East Meets West Logic...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

The Metaphysical Idea of Nothing & The Absolute Idea of Everything...(an older post...)

Hello again guys, let's try another method to approach our dualistic mind states, so we may try to clear up all the confusing issues of this thread. Probably since the dawn of time, these two mind states of idealism and realism have existed, been argued over, and eventually wars fought over the differences, of no more than differing mind state views. It doesn't matter what person's ideas, or what philosophical, physics, religious, or any other type of system discussed, they all possess the two sides, as Fredrick has pointed out. The problem arises, and always has arisen, when the idealist metaphysical leaning mind, converses with the idealist realist leaning mind, no matter what the subject field. The question is, can a linguistics model be set up to, if not unite these differences, at the least, allow a sensible dialogue of the one and the many? I wrote about this over a decade ago. Since, I've searched many, many minds for just such a possible dialogue. I still don't know if it's even possible, but...

The metaphysicist will always come from the spiritual point of view, whether an internal spirit, or an external disconnected spirit, though they'd even see the outside spirit connected. The strict physicalist will always come from the physical realist point of veiw, whether others interpret it as internal or external solid matter, or not, is of no concern to him, as the strict realist knows all must be matter in motion___First, whether energy, spirit, or whatever can be stated. So this pits all strict idealist relativists against all strict realist absolutists. Now, of course, these are the extremes of beliefs, but all minds lean, either to one side or the other, and all minds, at the same time, use both___this is our ingrained DNA, so we don't have much choice, until fully recognized, and dealt with. Now, Fredrick seems to be good at spotting these two sides, but what are his suggestions, other than the tried and failed respect, which destroys the content of both or either views? How would any situation accomplish, having two diametrically opposed views, totally respect each's differences? Is it even possible? Is it even possible, without destroying the others' views?

Where does truth exist, when the truth of the metaphysical destroys the truth of the physical, and vice-versa? Now Fredrick has suggested; "Just as black can be placed on the platform of colors (for instance, it is one of the colors you can buy in the paint store) and at the same time can be moved off of the platform of colors (since scientifically it is no-reflection-of-light), we will always find at least two sets of whatever we are looking for. This is possible due to the function of nothing." I know this has something to do with the linguistic problem, but other ontic{meaning words having huge meanings} words are also a very huge linguistic problem, such as, infinity, one, whole, absolute, infinitesimal, all, many, etc., etc., but these come under the classification of qualia, i.e., quality and quantity. Philosophers have tried and failed to deal with these ontic words, for centuries, but is a linguistics', ontic word, puzzle solver possible? You see, dialogue becomes impossible, if the ground rules are not respected, and this thread probably has the highest disrespect of established scientific ground rules, of any thread, on this board, yet is still getting at the heart of being, and physics, so something worthwhile is transpiring, but what? Even though I posted this of Fredrick's; "This is possible due to the function of nothing.", I don't accept it as valid, as an absolute realist, as I can replace nothing with something___always, so where's that leave us?

Yet, at the same time, the metaphysics of nothing, is non-existent to the realist, it's real to the strict meta-idealist, either as a reality, or a tool to defeat the realist. And, though absolute reality of everything, is non-existent to the meta-idealist, it's absolutely real to the strict realist, and quite often over-used to defeat the meta-idealist. Let me look up what I wrote years ago, and see what I said;

"The only thing that makes consciousness real is quantifiable sound science, and universal dialogue of gender equilibrium. If it isn't quantifiable, it isn't! [all truth is quantifiable]"

"The metaphysical is true to the metaphysical aspects of life and the physical is true to the physical aspects of life, and both often operate dialogically opposing to each."

"The missing dialogical between the metaphysical and the physical - The intuitive perception?"

"A dialogical mind map between the metaphysical and the physical - The spiritual and the scientific - Intuitive perception?"

"The incomplete dialogical essence - The unconscious will?"

"We need a new dialogical mind map to fully process the total dynamics of philosophy - meta and physical."

"The unconscious entanglement of the metaphysical and the physical mind worlds into the dialogical."

"The major problems with classifications of words, thoughts, ideas and truths..."

"The metaphysical and physical worlds..."

