Human principles Part 1. (Prove them wrong.)

]Definitions and concepts
Before addressing the issues discussed in this essay it is of foremost importance for one to be aware of some basic words and concepts that are used throughout the passage. One of these concepts is memory, which is defined as: “The processes that are used to acquire, store, retain and later retrieve information1.” Nonetheless, this definition is not accurate enough since the acquisition of the information is dependent on the senses, and so the definition should be re-written as: “The processes that are used to store, retain and later retrieve the information”. This definition shall be modified later on but for now it is accurate enough to satisfy the purpose of the essay.

 The second concept that one must be aware of is the concept of learning which is defined as:”The process of acquiring modifications in existing knowledge, skills, habits, or tendencies through experience, practice, or exercise2.” (This definition and the concept of learning will be put under serious scrutiny later on when the concept is expanded.)

Another concept that one must be aware of is consciousness, which refers to:”The individual awareness of his unique thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations and environment3.” Conversely the subconscious are: “The thoughts, memories, feelings, sensations that the human being is not aware of.” (These definitions will be modified later on.)

 The word “true” for this essay shall be defined as: a statement that can be verified by empirical evidence. Thus the statement, “Michelle always wears a dress,” would be defined as true as long as Michelle is always observed to wear a dress; as soon as Michelle is observed to not be wearing a dress the statement will cease to be true.

Finally, a person will always be defined as normal (unless otherwise specified) where a “normal person” will be defined as: a living organism from the specie Homo-Sapiens-Sapiens, who does not have a genetic condition that could alter the correct functioning of any of the organism’s internal organs or body functions. These organisms would always be referred to as being in a “normal state” (unless otherwise specified), which refers to a normal person who does not have a pathological condition nor is under the influence of an alien substance or other factors that alters the correct functioning of his organs or body functions.

Isolation Principle
There are five senses by which the human being perceives the world around him and those are touch, smell, taste, hearing and sight. However, one shall concentrate on just one, sight. Sight is the most commonly used sense for empirical perception and regarded as one of the most accurate; nevertheless, people often forget a crucial question; does everyone see the exact same thing? To respond to this question one must first look at the following example concerning learned symbols by sight.

 Imagine a person of four years of age that is just being introduced to the idea of symbols and colors. He sees a pigment and is told, “This is a color, and it is called blue.” With time and repetition the child learns to relate the pigment with the word blue and he will take it for granted that what he sees is the color that everyone else sees. However, let us imagine that the child is born with a genetic disorder where he can only see in shades of black and white. The child will be able to distinguish with a fair amount of accuracy yellow from red and yellow from blue. The colors white and black will be also very distinguishable to him as the difference in brightness and shades are quite pronounced. Although he might have serious problems in distinguish between colors such as blue and purple from each other it is still conceivable that this problem will not be diagnosed until later on in his life, where for this space of time he will believe that every human being sees the world in the same way that he does. Furthermore even after learning about his condition he will not be able to imagine what normal people see. 
    From this example one can conclude that: a human being is an isolated chemical system. A person can only know what others feel by having experienced a similar circumstance himself. For example, a person would not know how it feels to be punched until he himself is punched. Hence looking back at the example, everyone sees something which is approximately blue and what they see is probably very alike but because perfect eyesight is impossible as a consequence of all the different, genetic and environmental factors which affect it, it can be said that no two human beings see the exact same pigment when they look at the color blue. 

Conscious principle
To understand the second principle it is necessary to understand what logic is. The word logic refers to the use of reasoning to arrive at a conclusion that “makes sense”, meaning that it has to be consistent with empirical observation. For example, a person will say,” Manuel was in my house all morning, so he could not have gone to the game.” Assuming that the game took place in the morning, the person has made a conclusion based upon the knowledge that a person cannot be in two places at once and the certainty that a person was in a given place at a given time. So that sentence could be re-written as “Manuel was in my house all morning; logically he could not have gone to the game.” (Logically here is referring to: the use of logic). It is apparent from this example that logic is the use of learned notions or truths, based on observation, to come up with a conclusion that is coherent with all the notions that have been learned and retained by memory.

