| Challenge the Philosophy - Dispute 21-25 |
Dispute of the response to Entry 360
"You are welcome to Prove the invalidity of the scientific
fact of the 'Time Space Continuum', however, I fail to see
how you can do it. No 'Observer' is able to conceive of
time without a place or vice versa, neither is
any 'Observer' able to conceive of a 'place' where the
Universe ends. It is representational across the board,
Science merely corroborates the fact.
Similarly the nature the sub-atomic composition of atoms,
in so far as it has been achieved by measurement, merely
corroborates the law of atomic change, it does not deny it.
Why/how would the sub-atomic composition of an atom somehow
magically alter the fact that it is subject only to change?
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is neither here nor there, it has already been invalidated and scientists know it. Only they cannot admit to it because it would collapse the edifice of Quantum/New Physics and force them to back-track 75-100 years.
Soon it will be shown that Einstein was the 'true' father of quantum physics. He never did agree with Heisenberg and Bohr on the introduction of probability and uncertainty into quantum theory. New sub-atomic understandings have subsequently proved that he was right - 'God doesn't play dice'. Even 'Stephen Hawking' admits in - 'A Brief History of Time':... 'The main difficulty in finding a theory that unifies gravity with the other forces is that general relativity is a classical theory; that is it does not incorporate the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics.' The obvious reason for this is because general relativity is correct and the 'Uncertainty Principle' is wrong.
Your persistent referral to ‘Absolute Truth-Value’ begs the
question:
Do you know of some philosophy or science that has
a 'Patent' on 'Absolute Truth-Value'? The Truth is simply
that which is so, and is representational for all of us, even
from 'our limited perception'."
protomutant July 14 2002
Just because we cannot disprove the validity of the "Time Space Continuum", does not necessarily mean that the Continuum has absolute truth-value. If you contend that the Continuum has absolute truth-value, because no observer as you say is able to conceive without dimensions of time and space, then we want to know how you more reasonably truly know that no observer is able conceive without time and space dimensions. What is the ground(s) for your knowledge of absolute truth-value? Where does the knowledge come from?
Similarly, just because the measurement of sub-atomic composition of atoms corroborates the law of atomic change, does not necessarily mean that the atoms are only subject to change. What is the ground(s) for your knowledge of absolute truth-value that atoms are only subject to change? You refer to Einstein and Hawking’s rejection of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, but you do not say why they disagree with it. How can our measurement of something not change the thing we are measuring? Isn’t the Uncertainty Principle consistent with general relativity? If you view general relativity with absolute truth-value, how can you know it has absolute truth-value from a position of general relativity?
Our persistent reference to absolute truth-value is because the competition is centered around the issue of the absolute truth-value of self-knowledge versus non-absolute truth-value of self-knowledge that we can more reasonably know. We define knowledge with absolute truth-value as something we can more reasonably know in entirety. (i.e. complete, whole, doubtless knowledge) Your definition that knowledge with absolute truth-value refers to "that which is so and is representational for all us, even from our limited perception", begs the questions: how do we know that which is so, and why does that which is so from our perspective necessarily pertains to knowledge with absolute truth-value? Also, universal agreement on that which is so does not necessarily equate with knowledge with absolute truth-value, not to mention the inconceivability of everyone agreeing. If you turn to the majority of all of us agreeing on that which is so, then you face the problem that the view of the majority also does not necessarily equate with absolute truth-value.
Dispute of the response to Entry 402
"Partially disputed:
‘Your challenge is contingent on the assumption that the ‘unconscious realm’
contains knowledge with absolute truth-value.’
Comment to disputed portion of above:
All of our knowledge is of the unconscious mind as individuals, and there is
specific as well as general knowledge of the shared ‘realm’ that will
influence what our unconscious memory system holds within us.
Accepted portion of partially disputed at top:
‘truth-value.’
Explanation for acceptance:
Truth is the meaning or value of facts or other information, perceptions,
beliefs, emotions and opinions to us.
Portion of response disputed entirely:
‘You appear to imply that the (unconscious) knowledge with absolute
truth-value comes from God. Viz., God as a thing-in-itself and creator of
humanity has planted knowledge with absolute truth-value in our
unconsciousness, which can only accessed by the truly faithful.’
Reason for above disputed:
No mention of God has been made.
Accepted entirely:
‘The problem with this position is that from our causal perspective and the
apparent interactive nature of things, something from something else ad
infinitium (i.e. infinite causality) is more reasonable than something from
nothing (i.e. thing-in-itself or God).’
Accepted with moderation:
‘Also, your contention that we can only truly know the unconscious based on
past unconscious and provided that we are as much as we were in the past, is
contingent on us being static beings.’
