The Conceptual Scientific__Non-Conceptual Imagination, Distinctions...

Iff more people make the higher conceptual choices, we will have more chance, in a chance and choice world, of achieving the higher conceptual goals..." me

Hi all friends and enemies alike, and I can certainly see why you’d/we’d all have trouble making heads or tails of the differences between reason and rationalism, as the established academic community has not fully separated out the conceptual differences, from the imaginal differences, yet. Even Peirce, who did the best job of these processes, did not fully accomplish the job, in any common language. He only accomplished it through his entire system of signs, symbols and icons, etc., but this is the rather complex depth of his semeioses. I’ll do my best to make these concepts, ideas and imagination differences clear to you, as I’ve also noticed Wiki, or no other sources, deal with this effectively, without creating further confusion and un-necessary conflations of the ideas involved, whether historically__as the meanings have changed over time, or presently, due to so many different opinions. I’ll use the simple mechanics differences between scientific objective conceptualism, and non-conceptual imagination’s direct perception__to deal as best as I can with it. That should make it the simplest…

I’ve already answered most everything below, within your text, but I think you should read this first…

It was just last night that I came across a new scientific method to make clear distinctions, between rational conceptual science, and irrational non-conceptual opinion/imagination/religion or meta-physics of any kind… Up to this point in time even the best science and scientists have had great difficulty, using words, where meaning has double meaning, or applying meaning to different subject area meanings, especially between rationalism and reason, conceptualism and non-conceptualism, reason and logic, physics and meta-physics, direct and indirect perception, etc., but, I last night realized it could all be made clearly distinct by just discussing conceptualism and imagination…

In science, philosophy, and scientific method, conceptualism is defined as objectivism. This is how we know what is objective from what is subjective, or non-conceptual feelings__though feelings be real, they also can be extremely exaggerated by imagination__The 'Boogie-Man' that doesn’t exist. And, at the same time, science can suffer from exaggerated imagination at the hypothesis and theory stages, as well as the exaggerated maths of theories, i.e., there’s no such real physical world, that we can conceptualize existing beyond these numbers h = 10-33cm and c = 186,000mps, and t = 10-43cm , which represents h Planck length, the smallest we can scientifically measure, and c being the speed of light, the fastest we can scientifically measure, and t, time being the shortest motion we can measure __This is the domain of science, and nothing outside it is anything but false imagination, as there’s no integral path to ground, or the physical scientific proofs of, and herein lies the great difference between objective conceptualism and imagination. Concepts must be measurable, and groundable in physical reality, with an actual path integral, to the provable facts…

Imagination or exaggerated ideas and theories, on the other hand, are not only non-conceptual in certain ideas, such as conceptualizing the feeling “Happy”, but even where these imaginations, ideas and theories can be conceptualized, they entirely lack the necessary integral path from themselves to the necessary provable ground, i.e., these numbers can be conceptualized, yet never path integral grounded, as they exist as mathematical abstracts, beyond all our knowable reality; d = 10-999cm, and c = 10∞, and t = 0. Where we are certain such distance, speed of light numbers, and zero time, to such infinitesimals of distance, infinities of velocity, and zero time, are impossible of real and sound scientific measure, therefore nothing but exaggerated imagination, and anyone just common sensibly knows time zero is foolishly impossible, as there’d be no universe at all. So, the fact exists, that all possible thought can be scientifically classified, and or, scientifically classified, as not classifiable__What-so-ever…! Or, just the plain ol’ 'Boogie-Man' of any and all minds who spout such non-sense__There exists no sense in the world, to path integral connect un-real imagination to any form of scientific ground__thus exposing the purely meta-physical exaggerations of imagination, to all parties interested_or un-interested…

Simply put, there’s no possible path from exaggerated imaginations of any kind__to any form of feasible ground…

I think this is how you can easily tell the differences between all real and imaginational statements__Just ask if the concept of what’s being discussed is scientifically/realistically groundable__That scientifically exposes the truths of all statements, because true concepts all have integral paths to reality, and all exaggerations do not__And I mean, real physical paths to ground…

Link

The Logic Fallacy__Imagination --> Logic…

Since being taught “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” of the logic fallacy, by my grandfather, at age 4, I’ve always noticed almost all others’ logic fallacy crop up in their reasoning processes. This is the fundamental scientific method of all reasoning processes, which must be most thoroughly understood, before one can successfully do any science, logic, math or proper theorizing of these most fundamental thought processes. It’s the most easily conflated area of thoughts crossing up between our basic ego-thoughts, imagined thoughts, imagination thinking, theory and hypotheses thinking, and the logical imagination being fully background independent__by the necessity of theory’s ability to think fully openly__yet to convert the fully open infinite thought processes, to finite results…

