The Philosophy of Explanation

Note 17 of 17 -- Personal Salvation

2012-02-19T19:41:00.001-05:00

begin at note-1
Personal Salvation

Under the idea of ethics, we discuss what a properly functioning human being is and requires. Under the idea of morality, we discuss what a rational functioning society is and requires. A rational functioning society can continue to exist only when the individuals of whom it consists are happy. Otherwise, there will be tribal warfare, and the society will collapse as its individuals are killed off.

We note that the smallest society consists of two persons. If we were to discuss two people living together on a deserted island, we would be able to discuss what a rational functioning society is and that upon which its happy existence depends. And in doing so, we would discover the answer to one of the greatest questions facing man.

What is personal salvation, and upon what does it depend?

Note: Personal salvation is not achieved in isolation. When one understands one is worthy of personal salvation, one’s thoughts and thereby one’s actions will be fundamentally altered.

An ethical person, a person selfishly motivated by personal salvation, will seek another person similarly motivated by personal salvation. When successful, the living-existence of each is saved. Their personal salvation is provided to them by their God, by their mutually agreed-to godly interaction. God is their savior. Notice how their godly interaction is something they are responsible for and not the other way around.

Note that they each become both their own personal savior and the savior of their chosen sexual partner. In other words, they are responsible for the existence of their God. It is their godly behavior that is responsible for their salvation. Further, it is God that is responsible for the salvation of the human species.

Selfishly motivated human happiness is why God exists.

Go To Note-1

What motivates you?

Note 16 of 17 -- Explaining God

2012-02-19T19:31:00.004-05:00

Explaning The Real Nature of

The idea described by the concept of capitalism does not address why human happiness exists, in abundance, on this planet. Capitalism was not created to address the issue of happy human existence. Capitalism was created only to describe how properly functioning persons behave when socially engaged; they behave rationally. In other words, capitalism discusses that behavior, the natural product of which is the proper existence of human beings in a social setting. It does not discuss that behavior, the natural product of which is the happy existence of individual human beings.

As implied above, there is a specific kind of capitalistic behavior that is responsible for the selfish production of personal happiness. But to avoid a great deal of confusion, we must replace the term capitalism whenever we discuss the purposefully selfish production of personal happiness. That new term is God. Like capitalism, God also describes proper human behavior in a social setting. Where capitalism describes rational human behavior, God describes required human behavior. To be considered a happy human being, one must not only be able to act in accordance with what God is and describes, one must actually do that.

God is the new term replacing capitalism whenever that specific behavior responsible for the purposeful production of human happiness is discussed. God is responsible for causing, or producing, that intellectual condition the existence of which is called happiness. Note here that human happiness does not exist in reality, it exists in intelligence. One cannot go to a market and purchase a bag full of happiness. Intellectual happiness is produced by a specific kind of human activity; it is produced by that specific capitalistic activity called God.

What happiness explains the existence of must be produced by those who are interested in experiencing it. God is not what happiness is or explains, nor is God the product resulting from the production of happiness. God is that specific human activity the naturally occurring result of which is called intellectual happiness.

Happiness is not real; it is ideal. As implied above—where capitalism involves the ideal production of reality-based profit, God involves the ideal production of reality-based happiness. Like all ideas are natural resultants of the human mind’s ability to understand the fundamental nature of reality, so is the idea of God.

Notice that, because God is a more fundamental term than capitalism, whenever we use the pre-capitalistic term God we cannot continue to properly use the newer capitalistic term profit to denote the ideal existence of its real product. The pre-capitalistic term used to denote the ideal existence of the real product of God is child. The child of God replaces the profit of capitalism when discussing human happiness. Child is the natural result of the purposeful production of self. Where capitalism is that idea focused on the needs of society, God is that idea focused on the needs of individual humans.

It is the selfish production of profit that capitalism describes. It is the happy production of children that God describes. Each is a requirement of the continued existence of human existence, although God is the more fundamental requirement. The previous allows for introducing the distinction between need and value.

Distinguishing Need from Value.

Need is a metaphysical term, and is therefore called a word. When the physical basis of need is idealized it becomes pleasure. Pleasure is the term used to describe the human animal’s automatically occurring (instinctual) response to satisfaction of need.

Where need is a requirement of proper living, pleasure is a requirement of intellectual happiness. The fundamental needs of living are food, oxygen, water and reproduction. The fundamental pleasure of understanding one is not only able to achieve eternal survival, but has enacted the virtue necessary to bring that into reality, is happiness.

Happiness moves pleasure into intelligence and calls it the fundamental human value. Happiness, then, is the intellectual concomitant of what it means to satisfy the fundamental needs of life. Not just any life, human life. Not just any human life, one’s own.

Notice how, when speaking about the selfish production of personal happiness, it is no longer proper to say we are acting in a capitalistic way. To avoid confusion when discussing that activity responsible for the selfish production of personal happiness, we must change the term we use. When producing personal happiness, we have transitioned from acting in a capitalistic manner to acting in a godly manner.

We are the source of the happiness our parents experienced in the same way our children are the source of the happiness we experience. We have reproduced the happiness they experienced by reproducing that which is responsible for it: ourselves. For our parents, the product of our selfish production of happiness is called their grandchild. Whenever we act in a godly manner, we are responsible for extending their happiness into the future. Again, personal happiness is the proper state of intellectual existence for humans, making God responsible for the rational existence of human happiness right here on earth.

Very importantly, our child is not something new in the sense that it came from nothing. Our child is the existence of a real something which continues to exist. Our child is our living-existence existing not anew, but still. Our child is our living-existence existing again as a separate living person.

Notice we have again advanced the discussion, and this requires us to change the terms we use. To avoid confusion when discussing the reproduction of self, we can no longer use the capitalistic idea of social interaction. The new idea is sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse replaces social interaction whenever we discuss our purposefully selfish godly interactions. Sexual intercourse is the fundamental moral idea because it is the fundamental ethical requirement. Recall that ethics requires that individual persons benefit from their own selfishly motivated actions. The greatest benefit an ethical person can enjoy is the continued existence of self.

The Answer Is Now Available

God was created by the human mind to denote the existence of that special capitalistic relationship that can exist only between a man and a woman.

Where capitalism describes the fundamental requirements for the social production of profit, God describes the fundamental requirements for the social production of “the children of God.”

A capitalistic interaction produces that which is a requirement of human existence. A godly interaction produces that which is a requirement of human happiness.

God is the basis of—it is the fundamental requirement of—what capitalistic production is and requires. For capitalism to continue to produce the needs of human beings, God must continue to reproduce the living-existence of those same individual human beings, over and over again. God did not create living human beings; it only describes how their living-existence, right here on earth, is saved.

Why and how living humans came into existence in the first place is for another book. Since this is a scientific issue, it is outside the philosophical focus of this book. But let it be said here and now: like water, living human existence is the result of a naturally occurring physical phenomenon.

Go To Note-17

The Philosophy of Explanation

Note 15 of 17 -- From Survival to Happiness

2012-02-19T19:06:00.002-05:00

Survival to Happiness

When insanity, and its religious counterpart, is removed from the discussion, we are left with the above “Human Nature” graphic. We now have only the real, and its rational counterpart, as the focus of our discussion. We will now study these and learn how properly functioning human beings deal with one another right here on earth.

This altered structure permits us to more closely examine the nature of human nature for the specific purpose of understanding happiness and that upon which its continued existence depends.

If one were to closely investigate the above graphic, one would find that the real alternative is the basis of ethics and that the rational alternative is the basis of morality.

Further investigation of it would reveal that only ethical persons do act properly, and only moral persons can achieve happiness.

Ethical Behavior

(Personal Survival)

Under the laws of human nature, and therefore under the principles of ethics, is where we talk about survival—personal survival. To survive means to remain a living being, to remain alive. Notice that survival does not and cannot include death. This is because to die is to fail to survive death.

Like eternity, survival is not a time-sensitive idea. Survival does not mean some kind of temporary existence; it means permanent existence. To survive death means to not die, ever! But notice how this seems to contradict that which one sensually knows to be the case. Let me emphasize that the contradiction only seems to exist. The evidence is otherwise.

Survival is an idea based on the more fundamental idea of eternity. Eternal survival is the denial of a time element with regard to one’s personal existence. The eternal survival of self is an idea based in what one already knows to be the case but may not have thought about. I am going to uncover and resolve that thinking failure—the failure to identify and describe what is sensually known to be the case about the eternal nature of one’s own survival.

When we focus on the needs of our own physical existence, as the beasts do, we are constrained by what is available to our sensual observation. And we observe that individual human persons do die. I do not dispute this observation. It is a good, true, and valid observation. Individual humans do die. All humans will eventually die. All animals will eventually die. All plants will eventually die. I cannot and do not, and therefore will not, dispute this observation.

To discuss the issue of social happiness—with social happiness being the epistemological advancement on the idea of personal survival—we must move the discussion from the real to the ideal, from the physical to the rational, from the objective to the conceptual, from sensual knowing to rational understanding, from personal selfishness to social capitalism, from timed existence to eternal existence, from knowledge to intelligence.

Moral Behavior

(Social Happiness)

As previously discussed, social happiness is the epistemological concomitant of personal survival. Where survival is a word based in the eternal nature of physical reality, happiness is a concept based in the rational nature of human intelligence. Where survival involves knowing that one’s person exists, happiness involves understanding what the existence of one’s person requires for it to always remain in existence. The consequence of knowing what one’s existence requires is called survival; the consequence of understanding what one’s person requires is called happiness. Survival is physically potent, where happiness is intellectually potent. One cannot be separated from the other.

To explain the requirements of happiness requires one to understand the relationship between behavior and consequences, between acting as a beast and acting as a human, between acting religiously and acting rationally. Where acting rationally (in accordance with the laws of nature) involves reason, acting faithfully (in accordance with the dogmatic laws of religion) involves emotion.

Achieving happiness requires reason, not emotion. Emotion will get in the way of one’s achievement of happiness. To achieve happiness, one must be able to understand that there is an alternative to death and that one is able to experience that alternative. But to stop here is to fail. One must actually do that which is a requirement of one’s happiness; otherwise one will not experience it. One must behave consequentially; one must purposefully create the consequence responsible for describing what human happiness is and requires. This requires one to think about what the requirements of achieving happiness are and then put into action those virtues required to bring about a happy experience.

I am frequently asked, “Do you believe you are going to die?” I respond with “No! I know I am going to die.” But this is, of course, not a completely accurate response. And the reason for this is that knowing is a sensual response between two things when at least one of these things is a brain. In other words, I have not sensually witnessed my own physical death. Therefore, the claim “No! I know I am going to die” is not based on what I know to be the case. The accurate way to respond to such a question would be: “No! I understand that one day I will die.”

However, when one understands that one’s personal physical death does not—as if by the law of necessity—require that one’s living existence ceases to exist, this understanding will have an evolutionary effect on the way one thinks and therein on the way one behaves. This is saying that, when investigating human happiness and what it requires, one cannot be limited by what is sensually available to one’s brain. It must also include that which one’s mind rationally understands to be the case. When investigating happiness, the requirement is to understand why properly functioning human beings must act in the ways they do.

We need to understand the intellectual nature of human nature rather than just knowing that human beings do exist. Once we understand why properly functioning humans must act in the ways they do, we can begin to understand what human happiness is and that upon which its continued existence depends.

Intelligence is not a concern for what exists; intelligence is concern for what its existence is. Similarly, happiness is not concern for knowing that one exists, rather it is concern for understanding what one’s existence is and what it requires to remain what it is—that is, for it to remain in existence forever.

You and I and they do exist. That is what we need to be talking about. What is that? It is the existence of their living existence. More specifically, it is the existence of one’s own living existence and what that requires of one for it to remain in existence forever.

Existence is a concept created to describe a certain kind of idea. Existence, then, is not real—it’s ideal. Existence is not physically potent and therefore cannot be a known. The existence of existence must be—it can only be—understood. Existence is an intellectual abstraction. Like all intellectual abstractions, the existence of existence was abstracted from that which exists in a sensually knowable way.

One cannot go to a market and purchase a pound of existence. Existence does not exist in that kind of way; it does not denote a real physical something. Existence is reality idealized, rather than known. This makes existence an intellectual something as opposed to a real something. Existence denotes the existence of the absolute nature of physical reality. Existence is not what it is but that it is. Existence conceptualizes the absolute nature of physical reality into the abstract nature of rational intelligence. Existence exists as an idea within rational intelligence, not as a something within physical reality.

Existence is what knowledge is the epistemological concomitant of.

It can be said that existence exists and that knowledge is what that existence is. Knowledge is what the existence of the absolute nature of physical reality is. Knowledge is physical existence conceptualized into a rational idea. Where existence denotes the physical nature of reality, knowledge denotes the rational nature of existence. Knowledge moves the physical nature of absolute existence into the rational nature of abstract existence. Knowledge is that audio/visual symbol the human mind created to denote that what one requires to understand what the abstract nature of human happiness is—does exist. What is it? It is the existence of one’s own living person.

The issue boils down to this: Every living organism will eventually die. But does that, as if by the law of necessity, demand that its living-existence has gone out of existence? The evidence is clear, and the answer is no. What is the evidence supporting such a claim? It is the living-existence of you and me and them!

Consider this: If it is true that every person preceding you has died, in the sense their living-existence has gone out of existence, then how do you explain your living-existence? If their living-existence has actually gone out of existence, why are you still here? Where do you think your living-existence actually physically came from?

