Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

Expand Messages
  • Joseph Polanik
    ... I experience; therefore, I am. Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
    Message 1 of 17 , Dec 27, 2012
      Roger Clough wrote:

      >2. That I exist or do not exist.

      I experience; therefore, I am.

      Joe

      --

      Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

      @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
      http://what-am-i.net
      @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
    • Philip Benjamin
      [Philip Benjamin]Existence of any kind must be evidential. If not, it is only a figment of imagination. Imagination itself is an existential evidence. If I
      Message 2 of 17 , Dec 27, 2012
        [Philip Benjamin]
        Existence of any kind must be evidential. If not, it is only a figment of imagination. Imagination itself is an existential evidence. If "I" do not exist, "I" do not and cannot imagine. Scientific science is factual fact. Define what must necessarily exist, and test the definition for rationaliy and logic. Nothing less or nothing more need be expected from finite, imperfect, temporal mortals.
        [Robert Karl Stonjek] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
        God, I and conscious computers....?


        Best regards
        Philip  
         
         
        Philip Benjamin
        PhD.MSc.MA

        Evidentialist

        Forthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelgänger"

        http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

        Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire

         "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012


        To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
        From: stonjek@...
        Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:40:30 +1100
        Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove 
        Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

        1. That God exists or does not exist.
         
        RKS:
        There are many versions of 'God', not all of them can be right and not all gods (around 10,000) can exist.


        2. That I exist or do not exist.
         
        RKS:
        True..


        3. That computers can be conscious or not.
        RKS:
        Computers not designed to emulate consciousness are very unlikely to be conscious.  Most computers are merely elaborate switching devices (the electronic switch is known as a 'flip-flop').
         
        Robert

        [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
        12/26/2012 
        "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen

        ------------------------------------

        •       
         
         
        .

      • Roger Clough
        Hi Joseph Polanik You re right, except that only YOU have the experience, and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective. It s the old
        Message 3 of 17 , Dec 28, 2012
          Hi Joseph Polanik
           
          You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,
          and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
          It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.
           
           
           
           
          [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
          12/28/2012
          "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
          ----- Receiving the following content -----
          Receiver: MindBrain
          Time: 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
          Subject: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

           

          Roger Clough wrote:

          >2. That I exist or do not exist.

          I experience; therefore, I am.

          Joe

          --

          Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

          @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
          http://what-am-i.net
          @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

        • Joseph Polanik
          ... unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences; and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself. ... there is an old problem
          Message 4 of 17 , Dec 28, 2012
            Roger Clough wrote:

            >You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,

            unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences;
            and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself.

            >and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
            >It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.

            there is an old problem lurking here; but, it is not solipsism.

            the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
            over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective.

            Joe



            >----- Receiving the following content -----
            >*From:* Joseph Polanik <mailto:jPolanik@...>
            >*Receiver:* MindBrain <mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
            >*Time:* 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
            >*Subject:* [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
            >disprove

            >Roger Clough wrote:

            >>2. That I exist or do not exist.

            >I experience; therefore, I am.


            --

            Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

            @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
            http://what-am-i.net
            @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
          • Philip Benjamin
            [Joseph Polanik] ....the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective. [Philip
            Message 5 of 17 , Dec 28, 2012
              [Joseph Polanik]"....the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
              over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective."

              [Philip Benjamin]

              As far as physical sciences are concerned, non-physical is an oxymoron. Those who want to dwell on nonphysical may find it more profitable to do so on a philosophy forum.

              triune continuum paradigm of spatiotemporal, constitution and information continuums is proposed by Naumenko (2002) cited also at http://research.triunecontinuum.com/tc-notion-logo.htm.  It is a necessary triunity, because none of them exists spatiotemporally without the others.

              Unlike Naumenko's model, there is no abstract ontology or an abstract model here, only real physical structures genetically co-created at the moment of conception*. The visible body will be the  spatiotemporal continuum. The subjective space-time metrics are used here for subjective representations. The axion body will be the constitution continuum which  subjective constitutional metrics as subjective representations of objects in relation with their environs. The neutrino body is the information continuum.  It relates information about objects and their setting to spatiotemporal intervals and thus contains information about mutual relations of the first two continuums. 

              Physicist Professor Nikolai Nijegorodov (2008) states: "in the nearest future physicists would prove, first theoretically and then experimentally that neutrino atom and neutrino molecules do exist. That would be enough evidence that life in the world of neutrino does exist".

              Nijegorodov N. " On Physical Interactions & the World of God". 2008;

              www.ub.bw/news.cfm?t=905 8-5-12

              A triune system of a neutrino body permeating an axion body which is permeating an ordinary fermion body (made of electrons, protons and neutrons) is more in line with what the ancients called the triunity of spirit-soul-body or the Vedic paramatman, atman, sarir. It resembles Plato's tripartite soul (rational, spirited, and appetitive), or the three gunnas of the Upanishads [Sat (Pure), Raja (Passionate), Tama ( Base)]; or the Buddhist normal level (sariri manussa), the supernormal (uttari manussa) and the sublime (ariya manussa). Freud formulated it as Id, Ego, Super-ego. Spirit, soul and body triunity (with spirit/soul as indistinguisahble) is/was deeply rooted in the Western thought. A neutrino body and an axion body both permeating and coupled to each other and to the visible bodywill have enormous explanatory powers. The inner-man = the neutrino body (psyche) + the axion body (pneuma). The outer-man = the body.

              The "self" thus is identical to the "soma" (the entire body exclusive of the germ cells) that possesses it and is permeated by and integrally coupled to it. Contrary to ordinary materialism, this inner world of self, or interiority, does not "arise" as an epiphenomenon out of the ordinary matter in the 'the learning, remembering brain encoded with representational maps.' The reality of interiority of the self cannot be different from the reality of the body itself. Else, self is a misnomer. Self cannot be any more potential than the body. The two are identical twin realities co-created at the very moment of conception. Both exist in the physical realm of matter, with this difference: one is of light-matter and the other of dark-matter.  

              Best regards
              PhilipPhilip Benjamin
              PhD.MSc.MA

              Evidentialist

              Forthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelgänger"

              http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

              Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire

               "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




               

              To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
              From: jPolanik@...
              Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:27:51 -0500
              Subject: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

               
              Roger Clough wrote:

              >You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,

              unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences;
              and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself.

