Logic is not fully realized by us except to the extent that we are aware of it.
Logic is the structure of universal truth that governs causal relationships perceived in the form of reasoning rules.
Logical is the state of causal relationships that are consistent with the patterns of causal relationships in logic.
Reasoning is the process of tracing causal relationships both objectively and subjectively to find a balanced and proportional (just) state.
Reasoning objectively & subjectively means as follows:
🔰 The subjective side is the other side of rationality that can capture the truth in the depths of dimensions beyond everyday reality. It is the subjective net that can catch the absolute universal truth, which is then expressed objectively.
📌 Feelings, which are often considered irrational, are actually able to capture the truth directly and simultaneously.
👉 Like a hand grasping something
👉 Like a space capturing air
👉 Like a space capturing particles
🔰 LIKE A HAND HOLDING A MAP
Intellectuality
📌 Meanwhile, the intellect captures the details.
🔰 Like the senses tracing the path of a map
Those who ignore intellect will not be able to understand the details of the matter objectively.
Those who ignore feelings will not be able to capture (to net) complete knowledge, thus their objectivity will be narrow because they cannot capture the realistic subjective dynamics.
CUBIC BLOCKS OF REASONING
Logic, Logic & Reasoning can be easily understood through the LEGO game that represents the concept of reasoning blocks. Where logic is like a LEGO block, and logic is when we find relationships that can be paired, while reasoning is the effort to find blocks that fit together to be connected.
Objective & Subjective Reasoning in Cubic Blocks
Meanwhile, objective reasoning is finding blocks that fit through physical senses, guided either by oneself or guided by existing knowledge to find the remaining connections.
While subjective reasoning is when searching for blocks to see how far they can be paired to form a specific shape (in context) through contemplation, so that guidance is closer to intuitive knowledge.
INTUITIVE
Intuitive because the knowledge (logic) of its connectivity (logical) lies beyond the dimensions perceived objectively, thus the potential relationships among LEGO blocks are already known in intuitive knowledge, so we only need to reflect subjectively to find where the blocks match to be paired.
Intuitive means through contemplation (focus on the problem), hoping to access hints - intuitive knowledge that is a priori (existed before we were born), so through the learning process (posteriori), contemplating about LEGO blocks to see where they fit together, then suddenly seeing the hidden connectivity aspect that was previously unnoticed - a Eureka moment.
UNDERSTANDING THE INAPPROPRIATENESS OF REASONING RESULTS
Occurs when we are trapped by cognitive biases, so whether objectively (searching for block connections) or intuitively (seeking references from dimensions beyond pre-existing perceptions - the manual), we can only capture partially or incompletely, thus only able to assemble LEGO blocks partially, marked by the inability to execute the formed LEGO blocks in everyday life except in limited situations (due to their shape not fully meeting expectations - failing to attach the remaining blocks).
Subjective and Objective Reasoning
When we can reason subjectively, finding connections becomes easier because we grasp the entirety like holding the full corner view of a Lego block (a broader perspective) - reasoning simultaneously, making it easier to identify the connections among blocks compared to the step-by-step approach of objective reasoning, like trying to fit pieces one by one to see where they connect.
This doesn't mean objective reasoning is disregarded, but remains necessary. Once we estimate with a grasp, then with precision (detail) - objectively, it's needed to ensure a perfect connection (completion).
DEGREE OF REASONING
So, a priori, the logical building blocks are already there.
However, in dimensions beyond perception, some blocks are already arranged into specific shapes while others remain unarranged but positioned nearby or far apart.
When we contemplate intuitively, there is automatically an inward exploration to seek matching shapes from internal knowledge to those in the external reality.
Inspirational
If there is alignment between empirically observed blocks and a priori blocks in the internal world, then if our reasoning is creative enough, it automatically explores other nearby block shapes in the internal dimension, then translates them into our understanding, suddenly clarifying and knowing the next shape to search for in the physical world. This is intuitively inspired.
CLOSE PROXIMITY KNOWLEDGE BLOCKS. The closer the knowledge blocks internally, triggered by contemplation, the faster the automatic exploration, and the quicker the understanding of how they connect in reality (like saying "I begin to understand the direction it's heading").
DISTANT PROXIMITY KNOWLEDGE BLOCKS. The farther the knowledge blocks internally, triggered by contemplation, the longer the automatic exploration, and the slower the understanding of how they connect in reality (like saying "I don't yet understand, I'm confused").