The above constitutes the interpretation process of all minds’ ability to find sound scientific conclusions to all possible models, theories and imaginings. We all know there are many theories proposed by science and metaphysics, for the mechanics, beginnings or non-beginnings of our Universe__But, what constitutes the heart of the ‘Interpretation Dilemma…?’ Imo, it’s knowing the differences between the capacities of thought to ground itself in that which is dependent on the finite, or background dependence__and in that which is non-dependent on the finite, or background independence__also stated as that ‘Ol’ Demon of Infinity__The Ultimate Non-Definable__The Absolute Universal…’

The Infinite is non-definable due to the fact that no matter how it’s added to, subtracted from, multiplied by, divided by or into itself__It’s always defined as Infinity. We can’t even take ratios of infinity, and achieve any other meaning than Infinity__But, we can compare infinity and ratios of finiteness, to infinity__And, herein lies the trick in our converting imagination to scientific logics, which must be grounded in finiteness__not to create confusion and conflations of the fundamental facts. I think it’s just because most have never looked deep enough into the fundamental mechanics of imagination’s necessary infinite functions, and logic’s necessary finite functions, that the logic fallacy arises…

We all may know that imagination truly requires the background independence of infinite function__but, have you truly considered what this entails…? The background independence of infinite thinking/reasoning is never a process of infinite regress__It’s always an induction process of infinite progress, toward the ultimate un-definable__But, at the same time is that ultimate limit of thought’s ability to think reasonably at all__Yet, entails the only true singularity of its self-existence, as the only possible true oneness, in the entire Universe__As going the other direction into finiteness, explodes into the infinite regress, of infinitesimal finitenesses, approaching infinity again, in the opposite direction of moving toward infinity. So, in truth, either direction the mind of thought travels, it ends up at infinity__Or the absolutely un-definable oneness of that ‘Ol’ Demon Singularity of Infinity…’

The difference of the above being, that science can only be determined from traveling the direction toward the finite infinitesimals, even if they still happen to explode into an infinite number of infinitesimals__When we divide any fundamental finite object to its smallest possible parts, as per this formula__X/X=1+IEE(isomorphic extension and entanglement), we end at the infinite infinitesimals of all the inter-weaving wave fields. This formula is just an extension of Einstein’s E=MC^2, which fully interpreted of potential mass, and kinetic energy, to total kinetic energy, can really be expressed as E=EC^2__Where all the stored potential mass of any matter object considered is fully decayed, to it’s most fundamental field waves, at the speed of light, or final decay limit. In other words, a titanium sized baseball, theoretically sped to the speed of light, would radiate all it’s potential mass energy to pure decay dispersed kinetic energy, at the true c speed of light, as no more than near zero mass photons, due to the fact that the field energy could no longer travel fast enough in group velocities, to hold the titanium ball together, at true c(no possible way for c to maintain its group em forces at true c…)

So, what we end with is the fact that neither the infinite nor the finite, offers a true ultimate finite testable experimental ground__for science to stand on. What we are really left with is a Ratio-Logic between the infinite number of finite infinitesimals to the total number infinity is capable of existing as__and the possible mechanics of maintaining the symmetry of the known laws of physics, to allow a proper functioning Universe__Which we absolutely know exists, by the fact if:__Ya kick a big rock, barefoot, and you get a very sore ToE. So, do we truly have any scientific method possible, of grounding a scientific logic in the finite background dependence, or must it be grounded in the infinite background independence…?

And, when we look for these answers, we are back at the ultimate problem of deciding what is the line we may draw between imagination and logic__as this is really our only possible true ground of reality__Since both ends of the model reality spectrum, end up at the infinite un-definable un-decidability. This is where we must realize the difference between what science classifies as science, and what science classifies as metaphysics. All science must be factually measurable, thus is known to be limited to the purely finite world of h Planck points plus, and true c and group c__Scientific measurement has no such animals as –h and true +c. This is the only method science defines sound finiteness, against the metaphysical infinite and sub-infinitesimal non-sense. If these limits are not respected, we have no science__We have only non-sensible metaphysics. So science is really nothing but definition of measurement__Pure and simple__The Measurable…