              >and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
              >It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.

              there is an old problem lurking here; but, it is not solipsism.

              the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
              over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective.

              Joe

              >----- Receiving the following content -----
              >*From:* Joseph Polanik <mailto:jPolanik@...>
              >*Receiver:* MindBrain <mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
              >*Time:* 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
              >*Subject:* [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
              >disprove

              >Roger Clough wrote:

              >>2. That I exist or do not exist.

              >I experience; therefore, I am.

              --

              Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

              @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
              http://what-am-i.net
              @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@


            • Roger Clough
              Hi Joseph Polanik Correct, but the vaild or acceptable proofs are what you can show publicly or prove without doubt (to others). Evidence. Or as they say in
              Message 6 of 17 , Dec 28, 2012
                Hi Joseph Polanik
                 
                Correct, but the "vaild" or acceptable proofs are what you can
                show publicly or prove without doubt (to others). Evidence.
                 
                Or as they say in a court of law, "show me, don't tell me".
                 
                 
                 
                [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                12/28/2012
                "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                ----- Receiving the following content -----
                Receiver: MindBrain
                Time: 2012-12-28, 09:27:51
                Subject: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

                 

                Roger Clough wrote:

                >You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,

                unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences;
                and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself.

                >and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
                >It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.

                there is an old problem lurking here; but, it is not solipsism.

                the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective.

                Joe

                >----- Receiving the following content -----
                >*From:* Joseph Polanik <mailto:jPolanik@...>
                >*Receiver:* MindBrain <mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                >*Time:* 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
                >*Subject:* [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
                >disprove

                >Roger Clough wrote:

                >>2. That I exist or do not exist.

                >I experience; therefore, I am.

                --

                Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

                @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                http://what-am-i.net
                @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

              • Dr.d
                ... any kind must be evidential. I would agree except that existential reality of falsifiable and relevant experiences beyond the resolution threshold for
                Message 7 of 17 , Dec 28, 2012
                  --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Philip Benjamin wrote: "Existence of any kind must be evidential."

                  I would agree except that existential reality of falsifiable and relevant experiences beyond the resolution threshold for " finite, imperfect, temporal mortals..." humans we may have to settle for less than factual phenomenological evidence and search for metaphysical logic/bayesian probabilities outside 4-d space-time coordinates. Btw, it is not yet clear to me why, if you expect chemical interactions with 'light matter' would you choose non-baryonic dark matter in your model? That's the reason I explained the chemical reactivity with bonded hydrogen atoms by postulating in my BPS model 'dark baryonic' DNA/RNA cooperating with classical chemistry as the receptor intermediate between a transfinite n-1 d source of information (cosmic radiation, etc.) and a brain acceptor in the premotor neocortex phase space. I am sure you have good reasons I may not be aware of. I you can explain. Happy New 2013!  Angell

                   If not, it is only a figment of imagination. Imagination itself is an existential evidence. If "I" do not exist, "I" do not and cannot imagine. Scientific science is factual fact. Define what must necessarily exist, and test the definition for rationaliy and logic. Nothing less or nothing more need be expected from finite, imperfect, temporal mortals. [Robert Karl Stonjek] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
                  > God, I and conscious computers....?
                  >
                  > Best regards
                  > Philip
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  >
                  > Philip Benjamin
                  > PhD.MSc.MAEvidentialistForthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelgänger"http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                  > From: stonjek@...
                  > Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:40:30 +1100
                  > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

                  > Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
                  >
                  > 1. That God
                  > exists or does not exist.
                  >
                  > RKS:
                  > There are many versions of 'God', not all
                  > of them can be right and not all gods (around 10,000) can
                  > exist.
                  >
                  > 2. That I exist or do not exist.
                  >
                  > RKS:
                  > True..
                  >
                  > 3. That computers can
                  > be conscious or not.
                  >
                  > RKS:
                  > Computers not designed to emulate
                  > consciousness are very unlikely to be conscious. Most computers are merely
                  > elaborate switching devices (the electronic switch is known as a
                  > 'flip-flop').
                  >
                  > Robert
                  >
                  > [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                  > 12/26/2012
                  >
                  > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody
                  > Allen

                • Roger Clough
                  Hi Philip Benjamin Consciousness has no height nor width nor depth, it has no extension in space. So referring to the spaciotemporal is nonsense. [Roger
                  Message 8 of 17 , Dec 29, 2012
                    Hi Philip Benjamin

                    Consciousness has no height nor width nor depth, it has no extension in space.

                    So referring to the "spaciotemporal" is nonsense.


                    [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                    12/29/2012
                    "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                    ----- Receiving the following content -----
                    From: Philip Benjamin
                    Receiver: MindBrain MindBrain
                    Time: 2012-12-28, 11:18:29
                    Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove



                    [Joseph Polanik]"....the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                    over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective."
                    [Philip Benjamin]