LADUNI - AXIOMATIC
When there's alignment between observed real-world blocks and internal block shapes, and we strive to find connections to the next internal block that has already formed a complete shape, then predicting its complete form in the physical dimension happens swiftly because the estimate of its complete form has been understood from the blueprint in the internal knowledge dimension that is already complete, akin to saying "eureka", "certain", "absolute", "sure" proven in reality.
Comparing External & Internal Perspectives
So in thinking, we perceive the physical dimension, and when contemplating, we automatically perceive the internal dimension to see the alignment between observations and data in the internal dimension.
1⃣ If there is alignment between physical and internal forms, then we can understand the logical connections that awaken us to universal truth.
2⃣ If there is alignment between physical form and experience, then we can understand the logical connections that awaken us to relative truth (probability).
CONNECTIONS BETWEEN EXTERNAL & INTERNAL
When our brain structure isn't sufficient to grasp the complete form from internal knowledge, not only distant internal knowledge blocks cannot be mapped, but even internal knowledge blocks that have formed specific knowledge cannot be realized.
That's why brain growth is necessary; as it matures, it becomes increasingly capable of clearly seeing the corner angles in the physical dimension and using them as material for comparison in internal knowledge blocks.
Understanding Universality
This is why we can grasp universal truths without needing to visit every corner of the universe. Logically speaking, it's impossible because the structure of knowledge blocks in the physical dimension is narrower than the vastness of the universe. However, what we understand in the physical dimension can be mapped onto internal knowledge blocks that have extensive connections in the internal dimension. Thus, it's akin to understanding a fragment but being able to infer broadly, not because we have explored the entire universe, but because we understand its extensive connections in the internal dimension that are relevant (and mappable) to the structure of blocks in the physical world.
"External sensory-understood continuity, not entirely, but there is a point that remains unconnected, which upon the opening of internal knowledge, reveals its remaining connection in the internal dimension, previously unseen in the external dimension, thereby revealing the relevant mapping continuity between sensory knowledge and internal knowledge, and clearly revealing its farthest boundary (absolute certainty)."
The Power of Praying
Praying for understanding is like receiving guidance to direct our perceptions (problems, confusion) towards internal knowledge blocks that are initially distant but provide clarity, or towards blocks that are closer together, making it easier to understand the direction of the solution, or towards blocks that are already complete, or even bringing distant internal blocks closer or forming them into a complete shape.
At a higher level of awareness, our perception isn’t just comparing the physical dimension with the internal database but rather our consciousness expands to directly visit the internal dimension. This allows us to see knowledge directly and broadly (seeing connections in all directions) so our conviction becomes unshakable.
This unshakable conviction can also be realized (fully believed) when our contemplation can map fragmented sensory knowledge into its complete form in the internal dimension.
This illustrates the importance of prayer in philosophy, enabling us to obtain comprehensive insights, so we can map sensory knowledge with internal knowledge completely. Or if the insights are incomplete, prayer can help make them whole.
What is normality? What is the standardization of humanity to be considered as normal? They must have ability to secure their lives, making comparison to see their own possibilities and developing it gradually.
What is normality? Simply put, there must be ability to adjust their acts based on acceptance or denial to secure and develop themselves
Good evidence means, that it could be applied on your life mostly giving good benefit, including giving a good result (later) on after life (if you believe it).
So it doesn't matter whether you had evidence from 100 persons or 1 person or ten persons, the rest must be applied on your everyday life.
So, What does good evidence mean?
Good evidence means it could be applied (at least) personally and giving beneficial for most of our life.
We use an example with five senses (or whether we have more than five senses), and because of these we can perceive things.
We don’t know the farthest boundary of something, we just know something because we perceive it as far as ourselves.
If there is “thing”, then this “thing” is as far as “thing” limits our perceptions. Or ‘thing” is as far as we can perceive a part of “thing” itself.
If we saw “a stone” then we perceive “a stone” through our seeing. This was one of the way we could perceive “a stone”. But for someone else which could perceive even wider, by seeing and touching “a stone”, then “a stone” will become more realistic than for someone that could only perceive “a stone” through seeing.
This is what i call “degree of reality” for ourselves. “A stone” is a “thing”, but it has different degree of acceptance to our perception which may differ to others. And different degree of perceiving something has relation with different consequences.