Moderation of accepted above:
Being that this is an exploratory discussion, and the challenger acts as the
explorer and the committee responding as perhaps analogous to navigators, the
explorer in this (rare) case has benefit of having his past unconscious made
conscious and therefore knows that time for the unconscious is indeed static
and so we are static beings within our unconscious existence as it is known
unconsciously. That then is the reason only the past unconscious can be
consciously known. The unconscious can keep time but knows not what to do
with it besides autonomic functions, i.e. the circadian rhythm.
Accepted with explanation of clarity for sake of making sense:
‘Yet the static nature of ourselves does not make sense
from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of
things.’
Reasoned explanation of acceptance to above:
Events of the unconscious do not necessarily make sense and the unconscious
cannot make sense, reason, rationalize anything whatsoever. This is solely
the duty of the conscious mind. It being completely dependent upon the
information the unconscious provides or allows to be conscious.
Entirely disputed:
‘Further, according to the state of somnambulism, there is a transfer (and
conversion) of knowledge with absolute truth-value from the unconscious realm
to the conscious realm.’
Reason for the above disputed:
The transfer of knowledge from the unconscious to the conscious is not
established ‘according to the state of somnambulism’. This is proven by
research showing that actions taken from knowledge learned while
somnambulistic will be done without any conscious awareness of origin. The
conscious will be unable to derive reason other than the obvious, if that
exists, and it easily may not, for the action taken.
The below will be treated as a query:
‘So it is unclear how the conscious realm could exactly contain knowledge
from the unconscious realm.’
Answer:
The use of the word ‘realm’ should be limited to describe knowledge from the
‘ether’. Perhaps with an alternative description of, mitogenetic radiation,
or morphogenetic field, or telepathy. Knowledge from the area of the
physical mind, in order to cross from the unconscious to the conscious need
only cross the corpus callosum also called the 'commissure'. With
appropriate instructions and conditions administered during somnambulism,
made effective over time for conscious appreciation, the hemispheres of the
mind can share information across this barrier
The below is accepted with moderation:
‘Viz., based on the separation between the unconscious and conscious realms
and the conversion of unconscious knowledge into conscious knowledge, the
best the conscious realm can do is represent the unconscious realm. You could
retort that the unconscious knowledge is only unconscious in the sense we are
not conscious of it. Viz., the knowledge is not inherently unconscious.
However, you would then face the two other problems mentioned above dealing
with a thing-in-itself and static beings.’
Moderation of the above:
Being that the capacity of the unconscious is vast in comparison to that of
the non existent capacity of the conscious, it is dependent upon the
unconscious for storage, the conscious can ‘represent’ or appreciate only a
tiny portion of the unconscious at any given time, provided that unconscious
knowledge is from the past unconscious. To retort that the unconscious only
exists because it is not a part of conscious awareness assumes that a person
for some reason, who became conscious of their unconscious would not
instantly become catatonic. The quantity of instinctually organized actions
represented by the autonomic activities of the unconscious would permanently
render the conscious mind a helpless bystander. Rationally, reasonably,
cognitively treated information actually manifests or proves out what may be
knowledge, making factual that ‘knowledge is not inherently unconscious’."
Chris Brown December 19 2002
Since you concede that the unconscious is "static", and it only through the staticness of the unconscious (and also through somnambulism) that we can truly know and be who we are, it does not make sense how we can truly know who we are through the unconsciousness, unless we are static in the so-called present as well. Yet from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of things, as mentioned in the response to Entry 402, the staticness of our being simply does not stand. To retort as you do that the unconscious does not necessarily make sense, and the unconscious cannot make sense or reason anything, does not cancel out your premise that we must be static in order to truly know who we are based on past unconsciousness.
Also, since you do not admit from your perspective that knowledge with absolute truth-value comes from God (i.e. thing-in-itself), where does knowledge with absolute truth-value in the unconscious come from? What is the ground(s) for your belief, besides somnambulism and the unconscious, in the existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value? Note, your definition of truth as "the meaning or value of facts or other information, perceptions, beliefs, emotions and opinions to us", does not relate to the proposition because its definition of truth refers specifically to knowledge known completely or in entirety.
Dispute of the response to Entry 403
"Accepted:
‘Since you concede that the unconscious is ‘static’,’
Disputed for clarification:
‘and it only through the staticness of the unconscious (and also through
somnambulism) that we can truly know and be who we are,’
Clarification:
Knowing in the sense of the word as it has been used I assume means conscious
knowledge. Somnambulism is used along with post hypnotic instruction that
exploits phylogenetic instinct to create a motive to dissolve the barrier
between the conscious and the unconscious and make a part of the past
unconscious consciously available. Since consciously we are not static and the
conscious through cognition alters the meaning of information the subconscious
gains through the perceptions, the resulting ‘knowing’ is imperfect. However
it has sufficient accuracy to state that we truly know who we are because the
unconscious is still 99% as it was.