                    As far as physical sciences are concerned, non-physical is an oxymoron. Those who want to dwell on nonphysical may find it more profitable to do so on a philosophy forum.
                    A triune continuum paradigm of spatiotemporal, constitution and information continuums is proposed by Naumenko (2002) cited also at http://research.triunecontinuum.com/tc-notion-logo.htm. It is a necessary triunity, because none of them exists spatiotemporally without the others.
                    Unlike Naumenko's model, there is no abstract ontology or an abstract model here, only real physical structures genetically co-created at the moment of conception*. The visible body will be the spatiotemporal continuum. The subjective space-time metrics are used here for subjective representations. The axion body will be the constitution continuum which subjective constitutional metrics as subjective representations of objects in relation with their environs. The neutrino body is the information continuum. It relates information about objects and their setting to spatiotemporal intervals and thus contains information about mutual relations of the first two continuums. Physicist Professor Nikolai Nijegorodov (2008) states: "in the nearest future physicists would prove, first theoretically and then experimentally that neutrino atom and neutrino molecules do exist. That would be enough evidence that life in the world of neutrino does exist".
                    Nijegorodov N. " On Physical Interactions & the World of God". 2008;
                    www.ub.bw/news.cfm?t=905 8-5-12 A triune system of a neutrino body permeating an axion body which is permeating an ordinary fermion body (made of electrons, protons and neutrons) is more in line with what the ancients called the triunity of spirit-soul-body or the Vedic paramatman, atman, sarir. It resembles Plato's tripartite soul (rational, spirited, and appetitive), or the three gunnas of the Upanishads [Sat (Pure), Raja (Passionate), Tama ( Base)]; or the Buddhist normal level (sariri manussa), the supernormal (uttari manussa) and the sublime (ariya manussa). Freud formulated it as Id, Ego, Super-ego. Spirit, soul and body triunity (with spirit/soul as indistinguisahble) is/was deeply rooted in the Western thought. A neutrino body and an axion body both permeating and coupled to each other and to the visible bodywill have enormous explanatory powers. The inner-man = the neutrino body (psyche) + the axion body (pneuma). The outer-man = the body.
                    The "self" thus is identical to the "soma" (the entire body exclusive of the germ cells) that possesses it and is permeated by and integrally coupled to it. Contrary to ordinary materialism, this inner world of self, or interiority, does not "arise" as an epiphenomenon out of the ordinary matter in the 'the learning, remembering brain encoded with representational maps.' The reality of interiority of the self cannot be different from the reality of the body itself. Else, self is a misnomer. Self cannot be any more potential than the body. The two are identical twin realities co-created at the very moment of conception. Both exist in the physical realm of matter, with this difference: one is of light-matter and the other of dark-matter.
                    Best regards
                    PhilipPhilip Benjamin
                    PhD.MSc.MA
                    Evidentialist
                    Forthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg?ger"
                    http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                    Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire
                    "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012









                    To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                    From: jPolanik@...
                    Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:27:51 -0500
                    Subject: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove


                    Roger Clough wrote:

                    >You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,

                    unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences;
                    and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself.

                    >and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
                    >It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.

                    there is an old problem lurking here; but, it is not solipsism.

                    the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                    over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective.

                    Joe

                    >----- Receiving the following content -----
                    >*From:* Joseph Polanik
                    >*Receiver:* MindBrain
                    >*Time:* 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
                    >*Subject:* [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
                    >disprove

                    >Roger Clough wrote:

                    >>2. That I exist or do not exist.

                    >I experience; therefore, I am.

                    --

                    Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

                    @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                    http://what-am-i.net
                    @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                  • Silk
                    If for no other reason than the spirit of Xmas I won t say it. Would be a thing of joy if the new year ushered in some interesting, thought provoking posts..I
                    Message 9 of 17 , Dec 29, 2012
                      If for no other reason than the spirit of Xmas I won't say it.
                      Would be a thing of joy if the new year ushered in some
                      interesting, thought provoking posts..I mean miracles do happen..or do they.
                      News years resolutions & cranberry sauce......
                      "There's only one person you should strive to be better than
                      and that's the person you were yesterday".........chao/SILK

                      --- On Fri, 12/28/12, Roger Clough <rclough@...> wrote:

                      From: Roger Clough <rclough@...>
                      Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
                      To: "- MindBrain@yahoogroups.com" <MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                      Date: Friday, December 28, 2012, 12:46 PM

                       

                      Hi Joseph Polanik
                       
                      Correct, but the "vaild" or acceptable proofs are what you can
                      show publicly or prove without doubt (to others). Evidence.
                       
                      Or as they say in a court of law, "show me, don't tell me".
                       
                       
                       
                      [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                      12/28/2012
                      "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                      ----- Receiving the following content -----
                      Receiver: MindBrain
                      Time: 2012-12-28, 09:27:51
                      Subject: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

                       

                      Roger Clough wrote:

                      >You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,

                      unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences;
                      and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself.

                      >and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
                      >It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.

                      there is an old problem lurking here; but, it is not solipsism.

                      the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                      over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective.

                      Joe

                      >----- Receiving the following content -----
                      >*From:* Joseph Polanik <mailto:jPolanik@...>
                      >*Receiver:* MindBrain <mailto:MindBrain@yahoogroups.com>
                      >*Time:* 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
                      >*Subject:* [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
                      >disprove

                      >Roger Clough wrote:

                      >>2. That I exist or do not exist.

                      >I experience; therefore, I am.

                      --

                      Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

                      @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                      http://what-am-i.net
                      @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

                    • chris kramer
                      the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective. Not phenomenologists.  And
                      Message 10 of 17 , Dec 29, 2012
                        "the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                        over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective."
                         
                        Not phenomenologists.  And really, dualism is hardly found at all within the group of philosophers of mind.
                         
                        Chris
                        From: Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...>
                        To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                        Sent: Friday, December 28, 2012 8:27 AM
                        Subject: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
                         
                        Roger Clough wrote:

                        >You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,

                        unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences;
                        and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself.

                        >and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
                        >It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.

                        there is an old problem lurking here; but, it is not solipsism.

                        the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                        over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective.

                        Joe

                        >----- Receiving the following content -----
                        >*From:* Joseph Polanik <mailto:mailto:jPolanik%40nc.rr.com>
                        >*Receiver:* MindBrain <mailto:mailto:MindBrain%40yahoogroups.com>
                        >*Time:* 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
                        >*Subject:* [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
                        >disprove

                        >Roger Clough wrote:

                        >>2. That I exist or do not exist.

                        >I experience; therefore, I am.

                        --

                        Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

                        @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                        http://what-am-i.net
                        @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@

                      • Dr.d
                        ... are evading the thread ... Re: Your two answers:1) I honestly didn t know what to answer to ...time, intuition and lateral thinking break the firewall
                        Message 11 of 17 , Dec 29, 2012
                          --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, "Dr.d" wrote:

                          --- In WEDconscious@yahoogroups.com, "Dhushara"  wrote: "Angell.....you are evading the thread ..."

                          Re: Your two answers:
                          1) I honestly didn't know what to answer to "... time, intuition and lateral thinking break the firewall between the unknowable and the known." If it is "...opaque....and beyond understanding...", why throw the towel? My reciprocal sub-model of information transfer to bridge that firewall between transfinity and neocortical phase space is my attempt to light that opaque darkness.
                          2) Likewise, my intuition about subhuman "..sentient consciousness is constitutionally unable to understand its own existential condition,..." is based on credible experimental evidence based on normal historical human prophets altruistically acting against the powerful genetic/memetic driving force  of self biopsychosocial (bps) interests and helping others, sometimes unknown to them. Equivalent subhuman behavior can be justified along the lines of maintaining a bps equilibrium. If there is a better factual evidence description or a metaphysical logic explanation, we are all ears... Happy New Year 2013!  Angell

                          >
                          > Angel,

                          > Before leading into to Philip's question you need to respond to your own observer problem. Otherwise you are evading the thread by cross-posting you and PB.