      This is a good enough description; however, it should be noticed that not all truths are learned by observation. For example, a student learns at school that adrenaline makes your heart beat faster so when he is exercising or under any other condition that might increase his heartbeat he could come up with the following conclusion; “Adrenaline released by my adrenaline glands makes my heart beat faster. My heart is beating faster, thus, adrenaline has been released in my body”. The student has never seen adrenaline, cannot distinguish it from his blood yet he accepts this to be true and uses this knowledge to arrive to a logical conclusion. Thus, logic is not dependant on observation but on learned truths that are acquired either by peers, society and or personal experiences. 
      So to a more relevant question, is logic second nature to a person? Are humans born with a sense of being or awareness at some conscious or subconscious level? Are humans born with a sense of inherent truth? People can change what they regard as true and with time entire populations can change the way in which they rationalize or view the empirical world around them. An example of a logical conclusion that has been changed is that which according to most history books was held by the people in the early 15th century in Pre Columbian era: that the earth was flat. At first glance it is easy to see why people believed that the ground was flat, as they gazed into the horizon they could see that the surface did not turn or curve in anyway so logically the world was flat to them. However, it is widely accepted that the earth is round and satellite pictures and flights into space corroborate this idea.
    From this example one can see that a person’s notion of what is true and what is not true can alter or change with time. Thus, the following conclusion can be made: at birth a human being knows nothing. This has further implications; the human being will not know what parents are, will not know what a floor, bed, ground is, he will not even know what his own hands are and will at first not be able to distinguish between his surroundings and his own being.
   Nonetheless, as logical and straightforward as this conclusion may seem the statement is not complete because it does not take into account the concepts of consciousness and subconscious and ignores the innate reflexes that humans appear to have such as emotions, internal body functions such as growth, digestion and the function of organs like the stomach, kidneys, muscles and heart. Hence, to be able to arrive at a more accurate principle one must have a clear picture of what behaviors are learned and what behaviors are innate. 
  Nevertheless, to refine the earlier statement it is not imperative to know all the innate mental processes that are present in a human being at birth since all innate mental processes are subconscious, hence, a person will not be aware of them. A clear example of this is the functioning of internal organs in the human body, which the brain regulates and controls and yet a person upon birth will have no knowledge of their existence. To be more specific, the brain controls a person’s heartbeat and blood pressure by the secretion of adrenaline, other hormones and neural impulses and yet a person upon birth will not know what adrenaline is, nor that he has a heart or what it does. If the person was asked to picture it or draw it, the person would have no idea of what it would look like for a person would not be aware of the existence of his own heart. Thus, the principle has to be modified to state: at birth, the human being has no conscious knowledge or awareness of his environment or his own being. (Conscious knowledge is defined as: an association between sensorial stimuli.) 
     Notwithstanding, it has to be appreciated that a mother will often speak to her belly whilst she is pregnant. This in turn could make babies produce an association between the warmth of the uterus and the voice of their mother. Therefore their might be an association present at birth. This is a contradiction to the conscious principle; however, to be able to make an association between the voice of their mother and the warmth of the uterus the baby must hear the voice of their mom. Therefore the principle has to be restated as: For a human being to possess conscious knowledge there must be a perception. In other words a human being cannot make an association between two or more sensorial stimuli if no sensorial stimulus is perceived.

Learning Principles
People learn by association, repetition and imitation and everything, from complex actions like playing the piano to more simple actions like drinking water from a glass, derives from a combination of these three characteristics. Fundamentally, people learn by making associations between two or more sensorial stimuli, for example: the association between the sound of the word blue and the pigment blue or the association between a sound and a figure, for example, a deep voice with an adult man.
Repetition is not a type of learning but a way in which the learned association is reinforced. For example, a person living in Africa will hear a lion roar and then he will see the lion; at first the association might not be clear. However, assuming that the lion always roars before being seen, with time the person will associate a roar with a lion and every time he hears a roar he will expect to see a lion.

