East Meets West Logic...

[labelwench]

As you raise the topic of heaven or hell, I post the following here.

There are several comments made that may be contentious. If this is too problematical for you, feel free to have this post removed. It is never my intent to give offense, merely to demonstrate that we have inherited some most conflicting history.......

On her radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant
Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus
18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance.

The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, written by a US man,
and posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I
have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that
knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend
the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that
Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of
debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other
elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair
price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how
do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus
35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated
to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there
'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I
have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading
glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room
here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two
different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments
made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also
tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go
to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family
affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy
considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan.

James M. Kauffman, Ed.D. Professor Emeritus,
Dept. Of Curriculum, Instruction, and Special Education
University of Virginia

PS (It would be a damn shame if we couldn't own a
Canadian)

I am Canadian, and I suggest it would be hazardous for any to attempt to 'Own' me.

[Lloyd Gillespie]

A General Universal Communication Methodology…

"Consciousness vs. Intelligence, Wit and Wisdom__You have a choice, but you can't have both at once__I choose intelligence, wit and wisdom."

After following the many threads on TQ over the last year, I’ve come to a few conclusions as to why it’s so difficult for so many diverse opinions, to come to reasonable agreements. Many may think they already know the answers to this quandary, and still others may think it’s impossible to achieve any semblance of Universal agreements, while another group may still be attempting the near impossible of achieving just such a goal. Anyway, I’d like to add my opinions to the problems I think all of us are well aware of…

Let me start with the age old ‘One and The Many’, that’s been with us since antiquity. What does this actually mean as relates to our abilities of processing informations’ presented by others? If we truly think about it, this can be parsed into the two states of ‘emotions applying to the many’, and ‘intellect applying to the one’__though both be capable of either. I think this may give a new perspective to attack the problems from. You can already see that if one person is trying to speak from his/her emotions, and another is interpreting into his/her intellect__we have a fundamental problem, of most likely, neither party recognizing the fact of opposing meanings being properly interpreted__which causes many of the unnecessary problems…

Next, let’s take a look at why fundamental universals of ‘the one and the many’ cause such difficulty. Just what is it about the near impossibility of the ‘one’ being processed into the ‘many’, or vice-versa? I think the problem arises due to the fact that the ‘one’ is a set function of most minds, and the ‘many’ is a variable function of most minds__and though these are not impossibilities of associations, they can cause cross-firings of our modes of interpretation from one to another__thus, twisting the intended meanings of our transfers of ideas. For instance, I’ll say ‘c is absolute’, just as Einstein stated it, and the person hearing it, according to whether interpreting particularly or whole-istically, will hear a contradiction if coming from emotions, and some even from intellect, due to being taught some earlier belief, which is a base emotion, and will counter__without ever finding out my real meaning of the fact I’m trying to relay…

So, what is it that’s truly going on here…? Is it the speaker not making his points clear enough to begin with, or is it the hearer jumping too far too early to a conclusion? Is there a way to prevent such misinterpretations? Is there a truly general universal communication methodology even possible, that may be adopted by all communicators and hearers, to make idea transfer easier, and constitute a more correct meaning of ideas transfered? I say there is, but it may take some considerable convincing. Let’s just take the three main intellectual/emotional conundrums__relativity_uncertainty__and incompleteness, as I think these are causing more trouble than even ‘The One and The Many’ problems...

No matter what anyone tries to speak, hear or interpret in the modern world, these three words seem to play havoc between emotional and intellectual meanings, interpretations and transfers of ideas, especially here at TQ, because these three words are in just about everyone’s spoken, written and implied ideas’ transfers__one to another. Now, if we look at intellect and emotions as the ‘One’ and the ‘Many’ again, with a new eye to see this actually involves all our intelligence and cognition factors of parsing the informations’ presented__we may make some headway. In fact, if all parties are not aware of the ‘Limits of Knowledge’ at both ends of the ‘Intellectual and Emotional Spectrum’, they will be functioning in a world of massive untruths, not by any fault of their own necessarily, but by the simple fact of not realizing the most important facts, of what is not possible of being knowledge, in all information transfers…

