Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

General Theorem of Existence

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • General Theorem of Existence

    The following letter, which I wrote in the form of an essay, proposes a General Theorem of Existence. The theorem writes the epitaph of the metaphysical, including the entirety of religious mythology. Your comment is invited.

    Dear ________________,

    I have been impressed with your distinguished works dealing with developments in the scientific investigation of heuristic processes and artificial intelligence. I find particularly intriguing your discussion of the philosophical and social implications of this expanding body of knowledge.

    It seems to me that philosophy, sociology and science devolve to a single arena of human inquiry, as I make no distinction between philosophy and science and I am too optimistic to believe that our planetary society will remain forever uninformed. I do not separate philosophy and science because I am of the opinion that knowledge does not exist apart from that body of knowledge that comprises universal law. Clearly, we, as thinking beings, are capable of formulating ideas that have no connection to reality, and which, therefore, have nothing to do with knowledge. Because both philosophy and science have as their objective the pursuit of knowledge, and because there is only one body of knowledge in existence, these two realms of intellectual endeavor are indistinguishable in my view. When we, as individuals, speak of our philosophy, we refer to the collective ideas that constitute our perception of the universe and of our relationship to it. These ideas are either correct, in which case they are knowledge, or incorrect, in which case they are only ideas. History is replete with lessons that demonstrate that attempts to conduct one’s affairs in contravention of universal law do not end well. I believe, therefore, that it is essential to our societal well being that we examine and consider “social issues” in the context of knowledge and not merely of ideas. My reading of (your work) leads me to conclude that we are of like mind in this.

    I must confess at once to having only a rudimentary awareness of the matters with which you and others in your field have been concerned, in that I have given only casual attention to the areas of research which bear on these and related spheres of knowledge. On the other hand, I see in the work now in progress across a broad spectrum of biophysical studies, as well as in the ongoing investigations of intelligent systems and intellectual processes, the potential for profound change in the way that we view ourselves in relation to the universe in which we dwell. I believe that we are on the verge of developing a general theorem of the nature of our existence, that is to say, a definitive statement of what we are. It is this prospect of impending philosophical revolution that I find particularly exciting. And if we are not at that point, I feel that we should be. It seems to me that sufficient facts are in evidence.

    An issue central to such a theorem is rather nicely presented at the close of the first chapter of Scott Ladd’s The Computer and the Brain (Henry Holt & Company, 1984), wherein it is observed that the proponents of artificial intelligence will have to draw on all areas of research concerning the physiology of the human brain if they are to realize their goal of creating intelligence in machinery. I would advance the proposition that they are late in this endeavor by some billions of years.

    Could a bias in the view of intelligence be an impediment to unraveling its essence? It is not difficult to imagine how such a predisposition might arise. After all, are we not rulers of our own destinies, in control of our thoughts, self-actuating, self-determining, masters of will? If authorities in the field of artificial intelligence were asked for a single word that describes the essence of intelligence, would “determinate” get any play?

    The “free will” argument is the stopping card in the hands of AI antagonists: “Man has a free will; computers do not.” It is evident that there is no machine that we can build or contemplate building which would have “free will”, regardless of its complexity or sophistication of design, as its every thought and action would result from the design elements that it was given. This is not to say that such a machine would be incapable of action not contemplated by its designers. Nevertheless, even a machine so skillfully constructed as to give the appearance of autonomy would, under scrutiny, be shown to exhibit specific responses under a given set of conditions presented to it at each instant in time. While these cause and effect scenarios could be formidably complex, the machine response for a specific set of circumstances would be entirely predictable. If we were to have a thoroughly satisfying intellectual exchange with one of these mechanical marvels, we might decide to characterize it as an “intelligent being”. Within this frame of reference, intelligence would then be viewed as any process yielding predictable results under well-defined conditions. Taking this definition, a chemical reaction is an intelligent process, a process wherein discrete elements, interacting under a specific set of conditions, produce a precisely determinate result. It is, then, the inevitability of result that defines intelligence.