    The repetition principle, although simple, suggests that the brain behaves like a muscle. A muscle will, with repeated use, strengthen until the action that is performed would be felt as effortless. For example, a child who is just starting to learn to walk will, at first, stumble and every time he tries to stand up he will lose balance and fall. This is because his muscles are adapting and strengthening in a way that will allow the child to perform the action of walking. Now, once the child has learned to walk, with time his muscles are going to become so accustomed to the action that it will feel natural and even effortless. However, let us assume that the child during his adulthood breaks his pelvis in a way that does not allow him to walk for over three years. When he is ready to walk again he will not find walking natural anymore and he will realize that the action does take an effort; it could even be said that the person has partially forgotten how to walk. Nonetheless, this person will find relearning to walk easier and faster than learning it the first time. 
   In the same way a person might go to school or any other educational institution where he is learning a foreign language. There he is exposed to the language for long periods of time. However, let us assume that he stops going to this institution for three years and he is not, for that space of time, exposed to the foreign language taught in the institution. The result will be that he will forget a great deal of what he had learned; however, he will find re-learning the foreign language easier and faster than learning it for the first time. A further example of this phenomenon would be a child learning simple arithmetic. At first, actions such as adding and multiplying will seem to take an effort. Nevertheless, over time these actions will seem effortless and people will be able to perform this once complicated process faster. Moreover, if the person stops solving equations and is no longer exposed to the numbers he will partially forget the arithmetic process.  
 The repetition principle gives rise to an aspect of learning that one must be aware of and that is the familiarization of a mental process. Familiarization is the action that makes a person feel that an action is effortless and trying not to perform the action that one is familiarized with will take an effort. For example, let us take a person who has been living in a country using the regional accent moves to another location where it is not convenient for him to use the accent and therefore he has to stop using it. Every time he speaks and tries not to use the accent he will feel as though the action takes him an effort. Moreover if he loses concentration the accent may “slip” and without wanting to he will regress to speak with his native accent. This occurs because the person became familiarized with the accent and using the accent became almost second nature to the person to the extent that it will take a lot of effort to not use it. Although it is conceivable that with time the person might adapt to the accent used in the region, at first this is what would be observed. (Familiarization can happen with every mental process, not only accents but word use, thinking processes, muscle actions and so on.) 
    The imitation principle states that: a person will imitate everything he sees and the more times he sees an action being performed the more likely it will be for the person of reference to imitate that action. This conclusion derives from the observation that people will often have accents and these accents change according to the region where a person lives. For example, an English person will pronounce a word with an accent different from that of an American person and the difference will be quite obvious. However, two English people from different regions will have a similar accent but the difference will be less pronounced than that of English person and the American person. As the people chosen for comparison live closer and closer together and are exposed to a similar environment their accents will be more and more alike. (People often do not imitate an action which is considered wrong (socially unacceptable) and this is a contradiction to the principle since it states that a person will imitate anything even that which is considered wrong; this problem shall be addressed later on when emotions are addressed).
     Learning is a very complicated process since there are numerous inner physical processes that take place in the brain as well as in the muscles themselves that allow for learning to take place. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this essay it is not necessary to dwell on them. Another thing that has to be understood is that there are innate actions such as reflexes that can be triggered by the environment, for example, a new born baby will cry without seeing anyone else cry thus, the action to cry is innate.

Motivation Principle
The motivation principle states that: for a person to perform an action there must be a motivation to trigger it; hence no action can be undertaken without a motivation. This principle arises due to the fact that the empirical world behaves on the laws of cause and effect; hence, everything that is performed by a human being must be triggered by a motivation or cause.

Elegant and simple, however, the questions is are the principle statements true?

Was that intended to be a challenge? If so, I can find error in just about anything so that long OP would really need to be broken down into many debates/topics.

Of all the errors that I felt flooding in, the most offensive to me were the bits about logic and truth.

Were you asking for counter arguments or just requesting evaluation? Proving to someone what IS true is much different than merely assessing what isn’t.

Good answer, I give my definition of truth for the essay so their is no room here for debate really, although I welcome any criticism. When it refers to logic this will be more clearly understood when the next part is submitted which will be I expect even more controversial.

I am an empricist and I am looking for the ultimate empirical truth so any contradiction to a principle statement should be based on the individuals observation. Any outside source like reference to a book is not acceptable since true is only that which one can observe ( by my definition). So if anyone wants to contradict the observation that, men are an isolated chemical system one must give empirical evidence that such principle is not accurate.

i entice anyone to give as many counter arguments as they possibly can even if they are absurd. Also ommit the thought process it is merely there to make it easy to read an understand it is not the actual thought process used since my actual process is rather confusing. Concentrate in the principle statements, e.g. for a person to posses conscious knowledge their must be a perception.

My observation is that being an empiricist is folly, so I guess countering that one concern would somewhat undermine your entire 8 threads.

I can agree that indeed you do seem to be an empiricist. Unfortunately, empirical observation is merely one form of speculation most often used to help support (not solely prove) a hypothesis.

What you are referring to as “logic” is actually dialectic, rationale, or logic argumentation. Logic is the actual immutable associations involved in the effort to make a logic argument. Aristotle labeled it as “dialectic”. It is a common error today to refer to dialectic as “logic”.

If you intend on relegating “truth value” to observation, you are actually associating truth with perception. You will be defining illusion and magic as real truth.