                          > Chris

                          > --- In WEDconscious@yahoogroups.com, "Dhushara" dhushara@ wrote:
                          > >
                          > > You asked for an answer - I have two:
                          > > 
                          > > Firstly the case where the opaque (beyond understanding) becomes clear as daylight. Archimedes before eureka - no known solution. The solution remains beyond human understanding at this point. After eureka in the bathtub - elementary my dear Watson! The point is that time, intuition and lateral thinking break the firewall between the unknowable and the known.
                          > > 
                          > > Secondly. You try to cite a kind of philosophical observer problem viz that sentient consciousness is constitutionally unable to understand its own existential condition, either because of Darwinian survival of the fittest (a distraction claiming ego blindness) or because of fundamental limitations (a non-evidential assumption based on some existential questions not being yet understood). This problem is not to do with consciousness itself but the philosophical process, which has the same limitations as religion. Religion confounds knowledge by asserting belief, philosophy by asserting propositional plausibility. The contradiction is that you try to assert this limitation on sentient beings, while letting God off the hook without there being any verifiable philosophical basis for such a distinction. If the one is true the other follows since God has to be conscious to have meaning. If the other is untrue i.e. God is not self-delimiting then the original assumption of human conscious fallibility is also a fallacy, so letting God off is a fudge and a deceit.
                          > > 
                          > > 
                          > > 
                          > > --- In WEDconscious@yahoogroups.com, "Dr.d"  wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > 
                          > > > 
                          > > > --- In WEDconscious@yahoogroups.com, "Dhushara" wrote: "......Infinity
                          > > > is never beyond our grasp. This is the root fallacy of your religious
                          > > > argument. The fact that we have no real trouble dealing with
                          > > > mathematical infinities as limits shows no such barriers exist."
                          > > > 
                          > > > I promise I will expand on my argument later, I am not concentrated,
                          > > > don't have the time nor the appropriate advance math background argument
                          > > > just now, but I will give you an advance. As a human being with real
                          > > > time spatiotemporal experiences day in and day out that make me ponder
                          > > > on these existential realities I can phenomenologically 'describe' but
                          > > > some I cannot and consequently have to rely on probable 'explanations'.
                          > > > In that order. I believe this is the experience of most humans brains
                          > > > that metaphysical logic carriage explanations cannot precede any
                          > > > phenomenological horse. If you can document any case to the contrary let
                          > > > us know. First and foremost, we all experience evolutionary
                          > > > phenomenological change before our brains try to explain it with
                          > > > linguistic symbols or sentences we conveniently create within the
                          > > > ongoing brain combinatorial limitations. As either the phenomenological
                          > > > or combinatorial resolurion capacity evolve in 'time' as witnessed by
                          > > > generations, we have to abandon the self-serving Platonism of of Weyl
                          > > > and others proclaiming that the truth of mathematical statements are
                          > > > tenseless and absolute. We wish and hope they can be but we don't know.
                          > > > Ergo, I would rather trust 'intuitionism' somewhat along the lines of
                          > > > Brouwer, its originator, except that I would still argue in favor of the
                          > > > excluded middle argument
                          > > > □nA ∨ ¬â–¡nA Truth and falsity have a temporal
                          > > > aspect; however an established phenomeno-
                          > > > 
                          > > > logical and falsifiable experience fact will remain so. Yes, we are very
                          > > > limited ontologically
                          > > > 
                          > > > and epistemologically but when we humans describe and explain both the
                          > > > existential and
                          > > > 
                          > > > probable noumenal reality we are at the center of the multiverse we
                          > > > create -a new Copernican
                          > > > 
                          > > > revolution- of sorts. More to come. Sorry but my Cabernet Savignon is
                          > > > waiting for me. More to
                          > > > 
                          > > > come if I survive this horrible 2012! Enjoy your holidays. Angell
                          > > > 
                          > > > 
                          > > > > Angel,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > You are selling life, the universe and everything short:
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Firstly we are as capable of love as hate, of compassion as
                          > > > expedience. Humanity has evolved to survive socially and human societies
                          > > > require a good measure of love and compassion, or they weaken themselves
                          > > > with internal exploitation and are consumed from without. Thus humans
                          > > > have original virtue, not religions, which merely add a moral imperative
                          > > > to an already existing emotional capacity.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Secondly: Infinity is never beyond our grasp. This is the root fallacy
                          > > > of your religious argument. The fact that we have no real trouble
                          > > > dealing with mathematical infinities as limits shows no such barriers
                          > > > exist.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Merry Xmas for secularity,
                          > > > >
                          > > > > The Messiah of the Apocalypse
                          > > > >
                          > > > > --- In WEDconscious@yahoogroups.com, "Dr.d" Dr.d@ wrote:
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > --- In WEDconscious@yahoogroups.com, "Dhushara" wrote:
                          > > > > > "......intelligent designer God, who cant quite see the crucial step
                          > > > by
                          > > > > > which emergence took place."Thanks for the undeserved accolades. IMO
                          > > > > > believing is a state of mind where valence emotions are in control
                          > > > to
                          > > > > > share or destroy. Their common denominator is a bias based on
                          > > > incomplete
                          > > > > > information about efficient causality as the driving force behind
                          > > > > > altruistic or destructive acts. I believe because it makes me feel
                          > > > happy
                          > > > > > to see others share with the needy in an atmosphere of cooperative
                          > > > > > conviviality that keeps us all in a community alive and happy. This
                          > > > may
                          > > > > > happen out in the woods or inside the structured formality of a
                          > > > church,
                          > > > > > synagogue, etc. and is usually accompanied by audiovisual inspiring
                          > > > > > rituals encouraging those present to make sacrifices and help the
                          > > > sick
                          > > > > > and poor. Those gatherings of negative valence use similar rituals
                          > > > to
                          > > > > > destroy what they perceive as negatively interfering with their
                          > > > > > established and ongoing biopsychosocial equilibrium conforming their
                          > > > > > genetical and memory databases. Two sides of same coin reflecting
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > subconscious content of their vital experiences in existential
                          > > > reality.
                          > > > > > Inherent human species limitations for most limits experience to
                          > > > > > phenomenological stimulus and reactions of a quasi-reflex nature.
                          > > > > > Whenever time permits during the struggle for existence in a
                          > > > changing
                          > > > > > environment, we all experience relevant metaphysical realities that
                          > > > > > resist physical description or even metaphysical explanations. For
                          > > > most,
                          > > > > > these are provided by prefab or pre-cooked ready made solutions that
                          > > > > > only need warming up in the stove, in the form of cults, rituals,
                          > > > etc.
                          > > > > > depending on the level of literary sophistication. Which side of the
                          > > > > > coin ultimately will prevail in absolute terms as evolution
                          > > > continues?
                          > > > > > Quare. So much for mesoscopic existential reality and the important
                          > > > role
                          > > > > > subconscious reflex life plays in sustaining life viability to
                          > > > > > reproductive age day to day. But, what about the future generations
                          > > > of
                          > > > > > the tomorrow?
                          > > > > > Well, do not expect those struggling to survive or those busy
                          > > > enjoying
                          > > > > > the hedonistic surreal pleasantries of money and/or power to further
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > analysis beyond the phenomenological and deal with the metaphysical
                          > > > > > reality that is just as relevant. Some favored with natural
                          > > > intelligence