Refer to above clarification:
‘it does not make sense how we can truly know who we are through
the unconsciousness, unless we are static in the so-called present as well. Yet
from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of
things, as mentioned in the response to Entry 402, the staticness of our being
simply does not stand.’
Comment on the above:
Recall that I have indicated that our conscious changes quite a bit over time.
Disputed for clarification:
‘To retort as you do that the unconscious does not necessarily make sense,’
Clarification:
Two different things have been stated in the response and they are inconsistent
with each other. Above the response states ‘that the unconscious does not
necessarily make sense’. What is said below correctly quotes my statements of
403. Entry, my first disputed points of the first response.
Accepted with clarification:
‘and the unconscious cannot make sense or reason anything, does not cancel out
your premise that we must be static in order to truly know who we are based on
the past unconscious.’
Clarification:
The use of the word ‘we’ above, has combined both the conscious and the
unconscious whereas I have stated that the static unconscious relinquishes a
portion of its past static existence to the conscious with proper uses of
somnambulism from childhood.
Accepted:
‘Also, since you do not admit from your perspective that knowledge with
absolute truth-value comes from God (i.e. thing-in-itself),’
Query of the response:
‘where does knowledge with absolute truth-value in the unconscious come from?’
Answer to query:
Our genetic code contains the true valuation of nearly all things. There is
most likely an influence which could be called God but doing so is not
necessary in concise words to answer the challenge. For our purposes it is
more suitable to state that whatever God is, it is mixed into the morphogenetic
information of our dream state communications as a group relating our
unconsciously carried genetic valuation in efforts to survive and evolve.
Disputed, (see first clarification above):
‘What is the ground(s) for your belief, besides somnambulism and the
unconscious, in the existence of knowledge with absolute truth-value?’
Disputed with explanation:
‘Note, your definition of truth as ‘the meaning or value of facts or other
information, perceptions, beliefs, emotions and opinions to us’, does not
relate to the proposition because its definition of truth refers specifically
to knowledge known completely or in entirety.’
Explanation: (Please excuse the lack of concise explanation here. The deprival of information from our society following years of burning books and people have created a void and explaining the above disputed portion of the response would be very lengthy and perhaps inadequate without filling some of the void.) The unconscious only knows truth, it has no other name for what it knows. There was at one time on this earth a societal role known as the Truthsayer. The Truthsayer was capable of telepathic inductions to the depth of somnambulism almost without fail. This was due to the fact that the community of Truthsayers taught all of the children, before the age of reason, how to transition their minds to the deepest levels of trance. This was done for reasons enabling healing, teaching, marriage, ritual and other ceremony. The best Truthsayer of a community worked in the Medieval Kings court or the Emperors court. If a crime was committed and the accused brought before the court and the accused was guilty, he or she exhibited extreme agitation or torment. Upon the induction of an adequate trance depth the courts inquiry probed the truth of the accused actions and the accused peacefully admitted his or her crime. At this point the accused freed of the agitation or torment, hence the saying; ‘The truth will set you free’."
Chris Brown December 20 2002
You claim that our knowledge with absolute truth-value from the past unconscious stems from our genetic code which contains "true valuation of nearly all things". Further, you claim that our genetic code, and its absolute truth-value, stems from some entity ("[it] could be called God"), which directs our unconscious genetic valuation in efforts to survive and evolve. In essence, you are claiming that there is a thing-in-itself behind the absolute truth-value of the past unconscious. This claim takes us to the problem that from our causal perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of things, something from something else ad infinitium (i.e. infinite causality) is more reasonable than something from nothing (i.e. thing-in-itself). If you reply that the entity may not be a thing-in-itself, then you are still caught because if the entity is not a thing-in-itself, then it does not follow where the absolute truth-value of the past unconscious comes from; and if the entity is a thing-in-itself, it is less reasonable on grounds of infinite causality being more reasonable than a thing-in-itself.
Also, since you concede that only "99%" of who we are can be truly known through the past unconscious, your concession supports the proposition which says we cannot know who we are in entirety. If you claim that the 99% knowledge is known in entirety, then you face the problem of how you can know part knowledge of who we are in entirety without knowing the whole of who we are in entirety. Viz., it does not make sense how you, or anyone else, can truly know something in part, without truly knowing the something in whole.
Dispute of the response to Entry 404
"Accepted:
You claim that our knowledge with absolute truth-value from the past
unconscious stems from our genetic code which contains ‘true valuation of
nearly all things’.
