The problem is that we are mostly not conscience of the fact that the healthy brain is constructed to follow patterns in a special manner so that we can interact with physical regulations or laws. The facts are that through experience, and depending upon our actions, we apply thousands and thousands times the “cause and effect” rule in order to function within our environment.

It is hard for me to believe that individuals would actually think that for the GGU-model I have modeled some obscure form of logic that is not comparable to human logic. The facts are that I have modeled only two trivial forms where all but one is the cause and effect logic used by a higher-intelligence and as comparable to our often unconscious application of this logic. Here is the basic model for cause and effect logic.

(PQ) We learn that a cause P yields an effect Q. So, apply P to get Q. Or simply accept that cause P yields effect Q. Then applying P, Q is obtained.

All but one GGU-model operator is a higher-intelligence form of (PQ). Now some will recognize (PQ) as but a form of “If P, then Q. Hence, applying or assuming P, we get Q.” This is the one rule of deduction used in the formal propositional logic. Thus, faith, the noun form of “to believe” which comes from “obeying an authority,” should lead to many effects. I think James may have indicated that actions should follow from faith in Jesus, that is a lively form of faith yield actions.

The only other GGU-model “logical form” is a higher-intelligence form of a trivial linguistics process. It’s something so trivial that few would bother expressing it although they use it all the time.

Given that a statement “A and B and C” is fact, where A and B and C are statements about, say, physical behavior. Then most, I hope , would agree that it is a rule of the English language and a shorter way of stating that A is fact, B is fact, C is fact. This is modeled in the propositional language by separate statements.

(T) If A and B and C, then A. If A and B and C, then B. If A and B and C, then C. Also one has the trivial statements “If A and B and C, then A and B.” And the other possible “and” combinations of the A, B, C including “If A and B and C, the B and A and C.” etc. This is certain rather trivial. All we have done is form other acceptable linguistic forms.

(E) So what’s so great about (T)? Well apply (PQ). For example, start with “if A and B and C, then A.“ Now consider “A and B and C” by itself. Then using (PQ) you get A alone. Using the other forms you get B alone, C alone.

The one other GGU logical operator *S is (a higher-intelligence form of (T) and (E). Whenever I write that such and such is a “higher-intelligence deductive result,” then it is a finite or, more likely, an infinite form of the (E) applied (PQ) and (T) logic and nothing more “obscure” than these.

Dr. Bob

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]