                          > > > > > and literacy but trapped in lust and self-indulgence styles will
                          > > > become
                          > > > > > the nationalistic ruling oligarchy dictators of the left or the
                          > > > global
                          > > > > > controlling economic monopolistic capitalists of the right. Other
                          > > > free
                          > > > > > thinkers with a self-imposed mission to escape those temptations and
                          > > > > > look into the future with objective realism and attempt to examine
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > metaphysical realm as it pertains to existential reality, for they
                          > > > also
                          > > > > > enjoy being healthy and experiencing the emotion of happiness and
                          > > > social
                          > > > > > acceptance in their community. It is not easy to reconcile emotions
                          > > > with
                          > > > > > reason, sensory descriptions with extrasensory explanations. The
                          > > > > > biopsychosocial equilibrium requires unexpected sacrifices when you
                          > > > try
                          > > > > > to dissociate your subconscious emotions from your objective
                          > > > > > rationality... if there is such?? Here is an example of wild
                          > > > intuitions
                          > > > > > rooted mainly on our self evident knowledge of our species
                          > > > limitations
                          > > > > > in the phenomenological and brain combinatorial thresholds for
                          > > > > > resolution.Ergo, one has to doubt the possibility of knowledge about
                          > > > > > unreachable infinities and doubt how material things can emerge from
                          > > > > > non-material entities? Their phenomenological invisibility as
                          > > > > > particulate matter does not negate their presence......... unless we
                          > > > > > invoke sophistries like 'energy' in the Einstein equation E=MC2.
                          > > > IMHO,
                          > > > > > this is like the 'wavicle' confusion between particle and wave where
                          > > > the
                          > > > > > particle is confused with its characterizing attributes. Or worse,
                          > > > > > confusing the map with the territory. Like no red apple is possible
                          > > > > > without the physical apple, no wave without the physical particle,
                          > > > no
                          > > > > > map without the territory. Ergo, no physical effect, as measured,
                          > > > > > without a physical force and no spontaneous complexity without a
                          > > > plan,
                          > > > > > unless we adopt new physical laws of nature. I could be honest and
                          > > > > > objective because I am ignorant and that is why I continue looking
                          > > > for
                          > > > > > credible answers. I have been wrong before. Merry Xmas Angell
                          > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Angel,
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > You have done really well bearing up with tragedy this year. It's
                          > > > your
                          > > > > > insatiable curiosity that is the source of life's value and meaning
                          > > > amid
                          > > > > > transience and loss. So keep up the good work!
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > I don't know whether I believe the notion that complex eucaryote
                          > > > life
                          > > > > > is rare by comparison with bacterial and archaeal life. Cells
                          > > > engulfing
                          > > > > > one another is a very natural process and endosymbiosis has happened
                          > > > not
                          > > > > > just once but heaps of time in different ways not just chloroplasts
                          > > > and
                          > > > > > mitochondria, but lots of different arrangements in protozoa.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Just for a minute consider this ... when you try to understand
                          > > > > > emergent complexity and then say it must be intelligent design
                          > > > because
                          > > > > > you can't quite see how it could have happened, nor can lay it out
                          > > > in a
                          > > > > > logical sequence, the reverse is happening, in fact you as the
                          > > > > > omniscient observer who would be designer if you could just find the
                          > > > > > connection, remain mystified and then claim human consciousness is
                          > > > to
                          > > > > > fallible to understand the mystery. Now what this looks like to me
                          > > > is a
                          > > > > > classic case of emergence mystifying the would be intelligent
                          > > > designer
                          > > > > > God, who cant quite see the crucial step by which emergence took
                          > > > place.
                          > > > > > Hence the designer philosopher is thwarted in their strategy. Just
                          > > > so
                          > > > > > God is thwarted by nature.
                          > > > > > >
                          > > > > > > Chris
                          > > > > > >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In MindBrain@yahoogroups.com, Philip Benjamin wrote: "Existence of
                          > any kind must be evidential."
                          > I would agree except that existential reality of falsifiable and
                          > relevant experiences beyond the resolution threshold for "finite,
                          > imperfect, temporal mortals..." humans we may have to settle for less
                          > than factual phenomenological evidence and search for metaphysical
                          > logic/bayesian probabilities outside 4-d space-time coordinates. Btw, it
                          > is not yet clear to me why, if you expect chemical interactions with
                          > 'light matter' would you choose non-baryonic dark matter in your model?
                          > That's the reason I explained the chemical reactivity with bonded
                          > hydrogen atoms by postulating in my BPS model 'dark baryonic' DNA/RNA
                          > cooperating with classical chemistry as the receptor intermediate
                          > between a transfinite n-1 d source of information (cosmic radiation,
                          > etc.) and a brain acceptor in the premotor neocortex phase space. I am
                          > sure you have good reasons I may not be aware of. I you can explain.
                          > Happy New 2013! Angell
                          > If not, it is only a figment of imagination. Imagination itself is an
                          > existential evidence. If "I" do not exist, "I" do not and cannot
                          > imagine. Scientific science is factual fact. Define what must
                          > necessarily exist, and test the definition for rationaliy and logic.
                          > Nothing less or nothing more need be expected from finite, imperfect,
                          > temporal mortals. [Robert Karl Stonjek] Three things that one cannot
                          > prove or disprove
                          > > God, I and conscious computers....?
                          > >
                          > > Best regards
                          > > Philip
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > Philip Benjamin
                          > > PhD.MSc.MAEvidentialistForthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical
                          > Spirit? Your Invisible
                          > Doppelgänger"http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                          > Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry",
                          > International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20,
                          > 2012To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                          > > From: stonjek@
                          > > Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2012 10:40:30 +1100
                          > > Subject: Re: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
                          > disprove
                          >
                          > > Three things that one cannot prove or disprove
                          > >
                          > > 1. That God
                          > > exists or does not exist.
                          > >
                          > > RKS:
                          > > There are many versions of 'God', not all
                          > > of them can be right and not all gods (around 10,000) can
                          > > exist.
                          > >
                          > > 2. That I exist or do not exist.
                          > >
                          > > RKS:
                          > > True..
                          > >
                          > > 3. That computers can
                          > > be conscious or not.
                          > >
                          > > RKS:
                          > > Computers not designed to emulate
                          > > consciousness are very unlikely to be conscious. Most computers are
                          > merely
                          > > elaborate switching devices (the electronic switch is known as a
                          > > 'flip-flop').
                          > >
                          > > Robert
                          > >
                          > > [Roger Clough], [rclough@]
                          > > 12/26/2012
                          > >
                          > > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody
                          > > Allen
                          >
                        • Roger Clough
                          Hi Phillip, What you are doing by forbidding philosophy is redefining science as materialism. Materialism is not science, it s a religious cult. [Roger
                          Message 12 of 17 , Dec 30, 2012
                            Hi Phillip,
                             