Actual logic is the only source of immutable truth value. Your natural mind actually knows that to be true and depends entirely upon it. Your perceptions are interpreted and evaluated by logic associations and when no logic associations can be made, the sensory input is ignored as “noise” and sensory perception is adjusted to compensate.

thank you for bringing this topic on. i am fully aware of this result and the extrapolation that magic is true by the definition of truth. Furthermore I make the conclusion that no one has any freedom, however, this assertion can never be proven in isolation. For example, how can i assert that i posses no freedom if i can observe that I have freedom. Therefore by definition the assertion that freedom is an illusion is false, not true, since it cannot be verified by observation. This discrepancy i adress in validation of theory and god. i state that the theory is correct as long as it can accurately predict and explain human actions. Since this is based on an extrapolation using the theory this would be based on logic. Therefore I have already adressed this problem and i agree entirely with the assertion that logic is the only source of truth.

Now your description of logic is what I refer to as the sixth were the brain chooses what information to regard as true and what to discard. Now information is defined as an association between sensorial stimuli therefore there is no right or wrong information. Nonetheless by defining correct as a starement that can be used to predict human actions and therefore evaluating the validity of knowledge on the premise of its ability to predict future outcomes i adress these concerns.

Ofcourse i am assuming that everything can be predicted and this is certainly questionable. Nonetheless the theory is universal to any human being that lives and will live and so it can be used to predict and explain human behavior, if this assertion is correct or not depends upon the observation of the reader.

Now I fully understand the deep paradox that basing truth on observation implies, however, if there is no observation (perception) there cannot be knowledge and so no logic. As a human I am constricted to this and so i am aware of my limitations this is the reason why Im looking for strong critisicm, this is a task for the reader since i myself have been unable to find a flaw in it.

Contradiction is what defines logic and informs the mind that its perceptions are in error. How, by your definitions, can you explain that? Do you propose that each mind observed a natural law of non-contradiction and then decided to use that rule to regulate other observations? That seems pretty sophisticated for a new born infant.

Logic (non-contradiction) is actually more inborn than perception and is always given higher priority (for a reason without which no mind could function).

[quote=“James S Saint”]
Contradiction is what defines logic and informs the mind that its perceptions are in error. How, by your definitions, can you explain that? Do you propose that each mind observed a natural law of non-contradiction and then decided to use that rule to regulate other observations? That seems pretty sophisticated for a new born infant.

Logic (non-contradiction) is actually more inborn than perception and is always given higher priority (for a reason without which no mind could function).[/quote

Effecitively you have already spotted another discrepancy with the theory, and it seems you are attacking the validty of the conscious principle. Now by asserting that logic is inborn you are asserting that men are born with a subconscious cognition or inhenrent truth.

Do you propose that each mind observed a natural law of non-contradiction and then decided to use that rule to regulate other observations?
This is exactly right and it is a product of the sixth sense. There is empirical evidence that supports this for example. When a person is making an observation the person assumes, either consciouly or subconsciouly that the light travels in a straight line. Now when light enters a denser medium than air, for example water it is defracted and changes course. Now this in turn makes objects that reside in water seem closer than what they really are and the person makes a desicion based upon this assertion.

Nonetheless, let us say a person is trying to catch a fish in a pond. because the person assumes that the light travels in a straight line he “sees” the fish closer than what it really is and so is likely to fail in his quest to stab the fish. However, with practice and exercise the person will at some point make the relationship that light actually bends when it enters a denser medium.

This might not be consciously perceive but it yet takes place, since no one could stab sucessfully a fish if this was not the case. Now can we say that humans have the innate ability to assume that light travels in straight lines, according to me this is not the case for he is not subconsciouly aware that light can actually defract in denser mediums. Now according to me there is no innate assumption that light travels in straight lines. However, proving this is very difficult since it is a natural law that light travels in straight lines and so a person must be deprived from seeing for long periods of time to prove this theory.

As for the saying that it seems as a very complicated process. yes it is and it is done by trial and improvemnt. Actually if the theory is correct that which a human perceives as consciousness is the least smart part of a person since the increadible vast majority of thought processes are subconscious. Human are according to the principles subconscious geniuses. In other words the human brain is far more intelligent and cognitve that what is regularly thought of.

Now I ask when you say that logic is in born what exactly are you referring to. What universal truth is there that every human is observed to have? ( no anger, i have no emotional attachment to knowledge, please feel free to argue at will.)

The only inborn inherent truth for logic is that “what is cannot also be what isn’t” (non-contradiction or Aristotle’s “Law of Identity”) without which no mind can even begin to function. Further mental structures are developed via fundamental declarations such as those associated with sensory inputs (that the mean/average input is valid).

How do you know? Did you OBSERVE that sixth sense? Which senses did you use to observe/perceive it? Of course, if you used logic to conclude that it “must be there” due to any reason at all, then you would have defeated your argument.