    Of course, this view of intelligence is seemingly at odds with our mystical view of ourselves as delightfully unpredictable beings. But, is it really? Consider a “truly intelligent” machine, one that learns which responses are optimal for a given set of circumstances. Such a machine is self-designing, in a continual state of change. Does this change our view of intelligence in any significant way? Is there a reason to believe that heuristic processes escape the dictatorship of instantaneous inevitability? The answer, I believe, lies in the following corollary proposition: That which we learn cannot be learned differently, given the set of conditions under which we learn it. It seems clear that a heuristic system can process the same set of data with different result, but only if that system has been altered over time. The learning process is a process of system evolution, one of the variants of “system state”, the totality of system configuration at any instant. But, system state is governed by more than memory and thought-enabling circuitry. The mind has as its master the body. The collective demands (“will”) of every atom, molecule and cell of the body drive neurological and motor function. When the body needs nourishment, we “decide” to eat. When the body needs exercise, we “decide” to exercise. When the body needs rest, we “decide” to sleep. Hence, we are multidimensional systems that exist in varied states, the sum of our instantaneous system requirements, our instantaneous system capability, and the external forces that bear upon us at every instant in time.

    It is my belief that these concepts of system evolution and system state will lead ultimately to an explanation of every aspect of human behavior. When, within this conceptual framework, we have examined in detail the manner in which we respond to a given set of conditions, I believe that we will be able to account for our apparent changeability. We will find that we are, in essence, no different than the artifacts that we build. They are crude by comparison because their control mechanisms are simple and one-dimensional in relation to our own.

    All of which points to a proposition more central to the nature of mentality. Let us imagine for the moment that we have obtained a blueprint for constructing a human male, and that we are able to fashion from available materials a working prototype capable of duplicating with uncanny accuracy every essential human function. How would we view this creature? Could we distinguish it from ourselves? Should we distinguish it from ourselves? I suspect that, even in this age of enlightenment, a majority of educated people would regard such a marvel with the usual hydrocarbon-based chauvinism and contempt that “living” creatures have for “mechanical” devices, and that this would follow no matter the degree of perfection and refinement that we impart to our blueprint man.

    I have a premise by which our unloved creation can be loved and our scientists can receive the acclaim due for their considerable achievements. To this end, I propose the following General Theorem of Existence:

    THE KNOWN UNIVERSE IS POPULATED BY A CONTINUUM OF SYSTEMS WHICH HAVE BEEN HERETOFORE INCORRECTLY DIVIDED INTO TWO CLASSES, “LIVING” AND “NON-LIVING”, BUT WHICH HAVE NO ASPECT IN REALITY WHICH SUPPORTS SUCH DIVISION.

    In this view, “life” has no definition in reality. The old saw “you scientists can explain everything, but you can’t explain how life began” is, then, a non-argument. The explanation is simply that life did not begin. It is a self-ascribed attribute that, other than in the reflections of our own minds, does not exist. There is no property of so-called “living” matter that is “life”, that exists apart from the structure of that matter. The carbon and oxygen in animal tissue are identical to that found in inanimate materials. What we perceive as “life” is solely a property of the organization of matter. “Life” is a result, and that result is intelligence. Just as is the case with all organisms that we view as “living”, we are simply manifestations of the universal continuum of systems that has always existed in this universe.

    I see that you have presented this thesis, in its essence, in (your work), which I am presently reading. I should point out that my arrival at this conclusion came while serving as an engineer officer in Viet Nam, 1969. At that time, I wrote an essay entitled “Systems”, which advances the thesis of robotic man and the fact that our “traditional distinctions between living and non-living systems cannot be sustained”. Until reading your work, I had not been aware of the formulation of these ideas by anyone other than myself. In fact, it is only upon reading (your work) that I have become aware of the ideas advanced in the previous two centuries by La Mettrie and Butler, and the more recent work of Wiener, von Neuman and others. While I have never doubted the thesis in the years that have followed, there is a certain sense of vindication in seeing it ratified in your work.

    These ideas do not address the matter of the existence or non-existence of god or gods. Indeed, any reference to such matter is conspicuously absent in them. It takes not much reflection to conclude that some force set our universe in motion, gave it the particular set of rules that we are now so carefully examining. What these ideas do suggest is the futility of concern with matters that we cannot explain in any conceivable span of our existence as intelligent beings. They suggest that it is sufficient, and must be sufficient, to know what we can know. They suggest that what we can know is quite remarkable and will lead us to a new dawn of civilization, a world in which we may celebrate our being free of myth and its proscriptions.