A theist will tell you that your living-existence exists because of the miraculous powers of their God-being. But your mind understands this is not the case. Your mind understands that you have parents and that it is their actions, as properly functioning living beings, that is responsible for your living-existence. Your mind understands that your living-existence is not different from that of your parents. Your mind understands this, but it may not as yet have thought about the enormous implication this will have on your intelligence, and thereby on your religion, once your mind does begin to think about it.

When your mind begins to understand that your living-existence does exist and that there is a way in which you can cause it to continue to exist—even beyond your own personal lifespan—this understanding will set your mind free of the mystical influence religious belief may now enjoy over its rational operations.

Acknowledge this: Unlike the knowing function of your brain, the understanding function of its mind, called thinking, does not proceed automatically. Thinking (the virtue of understanding) is that mind function that must be done—it must be volitionally engaged. If your mind is to ever begin to think, you are the one who must cause it to do that. I can’t cause you to think; no one can. That is your responsibility. It is your intellectual responsibility as a properly functioning human being to think about what you are, where you are living, and what these require of you.

To survive means to do that which your nature as a living being requires of you. A person living alone on a deserted island can be considered a properly functioning human being, but he cannot be considered a rational functioning member of society. Recall that it is the natural consequences resulting from one’s social interactions that determine whether one’s actions are rational or not.

In other words, our island dweller can only do that which is required to live throughout a normal lifespan. He cannot do that which is required for his living-existence to survive beyond his own physical death. He can benefit from his selfish actions, but he cannot profit from the living-existence of his own person. This is because a profitable social interaction is not available to him, and this is because he is the only person living on that deserted island.

Personal production is the fundamental requirement for the continued existence of one’s living person. The law of fundamentality applied to one’s personal existence states that personal production is that ethical act upon which the continued (eternal) existence of one’s living person depends. To be considered personally productive requires that there is another with whom one has been socially engaged. Personal production is the difference between ethical selfishness and moral capitalism. Personal production is the difference between living properly and surviving happily.

Do not become confused by what is being said here. This is not saying that people who do not, for whatever reason, have children cannot be considered to be functioning in a proper human way. That would be an absurdity. What is being said here is that they cannot be considered to be happy about that.

The contrary of happiness is sorrow. It is not possible to experience sorrow in the absence of a real cause of it. As happiness is an intellectual abstraction, so is sorrow. Since happiness and sorrow are intellectual abstractions, then, they are not sensual knowns. What they are—what their true meaning is—can only be understood.

Like all intellectual abstractions, that which is responsible for their existence is sensually known to exist. Recall that knowing is that automatically occurring sensual response between two objects when at least one of these objects is a brain. These types of automatically occurring sensual responses are more properly called “instinctual reactions.” Like all non-human animals, instinctual responses to pain and pleasure are also requirements of human survival. Humans are animals after all. Within the mind function of the human brain a painful physical experience is the responsible cause of the concept of sorrow and a pleasurable physical experience is the responsible cause of the concept of happiness.

When I watched my daughter Kristin being born that made me happy, very happy. I didn’t care why. Being happy does not need to be understood or explained. This is because happiness is the natural and normal intellectual state for rational human beings.

But: When I watched her die all the rules changed. I needed to understand that. It wasn’t something I wanted to do. It was something I had to do. I had no option as to how I responded to watching my baby die. The issue was, either understand it or go insane. Going insane is the intellectual equivalent of physical death. This remains the most serious issue I have ever faced. I cried every single day for 20 years before I got to a place where I understood just what the hell had happened to me—personally. I am not happy about what I discovered. But I do understand it. I understand why the pain is so overpowering and why it will never go away and why I do not what it to go away.

Happiness is not real; it is ideal. Happiness is not something one can go to a market and purchase a gallon of. Happiness is not a something that exists in a physical kind of way. Happiness is an intellectual abstraction and as such, it is the fundamental conceptual creation of the human mind. Happiness is a necessity of proper human existence.

Happiness is an idea abstracted from what is understood to be the case. When one understands, one is not only able to act in a personally productive way, but one has done so. The natural result is intellectual happiness. Intellectual happiness is the fundamental consequence of personal production. It is the understood existence of one’s self that is the standard of one’s happiness. Happiness is described as being the proper state of intellectual existence for human beings. Happiness, then, is a rational idea rather than an emotional [instinctual] reaction. Again; happiness is created; it is not experienced.

Happiness does not occur automatically just because one has done whatever one damn well pleases. Happiness is the natural result of a specific kind of human act, the purposeful production of self. And that purpose is called happiness. Notice how personal happiness cannot be achieved via hope, religious or otherwise; it can only be achieved via the fundamental selfish act, the purposefully selfish (capitalistic) production of self.

The tragedy is that many people are happy and don’t know it. And many people claim to be happy and have no idea what it is they are talking about. The greater tragedy is that many people deserve personal happiness but are unable to achieve it. My own daughter Kristin is an example of this.

Go To Note-16

The Philosophy of Explanation

Note 14 of 17 -- Human Nature Revisited

2012-02-19T19:00:00.001-05:00

Human Nature Revisited

Recall when we discussed the above “Human Nature” graphic.

Recall that we discussed the premise that to become intellectual, one needs to fully remove oneself from the stupefying influence of religion. I will now continue this discussion, but first I will remove the insane and the religious alternatives from the above “Human Nature” graphic. See the resulting graphic below.

If one were searching for why the Space Shuttle exists and one went to an insane asylum to conduct that research, one’s efforts would be frustrated by what one finds there.

Similarly, as one searches for the requirements of human happiness but remains connected to, and thereby influenced by, the underlying principles of religion, one’s efforts will likewise be frustrated by what one finds.

This is because the dogmatic nature of religion is a purposeful attempt to explain the existence of nothing. As such, dogmatic religion is not different from what mental insanity is—it is merely the mystical (not intellectual) expansion of it.

Whenever we remain connected to a fundamentally insane premise and/or religious principle that will frustrate our intellectual efforts. One cannot pursue intelligence religiously, only rationally.

For one to discover why humans have remained in existence for as long as they have, one must observe only proper human behavior. It is only persons who act in a proper human way who can be held responsible for the continued existence of human beings and the happiness upon which that depends.

This is how you got here, this is how I got here, and this is how the human species will continue to exist for the remainder of eternity.

Note that the idea of eternal existence is not a time-sensitive idea. The idea of eternity is the concept of always absent its time requirement. To eternally exist is to have always existed. And to have always existed requires that time is not involved in that existence. “Eternal time” is a contradiction.

Time is a concept created by the human mind. Time is not real, it is ideal. Time does not exist in reality, it exists in intelligence. The issue is not, “What is time?” nor is it, “Does time exist?” The issue is, “Why does time exist?”

Go To Note-15

The Philosophy of Explanation

Note 13 of 17 -- The Philosophical Ladder Revisited

2012-02-19T18:52:00.004-05:00

The Philosophical Ladder Revisited

The final group of the philosophical ladder is “The Explanation Group.” This group consists of a single rung, the esthetics rung. The esthetical rung of philosophy is that science concerned with explaining the nature of human happiness and that upon which its continued existence, right here on earth, depends. To explain human happiness requires there are living humans to explain it to.

The Truth

To explain anything is to reveal that it is what it is—that it actually does exist in a verifiable way. To tell the truth about the nature of human happiness and that upon which its existence depends requires one to be standing firmly on the esthetical rung of the philosophical ladder. To firmly stand on the esthetical rung of philosophical ladder requires one to have previously stood firmly on the moral rung of the philosophical ladder. To have firmly stood on the moral rung requires one to have previously stood firmly on the ethical rung. To have firmly stood on the ethical rung requires one to have previously stood firmly on the epistemological rung. To have firmly stood on the epistemological rung requires one to have previously stood firmly on the metaphysical rung.

It’s impossible to explain the nature of human happiness until one has satisfied each rung of the philosophical ladder. It’s impossible to explain the nature of human happiness until one has advanced up the philosophical ladder from the bottom to the top. It is impossible to explain the nature of human happiness until one is able to explain the laws of nature as these apply to and derive the laws of society.

The moral laws of society are derived from those naturally occurring laws of nature governing what a proper human existence consists of and requires. This is saying that the moral laws of society can only evolve from observing the actions of ethically functioning individuals when those individuals are socially engaged. The laws of ethical behavior translated into the laws of moral behavior become the “proper” laws of society.

The laws of ethical survival—the laws governing proper human existence—are determined by human nature; the laws of moral happiness—the laws governing a rational human society—are determined by human intelligence. One cannot be separated from the other.

The laws of social happiness are evolutionarily different from the laws of personal survival. They are an intellectual expansion of what one’s personal survival requires of one when one is socially engaged.

Ethical behavior is a necessity of personal survival; ethical behavior in a social setting is a necessity of social happiness. The laws describing the laws of social happiness are captured under the concept of capitalism. Capitalism, then, is the fundamental concept of morality.

Capitalism is a necessity of social happiness, which is a derivation of personal selfishness, which is a derivation of human intelligence, which is a derivation of human nature, which is a derivation of the laws of nature.

It’s impossible to have a reason-based philosophy constructed in any other manner.

Go To Note-14

The Philosophy of Explanation

Note 12 of 17 -- The Explanation Group

2012-02-19T18:44:00.002-05:00

The Explanation Group

*****************************************

The Truth

Devotion to truth is the hallmark of intelligence. To tell the truth is to reveal ones intelligence. The truth stands above the moral rung of the philosophical ladder. To tell the truth requires acknowledgement of the rational nature of human beings. However not all persons do, or are able to, function rationally. Case in point: Suicide bombers and child kidnapping, rapping, murdering, bastards.

It is impossible to formulate a truth in the absence of a properly formulated moral principle. And it is impossible to formulate a moral principle in the absence of a properly formulated ethical principle, which is impossible to formulate in the absence of a properly formulated epistemological principle, which is impossible to formulate in the absence of a properly formulated metaphysical principle.

In other words, to tell the truth depends on knowing what it is one is talking about. And knowing, as we have seen, is that automatically occurring sensual event that takes place between two real objects when at least one of these objects is a brain.

To tell a truth is to reveal the existence of some aspect of physical reality. To tell a truth is to reveal that upon which its sensual, factual, conscious, perceptual, rational, conceptual, and intellectual nature depends. To tell a truth is to provide to another the physical evidence required to validate that the truth is a derivation of something one knows to be the case. To tell a truth is to bring into the sensual range of the other that upon which its rational existence depends.

The truth explains the nature of human nature, and the nature of human nature is governed by the laws of reality. It is impossible to tell a truth outside the laws of reality, outside the laws of nature governing that on which a proper human existence depends. It is impossible to tell the truth about God outside the laws of nature governing the happy existence of human beings right here on earth.

The issue is not, “Does God exist?”

Nor is it, “What is God?”

The issue is, “Why does God Exist?”

Why did the human mind create God?

Why did the human mind bring God into existence?

Go To Note-13

The Philosophy of Explanation

Post 11 of 17 -- The Perspective Group

2012-02-19T10:40:00.000-05:00

The Perspective Group

As previously noted, as the focus of our interest changes from one rung of the philosophical ladder to another, we must also change the terms we use. Since we are now moving from “The What Group” of philosophy to “The Perspective Group,” we must change the terms we are using, otherwise we will become confused as to what it is we are talking about.

We note here that “The Perspective Group” of philosophy is higher on the philosophical ladder than “The What Group.” Since we have advanced above the epistemological rung of the philosophical ladder, the terms we use from here forward are primarily conceptual in nature. They are governed by the law of intelligence, which specifies that when we speak epistemologically, we are referencing the rational nature of intelligence rather than the physical nature of knowledge.

When considering “The Perspective Group” of the philosophical ladder, the focus of our interest is from what perspective or from what point of view are we discussing metaphysical absolutes and epistemological abstractions? Are we discussing them from an ethical point of view, or are we discussing them from a moral point of view?

It is important—even critically important—to point out that “The Perspective Group” is merely a highly focused epistemological view back into what “The What Group” consists of. In other words, “The Perspective Group” is the intellectual concomitant of a specific aspect of “The What Group.”

In “The Perspective Group,” the focus of our interest is the ethics of individual behavior and the morality of social interactions, whereas in “The What Group,” our focus is on the absolute nature of physical existence (metaphysics) and the means of understanding what that is (epistemology).

Under “The Perspective Group,” our goal is to differentiate:

ETHICS from MORALITY

The Real from The Ideal

Individual from Society

Benefit from Profit

Selfishness from Capitalism

Natural Law from Contractual Law

Survival from Happiness

**************************************

Differentiating

the Real from the Ideal

The Ethics of the Real

Where metaphysics deals with the real existence of all physical objects, ethics deals with the real existence of a single physical object, a human being.

The Morality of the Ideal

Where epistemology deals with the rational nature of all ideas, morality deals with the rational nature of a single idea, the idea of society.

**************************************

Differentiating

the Individual from the Society

The Ethics of Individual Behavior

Under ethics, it is as if we are considering a person who is living on a deserted island all by himself. This person must function in a specific way; he must function as a human being. This person cannot continue to exist on that island if he tries to function as a whale or an eagle or a rosebush. His only alternative, his only option is to function as a human being.

Under ethics, a human person is an individual object of physical reality. This requires that the terms we use be governed by the law of words, which states, “When we speak ethically, we speak about that which we sensually know to be the case.”

But as previously stated, since we have advanced above the epistemological rung of the philosophical ladder, the terms we use are governed by the law of concepts, which states, “When we speak epistemologically, we speak with regard to what we understand is the case.”

To act ethically is to behave as a properly functioning human being. This requires one to think about the consequences of one’s behavior and then only do that which will have a beneficial effect on one’s physical person.

