East Meets West Logic...

[G_burnett]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UNSyq...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2HSf...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNppA...eature=related

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Scientific Thought Wanderer…


As I wander around the world and this forum, I have many thoughts pass through my mind, and not all due to what I read__but through the inter-actions with all that sits idly in my mind, influencing what I see and state, along with what I hear, see and read… It really amazes me how many people will bother their lil’ ol’ pea-brains about issues that truly and clearly have no answers at all__not even possible, yet thousands or even millions of people, world wide, will continue to either ask or speculate about ideas, that just a small bit of self-logic would easily show them, there’s really no answers possible to these certain queries or speculations__yet they continue stumbling on…

Take the issues of void, infinity, multi-verses, quantum infinitesimals or quantum energies for examples__as there’s truly no answers possible to any of these issues, yet we see them paraded out every day for further discussion__Discussion about what…? What happened to these people’s self-logic circuits, who continue to parade these issues forward…? Can’t they see there’s a limit to what the human mind can know, or even seriously speculate about…? Just how would anyone scientifically talk about a void, no-one can ever know for certain of being there or not…? How can anyone even attempt to talk about sub-Planck scale objects, that have absolutely no possibility of present or future evidence, measurement or proof…? And though I even speak of infinity, I full well realize there’s absolutely no proof possible of its existence, except it’s necessary correlation to eternity, but so what__It’s just another useless concept, or I should say non-concept, that’s continually paraded forth… And then there’s the foolishness of multi-verses, which can never be proved due to no possible evidence, even if they do exist, as it’s beyond our measurement capacities, and sad to say__always will be, due to our physical reality’s c limit…

Then there’s the really impossible of quantum infinitesimals, or better stated as the positions and momentums of the uncertainty principle, where all the possible and impossible to measure matter and energies are moving so near the speed of light, our instruments of light speed limit measurement can’t even begin to measure at this level, due to so many inter-actions of particle sprays in so many directions it’s absolutely impossible of measure__it’d be like counting the quills on a live, wounded porcupine__It ain’t gonna be done… Then there’s the really talked about one__quantum or vacuum energies__Now, this one really takes the cake, as it requires the actions and inter-actions of matter to even start this ball a rollin’, but the newest ideas about quantum and or vacuum energies all wanta’ start out at energies, as though they are some kinda absolute fundamental level or something__while fundamental matter seems to have vanished like some horror movie ghost… I just can’t quite see why more good people are not capable of using their own self-logic to eliminate some of these false speculations, all by themselves… What’s in the water or the food, that’s stopping people’s self-logic from functioning, like it used to, back in the `60’s…? I went to school then with freshmen, who were wiser than many of what I read and hear today, and that’s no lie…

Do you suppose it would be possible to simply copy Einstein’s experimental example, and completely follow the path of a photon, from say a caesium atom, on its entire life history’s journey__to just see one of the most fundamental levels of quantum action at the real energy level…? Without complicating this experiment by any other mechanics, just follow its entire decay life cycle, yet following all the known laws of physics, to self-show oneself the true science of this fundamental path, and its possibly known inter-actions with other simple forms of matter and fields__out as far as the edge of the now speculated 13.7 billion year light cone… Then ask yourself__Does any of this have any real meaning; as according to science__If we are truly living in an eternal universe…??? I think somebody dropped the Reality-Ball, somewhere along the path of possibilities and necessities__since it’s roughly 44 billion light years to the known Universe’s speculated boundary__What do you think…???

There’s really more happening here than yet meets the eye of science… There’s man’s law systems, there’s man’s discovered physical law systems of nature and the Universe__and there’s Nature’s natural law system, yet to be fully discovered… There seems to be quite a conflict going on here, between these three systems of laws__The Triadic Mystery…???

[labelwench]

My best guess as to what has happened to our logic systems, would be that not all are born with identical brain function, as diversity in this area would increase the chances for survival in a crisis, as not all will come to the same solutions, or perish as lemmings in a leap off the cliff.

My second thought would be, that we are a species in crisis, and are becoming aware of the fact. Whether we are the cause of all or part of the problem, remains irrelevant. I do suspect, though, that our manipulations of our environment, and our food chain, and the stress of living in less space than may be optimal for our kind, will be impacting our DNA and our cognizant capabilities.

Thirdly, look at the conditioning that we are bombarded with from birth. I rather suspect, that if you take Adam and Eve into the Yukon backwoods, with some basic resources, and removed from all media contamination, that their offspring would reflect the kind of logic you are familiar with, because, if I'm wrong, they wouldn't survive.

The need to survive is what kick starts our deepest potential in thinking, is my simple opinion.

[G_burnett]

........
The need to survive is what kick starts our deepest potential in thinking, is my simple opinion.