It’s just that where the measurable is between the finite and the infinite, most have never considered the scientific possibilities of a sound Ratio-Logic existing, to define the differences between imagination, and its many models and theories, and the truest finite model possible__as relates to the ‘Finite Oneness of Infinity…” Since, it’s really impossible to establish ground for the finite at the infinitesimal infinities level of, due to combinatorial explosions of field waves, as we go toward the smaller, which be necessary of becoming infinite__Then, the only door open to absolute ground is “The Finite Oneness of Infinity…” Now, this may at first sound contradictory, but it’s certainly not__as when one realizes all finities explode to infinities, at infinitesimal limits__the only option left, to achieve true scientific ground is “The Absolute Oneness of Infinity…” But, this should never be confused or conflated with how we do finite science__It’s sole purpose is to give solid grounding to where infinite imagination splits from the true and sound finite Ratio-Logic…

The Finiteness of True and Sound Scientific Measure, Is and Must Always Be__Our Fundamental Scientific Ground, Even Though We Must Thoroughly Explore Theoretical Infinite Imagination to Arrive At The Ultimate Truth__Which Is The Scientific Method of Hypothesis, Theory or Abduction…

Though There Be Thousands of Theories and Models__There Be Only One Absolutely True One__The Absolutely Necessary FS of Infinity__Because All Finiteness Decays Into The Absolute Fundamental Infinity Cycles, of The Great Circles Of The Eternal Infinite Universe…

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…

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

The Meta- & Meta-Meta-Linguistics of Thought & Language …

Here we all are, involved in a Quest for a theory of everything__most without realizing the near impossibility of thought and language__to even achieve this vast goal, without first requiring a thoroughly new linguistics and language understanding. Just take a look back at Socrates’, Plato’s and Aristotle’s eras, and you’ll quickly see the roots of this very problem. Socrates defeased all arguments to aporia, meaning he deconstructed all arguments to the limits of undecidability. Plato argued all ideas to total exhaustion, while trying to exclude imagination from all such agruments. Aristotle used all the previous methods, plus inventing his own special definitions of logical exclusions, to win his debates. They all used special tactics to win philosophical, psychological and cognitive arguments, yet all grounded their ideas in different states of knowing…

Socrates grounded his knowing in proving the not-knowing ability of aporia. Plato grounded his knowing in proving to the Universals, and Aristotle grounded his knowing in proving to the individual metaphysicals, that is, reason was grounded in God, whereas Plato’s grounding was in God’s Universals, yet Socrates grounding was in a total background independence, of not knowing__Which actually turns out to be the closest to the truth, of real possible proof. The funny thing is, most have never realized practically nothing of the same old debates has really changed over the millenia. We are actually still debating these same issues, to these very same, yet, different three grounds__and none of them are truly grounded, as Socrates is the ground of no ground. Plato excludes imagination, which is actually required in the grounding of anyone’s full spirit, and Aristotle excludes the most of all with his special definitions of logic, which just happens to be the most incomplete reasoning system of all three__as clearly proven by Boole, Ibn Sina, Peirce, Tarski and Hintikka…

So, what’s to be done, when differences of opinion, such as between myself, Greg and others creeps into our search…? I see these differences of style, and know they are linguistic differences of cognitions at the meta- and meta-meta-understanding levels, but am incapable of convincing any others they are simple mis-understandings and mis-interpretations of the meta- and meta-meta-languages used, which implicitly and explicitly contain the many meta-levels of meanings nested in, or added into the languages used by everyone, by free-will and choices of debate styles… I see the same exact arguments between the early Greeks, as do I between the moderns mentioned above, and Greg, myself and others__They are identical and un-changing in nature, from the Greeks and others onward… So, what is to be done, when one group may recognize the fact, an entirely new language is absolutely required to even discuss a ToE, let alone fully produce its finished results, and other groups and individuals are not even aware of these glaringly obvious facts and necessities…?