    I have embraced these ideas as the truth of my existence, in the conviction that they are consistent with every universal law now known and to be known. I do not deny the existence of god. God is that explanation which I will never have. Because the existence of that explanation is irrelevant to my own existence, I have put god aside. The game is cast and the odds are set. It remains only for me to play as best I can.

    But what, then, is to be my style of play? Since morality is non-existent in this premise, what would be the fabric of the society that adopts it? What is there, other than law and our rather spotty system of enforcement, to deter me from theft, mayhem, and murder? Actually, there are quite persuasive reasons for self-imposed limits on human behavior, in recognition of the fact that such imposition, when universally adopted, leads to order, a society in which its participants can exist free from fear of the hostile acts of others. Such a commitment of individuals to playing “life’s game” by universally accepted (societal) standards is at least as durable as any subscription to moral codes, as succinctly demonstrated by director Stanley Kubrik in the movie classic “A Clockwork Orange”, in which the viewer is directly confronted with the tenuousness of his or her notions of “right” and “wrong”, “good” and “evil”. For those who, for whatever reason, do not buy in to the social contract, there is law and punishment. As it is pointless to dwell on issues of morality, it must be enough for me to know that all beings, human or otherwise, do what they need to do, what they must do. All that is relevant is whether or not my need to survive will prevail. I recognize that this law of relativity is the only behavioral law in operation in this universe. Perhaps it is an idea more pervasive than even its originator had in mind.

    I have a long-standing dream of organizing a foundation having as its purpose the systematic testing, analysis and formalization of these ideas. Clearly, this objective can only be realized by enlisting the best minds in every part of the world from every scientific discipline. There are mountains upon continents of contrary opinion to survey and conquer.

    This letter is one of inquiry. I am wondering whether my views and aims comport with your own. I realize that I cannot further them without the direction and support of persons of your ability and influence. I understand, too, that these ideas will require a great deal of refinement and elaboration before they can be articulated in an effective way.


  • #2
    Very interesting...

    Have you read the mith of sisyphus, by Albert Camus?
    If not, I strongly suggest you do. It's not in the same line of thought but at the same time it is. It's a simpler Theorem.
    Leonel uribe
    En la union esta la fuerza y en la educacion la victoria!

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Very interesting...

      Originally posted by triptico
      Have you read the mith of sisyphus, by Albert Camus?
      If not, I strongly suggest you do. It's not in the same line of thought but at the same time it is. It's a simpler Theorem.
      Leonel uribe
      Triptico, when I read Camus's work what struck me was how he had bracketed the general notion of existence, in favor of the inner existence of an individual focused on his own feelings or "angst". J.P. Sartre was also a master at bracketing general exisence, and his works were first class productions of this type of existential philosophy.
      Later on after Camus's untimely death in an automobile accident, Sarte was awarded a Nobel for this philosophical literature. Of course, he rejected it for political reasons stating that leftist or communist philosophers were being banned from awards of the Nobel prize because of their political status. And even further, Sartre went on to be a communist himself and a supporter of the most extreme type too which was Marxist, Leninist, Mao tse Tung Thought.

      BTW Raul I will devote more time to your General Theorem when I get the chance, but in the meantime if you wait, here is also a book that might interest you. It is by Henri Bergson and it is entitled "Creative Evolution". It is a good philosophical read for anyone who supports the Darwinian theory of evolution for beginners.
      Raul said;
      "It is my belief that these concepts of system evolution and system state will lead ultimately to an explanation of every aspect of human behavior. When, within this conceptual framework, we have examined in detail the manner in which we respond to a given set of conditions, I believe that we will be able to account for our apparent changeability. We will find that we are, in essence, no different than the artifacts that we build. They are crude by comparison because their control mechanisms are simple and one-dimensional in relation to our own."

      Best regards,
      EddieR
      E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

      Comment


      • #4
        Thanks, guys

        Leonel, Eddie,

        Thanks for the tips. I suppose that both of you know by now that I like a good discussion, and I like to argue even more (but, not just for argument's sake). I found Sisyphus at the following site:
        http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users...lit/msysip.htm

        I had encountered it before, but I'll want to read it more carefully in this context.

