You are the one who used the term 'logic' without explaining precisely how it relate to your context.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Thu Dec 31, 2020 2:58 amFuck the term 'logic' given you cannot agree to the meaning. I'm getting annoyed here given you keep referencing crap that I cannot trust YOUR interpretation on PRECISELY because you cannot understand me here. How can I trust your references if I cannot trust your interpretation of me nor of me to you independent of outside sources?Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 8:51 amYou need to note "logic" is a weak tool to understand reality. Note Kant's comment on 'logic'.Scott Mayers wrote: ↑Mon Dec 28, 2020 12:04 am Noted. I am very very aware of the issues regarding those who feel that logic is a mere artificial tool that demands ONLY 'empirical' processes of reasoning. This is restricted to the vast majority of people in all times who believe that ONLY DIRECT witness to something from the senses ALONE are all that is considered 'real'. To me, it is a POLITIC to demand this because it ignores fundamentally that logic itself is LESS sound than those using it to argue for ANYTHING, including the things that people use their senses for.
I cannot seem to use 'logic' without some inappropriate digression on their understanding of the TERM and NOT MY MEANING. So let's use the term MECHANISM. I'm betting that this won't work either and will certainly misrepresent me with respect to others who use "logic" by my understanding.
But lets try. Everything is a 'mechanism'.
All things operate by some process of INPUTS AND OUTPUTS, of which these can also be shared. The term in the all those books by the label I cannot seem to use is "fan", meaning that for any THING, the inputs and outputs collectively. So when I discuss inputs and outputs, I may use fan to mean any 'interface' between some concept or object in mind or reality. [This is useful when thinking of an electronic component, like a chip. They use 'fan' in that it reminds one of some central concept at a point with lines 'fanning' out to represent any and all inputs and outputs.]
All things relate to this regardless of what the subject matter is. We ONLY question 'mechanisms' and ONLY 'question' things at all due to some 'barrier' that prevents us from getting what we want.
All intellectual reflection relates then to some kind of UNKNOWN to which we want to interpret and make sufficient sense of to get through or around some barrier.
I prefer using a 'box' or container to reference this. Think of some closed box to which represents the contents, not the literal container. Then, we might imagine labeling this box to reference what is inside it ARBITRARILY. That is, the label is only a referent, but represents ONLY what this box contains, whether it contains anything or not.
Can you agree to this this far?
[I cannot bother with responding to whatever else you wrote yet. I need to determine first that you UNDERSTAND me, something that I do not see. Then we may get back to whatever extra concerns you still have.]
When I referred to the general context [how else] you complained as if it is my fault.
My complain is you are bad at communicating your ideas.
My view is that your present idea [hypothesis] is not tenable and not realistic, that is why it is so difficult for you to get them through to others.
The above is related to System Theory,But lets try. Everything is a 'mechanism'.
All things operate by some process of INPUTS AND OUTPUTS, of which these can also be shared.
which is one of my mainstay principle of reality which I quote very often.
Note humans are part and parcel of the whole system of reality which is an open system.
A closed-box system can be defined for some limited context but cannot be applied to reality as all-there-is which is an open system.
Thus I cannot agree with your 'closed-box' context in trying to explain reality as all-there-is.
Btw, from the beginning I was not really interested in your hypothesis for it has no significant benefits for me at all, in contrast to the discussion of Morality which is adding to my database of knowledge.
I was just going along which I thought is for your sake [wasted a lot of my time] not mine.
I would prefer to stop discussing your thesis until I see something significant and striking [in your discussion with others] that could benefit in expanding my database. So far, there is none from you.