For someone that has no ability to perceive “a stone” for the rest of their life but only by seeing ” a stone”, then someone can only perceive “a stone” AS REAL AS FAR AS the level of seeing with the consequences that relevant to “seeing”.
It asserts that if we perceive something within dream realm through touching and even more, then we are already being limited by this thing, then this thing must be considered as reality, in the sense that, part of ourselves can be limited by the consequences of it, relevantly.
Somehow, if we are limited by a thing AT LEAST with the same consequences (whether through reality or illusion), then actually there is no different in between reality and illusion, including dream realm (in the sense that illusion is another reality).
So, which one is more real? “thing” within dream realm or “thing” on our waking life? Actually it depends on how far for the “thing” in between both realm can limit our perception.
If “thing” in between both realms can limit our perception (whether we can see it or we can touch it or even more) then the “thing” is as real as it “thing”.
What makes us degrading dream realm, it’s because our life is mostly within our waking life rather than on dream realm.
If somehow we are living within dream realm even longer, then eventually we will anticipate the consequences within dream realm by making adjustment on our interaction on dream realm. At this stage, we may consider that “thing” in this dream realm is real in the sense that our actions can be limited by it’s consequences within dream realm. And we will take the consequences within dream realm seriously. thing is real as far as how far we can perceive it.
So, rather than admitting “thing” as real as measured by empirical experience on our waking life, better we admit “thing” as far as the “thing” can limit us in any possible means to our perception. This acceptance will put us on condition where we can consider any possible things, relevantly and we can (adjust by) take(ing) appropriate responses.
Rather than considering there is illusion, we better assert that (it’s another reality and) there is only reality as far as we can perceive it. It’s degree of reality. Sure, we can use the term “illusion”, but at least we know the truth (proper) understanding behind it, to make us to be able to anticipate different realm properly.
SUPERNATURALTo the farthest extent it must not beyond "not nothingness". In the sense, we must only use this term according to the way we perceive differently however we consider having specific senses to sense it. But the point is whether it's the real one, or different kind of realm, but it must be able to be perceived, however it is.
What makes different in between supernatural and else, is that both have different approach to be perceived. And as long as both could limit our perception differently, then both are real to the specific extent depending on how we perceive it.
So, we can't blame to someone saying supernatural is real, as long as they can perceive it differently. The problem is on ourselves while we didn't explore or validate our possibilities to perceive such supernatural. Otherwise we could judge whether this kind of reality (supernatural) cold be categorized into different kind of reality with different degree of it. It's not about stating whether supernatural mostly nonsense or not, but it's about the fact that whatever it is as long as we could perceive however it is, then it's real to the specific extent.
IMPOSSIBILITY OF REALITYSo, anything whether physically or not, if somehow we could perceive differently, or in other axiomatically understanding, if somehow physically or supernatural or any kind of thing could limit our perception, or in other words, we are aware of being limited by a thing (whether supernatural or else), then it's real to the specific extent.
It's because of their senses of being intimidated. Somehow whether you have less confidence but the situation wasn't intimidating you, then you will decrease your shyness.
People might have less confidence but they could react bravely as long as they are not being intimidated. But, whether we have strong confidence but somehow we could intimidate them from different point of view, then they finally could shy.
What cause people to be shy? Essentially, it's because they sense an intimidation however small that personally could lead to make a self defense that it would be recognized by someone as a shyness.
Love has to do with our essential needs. Love has to do with fulfilling our essential needs (whether it's unique to ourselves or common).
But that was the mechanism of love. That's how it worked. It has nothing to do with our feeling. If we want to know the nature of love on a level of our feeling, then we can say that"we have eager to be fulfilled".
Somehow, whether consciously or not, we knew that something was matched to our uniqueness, then suddenly a little bit "love" came to our heart.
But we can feel it "as a strong vibration on heart" through different ways rather than just because of love. That's the problem. How do we know that our love has relation to our essential needs? How do we know that what we need to be fulfilled could be categorized as love? How do we know that through someone our essential needs could be fulfilled?
So, there must be ways for us to understand our essential needs that might be unique (or not) to ourselves, and see if we can fulfill it through proper ways. Once we found our essential needs, it could be divided to different ways to fulfill it. If it could be satisfied through matters, then suddenly we fall in love with it. We need to know ourselves.
