[volantis]

Thanks for the support on being more precise with words.

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson The ultimate question is very simple: "Why must we die?".

I don't know. My big question is, "Why were we born in the first place?"

It amazes me that our entire earthly reality is constructed of just electrons and protons in various bound and unbound combinations. Although I can now see how all these electron and protons combined to produce my physical body, now I need to know why it came into existence in that way and how my mind became attached to it.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by volantis Thanks for the support on being more precise with words. I don't know. My big question is, "Why were we born in the first place?" It amazes me that our entire earthly reality is constructed of just electrons and protons in various bound and unbound combinations. Although I can now see how all these electron and protons combined to produce my physical body, now I need to know why it came into existence in that way and how my mind became attached to it.

Why do you say your mind is attached to it. Do you think your mind is separate to the electrons and protons and was created by some other process?

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Graybeard Why do you say your mind is attached to it. Do you think your mind is separate to the electrons and protons and was created by some other process?

I don't know that there is a why. I think 'why' is a function of memory. And memory is a crucial mechanism for 'earthly evolution'. There may be no why, but there must be a how. I am not sure myself

[Bob Campbell]

Truth is a universal value, like beauty or goodness. It is not a set of facts; it is the spontaneous recognition of their veracity, a recognition associated with the very nature of being. In this sense we participate in the nature of universal being. We are all in some manner united in this universality, even as we are particular aspects of it. This is a very fundamental relativity principle that is also a very old human realization, reaching back millenia to the Vedic tradition and the Pyramid Texts. This approach to rational understanding is distinct from the personal realization of truth and it can lead to a TOE. There are free articles relating to this approach at www.cosmic-mindreach.com.

Regards,
Bob

[Steve Hanson]

You're welcome, Volantis. The older I get the more I love the meaning behind the words we use.
Although you said I was 'essentially' correct when I put absolute truth in my words and related it to a value system, I suspect you might have meant something else.
When I think of 'essense', I think of the process of abstracting out similarities between things and giving this 'essense' a name by itself. This is normally associated with 'concept' and terms relating to concepts are at the conceptual level.
A direct perception of existence, i.e. sight, sound, smell, etc. is one level of truth. An essense is another level of truth.
Is this closer to what you meant?

AntonioLao:

you know it is the truth, once you found it. If you are still searching for it then you still have not found it. Subjectively, many people have found it. Objectively, I have not found it.

lol. Ah, but yes you have. The truth you have found is that you haven't found it.

Bob Campbell:

it is the spontaneous recognition of their veracity, a recognition associated with the very nature of being.

Now when you say, 'spontaneous recognition' I think of an emotional response to a set of facts. An "I know it in my gut" sort of thing. Is this what you mean?

Volantis:

I don't know. My big question is, "Why were we born in the first place?"

I needed some time to figure out how to answer that and to show why my question ("why must we die") is better. You see, if we could answer my question, perhaps it would give us more time to figure out the answer to your question.
Steve

[Guille]

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson Truth is a measure of the distance between our internal model of existence and the way existence really is. That implies that we simply observe existence and attempt to build an internal model of how we think it works, worked and will work. To the extent that our model is different than existence, that is a measure of the falseness of our beliefs. To the extent that our model correctly describes existence, that is a measure of the usefullness of our beliefs. Any other way of looking at 'truth' simply makes it more complicated than it needs to be and makes it useless.

Hi steve.

Well, if I have understood correctly your post, then your theory is that beliefs are near to us, and knowledge, truths, are near to reality (existence). Let me know if this is a wrong interpretation.

Ok, if you state that, what do you think about thoughts? My brain-mind theory is a lot near to your truth-belief theory:

The brain contains electric charges which carry information from reality (existence) which is true and are facts. This is knowledge. Then, the knwoledge is processed by our brain and then by our mind. Our brain starts by analizing the knowledge into if it is logical and coherential between all the other knowledges. Then, if the brain is positive about it, the mind is in charge of analizing the piece of knowledge and check if it makes sense with it's beliefs. Both of these two processes are centered on the derivation of knowledge, which I like calling thought. Then, if the knwoeldge is correct with our beliefs, we convert it into one more of our beliefs. This is all: knowledge-thought-belief. And then, when we have this knew belief, we encounter knew knowledges, which take us again to the starrt of the process.