The observation of individual mortality kick starts our deepest potential in thinking ... and longing to live ... just some do not know how and reproduction and immortality is lost. True empathic demigoddess halts the motion as entropic wins ... Death in loss of motion but for a while i would personally avoid and have.

Quick! Reproduce before it is to late!

IMHO kind regards, graham

[labelwench]

Quick! Reproduce before it is to late!

IMHO kind regards, graham

LOL. At a glance, it would appear that sufficient numbers of the population share your above sentiment.

In nature, the plants that produce the most numerous seeds, are not always the most successful. The extreme numbers are required to offset the minimal success of maturity. Germination is easy, yet competition through to reproductive maturity is limited for some plants, and for some species, as example, the rabbit.

The rabbit is low on the food chain and so multiplies to offset this challenge. Then, if it does manage to be successful and outmaneuver the predator losses, it eventually starves to death and suffers die-off.

Balance shall ever be restored to the system, by one means or another.

The observation of individual mortality kick starts our deepest potential in thinking ... and longing to live ... just some do not know how and reproduction and immortality is lost. True empathic demigoddess halts the motion as entropic wins ... Death in loss of motion but for a while i would personally avoid and have.

Still, you might try that paragraph while on a night out. It does have some key words that may strike empathetic response in some......

[labelwench]

This post is purely a bit of entertainment nonsense, but it involves fellows, so let's see if you can laugh at yourselves, generally regarded as a sign of maturity.

No. Not the content. The ability to laugh......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_lXqMmevog

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Higher Nation-State of Law…


This post is just going to be a jumble of ideas I’m throwing out, which all relate in my mind to evolving the world through a new systems’ logic, to a new universally law structured state. I’m always shooting for the same basic better ordered state of liberty, achieved by what I’ve elsewhere stated as a subtraction from the universals__I believe I published it elsewhere as Kant’s metaphysics of ethics, where he actually started with the universal continuum, associated it as the grand equilibrium, for this particular purpose, and subtracted the equal universal rights of individuals and nations, to achieve a proper state of liberty__governed by the laws of mathematical fairness… Kant’s ideas just happen to be very reasonable for any age, and that alone is why Kant is so important, in my mind__He, and he alone, seems to have related the laws of liberty so closely aligned with arithmetic… He also related the laws of thought closely aligned with arithmetic, and quantum mechanics, long before anyone even had any idea about the quantum continuum__with his continuum mind space, actually shaping our concepts, objects and ideas… Now, if that isn’t quantum state space acting on the photonic structure of concepts, I don’t know what is…

Where natural law verses the higher self of the state, which can only truly be realized by the realities of the Nuremberg Trials, as this is really the first time and place where nations realized their man-made law structures lacked the ability to judge states against states, that new universally applicable laws were first created… This required applying the intellect of mans law system, to draw upon the natural law system of nature, represented by the universality that only Kant had really written about. Of course secular society being so against theistic approaches of the past, to establish the higher ground of judgment required of a state to judge another, this left the field blank, until someone realized one could draw from the natural universality of reality, or the universal continuum, as Kant had named it, that new codes of ethics and laws for international war crimes trials could take shape, to evolve the world to the higher international standards required, by the times. So, some of these old philosophers really do have some use after all, when all is investigated and known__believe it or not…

My point here being that, the many seeming contradictory truths of man’s laws, and nature’s higher universal laws, are more than just the usual chimera many have so long thought… If we truly try to thoroughly understand this simple conceptual difference between the existing law systems, that so seem to be destroying the better order of the world today, and the much higher possibilities of nature’s universal law systems’ abilities, to greatly improve the global order of present conditions__we have much more to look forward to than many at present may realize… The re-arrangement of the planet’s necessary law changes is not so difficult to see, when one realizes it at such a simple conceptual level as introduced at the Nuremberg Trials, and simply being copied from a treatise on ‘The Metaphysics of Ethics’, some two hundred years before__and being based on such a simple arithmetic as subtracting equal universal rights for you and your state, and equal universal rights for me and my state__while keeping all satisfied with the results based on such a simple mathematical fairness__How could anyone complain…? These are also the simple arithmetic methods employed by many of America’s founding fathers__to achieve her initial fairness… Don’t you really think it’s about time we started re-copying some of these very wise men of history, instead of blindly following our present pin-headed leaders…???