                            What you are doing by forbidding philosophy is redefining science as materialism.
                            Materialism is not science, it's a religious cult.
                             
                             
                            [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                            12/30/2012
                            "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                            ----- Receiving the following content -----
                            Time: 2012-12-29, 04:59:13
                            Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

                             

                            Hi Philip Benjamin

                            Consciousness has no height nor width nor depth, it has no extension in space.

                            So referring to the "spaciotemporal" is nonsense.


                            [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                            12/29/2012
                            "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                            ----- Receiving the following content -----
                            From: Philip Benjamin
                            Receiver: MindBrain MindBrain
                            Time: 2012-12-28, 11:18:29
                            Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove



                            [Joseph Polanik]"....the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                            over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective."
                            [Philip Benjamin]

                            As far as physical sciences are concerned, non-physical is an oxymoron. Those who want to dwell on nonphysical may find it more profitable to do so on a philosophy forum.
                            A triune continuum paradigm of spatiotemporal, constitution and information continuums is proposed by Naumenko (2002) cited also at http://research.triunecontinuum.com/tc-notion-logo.htm. It is a necessary triunity, because none of them exists spatiotemporally without the others.
                            Unlike Naumenko's model, there is no abstract ontology or an abstract model here, only real physical structures genetically co-created at the moment of conception*. The visible body will be the spatiotemporal continuum. The subjective space-time metrics are used here for subjective representations. The axion body will be the constitution continuum which subjective constitutional metrics as subjective representations of objects in relation with their environs. The neutrino body is the information continuum. It relates information about objects and their setting to spatiotemporal intervals and thus contains information about mutual relations of the first two continuums. Physicist Professor Nikolai Nijegorodov (2008) states: "in the nearest future physicists would prove, first theoretically and then experimentally that neutrino atom and neutrino molecules do exist. That would be enough evidence that life in the world of neutrino does exist".
                            Nijegorodov N. " On Physical Interactions & the World of God". 2008;
                            www.ub.bw/news.cfm?t=905 8-5-12 A triune system of a neutrino body permeating an axion body which is permeating an ordinary fermion body (made of electrons, protons and neutrons) is more in line with what the ancients called the triunity of spirit-soul-body or the Vedic paramatman, atman, sarir. It resembles Plato's tripartite soul (rational, spirited, and appetitive), or the three gunnas of the Upanishads [Sat (Pure), Raja (Passionate), Tama ( Base)]; or the Buddhist normal level (sariri manussa), the supernormal (uttari manussa) and the sublime (ariya manussa). Freud formulated it as Id, Ego, Super-ego. Spirit, soul and body triunity (with spirit/soul as indistinguisahble) is/was deeply rooted in the Western thought. A neutrino body and an axion body both permeating and coupled to each other and to the visible bodywill have enormous explanatory powers. The inner-man = the neutrino body (psyche) + the axion body (pneuma). The outer-man = the body.
                            The "self" thus is identical to the "soma" (the entire body exclusive of the germ cells) that possesses it and is permeated by and integrally coupled to it. Contrary to ordinary materialism, this inner world of self, or interiority, does not "arise" as an epiphenomenon out of the ordinary matter in the 'the learning, remembering brain encoded with representational maps.' The reality of interiority of the self cannot be different from the reality of the body itself. Else, self is a misnomer. Self cannot be any more potential than the body. The two are identical twin realities co-created at the very moment of conception. Both exist in the physical realm of matter, with this difference: one is of light-matter and the other of dark-matter.
                            Best regards
                            PhilipPhilip Benjamin
                            PhD.MSc.MA
                            Evidentialist
                            Forthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg?ger"
                            http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                            Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire
                            "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012









                            To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                            From: jPolanik@...
                            Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:27:51 -0500
                            Subject: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove


                            Roger Clough wrote:

                            >You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,

                            unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences;
                            and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself.

                            >and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
                            >It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.

                            there is an old problem lurking here; but, it is not solipsism.

                            the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                            over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective.

                            Joe

                            >----- Receiving the following content -----
                            >*From:* Joseph Polanik
                            >*Receiver:* MindBrain
                            >*Time:* 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
                            >*Subject:* [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
                            >disprove

                            >Roger Clough wrote:

                            >>2. That I exist or do not exist.