The Morality of Social Interaction

Under morality we talk about a single idea, the idea of society. When we move our discussion from ethics to morality, the rules defining proper human behavior are expanded. Under morality, the rules are no longer determined by what constitutes proper behavior—they are additionally determined by what constitutes rational interaction. Where proper deals with the actions of ethical individuals, rational deals with the interactions between those same ethical individuals.

But notice that society is a concept. Concepts denote ideas; they don’t denote the absolute nature of physical reality. Society, then, is not a real physical something—society is an abstract ideal something. Society does not exist in reality in an absolute sensually knowable way. It exists in intelligence in an abstract, rationally understood way.

Society is purely an idea. An idea derived from that which is sensually known to be the case—an idea derived from the absolute nature of physical reality—is a rational idea. It is considered a rational idea because it explains what society is and how individual humans are related to it.

In a rational functioning society, the individual humans of whom it consists are acting ethically. In other words, they are acting in accordance with the rules of human nature, in accordance with the laws of nature governing what a proper happy human existence consists of and requires.

Therefore, the laws of nature governing the behavior of ethical functioning human beings determine how those same individual human beings will behave when they are socially engaged.

Rather than being said to be acting properly, they are said to be behaving rationally.

The Laws of Man

It is the laws of nature governing proper human existence that determine the laws humans create when socially engaged. These are the laws of a rational functioning society. The laws of society, when governed by the laws of nature, are called moral laws. They are called moral laws because they describe the behavior of ethical functioning human beings when those same human beings are socially engaged. Moral laws do not—cannot—prescribe what rational social behavior is and requires; they can only describe what it is.

To describe proper human behavior in a social setting, it must be observed. The consequences resulting naturally from the interaction between individuals determine whether the behavior of those individuals is rational or not.

The consequence must not conflict with the nature of the individuals performing those actions. Further, it must not conflict with the nature of any human being now living or who will live at any time in the future.

It is only in a moral functioning society that we find properly functioning individuals—that is, ethical functioning individuals. We do not find ethical functioning individuals in any other type of society, the actions of which are detrimental to the rational nature of human beings.

**************************************

Differentiating

Benefit from Profit

The Ethics of Benefit

Under ethics, individual action is considered proper only when the individual performing the action benefits from the consequence resulting naturally from his own actions. Otherwise, that individual suffers by having created a consequence that is detrimental to his person.

Ethics requires that the living existence of each individual person benefit from the naturally occurring consequence of his own actions. Ethics demands that the individual performing those actions benefit from them.

Consider the individual living alone on a deserted island. This person must perform specific actions; otherwise, his living person is going to suffer from not doing so.

This is saying that the naturally occurring consequence resulting from his actions is considered a beneficial consequence only when it satisfies a survival need of his living person.

The Morality of Profit

An action is considered moral only when the individual performing that action is an ethical actor. That he is actually functioning in a proper human way, meaning that his primary goal is to benefit from his actions. Only then can he engage another person morally; only then can he engage another person in a social interaction that is profitable.

We note that two properly functioning persons—two ethical actors, voluntarily working together—create a greater benefit for themselves than if each had performed those same actions on his own. That greater benefit resulting from their volitional social interaction is called profit.

Proper individual action is ethical, and ethical action results in producing a beneficial consequence for the actor. Proper individual action, performed in a social setting, is called a rational social interaction. And the naturally occurring consequence of a rational social interaction produces a greater benefit for each of its participants. To avoid confusion, that greater benefit produced is renamed profit. Ethical functioning individuals profit from willingly engaging other ethical functioning individuals.

Again, profit is merely the greater benefit realized when two ethical functioning individuals purposefully engage one another to their mutual benefit. A rational interaction, then, is that mutually agreed-to social interaction, the purpose of which is to create a greater benefit for each participant. Note that each must benefit from his jointly agreed-to interactions.

Socially produced profit, then, is the epistemological concomitant of the metaphysical nature of individually produced benefit. When the individuals of a society benefit from their selfishly motivated interactions, the individuals of society are said to profit from their own purposefully selfish actions.

**************************************

Differentiating

Selfishness from Capitalism

The Ethics of Selfishness

Beneficial action is selfish action; it is the principle of selfishness. The individual living alone on the island must benefit from his actions. He has no other choice or option. His only interest is himself. His only interest is his continued existence as a living person on that island.

There is no other person on this island for him to be concerned about. His self-interest is his greatest and highest goal. This is the principle of selfishness.

The principle of selfishness does not involve any other individual. There is no other person living on this island with this individual who is living there in a proper, selfishly motivated, human way.

The consequences of his actions are not influencing, either positively or negatively, the existence of any other human being. He must and does act alone; he simply has no other option. He is, therefore, considered both a selfishly motivated and an ethically guided person—meaning he is and must continue be a properly functioning human being in order to remain alive on that island.

The Morality of Capitalism

When translating the naturally occurring ethical principles of individual selfishness into the principles describing rational social behavior, we get the moral principles described by the idea of social capitalism.

Where individually produced benefit is considered a proper consequence of selfishly motivated individual action, purposefully produced profit is considered a rational consequence of capitalistically motivated social interaction.

The underlying moral premise governing the actions of selfishly motivated individuals when socially engaged is that they agree to engage others only on this fundamental capitalistic premise: “From mutual agreement to mutual benefit.”

When an ethically functioning individual engages another ethically functioning individual (another selfishly motivated individual), that interaction (as we have seen) produces a greater benefit for each than if these same two individuals had acted alone. That greater benefit is called profit. Profit is the additional benefit produced as a direct result of the selfishly motivated social interactions of properly functioning (ethically acting) individuals.

Ethically acting individuals profit from their social interactions with other selfishly motivated individuals. And the selfish creation of social benefit—that is, the purposeful creation of profit—is called capitalism.

Capitalism is evolutionarily different from selfishness. Capitalism is an intellectual advancement over what the metaphysical nature of selfishness is. Capitalism is the epistemological concomitant of selfishness. Capitalism is proper individual action moved into a rational social setting.

Capitalism is not a real something—it is an ideal something. Capitalism is not a physically potent idea; it is an intellectually potent idea. Capitalism does not describe what proper individual action is and requires, it describes what rational social interaction is and requires. Rational social interaction does not exist as a real physically based word statement; it exists as an ideal rationally based conceptual statement.

To be a capitalist is not to be a person who properly benefits from one’s own individual actions. To be capitalist is to be a person who rationally profits from the individual actions of others. Capitalism describes that naturally occurring social relationship that exists between ethically functioning individuals—between individuals who engage others for no other purpose than to enjoy even greater personal benefits.

Where beneficial action is considered ethical, profitable interaction is considered moral. Restating: Where proper individual action is considered ethical, rational social interaction is considered moral. And where personal selfishness is considered proper, social capitalism is considered rational.

Capitalism does not describe the real production of products, goods, and services; it describes the ideal production of more products, goods, and services. Capitalism is the idea that explains what a profitable social interaction is and requires.

A capitalistic relationship produces greater benefits only for those engaged in it. Otherwise, we need to explain what charity is and requires. And since charity is a term described under the idea of religion, it is not proper to include it under a rational discussion.

**************************************

Differentiating

Natural Laws from Contractual Laws

The Ethics of Natural Law

Any action—whether ethical or moral, whether individual or social, whether selfish or capitalistic, whether natural or contractual—carries consequences.

Under ethics, these consequences are called natural consequences. Recall that under ethics, we are considering an individual who is living alone on a deserted island. The consequences of his actions are delivered to him by the laws of nature. They cannot be avoided. When he performs an action, he will experience the consequence resulting naturally from it.

If he is a properly functioning human being, the consequence will be pleasant. If not, the consequence will be suffering, anguish, sadness, and eventually death.

The Morality of Contractual Law

Repeating from above: Any action—whether ethical or moral, whether individual or social, whether selfish or capitalistic, whether natural or contractual—carries consequences.

Under morality, we are considering the consequences resulting from the voluntary interactions between ethical functioning individuals. These consequences are called contractual consequences as opposed to natural consequences.

In a rational (a proper social) interaction, the individuals involved in that interaction do not engage one another without understanding what the consequences resulting from that interaction will be. These consequences are understood and agreed to by each individual prior to either performing any action. Agreed-to consequences are considered moral and therefore rational as opposed to being considered ethical and therefore proper.

Under the principles of social morality, the consequences of agreed-to interactions are written down and become the laws of contract. It is these laws of contract that the idea of capitalism was created to denote the rational existence of. Notice how the laws described within and under the idea of capitalism are the moral equivalent of the laws of nature governing ethical human behavior in a social setting.

Notice that the moral laws of capitalism are a step up from the ethical laws of selfishness. It is therefore impossible for a capitalistic agreement to violate the ethical nature of the persons engaged in it. Contractual law applies the laws of nature governing proper human existence to society.

Social morality is evolutionarily different from personal ethics. Social morality is an epistemological advancement over what the metaphysical nature of personal ethics is and requires. The existence of the idea of social morality represents an intellectual advancement over what the physical nature of the idea of personal ethics is and requires.

To act consequentially means to both know what one is doing and also to understand what the consequence of what one is doing is going to be. This is the principle of responsibility. Each person is responsible for his own actions, necessarily including the consequences resulting from those actions.

The purpose for legalizing the laws of nature governing what rational human behavior is and requires is to provide a document that can be witnessed by all those concerned with whether they can be considered a properly functioning human being when socially engaged. Their documented witness is testimony of their intent to act in a proper human way. The document protects others from their transgressions, whether purposeful or not.

**************************************

Differentiating

Survival from Happiness

The Ethics of Survival

Under ethics, the laws of nature governing what a proper human existence is and requires are the final arbiter as to whether one’s actions are beneficial to one’s person or not. It is the laws of nature that govern whether one’s actions are in accordance with what one is and where one is living.

As previously discussed, if one is behaving properly, then the consequences resulting from one’s actions will respect one’s fundamental nature as a living being, a living human being.

The only responsibility the person living alone on the deserted island has is to perform those actions that will insure he remains a living person on that island. The consequence of behaving in accordance with one’s nature as a living human being right here on earth has been named—it is called survival. It is the principle of personal survival.

As we have seen, to act properly as a human being means to selfishly benefit from one’s own actions. The benefit the person living alone on the deserted island enjoys is his self. It is the continued existence of his living person on that island. To act for one’s continued living existence is to act ethically. To act ethically is to be selfishly motivated to avoid death.

Personal survival is the fundamental underlying principle of ethics. Note that ethics only involves living individuals. It is only living individuals who can act ethically, who can act in accordance with their best interest, who can be selfishly motivated to avoid death.

The person living alone on the deserted island will act in his best interest throughout his entire lifespan, and then he will die. He has no other option. There is no other alternative available to him. His continued existence on that deserted island is governed by the laws of nature.

The ethical science of philosophy deals only with the requirements of individual living persons, and the lifespan of each individual living person is finite. One day it will cease to exist.

The Morality of Happiness

When we translate the principles of ethical behavior into principles of moral behavior, the rules change. When the laws of nature governing ethical behavior are translated into the laws of man governing moral behavior, we transition from personal survival to social happiness.

The difference is immense. It is beyond measure. It is the difference between the finite nature of one’s real person and the infinite nature of one’s ideal person. Note here that the physical existence of one’s real person is a time-sensitive idea, but the physical existence of one’s ideal person is not.

Under ethics, people act to their personal benefit. But under morality, these same people associate with other ethical people to create an even greater personal benefit for themselves. As we have seen, that greater personal benefit is called the profit resulting naturally from their voluntary social interaction. And the purposeful production of profit is called capitalism.

Have I stressed point this enough? I have repeated myself on this point over and over again. Why? Because capitalism is the most misunderstood and misrepresented idea in the entire human language—even more so than God, which will also soon be cleared up.

Selfish people purposefully engage other selfish people for only one reason: to profit from that social interaction. The selfish production of profit is called capitalism. Properly functioning individuals purposefully and selfishly capitalize on the talents, skills, and abilities of others. They have to. They have no other alternative if they are to be considered properly functioning human beings.

**************************************

The Capitalistic Difference

A fundamental action is that action upon which all others of similar characteristics depend. Fundamentally speaking, the profit one’s person enjoys by virtue of a rational social interaction has been named. It is called their child.

Their child is of enormous personal benefit to each person involved in that rational social interaction. It is their living existence continuing to exist into the future. Their child represents the living existence of each person continuing to exist again.

Their child is not different from the living existence of each; it is an extension of the living existence of each. Their child is physical evidence of the living existence of each, existing again. Their child is their living existence existing again as another living being.

Where the existence of one’s living existence is evidence of one’s ability to act in a properly selfish way, the existence of one’s child is evidence of one’s ability to act in a rationally capitalistic way. In other words, one’s child is living evidence of one’s ability to act in a properly selfish way in a social setting.

You are living evidence of all those who precede you with their living existence. You are proof that their living existence has not yet gone out of existence. You are living proof that their living existence exists still. Your real existence is their real existence, idealized. You represent the continued survival of their living existence. You are their physical survival idealized into rational happiness.

To act ethically is to selfishly do that which is required to live a normal lifespan. To act morally is to capitalistically do that which is required to survive beyond one’s natural lifespan right here on earth.

Go To Note-12

The Philosophy of Explanation

Post 10 of 17 -- The What Group

2012-02-12T22:20:00.000-05:00

The What Group

Under “The What Group,” our goal is to differentiate:

METAPHYSICS and EPISTEMOLOGY

Words and Concepts

Knowledge and Intelligence

Communication and Language

********************************************************

Differentiating Words and Concepts

The Metaphysics of Words

When considering how to explain the metaphysical rung of the philosophical ladder, the focus of our concern is on the absolute nature of physical reality.

The physical existence of things in reality is absolute. This is not to say that things in reality do not change. The “absolute nature of physical existence” is not a time-sensitive idea.

