General Theorem of Existence

[Raulgr]

Originally posted by Eddier1

Raul, the basing of your General Theorem of Existence on the latest research on protein synthesis(abiogenetics)is interesting to me in that you opine that you may be the first thinker to generalize the concept on protein studies so to deny the significant distinction between inanimate matter and living organisms. . .

We who thirst for knowledge must all stand on shoulders of others who have obtained some of that knowledge, and where it is rare to find a mighty Giant who stands so tall that we cannot reach its shoulders, we ought to be reverent enough to walk between the legs of that Giant looking always forward into the future for more knowledge. . .

Sincerely,
EddieR

Eddie,

WOW! I like that last statement! That's quotable (shades of Thomas Huxley).

I haven't exactly laid claim to being the FIRST. Rather, I think of myself as being among a small group whose thinking has moved in that direction. Further, as a non-scientist, I have license to a degree of recklessness that scientists are careful to avoid. Understandably, they are loath to leap to broad generalizations before all of the evidence is in.

In my view, the recent discovery regarding the mechanism of protein synthesis provides the "missing link" in the process of abiogenesis that begins with the synthesis of amino acids under early earth conditions demonstrated in the Miller-Urey experiments.

Regards, Raul

[Raulgr]

Originally posted by Suki
Public Agreement to Truth Eddie R is a difficult concept to defend. The dominant culture in the United States 170 years ago thought that blacks were inferior and that was THE TRUTH, or scientists that believed that because women were generally smaller in size than men, that meant that they had smaller brains, incapable of dealing with complex decisions such as voting or rational thinking. People vary so much that having every individual in a given society whether a Western society or an Eastern society agree on what is acceptable public truth is impossible. Like the saying goes in Spanish "Cada cabeza es un mundo," and "Cada loco con su tema", every person's truth is open to questioning. What is true for one person, one culture, one country isn't necessarily the truth for all people, all cultures and all countries. That is why in the world there are different topographies, with people adapting to that particular land and developing cultures that allow survival in that environment, what works in one social system is disastrous in another social system. So truth in absolute terms does not exist, only adaptable societies. What is truth? Coca-cola is delicious and refreshing says the Coke selling people, Coca-Cola is bad for your health say the health industry. Which is true? ask the person that drinks and loves Coke, he will say it is good. Ask a health food practicioner and he will say it is bad. Who is living the truth?

Suki,

To the contrary, "truth" WITHOUT the quality of ABSOLUTENESS is meaningless, as your own argument clearly demonstrates. The REALITY that shapes and defines the universe is concise, that is to say that it operates under a specific set of RULES. For every question, therefore, there is but ONE RIGHT ANSWER, to the exclusion of all other possible answers that might occur to us. We can either follow the rules, or violate them. It follows that we are well advised to know what they are.

Human metabolism, for example, is comprised of specific intricately orchestrated processes. The staggering modern-day sugar intake of a population hooked on what Corporate America has sold them has resulted in what can only be viewed as an EPIDEMIC of diabetes, stroke, and cardiovascular disease, diseases relatively unknown to our grandparents and prior generations. As it turns out, drinking "coke" is a MAJOR VIOLATION of the RULES. Armed with the TRUTH, I wonder how many people would decide that a HORRIBLE DEATH is too great a price to pay for FLEETING INDULGENCES?

Regards, Raul

[Suki]

I completely agree with you that there are Natural Laws that if violated, have serious and deliterious consequences. Everyone is born, develops and dies. That was not my point. What I meant was that Philosophical, Religious or Social Values-related truths, are subjective. Therefore, subjective truths are the creation of human beings living within a social system. Social systems and individuals within all social systems vary tremendously from each other (tastes, preferences, personalities, approaches, actions, reactions). Consequently for all of society's members to have complete agreement on what subjectively interpreted truths are is a hard concept to defend. It is very fun to talk to both Eddie and you Raul. I wonder why there aren't more women involved in this philosophy thread? I can learn a great deal from both of you, that always gets me enthused about life. Que Chevere!

[Raulgr]

Originally posted by Suki
I completely agree with you that there are Natural Laws that if violated, have serious and deliterious consequences. Everyone is born, develops and dies. That was not my point. What I meant was that Philosophical, Religious or Social Values-related truths, are subjective. Therefore, subjective truths are the creation of human beings living within a social system. Social systems and individuals within all social systems vary tremendously from each other (tastes, preferences, personalities, approaches, actions, reactions). Consequently for all of society's members to have complete agreement on what subjectively interpreted truths are is a hard concept to defend. . .

Suki,

An underlying premise of my essay that proposes a general theorem of existence is that truth is objective, not subjective. If an idea or conceptualization is consistent with reality, universal law, it is true. If it is inconsistent with reality, it is not true. This is the only standard by which truth may be judged. In other words, "subjective truth" does not exist, as it conveys an idea having no relevance to anything in reality. It follows that there can be no distinction between philosophy and science, because each has as its objective the discovery of truth.