I want to ask you: Do you agree that thought is what is in the middle between knowledge and belief? Between truth and hope?

By the way, I like your signature.

[Steve Hanson]

Hi GUILLE: I think that we are basically on the same page. If we differ, it's just in which term is being used.

The brain contains electric charges which carry information from reality (existence) which is true and are facts.

In my understanding, I refer to this as perception. The perception of sight, the perception of hearing, etc. And yes, it is definitely knowledge. The best kind. Least doubtful.

Then, the knowledge is processed by our brain and then by our mind.

Very interesting that you separate the brain and the mind. I like that. So, if I understand you correctly, in your terms, the brain is the part that is automatic, like a machine, and does what it does automatically, perhaps in a kind of subconscious way...and if so, I would agree with that.

Our brain starts by analizing the knowledge into if it is logical and coherential between all the other knowledges.

Yes. But let's say that the mind 'programs' the brain (at least the part of it that is programable) and tells it how to integrate a new assumption using logic ("the art of non-contradictory identification")

Then, if the brain is positive about it, the mind is in charge of analizing the piece of knowledge and check if it makes sense with it's beliefs.

Yup.

Both of these two processes are centered on the derivation of knowledge, which I like calling thought.

Okay, good.

Then, if the knwoeldge is correct with our beliefs, we convert it into one more of our beliefs. This is all: knowledge-thought-belief. And then, when we have this knew belief, we encounter knew knowledges, which take us again to the starrt of the process.

Pretty much in-line with the way I think it works too.

I want to ask you: Do you agree that thought is what is in the middle between knowledge and belief?

interesting. Now we're in different territory. Knowledge and belief are separated by just a whisper but the difference between a perception and a belief is like a shout. The number of things in the structure depends upon the strength of the foundation and the further up we go, the more stress is placed upon the foundation. Perhaps one way of looking at it is that if a belief is in-line with reality, then very little stress is placed upon the foundation. So it makes sense to be careful about what kinds of beliefs you add to the structure.

Between truth and hope?

lol. I like the way your mind works. Let me change that just a little. Let's say, "Between the way things are and the way they ought to be". If that is what you are referring to, then now we are dealing with the part of nature that we can command, at least, hopefully be able to command. And this is the area that separates us from pigeons.

Steve

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson The truth you have found is that you haven't found it.

The truth might just be staring me in the face, but I could not understand it. This is like recovering some buried Egyptian hieroglyphics, right in front of me but I don't know what they mean?

[Steve Hanson]

AntonioLau:

The truth might just be staring me in the face, but I could not understand it. This is like recovering some buried Egyptian hieroglyphics, right in front of me but I don't know what they mean?

Sorry Antonio, I was playing with the words. My point was that you think you have not found any truth but you have. when you say, "Objectively, I have not found it. ", that in itself is a true statement, assuming it is objective. Which of course would make it a contradiction in terms. It's like saying, "I don't know anything". But if that were true, you would know something. You would know that you didn't know anything. Perhaps it would be more correct to say, "I am only sure of one thing, that I don't know all things". Words can be misused. I butcher the language all the time and it always wastes my time. Old habits. I wish I had learned a more solid respect for language as a child. I need another 1000 years.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson AntonioLau: Sorry Antonio, I was playing with the words. My point was that you think you have not found any truth but you have. when you say, "Objectively, I have not found it. ", that in itself is a true statement, assuming it is objective. Which of course would make it a contradiction in terms. It's like saying, "I don't know anything". But if that were true, you would know something. You would know that you didn't know anything. Perhaps it would be more correct to say, "I am only sure of one thing, that I don't know all things". Words can be misused. I butcher the language all the time and it always wastes my time. Old habits. I wish I had learned a more solid respect for language as a child. I need another 1000 years.

Steve, i don't think you got any closer to the target than Antonio, just a bit more recursive. after all 'if you don't know all things, you can't know one thing'