Now it can be asserted that 2 is 2, one can also say that 2 is the same as two. Therefore three cannot be 2, since 3 is three and 2 has been stated to be two. Now the symbol given for the quantity two is learned and so dependant upon where the person has obtained the knowledge since different cultures have been observed to use different symbols for the same quantity. So one can say that 2 is the same as three but under this condition 3 cannot be three since one has established that 2 is three.

The law of identity refers to the way in which a person processes the information. For example the cat is white. If there is no association between white and the pigment then the person would not be able to make rationalization of the sentence that has been stated. This is what I refer to as reality if their is no association then the person would not be able to interpret the information that is being perceived. So reality is what I refer to as the identity law, or that humans learn by making association between sensorial stimuli.

Why is white, white and not blue, this are two different things with distiguishable associations, when a person is told blue, the pigment which is imagined is different to the pigment that would be imagined if one were to say white. This cannot be said to be innate logic, it is innate processing since it has been established that one can associate blue to the pigment white and white to the pigment blue.

However, once that their is an established concept such as white and blue one cannot say that they are the same thing since the associated pigment for the colour white is different from that of the colour blue. They are distiguishable since the sensorial stimulus perceived is different. Therefore the identity law stems from the innate ability of a person to distinguish between different sensorial stimuli and being able to make an association between them.

Now what if white is not white and could be anything, if it is anythig then there is not an established association between white and sensorial stimuli, and so white is nothing. Under this condition the person would not be able to think since he cannot extract an association from the word which is perceived. This I refer to as reality.

When it comes to the sixth sense could you please expand your idea as and clearly state your point and logical progression? i dont want to specualte with regards to what exactly your are referring to.

It is a common error today to mistakenly think that by altering words, you have somehow changed logic. The words have nothing at all to do with the logic. One can present a fallacious logic argument by equivocating words (as your demonstration). Words are used in dialectic in an effort to communicate logic. By toying with the words, one can confuse, mislead, and even blind someone else. Social manipulators are doing it all of the time. In fact, your argument and current misunderstanding of logic is a display of such intentional confusion having been injected into society for sake of manipulation.

The law of identity can be simply stated as “A=A” and automatically gains a corollary that A~!A. Because the symbols or words are not relevant to the reasoning itself, unless you intentionally abuse the symbols or allow confusion of the symbols, no more need be explained. Toying with the words is merely a form of Cabal magic (altering what people believe by deceiving them with words).

The statement “the cat is white” has nothing to do with logic at all unless you are asserting it as an axiom. Without definitions (also presumed axiomatical) the statement could mean anything. With proper definitions (properly in form, disambiguous), the statement has only one meaning. Your senses help form your declared definitions for color, touch, smell, and so on.

Logic begins with the law of identity and indisputable declarations (there is no one else to dispute them within the single mind) which include definitions on a physiological level. Words are not being used on such a level so there is little room for the magi to confuse the senses, although other means are still available.

You, as an empiricist, may not use logical deduction to conclude anything because logic itself is not observable (no principle is). You cannot even say, “I saw it, therefore it happened”. If you say such a thing, you are deducing based on the reasoning that you seeing is always associated with true events. You already know that your perceptions can be fooled and thus seeing is not certainty. You cannot even say, “If I saw accurately, then the event happened” because that too relies on a conditional logic statement. You have no empirical means to substantiate logic. Instead, logic must be used to substantiate empiricism. But that means that logic is accepted before empirical perceptions/observations come into the game. If you accept logic as a priori to empiricism, then you are not an empiricist after all, but a logician.

Upon your definition no one can claim to be an empiricist and so I cannot be labelled as an empiricists. By default everyone is a logician since everything that exists has an associated meaning to it and so everything means something else. Logic is thus, an inevitable consequence of thinking.

“Logic begins with the law of identity and indisputable declarations”. This would be the principles which are highlighted in the theory for example, the isolation principle. A conclusion is based on the assumption that this is a universal constant to every person. However, the principle itself is based on an observation. If one says that logic has to substantiate empiricism and however, asserts that logic starts with an indisputable declaration when it can be observed that the declaration or principle statement is based on an observation then you are running into a deep paradox which will result in an ever increasing amount of contradictions.

“You already know that your perceptions can be fooled and thus seeing is not certainty”. This is a fair assesment but what about the masses that believe that a person, magician, has supernatural powers. They have made an assumption based on their observation, their observation is what they regard as truth their extrapolation is their logical conclusion based on their information. This is also logic since the person is extrapolating using his knowledge. Now if you assert that this is not logic then you are saying that his statement is false. If it is false how can you prove it to be false if there is no way to verify what is being said.