Why are we on this foolish road of destruction anyway…? I can tell you simply, it’s none other than the dictatorship of relativism, that’s had its near 100 year run-up to ruling all our lives to ruin… This cultural relativism, creating cultural particularism and it’s cousin cultural pluralism__is no pretty kitty… Oh it’s true, everyone thinks it’s such a great world, that all truths, viewpoints, perspectives and perceptions are equally valid__Oh it’s such a wonderful world with these new equal universal rights__The trouble is, no-one’s ever pointed it out to you, that this is the very destruction vehicle of all societies in history… It’s nothing new__The Indians experienced it__the Chinese, the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Spanish, etc., on and on… It’s always the same story__it feels good, but few realize such a state of relativism is granting the same universal rights to ignorance and stupidity, as to intelligence and wisdom__which in turn can only destroy intelligence and wisdom, since ignorance and stupidity are always any states’ over-whelming majority…

If more could just realize it’s a simpler process to understand than they presently think, we may be able to step into a new pair of shoes… If more could just see it’s more a triadic bio-cognitive perception agency world, than the simple dyadic oppositions far too many think it is__as is clearly witnessed in the opposing gridlocks of global governments everywhere… Believe it or not__there is a middle way in all this global madness, if anyone just takes the time to look, instead of falsely believing it this way or that, left or right, right or wrong, good or bad, etc., on and on__which are all false extremes, never looking at the central truths__that are clearly staring everyone straight in the face__if they’d but open their sleepy eyes, and look… All our minds contain a bio-neuro-mirror system of abstract perception and cognition, between all our natural memory and perception states__which can easily see these three present conditional differences existing__at all times…

You know, I lived all my life practicing an iff conditional induction logic, which my job required… I didn’t realize how important this was until recently, to the work I was trying to achieve with my writing, as I’d not really looked deeply enough at just what I’d done all my life__I took it for granted so much, I actually didn’t see it__But, I now see it’s extreme importance in possibly adding something simple to understand to this modern over-confused and over-conflated world. To make this short and sweet, iff conditional common sense necessitates truth, intelligence and wisdom… It does this so simply, just by always asking or stating the iff conditionals of any desired aim or goal, before actually attempting to achieve any such aims or goals. As an example; “If you want a better world, you gotta do the work required to achieve such aims and goals.” Nothing comes easy, and I found all through my professional career, that if I premised all my actions by iff conditionals, I always had a much easier time of it. Another simpler example still is; “If you want me to do that for you, will you do this for me…?” The iff conditional logic is just a trade-off action, that allows the other person we all have to deal with, to have some input in the action__and such shared actions, aims and goals automatically develop co-operation among all involved, as everyone sees their part in the enterprise. It makes everyone feel important to be involved, if you allow them to be involved__and the iff conditionals allow just this…


The iff conditional is also a very powerful logic, when used inductively, as models can be best averaged over all inductions__in other words, we can answer, in general, future conditions of otherwise unknown states of nature, science and reality__as economists have been doing this for years__even though present political pin-head reality makes it look like economics is a bust… It’s not, it’s just politically corrupted by the powers that be__but if more people realized how iff conditional model logic actually works, we could have an army of very intelligent and influencial political operatives__to pass the properly written universally ethical international laws… Such simple knowledge sytems can do tremendous benefit, if properly understood…
(continued...)

[Lloyd Gillespie]

(continued...)
A final thought I’d like to express is the fact that psychology lacks the economy of identity that philosophy uses__with its far more clearly worked out concepts of philosophy, over the millennia__and are imo a far more sound system of organizing thought… It’s not that psychology can not cognitively organize thought just about as well, it’s the fact that most psychologists do not use a sound economy of research, when working up and presenting their ideas__thus they contain far too much confused and conflated presentations imo, although there are some fine cognitive psychologists__they are few and far between… Most psychologists do not have a proper understanding of the universals, and the continuum of connectives involved__thus create a cognitive apartheid, lacking the needed cultural universalism…

As I stated first off, these are a jumbled bunch of ideas, but I think worth putting forth, as it helps me organize my better thoughts, later__yet at the same time, may contain something of interest to some__At least, it gives you some idea of the direction I’m headed… Presently, I’m putting together some ideas of recent books and other materials I’ve read and talked to others about, as to best methods to present major law change ideas…rrr

[labelwench]

Most psychologists do not have a proper understanding of the universals, and the continuum of connectives involved__thus create a cognitive apartheid, lacking the needed cultural universalism…
Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

It takes a lifetime of experience for our mind to develop the frameworks and pathways to assimilate these universals you speak of.

Not all are born with the same capacity and not all shall be granted opportunity to realize their full potential.

It is not only psychologists who are hampered by this circumstance.

This challenge arises for all, whenever we would attempt to share.

The student is impatient to know everything now, and when the teacher pours it all out, the student cannot comprehend without a context to place these offerings in, a context which can only be arrived at by making the journey.

Years later, the student returns, glowing at what they have learned under another, often less than what you offered previously, and one can only smile, nod and listen, and think of how much time was wasted by all.

Still, at least they have learned, and survived, thus far.....