                            >I experience; therefore, I am.

                            --

                            Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

                            @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                            http://what-am-i.net
                            @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@





                          • Philip Benjamin
                            [Roger Clough] .... forbidding philosophy is redefining science as materialism.... [Philip Benjamin]Science is restricted to testable explanations,
                            Message 13 of 17 , Dec 30, 2012
                              [Roger Clough] ".... forbidding philosophy is redefining science as materialism...."
                              [Philip Benjamin]
                              Science is restricted to testable explanations, universally true reproducible experimental results and evidential empiricism, involving fundamentals of physically existing things. Philosophy is more general and broad, dealing with the fundamentals of existence, meaning, values, virtues, ultimate reality, knowledge, cognition, logic, reason, mind etc.
                              Incidentally, Bio dark-matter chemistry is more philosophy than science. It is science only in limited respects: 1. Testable ab initio cmputations are possible. 2. Empirical explanation of biophoton emission rates differing by an order of magnitude across the taxa. 3. It is no less science than dark-matter science itself. 
                              Bio dark-matter and its chemistry may yield phenomena that are akin, or rather exactly the same as, to those attributed to the folk-lore spirit/soul. That does not make the latter science- it is still folk-lore, unless and untill redefined.     


                              Best regards
                              Philip  
                               
                               
                              Philip Benjamin
                              PhD.MSc.MA

                              Evidentialist

                              Forthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelgänger"

                              http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

                              Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire

                               "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




                               

                              To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                              From: rclough@...
                              Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:22:42 -0500
                              Subject: Re: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

                               
                              Hi Phillip,
                               
                              What you are doing by
                              Materialism is not science, it's a religious cult.
                               
                               
                              [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                              12/30/2012
                              "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                              ----- Receiving the following content -----
                              Time: 2012-12-29, 04:59:13
                              Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

                               

                              Hi Philip Benjamin

                              Consciousness has no height nor width nor depth, it has no extension in space.

                              So referring to the "spaciotemporal" is nonsense.


                              [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                              12/29/2012
                              "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                              ----- Receiving the following content -----
                              From: Philip Benjamin
                              Receiver: MindBrain MindBrain
                              Time: 2012-12-28, 11:18:29
                              Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove



                              [Joseph Polanik]"....the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                              over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective."
                              [Philip Benjamin]

                              As far as physical sciences are concerned, non-physical is an oxymoron. Those who want to dwell on nonphysical may find it more profitable to do so on a philosophy forum.
                              A triune continuum paradigm of spatiotemporal, constitution and information continuums is proposed by Naumenko (2002) cited also at http://research.triunecontinuum.com/tc-notion-logo.htm. It is a necessary triunity, because none of them exists spatiotemporally without the others.
                              Unlike Naumenko's model, there is no abstract ontology or an abstract model here, only real physical structures genetically co-created at the moment of conception*. The visible body will be the spatiotemporal continuum. The subjective space-time metrics are used here for subjective representations. The axion body will be the constitution continuum which subjective constitutional metrics as subjective representations of objects in relation with their environs. The neutrino body is the information continuum. It relates information about objects and their setting to spatiotemporal intervals and thus contains information about mutual relations of the first two continuums. Physicist Professor Nikolai Nijegorodov (2008) states: "in the nearest future physicists would prove, first theoretically and then experimentally that neutrino atom and neutrino molecules do exist. That would be enough evidence that life in the world of neutrino does exist".
                              Nijegorodov N. " On Physical Interactions & the World of God". 2008;
                              www.ub.bw/news.cfm?t=905 8-5-12 A triune system of a neutrino body permeating an axion body which is permeating an ordinary fermion body (made of electrons, protons and neutrons) is more in line with what the ancients called the triunity of spirit-soul-body or the Vedic paramatman, atman, sarir. It resembles Plato's tripartite soul (rational, spirited, and appetitive), or the three gunnas of the Upanishads [Sat (Pure), Raja (Passionate), Tama ( Base)]; or the Buddhist normal level (sariri manussa), the supernormal (uttari manussa) and the sublime (ariya manussa). Freud formulated it as Id, Ego, Super-ego. Spirit, soul and body triunity (with spirit/soul as indistinguisahble) is/was deeply rooted in the Western thought. A neutrino body and an axion body both permeating and coupled to each other and to the visible bodywill have enormous explanatory powers. The inner-man = the neutrino body (psyche) + the axion body (pneuma). The outer-man = the body.
                              The "self" thus is identical to the "soma" (the entire body exclusive of the germ cells) that possesses it and is permeated by and integrally coupled to it. Contrary to ordinary materialism, this inner world of self, or interiority, does not "arise" as an epiphenomenon out of the ordinary matter in the 'the learning, remembering brain encoded with representational maps.' The reality of interiority of the self cannot be different from the reality of the body itself. Else, self is a misnomer. Self cannot be any more potential than the body. The two are identical twin realities co-created at the very moment of conception. Both exist in the physical realm of matter, with this difference: one is of light-matter and the other of dark-matter.
                              Best regards
                              PhilipPhilip Benjamin
                              PhD.MSc.MA
                              Evidentialist
                              Forthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg?ger"
                              http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                              Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire
                              "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012









                              To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                              From: jPolanik@...
                              Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:27:51 -0500
                              Subject: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove


                              Roger Clough wrote:

                              >You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,

                              unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences;
                              and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself.

                              >and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
                              >It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.

                              there is an old problem lurking here; but, it is not solipsism.

                              the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                              over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective.

                              Joe

                              >----- Receiving the following content -----
                              >*From:* Joseph Polanik
                              >*Receiver:* MindBrain
                              >*Time:* 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
                              >*Subject:* [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
                              >disprove

                              >Roger Clough wrote:

                              >>2. That I exist or do not exist.

                              >I experience; therefore, I am.