When we say things exist absolutely, we are saying:

They are what they are
They are not that which they are not
They do not exist in some kind of intermediate state between what they are and what they are not

These are the three laws of logic:

The law of identity
The law of non-contradiction
The law of excluded middle

The absolute nature of real things exists physically. Their physical existence is sensually known to exist, and they are called the objects of reality. The existence of the physical existence of that which is sensually known to exist is denoted by the use of words. Words are audio/visual symbols created based on what is sensually known to exist in a real physical way. Words denote the physical existence of real objects and their real relationships.

Importantly, the word created is not the thing it was created to denote the real nature of. It is merely an audio/visual symbol purposefully created to denote the absolute nature of that real thing’s physical existence.

A word permits us to transmit, and thereby place within the brain of another, symbolic evidence of that which we know to exist in a real physical way.

It is of particular interest to note that purposefully created human sound symbols can be transferred into the brains of certain non-humans. A dog, for example, can be trained to respond to the human sound visually symbolized as sit.

It is also of particular interest to note that the reverse has never occurred. There is not even one instance where a non-human (a beast) has, or has even attempted, to train a human to respond to its sound symbols. And yet, animals have been observed to communicate with others of their own species. The reason is clear and will soon be explained.

The Epistemology of Concepts

As previously noted, it is not until we become properly founded on the metaphysical rung of philosophy that we are prepared to advance to the epistemological rung. Having now become metaphysically proficient, we are ready to become epistemologically proficient.

To avoid becoming confused about what it is we are talking about, when we change the focus of our discussion from one rung of the philosophical ladder to the next, we must change the terms we use.

Each rung of the philosophical ladder has its own unique set of terms. For example, metaphysical terms are called words, whereas epistemological terms are called concepts. Ethical terms are considered to be proper concepts, where moral terms are considered to be rational concepts. Esthetic's is the application and use of the terms previously created to form a reason-based explanation.

Under metaphysics, our interest is on the absolute nature of physical objects. Under metaphysics, we speak about that which is known to exist or that which can be known to exist. The means of knowing that an object exists is brain-sensing. The human brain has five sense organs extending from it. It is
the sense organs of the human brain that form a physiological and electrochemical connection with the other objects of physical reality. It is in this way that the existence of a physical object is electrochemically transmitted into the rest of the brain, where its existence is further processed.

However, when we speak epistemologically, we are using concepts. Concepts reveal our intelligence as opposed to revealing what we sensually know to be the case. Concepts are derived from ideas, and ideas are based on that which has been understood to be the case. They are based on what we understand about what we know to be the case. The means of knowing that reality exists is
sensual, but the means of understanding its nature is reason.

When we apply our reason to understand the nature of human nature, the result is a concept. Concepts are created from that which has been rationally created rather than that which is sensually known to exist. Concepts don’t denote something that is real, they denote something that is
ideal. Concepts denote the idealized existence of something that is known to be the case. The important issue is not whether or not an idealized creation exists, but why it exists.

Because ideas are creations of the human mind, they don’t make sense—they can’t make sense. This is because what they denote the existence of doesn’t exist in a physically sensual way. Only physical objects can make sense. This is saying that only the physical existence of an object can make a physiological and electrochemical change—a sensual response—occur to and within a brain.

Ideas don’t exist in a sensually observable way; they exist in a rationally understood way. The source of the material from which the human mind creates its ideas is provided to it by the five sense organs extending from its brain. Ideas are created from sensual fact rather than from physical reality. Recall that the sensual influence of reality on a brain is its fact. In other words, the sensual influence of reality on a brain does exist and its existence is called fact.

Under metaphysics, the known existence of objects is said to be absolute. It is what it is; it is not something other than what it is, nor is it some kind of intermediate something between what it is and what it is not. Under epistemology, the rational existence of ideas is said to be abstract. An abstract existent is that which has been abstracted from a something, the existence of which, is sensually known to exist. In other words, ideas are abstracted from fact.

As previously noted, it is the physical existence of the absolute nature of objects that is denoted with words, and it is the rational existence of the abstract existence of ideas that is explained with concepts. Words denote the absolute nature of reality; concepts explain the abstract nature of
intelligence.

To provide the absolute meaning of a word only requires pointing at that which is responsible for its existence. This is called an ostensive definition or definition by direct physical referencing. For example, when I point at this object and utter the sound visually symbolized as chair, you sensually know what its meaning is. The meaning of the sound symbol chair is automatically available to you. You don’t need to think about what it is; you only need to know that it is.

To explain the abstract meaning of a concept is a much more difficult task. This requires applying the preexisting conceptual content of one’s mind to that task. The nature of the term concept is itself conceptual. The term concept must be explained; its meaning can only be understood.

To define a concept requires uttering and/or scribing the conceptual content of one’s mind back into reality. This does require thinking. It is thinking that results in one’s conceptual content. But what do we think about? We think about that which we sensually know to be the case. To not think is to either hallucinate or believe—or perhaps it involves a little of each.

********************************************************

Differentiating Knowledge and Intelligence

The Metaphysics of Knowledge

Again, on the metaphysical rung of “The What Group,” the focus of our interest is, “What is knowledge?” Knowledge is not what the objects of reality are; it is what their existence is.
We acquire knowledge sensually via the sense-organ extensions of our brain. We acquire knowledge as we sensually observe the objects of reality. We acquire knowledge as we purposefully direct the sense organs extending from our brain, enabling them to know that the objects of reality actually do physically exist. The method of their knowing is sensual. They sense the absolute nature of the physical existence of real objects.

However, the sense organs extending from our brain have a finite sensual range. This is saying and acknowledging that the human brain’s sense organs cannot know the physical existence of—and therefore do not know the physical existence of—everything that is available to be known about even one real object. We therefore do not acquire all the knowledge that physically exists. But we do acquire the knowledge that is sensually known to exist.

Since we cannot and therefore do not acquire all the knowledge physically available to us, it is not a proper claim to say that we do acquire knowledge. This is because the term knowledge is an all-encompassing term. When we say that we do acquire knowledge, we are implicitly claiming that we acquire all the available knowledge. The sense organs of our brain simply do not have that capability.
To solve this dilemma, we need to have a term specifically created to denote only that aspect of knowledge we actually do acquire. That term is data. Data is that aspect of knowledge falling within the sensual range of the sense organs extending from our brain.

As we direct the sense organs extending from our brain to observe the absolute nature of physical reality, they automatically know that it exists and thereby automatically transmit its data into our brain for further processing.

When a scientist, doctor, engineer, student, parent, infant, or other is collecting data with which to draw a conclusion, make a decision, offer a recommendation, or simply know that something exists, that individual is collecting data from that which their brain actually knows to exist in a sensually potent way.

Knowing that knowledge exists is an automatically occurring sensual event between two objects when at least one of these objects is a brain. In other words, the sensual acquisition of knowledge by a brain is not optional. The sensual acquisition of knowledge by a brain is an innate aspect of how all
brains operate and function.

To test this claim, simply look at an object. Now, without doing anything else, don’t see it. You now understand what the automatically occurring data acquisition function of the sense organs extending from your brain is. You may not understand how it functions, but you do know that it is functioning and that you do not and cannot have any influence over how it functions. Data acquisition by a brain occurs automatically and continuously.

The Epistemology of Intelligence

Again, considering the epistemological rung of the philosophical ladder, the focus of our interest is intelligence.

Note here that epistemology is a step up on the philosophical ladder. The epistemological nature of intelligence represents an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical nature of the knowledge upon which its conceptual nature depends. In other words, intelligence is knowledge conceptualized. Where the physical nature of knowledge is known to exist, it is said that the conceptual nature of intelligence is created from it. Intelligence is created only from knowledge that is sensually known to exist; it is created from sensually collected data. To exist metaphysically is to exist as a physical absolute. To exist epistemologically is to exist as a rational abstraction. The abstract nature of intelligence is derived from the absolute nature of knowledge. Notice how rational is physical intellectualized, and also how abstract is absolute intellectualized.

The creative process responsible for abstracting intelligence from knowledge is conceptualization. Intelligence, then, is the epistemological concomitant of the absolute nature of the knowledge upon which the abstract nature of its conceptual existence depends. It is impossible to be considered intelligent in the absence of knowing what it is one is talking about.

Note here that the term concept is the epistemological concomitant of the metaphysical term object. Like the epistemological term intelligence represents an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical term knowledge, so does the epistemological term concept represent an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical term object.

********************************************************

Differentiating Communication and Language

The Metaphysics of Communication

We transmit the physical existence of the data our brain has sensually acquired to another by creating specific kinds of audio/visual symbols called words.
Note that under the idea of communication, we don’t transmit intelligence—we transmit knowledge. It is as if the word symbol and the knowledge it was created to denote the existence of are one and the same.

Caution: they are not!

The Epistemology of Language

Under the idea of metaphysics, we create audio/visual symbols called words to denote the real existence of knowledge—but under epistemology, we create audio/visual symbols called concepts to denote the ideal existence of intelligence.

A concept is different from a word; it is its epistemological expansion. In other words, the epistemological nature of concept represents an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical nature of word. Concept extends the sensual nature of word from knowing to understanding. Where words are based in and therefore reveal reality, concepts are based in and therefore reveal intelligence. In other words, intelligence is knowledge conceptualized, and knowledge is existence conceptualized.

When we use words, we reveal the absolute nature of knowledge, and we are externally focused. When we use concepts, we reveal the abstract nature of intelligence, and we are internally focused. When we use concepts, we are explaining that which we understand to be the case about our relationship to and within our physical environment. Note: An explanation has neither physical nor
time constants, meaning that an explanation is rational rather than real. An explanation cannot be found in reality, no matter how long one looks for one there.

It is the sensual influence of physical reality on our brain that our mind perceives as being the “facts of reality.” Alternately: The sensual influence of reality on a human brain is called fact by that brain’s mind function. The existence of sensually known fact cannot be denied by a mind, but it can be ignored—to its peril. The sensual nature of fact cannot be denied, because it actually does exist. Fact exists as the point of sensually potent contact between a brain and some other physical aspect of reality. That sensually potent point of contact is called fact because it actually does physically and electrochemically exist. The denial of fact by a mind has no effect on its physiological and electrochemical nature.

As Promised

The reason none of the beasts (non-human animals) has ever taught us their language, or has never even demonstrated an interest in doing so, is because beasts don’t have a language. And this is because they don’t have—have not demonstrated the existence of—a perceptual mind, an understanding mind, a rational mind, a conceptual mind. They have not demonstrated that mental
activity termed conceptual-reasoning. Meaning, they are not able to rationally translate objective knowledge into conceptual intelligence. And it is the ability to conceptualize knowledge into intelligence that is a prerequisite for the creation of language. Language is evolutionarily different from what communication is—it is an epistemological expansion on its metaphysical nature. Human language represents an evolutionary advancement over the metaphysical nature of beastly communication.

===========================================

In the following pages I am going to bear down on the philosophic grouping of ethics and morality. My purpose is to eventually uncover the nature of human happiness and that upon which its eternal existence depends.

This will likely proceed in a manner you may not have experienced in the past. It is this author’s seriously considered view that the existing manifold volumes of the philosophical works of countless others, covering many hundreds of years and written by those who are considered to be experts in the field of philosophic investigation, is not only grossly inaccurate and very misguided but may represent some kind of special, as yet undiagnosed, mental illness.

Then, in the remaining pages, I will reveal God.

Go To Note-11

The Philosophy of Explanation

Post 9 of 17 -- The Philosophical Ladder

2011-01-09T20:02:00.007-05:00

The Philosophical Ladder

The above graphic illustrates the structure of a properly constructed philosophical ladder. Any proper philosophy is constructed in this hierarchical manner. A properly constructed philosophical ladder will consist of these five steps or rungs. These are then divided into three sub-groups or areas of concentrated interest.

1) The What Group: What is it that we are interested in discussing?

a) Are we interested in knowing? Metaphysics.

b) Are we interested in understanding? Epistemology.

2) The Perspective Group: From what point of view are we interested in discussing metaphysics and epistemology?

a) Are we interested in them from an ethical point of view?

b) Are we interested in them from a moral point of view?

3) The Explanation Group: What method will we use to explain what we have learned?

a) Will we use the esthetics of:

i) Language

ii) Art

iii) Sculpture

iv) Architecture

v) Dance or some other?

The What Group

When considering “The What Group” of the philosophical ladder, the focus of our interest is, “What is it that we are interested in discussing?”

1) Are we interested in:

a) Knowing that physical objects exist?

i) Metaphysics

b) Understanding the conceptual nature of ideas?

i) Epistemology

2) Are we interested in:

a) Knowledge?

i) Metaphysics

b) Intelligence?

i) Epistemology

The Perspective Group

When considering “The Perspective Group” of the philosophical ladder, the focus of our interest is, “From what perspective, from what point of view are we interested in discussing metaphysics and epistemology?”

1) Are we interested in discussing them from:

a) A personal point of view?

i) Ethics

b) A social point of view?

i) Morality

2) Are we interested in understanding:

a) What proper human individual behavior is?

i) Ethics

b) What rational human social interaction is?

i) Morality

The Explanation Group

When considering the final rung of the philosophical ladder, “The Explanation Group,” the focus of our interest is on being able to explain the nature of human nature, necessarily including the nature of that upon which its happy existence depends.

1) Truth

a) Our interest is in explaining what is true about the intellectual nature of human beings.

Note that this is a ladder—a philosophical ladder. It is, therefore, impossible to explain the nature of anything until we fully advance up the philosophical ladder from the bottom to the top.