"The metaphysical is often an abstract to the logical and the complex logical is often an abstract to the metaphysical."

"The choice of metaphysical intent makes the metaphysical true, yet often untrues the physical, and the choice of physical intent makes the physical true, and often untrues the metaphysical."

"A problem - The collision choices of mata and physical realities..."

"The two truth systems - Meta and physical - Spirit and science."

"The meta side of the mind wants prescedence over the physical and the physical side of the mind wants prescedence over the meta side, of each and every person."

"The two languages' dialogues we use to denote the meta and physical worlds is one, yet not conducive to easy understanding, due to its finite and infinite dualistic qualities, and is only quantifiably trued in its separate, yet united domains."

"The self-priorities of one's mind's actions - The choices it takes toward meta and physical intents. The meta and physical intent entanglements of selfs..."

"The truth of intentional choice..."

"The "new language" required to dialogue the mixed metaphors of infinite and finite spirits is "The Absolute Completenesses."

"Gender equilibrium - Each side is denying the rationalism of each's logic - Each sees the other as true irrational logic, thus creating a world governed by a-rationalism. [male-female same as West-East]"

"The #1 law of successful communication - Successful communication must be based on a universal completeness dialogue of equilibriating gender egalitarianism."

"Creative logic to dialogue the two opposite sides of logic - Truths to natural law!"

"We must practice universal comparative logic concepts."

"A problem in logic - "Logic can express real mathematical concepts of phenomena and life." [a contradiction of Godel]"

"The incompleteness theorem of language and a formal logic system of finite language...! [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]"

"The incompleteness of language theorem - We have never developed a cross-disciplinary language of successful logic - The dialogical problem! [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]"

"The problem of infinite verses finite communication - The academic community has failed to frame a proper dialogue to discuss social problems successfully without too many infinities linked to present dialogue - A new dialogue of political communication simplicity is needed. [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]"

"The almost impossibility of logical discussion in the present dialogical academic environment and framework of a too cluttered basis, leading to too many infinite possibilities, therefore; a simpler conceptual finite dialogical language is needed! [new fundamental natural law discoveries, by this author, solve the dialogical problems]"

"***Godel's incompleteness theorem as applied to language - A separation of finite and infinite language possibilities is absolutely necessary to dialogue successfully!"


Now, I ask, can any of the above be used, by any of us, to solve the problems, of the "One and The Many, Nothing and Everything, Infinity and Finiteness, etc., etc.?___The Dialogue Issue." If you notice, the author's solution is adherence to the natural laws, and new natural laws, developed by author.

[G_burnett]

A bit o' information from an older post:
The Enduring Mystery of Light

By Michael Schirber, Special to LiveScience


LiveScience Image Gallery

energy to me is absorbed by atoms in a transitional phase emit out of the forward of directive alignment in the atomic which is 90 degrees on the x plane .. to keep the atom in aymmetry due to it ability in the core and momentary flux... as the symmetgry is the emit radient what it does not need or contain there of... if that makes sence let me know graham

[labelwench]

Now, I ask, can any of the above be used, by any of us, to solve the problems, of the "One and The Many, Nothing and Everything, Infinity and Finiteness, etc., etc.?___The Dialogue Issue." If you notice, the author's solution is adherence to the natural laws, and new natural laws, developed by author.

Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Would the red highlighted above not be more akin to new understanding of natural laws, developed by the author? Naturals laws have not changed, IMO, or have they?

As for reconciling the the two main schools of thought, here is my crazy idea for the day.

Do we have sufficiently advanced computer software, that we could plug in the core representative points and ideas from each side and then ask the computer to model that information toward even a small area of consensus that could be agreed to by all as a starting point?

If we have the capacity to identify some common ground, perhaps we would find incentive to move outward from there?

My best guess is that even in using logic programs, one is going to arrive at some interesting findings and shapes in such a model.

Besides, it's soon time to quit arguing about the dimensions and we'd best start building this 'Ark'.