I can tell you, the most important lesson I learned long ago, and I think it was from Daniel Boorstin, America’s Librarian of Congress, and major writer of histories__that; “Ignorance lies at both ends of knowledge”, whether intellectual or emotional__before we learn and/or after we learn, that’s oh so important to know. It’s truly what we do not know, and can not know, that plays the overwhelming importance in all our intelligence processing__far more than what we do know__for to not know, what is not known, and can not be known, is a far greater subtraction from one’s knowledge base, than is all the information one does and can know__of that which is truly knowledge, and not just information mixed with pseudo-information. And, here’s where relativity, uncertainty and incompleteness of the facts plays such a major role. All three of these systems, and the ideas related to them, have significant influence on all parties ideas’ formations__whether one realizes it or not…

No-one can properly process information, until they are well aware of what’s true and possible under the ‘Theories of Relativity’, being no more than subjective measurements, of actual classical motion__and not what-so-ever related to any social systems of truths__What’s actually scientifically meant by ‘The Uncertainty Principle’, and the fact it’s to do with the still deep unknowns of all quantum models__and that they are models__And what’s scientifically meant by ‘Incompleteness’, where this one becomes one of the most difficult to properly process, as it not only includes Godel’s complex and formal papers about mathematical incompletenesses__but also applies to the real incompletenesses of our information and intelligence systems, as well as nature’s incompleteness of evolutions. In no way can anyone possibly understand anothers’ ideas, at the levels talked about on TQ, without fully understanding the limits of our minds’ processing abilities__which truly limit our intelligences to far lower levels than most all may be aware of. We have no way of achieving a general universal communication methodology, without first realizing and fully exploring the meanings of what’s been mentioned in this short post__but, if parties be willing to explore such ideas, then I think a possible, yet general universal communication methodology, may be able to be established__where the limits of knowledge and intelligence systems are respected__by creating a new area of ‘A General Median Intelligence’ between everyone’s extremes…

Such methodology is simply accomplished by realizing and respecting the limits of what can and can’t be known, and what is and can be known__of everything from emotions to intellect__and not the present foolishness of what’s simply believed to be true of pseudo-scientific intellects and pseudo-emotional systems__Whether physics or consciousness…

I recommend ‘A General Median Intelligence__The Middle Way’, due to the fact ‘Complexity Maths’ and ‘Raw Opinions’ can not process at either end of the knowledge spectrum__Neither intellect, due to ‘Relativity, Uncertainty and Incompleteness’ problems, and the fact the statistics are not available__Nor emotions, due to these same ‘Relativity, Uncertainty and Incompleteness’ problems and limits mentioned__and imo, only a ‘General Associative Algebra and Understanding’ is capable of handling the immense tasks of ‘Generally Quantifying’ from the emotional to the intellectual__through such ‘A General Median Intelligence’, as suggested…

[G_burnett]

....

I am Canadian, and I suggest it would be hazardous for any to attempt to 'Own' me.

who is selling ? sage said we can get a donation box going and have your freedom bought and paid for in less then an hour !!!
alternatively I told him you were worth more then that and would take a day at least .. g

[labelwench]

Emotions do not translate intellectually very well, yet often it may be intellect communicated and not acknowledged that may lead to an emotional response. (From personal experience.)

I read your post and contemplated sending it to my Mother for her comments, she being a lady of considerable experience and well read, the daughter of a Lt.-Col., a man who was asked by every provincial and federal party to run for office and his counsel sought.

Then I thought better of it.

If I present it to her as a request, she will apply herself because I ask, yet she has too little energy to spare, and I would not ask her when I know her well enough to surmise her response.

Your well educated and very experienced base of knowledge is not the one that most of the people I encounter daily come from. Of the three hundred or so folks that I could print this off and give it too, there may be a handful that would find it something to contemplate.

So there is a number for you.

About 5 of 300 might understand what you have presented.

The gap in your experiencing and that of the target audience has historically been the reason why mankind is ever engaged in re-inventing the wheel (metaphorically speaking) and repeating mistakes from the past, and that is only on the plane of logic.

As far as emotions go, we may master them in one or several arenas, and yet, sooner or later, we will encounter a situation that lends us to vulnerability, whether it be an extreme of joy, anger or sorrow, to name but a few states that may come upon us with very little notice.

Persons of my observation appear to be absorbed in the challenge of keeping the wolf from the door, maintaining personal relationships and blowing off a little steam on the weekends.

Finding the middle way that you suggest is an interesting exercise, and I have only one question?

How shall the criteria of the middle way be determined?

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Finding the middle way that you suggest is an interesting exercise, and I have only one question?