Everyone can easily think they are immune to the nature of meta- and meta-meta-complexities, but no-one truly is__It’s the nature of the game of human language__by default evolution. Nobody’s paying attention to how they are thinking about thinking, except to advantage ones own positions__and herein lies the largest part of the problem. We all have ingrained habits to use language to our best abilities to achieve our desired goals of getting our own points across__while never considering the damage our own words, and use of concepts, may, in reality, be menacing to the alternate parties involved. We are all guilty of this, even the spiritualists, when they state ‘higher consciousness’ etc., without even realizing how insulting this is to all those with lower consciousness or states of mind. So, how can ‘higher consciousness’ be any higher when its insulting to its subordinates, to even mention such terms…? In fact it can’t be true, so it’d truly be a much wiser road for all the consciousness advocates to take the lower road of transc(i)ndence instead of transc(e)ndence, as it’s far less offensive to advocate a lower state of knowledge than the higher pompous state of knowledge. The lower road is the safer and more civil path__to relay information, knowledge, intelligence or wisdom to others…

Now, what would this lower road consist of…? It’s not a giant system, as many would think. It’s simply the missing common sense dialogue of profound common sense, being recognized as the old wisdom, that’s been lost for so many years. It’s simply the middle interpretation between all the differences. It’s the entire parts of all systems’ thinking, being fully recognized within the parameters of the general universal concepts__and the Universal perameters being recognized about the entire parts of all Universal systems. It’s simply a system of not excluding any of the information having validity of description, within its own domains, yet not pertaining to domains outside its own domain, unless it actually does happen to apply to these other domains. It’s simple recognizing the absolute necessity of domain categorizations just as Linneaus long ago taught, as well as did Aristotle and many others, but Linneaus is still the stronger case, as it classifies sentience from sapience within species… It offers the world one of the best domain classification systems, as its organized in a dependence level from bottom to top, just as was also offered by Peirce, for a much larger philosophic scientific system of actual ordered dependencies, from bottom to top, or top to bottom, if that’s your flavor… We can not do without these ordered domain classification sytems, when trying to build the information and language systems, that absolutely must be built, to describe any form of a ToE…

Just as an example; How do we classify anything within a Universal domain, unless we classify everything within that domain, in thorough particular terms, that we know actually belong and return to that Universal domain…? How do we classify anything within a particular domain, unless we classify everything within its domain, in a return path to its original Universal domain, from which it came…? These circular domain links must be made, to have any of our Universals and Particulars make any reasonable sense to us, or we’re simply left swimming in the sea of undefined meta- and meta-meta-confusions and conflations of the true facts… In order to achieve this goal, we must recognize the absolute need for such a goal to achieve sound and valuable science, since science without values, use, aims goals, etc., is simply ‘Methodological Stupidity’, and we are interested in only its opposite, ‘Methodological Wisdom’, which is simply science with known uses, aims and goals__or real values to the human race__This will require, ‘A New Universal Language of Social-Scientific Philosophy of Generality With Genericity…’

When anyone attempts to take science to the level of ‘Naked Science’(science without values), one is simply taking that science to the level of ‘Pure Methodological Stupidity’, just as many of the early Greeks did, and the ‘logical positivists’ did, in the 19th and early `20th centuries. It took the ‘Pure Methodological Wisdom’ of Boole, DeMorgan, Schroder, Peirce, Jevons, Veblen and Keynes to raise the world from the ‘logical positivist’s’ sewer of ‘Pure Methodological Stupidity’ of the earlier era, and now the world seems to have drifted back into this foolish era again__We must take the reins and rise to a new day, once again, by simply recognizing the ‘True Methodological Wisdom’ we are centainly capable of__as it’s no more than that good old stand-by of profound common sense__’The Middle Way of True Experiential Human Values, Aims, Goals and True Use, Added to Science...’

A Master Vision of Universal Wisdom…

There exists a Universal wisdom knower, of all human minds__he wants to meet you, as he’s a major part of your own mind, you may not have yet realized… This same idea can be expressed through the science of modal wisdom__or the science of future logic, thought to its ultimate limits__and everyone possesses this natural ability. It’s nothing but your childhood mind, of deep critical imagination…

If you don’t yet believe the above paragraph, just let me set up one possible model of mind, that’s really been brewing over the last century or so... Consider the mind as an infinite sided mirror, rotating one vision of reality after another before your perception analyzer__continuously all your life. Further consider this to be a close analogy to what quantum mechanics proposed early in the last century__that of a world of all possible worlds, and that one of them is the real world. Also consider the most recent discoveries about mirror neurons in monkies, having the ability to copy behavior of what’s seen of others. Now, consider this infinite sided mirror to have the ability to mirror every action of ever citizen, plant and animal on planet Earth, without acception…

