The cognitive mind is not a hardwire issue (which is why language can largely dictate the tone of your thoughts, as advertised). The cognitive mind is an entirely superficial level of intelligence using imagined symbols and images. When the cognitive (meaning a bit mechanical) mind thinks, it is through words and pictures. The language is given to it by society as is the mathematics, thus “preloaded” before it can begin using those words to develop any new ideas or communicating on that level.
In my case, the issue was the long standing philosophical argument about what “existence” means, ontology. I decided that the only thing worthy of calling “existence” is that which has affect, for RATIONAL reasons, not any kind of observations. I didn’t run around noticing that everything that existed had affect and then abstracted that notion in order to put it into a categorical definition. I chose and declared that it be true regardless of anything I might see, hear, or be told because I had no reason to care about anything else.
The cognitive layer of intellect uses the kind of definitions you find in a dictionary (when you can find a good one). And those definitions are mostly given to it (as though pre-loaded) before it can begin functioning and making deductions or cognitive observations (such as mathematical conclusions). It can’t resolve any math until it learns the definitions involved in math.
Yes and this is why i think your method and the results are of no practical use. It doesn’t even make sense to speak of ‘worth’ without an experiental world. What would it be valuable for? We define things according to use. Eskimo’s have a lot more distinctions for types of snow then we have, because they have a need for it… For RATIONAL reasons doesn’t mean anything in the abstract.
Is about like saying that mathematics has no practical use … because you haven’t learned it.
Since decisions are made based upon the Perception of Hope and Threat, PHT (another concern in RM:AO), it makes sense merely because it allowed the goal to be reached.
Everything that science has been valuable for … as well as many science has not yet reached. It is “Science 2.0” for Mankind, now including a “unified field theory” and “grand unification theory” already spelled out.
“Rational” means that it serves the purpose, it has use. The metaphysics that can tell science exactly why protons repel or why the strong force works to overcome that repulsion, has a use, thus is rational (as opposed to spooky and superstitious bullshit at a distance). It also tells of a great, great many things throughout the fields of psychology, sociology, and economics.
But of course it is useless to you because you haven’t learned anything about it (and not likely to) … just like higher math or chemistry.
Actually what you are doing can be compared to mathematics. Except mathematics is supposed to be a self-contained system. It’s the development of a tool, a tool that needs information to be of use… by itself it doesn’t tell us anything about the world and doesn’t pretend to. And it doesn’t pretend to be science, much less science 2.0.
But i’ll leave it as it is, there no point because you have obviously invested far to much in your pet-theory to even consider criticism.
Is there a reason, then, to assume that other people - let alone animals - have consciousness. If they have it, it need not have any effect on their behavior, which we can track. This posited something might merely be an epiphenomenon, in any case. Or can one feel the consciousness of another person? I would answer this yes, and do not disagree with what you have said. But I think you need to answer yes, or consider the conscious awareness of other person’s irrelevent.
Mathematics was designed to compare bits of the world, not to explain those bits. RM:AO explains those bits that math is comparing, which is why it needs definitions. RM:AO is an ontology, not merely a logic tool. And it is far, far beyond being merely a theory.
I have considered a great deal of criticism for years. But there is something that any critic must do; learn what it is that he is trying to criticize before attacking and stick with seriously accurate logic. What you have been raised to believe doesn’t count as serious logic, but more merely new-age secular-religious propaganda notions (“thinking is useless. Give it up! We’ll tell you what’s right when we want you to know.”).
???
Their awareness has no effect upon their own behavior??
Anything that has any affect upon anything, has eventual indirect affect on everything, although most often, infinitely small amounts.
We need both thinking and observing. When it comes to an instinctual banality (“humans as animals”), observing may be more important than thinking, but when it comes to the human culture/s and especially to science (science belongs to the Occidental culture), thinking is more important than observing (this does not mean that observing is unimportant), because it was the thinking that led to the scientifical (again: scientifical!) observation. Humans are humans because of their culture/s, naturally spoken: because of their brains. Many animals are much better observers than humans. What humans made to better oberservers was the enablement of the universal use of their brains which enabled them to a specification that led to scientification and at last to science itself. So the cause of the scientifical observation is thinking, the typical human thinking, caused by their brains and their culture/s - interactively.
Hume dealt with this kind of Causality a couple of centuries ago allready… but it’s probably to much to expect that people on a philosophy board read and know something about actual philosophy.
Yes. And if scientists are already corrupt and depend on other corrupt humans, then the probability becomes higher and higher that they say that, for example, “‘X’ has not been proven false”, although it has been proven false.
Hume and Kant are good examples when it comes to the topic of this thread, because Hume and Kant are contemporaries of the enlightenment era - Kant even of two eras: the enlightenment era and the next era -, and many aspects of RM:AO are similar to many aspects of the enlightenment era, especially: rationality, metaphysics, its ontology, and science. After the enlightenment era this aspects got lost, became mere parts of science, or got into the fairway of nihilism.
But all that historical facts did not change anything of the importance of those aspects.
Kant was merely reigniting the flame of rational intellectualism left over by the Greeks (“rational intellectualism” vs nonsensical intellectual masturbation and speculation so common in the masses).
x-coordinate <=> centuries (0 <=> the year 1800)
y-coordinate <=> degree (magnitude)
y = ½^x <=> philosophy
x = 2^x <=> nihilism
Currently (x = 2 ) the degree of nihilism (y = 4) is 16 times higher than the degree of philosophy (y = ¼); the current degree of philosophy (y = ¼) is 32 times lower than it was in the year 1500 (x = —3 and y = 8), the current degree of nihilism (y = 4) is 32 times higher than it was in the year 1500 (x = —3 and y = 0,125).
When mathematics and physics left philosophy they became scientific disciplines. Contemporarily the degree of nihlism was very low, almost imperceptible. Currently the degree of philosophy is as low as nihlism was at the time when mathematics and physics left philosophy and became scientific disciplines, whereas the degree of nihlism is as high as philosophy was at the time when mathematics and physics left philosophy and became scientific disciplines, - One can have the impression that nihilism is an awful revenge.
If we want to save the philosophy, then we have to fight against the nihilism. The nihilism is an enemy of both philosophy and science, but nevertheless the number of nihilistic “philosophers” has been exponetially increasing, followed by the number of nihilistic “scientists”.
I think you’ve misunderstood my point, you’ve probably never thought about this issue, much like virtually everyone else. I am, I think, the first one to have asked this question.
It seems only three or four people have understood even the possibility of this question. The human race ultimately oozes with piety before “The One”, or “The Universe”. It is awesome how obedient they are to the idea, which is perfectly illogical.
Let me give it another try. Let him hear who has ears.
I do not mean to question the idea of causality, or the predictability or certainty that science can derive from the principle of causality. I do not wish to question whether the sun comes up tomorrow, etc. Reading Hume makes me cringe, he is so naive and banal, but I have endured it in my time.
What I mean simply is to question that idea that all influences all; i.e. that there is a “The Whole”.
This is more an issue to take up with Spinoza, who is the chief mechanic of the argument for this Whole.