How shall the criteria of the middle way be determined?

Lorrina, the only answer I'd have to that is 'the generality of ideas'__but, I've advocated that idea since I started posting last year... Myself, I choose to live in campgrounds where there are no people like myself, as I've lived in those academically populated campgrounds, and the egos are unbearable__I hate em... I find the generalities of common folk to my pleasing, and when I want intellectual contact, I make it at my choice and pleasure, and often-times displeasure, by having and knowing plenty of intellectual/academic friends and associates to visit, any time I wish. I may make one to two intellectual visits a month__that's plenty of that mind thrashing for me__but, somehow TQ seems to offer something that educates me to my greater self, as I find myself whittling my intellectual ideas down to manageable slices, piece by piece, bit by bit__even though it probably doesn't seem so to many, here. One day I may be able to offer something interesting, entertaining and compelling__all at once. Wouldn't that be something...???

Thanks Lorrina for all your support,
Afa, Lloyd

[r.p.bibra]

"How shall the criteria of the middle way be determined?"

With the baton of (highly evolved) intellect, LG could be trusted to enforce the “Median Intelligence path”! Give it an honest try, better beginning at the center of power i.e., USA.love&regards.ls

[Lloyd Gillespie]

"How shall the criteria of the middle way be determined?"

With the baton of (highly evolved) intellect, LG could be trusted to enforce the “Median Intelligence path”! Give it an honest try, better beginning at the center of power i.e., USA.love&regards.ls

Thanks for another vote of confidence ls__it's appreciated...

[Lloyd Gillespie]

Thought I'd repost this again, since it fits with my main post #3272...

The Tri-Modal Mechanics of Minds…


"All actionable necessity, is decided by systems' mechanics..." me
"Systems' Control__What can't be done, is more than what can be done..." me
"The space-time metric, is just the measurement tool of space and time..." me
"Universal intelligence is seeing time__Time connects all concepts..." me

The Interesting Questions__What is intelligence…? Is there truly anything that is really classifiable as intelligence…? Our egos have taken these questions for granted so long, we think it ridiculous to even ask such questions__But, is it ridiculous, or possibly the most important series of questions we must ask and answer, to discover any true grounding for any and all of our scientific investigations…? I say it is certainly the most profound and important scientific area of investigation we must explore, to truly understand our selves, and the greater Universe around us…

If we just take all mentality's systems' control, and explore its limits, through its opposing ends of subjective complexity, and objective complexity, all the way to super-objective systems’ complexity, we may begin to see some of these avenues of new groundings, even if these new groundings be in a complete realization of background independencies, not yet realized, in all our information and knowledge systems. Take a look at Robert Plutchik’s emotion diagram:




and one can easily see why any forms of subjective emotional intelligence quickly becomes almost impossible of interpretation or conceptualization, due to the complex inter-connectednesses possible__thus preventing anything but a general reference related to motives of will, or goals. It isn’t that we can’t know all these individual aspects of emotions, it’s just we have no distinct method of separating these many energy sources, from the whole, to make any particular sense of the individual information systems. All we can at most achieve, is to make up just about any scenario we may please, or the origin of the personal private languages, long ago mentioned by Wittgenstein…

Now, let’s look at the objective conceptualizable intellect, and see if we fair any better. Take any object you may wish, internal instinctual systems, or external objects, objective systems, or anything at all that we may form intelligent analysis about, and simply ask; “Do we actually form a true and viable intelligence of these many thousands of information systems, or do we just assemble information scenarios, hypotheses, concepts and simple relationships of…?” Truly look into the depths of your personal and intellectual analysis/es of any and all of the ideas you’ve looked at, or do hold as truths in your mind right now, and see if you really observe intelligence of the objectives and objects represented, or you are really assessing your own personal ego__and how can you seriously tell the difference…?