Such a perception analyzer would be a considerably powerful computer, if the individual possessed the power of interpretation and directional use over this bio-computer. Well, man actually does have such capacity through his choice of free-will__But, just what does free-will entail? Is it thinking about the past, present or future? Is it thinking about the possibilities, probabilities and necessities of life, or something else? Really, if you think about it, both the last two sentences’ contents just about covers what the mind is capable of, at all times__We/I constantly think about all past, present and future visions, through the many possibilities, probabilities and necessities, but also the deeper thoughts of the alternatives of each. By the alternatives, I simply mean the internal thought processes of all past, present and future states of thought, of both sentences’ contents, i.e., if we be thinking about ourselves or others in any past, present or future state of contemplation, we also can envision their internal state of vision, as to the deeper states of all states possible. This is really quite an amazing computer, sitting atop our shoulders…

By thinking about this deep enough, one realizes the entire mechanics represents a background independent processing machine. It’s hindered by nothing in its infinite capacities, accept its own reason and logic circuits, to separate the infinite imagination and emotions, from the finite rational and logical circuits__and when viewed thoroughly enough, by its even deeper innate mathematical logical circuits__of ratioed thoughts__as ratioed thoughts are the final arbiter of all logic and emotion circuits. So, when one truly views this amazing lil’ ol’ machine, one is struck by the question__Is it alive, or just the simple mechanical processing machine described above…? Are we animate, or truly inanimate…? Can we know, what we think we know, about knowing at all…? Do we know, or just convince ourselves we know, by viewing the asymmetry of the infinite mirror processor in action…? Can we possibly know at the speed of light__even if light is considerably slowed in and by our gray matter…? It’s still much faster and more complex than we could ever hope to realize its full potential__Isn’t it…?

Thinking it over, in general, what can we understand about this lil’ ol’ mechanical ball of mush, on our shoulders…? It seems the closer we try and get to the parts actions and particulars of these functions, the less is truly possible of knowing__Yet, the closer we try and get to the whole’s actions and particulars of its functions, the more we can truly gleen and know about its overall mechanics. Historically, looking back over all its individual functions, we/I simply see humanity as a bunch of insects, poking around in the mold of planet Earth, never accomplishing much accept to recycle everything, including ourselves/themselves__Yet, when looked at as a whole, there seems to appear a pattern to all this seeming madness. Historically, we no longer feed Christians to the lions, though many would still like to. We no longer accept the brutalities of old, as accepted forms of action. We no longer slaughter at will, any time we feel the urge… So, historically, life has changed and evolved, to a more civil form of life__and I’d say we’d have to accept this as a ‘moral achievement’ of human historical evolution. So, the history of the species actually does have a ‘Goal’, from all the historical evidence, to improve its moral condition__no matter what’s been academically stated falsely about morality__It’s real, by the evidence of ‘all’ history…

This evidence counters much of philosophical history, and actually gives a true ‘Purpose’ to life, that many have been, and are arguing against__But the evidence is overwhelmingly clear. The ‘Goal’ of humanity seems to be moral enhancement__So, even if the dynamic being be viewed as a simple processing machine(in its least state of action), it still has a moral/ethical/esthetic objective, and or ‘Goal’, of achievement__as ‘all’ history is mightily evidence to. This is the reason, I’ve stated so much about Charles Sanders Peirce, as he’s actually the only person I know who created an entire school of scientific thought dedicated to the study of future human action, based on ‘Esthetics’__The Science of Goals…

Without studying the Scientific Goals of Humanity, we have nothing but ‘a theory of re-cycling insects…’ Goals are what separate us as a different species, from all the other species__Moral Goals__The Truly Asymmetric Liberties of Humanity…

The Inner Believing Agent_Reason & The Outer Knowing Agent_Logic…

”Reason can’t see, only logic sees__reason only feels and thinks, thus reason is highly fallible, compared to logic…”
“Rationality is not of reason. Rationality is of logic…”

All over the world are those who accept reason as the ultimate believer and knower of all information in the mind. They think logic is some simple add-on, created by a few thought laws of Aristotle. Others think reason is guided by principles and axioms, etc., but is still the ultimate decision engine of the mind. Oh, some do recognize the importance of arithmetic and higher mathematics, evidence and other such sciences of their innate beliefs__but few in the world recognize the higher importance of logic. Most, especially the innate believers, even realize there is such an innate agent as pure and natural logic, thinking it just some additional aspect of reason, as has been the recorded history down through the centuries, except by the few who did make the distinctions between the inner believing reasoning agent, and the outer seeing and knowing logic agent…