“You have no empirical means to substantiate logic.” Under this condition one can never refute the assertion that the man has supernatural powers since there are is no way of verifying it. Ofcourse one could argue that this is not true and formulate a logical argument to substain your assertion, but if their is no empirical means to prove your point how is anyone going to agree with your conclusion?

Galileo concluded that light travelled instantenously and that it could well be of infinite speed, he made a logical extrapolation based on certainties which he had established. Now does light travel at infinite speed? If so how can anyone verify that this is true. You can formulate a logical argument to prove otherwise but this would be done giving reference to an observation. (experimental data).

You establish that logic begins with the law of indentity, this I agree with, but the certainties that one extrapolate from are not innate they are learned for this reason a person can create and formulate a flawed logical argument. Therefore the conscious principle holds true, or are you asserting that a person can actually be born with a natural certainty? An elephant is an elephant but one must observe an elephant before one can know what an elephant is. otherwise you would be implying that a person knows what an elephant is upon birth. Then you would run to this contradiction. if people are born with an inhenrent truth how can someone be mislead? “By toying with the words, one can confuse, mislead, and even blind someone else.”

You are acquainted with relativity, in its core there is the assumption that the speed of light is a constant, is this not based on observation? Then one has used observation to make a logical extrapolation. Now is it innate the certainty that c is constant? No since galileo extrapolated that it was instantenous.

The logical process is inherent to the person because of the way in which the brain learns by association, the certainty, information that is used to derive the logical statement is learned (not innate). Now if you are going to contradict this assertion please define logic because it may well be we are referring to different things.

The inherent truth is the certainty not the logical process.

Now if you could just convince the other 5 billion people, we might start getting somewhere.

Anything based on an observation is disputable. An example of some things indisputable;

A) All things that have size are either large, small, or somewhere in between, mid-size.
B) Brightness ranges from absolute dark to absolute light.
C) Infinity cannot be reached except by an infinite.
D) The map is not the terrain.
E) Cause establishes effect.
F) Existence is determined by affectance.

I was referring only to you. Must you base what you believe on the folly of what others believe?
PRESUMPTION (action from false premise) is the seed of ALL sin/error.

I could argue the point merely by properly defining “natural” and “supernatural”. No observation would be required.

Infinite speed or instantaneousness is a logical impossibility. Again, no observations (or Science) is required. Logic works with concepts. Merely the concepts involved eliminate any possibility of instantaneousness. Galileo merely made a false premise assumption. He presumed (sinned).

Note that you forbade contradiction. By maintaining consistency (the lack of contradiction) certainty can be achieved on any level. Declaration and definition establish the foundation of all thought structure. Observations are hypotheses to be verified. Presumption (the lack of verification) quickly leads to error in logical construction and rationale and thus error in conclusion. Without presumption, there can be no error(sin).

The consistency of the observed speed of light (only its observation is consistent) was discovered by observation. But that fact could well have been logically deduced without ever opening an eye (although would have taken a very serious genius).

“Logical process” merely refers to identifying immutable truths that link to an incontrovertible conclusion.

  1. A is declared to be white (immutable declaration of fact)
  2. B is defined to be equal to A in color (concept definition of B)
  3. therefore B is white - incontrovertible conclusion.

Logical construct is no more than identification of declarations, definitions, and axioms to be presumed during the construction of a sequitur association between each component.

If any false axiom is presumed, the conclusion becomes invalid (not necessarily false). Definitions can also be nonstandard or “false” by popular language declaration and lead to false conclusion by appearance or communication. Declarations can be self-contradicting and thus lead to absurdities (“This statement is false”).

Avoid the errors in logical construct/process and logic is never wrong. It is only due to limited time to act and the priority urge to act, that presumptions are made and errors are produced.

If we can agree that, logic starts with an indisputable declarations, then from this statement you are asserting that for their to be logic a statement must be an indiputable claim. If I state A is A and then one says A is the same as 3, Then A is 3. However, I were to say that A is not 3 but that it is actually 4. Then A cannot be 3.

For logic to be innate then their should be a universal cognition, present in every human of an indisputable value.

"An example of some things indisputable;

A) All things that have size are either large, small, or somewhere in between, mid-size.
B) Brightness ranges from absolute dark to absolute light.
C) Infinity cannot be reached except by an infinite.
D) The map is not the terrain.
E) Cause establishes effect.
F) Existence is determined by affectance."

What method did you use to determine this indisputable claims? Was is it not observation, and it has been stated, “That You have no empirical means to substantiate logic.” By this you are implying that a human is born with this innate knowledge. if there is no knowledge of an indiputable claim then One cannot say logic is innate, the logical process is.