        I also found what, at first appearance, seems to be an interesting and in-depth critique of Bergson's "Creative Evolution". It is found at the following site:

        http://www.quantonics.com/Review_of_...Evolution.html

        I see that in re biological convergence (like organs in different species) Bergson says the following (Topic 14 of the critique):

        ". . . we must appeal to some inner directing principle in order to account for this convergence of effects. Such convergence does not appear possible in the Darwinian, and especially in the neo-Darwinian, theory of insensible accidental variations . . ."

        In my view, based on the arguments of Richard Dawkins, this is merely wishful thinking and unnecessary complication on Bergson's part. In his book "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins has explained eloquently and completely the mechanism by which probability events (random genetic variation), acted upon by natural selection (the efficacy of those variations in terms of survival of the organism and, more importantly, of the genetic encoding of the organism), have resulted in all of the variation of that which we call "living", with all of its many features and aspects, including convergence. His work is an UNRELENTING AFFIRMATION of Darwin's theory. Nevertheless, I will ask Dawkins for his view on Bergson's musings.

        Regards, Raul

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Thanks, guys

          Originally posted by Raulgr
          Leonel, Eddie,

          Thanks for the tips. I suppose that both of you know by now that I like a good discussion, and I like to argue even more (but, not just for argument's sake). I found Sisyphus at the following site:
          http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users...lit/msysip.htm

          I had encountered it before, but I'll want to read it more carefully in this context.

          I also found what, at first appearance, seems to be an interesting and in-depth critique of Bergson's "Creative Evolution". It is found at the following site:

          http://www.quantonics.com/Review_of_...Evolution.html

          I see that in re biological convergence (like organs in different species) Bergson says the following (Topic 14 of the critique):

          ". . . we must appeal to some inner directing principle in order to account for this convergence of effects. Such convergence does not appear possible in the Darwinian, and especially in the neo-Darwinian, theory of insensible accidental variations . . ."

          In my view, based on the arguments of Richard Dawkins, this is merely wishful thinking and unnecessary complication on Bergson's part. In his book "The Blind Watchmaker", Dawkins has explained eloquently and completely the mechanism by which probability events (random genetic variation), acted upon by natural selection (the efficacy of those variations in terms of survival of the organism and, more importantly, of the genetic encoding of the organism), have resulted in all of the variation of that which we call "living", with all of its many features and aspects, including convergence. His work is an UNRELENTING AFFIRMATION of Darwin's theory. Nevertheless, I will ask Dawkins for his view on Bergson's musings.

          Regards, Raul
          Raul, I also do not agree with Bergson on the convergence of effects. Darwin more than anyone pointed out the influences that environment has in relationship to heredity. And his theory is a stand alone one, not really needing even the neo-Darwinian embellishments either. Thus organs, for example, can have a similitude of convergence across different species without truncating his theory in the least bit.

          What amazes me about Bergson is that such a brilliant man should have such a glaring blind side to his thought that even when he became a Roman Catholic, and had studied the scholastics that he learned nothing from the work of William of Occam whose cardinal principle was that "entities ought not be multiplied unneccessarily". But Bergson went on to apply spiritual views to evolution that also are metaphysically based, and are really errors. When I consider all of this I seriously wonder that though he is a great writer and espouser of his ideas, could it be that his so highly accepted astuteness was in reality only acuteness?

          Sincerely,
          EddieR
          E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

          Comment


          • #6
            re Bergson

            Originally posted by Eddier1

            What amazes me about Bergson is that such a brilliant man should have such a glaring blind side to his thought that even when he became a Roman Catholic, and had studied the scholastics that he learned nothing from the work of William of Occam whose cardinal principle was that "entities ought not be multiplied unneccessarily". But Bergson went on to apply spiritual views to evolution that also are metaphysically based, and are really errors. When I consider all of this I seriously wonder that though he is a great writer and espouser of his ideas, could it be that his so highly accepted astuteness was in reality only acuteness?

            Sincerely,
            EddieR
            Eddie,

            Well, I'm going to poke around a bit more in the critique, but, I have to say at this point that I am inclined to agree with your assessment.

