Agreed.
James, there are two issues here. First of the proof of the existence of the consciousness at the initial stage and second of the validity of the trueness or the verification of my ontology.
As far as the validity of my ontology is concerned, i admit openly that there are still many gaps in it and there may be even some mistakes on my part while constructing it. I am not claiming that i know all. if that was the case, then why should i have been interested in RM? I even hesitate to call it ontology as i consider it merely by perception yet.
But, on the other hand, it is also true that i am not a complete ignorant either. I am aware of many such things which are not common. This is to say, though i cannot built a complete and perfect system on my own, yet i am able to judge whether any ontology is perfect or not.
Now, the first issue of the consciousness. Though, i explained you that in the last post, but, now i am trying is my (layman’s) way.
In the winter, i daily lit the fire to keep myself warm.
I see the fire daily and know that it gives some yellow and reddish light and a lot of black smoke too.
Now, i see the same light and smoke at some other place.
Though, due to the distance, i cannot see the fire, yet i am sure that there must be a fire, because the light and smoke is the same, which i have been seen already on enumerable occasions.
If anyone tells me that there is light, so it must be fire, i would not accept it because there is no sign of that smoke.
If anyone tells me that there is a smoke, so it must be fire, i would not accept it because there is no sign of that light.
James, this is how it works. Yes, i accept that it is not an inescapable logic, that is why it has to repeat many times, till the perfection. But, i have at least something to judge it. And, that is where the initial observation becomes handy. The success of the ontology depends on the quality of the first observation; as precise as the observation would be, as precise the ontology would be. Because, the is no other way to judge it.
James, i am not denying the definition of the existence as - that which has effect as it sounds reasonable, and my inclusion of consciousness does not challenge it either. But still, this definition is not complete in the sense as it focuses only on present, neither past nor future. Secondly, this does not tell you about the all entities which has the power to effect.
Let me take an example. Say, that i am seeing CNN on the tv, thus according to the definition of the existence, right now, CNN is a reality because it is affecting me. But, i was seeing BBC before that and also would watch Discovery after some time.
So, the question remains whether BBC and Discovery exist or not, while watching CNN right now?
You have rightly taken Affectance into account but what about the past and the future? What if some other entity has been already affected in the past or would also affect in the future?
James, i am ready to put the issue of the consciousness aside and accept only affectance at the initial stage, because it is not the question of ego to me as i want to win an argument over you. I am arguing because even that does not solve the problem either. Because, due to our direct and indirect conversations so far, it looks to me that JSSRM is not exactly matching the reality. I cannot deny what i experienced in person, in reality and sometimes physically too.
Once again, the onus of satisfaction is on the reasoning (ontology), not on the observation.
That is why i am trying to fill the gaps, though, not successful so far.
James, there some other arguments also, which indicate that mere affectance is not enough to manifest this universe.
Affectance is purely mechanical, fixed and not random. This is to say the does not disobey its rules, without any exception. But, this quality is not present in all existed entities. But, many entities like humans are not like that as we have the tendency to disobey rules. But, how can a mechanical system produce random behaviour?
Think of any software. Like affectance, any software consisted of merely 0 and 1, though there is no limit of its size and complexity. It can be very sophisticated and handle very difficult issues, but still, it never disobey it rules. This is to say that a software, no matter how complicated it would be, still obeys the rules of its programmer. Then, how does a human mind not follow the rules and becomes self-valuing (sorry FC)?
James, affectance is merely doing entity, not feeling (cognitive) entity. Unless and until, you would not include a cognitive entity at the initial stage, JSSRM would not able explain different Live-forms properly.
Have to reach at that stage on Jack?
with love,
sanjay