I agree with you that metaphysical notions and other inclinations arising from human passion are entirely subjective, having nothing to do with reality, hence unrelated to truth. Therein lies their danger for humanity. It is conservatively estimated, for example, that in the 300-year period encompasing the 16th through 18th centuries more than a million women and children were slaughtered throughout Europe as witches, a practice fostered and sanctioned by the catholic church, and subsequently by the lutheran church and the church of England. While the practitioners of this gruesome feast undoubtedly laid claim to "truth", by any standard of reality their actions can only be viewed as barbaric. There are north-African cultures that today continue the practice of female circumcision, under insterile conditions and without anesthesia. I would like to extend an invitation to anyone who would like to argue the "truth" of this particular form of barbarism. The point is a simple one. There are myriad notions, arising from human passions and insecurities, that shape human behavior and have nothing to do with truth. That is precisely the challenge for humantiy chronicled by Carl Sagan in his book "The Demon-Haunted World". His message is not a case for societal regimentation, but for rational thinking which holds great benefit for the human condition.

Regards, Raul

[Suki]

Is humanity's ultimate goal to become scientific,logical, rational thinkers?
1. One of the cardinal rules of science is looking at hard evidence before attempting to compose a theory. Judging by human behaviors in the present and in the past we are not solely rational thinkers.

2.After the atom bombs that were detonated in Japan in WWII one of the consequences was exposing unborn fetuses to abnormally high rates of radiation. In this delicate state of development, the fetuses were either sponatneously aborted or if they survived born with scaly reptilian skin.

3.It seems we go through all stages of previous evolutionary development before arriving at our present genetic makeup.

4.If this is true there is still a part of our brain that is reptilian, aviary, primate and so forth...

5.Scientists that observe these species say (especially the primatologists) that they follow certain natural laws. But socially the primates (our closest genetic cousins) are fairly irrational about many things.

Humans in the past and in the present have exhibited with alarming regularity their illogical,unscientific side of thinking, (facetiously speaking this includes a certain hillbilly from Bairoa). Can we extrapolate then Raul that humans are not destined to be logical? Who's going to win the battle between logic and emotion (passion) in the human mind. To end facetiously on a question, Raul, what's our future....Mr. Spock or Bones "Dr.McCoy"? Love to hear from you. Suki.

[Raulgr]

Originally posted by Suki
Is humanity's ultimate goal to become scientific,logical, rational thinkers?

. . . Humans in the past and in the present have exhibited with alarming regularity their illogical, unscientific side of thinking, (facetiously speaking this includes a certain hillbilly from Bairoa). Can we extrapolate then Raul that humans are not destined to be logical? Who's going to win the battle between logic and emotion (passion) in the human mind. To end facetiously on a question, Raul, what's our future....Mr. Spock or Bones "Dr.McCoy"? Love to hear from you. Suki.

Suki,

I believe that the short answer to your question is neither.

It occurs to me that thought (the ability to contemplate) is driven by emotional response, which, in turn, arises from the requirements of our biology. The ultimate requirement of that biology, of course, is simply survival.

Consider the following question: When I get up in the morning, why do I put on shoes? Answer: I put on shoes so that I won't die. If I go to work barefoot, people will think that I am weird, important people like my boss. If people think that I am weird, I might lose my job. If I lose my job, I might not be able to pay my mortgage. If I can't pay my mortgage, I might end up on the sreets. If I end up on the streets, I might succumb to the elements. Therefore, I put on shoes so that I won't die!

Simply put, every atom, molecule, and cell of our body is engaged in a moment by moment life or death struggle for survival of the organism which they comprise. I believe that the resulting "will to survive" of the organism is at the core of human motivation and is the driver of emotion and thought. The game is to stave off the grim reaper, to allay our most fundamental biological concern. To that end, we seek to wrap ourseles in the security of romance, friendship, esteem of colleagues, possessions, and all of the pleasant diversions that are presented to us. In this way, I do not see thought as disconnected from emotion.

Is human thought in transition from mystical thinking to reality-based thinking? Clearly it is. You are in Macedonia. The year is 600 BC. You look into the daytime sky and contemplate a blindingly radiant and powerful object. What can it be? Why, of course! It's a golden chariot of the gods being drawn across the heavens. The source of mystical thinking is rather clear, isn't it? When you encounter something that demands an explanation, and there is none, you create the explanation. Certainly, no one after Copernicus saw a golden chariot in the daytime sky.

Science provides the answers that we must have for all that we experience in the universal realm in which we exist. The greater our understanding of that existence, the less apt we are to be courted by the metaphysical. In science, I see a dawn of awakening for human understanding. If the race survives, I believe that understanding will take humanity to places not yet imagined. I do not see that understanding as inimical to human emotion, unless, of course, through it we are able to reshape our biology to immortality.