                              --

                              Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

                              @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                              http://what-am-i.net
                              @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@







                            • Roger Clough
                              Hi Philip Benjamin See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science [Roger Clough], [rclough@verizon.net] 12/31/2012 Forever is a long time, especially
                              Message 14 of 17 , Dec 31, 2012
                                Hi Philip Benjamin
                                 
                                See 
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                                12/31/2012
                                "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                                ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                Time: 2012-12-30, 13:19:04
                                Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

                                 

                                [Roger Clough] ".... forbidding philosophy is redefining science as materialism...."
                                [Philip Benjamin]
                                Science is restricted to testable explanations, universally true reproducible experimental results and evidential empiricism, involving fundamentals of physically existing things. Philosophy is more general and broad, dealing with the fundamentals of existence, meaning, values, virtues, ultimate reality, knowledge, cognition, logic, reason, mind etc.
                                Incidentally, Bio dark-matter chemistry is more philosophy than science. It is science only in limited respects: 1. Testable ab initio cmputations are possible. 2. Empirical explanation of biophoton emission rates differing by an order of magnitude across the taxa. 3. It is no less science than dark-matter science itself. 
                                Bio dark-matter and its chemistry may yield phenomena that are akin, or rather exactly the same as, to those attributed to the folk-lore spirit/soul. That does not make the latter science- it is still folk-lore, unless and untill redefined.     


                                Best regards
                                Philip  
                                 
                                 
                                Philip Benjamin
                                PhD.MSc.MA

                                Evidentialist

                                Forthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg�nger"

                                http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm

                                Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire

                                 "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012




                                 

                                To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                                From: rclough@...
                                Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 07:22:42 -0500
                                Subject: Re: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

                                 
                                Hi Phillip,
                                 
                                What you are doing by
                                Materialism is not science, it's a religious cult.
                                 
                                 
                                [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                                12/30/2012
                                "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                                ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                Time: 2012-12-29, 04:59:13
                                Subject: Re: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove

                                 

                                Hi Philip Benjamin

                                Consciousness has no height nor width nor depth, it has no extension in space.

                                So referring to the "spaciotemporal" is nonsense.


                                [Roger Clough], [rclough@...]
                                12/29/2012
                                "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen
                                ----- Receiving the following content -----
                                From: Philip Benjamin
                                Receiver: MindBrain MindBrain
                                Time: 2012-12-28, 11:18:29
                                Subject: RE: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove



                                [Joseph Polanik]"....the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                                over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective."
                                [Philip Benjamin]

                                As far as physical sciences are concerned, non-physical is an oxymoron. Those who want to dwell on nonphysical may find it more profitable to do so on a philosophy forum.
                                A triune continuum paradigm of spatiotemporal, constitution and information continuums is proposed by Naumenko (2002) cited also at http://research.triunecontinuum.com/tc-notion-logo.htm. It is a necessary triunity, because none of them exists spatiotemporally without the others.
                                Unlike Naumenko's model, there is no abstract ontology or an abstract model here, only real physical structures genetically co-created at the moment of conception*. The visible body will be the spatiotemporal continuum. The subjective space-time metrics are used here for subjective representations. The axion body will be the constitution continuum which subjective constitutional metrics as subjective representations of objects in relation with their environs. The neutrino body is the information continuum. It relates information about objects and their setting to spatiotemporal intervals and thus contains information about mutual relations of the first two continuums. Physicist Professor Nikolai Nijegorodov (2008) states: "in the nearest future physicists would prove, first theoretically and then experimentally that neutrino atom and neutrino molecules do exist. That would be enough evidence that life in the world of neutrino does exist".
                                Nijegorodov N. " On Physical Interactions & the World of God". 2008;
                                www.ub.bw/news.cfm?t=905 8-5-12 A triune system of a neutrino body permeating an axion body which is permeating an ordinary fermion body (made of electrons, protons and neutrons) is more in line with what the ancients called the triunity of spirit-soul-body or the Vedic paramatman, atman, sarir. It resembles Plato's tripartite soul (rational, spirited, and appetitive), or the three gunnas of the Upanishads [Sat (Pure), Raja (Passionate), Tama ( Base)]; or the Buddhist normal level (sariri manussa), the supernormal (uttari manussa) and the sublime (ariya manussa). Freud formulated it as Id, Ego, Super-ego. Spirit, soul and body triunity (with spirit/soul as indistinguisahble) is/was deeply rooted in the Western thought. A neutrino body and an axion body both permeating and coupled to each other and to the visible bodywill have enormous explanatory powers. The inner-man = the neutrino body (psyche) + the axion body (pneuma). The outer-man = the body.
                                The "self" thus is identical to the "soma" (the entire body exclusive of the germ cells) that possesses it and is permeated by and integrally coupled to it. Contrary to ordinary materialism, this inner world of self, or interiority, does not "arise" as an epiphenomenon out of the ordinary matter in the 'the learning, remembering brain encoded with representational maps.' The reality of interiority of the self cannot be different from the reality of the body itself. Else, self is a misnomer. Self cannot be any more potential than the body. The two are identical twin realities co-created at the very moment of conception. Both exist in the physical realm of matter, with this difference: one is of light-matter and the other of dark-matter.
                                Best regards
                                PhilipPhilip Benjamin
                                PhD.MSc.MA
                                Evidentialist
                                Forthcoming book: "Spiritual Body or Physical Spirit? Your Invisible Doppelg?ger"
                                http://biodarkmatter.webs.com/index.htm
                                Materialism/Physicalism Extraordinaire
                                "Bio Dark-Matter Chemistry", International Journal of Current Research and Reviews Vol 4 issue 20, 2012









                                To: MindBrain@yahoogroups.com
                                From: jPolanik@...
                                Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 09:27:51 -0500
                                Subject: [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or disprove


                                Roger Clough wrote:

                                >You're right, except that only YOU have the experience,

                                unless you are claiming to be a zombie, you have your own experiences;
                                and, therefore, you may apply the proof yourself.

                                >and no subjective issue can ever be proven, for proof is objective.
                                >It's the old solipsism problem of philosophy.

                                there is an old problem lurking here; but, it is not solipsism.

                                the problem is that philosophers favor the dualism subjective/objective
                                over the trialism subjective/intersubjective/objective.

                                Joe

                                >----- Receiving the following content -----
                                >*From:* Joseph Polanik
                                >*Receiver:* MindBrain
                                >*Time:* 2012-12-27, 07:55:58
                                >*Subject:* [Mind and Brain] Three things that one cannot prove or
                                >disprove

                                >Roger Clough wrote:

                                >>2. That I exist or do not exist.

                                >I experience; therefore, I am.

                                --

                                Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

                                @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
                                http://what-am-i.net
                                @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@







                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.