Now, let me complicate the problem even more by adding in the super-objectivity of the total global systems’ mechanics involved in the entire question, of any scenario, hypothesis, theory or whatever you may set up or think about, and ask what’s the relationships of the subjective systems’ mechanics, with the objective systems’ mechanics, and finally with the super-objective systems’ mechanics. By the super-objective systems’ mechanics I’m talking about all the physical geological, biological, cosmic, chemical, electrical, techtonic, volcanic, earthquake, flood, tsunami, gamma ray blast, resources’ depletions, metals depletions, minerals depletions, economics and contract goals from outside systems, the sun and sun bursts, em field changes, galactic system changes, on and on or whatever… What are the total effects on any single system we may think about, in relation to the interactions of all three of these major systems’ mechanics…? Is it even possible to know any real truth about such complexity on this end of the spectrum either, any more than it is at the bottom end of the emotional and instinctual systems spectrums…? It’s not that we can’t do the conceptual analyses of the individual elements, it’s the fact it’s next to impossible to hold these high number of concept systems’ mechanics’ inter-actions, in perception long enough to gather the accurate information required, to achieve scientific truth. The higher the number of concepts involved, the lower the probabilities of possible successes. The best we achieve, as the numbers of systems increases, is a fuzzy logic, and more fuzzy the higher the elements involved__Yet we and our systems of academics do not seem to take these facts into consideration when designing the definitions of what intelligence may truly be… So, is it truly anything any more clear to defining what intelligence really is than Plutchik’s ideas and complexities of emotional intelligence…?

I think our big egos have a long ways, to climb down out of the sky, to reach any soundness of real ground… There isn’t even any mathematics possible of handling all the complexities I’ve mentioned above__No matter how many computers are tasked to the problem, of finding and defining true intelligence… Intelligence may equate to a ToE, but if we can’t even begin to define intelligence, how can we ever expect to define a ToE…?

The honesty and experience mix, must be looked at much deeper. Truly look at these scenarios, and let me know how you see science having any possibility of defining a truly grounded intelligence__as relates to any possible ToE... The closer to inclusion of everything, the closer to the complexity of everything. The closer to simplicity of everything, the closer to the complexity of everything… You lose, by losing in either direction…

Mentality's Systems' Control__Limits = Subjective Complexity <--> Objective Complexity

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And this one as well...

Knowledge To Wisdom__We Need A Revolution, by Nicholas Maxwell


We need a revolution in the aims and methods of academic inquiry. Instead of giving priority to the search for knowledge, academia needs to devote itself to seeking and promoting wisdom by rational means, wisdom being the capacity to realize what is of value in life, for oneself and others, wisdom thus including knowledge but much else besides. A basic task ought to be to help humanity learn how to create a better world.

Acquiring scientific knowledge dissociated from a more basic concern for wisdom, as we do at present, is dangerously and damagingly irrational.


Natural science has been extraordinarily successful in increasing knowledge. This has been of great benefit to humanity. But new knowledge and technological know-how increase our power to act which, without wisdom, may cause human suffering and death as well as human benefit. All our modern global problems have arisen in this way: global warming, the lethal character of modern war and terrorism, vast inequalities of wealth and power round the globe, rapid increase in population, rapid extinction of other species, even the aids epidemic (aids being spread by modern travel). All these have been made possible by modern science dissociated from the rational pursuit of wisdom. If we are to avoid in this century the horrors of the last one - wars, death camps, dictatorships, poverty, environmental damage - we urgently need to learn how to acquire more wisdom, which in turn means that our institutions of learning become devoted to that end.

The revolution we need would change every branch and aspect of academic inquiry. A basic intellectual task of academic inquiry would be to articulate our problems of living (personal, social and global) and propose and critically assess possible solutions, possible actions. This would be the task of social inquiry and the humanities. Tackling problems of knowledge would be secondary. Social inquiry would be at the heart of the academic enterprise, intellectually more fundamental than natural science. On a rather more long-term basis, social inquiry would be concerned to help humanity build cooperatively rational methods of problem-solving into the fabric of social and political life, so that we may gradually acquire the capacity to resolve our conflicts and problems of living in more cooperatively rational ways than at present. Natural science would change to include three domains of discussion: evidence, theory, and aims - the latter including discussion of metaphysics, values and politics. Academic inquiry as a whole would become a kind of people's civil service, doing openly for the public what actual civil services are supposed to do in secret for governments. Academia would actively seek to educate the public by means of discussion and debate, and would not just study the public.

These changes are not arbitrary. They all come from demanding that academia cure its current structural irrationality, so that reason - the authentic article - may be devoted to promoting human welfare.


Scientific Intelligence and True Wisdom__The Missing Elements...


Can Humanity Learn to become Civilized?
The Crisis of Science without Civilization

[Lloyd Gillespie]

And another, to keep the last straight...