All of our esthetical premises must first begin from a sound philosophical basis in metaphysics; only then can these be advanced to a sound philosophical basis in epistemology; and only then can these be advanced to a sound philosophical basis in ethics; and only then can these be advanced to a sound philosophical basis in morality.

It is not until we have fully advanced to the top of the philosophical ladder that we can stand firmly on the esthetical rung and, from there, explain the nature of human nature and that upon which its happy existence depends.

As previously stated, in order to do this, we must begin at the bottom of the philosophical ladder and work our way to the top. We must then begin with “The What Group.”

Go To Note-10

If you could explain God - Would You?

Post 8 of 17 -- The Philosophy of Explanation

2011-01-08T19:38:00.008-05:00

The Philosophy of Explanation

The most useful and applicable philosophy developed to date is the philosophy of objectivism. Where it is based on the existence of the absolute nature of physical existence (knowledge), the philosophy of explanation is based on the existence of the abstract nature of conceptual existence (intelligence).

The philosophy of explanation is a natural result of the purposeful transformation of the metaphysical basis of knowledge into the epistemological basis of intelligence. As such, the philosophy of explanation is not different from the philosophy of objectivism; it is its epistemological advancement. The intellectual basis of the philosophy of explanation is more useful for explaining the rational nature of human nature than what the metaphysical basis of the philosophy of objectivism allows it to be considered.

Those who loathe the physical approach to explaining the rational nature of human nature offered by the philosophy of objectivism may find the intellectual approach offered by the philosophy of explanation more to their liking.

Unlike the philosophy of objectivism, the philosophy of explanation is able to address the most fundamental questions facing man, such as, “Why do life, time, space, distance, universe, human, happiness, eternity, and [of course] God exist?”

As the beginning point for the development of the philosophy of explanation, and as the fundamental philosophical foundation for the development of the philosophy of explanation, I will first present several edited definitions of what the science of philosophy is, as explained by Ayn Rand during her creation of the philosophy of objectivism.

What Is the Science of Philosophy?

Following are edited excerpts of Ayn Rand’s writings:

Your actions are a consequence of your philosophy. Their result on your person is not; this is left to the laws of nature. As a human being, you have no choice about your need of philosophy. Your only choice, in this regard, is whether you define the parameters of your philosophy or whether you blindly follow another’s.
Philosophy deals with those aspects of the universe that pertain to everything that exists. Philosophy is the foundation of science, the selector of man’s values and goals, the organizer of man’s thoughts and thereby his actions.
Philosophy is that science which studies the nature of existence, of man, and of man’s relationship to existence. The fundamental branches of philosophy are metaphysics and epistemology. It is on the basis of a knowable universe (metaphysics) and one’s rational grasp of it (epistemology) that one can define the secondary branches of philosophy: ethics, morality, and esthetics.
The task of philosophy is to provide man with a comprehensive view of what it means to act properly. In order to evaluate a given philosophical premise, ask what—if applied—it would do to human life, beginning with your own. This view will serve as a base, a frame of reference, for your actions. This view will give you the nature of the universe with which you must deal (metaphysics), and the means by which to deal with it (epistemology). It will provide the standard by which you choose your goals and values in regard to your life and your character (ethics), and in regard to your relationship with others (morality). Your means of explaining this view is esthetics.
In order to live, man must act; in order to act, man must make choices; in order to make choices, man must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, man must discover the nature of his existence as the rational being. Since man knows what he is and where he lives, his only task is to understand how these define how he must behave prior to being considered a properly functioning human being. Man needs philosophy.

From these philosophical premises, it is now possible to develop a completely new philosophy—a philosophy capable of answering the most fundamental questions facing human beings, such as “Why does God exist?”

Click Here For Post-9

If you could explain God - Would You?

Post 7 of 17 -- The Sound of GOD

2011-01-07T14:39:00.011-05:00

The Sound of GOD

Recall when, in the opening comments [note-1] when I discussed the three fundamental types of sound.

Natural Noise

Recall that I discussed the naturally occurring sounds of nature called noise. Noise occurs as a natural consequence of nature interacting with nature at the inanimate level. Noise is the audio/visual symbol created to denote the physical existence of the sensually known existence of naturally occurring sound.

Noise is not what the physical existence of naturally occurring sound is; it is merely the audio/visual symbol created to denote that its physical existence does exist. It is for this reason that noise is called a word symbol.

Animal Communication

Also recall my discussion of purposefully created animal sound. The non-humans—the beasts—sensually know that the objects of nature do exist. They purposefully symbolize what they sensually know to exist in reality by making specific types of sound to denote the real nature of its physical existence. Purposefully created animal sound (including some purposefully created human sound) is not called noise; it is called communication.

The purposefully created sounds of animal communication are not conceptual; they aren’t even called words. The reason for this is that they lack a defined meaning or understood purpose. The sounds of animal communication are only symbolic. They only vocally symbolize the sensually known existence of real objects and their relationships.

Animal communication takes many forms. It symbolizes danger, anger, and a desire to mate. It symbolizes acceptance and submission. Do humans also communicate these kinds of things via sound symbols? Yes, they do!

However, at the human level of “beastly” communication, the sound symbols used to communicate what is sensually known to exist are called words. They are called words only because they include a definition. Words have a defined (conceptualized, true, accurate, verifiable, real) meaning and purpose. Again: Beastly communication exists absent a defined meaning or purpose. In other words, humans have a defined and therein understood style of communication, while beasts have only a known and therein a symbolic style of communication.

The difference is enormous. It is the difference between knowing and understanding. It is the difference between revealing reality and revealing intelligence. It is the difference between existing properly and living happily. It is the difference between knowing that one exists and being able to explain why. It is the difference between beast and human—between religion and reason.

Meaningful Language

Also recall the discussion of purposefully created human sound. Humans purposefully make specific types of sound to explain something they understand about the nature of nature, including the nature of human nature. The sounds humans use to explain what is understood to be the case is not called communication, it is called language.

Whereas beasts (including some irrational—including all religious—humans) make sounds to symbolically communicate what they sensually know to be the case, rational humans use language to explain what they understand about the nature of human nature and that upon which its happy existence depends.

The difference between the beastly, irrational style of human communication and the intelligent use of human language is called understanding. Whereas beastly functioning humans base their conclusions on their instinctual reactions to what they sensually know to exist, intelligent humans function based on what they understand about the nature of physical reality, necessarily including the nature of human reality.

Humans are a specific kind of animal. They not only act purposefully in the sense that beasts act purposefully, they also function intellectually. Human does not denote what the intellectual animal is; it denotes that its physical existence does exist.

Human denotes the physical existence of the intellectual animal. In this usage of the term human, it is called a word, much like dog and horse are called words. But since its definition explains why the word human exists, it (the definition) is considered to be conceptual.

Under the idea visually symbolized as language, most of the terms used are conceptual. They are conceptual because they explain the abstract nature of rational ideas rather than, more simply, denote the absolute nature of physical objects. Communication is reality symbolized. Reality is symbolized with words. Language is reality idealized. Reality is idealized with concepts. Time, distance, and space are examples of how reality has been idealized with concepts.

The non-human animals—the beasts—have not demonstrated the ability to idealize reality. They, therefore, cannot be considered to possess an intellect. Their sound symbols cannot be called either words or concepts, because they do not have a defined reason for their existence. The best that can be said about beastly communication is that it uses sounds to symbolize the existence of that which the non-human animals—the beasts—sensually know to exist.

Notice how the language of the people we have hired to run our government for us seems to be a very noisy kind of human sound. This is because they seem to have abdicated their human intellect to a lesser standard. They have abdicated their rational intelligence in favor of altruistic belief. In other words, they believe it is better to give favors than to create profit.

Our hired hands see themselves as our caregivers—our parent, our protectors, our Aunt Emma. This is not the job they were hired to do. They were hired to function as our legal agents (our fictitious persons) only in those instances where we are not available to so act. Their actions are strictly controlled by the contract we hold with them, which they have taken a public oath to uphold.

Most of them need to be fired. We have done a lousy job of interviewing and hiring the right kinds of people to run our government for us—the kinds of people who actually do have an intellect equal to ours and are not afraid to use it in our best interest.

But this book isn’t about politics; it’s about finding a physically based, intellectually understandable, explanation for the real existence of God, right here on earth.

As previously noted, like the non-human animals—the beasts—humans have the ability to create specific kinds of sound symbols to denote the existence of that which they sensually know to exist.

Unlike the non-human animals, humans have the added ability to create specific kinds of visual symbols to denote the existence of the sound symbols they had previously created. God is an example of a visual symbol the human mind has created to denote the existence of a previously created sound symbol.

Was the visual symbol God created to denote something other the vocally created sound symbol God? No, it wasn't!

Is the sound symbol God something other than what the visual symbol God was created to denote the vocalized existence of? No, it isn't!

Then the issue is not, “Does God exist?” nor is it, “What is God?” The issue is, “Why does God exist?”

God is an audio/visual symbol created by the human mind. The human mind is responsible for bringing God into existence.

But why?

What is God’s purpose? What is God’s meaning? What is God’s application in a real physical word? We bring God into the sensual range of others by uttering its sound symbol and/or scribing its visual symbol. When we audio/visually bring God into existence, it is God that others hear and/or see.

What do we tell others when they ask us to explain why we bring God into existence?

Do we create God because we need to denote the absolute nature of the physical existence of a real something? In other words: Is God a word?
Do we create God in response to a need to explain something about the abstract nature of human intelligence? In other words: Is God a concept?
Do we create God to denote the mystical nature of nothing at all? In other words: Is God audio/visual evidence of the unknown and unknowable existence of some kind of religious deity, supernatural power, supreme intellect, or magical spirit?
Do we create God simply as a noise uttered for no known reason or understandable purpose? In other words: Is God evidence of insanity?

To proceed any further with this discussion, we must define the terms we use in a very specific way. The requirement is that the terms we use from this point forward be defined in such a way that they will apply to every person who has ever lived, to every person who now lives, and to every person who will ever live at any time in the future.

Absent such a rigorous requirement, the conclusions we reach will not be able to withstand the pressure of their own absurdity. The absence of such a requirement will leave open the door of human opinion, whim, crying, prayer, pleading, begging, force, threat, demand, and all like nonsense.

The universal nature of this requirement demands the development of a new philosophy. A philosophy based in the conceptual nature of human intelligence. A philosophy based on what is understood to be the case with regard to what we are, where we are living, and what these require of our physical and intellectual behavior prior to being able to be considered a properly functioning human being.

Defining the terms of a philosophy in such a way will allow us to use them to rationally explain the nature of human nature and that upon which its happy existence depends.

Such a philosophy has been named. I call it the Philosophy of Explanation.

Click Here For Post-8

If you could explain GOD - would you?

Post 6 of 17 -- Words and Concepts

2010-11-06T09:55:00.004-04:00

Words and Concepts

Chair
Recall when I said it is much easier to point and say “chair” than it is to explain what chair is. For example, if this object at which I am pointing was not within the sensual range of the sense organs extending from your brain, I would need to explain what chair is. And that requires a great deal of effort.

Water
Like chair, water is also called a word. Chair and water are called words because they directly designate or audio/visually denote the physical existence of an object in reality.

The meaning of the words chair and water can be physically demonstrated. For example, when I point at this and utter the sound visually symbolized as water, its meaning is sensually available to you. You don’t have to think about it; you only have to know it. You automatically know what I mean whenever I utter the sound visually symbolized as water.

Chair and water, in this way, are called words. Again, words directly designate or audio/visually denote the physical existence of a real something.

Space
Space is rather different. Space does not designate or denote the existence of a physical object; it does not denote the physical existence of a real something. Space is not a real something that can be walked up to and touched or pointed at or in another way designated with some type of physical referencing.

Therefore, space is called a concept. Concepts are derived from the abstract nature of rational ideas (intelligence), whereas words are derived from the absolute nature of physical existence (reality).

Time
Time does not denote the physical existence of a real something. Time is not a word. Time is a concept, and concepts explain something about that which is known to be the case. Again, words denote, concepts explain.

Time is not real. Time is ideal. Time was created by the human mind in an effort to explain a specific aspect of the absolute nature of physical reality and how it functions. Time is not what it explains the existence of; time is simply an audio/visual symbol created to explain why the existence of an ideal something exists. Time explains the rational existence of an intellectual abstraction rather than denoting the physical existence of a real absolute.

It is in this way that time is called a concept rather a word. But notice the important linkage between words and concepts. Concepts are derivations of ideas abstracted from the absolute nature of physical reality. It is in this way that concepts are linked to reality; they are reality, explained.

Distance
Distance is also a concept. Distance explains something about the abstract nature of some aspect of the absolute nature of physical reality.

All concepts have this in common. Concepts explain something about the absolute nature of physical reality, whereas words simply denote that its physical existence exists. It is in this way that concepts are said to explain why ideas exist rather than denoting the existence of the objects upon which their ideal nature depends.

Universe
Universe does not denote the existence of a real physical something. Universe does not exist in a physically knowable way. Universe does not exist as an object of reality; it exists as a concept of intelligence.

The idea explained by the concept universe is dependent on the absolute nature of physical reality for its existence to be considered rational (that is, pertaining to reality). Universe is not what the absolute nature of physical reality is; it is what the abstract nature of an idea is. Universe was created by the human mind to explain that physical reality does exist, and that it exists as a concept resulting from knowledge rather than belief.

“The absolute nature of physical reality” is not a word statement; it is a conceptual statement. This is because “the absolute nature of physical reality” does not denote a naturally existing real something (an object), but instead explains the nature of a rationally created something—an idea.