And herein lies the most major difference between all the world’s investigators of truths and knowledge systems. Believing is not knowing, and knowing is not accepting the fallacies of the believing agent of reason. At base, it’s as simple as knowing reason can never do logic’s job, and logic can never do reason’s job. Were either to attempt the other’s jobs, each would certainly destroy the other, as these are two entirely independent thinking agents, within the perception agency of all minds__and always have been, no matter how much history’s pseudo-mentalities have run them together. If anyone wants to discover the truths necessary to guide the lives of communities of diverse peoples, world wide, then this simple fundamental lesson of mental mechanics must be thoroughly understood__and not just by playing lip service to the idea__but truly taking the time to investigate its massive importance to effective thinking__on all levels…

Tis true reason can perform many tasks, but knowing is not one of them, as this would entirely corrupt the purpose of reason’s function__which is to learn the causes, and whys of the world. To say that reason can also do its own logic is a complete mental fallacy, as no epistemic agent can perform more than one task, within itself, at any one given time(limited by the +’s and –‘s of em’s)__without completely destroying the activity of its first task, i.e., if reason first starts by asking why, it can not switch to asking how, due to the cross-currents(the +’s and –‘s of em’s) of conflating the idea__which is solely the job of innate and direct objective logic. Further reason can never answer as to true or false, whether by reason or numbers, as this is entirely the domain of logic, and no reasoning agent is capable of finding truth and falsity, as per the ratios and numbers faculties(the +’s and –‘s of em’s)__only logic can. If you’ll notice, this leaves reason as an agent of the emotions, and logic as an agent of the intellect, and tis only the job of reason to operate subjectively from the innate feelings by direct perceptual seeing, precepts and percepts__while logic’s intellectual job is to operate from the higher mind through direct observation, precepts, conceptualism and external evidence and science, as the higher mind is geared almost entirely above the base instinctual emotions, whereas reason operates directly in conjunction with the instinctual emotions, thus making reason the subjective non-conceptual agent, while logic is the only truly operational objective conceptual agent__and the mind’s only knowing agent, while the reasoning agent is barred from ever knowing, by being locked in the emotional-reasoning, believing only, state__unless certain minds be assisted by the choice of a personally directed logic state use, mainly being framed by the innate reasoning state, of conflation of ideas…

Now of course, many of the world’s reasoners would/will highly object to this analogy, but they simply do not realize their own minds, from birth, have always automatically used the logic agent over the emotional reasoning agent, all their lives. They just fail to notice where and when the logic agent kicks in to do their mind’s higher tasks of finding truth and creating, using, blending and deciding concepts. Reason still demands it can know the truth, based on its innate instincts__and it can know many truths, but only by this natural hidden operational mechanics of such individuals logic capacities, kicking in automatically to save their thinking processes, without them even realizing it__then them in turn, thinking the automatic higher_reasoning to them_agent is the touchy-feely spirit or even worse_God_When in fact, it’s the simple logic agent which naturally exists as the deepest innate mechanics of all individuals… If the reasonists would simply investigate the long history of excellent mentalities, who’ve thoroughly studied all logic’s abilities and capacities__they’d centainly discover how to convert reason’s beliefs to sound logical understandings and scientific knowings__over the lesser state of falsifiable beliefs__which all go the infinite regress route, to absolute un-definability and un-decidability…

Just as an addition to this, I’ll add what I posted on ‘Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism…?'

A Scientific Methodology of Understanding All Conversations...

First I'm not using non-conceptualist as an insult, as it's the best method we possess as free individuals to understand the differences and distinctions between what is scientific knowledge, and what is not scientific knowledge, and that's all it's for. If, through all the research I've done over the years, I had no way to sort truth from lie, fact from fiction, I'd never have been able to learn much, especially since new information crowds out old information__at rates far faster than we can store and remember it. I was lucky enough to have someone who taught me how to process information early on, and that someone was my professor, grandfather, and my father and mother were no slouches either, as they'd both studied under him or been extremely influenced by him. I later in life came across a cosmological scientist who used my grandfather's same system of conceptuality and non-conceptuality, which helped cement my method in later life. It's simply the process of realizing how the mind must have a mechanism, naturally given, to detect truth from lie, and it does. This process is to know that all factual information must have external and internal correspondence, to be scientifically factually, a candidate for any scientific method, theory, hypothesis, or possible factual proof__It's simply an unavoidable necessity...