            By the way, what is your impression of the recent development in protein synthesis presented in my thread "Not so fast there, Manny!" in the religion forum, as it bears on the matter of abiogenesis? While Dawkins doesn't go there in his discussion of evolutionary theory, I see no reason to separate abiogenesis from the evolutionary process. In fact, that idea is the cornerstone of my theorem on existence, that we so-called "living" beings have evolved quite naturally from INANIMATE matter. Further, if that is true, barring the HAND OF GOD, where is the BRIGHT LINE OF DEMARCATION between the "non-living" and the "living" in that long, slow process of myriad transformations? My answer is the SIMPLE one: THERE IS NONE! Hence, the THEOREM.

            Regards, Raul

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: re Bergson

              Originally posted by Raulgr
              Originally posted by Eddier1

              What amazes me about Bergson is that such a brilliant man should have such a glaring blind side to his thought that even when he became a Roman Catholic, and had studied the scholastics that he learned nothing from the work of William of Occam whose cardinal principle was that "entities ought not be multiplied unneccessarily". But Bergson went on to apply spiritual views to evolution that also are metaphysically based, and are really errors. When I consider all of this I seriously wonder that though he is a great writer and espouser of his ideas, could it be that his so highly accepted astuteness was in reality only acuteness?

              Sincerely,
              EddieR
              Eddie,

              Well, I'm going to poke around a bit more in the critique, but, I have to say at this point that I am inclined to agree with your assessment.

              By the way, what is your impression of the recent development in protein synthesis presented in my thread "Not so fast there, Manny!" in the religion forum, as it bears on the matter of abiogenesis? While Dawkins doesn't go there in his discussion of evolutionary theory, I see no reason to separate abiogenesis from the evolutionary process. In fact, that idea is the cornerstone of my theorem on existence, that we so-called "living" beings have evolved quite naturally from INANIMATE matter. Further, if that is true, barring the HAND OF GOD, where is the BRIGHT LINE OF DEMARCATION between the "non-living" and the "living" in that long, slow process of myriad transformations? My answer is the SIMPLE one: THERE IS NONE! Hence, the THEOREM.

              Regards, Raul
              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.

              Although I am not sure if that is the case, nevertheless let me offer you two books to read on the Philosophy of Organism by one the best thinkers on this subject in the 20th century. These two books are by Alfred North Whitehead, and they are THE ADVENTURE OF IDEAS, and his opus magnus PROCESS AND REALITY.

              Now, in your discussion with Manny the Jib, you correctly defend the right to knowledge that we all have through standing on the shoulders of the best thinkers; and he claims you are not being logical to do so, but should have a personal encounter with such knowledge instead of using what he calls “mercenaries” (good gosh!) to defend you in your lack of the personal knowledge. His saying that you are illogical for doing so is in error, because even in formal logic the Argumentum ad Verecundia is held to be completely logical.

              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.

              Although I support such a logical method, however, I am not naive to think that there are not limits to human understanding. And I therefore use a dialectical approach which also involves scientific method in its biunique or one to one relation with prediction. So, therefore, by scientific testing and results, and retesting etc. when necessary, I exhaust all the probabilities that what we do not know currently we may know in the future.
              In conclusion, I find it quite satisfactory if I arrive at the limits of human understanding with a core of knowledge that is at least statistically coefficient.

              Sincerely,
              EddieR
              E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

              Comment


              • #8
                Philosophy, it's Critical to Have One in Life

                I have read some of Albert Camus'works, such as the "The Stranger", and in Spanish "La Peste" as well as some of his essays on existentionalism. It hypnotizes the reader into the psychological states of the author. But I can not believe in its essential premise, "That this is it, and once you die...that's it as well." That life can be empty and meaningless, and that all of us live in an existential void. In our modern, Western civilization-oriented society we do feel a void, and so the existentialists ring true, in many respects, but I believe in the ancient, eastern religious philosophies, they make sense to me. If you want an explanation of why eastern philosophy and religion makes sense to me, read a small, powerful book entitled, "The Science of Religion" by Siri Yukteswar. It concisely explains why religion and science are working together to reveal essential truth, and how human beings can reach spiritual liberation through yoga practice and absolute focus. It is very difficult to become liberated according to the eastern philosophers because we create our own prisons, through our false beliefs, perceptions, earth-bound desires, and through information we constantly receive through our five senses. Try stopping your flow of thoughts in your mind for five minutes, and you will realize how difficult it is to discipline an unruly mind. Yet if you try, you start getting great rewards. After all these philosophies, have had thousands of years of human knowledge synthesized at its core, and it has become refined and effective. The important thing is to have a philosophy and to start implementing it in your life. Otherwise what the existentialists talk about will become your only reality (and to me it is very disappointing).