Life
The issue is not, “Does life exist?” or “What is life?” The issue is, “Why does life exist?” This life is the existence of life. This life is life. Life is a creation of the human mind. Like all concepts, like all words, life is a creation of the human mind. The human mind is responsible for bring life into existence. But why?

Read that again: The issue is not, “Does life exist?” or “What is life?” The issue is, “Why does life exist?” Why was life created? What is its purpose? What is its meaning? Why did the human mind bring life into existence?

Is life a word? Is life a concept? Perhaps life is both.

Note: Words denote the sensually known existence of the absolute nature of some aspect of physical reality. Since words are created to denote something that is sensually known to exist, and since the physical existence of life is not something that is sensually known to exist, then whatever its existence is, it must be explained.

This requirement—the requirement of explanation—would seem to require life to be considered a concept. But since life does have an absolute physical nature, and since concepts denote only the abstract nature of ideas, then life is not (it cannot be considered to be) a concept. Life must be considered to be a word.

But wait! The existence of the physical nature of life is not sensually known to exist! How, then, can it be considered a word? What aspect of the absolute nature of reality does life, the word, denote the sensually known physical existence of? What aspect of the absolute nature of human existence does life denote the sensually known physical existence of? What aspect of the absolute nature of the real physical world where you and I live does life denote the sensually known existence of?

Why does life exist?

How is this dilemma to be resolved? It is resolved by creating a new type of concept, the purpose of which is to explain the absolute nature of that which the physical existence of is not or cannot be sensually known to exist. That is the concept of understand.

Understanding the Physical Nature of Life

We can understand the physical nature of life by observing its influence on that which is sensually known to exist. This is done by observing that animate objects are physically different from inanimate objects. It is the known existence of that physical difference that permits us to denote it with an audio/visual symbol called a word. And the word created to denote the physical nature of the real difference between the animate and the inanimate is life. This is why life exists. It exists only because the physical difference between the animate and the inanimate does exist—it is sensually known to exist.

But notice that the word life does not explain what that difference is. That function is left to its definition. The word life denotes the existence of that physical difference, but its definition explains what that physical difference is. Life is a word, but its definition is conceptual.

Note the following and apply it whenever necessary: The term life is called a word because it audio/visually denotes the physical existence of something that is sensually understood (as opposed to known) to exist in a real physical way. Its definition is conceptual because it rationally explains something about why the word life was created.

If those people who have purposefully blown themselves up, instead of believing that their trusted religious advisors were acting in their best interest, had thought about what the actual eternal nature of the consequence of their actions was going to be, would they have done that? No—of course not! But now it’s too late.

What advice would you have offered those same people if you had the opportunity to do so? What advice are you now giving to your own children and grandchildren?

Click Here for Post-7

If you could explain GOD - would you?

Post 5 of 17 -- The Nature of Human Nature

2010-11-05T09:54:00.003-04:00

Human Nature

Every person who has ever lived, every person who now lives, and every person who will ever live at any time in the future can be found somewhere in the above “Human Nature” graphic.

This we all have in common. We all come into the world in the same way. We enter into an environment we have not ever experienced in the past. We have sensual responses to our new environment that we have not experienced in the past. We breathe air, but we have not breathed air before. We drink milk, but we have not drunk milk before. We hear babies cry, but we have not heard babies cry in the past. We smell flowers, but we have not smelled flowers before. We taste pureed spinach, but we have not tasted pureed spinach before. We become cold, but we have not been cold before. We become hungry, but we have not been hungry before. We feel the weight of our body, but we have not felt the weight of our body before.

We immediately enter into an environment that is foreign to us. This can be a very scary experience. We soon begin to realize that we have a caregiver—that there is someone who is taking care of our needs, who is solving our problems. This caregiver makes us feel better when we begin to hunger. This caregiver makes us feel better when we begin to get cold. This caregiver is someone we begin to trust. We begin to depend on the wisdom of our caregiver. The very nature of our existence as a living being depends on this caregiver acting in a proper human way.

We soon begin to release our fears and concerns to the attention of our caregiver. This allows us to concentrate on other things. We begin to concentrate on the nature of the environment in which we find ourselves, and our relationship to and within it.

However, when Aunt Emma rushes up to us laughing and crying and yelling, “Oh, what a beautiful child,” this can be very scary experience because it appears she is coming into our world from afar—as if from nowhere. Our sensual range is very short, and so it seems as if she is coming from nowhere and then returning to that same place.

As we mature, our senses mature along with us, and we begin to understand the real nature of Aunt Emma and the other things around her, including the real nature of our caregiver.

However, as we mature, and if our fears of the environment where we live are not abated, others may interpret this as a symptom of insanity or schizophrenia or some other serious mental illness. This is because maturing and remaining fearful of the environment in which one lives is not a normal mental condition.

We are dependent on our caregiver to resolve our fears, to solve fundamental problems for us, to support our needs and instill happiness into our experience of our own physical person. We are, by the very nature of our being, dependent on our caregiver for everything, including our life and happiness.

Our relationship with our caregiver is of a godly nature. We implicitly trust the actions of our caregiver and faithfully accept the advice our caregiver offers us. We implicitly believe that the consequence of doing so will be compatible with our nature as a specific kind of being, a human being. We are (by our nature as human beings) believers in the goodness, kindness, wisdom, and intelligence of our caregiver.

As we mature and eventually separate ourselves from the godly attention of our caregiver, our need to be cared for and our need to have fundamental problems resolved does not magically go away. We look for another source. We look for persons whose advice we can trust and upon whose intellect we can depend to solve the most fundamental problems facing human beings. We look for persons who seem to have all the answers we seek. This is how and when religion steps in to fill the void.

We remain under the influence of our chosen and trusted religious advisors, sometimes for a very long time. Sometimes the influence of our trusted religious advisors on our thinking, and thereby on our actions, never goes away. This is because we are busy doing other things. We don’t have time to stop and think fundamentally. We find it much easier and less stressful to believe our trusted religious advisors have already done the thinking required for them to understand the nature of human nature and what its happy existence requires. And so we accept their advice in the same way as we accepted the loving advice of our caregiver.

We are busy working at our job. We are busy taking care of our family. We are busy trying to solve real problems in the real world in which we find ourselves. We may be sick; the people we are dealing with may be mean. And so we maintain our religious affiliations just because it’s easier than the alternative—fundamental thinking.

Following in the path taken by countless others, believing in their beliefs, and accepting their advice seems to be much less troublesome than thinking on our own terms and solving our own problems—that is, using our own mind to discover the answers to the most fundamental of questions facing human beings.

It’s not until we reach a more advanced state of existence, in which we have solved most of our day-to-day problems, that we finally have the time to just sit and think fundamentally. To think about what we are, where we are living, and what the relationship between these two must be prior to being able to consider ourselves properly functioning human beings.

Only then can we begin to translate what we know into intelligence. Only then can we begin to conceptualize our sensually acquired knowledge into intelligence and, then, begin to explain what we are, where we are living, and what these say about how we must behave prior to being able to consider ourselves properly functioning human beings.

We eventually discover that to do this, we must fully remove ourselves from the influence of our trusted religious advisors and from their dependence on religious doctrine. Any hold religious doctrine maintains over our mind affects how well our mind is able to conceptualize what it knows to be the case into intelligence. Only then are we able to begin to explain the nature of human nature and that upon which its happy existence depends.

The remainder of this [book] will explain how that intellectual transformation can, does, and has occurred within the minds of people just like you. People who had also turned off their mind, people whose thinking and actions had also been determined for them by their trusted advisors (religious or otherwise). And, yes, it was a very scary transformation for them.

I understand, and therefore can speak to, the fear and emotional trauma accompanying such an enormous intellectual transformation to and within one’s own mind.

For twenty years following the death of my daughter, I personally experienced it.

Click here for note-6

If you could explain GOD - would you?

Post 4 of 17 -- Evolution of Explanation

2010-11-04T09:53:00.009-04:00

When explaining the nature of human nature to another,
the same four alternatives apply,
but with added features.
*************************************************

Real Sensing

Under the real alternative, the absolute nature of physical objects is sensually known to exist.

It is under this alternative that we discuss how all high-functioning brains operate. All high-functioning brains—necessarily including the human brain—have five sense organs extending from them.

This is how they know that the absolute nature of physical existence actually does physically exist. It is sensed.

Insane Appearance

Under the insane alternative, the demotic existence of no-things just seems to appear as if from nowhere. Rather than being sensually known to exist, as is the case under the real alternative, the insane appearance of demotic no-things is hallucinated into existence.

To an insane-functioning brain, the hallucinated nature of demons seems to be equivalent to the true nature of conscious brain imaging. Where the true nature of an image can be traced to what that brain sensually knows to exist, the hallucinated nature of demons has no known cause.

The hallucinated nature of demons is a natural result of a brain that is deranged—meaning electrochemically imbalanced or physiologically damaged.

Religious Acceptance

Under the religious alternative, the hopeful nature of dogmatic no-things is just simply accepted to be that which others have stated they believe it to be.

This premise necessarily requires the associated premise, that the consequence experienced as a direct result of acting based on one’s dogmatically stated belief must also be accepted.

Rational Creation

Under the rational alternative, the conceptual nature of intellectual things is created. It is created from that which has been proven to be the case. This premise necessarily invokes the associated premise—that one must understand the consequences resulting from acting based on what one conceptually understands to be the case prior to initiating the actions required to bring that understood consequence into reality.

Unlike knowing that reality exists—which only involves a brain and is therefore discussed under the real alternative—creating conceptual intelligence also involves mind functionality. Note: It is not until we get to this alternative that we can discuss the mind function of the human brain.

It is the human mind function that is ultimately responsible for the ability of humans to understand cause-and-effect relationships and to create concepts symbolizing that understanding. And it is this ability—the ability to conceptualize what the consequences of one’s actions will be—that is the reason why only humans have been able to move themselves from living in caves to living in luxury.

===================================

Returning to the real alternative.

Real Knowledge

It is only under the real alternative that we can talk about knowledge. Knowledge exists in reality; it does not exist in or within a human brain.

When we know that something exists, we are sensually acquiring its knowledge. The acquisition of knowledge is an automatically occurring sensual event. To acquire knowledge is to sensually know that it exists. Knowing that knowledge exists is that automatically occurring sensual event between two objects when at least one of these objects is a brain.

Knowledge exists absolutely; the objects of reality exist physically. Their existence is what we call knowledge. It is the existence of the absolute nature of physical reality that is called knowledge. Knowledge is not what physical reality is—knowledge is the absolute nature of its existence. The knowledge necessary for a human mind to explain what an object is and what its relationship to and with it is, is possessed by the object.

Knowledge is the epistemological concomitant of what the absolute nature of physical existence is. Knowledge is known to exist by a brain for only as long as its physical existence is sensually stimulating that brain.

To test this premise, look at an object and then close your eyes. You now understand this premise. Its knowledge is no longer sensually available to your brain. Your brain no longer knows that it exists. This test verifies that the knowledge necessary to explain what that object is and what your relationship to and with it is, is possessed by the object. Your brain may remember its sensual experience with knowledge, but that is not the same as sensually knowing that the knowledge actually does physically exist.

Note: To state that one’s brain knows that something exists does not imply, as if by the law of necessity, that one’s brain has become, or can become, conscious of what it sensually knows to exist.

Sensual brain stimulation is a prerequisite of a brain becoming conscious of the knowledge it knows to exist. The sensual existence of knowledge is called its factual existence. And, the consciously imaged existence of knowledge is called its true existence. A brain-image is conscious evidence of the factual nature of knowledge; it is the true nature of knowledge.

Follow this logic: Where the physical nature of reality is said to exist absolutely, and its sensual influence on a brain is said to exist factually, the conscious existence of a brain-image is considered to be a true mental representation of that which is responsible for causing the initial sensual stimulation to exist. A brain-image is considered to be a true mental representation of the object responsible for causing the initial brain stimulation. A truth, then, is based on what consciously exists rather than on what physically exists. A truth explains what is rationally understood rather than what is sensually known. A truth reveals the absolute nature of the knowledge a brain knows to exist.

As previously stated, and as I will continue to repeat, whenever one changes the focus of one’s interest, the terms one uses must also change. Otherwise, others will become confused as to what it is one is talking about.

Case in point:

When the focus of our interest is the inanimate objects of reality, we say the relationship between them is electrochemical—that it is representative of a naturally occurring chemical relationship.
When the focus of our interest changes to include the animate objects of reality, we say the relationship between them is sensual, or that it is representative of a naturally occurring sensual stimulation.
When the focus of our interest changes to include a brain, we say the relationship is factual, or that it is a naturally occurring sensual known.
When the focus of our interest changes to include an image (a brain-image), we say it is evidence of brain consciousness, or that the image is a true representation of that aspect of physical reality responsible for causing one’s brain consciousness to image its existence.

In each case, the fundamentals of the relationship are electrochemical. But since the conditions being discussed are vastly different, this alone requires us to change the terms we use to discuss them. We do this to avoid becoming confused as to what it is we are specifically talking about.

Insane Aberration

Under the insane alternative, the equivalent to the physical existence of real knowledge is the insane existence of mental aberration. Where knowledge is the existence of the absolute nature of physical reality, aberration is the existence of the insane nature of demonic hallucination.

Demonic aberration is a result of the deranged actions of a damaged brain. The insane existence of demons within a brain is hallucinated into existence rather than being imaged into existence by normal brain consciousness. In other words, hallucinatory demonizing is the insane contrary of conscious imaging.

Conscious brain-imaging is a naturally occurring function of a properly operating brain. Conscious imaging can only occur within a brain when an object of reality is within the sensual range of that brain. That object’s brain-image is conscious evidence of its physical existence. But notice—it is conscious evidence of that brain’s physical existence as well.