Our essential needs could be categorized from:
sense of humor
sense of tenderness
caring someone or need to be cared
and so forth ...
But basically, our essential needs are even bigger and difficult to be accomplished just by having several things for our own satisfaction. In the sense that each of objects could fulfill just several of our essential needs.
Honestly, through proper meditation and similar to this, it could put us closer to understand our essential needs and the way to fulfill it even better
Or perhaps somehow we can be guided through ways that it will make us closer to any possible events to fulfill our essential needs even bigger than what we could do previously (without getting help through meditation).
So, how do you define love?
Love is one of intense vibration within our heart that need something or someone to fulfill our essential needs. That's on the level of our feeling.
Practically, it could be provided by fulfilling the needs of a loved one with more emphasis on the loved ones than ourselves. Furthermore, in return, we will get fulfillment to our essential needs.
But, somehow we may find someone to fulfill our essential needs, while for ourselves, we couldn't do it to someone that we loved. It's unfair. Love involves fairness one to another. So, better check twice or more, whether we love something or someone properly within fairness.
Do we have the ability to see the world as Neo did in The Matrix?
It's possible as noted on Sufism or Budhism
A particular state of life with God, through God, in God, and for God. Please refer to "Baqaa "
Or we can refer to Mahasamadhi, but i am not sure if mahasamadhi involves real death or it's just entering full enlightement, entering non duality or even higher (not death literally ).
Logically it could be understood as giving us chance to see outside universe.
How to solve the issue of the old wine and the new wine?
How to solve the issue of the old wine and the new wine? Simply put, it's by trying to see for how far both are complement each other or one must be replaced.
Practically: try to experience for both and see the result if one is complement to another one, otherwise, if one forces the other then it could be resolved by replacing one with another or use it relevantly.
Can you believe in God and still believe in The Law of Attraction?
Each of these laws are acts specifically. LOA is not the one and only law that rules all things, in the sense that LOA is not the source of most powerful higher than the power of God, since it's just a tiny part of God's laws (abilities). LOA is not the one and only way to provide most powerful abilities.
"Can you believe in God and still believe in The Law of Attraction?" I can believe in LOA just as a way to fulfill our responsibilities while at the same time i must believe that this LOA must be addressed to God by praying to God to make this LOA succeed.
It's like when we need to drink, then our hands are the quick way to support our needs to drink, but somehow we need assurance that we can apply our hands properly.
So, rather than comparing in between LOA and God, i prefer pray to God to make LOA or to make any possible ways could be applied properly.
Probably, we thought, it contradicted each other, it's because when we were dealing with LOA, we did it intelligently, in the sense it's like we were communicating with something other than God, thus made us just like trying to ignore God, or trying to put God on a second order, or trying to show there is another competitor other than God, it's like we were underestimating God.
But in essence if we maintain our beliefs that nothing could work properly without God's help, there is nothing to be worry about it. In this case, we still worship God without underestimating God. And it's like we were getting help from someone else, but in this case, we just got even better, it's through LOA which to be considered better than human, but, yes, still it's just LOA compared to God.
Last but not least: "But the Law of Attraction says that we create our own reality ..." . No!, We didn't (and never) create our own reality, but we arrange the way we perceive reality with permission from God! Without getting help from God, there is no way for us to apply LOA properly.
Is physical reality a failed/flawed system? What's the point of those people's lives that begin miserably and end miserably?
It's relatively.
Rather than prolong our sadness, better we fix it and stay alert. If we couldn't then try to stay on current situation with grateful. Just, if we could do this ... .
The point is: it's relatively and we may judge condition just to alert us that there may be something wrong, but that doesn't have to make ourselves living desperately.
Is physical reality a failed/flawed system? Well we can see it after we die. Don't judge now, it's too early.
How can I make what I want feel present in my 'now'?
Consider this: if you insist to have something, situation, for instance, you want today is a rainy day, then admit it with your reasoning whether logically or emotionally that you need today become a rainy day, then it's like you are releasing an arrow from a bow. But once you are in doubt or you consider "is it?" "do we need it?" and so forth..., it's like cancelling the flying arrow to get to the address, and stop there without giving us a result.
So, once you did it, then forget it. Usually we can maintain it, mostly when we have a lot of eager. Or we have to renew it again and again.