With sincere respect for your work in uniting these two schools of thought, and because I observe you to have a sense of humor almost as twisted as mine, I post the following bit of contemplative fun. (My brothers and I used to perform Cosby skits for visitors, and this was one of our favorites.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so9o3_daDZw

Noah’s Ark is commonly said to have been about 450 feet x 80 x 50 feet, but the dimensions were actually about 10% greater because the cubit used to design it was the royal cubit, about 20.63 inches long, which was also used to survey the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza, not the common cubit, which was about 18 inches long.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Now, I ask, can any of the above be used, by any of us, to solve the problems, of the "One and The Many, Nothing and Everything, Infinity and Finiteness, etc., etc.?___The Dialogue Issue." If you notice, the author's solution is adherence to the natural laws, and new natural laws, developed by author.

Yeah, I see where the wording wasn't the best on my part, but we as a species do develop the wording of the natural laws, so others may access easier understanding of the world around us. As I see the world and Universe, it's not governed by law, only the combinatorics of matter and motion, until the bio-era, where a far more complex system of combinatorics and dynamics takes over. The laws, and even the natural laws, are just mans interpretation of the underlying necessities of matter/energy in motion, either geo-combinatorically, or bio-combinatorically and dynamically__so humans actually do create the wordings of the laws of nature, to express our feeble understanding of her deeper workings, we may not yet thoroughly understand. What I was alluding to above, was a vision of mine of the state of mind between feelings and intellect__what do we actually call the middle state of mind, that thoroughly sees deep into the positive and negative dynamics and actions of both the left and right mind's actions...? We all use this decisions and non-decision mechanics, but no-one I know has really named it yet. Imo, this is the most important Universal state of mind that exists, as it's the middle mind, between the two extreme positions of all minds, yet no-one talks about it, except maybe what Fredrick was trying to speak about__but, I don't feel it can be described as he was attempting to, as it's actually a state of great mental motion, whether acted on or not, as when we may just enter a group of people and listen, while taking no verbal action to what's said, at all, as you quite often do Lorrina, or by maybe just offering light comments as you also do. What I'm getting at is this to me, is one of the most important aspects of being human, as it allows us the leeway, to maintain our aloofness of opinion of all ideas...

This most interesting state of mind can be described as our innate esthetic, or our Universal esthetic 'rhetorica utens', and more easily understood as that state of mind we've all carried since childhood__more commonly know as our 'innate soul', and quite closely related to what several of Lesley's threads are based upon. I've always been looking for this particular 'Universal vehicle' to bridge the gap between our feelings and intellect, and I think and feel this just may be what we are all looking for, in the fact it can act as the resting place for mental activity, without committed mental activity, that many of us use__without even defining it. The mechanics of such a middle mind state seems to fit all the way from our childhood souls, to our more mature states of being great listeners, when the situations most call for us to be so. I guess what I'm trying to describe is a positive state of rhetoric, which can be used to blend all our differences, through the use of what was mentioned in the first post of this thread; Originally posted by Aiya-Oba, as the equator of Self-contradiction is the Absolute logic. It is the Nuclear Logic Cross of cosmic unity and Self-creator of All in all. There is nothing that is not an aspect of the All in all - Spacetime. This fact is the most elusive truth about the geometry of Cosmos. It is the Singularity, the Equator and common String of All in all. Hold on to it, for its the future not the past. - Aiya-Oba.

Now, some may think 'absolute logic' is something it's really not. Absolute logic is just a tool, to understand all our maths and truths of maths and linguistic systems of thought. It's just that final arbitor of everyone's thoughts, even about our deepest emotional decisions. It's not infallible, but it's the best tool we do possess, to decide with__logic makes the least mistakes of anything next to pure mathematics, yet even math requires the logical decision engine, to apply and interpret the maths to the real world correspondences. So imo, absolute logic can find the best truths, in all areas of our lives. In fact, I think we should have mathematical justice over written justice, based on the 'Natural Utens' laws of this middle mind. Now, how would this work? Well, I've described it before as a background independent mathematical decision engine, purposely set up to show everyone why mathematics is a much fairer system of natural laws over our written laws, when fully comprehended. It's actually a simple setup__just start with equally high rational numbers, representing the ideas of all the world's citizens, on both sides of the left/right and postive/negative divides, and let the absolute ratio-logical maths decide the fairest order of all our social laws__where all the arguments are brought into one absolute logic decision engine, or a computer geared to do the same, and the world's problems can be pre-handedly worked out, just as you suggest below, Lorrina... Of course, it's a bit more complicated than this, but this is the general gist of the matter__and by recognizing the value of our 'rhetorica utens' souls as the center mind, to avoid the unnecessary differences of opinions, we may just be able to make a bit of headway...