Inaccurate interpretation of statement made in dispute:
Further, you claim that our genetic code, and its absolute truth-value, stems
from some entity (‘[it] could be called God’), which directs our unconscious genetic
valuation in efforts to survive and evolve. In essence, you are claiming that
there is a thing-in-itself behind the absolute truth-value of the past
unconscious. This claim takes us to the problem that from our causal
perspective and based on the apparent interactive nature of things, something
from something else ad infinitium (i.e. infinite causality) is more reasonable
than something from nothing (i.e. thing-in-itself). If you reply that the
entity may not be a thing-in-itself, then you are still caught because if the
entity is not a thing-in-itself, then it does not follow where the absolute
truth-value of the past unconscious comes from; and if the entity is a
thing-in-itself, it is less reasonable on grounds of infinite causality being
more reasonable than a thing-in-itself.
Actual statement made in dispute 404. Entry:
There is most likely an influence which could be
called God but doing so is not necessary in concise words to answer the
challenge.
Accepted with moderation:
Also, since you concede that only ‘99%’ of who we are can be truly known
through the past unconscious, your concession supports the proposition which
says we cannot know who we are in entirety.
Moderation:
And the challenge states ‘that we cannot [more reasonably] truly know who we
are, in part....’
Accepted with moderation:
If you claim that the 99% knowledge is known in entirety, then you face the
problem of how you can know part knowledge of who we are in entirety without
knowing the whole of who we are in entirety. Viz., it does not make sense how
you, or anyone else, can truly know something in part, without truly knowing
the something in whole.
Moderation:
The conscious bears witness to events of the unconscious through the
unconscious minds assertion back to the conscious that indeed a thing is known
of. Viz., the conscious knows ‘of’ the entirety of who we are. Viz., indirect
knowledge."
Chris Brown December 20 2002
How does our genetic code contain a "true valuation of nearly all things"? What is your ground(s) for claiming that our genetic code contains knowledge with absolute truth-value? Where does the knowledge with absolute truth-value in our genetic code come from?
Since the conscious knows "of" (or "indirectly") the entirety of who we are, without more reasonably knowing the entirety of who we are, it follows that your somnambulist position supports the proposition which says we cannot more reasonably know who we are in entirety.
Dispute of the response to Entry 405
"Accepted as query for clarification:
How does our genetic code contain a ‘true valuation of nearly all things’? What
is your ground(s) for claiming that our genetic code contains knowledge with absolute truth-value? Where does the knowledge with absolute truth-value in our
genetic code come from?
Clarification:
Science has established that not only our physical state is derived from the
genes of our parents but that of our behavioral tendencies as derived from
intellect, emotion, spiritual inclination and other mental factors as those
characteristics relate to our ancestors determinations of the true meanings of
value. All of the aforementioned mental factors relate in one fashion or
another to our ability to know the true meaning or value of things to us. The
same factors are responsible for our processing of the related meanings of all
things to us as derived from our life experience as they reflect from our
genetic mental package. The knowledge of the true meaning of the value is
derived from the interrelationships of ancestry and life experience.
Accepted with moderation:
Since the conscious knows ‘of’ (or ‘indirectly’) the entirety of who we are,
without more reasonably knowing the entirety of
who we are,
Moderation:
Indirect knowledge as it is intuited, or unconsciously sensed indirectly by the
conscious, is a reasonable source of information. It is adjacent to the source
and entirely responsible for our creative abilities as human beings.
Not accepted with explanation:
it follows that your somnambulist position supports the proposition which says
we cannot more reasonably know
who we are in entirety.
Explanation:
My position is not a position of a somnambulist. I present the information
that somnambulism is a third mental modality, an optimum learning state where
information circumvents the normal filtrations of the conscious mind. Through
a particular use of that state; an ostensible portal through and clarifying the
confusion relating to our life's purpose as it changes momentarily with
conditions can be created; if it is attempted for the proper reason of
protecting life with an understanding of unconditional love."
Chris Brown December 21 2002
How does the combination of one’s life experience and ancestry result in knowledge with absolute truth-value (i.e. "the true meaning of value")? What is it about our life experience and our ancestors’ determinations of true meaning of value that allow us to know with absolute truth-value? What is it about our ancestors’ determinations of the true meaning of value and their life experiences that allow them to know with absolute truth-value?
It appears that you may be overlooking that "our ability to know the true meaning of value to us" does not necessarily equate to our ability to know with absolute truth-value. "To us" implies knowledge based on what we ourselves perceive, rather than knowledge that is complete.
We agree that indirect knowledge which circumvents the normal filtrations of the conscious mind is a reasonable source of information, but that does not mean indirect knowledge is a more reasonable source of knowledge with absolute truth-value.