All objective scientific facts have positive external possible proofs which match our internal objective conceptual processes(meaning we're picturing the outside world internally_also epistemically meaning we're picturing real identifiable internal epistemic agents, i.e., ratio, logic, will, judgment, etc._those we absolutely know operate individually as to finite objective function, through centuries of epistemic research...), within perception. All subjective non-scientific, which would also be the subjective non-conceptual, do not have positive external, or positive internal possible proofs, which are even possible of being represented by concepts__yet some are directly seeable within perception, such as real inner innate feelings, while still others such as myths, are neither positively seeable nor even conceptualizable__because they lack all outside of both body, and the mind's objective conceptualizing abilities' corroborations and proofs. Therefore, when you know this, you can easily sort fiction from fact__emotion from science__truth from lie__in just about all fields of study on Earth, just by either listening to, or seeing the content, structure and context of the choice of words, others use. We all have what gives us away, as to the intelligence level our words portray, especially to those as studied as I__and I'm not saying that to pat myself on the back__it's just it must be stated to explain it__and the science of it would be in the framing debates of linguistics, and the many schools and subjects of epistemology. Of course, specific facts must always be checked, but the general natural intelligence factor, of using the mind scientifically__holds for all fields. I could name and cite hundreds, throughout history, who've discussed this personal scientific understanding methodology, but these are my own chosen words, in two simple paragraphs__there it is...

Oh, the non-conceptualist is simply a person who does not use a precise scientific method, as per above, to understand what science is trying to say...

The Pre-Suppositional Automatic Framing of Our Modal/Mood Logics…

“An infinite number of subjective realities; only one observable objective reality?” LW

How many of you have clearly noticed the huge gaps existing between the scientific and spiritual linguistics, being used here at ToeQuest…? I don’t just mean the differences of subjects chosen and related about, but the much deeper gulf between the groundings, or no grounding states, of these ideas, especially as relates to many of the imaginationists, spiritists and spiritualists__or between the pre-suppositional believers, and the pre-cognizing scientific thinkers. Modern psychologist’s have given demonstrations of how pre-suppositional framing of discussions can set the entire tone of discussions or debates so that a knowledgable psychologist can actually predict__pre-handed, what is in the audience’s minds. This has been done many times, to show how important and powerful the automatic framing of pre-suppositional thinking truly is to understanding the scientific, and non-scientific, framing of linguistics__and why so many people become trapped by the intellects and feelings’ uses, that may be a bit sharper than their own…

How often have you said to yourself; “Why do I feel this person is saying something, when I clearly know they are not…?” Why do you suppose this happens…?

Let’s just take as a first example, Pat’s thread, ‘An Idea’, and see how framing the thread with an innocuous term ‘Idea’ seems harmless enough, but look at the power of the word itself__It actually covers every idea possible of being thought, therefore sets up a powerful linguistic frame, that automatically draws you in. Few at first notice the innocence of the title is to disguise the author’s true pre-suppositional intent__which is an attempt to overthrow science, by offering his personal non-grounding in a pre-suppositional non-science of spiritual beliefs and pure personal faith, mixed with his special brand of conflated science and spirit__which allows no validity to science what-so-ever, due to the fact science must be pre-grounded in the real world of objects__and that means, even Einstein’s subjective relative mechanics analyses. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God = Non-Conceptualism = ‘Zero Meaning’ = Pure Spiritual Egoic Non-Sense, and will not cut it as having any relationship to real grounded world, science__What-So-Ever…

Before the word, was the ‘Image’ and the image was scientific = ‘Object Conceptualism’ = ‘Real Meaning’ in a visual Universe__and this is the only absolutely true grounding possible for ‘Science’ to have… It’s the only true modal logic of necessity, which all true science must start with, to have scientific validity. It doesn’t start in any pre-suppositional world of a ‘Loose Idea’, ‘Exaggerated Spirit’ or ‘Exaggerated Imagination’ etc., it starts in the real and absolutely directly perceived/seen real object/objective world__Absolutely no pre-suppositions required__It’s present__It’s real__It exists__It is__Period… No amount of ‘Exaggerated Imagination’, ‘Spirit’ or ‘Loose Ideas’ can remove these soundly grounded facts. If one simply realizes; All ‘Evil Thinking’ springs eternally from the ‘Non-Conceptualisms’ of ‘Non-Meaning Words…’, and ‘Non-Meaning Un-Grounded Ideas and Spirits’, the world could possibly start to think from a more grounded reality, of what is, instead of all the foolish ideas, of what is clearly not… These ‘Non-Meaning Words and Ideas’ simply ignore ‘First Images’ to force the false perpetrators’ ‘Evil Egos’ into the world… All ‘Real Objective Value and Meaning’ exists Only in ‘Material Scientific Conceptualism’, which also duely recognizes the validity of our ‘Subjective Natural Innate Feelings’, to convey the many wonderful ways we may ‘Feel’ about what we believe we see and know, but never to “Truly Know’ what we believe we see and know of the subjective world__Objectively, except where these ‘Fundamental Innate Feelings’ are concerned, when viewing and feeling others__Subjectively__Then still, the intellectual scientific meanings should, or must be, well sorted from the ‘Innate Feelings”, to have any real ‘Objective’ truth validity…