('Utens' are our innate essence agents of thought...)

Would the red highlighted above not be more akin to new understanding of natural laws, developed by the author? Naturals laws have not changed, IMO, or have they?

As I mentioned above, we actually discover natural laws, to apply to nature's absolute actions...

As for reconciling the the two main schools of thought, here is my crazy idea for the day.

Do we have sufficiently advanced computer software, that we could plug in the core representative points and ideas from each side and then ask the computer to model that information toward even a small area of consensus that could be agreed to by all as a starting point?

Yes we do have plenty of computer power and software ability. The only thing stopping us is the arguments over the proper modeling techniques. This is where this middle mind capaciity must be used to bring the combative sides closer together, so a proper model can be decided on__A central common sensical model... Build a million of em, and let the computers decide the best__I suggested this as far back as 1972... I think it's about time somebody woke up and did it, don't you...???

If we have the capacity to identify some common ground, perhaps we would find incentive to move outward from there?

Lorrina, I agree completely__That's exactly what we need to do...

My best guess is that even in using logic programs, one is going to arrive at some interesting findings and shapes in such a model.

Besides, it's soon time to quit arguing about the dimensions and we'd best start building this 'Ark'.

Coming right up__LabelW's and LG's 'Ark...'

With sincere respect for your work in uniting these two schools of thought, and because I observe you to have a sense of humor almost as twisted as mine, I post the following bit of contemplative fun. (My brothers and I used to perform Cosby skits for visitors, and this was one of our favorites.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so9o3_daDZw

Noah’s Ark is commonly said to have been about 450 feet x 80 x 50 feet, but the dimensions were actually about 10% greater because the cubit used to design it was the royal cubit, about 20.63 inches long, which was also used to survey the dimensions of the Great Pyramid of Giza, not the common cubit, which was about 18 inches long.

What do we call it...? The Star-Trek Ark...!!! Or, The White Borg Ark...!!!

Just joking,
Have fun...

[labelwench]

What do we call it...? The Star-Trek Ark...!!! Or, The White Borg Ark...!!!

LOL.......

Right off the top of my head, I'd suggest it's going to be pretty bare-bones to start, so perhaps the name ST-ARK might be appropriate.......rolling on the floor now, lol......

I'll give it some thought tonight at work.

Later.......

[labelwench]

Now, some may think 'absolute logic' is something it's really not. Absolute logic is just a tool, to understand all our maths and truths of maths and linguistic systems of thought. It's just that final arbitor of everyone's thoughts, even about our deepest emotional decisions. It's not infallible, but it's the best tool we do possess, to decide with__logic makes the least mistakes of anything next to pure mathematics, yet even math requires the logical decision engine, to apply and interpret the maths to the real world correspondences. So imo, absolute logic can find the best truths, in all areas of our lives.

Originally posted by Lloyd Gillespie

Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples, the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.

From Wiki

I arose with the thought that part of our challenge lies in designing a process that is capable of logical deduction while at the same time able to feed in new data and factor this new information into the paradigm without bias.

It is our nature to attach ego, and therefore bias, especially when we have much energy, money and/or emotion invested in any undertaking.

For such reason, it may take a computer program to aid us, mostly for removing the bias which we are all prone to. As far as the actual computation, our brain is nature's computer and so well capable of the task, save for our conditioned habit of attachment, which impedes our ability to communicate respectfully at times.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