Under this condition if i were to say a cause does not establishes an effect or that existence is determined by affectance, how is anyone to say that I am wrong and you are right since their no way to substantiate logic by observation? One cannot say something is indisputable if their is no way to verify it.

By your definition of empiricist I cannot be said to be an empiricist, however, who is to say that I define empiricist as you do. what if I defined empiricists as someone who uses observation to validated an assertion. You said that in this case I would be contradicting my own argument since you have rightly spotted that one cannot observe the sixth sense. But is not spotting a kind of observation? Nonetheless the existence of the sixth sense has an observable effect on the person if this effect was not observed then the validity of the sixth sense would not count. Is true i cannot “see” the sixth sense but I can know it is there due to an observation, if there was no observation how can I know that it is there? Under your condition were no one can substantiate logic with empirical evidence then this notion is destroyed.

This is ofcourse nothing new since in validation of theory I clearly state that I base the validity of the assertions made on the essay on its ability to predict human action. Now the sixth sense is not a thing, it cannot be observed, the effect that the sixth sense has on a person is. If you say that because of this Im not an empiricist but a logician, this would not be valid since to formulate a logical argument one must have an indiputable claim and a indisputable claim is learned and hence based in observation.

i could say I am 3 metres tall, How can you possibly prove me wrong if their is no emprical mean to subtantiate logic. If one were to say that is a cat. How can I say that what the person is referring to is actually a cat. Let us assume that the person pointed at a dog when he was referring to a cat, would he be wrong. No because he defines a cat as a dog.

Therefore any logical argument resides in the definition of the terms used in the argument. But this is more overreaching than that what you realize. Avoid the errors in logical construct/process and logic is never wrong. Under what premise do you assert that logic is never wrong? In essence any statement is based on an assumed meaning to any word since definition are based on words themselves. Hence for anyone to agree with anyone else there must be a standard or norm of the established words used. If there is no standard then any statement lacks meaning since any word could mean anything.

Under this condition one can appreaciate that any statement depends on the associated meaning to any word. If their is no standard no argument could be proven wrong. If no argument can be proven wrong then no argument can be proven right. In this condition how can one assert that Logic always arises to the right asnwer. If you say that logic is innate then you are asserting that their is an absolute and true value or definition that every human has knowledge of. If you are to say yes, how could you do so without giving reference to an observation?

“You already know that your observations can be decieving,” how did you make that conclusion if not based on observation?

I don’t even want to try to figure out why you said that.

There are many. The most fundamental is that one of Identity.

Not at all.

In the case of (A);
Neurological anatomy provides a declared position of stimuli. That positioning yields relative location assessment which yields relative size measurement. With any arbitrarily chosen mid-range, anything lesser on the scale is called “smaller” and anything greater is called, “larger”. There are no other options to be named. These are about mere definitions built upon the original innate position declaration due to physiological construction (inborn). I know that all sizes are accounted for simply because there were no options left. Thus there can be no rational dispute as to whether the statement is true.

The other statements are similar. Due to physiological construction, definitions and declarations (where “mid-range” is to be), mental construction of thought can begin and a picture of outside reality can be built (the map). Observation merely allows discovered items to be named in accord with their affects. If a proposed item has no affect whatsoever, it is declared non-existent.

There actually is no room for argument or observation until after the thought construction has been formed from prior logic (“This is what I say it is because I am the one naming it”). Presumption (the serpent in the Garden) is what foils the mind through the temptation to presume even though complete accuracy (no options left) or observation was not verified (cross checking, parallax measurements, independent duplications…).

There are many. The most fundamental is that one of Identity.

Again as I already explained indentity law does not prove the conscious principle wrong.

[Not at all.

In the case of (A);
Neurological anatomy provides a declared position of stimuli. That positioning yields relative location assessment which yields relative size measurement. With any arbitrarily chosen mid-range, anything lesser on the scale is called “smaller” and anything greater is called, “larger”. There are no other options to be named. These are about mere definitions built upon the original innate position declaration due to physiological construction (inborn). I know that all sizes are accounted for simply because there were no options left. Thus there can be no rational dispute as to whether the statement is true.

I have already adressed this problem as if you have not noticed I have defined knowledge as an association between sensorial stimuli. Now it is true that a person has the innate ability to distinguish between sizes of objects and this is indeed due to neurological construct, nonetheless, for a person to say that house is bigger than the other he must observe the house. Under this condition this which you are refering to is not innate knowledge it is innate ability of differentiation, in other words ability of a person to distinguish between the sensorial stimulus perceived, it is not however, an innate evaluation since to no comparison can be made if their is no perception.