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Scientific realism is, at the most general level, the view that the world described by science is the real world, as it is, independent of what we might take it to be. Within philosophy of science, it is often framed as an answer to the question "how is the success of science to be explained?" The debate over what the success of science involves centers primarily on the status of unobservable entities apparently talked about by scientific theories. Generally, those who are scientific realists assert that one can make reliable claims about unobservables (viz., that they have the same ontological status) as observables. Scientific realism involves two basic positions. First, it is a set of claims about the features of an ideal scientific theory; an ideal theory is the sort of theory science aims to produce. Second, it is the commitment that science will eventually produce theories very much like an ideal theory and that science has done pretty well thus far in some domains. It is important to note that one might be a scientific realist regarding some sciences while not being a realist regarding others. For example, one might hold realist attitudes toward physics, chemistry and biology, and not toward economics, psychology and sociology.
According to scientific realism, an ideal scientific theory has the following features:

• The claims the theory makes are either true or false, depending on whether the entities talked about by the theory exist and are correctly described by the theory. This is the semantic commitment of scientific realism.
• The entities described by the scientific theory exist objectively and mind-independently. This is the metaphysical commitment of scientific realism.
• There are reasons to believe some significant portion of what the theory says. This is the epistemological commitment.

Combining the first and the second claim entails that an ideal scientific theory says true things about genuinely existing entities. The third claim says that we have reasons to believe that the things said about these entities are true.

Scientific realism usually holds that science makes progress, i.e. scientific theories usually get successively better, or, rather, answer more and more questions. For this reason, many people, scientific realist or otherwise, hold that realism should make sense of the progress of science in terms of theories being successively more like the ideal theory that scientific realists describe.

History of scientific realism
Scientific realism is related to much older philosophical positions including rationalism and realism. However, it is a thesis about science developed in the twentieth century. Portraying scientific realism in terms of its ancient, medieval, and early modern cousins is at best misleading.

Scientific realism is developed largely as a reaction to logical positivism. Logical positivism was the first philosophy of science in the twentieth century and the forerunner of scientific realism, holding that a sharp distinction can be drawn between observational terms and theoretical terms, the latter capable of semantic analysis in observational and logical terms.
Logical positivism encountered difficulties with:

• The verification theory of meaning (for which see Hempel (1950)).
• Troubles with the analytic-synthetic distinction (for which see Quine (1950)).
• The theory ladenness of observation (for which see Kuhn (1970) and Quine (1960)).
• Difficulties moving from the observationality of terms to observationality of sentences (for which see Putnam (1962)).
• The vagueness of the observational-theoretical distinction (for which see Maxwell (1962)).

These difficulties for logical positivism suggest, but do not entail, scientific realism, and lead to the development of realism as a philosophy of science.

Realism became the dominant philosophy of science after positivism. Bas van Fraassen developed constructive empiricism as an alternative to realism. Responses to van Fraassen have sharpened realist positions and lead to some revisions of scientific realism.

Arguments for and against scientific realism
One of the main arguments for scientific realism centers on the notion that scientific knowledge is progressive in nature, and that it is able to predict phenomena successfully[citation needed]. Many realists (e.g., Ernan McMullin, Richard Boyd) think the operational success of a theory lends credence to the idea that its more unobservable aspects exist, because they were how the theory reasoned its predictions. For example, a scientific realist would argue that science must derive some ontological support for atoms from the outstanding phenomenological success of all the theories using them.
Arguments for scientific realism often appeal to abductive reasoning or "inference to the best explanation"[citation needed]. Scientific realists point to the success of scientific theories in predicting and explaining a variety of phenomena, and argue that from this we can infer that our scientific theories (or at least the best ones) provide true descriptions of the world, or approximately so.

On the other hand, pessimistic induction, one of the main arguments against realism, argues that the history of science contains many theories once regarded as empirically successful but which are now believed to be false. Additionally, the history of science contains many empirically successful theories whose unobservable terms are not believed to genuinely refer. For example, the effluvial theory of static electricity is an empirically successful theory whose central unobservable terms have been replaced by later theories. A realist reply that replacement of particular realist theories with better ones is to be expected due to the progressive nature of scientific knowledge, and when such replacements occur only superfluous unobservables are dropped. For example, Albert Einstein's theory of special relativity showed that the concept of the luminiferous ether could be dropped because it had contributed nothing to the success of the theories of mechanics and electromagnetism. On the other hand, when theory replacement occurs, a well-supported concept, such as the concept of atoms, is not dropped but is incorporated into the new theory in some form.

Also against scientific realism social constructivists might argue that scientific realism is unable to account for the rapid change that occurs in scientific knowledge during periods of revolution. Constructivists may also argue that the success of theories is only a part of the construction[citation needed]. However, these arguments ignore the fact that many scientists are not realists. In fact, during what is perhaps the most notable example of revolution in science—the development of quantum mechanics in the 1920s—the dominant philosophy of science was logical positivism. The alternative realist Bohm interpretation and many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics do not make such a revolutionary break with the concepts of classical physics.