The Universal Science of Physics and Cosmology, vs., The Metaphysical Fallacy of Inside à Out Thinking…

"In order to need logic, we need a problem. In order to have a problem, we need to have a goal. In order to have a goal… we must have a mind…" by hambydammit

The scientific reality of Outside à In logical thinking is being almost entirely overlooked on most of this entire forum. Most every post I read is being premised from the mind’s background dependent ego circuits à out, onto the world stage. This type of thinking is not science, due to being grounded in the metaphysical experience of pure ego, instead of a logical id. No matter how much thinking, contemplating, meditating, theorizing or whatever, the scientific facts can never be reached by the background dependent inside-out process of thinking__From spirit and ego-out. All science must be grounded in the outside-in thinking processes, due to science requiring actual measurable grounding__Which no internal process offers__Due to the infinite regress to un-decidability. Outside-in always determines the proper scientific method…

Just as mentioned in this article I published a few days ago, any true scientific intelligence requires its external of mind system of proof, to allow it to escape the many metaphysical fallacies, which pervade most of the posts on this forum…

Universal Intelligence...

by hambydammit

"To begin, we must ask what intelligence is and what it does. It’s very difficult to speak of it without getting very complicated, for intelligence is not really a single quality. It is a related set of abilities displayed by living organisms, including the capacity for logic, foresight, abstract thought, communication, and problem solving. Each of these concepts in itself presents a big problem for universal intelligence, for each of them is intrinsically tied to organic life.

The capacity for logic is certainly not restricted to organic life. Computers are capable of using it, but we must not be fooled into thinking this to be extraordinarily important. Computers are tools made by humans to serve a purpose, and that fact is crucial to understanding why logic is such a big deal. In order to need logic, we need a problem. In order to have a problem, we need to have a goal. In order to have a goal… we must have a mind.

Similarly, foresight, abstract thought, and communication are all manifestations of purpose. A living being has a need or a want, and each of these abilities is an evolutionary adaptation which developed to facilitate the achievement of a goal. So intrinsically joined are these concepts with purpose that it becomes quite nonsensical to discuss a non-living thing having any of them."

If one is careful in reading the above, you will notice how the logic mentioned does not refer to the geo-sphere, but to the bio-sphere of humanity__Then not to the metaphysical, but to the rational physical aspects of calculation__logical calculations__Which are calculations which can either be done by real external world computers, or on real external world paper, blackboards, etc.,__This is what makes our thinking truly objective and real world provable__Not some inside-out metaphysical fallacy conjured up by the base ego, of dumb lil’ ol’ man. Why people can not understand, their logics must shed their egos’ background dependencies, for the true scientific background independencies of Universal Intelligence__over personal intelligence, is beyond me. It seems no matter how many times certain people are exposed to these facts, they just absolutely do not see or fathom the necessity of such scientific methods, to do real science__Science Is Never Science, Without the Outside à In Method__To back and prove its internal mechanics of using the innate logic tool…

How one detaches their logic from their background dependent ego is not important, as even extremely religious people can detach from their metaphysical egos, to do pure science, as many great physicists, scientists and philosophers have shown, all through the ages__It’s just the fact, it absolutely must be done to do any form of sound science. I detached years ago, when I realized I couldn’t explore the major fields of science and physics any further__by being far too attached to my ingrained beliefs, which were really no more than ideologies, fallacies of beliefs, and other such brain-washings of many of life’s ill advised experiences. It’s just that trying to see the world whole, from the inside-out is so limiting in scope, it forces anyone, including many of our best physicists, mathematicians and scientists into the ridiculous gauge theories, and metaphysically false oneness models, they’ll never be able to see the Universal background independent intelligences of true scientific and Universal grounds. The inside-out view of cosmic formation, or any type of Universal and biological evolution__Traps one’s mind in an impossibility of the real physical world, Universe and laws’ true and possible actions__Yet, the inside-outers can’t see it__And it’s mostly due to their old nemesis, the one-God non-sense. And, it’s not there’s anything wrong with believing in God, if that be your choice__But, where science is concerned__God absolutely must be abandoned__To do any real science__And that’s a fact…

Science is not God, not oneness, not inside-out metaphysical ego or spirit, and not any internal sense, that can not be absolutely measured and proved by external means__And, that’s the bottom line, of all or any scientific method, behind any and all possible science. To try and do science, while ignoring these fundamental requirements of logical reasoning__Will never achieve any form of science…