[Guille]

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson 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.

Yes, I also call it perception, or perhaps perceptive information.

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson 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.

I don't really separate the brain and the mind. I believe the mind to be the part of the brain that dedicates to certain parts of thoughts and belief. For me the mind is consciousness. The brain is, as you said, a biological machine, it has no awareness really.

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson 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")

Good, ok.

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson 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.

Yes, that is what I was refering to. But to make it more exact, it is "between the way things are and the way they ought to be according to the entity". This means, that each being that has brain and mind, has a mentalizaion of how things ought to be.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by Steve Hanson My point was that you think you have not found any truth but you have.

What I was trying to emphasize is the objectiveness of my comment. Subjectively, I don't have any idea of the objective truth. But along the same line if someone says they found the truth then their comment could still be interpreted as a subjective truth. objectively, the truth has to be agreed by more than one person, the more people, the truer is the truth (applicable to both science as well as religion for that matter).

[Brian Jakub]

Originally Posted by David Maes If 'the force' (absolute objective) is really looking through our eyes, then he must somehow be connected to us (the subjective)... So if we die, then (sorry, I have to admit, the significances die, but by the fact that the absolute objective is connected with, he is also IN you, that means you don't die. The absolute objective is everywhere, he is flowing through us, he is you, he is everybody, this means he uses non-locality; he can be ( like certain quantumobjects) at several places at the same; which we (the absolute subjective) cannot do because our perceptions cannot see the absolute objective (and so in our macroscopic world we do not have non-locality), we are the absolute subjective, so we can only see 'the significances'. Of course these significances are transitory, so we experience time, getting older,... every thing we perceive is transitory because it's not real (they are significances); but the absolute objective which is connected to us and which is us, the absolute objective 'force' uses non-lokality, so it can go faster then light, it experiences no time and it's imperishable; and everything has to do with everything; so it even experiences it's own creations of significance, but beneath these 'clothes' of subjectivity, we, a part of this absolute objective is present. )

David

I like the way you reason. You've looked at this problem very objectively, and I think you explained why we all need to do the same, if we are going to discover a ToE. But to be objective we must finally ask, who is the objective one looking through all of our eyes, and how can we get to know him, her, it, us, or whoever the almighty objective one is. And hopefully determine it's purpose, so we can become objective ourselves.

If you don't no what a machine is supposed to do, it is hard to figure out how it works and to use it. A printing press would look like a mighty complicated thing to an illiterate, primitive culture. If they figured out how to hook it up to electricity, it might look like a very large space heater. If they could figure out the purpose behind its design and the intent of the designer, maybe then they could find out the ultimate truth about how it works and how they are supposed to use it. Even if they found out it was for printing, they might print terrible lies that could lead to harm when the intent of the designer was to spread the truth. That, is if one could assume that the designer new, or maybe even determined what truth was.

Like the printing press being built for a purpose, what if the universe was designed for us to ask why, what and who is the objective one? Would it look like our universe? It's a bit more complicated than a printing press, but if we ask enough of the right questions objectively, and look at all possible answers objectively, we should be able to determine that the printing press, we call the universe, isn't a space heater, but a printing machine, and then discover how use it to its full potential.

But, if we want to believe that by chance, the printing press grew out of the ground over time, and we found out we can use it as a heater, I suppose we can continue to figure out more efficient ways to use its heat. The fact it gives off heat is a truth that can't be denied, and I would hate to slow down the scientific progress of searching for more efficient ways to use its heat, by suggesting it might be designed by someone to be used for printing. Using a printing press for spreading knowledge that half the time we can't verify as truth, because we have no baseline to measure truth agianst, seems like a poor use of resources, when we could use it as a heater. We could eliminate all the time we would waste, and feelings we would hurt, searching for the evidence of a designer and the ultimate truth of the intent, he, she, it had built into its design.
Brian

[Guille]

I just thought that anyway, if we are supposed to consider here if the Theory Of Everything concept is true, I mean, that what we have called TOE is something possible, which means part of reality, then, it's very confusing.

Because the TOE until now is only a concept. Actually, even when it is discovered/invented, the TOE will still be a concept. Theories are only bricks of a big building in our mind, and these bricks are made each of them of even smaller bricks.

Anyway, TOE is only part of the MENTAL reality. And MENTAL reality is only one of the HUMAN realities in which humans exist and have contact with other existence. The other reality, the PHYSICAL reality, has relationship to the TOE, but not that the TOE is part of it. Thus, the TOE, if we consider by "true" the fact that it is part of the physical "real" world, then it is FALSE.

What do you all think about this?

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE And MENTAL reality is only one of the HUMAN realities in which humans exist and have contact with other existence

Physical existence is temporary. Mental existence is everlasting. Although it is probable that the same mental reality will again merged back into the same physical reality in a billion billion years. However, within infinity, a billion billion years is practically zero as if there never was an existence of the physical reality.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao Physical existence is temporary. Mental existence is everlasting. Although it is probable that the same mental reality will again merged back into the same physical reality in a billion billion years. However, within infinity, a billion billion years is practically zero as if there never was an existence of the physical reality.

Please, give me a logical argumentation that made you conclude that "mental existence is everlasting".

I had thought something similar, but onot exactly the same as yours, it is:

Percepts (objects of perception-sense) are dynamic. Concepts (objects of conception-thought) are static.

By this I mean that ussually your idea of apple is the same all around your life, whiles the apples you meat in the physical world, are always different.

[AntonioLao]

Originally Posted by GUILLE a logical argumentation that made you conclude that "mental existence is everlasting".

By inductive reasoning, I can only go as far back to about 10 or 15 billions years, which is the supposed beginning of the universe, the big bang. The fundamental concepts are energy, force, length and time. The first three are changeable and can be transformed into each other but the last one, time is not, it can only move at a constant speed, say light speed, and time is embedded in the mind. Without the mind, time would not exist. But infinite time can exist therefore it is embedded in an infinite mind.

[Guille]

But, I think that the erro is at the very begining of oyur reasoning.

Time is interactive with the other three concepts. You say that energy, froce and space are interchangeable. But this is not true, they ar einteractive. You can't convert force into energy, or energy into space. But force does interact with energy, and space. So, in this, time also enters, because according to Einstein's theory of general relativity, the force of gravit, which is produced by mass (a kind of energy), makes time to slow down. Thus, energy is interacting with force which is at the time itneracting with time. Also space enters this.

So, time isn't independent of the physical world, and, thus, it's mayor controller is not the mind, or the mental world, but more it's physical existence, the physcal laws. Thus, even if time can be eternal, it doesn't mean that the mind is.

And, if you still don't believe this, then: The mind is dependent of the brain, so, if the brain dies, i.e. the person with the brain and mind dies, then the mind stops existing. If not, where has it gone?

[AntonioLao]

energy derivable from force is called polygenic energy which is dependent on time and is not conservative and the universe is not an isolated system. Conservative energy are derived from monogenic forces, which are not time dependent only if the system is isolated. The question whether our universe is isolated or not is an open question.

[Guille]

Originally Posted by AntonioLao energy derivable from force is called polygenic energy which is dependent on time and is not conservative and the universe is not an isolated system. Conservative energy are derived from monogenic forces, which are not time dependent only if the system is isolated. The question whether our universe is isolated or not is an open question.

What does "isolated system" and "non-isolated system" mean?