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Philosophy, it's Critical to Have One in Life

                  Suki;

                  Listen if eastern philosophies “work” for you in terms of your own individual psychological state, in being able to “focus” on your inner self, then there is no argument about you going for it.

                  However, we occidental philosophers do not rely on such individualism as you depicted in your post, but rather we strive through thought to arrive at a state of public agreement as to the truth, which is acceptable to all thinkers as a team or group representing that truth as not only concepts of truth organized into a system of thought called a philosophy, but which is equally important as A WAY OF LIFE.

                  In this “way”, there are no inherent contradictions in the philosophy we achieve. However, can your adherents of eastern philosophies say the same thing? What I am referring to is the latent contradiction inherent in translating your core beliefs and/or ideas into action. It is noticed that you easterners practice lots of meditation and even physical exercises to achieve an individual state of heightened consciousness. But when it comes to the criterion of human practice, the contradictions emerge. For example, in the eastern art of warfare, many of you eastern philosophers contradict your inner individual peace and contemplation to become team players in wars, and are no longer “individuals“. You “flow like water” in unity around the enemy applying a group action of unrelenting pressure to destroy the foe. This contradiction, also witnessed in other arenas of eastern world existence is not only a contradiction between thought and action, but also produces sometimes bizarre results of great unpleasantness.

                  Suki, for philosophy to provide the great consolation of truth, all such contradictions must be identified and resolved.

                  Regards,
                  EddieR
                  E.1: TWO STEPS FORWARD, ONE STEP BACK - V.I. Lenin

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Eddie r response to Eastern Philosophy Critique

                    First of all, thanks for responding Eddie, you have interesting concepts to explain, but your perception of what philosophy is I respectfully disagree with. I believe we live in an inherently contradictory world. For night there is day, for white there is black, for a beginning there is an end, that is the dual nature in many respects of planet Earth. War is not advocated by advanced Practicioners of Yoga or any other major religious practice. Only defense is acceptable, and not necessarily in all religions. If contradictions in human nature did not exist then there would be no conflict, no struggle for existence and evolution would stop. This world was made to challenge us on all levels through finding meaning and ultimately making peace with our contradictions. I do not think we become absolutely perfect in an imperfect world, but we do change, transform ourselves and grow hopefully to find peace in our internal and external contradictions. Even philosophy struggles constantly through changes and adjustments,that is the nature of the beast of living in a human culture. Why everything must be resolved to be effective is strange to me, I hope you can discuss more in depth Eddie. Gracias. And I am not Asian, Suki is a nickname short for "Azucar" that my grandmother gave me when I was a little girl. I see Yoga as a scientific practice cause if properly practiced it works for everyone.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      What is Truth, is Truth absolute Black or White, or is it Shades of Gray?

                      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?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Jesus IS the TRUTH!

                        John 14:6

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          In Response to PRTaina's Statement

                          Jesus is the truth for you. I respect that. May you always live your faith. I have my beliefs, they are the truth for me, I hope you respect those beliefs as well. This is a philosophy discussion board, is there anything you would like to discuss about Christian philosophical ideas with us? I would like to hear from you PRTaina.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Interesting person

                            Suki,

                            I like your inner peace, I can see it. Christians do belief in forever existance. We do change in physical ways and forms, but we are really invisible being made to last forever. This filtering system we currently experiencing will end soon. Some of us will cease to exist because our Creator will see to that, those who "properly filtered will continue to live.

                            The cease of live is of no suffereing like many of "today Christians believe" instead the complete erasing or termination is the price.

                            True Christianity, teaches the immense love our Creator has for us (we are his children), he is a great communicator, but some of these lost sheeps still believe in the talking of "thongues" with no translator, obviously what enteres in their physical body is other than goodness.

                            Meditation with ourself was practice largely by the old Christians, only a few of us do today.

                            Yoga is not the only alternative for peace and meditation, I invite you to seek the truth about Christianity and you will be enlighten. Not all of us go to war or even relate to any war atributes.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Abiogenesis

                              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

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X