You know, growing up on a farm, the first thing I learned of real significance, was math and logic__when my father killed and scalded my pet pig. I hated him for some time, until I actually figured out we had to eat to stay alive, but it still took some time to forgive my father for killing a pig I'd fed and cared for, since being a piglet. Upon doing all the emotional mental gymnastics, I finally had to get about rationalizing the situation__and what I found surprised me. I thought back to when human societies were first evolving as tribes gathering together, and hunting and fishing for survival. I realized that killing was necessary to feed the tribe, but why did it have to be my pig? But upon further rationalizing, I didn't then think it fair to kill another kid's pig either__and taking this analysis to its limit, I came to the realization that if no pigs, fish animals or plants were killed, we'd all starve to death__Then I finally realized the reality of kill or be killed, action-reaction, supply and demand, etc., etc., etc., on and on... But, I sure did love that pig. He was about 300 lbs. when slaughtered, but when that 30-30 hit his head, I could have killed my father__then especially when dunking him in that barrel of scalding hot water, to remove the bristles, I just had to run for the house and brood, for days... I never did eat any of that pig. My parents even punished me later for refusing to eat him, but I took my banishment to my bedroom instead. It was probably a month before I'd fully rationalized out all the maths and logics of childhood survival techniques of adults, but it was a major lesson, I've never forgot. So, as you may see, math and logic is a major part of my makeup, since the earliest of childhood years...

And, when I attend academic intellectual meetings, it baffles my mind how many pin-head intellectuals reject maths and logics, as the very foundation of the philosophy, psychologies or whatever subject they may be discussing__as I can see no way to found and ground such studies, soundly, without the maths and logics of my childhood lessons...

One pig, is One pig, to feed the Many in the family__through the long cold winter. No cave man who couldn't count, and logically compare size of the game caught, could have ever fed his tribe__well enough__for any of us to even be here__Thus to me, Math and Logic are absolutely, and innately, Fundamental...

So, when someone tells you math and logic are not important to survival, or any intellectual or emotional studies__Remember my piglet to pig story...

I arose with the thought that part of our challenge lies in designing a process that is capable of logical deduction while at the same time able to feed in new data and factor this new information into the paradigm without bias.

It is our nature to attach ego, and therefore bias, especially when we have much energy, money and/or emotion invested in any undertaking.

For such reason, it may take a computer program to aid us, mostly for removing the bias which we are all prone to. As far as the actual computation, our brain is nature's computer and so well capable of the task, save for our conditioned habit of attachment, which impedes our ability to communicate respectfully at times.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

BARRIERS AGAINST INTERDISCIPLINARITY: IMPLICATIONS FOR STUDIES OF SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND SOCIETY (STS)

Useful Insights From STS

Below are listed a few of the things that all educated people ought to know about science, technology, and society. Some of them are known to and taught by one or another discipline or subdiscipline, but no other endeavor than STS seeks to encompass them all. Yet they are all important to the wider society and have immediate applications.

1. Science and technology are quite different things. Therefore, don't assume that advances in science will necessarily or always lead to important technology.

2. Future knowledge is unforeseeable: that is, future science is unforeseeable. Therefore, it is paradoxical for a National Science Foundation to claim to support potential breakthroughs by awarding funds to "projects" judged by reviewers on the basis of how likely they are to succeed.

3. While specific technologies can sometimes be foreseen, the implications of technology are unforeseeable. However, it is almost certain that any new technology will have unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences.

4. Single, even apparently simple factors lead to a multitude of consequences because living systems and societies harbor complex interrelationships. There is no such feasible thing as "only" wiping out mosquitoes, for example - other living species will be affected; nor can one "only" clean up the environment – the standard of living measured in conventional ways will be lowered; nor will there be a miracle drug to lower blood cholesterol and leave the rest of a person working as before; nor will it make sense to transplant organs until the immune system is understood rather than seen as an enemy to be immobilized.

5. Some of the most worrisome social questions cannot be answered by unequivocal experiment; the best available evidence will always be statistical; statistical inferences always have a residual uncertainty; correlations do not signify causation.

6. Science is fallible. Facts are theory-laden. Such contingent factors as individual psychology, social forces, and historical influences have their effect on the speed and direction of progress of science. Nevertheless, science is enormously reliable. One needs to recognize and respect the distinction between science at the frontier, where much is contingent and uncertain, and science in the textbooks, where little is uncertain (within the boundary conditions under which the knowledge was gained) and almost nothing remains contingent on psychological or social or political or religious factors. Within the STS community itself this point is not widely enough understood (Bauer 1986b): The humanists and social scientists understand the fallibility and contingency of science at the frontier but have little if any feel for the enormous reliability of long-established science, whereas the engineers and scientists know the enormous reliability of their texts and reference works without realizing that the same reliability does not pertain to recent discoveries, let alone to projections made by individuals.

