't think you can, as I simply see emotions as false logic - the pain of injured essence, or pleasure of flattered essence, and nothing but. What most feel is emotion, I see and know as pathological dis-equilibriated logic, needing re-balancing. Now that really gives you people something to fire on me about. Fire away. Sorry Michell and any other of the fairer sex, fire away.

I agree absolutely.There is only the absolute,and from that can only be inherit from it
is;absolute,if you were closer I would shake you buy the hand,and permit you to buy me coffee??
regards michael.