Since a demonic aberration is hallucinated into existence, its cause is not available for scrutiny by the brains of others. In other words, the non-real (insane or demonic) existence of a mental hallucination cannot be validated. It is as if a no-thing actually does exist as a something that does not exist. This contradiction is so bizarre its existence is considered evidence of mental illness. This is why this alternative is often called the emotional alternative.

Schizophrenia is the deluded contrary of factually based brain consciousness. To be schizophrenic is to not be able to understand the cause of one’s mental delusions, of one’s demons. Therefore, schizophrenia can be a very scary mental condition.

Religious Faith

Under the religious alternative, is where we talk about faith. Like schizophrenia, faith can also be considered an abnormal mental condition. And, like schizophrenia, faith is also a fear-based mental condition. For example, “If you don’t behave as God says, you are going to go to hell.”

Unlike schizophreni, which is the delusional creation of mental demons, faith is a volitional act of religious acceptance. To be religious is to unconditionally accept the dogmatic claims of one’s trusted religious advisors. Fundamentally, their claims are based on whatever it is their brain is capable of hallucinating. Religion demands that one simply believe the demonic claims of these trusted others as they continue to attempt to convince one’s mind these are the actual spoken words of their God.

Where demonic schizophrenia is considered to be a serious brain malfunction, volitional religious acceptance is considered to be that spiritually based brain function called belief. To a religious mind, the mystical, magical, supernatural basis of spiritual belief supersedes the absolute physical basis of human intelligence. The influence of religious belief on one’s thoughts and thereby on one’s actions cannot be predicted because it has no known or verifiable foundation. Since the belief basis of faith is not founded on known and explained cause-and-effect relationships, then, religious acceptance actually interferers with one’s intellectual development and growth.

How else is one to explain why some people purposefully blow themselves up? These people believe they are acting in a proper human way. That is why they do that. They can and do understand what the actual physical consequence to their living person is going to be. Yet they do it anyway. Why? Because they believe there is going to be a second mystical, spiritual, magical, supernaturally based consequence following the first! Otherwise, they have no reason or purpose for blowing themselves up. From where did they get this absurd notion? They got it from their trusted religious advisors! They got their information as to what proper human behavior is and requires of them from the same kinds of people you may be getting your information from.

Faith is that mental condition where one simply believes that others know what it is they are talking about. As such, belief is not a means of gaining knowledge. It is the means of becoming and/or remaining ignorant. The faithful are ignorant of that which is a requirement for humans to achieve happiness right here on earth.

The faithful do not and cannot become faithful by thinking about that which they know to be the case. Under the religious alternative, thinking is considered a blasphemous mental action. Believing (or at least faking to be a believer) is a requirement of staying alive in many cultures dominated by religious theology.

The faithful are taught from very early childhood to accept the beliefs of their trusted religious advisors. In most cases, this includes their parents. This is why religious people simply accept whatever their trusted religious advisors say is the case, under any condition and any circumstance. One hopes their religious advisors know what it is they are talking about, but they do not. Their information is of a mystical nature, and it is recorded within religious dogma.

Dogmatically recorded belief, by definition, does not relate to reality. It has no relationship to or with knowledge. The recorded dogma of any faith exists by result of the spiritual operations of mystically focused minds. Religious dogma exists by result of those insane minds that have been able to transition the demons of their hallucinations into the angels of their religion.

By necessity of this self-imposed insanity, a religious person can be expected to do and/or say anything, and can also be expected to be equally willing to accept whatever the consequence of acting in accordance with whatever his or her stated belief is.

Rational Explanation

It isn’t until we again reach this alternative, the rational alternative, that we can begin to explain the nature of human nature and that upon which its happy existence depends.

Explanation requires us to prove a claim is rational, that it is based in what is sensually known about the absolute nature of physical reality. That it is equally valid for every person who has ever lived, for every person who now lives, and for every person who will ever live at any time in the future.

Under this alternative, the source of the information used within an explanation is held conceptually. It is held within human conceptual intelligence (there is no other kind!). Rather than being automatically known to exist, as is the case with knowledge, conceptual intelligence is purposefully created by a rational functioning mind. But, recall, it is created from that which a properly functioning brain sensually knows to be the case. It is created from the knowledge a brain has sensually (electrochemically) transmitted to and into its mind for processing into intelligence.

Recall here, again, that when a brain knows that knowledge exists, this does not imply, as if by the law of necessity that that brain is conscious of what it knows. This same caution must now be expressed with regard to the volitional conceptual transformation of knowledge into intelligence.

Just because the knowledge a brain becomes conscious of is now being perceived to be the information necessary for one’s intellectual development and growth, this does not imply—again as if by the law of necessity—that that information has been, will be, or even can be conceptualized into one’s intelligence. This depends on how well the conceptual function of one’s brain is able to work. And this does vary greatly from one individual to another.

Case in point: Recall when I was explaining my daughter’s mental condition, described as severe mental impairment. Although her mind functioned in a rational manner, it was not able to efficiently conceptualize what it knew to be the case into intelligence. Her conceptual mind functioned at less than 30 percent efficiency even though her conscious brain functioned 100 percent rationally.

Conceptualization

The evidence proving one’s brain is conscious of the knowledge it sensually knows to exist is called a brain-image; it is its true image. Alternately, a brain-image is conscious evidence of the physical nature of the knowledge one’s brain sensually knows to exist.

Note that that knowledge has not been physically moved into, or somehow physically relocated into, one’s brain. One’s brain is merely conscious of its factual influence on one’s brain. One’s brain does not and cannot possess knowledge in its physical form. Knowledge exists within ones brain as an electrochemical change to and within the chemical and physical structure of one’s brain.

Notice here how it is necessary that we have already changed the terms we are using.

Knowledge is the existence of the absolute nature of physical reality. When knowledge comes within the sensual range of one’s brain, it causes an electrochemical change to occur to and within one’s brain. When one’s brain becomes conscious of that electrochemical change, it—the consciousness function of one’s brain—creates a true image of that which is responsible for causing the electrochemical change to occur. In other words, the brain-consciousness function creates a knowledge-based brain-image from the sensually transmitted data it receives from its sense-organ extensions. This is why its brain-image is considered to be its true mental representation rather than its actual physical existence.

Recall that the source of the materials a brain uses to construct the true nature of its brain-images is not physical reality; it is the factual influence of physical reality on it. Note this very important distinction. Fact is not a condition of physical reality. Fact exists within a brain as a direct result of its sensually known experiences with the objects of physical reality.

When a brain becomes conscious, what it becomes conscious of is fact. Since a brain cannot sense nothing—that is, it cannot factually know the existence of nothing—it cannot become conscious of nothing. When a brain-image seems to exist but there is no physical cause of it, this is called hallucination, and the resulting brain-image is re-termed to become demon. It is a demonic brain existent rather than a true brain existent. Demonic brain activity is not normal—it is insane.

A beastly functioning brain believes its brain-image is a real physical something. But a rational functioning mind can understand that this is not the case. Note: Brains do believe, and minds can understand. The difference between brain-believing and mind-understanding is the difference between beast and human, between faith and intelligence.

The true nature of a brain-image is what its mind-function perceives as being the information required to create its identity. Note here: That which a brain has consciously imaged is considered to be a true representation of that which is responsible for causing the initial brain stimulation. But that which its mind-function perceives is considered to consist of the information it needs to create its identity. Its mind function perceives the factual nature of a brain-image to be the information of which identity consists.

One must continue to recall that whenever one changes the focus of one’s interest, the terms one uses to explain what one is talking about must also change.

Again: When a mind perceives the factual nature of a brain-image, it converts that into the informational nature of identity. A discussion involving human brain functioning is focused on the objects’ of reality, but a discussion involving its mind-function is focused on their identity. Identity is considered to be the mental conduit through which all fact-based information flows into one’s mind to be processed into the conceptual nature of one’s intelligence.

When discussing reality, we are concerned with the absolute nature of real objects. When discussing brain consciousness, we are concerned with the factual nature of their brain-images. And now, when discussing mind awareness, we are concerned with the valid nature of their mental-identity. In other words, to be considered valid, mental identity must be a result of that which is sensually known to exist.

Ultimately, identity must consist of knowledge. Where the known aspect of knowledge is called data, the valid aspect of its identity is called information. It is the information of which identity consists that is abstracted from it to create ideas. And it is ideas that are conceptualized into intelligence. The function of the human mind that conceptualizes ideas into intelligence is called reason.

Where identity is the valid existence of information, intelligence is the rational existence of ideas. To be considered valid, information must have a real, sensually known source—that is, it must consist of knowledge. Notice how, in each case, the meaning of both valid and rational is related to the absolute nature of physical existence: knowledge.

Concepts are the way the human mind stores the information it abstracts from identity. Conceptually stored information is considered intellectual because it is a naturally occurring epistemological result of the absolute nature of physical reality, of knowledge. Concepts denote (stand in the place of) the absolute nature of knowledge.

Note: The absolute nature of knowledge is said to exist objectively, but the abstract nature of intelligence is said to exist conceptually. The abstract nature of conceptual intelligence, then, is the epistemological equivalent of the absolute nature of objective reality. In other words, conceptual intelligence cannot exist in the absence of the absolute physical nature of knowledge.

Notice that it is impossible to know nothing. Also notice that much of “modern” science is based on the existence of something that is not known to exist. This is called an absurdity! Under the religious alternative, this would be called belief, but here under the rational alternative it is called absurdity. Remember that we need to change the terms whenever we change the focus of our discussion.

The mind of those people who are blowing themselves up is focused on a no-thing as if that actually is a real something that (rather conveniently for their belief system) does not exist. They deserve what they get - nothing.

Explanation

First we needed to resolve how sound symbols evolved into language. Now we can use that language to evolve what an explanation is and requires.

To explain something means to provide the source of one’s information. Which, in turn, requires knowing what it is one is talking about. Knowing is an automatically occurring sensual event between two objects when at least one of those objects is a brain. Knowing occurs in reality, the absolute nature of which is called knowledge. The existence of the absolute nature of physical reality is what knowledge is.

An explanation, then, is derived from knowledge. An explanation cannot be different from what it is, because it is derived from the absolute nature of physical reality. The oft-heard mantra “Let’s just agree to disagree” is an absurdity. The only position more absurd is the unconditional acceptance of the religious claim that a no-thing [insert deity God] is a something that does not exist in a knowable way; that is, it does not actually physically exist, therefore (whatever its existence is claimed to be) it must be (can only be) believed into existence. The only way the claimed existence of a deity God can influence one’s mind and therefore one’s actions is if its nonexistence is believed into existence.

To explain something is to reveal one’s intelligence. An explanation involves demonstrating the absolute nature of that upon which its intellectual existence depends. To explain the nature of human happiness is to reveal the laws of nature governing what a proper human existence consists of, and that upon which its continued existence depends. Explaining the nature of human nature is, by necessity, done outside the dogmatic boundaries enforced by religious believers.

Under certain circumstances, explaining the nature of human nature can be very dangerous. Some people get so upset they actually explode!

Click Here For Note-5

If you could explain GOD - would you?

Post 3 of 17 -- Evolution of Language

2010-11-03T09:53:00.001-04:00

When we speak to others, there are four alternatives

as to how that can and does take place.

*************************************************************************

Real Communication

Alternative-1 in the figure above is the real alternative.

The real alternative involves the conscious state of existence. This is where things are said to exist as a real something.

Under the real alternative the existence of real something’s is considered absolute. This is where the absolute nature of real something’s is said to be physical.

Under the real alternative the physical existence of real something’s is sensually known to exist. This is why this alternative is often called the objective alternative.

Insane Ranting

Alternative-2 in the figure above is the insane alternative.

The insane alternative involves the schizophrenic state of existence. This is where things are said to exist as a no-thing.

Under the insane alternative the existence of no-thing is considered demonic. This is where the demonic existence of an insane no-thing is said to be evidence of a serious mental condition.

Under the insane alternative the existence of an insane no-thing is hallucinated into existence. This is why this alternative is often called the emotional alternative.

Religious Edicts

Alternative-3 in the figure above is the religious alternative.

The religious alternative involves the dogmatic state of existence. This is where the existence of no-things are said to exist spiritually.

Under the religious alternative the spiritual existence of dogmatic no-things is hoped to be beneficial to man. This is where the beneficial nature of religious hope is held mystically.

Under the religious alternative the beneficial nature of religious hope is simply believed into existence. This is why this alternative is often called the supernatural alternative.

Rational Understanding

Alternative-4 in the figure above is the rational alternative.

The rational alternative involves the reasoned state of existence. This is where things are said to exist as ideas.

Under the rational alternative the existence of ideas is considered intellectual. This is where the intellectual nature of ideas is said to exist abstractly.

Under the rational alternative the abstract nature of an idea can be conceptually proven to be that which it is claimed to be.

It is under this alternative that the conceptual nature of ideas is considered to be evidence of intelligence. This is why this alternative is often called the scientific alternative.

Examining the Four Alternatives

To this point, we have fairly successfully tracked

The Evolution of Language

Notice how we have moved from the symbolic nature of animal communication through the fearful nature of insane rants and through the demanding nature of religious edicts to now end up at the meaningful nature of human language.

Under the REAL Alternative

Non-human animals (the beasts) create sounds to symbolize the existence of that which their brain has consciously imaged the factual nature of. Beasts communicate that which their brain has factually imaged by creating a specific sound to symbolize the true nature of its image within their brain. To humans, most beastly sound seems noisy. It seems noisy only because humans do not understand why it is being created.

Oftentimes, a human baby will make sounds that seem noisy for the very reason most beastly sound seems noisy.