7. Science is a social activity. Therefore, it is inherently conservative. Breakthroughs occur despite scientists, not because of them: they occur when reality refuses to mold itself any longer to current theories. The reliability of science and the conservatism of science are inextricably linked.

All these points are of course quite simple ones and draw on no deep understanding of philosophy of science or history of science or any of the other relevant specialties; they must seem quite mundane in comparison to the issues that are typically discussed in specialty journals. But that is how it must be when a new discipline seeks to establish itself: It must begin with only those things that are held in common by all practitioners; and when the individual disciplines are as disparate as in STS, things are bound to seem rather superficial at first. Nevertheless, if even a few of these insights and their corollaries were acted upon, there would be immediate and tangible benefits to society. Admittedly, acceptance of these realities is hampered by the fact that they run counter to popular wishful thinking. STS surely has an important role to play in educating to these realities and in discovering more detail about the nature of science and technology and their interactions with other human institutions.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Principles of Brain-Based Learning...

1. The brain is a parallel processor:

The brain performs many tasks simultaneously, including thinking and feeling.

2. Learning engages the entire physiology:
The brain and the body are engaged in learning.

3. The search for meaning is innate:

“[T]he brain’s/mind’s search for meaning is very personal. The greater the extent to which what we learn is tied to personal, meaningful experiences, the greater and deeper our

learning will be” (Caine and Caine 1994, 96).

4. The search for meaning occurs through patterning:
“The brain is designed to perceive and generate patterns, and it resists having meaningless patterns imposed on it” (Caine and Caine 1994, 8.

5. Emotions are critical to patterning:
Our emotions are brain based; they play an important role in making decisions. In the groundbreaking The Emotional Brain, Joseph LeDoux (1996) clearly explains how the emotional

neural passageways (which originate in our amygdala) influence the neural passageways needed for academic and scholarly work.

6. The brain processes parts and wholes simultaneously:
The left and the right hemisphere have different functions, but they are designed to work together.

7. Learning involves both focused attention and peripheral perception:

People hold general perceptions of the environment and pay selective attention to various parts of it.

8. Learning always involves conscious and unconscious processes:

There is interplay between our conscious and our unconscious. “One primary task of educators is to help students take charge of their conscious and unconscious processing” (Caine and Caine 1994, 157).

9. We have at least two different types of memory: spatial (autobiographical) and rote learning (taxon memory).

The taxon or rote memory systems consist of “facts and skills that are stored by practice and rehearsal” (Caine and Caine 1994, 169). Spatial, or autobiographical, memory “builds relationships among facts, events, and experiences” (Caine and Caine 1994, 170).

10. Learning is developmental:
Children, and their brains, benefit from enriched home and school environments.

11. Learning is enhanced by challenge and inhibited by threat:
Students optimally benefit when their assignments are challenging and the classroom environment feels safe and supportive. Daniel Goleman (1994) expands upon the importance of eliminating threat from the classroom in the influential Emotional Intelligence: Why It Can Matter More Than IQ. Each brain is uniquely organized. When teaching, we need to consider how each student learns most effectively; each student has his or her own unique set of brain strengths and weaknesses.

[labelwench]

An important lesson learned and thank you for sharing your story of wrestling with the very personal learning that life requires death. It is an important lesson that many today have not come to grips with, as they purchase their dried jerky snacks, and jelly beans (gelatin, how many know where it comes from?) and select their meat, dairy and seafood in personal size and colorful packaging that never hints at a breathing being as the source.

I have hunted, farmed and fished, with respect to the lives that have offered themselves to me and mine, and when I pass, my cremated remains shall nourish the earth and the Vegans can delude themselves if they choose, yet the simple fact of the matter remains: plants also eat meat, once the soil organisms have reduced the mucky bits back into usable form.

Ever notice that the grass grows greenest over the septic tank and at the cemetery? Hmmmmm.........