This is also the case for language, because a person learns by association means that the development of language in any social system is inevitable, nonetheless if their is no perception the person would never develop the language. association principle can easily explain this and many other so called innate knowledge.

A person has the ability to distinguish between sensorial stimuli and so can see the end of any object and infer its size, but he would not know the size of the object until the object is perceived. Because of this a person can be easily deceived when his making an evaluation of size often would seem larger than what they actually are, for example a room full of other things would normally seem smaller than one that is completely empty. There is a great deal of documented evidence of people who are deceived due to this “illusions” because a person learns by association. Therefore the conscious principle holds true.

Not only that but the principles can explain and predict an incredible amount of other things for example, the motivation principle and the conscious principle when combined state the following, objectivity is an impossible achievemnet why? the motivation principle states that in order to think the person must have a motivation, thus every thought process is done for reason. A person who, for example, is seeking the truth is assuming that there is a truth and thus, every thought process done will be done under this assumption. Since everytime a person thinks he gathers all the knowledge which he associates as relevant this means that their will always be a biased towards the confectioning of any thought process. If one is to be truly objective then one must allow for every possibility and never take any stance, this is not possible under the conscious principe ( what you refer to as the Law of identity) A is A but an objective person would assume that a could be b , c, d, g ,h j, this would not allow a person to think and thus, formulate a thought process that would allow him to make a desicion.

The same could be said for emotions, the motivation principle states that for a person to produce a thought their must be a cause or objective. Now since there is always an objective this means that the person is trying to mold his environment to to achieve something therefore their will always be a right and wrong outcome, for example, a person who is trying to open a can would observe that their will be a right and wrong way to open a can since performing certain actions like observing the can do not open the can. As a consequence emotions are inevitable in any social system.

One can observe that in every social system the subjects develops emotions, but because this is so is no evidence that emotions are innate knowledge, since a person can not produce an emotion if their is no perception. one could even assert that neurological contruct makes emotions inevitable but this is not true for the reason I have already stated.

Again this is nothing new since as I have said in the limitations, the principles are the result of complicated brain structure, and this brain structures allow the principle to exist. The principle I have said are mere simplification of the brain structure, which is the same in every normal person.

I was intentionally only addressing the logic vs empiricism issue, as all else you have stated depends on that one oversight.

But that is not entirely correct due to what has been explained above.

Observations merely allow for a person to extend his guessing to the outside environment. The logic used to substantiate that guess work came first.

Observation is merely speculation - NOT definition.

Empiricism is presumptuous guess-work. Logic is incontrovertible. That is the cause of the other many errors I was reading throughout your posts. You must fix the erroneous presumption that empirical observation is what determines truth before any of the rest of it can begin to make sense.

The logic used to substantiate that guess work came first.

What standard are you going to use to prove this to me? If the conscious principle does not allow for a person to have cognition innate cognition of time itself as this is stored as an association between a sequence of events. I can prove this right easily by empirical evidence. But if empirical evidence is no source of truth then I cannot prove it to you since your definition of truth is different from mine. How can you prove that logic came first without giving reference to an observation?

I have dealt a long time with this problem I have no asnwer to it. yet, however, as i have establish true is something that can be verified by empirical observation, and that the theory is right as long as the predictions made in it are true then from my definition you have not proven me wrong unless of course you can prove to me that logic came first but to do so you must give evidence which i can observe, perceive, (emprical evidence.)

To the core of this theorys assumption is based on observation, saying observation brings no truth destroys the entire reasoning and thus, I would not edit I would erase the entire threads. However, I adress this in condition of theory validation. You cannot prove me wrong by saying that empirical evidence is no source of truth you are just disagreeing with my definition of truth.

Observation is merely speculation - NOT definition.

Do not you think i have already dealt with this statement, “What can be observed is sometimes based on what one expects to observe, furthermore everything that is seen is subjected to its interpretation.” quote from essay. This is why something seems larger than others when in fact upon measurement they are the same size.

The essay seeks to explain human behaviour, in the essay i explain why anyone can arrive at a incorrect conclusion. If you do not give space for this how can you succesfully explain human behavior?

There is no error I am afraid upon my definition of truth this is why i have clearly stated at the beggining and at the end. If you are willing to prove me wrong you must do it in this manner, no other. Independantly of what your reality dictates.

Send me a thread from where you learned this information so I can see your argument more clearly, it is obvious to me that you are oversimplifying things in your replies.

I have already explained that twice. Obviously not clearly enough for you, so I will leave it be. I would suggest reading my explanations perhaps very slowly, line by line keeping mental note on what you can agree to rather than merely what you prefer to disagree with. In the long run, it is your thesis, right or wrong. Some people don’t write to be right.