Next is probably the most creative yet damaging aspect of the pre-suppostional thinking to enter the world in the modern era__loosely referred to as ‘New-Age Thinking’, or I really should say, the capacity of ‘Non-Thinking Wit and Exaggerated Rhetoric’ to destroy all constructed systems of thinking, yet not powerful enough to destroy the truly grounded sciences, that are truly founded in the objective visible world. Tis true this ‘New-Age Non-Sense’ has the ability to destroy constructed thought systems, as they are not grounded enough in true science, and many should be destroyed. The trouble is, this mind of ‘Imaginationist Exaggerations’ hasn’t the sense to sort the trivial from the necessary__thus pushing this ‘Exaggerated Emotional Spiritualism’ into a pure ‘Exaggerated Intellectual Racism Against the Scientifically Necessary’, and this is very dangerous__As it just may have the power to destroy the world’s necessary logic and knowledge survival systems… This can easily be witnessed by simply reading the threads and posts of MK, Nobody, Drifter, and Melanie__to mention but a few…

In all these battles, the web is leaving academics in the dust, as the battle of negative and positive spiritualism, pits its weaknesses against a bold scientific logic__yet, there is much trouble on the horizon. Whether most of science’s troubles are coming from the ‘Exaggerated Belief, Faith and Religious Communities’, ‘The Exaggerated New Age Thinkers and Players’, or the newest breed of ‘Exaggerated Dis-Informationists’, as represented by those who write in the vein of Mikal’s ‘Emotional Dis-Informationalism’, is still open to further debate, but I certainly side against it…

The Einstein epistemic gap, closed the objective concept/object and the subjective field/energy faultlines of thought considerably, from the turn of the last century on, but at the same time opened a flood-gate for these many new ‘Exaggerated Pre-Suppositional Intellectual Belief Systems’ to flourish, with the many mis-understandings of what relative mechanics truly is. These groups, usually referred to as ‘Post-Modernists’ have corrupted their own layman’s and academic abilities of truth discovery, for a foolish pin-head belief in ‘Relative Truth Systems’, which clearly do not scientifically exist, but don’t ask any of these modern exaggerators of the facts, as this is exactly what they do believe__’All Truth Is Relative’, when in fact, ‘Relativity only Means and Pertains to Measurement’, and speaks nothing to truth systems__At all__Just scientific measurement of the physical object world… The ‘Emotional Dis-Informationists’ need to realize that subjective non-sense can not, and never will, answer objective sense. These pre-suppositional illusions are great entertainment between the intelligence of intelligences__within all the methodological sciences of the many intelligences of the truest schools of academic thought, and these new ‘Emotional Dis-Informationists’. But, here again, all it is is the initial pre-suppositional framing of idea sources, where this school of recent thought thinks/believes it can ground its self-thought truth validity in its personal ‘Emotions’, when the ‘Facts’ have been historically, epistemically known for centuries, this is nothing but the infinite regress, to un-definability and un-decidability, not to mention its utter non-sense, of any attempts at__scientific validity…!

Imo, ‘The Architectonics of Our Wisdom’ should be looked at within an entirely new methodological intelligence project__based in a most common sense ground possible, of a new modal triadic ratiocinator visionary wisdom logic… This would simply be recognizing the third leg of modal logic__as ‘Necessity First’__and by this I simply mean looking at how the Universe and our real world of Bio-Nature automatically grounds us ‘First, of All Ideas’, in her given ‘Objects and Images of’__’The Truly Necessary Ground’ of our first thinking, then maybe we could take up the other two legs of modal logic__’Possibility and Probability’, from a true common-sensically given ground base of ‘A New Universal Communication’, about our real Universe and World__For A Change…!