Under the INSANE Alternative

Insane humans use sound in an effort to reveal the existence of that which has no relationship with or to physical nature. Although the sounds of insanity seem familiar, they lack a real application or rational meaning. This is because there seems to be no known purpose or identifiable reason for their use. It is as if the sounds occur in a manner similar to the noise resulting from nature interacting with nature at the inanimate level.

The insane do, of course, have a reason for creating human-like sound. It is the insane nature of their demons. But since the actual mental existence of these insane demons cannot be verified, their use of human sound seems noisy—that is, without a real cause or rational purpose.

Under the RELIGIOUS Alternative

Religious humans also make human sounds in an attempt to explain the existence of that which has no relationship to or within reality. The religious are attempting to explain the sounds resulting from their acceptance of the claims of their trusted intellectual sources. However, since these claims have no known source or purpose, religious persons are considered to be spiritually insane rather than mentally insane. Spiritual insanity is insanity as a result of volitional belief rather than by some sort of non-volitional mental impairment.

The religious attempt to explain why it’s okay for the sounds they use to exist absent a known cause or rational purpose. Unlike the insane, the religious have no known or knowable reason for why their sounds exist—and that does not seem to bother them in the least. This is because they have their God on their side. Their God takes the brunt of their insane beliefs, permitting them to avoid having to explain the absurdity of their claimed supernatural, spiritual, and/or mystical existence and/or cause.

The religious, of course, deny their close link with insanity. But notice—absent a link with reality, they are left with nothing to explain. If a no-thing actually did exist, what could be said about it? Nothing! Again notice: The religious have been trying to, and continue to try to, explain the existence of a no-thing. It is as if they are screaming into the darkness of no-place.

This is evidence of mental illness. Whether purposeful or not, it is still evidence of mental illness. Mental illness purposefully imposed on oneself is mental illness nonetheless.

Under the RATIONAL Alternative

Rational humans create language as an epistemological tool—a tool to explain reality, necessarily including the reality of happy human existence right here on earth. Knowing what one is talking about takes place in reality, explaining what one understands about that takes place in intelligence.

Click Here For Note-4

If you could explain GOD - would you?

Post 2 of 17 -- Discussing the fundamental nature of terms.

2010-11-02T09:52:00.002-04:00

Discussing the fundamental nature of terms

Chair

To point and say chair requires a much different kind of effort than explaining what chair means.

If one were to point at a certain physical object in reality and then simply uttered the sound visually symbolized as chair, one’s purpose for uttering that sound would be sensually known. Another would know what it is one was talking about. The other would know the meaning of and purpose for one’s creation of the sound visually symbolized as chair.

In this specific instance, one would be acting in a manner similar to the other high-functioning animals. One would simply be vocally symbolizing the physical existence of the object one’s brain is conscious of.

If, however, that object is not within the sensual range of the other’s brain, then one would need to explain why one was uttering the sound visually symbolized as chair. This requires an effort of a very different kind.

Therefore, prior to being able to explain anything, I must first explain why the audio/visual symbol explanation exists. I will begin with the audio/visual symbol know and then progress the discussion through validate and then through understand to finally end up at explanation.

Know

For others to know what you know requires that their brain is also being sensually stimulated by what its physical existence is.

Knowing is that automatically occurring sensual response between two objects when at least one of these objects is a brain. Knowing that a physical something exists cannot be avoided, controlled, influenced, or in any other way manipulated. But it can be denied.

Denial of what is known is a psychological issue and, as such, is outside the philosophical focus of this book.

Try this “knowing” test. Look at a real physical something, an object in reality. Then, without doing anything else, don’t know it. Don’t know that it actually does exist in a real physical way. It is impossible to “not-know” that a real physical something exists.

To know that a physical something exists is the first, the primary, requirement of being able to explain what it is and how it relates to the known existence of oneself.

When one says one knows something, one is saying that that something actually does physically exist and that any other person can also know it. If that something is not within the sensual range of the other’s brain, then one has the responsibility of validation.

Validate

To validate that what one is saying is rational requires that another’s brain is able to know that it does physically exist.

To validate means to be able to know. Validation is the ability of one’s brain to sensually observe that which is claimed to exist in a physically sensual way—and it is the requirement that another’s brain is able to sensually know that it does physically exist.

For example, if one were to claim, “There is a large orange orangutan riding around on a unicycle outside this room,” validating that claim as rational requires that its claimed physical existence is able to be known—that is, able to be sensually observed.

To validate that what one (or another) is saying is rational, one (or the other) must be able to go outside the room and sensually observe that which is claimed to exist there.

The requirement is that there actually is “a large orange orangutan riding around on a unicycle outside this room.” It must actually physically exist, otherwise the claim stating it does exist cannot be validated and the claim reverts to noise.

Absent the ability to validate a claim as rational, one has no option but to consider the claimant to be mistaken, is a liar, is delusional, or perhaps is a believer in the validity of that claim only because it was made by someone he or she trusts.

The ability to understand what it is that is being claimed to exist is a more fundamental and is, therefore, a more important issue.

Understand

For another to understand what one is saying requires that his or her mind is able to conceptually imagine what its physical existence would need to be if it were to be sensually known to exist.

Did you notice how our focus has changed from brain orientation to mind orientation with this last comment?

Note: It is not proper to claim that a mind is or can be sensually known to exist. This is because such a claim implies the physical existence of a real object. When we use the audio/visual symbol mind, what we are talking about is a specific type of functionality of the human brain. Importantly, no other animal has demonstrated the human brain functionality termed mind.

To this point, we have been dealing with brain consciousness. Brain consciousness requires that a brain is being physically stimulated. Brain consciousness involves sensually knowing that a physical something exists. Sensual brain knowing is a prerequisite of that same brain becoming factually conscious of what it sensually knows to exist. Evidence of factual consciousness is called an image—a brain-image.

When discussing the idea visually symbolized as understand, we must transition from brain orientation to mind orientation; that is, from brain consciousness to mind awareness. Where consciousness deals with the factual nature of brain-sensing, awareness deals with the true nature of mind-perception. In other words, we transition from the factual nature of brain-sensing through the true nature of conscious imaging to the perceptual nature of mind-understanding. We demonstrate perceptual understanding whenever we explain the true nature of that which our brain is factually conscious of.

Where brain consciousness is dependent on the factual nature of brain stimulation, resulting in that factual brain stimulation being ‘truthfully’ imaged, mind awareness is dependent on the true nature of conscious brain imagining, resulting in that true brain-image becoming perceptually identified. It is “perceptualized identity” that a mind uses to understand the absolute nature of human nature and that upon which its happy existence depends.

Where consciousness is the ability of a brain to create a true image of that which is physically stimulating it (that which it sensually knows to exist), understanding is the ability of that brain’s mind function to perceptually identify (that is, to purposefully create the identity of) whatever its brain is able to consciously create a true image of.

Where brain sensing is an objectively focused idea, brain consciousness is a factually focused idea. Where perceptual identification is an image-focused idea, rational understanding is an identity-focused idea. The point of commonality between brain and mind functions is identity. Where the objects of reality are sensed by innate brain functions, their identity is perceived by its purposeful mind functions. In other words, one’s own identity is not automatically sensed by one’s conscious brain, it is purposefully created by one’s perceptual mind.

Note that it is the objects of reality that are sensed by a brain to become the facts resulting from that brain’s physical experiences. Those facts are what consciousness converts into a true image of whatever is responsible for them. Since that brain’s images are constructed of fact, then, they are considered to be a true mental representation of that which is responsible for causing those facts to exist.

The primary function of a brain is to convert what it factually knows to exist into a true image of that which is responsible for bringing that fact into existence. The primary function of a mind is to convert the true nature of brain consciousness into the rational nature of mind-understanding.

Rational understanding cannot exist in the absence of perceptualized identity, which cannot exist in the absence of true imaging, which cannot exist in the absence of factual stimulation, which cannot exist in the absence of the absolute nature of physical reality.

Sensual knowing takes place between a brain and another physical object, whereas rational understanding takes place within that same brain’s mind function. What a brain factually senses the existence of is called an object of reality; what its mind rationally understands the existence of is called its perceptualized identity. Notice how an object’s identity does not exist in a real physical way. It exists in an abstract mental way—meaning its identity is purposefully created from what a brain factually knows to exist. It is in this way that identity is said to be objective, because it is created from the absolute nature of the physical existence of the objects of reality.

For a brain to create a true image of a real object requires that its physical nature exists within that brain in a specific kind of way, as the facts of which the true nature of its brain-image ultimately consists. For that same brain’s perceptual-mind function to identify what its brain has consciously created a true image of requires that the image exists in a specific kind of way, as the information of which its identity ultimately consists. When this is the case, that brain’s mind function is then able to abstract information from its identity and use it to construct the rational nature of the concepts upon which its intelligence depends.

The previous is saying that a concept is the epistemological concomitant of the metaphysical nature of an object. It is as if they exist as one and the same. Objects exist physically; the concepts resulting naturally from them exist rationally. Concepts cannot exist in the absence of the absolute nature of the physical objects upon which their rational nature depends.

An example: The rational nature of the audio/visual symbol chair is not the same as the physical nature of the object upon which its rational nature depends. Chair is merely the audio/visual symbol created to denote the physical existence of a specific real object. Chair is rational because it denotes physical reality. Its definition describes what it is and how one is related to it. In other words, it is the definition of the audio/visual symbol chair that is its conceptual aspect. Again, chair is not conceptual, its definition is. There are audio/visual symbols like large that are conceptual. These will be discussed later under the appropriate section.

For now, we must simply acknowledge that for others to understand what one is talking about requires that the concepts necessary for their understanding to take place must preexist in their mind. In this case: The concepts of large, orange, orangutan, riding, unicycle, outside, and room must preexist in their mind.

When this is the case, these concepts can be recalled by their mind and used to imagine (re-perceive) and thereby understand what their brain must become factually conscious of when it is taken outside the room to validate whether what one is saying is rational—whether it was constructed from what one’s brain sensually knows to be the case.

The other’s mind compares what its brain has become conscious of with that which it has imagined (re-perceived) it must sensually observe. When these agree—when the factual nature of brain consciousness agrees with the abstract nature of that which its mind has imagined—then that other’s mind has confirmed that one’s claim was rationally constructed.

Understanding the conceptual structure of intelligence is the prerequisite of one being able to use one’s intelligence to formulate a rational explanation.

Explain

For others to explain what one is talking about requires that their mind is able to think about what that requires of it.

Their mind must think about, and be able to explain, the requirement that the concepts necessary for their understanding to take place must preexist within their mind. They must be able to explain that when this is the case, then their mind is able to understand what it is one is talking about.

Their mind must think about, and be able to explain, the requirement that to validate whether what one is saying is rational, what one is claiming to be the case must actually physically be the case. They must be able to explain that when this is the case, then another’s brain can know what it is one is talking about and thereby validate one’s claim as rational.

Their mind must think about, and be able to explain, the requirement that for another to know what one knows requires their brain is also being physically stimulated by what one’s brain sensually knows is the case.

Since I will expect you, when you finish reading this book, to be able to explain God, then I must cause you to have a godly experience, or I must cause you to recall a godly experience.

The necessitated rational thinking is your responsibility.

I cannot cause you to think rationally and thereby learn how to explain God or anything else.

Click Here for Note-3

If you could explain GOD - would you?

Post 1 of 17 -- Discussing the fundamental nature of sound.

2010-11-01T09:51:00.007-04:00

The Three Fundamental Types of Sound

If you were to walk into a forest and stand quietly beside a flowing brook, you would soon become aware of various types of sound.

Noise

You would become aware of the sound produced as the water flows down the brook and as the wind blows though the trees and grasses. This sound has been named: it is called noise.

Noise is the name assigned to naturally occurring sound. It results from nature interacting with nature at the inanimate level.

Communication

As you continued to stand there, you would become aware of another type of sound, the sound that the forest animals make. Forest animals purposefully make sound. This purposefully created sound is not called noise, it is called communication.

Forest animals communicate what they are conscious of by making specific kinds of sounds to denote that it exists. The purpose of animal communication, then, is to vocally symbolize the conscious existence of a physical something or relationship. For example, forest animals communicate anger, fear, acceptance, and a desire to mate.

The sounds forest animals make can seem quite noisy to humans, because their sounds seem to lack a well-defined or understandable purpose. When the sounds of forest-animal communication lack a known or defined purpose, they revert back to being called noise.

Language

Then, as you returned to society, you would become aware of the sounds that humans create.

Like all high-functioning animals, humans purposefully create sound. But purposefully created human sound is not called communication. It is called language.

Unlike forest-animal communication, the purpose of which is to vocally symbolize the conscious existence of a sensually known something or relationship, the purpose of human language is to explain the nature of human nature and that upon which its happy existence depends.

Also unlike the other animals, humans have the ability to create visual symbols to denote the existence of the sound symbols they create. Examples of visual symbols humans have created to symbolize the existence of the vocalized sounds of their language are displayed within this very book.

Notice how the way some people use language seems very noisy. These people seem to be using common terms of the human language, but the way they are using these terms leaves us confounded as to what they are actually talking about—or worse, what they believe they are actually talking about.

They may believe they are using language in a proper human way, but they are not. Even the human language, when not referencing something known or knowable, reverts back to being called noise.

To keep this book [blog] from being considered noisy, I will begin by discussing why humans make certain types of audio/visual symbols called language, and then advance that discussion until I get to the sound visually symbolized as explanation. Then I will have the material with which to develop a completely new philosophy: the philosophy of explanation.

From this foundation, I will be able to explain God. But first we must start with something much more concrete.

Click Here For Note-2

If you could explain GOD - would you?