Well, Suki, I have a question for you. Did you mention in one of your posts that you are a mambera? Or did I just dream that part? I'm considering resurrecting my mambo workshop now that I am in the island. I've got a steplist of 100 or so mambo shines from the Palladium era. I had the good fortune of connecting with Eddie Torres in New York, and I've patterned my workshop after his. For my money, Eddie is the leading exponent of mambo in the world today. Do you know him? An Eddie Torres dance exhibition is not to be missed! Since I don't get much news from NY these days, if you happen to hear about Eddie, I would appreciate an update.

Regards, Raul

[Suki]

Originally posted by Raulgr

Suki,

I believe that the short answer to your question is neither.

It occurs to me that thought (the ability to contemplate) is driven by emotional response, which, in turn, arises from the requirements of our biology. The ultimate requirement of that biology, of course, is simply survival.

Consider the following question: When I get up in the morning, why do I put on shoes? Answer: I put on shoes so that I won't die. If I go to work barefoot, people will think that I am weird, important people like my boss. If people think that I am weird, I might lose my job. If I lose my job, I might not be able to pay my mortgage. If I can't pay my mortgage, I might end up on the sreets. If I end up on the streets, I might succumb to the elements. Therefore, I put on shoes so that I won't die!

Simply put, every atom, molecule, and cell of our body is engaged in a moment by moment life or death struggle for survival of the organism which they comprise. I believe that the resulting "will to survive" of the organism is at the core of human motivation and is the driver of emotion and thought. The game is to stave off the grim reaper, to allay our most fundamental biological concern. To that end, we seek to wrap ourseles in the security of romance, friendship, esteem of colleagues, possessions, and all of the pleasant diversions that are presented to us. In this way, I do not see thought as disconnected from emotion.

Is human thought in transition from mystical thinking to reality-based thinking? Clearly it is. You are in Macedonia. The year is 600 BC. You look into the daytime sky and contemplate a blindingly radiant and powerful object. What can it be? Why, of course! It's a golden chariot of the gods being drawn across the heavens. The source of mystical thinking is rather clear, isn't it? When you encounter something that demands an explanation, and there is none, you create the explanation. Certainly, no one after Copernicus saw a golden chariot in the daytime sky.

Science provides the answers that we must have for all that we experience in the universal realm in which we exist. The greater our understanding of that existence, the less apt we are to be courted by the metaphysical. In science, I see a dawn of awakening for human understanding. If the race survives, I believe that understanding will take humanity to places not yet imagined. I do not see that understanding as inimical to human emotion, unless, of course, through it we are able to reshape our biology to immortality.

Well, Suki, I have a question for you. Did you mention in one of your posts that you are a mambera? Or did I just dream that part? I'm considering resurrecting my mambo workshop now that I am in the island. I've got a steplist of 100 or so mambo shines from the Palladium era. I had the good fortune of connecting with Eddie Torres in New York, and I've patterned my workshop after his. For my money, Eddie is the leading exponent of mambo in the world today. Do you know him? An Eddie Torres dance exhibition is not to be missed! Since I don't get much news from NY these days, if you happen to hear about Eddie, I would appreciate an update.

Regards, Raul

Raul, thanks for replying so eloquently to my post. All of your points are well thought out and have solid logic behind them. But unfortunately, like a lot of scientific thought it brings up more questions than it answers. For example, all of us are mortal, our cells will degenerate and we will die. That is the ultimate destiny of all mortal beings. Why would we be programmed (in our cells) to resist something that is as natural as death?

Just a quick mind teaser for you Raul. Something similar to that Macedonia anecdote you mentioned to underscore your point on the shift from mystical thinking to reality thinking. What if our five senses, our possessions, romance and all the other things in life exist in order for you NOT to notice that which is eternal about your original pre-birth state? I know it sounds wild, but consider this a moment. According to accepted scientific thought, energy can't truly be destroyed, it can only be transformed (changed). And as humans we have internal temperature, electrical activity in our brains. We have energy. Where does that energy go? If according to this observable material world energy or matter can not be destroyed, just transformed. Why should it be different for obviously energy-based organic beings? Where does our independent energy go? We are basically dead once our brain waves no longer register activity. The energy that kept that activity going--how is it transformed?

See what I mean how science brings forth more questions than it can answer. The search for answers through scientific methods, is what makes science so dynamic and creative.

Well, on the social question. Yes, I am a big mambera....In my teen years I wanted to be a professional dancer. But destiny is destiny. In college my theater professors thought I should drop my Anthropology major, and become an actress, they thought I was very good. Unfortunately, I loved Anthropology too much. Though I miss the acting and dancing a lot now. Raul I live in Denver. Here it is basically dead for Mambo clubs. Just a lot of Mexicanos dancing vaquero-hacienda style quebraditas, to horrible norteno music. I love Eddie Torres. Too bad I live so far from the Mambo action. Love talking to you. Carino. Suki.