I used to do it by simple trick, it's by trying to forget it. Sometimes, i needed something and i said "i needed it" but somehow i forgot it for one or couple days, and then suddenly it happened.
Well, that's the best i could do. I need to improve my technique, but hopefully it would help a little bit.
In a short, once you launched your arrow, don't cancel it, and let it fly to the address as your wish.
The key is to maintain your wish, otherwise it would be considered as canceling your order.
How can you stop feeling angry with God/the Universe?
I address this issue to God rather than universe.
Theoretically:
It's when we didn't know the wisdom of God, or ...
Practically:
Lastly, if we know the wisdom of God but we aren't sure enough that would make our doubt couldn't be covered by our believe system, or ...
We know how to get help from God but we don't want to do or we can't do what we should do to get help from God.
In a short, if you believe in something then it is as it should be as you believe in it, otherwise we have wrong beliefs or we did incorrectly in order to deal with what we believe.
In essence: rather than blaming on what we believe, better try to fix properly what should be fixed, and see the result, then you may decide later. In other words: have you done it properly? If you consider you didn't do it properly, then your anger is improper.
Therefore: How can you stop feeling angry with God? It's by applying what you believe properly, otherwise it would put us on unfair situation while we may judge improperly.
Our anger it's because of our lack of understanding of specific situation.
Dreams: does anyone treat them as fact, as true memories?
On the opposite, if we consider that our consciousness were real while we were inside dream realm, then dream realm was real. Why? Because there is no way for real thing could be trapped within illusion unless we consider this illusion was capable functioning as the real one.
So, in a short, in any way we can think of it, there is more than this real waking life. Or we can say there is another reality as another dimension as real as our waking life, in the sense that we could be influenced, we could be trapped, we could interact within it ... and so forth.
The problem in this case is that, on dream realm, visualization or interactions are unstable, or we might say, it's easily changing to different life forms. But that doesn't have to be considered as less real or not real than our waking life. We better say that there is another realm with different laws of "physics" that typically on its own realm which to be considered easily to be changed, rather than saying it's not real and that's not real. I prefer to say that there is no less real in the universe, but there is only degree of reality depending upon our perception.
Why isn't the dream thought of as "fact" "real" or "existing"? It's because, "it's not our default that would make enough happiness or enough threatening to ourselves", otherwise you would think of it differently.
"Dreams: does anyone treat them as fact, as true memories?" Dream realm is the fact.
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie”. The truth (in this case) is pointing to “as is”. The truth in this case is not the same as correctness. It’s the truth whatever it is.
This proposition “I always tell the truth, even when I lie” asserts understanding about different range of boundaries:
“tell the truth” = “assert something as is”
“when I lie” = “a particular of something is asserted”
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie” = I always tell the truth as is (which is one of them is “I lie - about something") = “when I lie” is part of the truth = “when I am lying about something then i am doing something as part of the truth, which is lying”.
It asserts “membership”: “I always tell the truth, even when I lie” asserts that lying is part of the truth since the truth is anything that exist including “lying”. In this case there is no paradox.
Rephrasing:
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie", because any kind of lying is part of the truth (as it is lying).
“I know that tell a lie is part of telling the truth”.
“I know that to do anything (including lying) is part of the truth”.
“I know that telling about something (lying) is one of the things we can do (within boundaries)”.
“I am lying”. If he is lying, then he is not telling the (whole) truth, but he is telling PART OF the truth. It's not paradox.
Second Consequences
Correctness:
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie”. The truth in this case may be considered as correctness, as the opposite to incorrectness. The truth as a correct function compared to the opposite as an incorrect function.
This proposition “I always tell the truth, even when I lie” asserts understanding about opposition:
“tell the truth” = “doing something correctly”
“when I lie” = “doing something incorrectly"
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie” = I am doing something correctly when i am doing something incorrectly.
It's contradiction, but it's not paradox, Or, ...
Unless we understand it as like this:
"At first i was doing incorrectly, and then secondly i was doing correctly", and if that so, then this isn't contradiction, OR ...
Even when i lie, i may be considered as telling the truth because i lie for a goodness. I am doing something good (i can tell it as the truth, correctly) through the way (by lying) which may be considered by someone else (lying) as badness. There is no contradiction here, since it's subjective.
Rephrasing:
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie", because, if i am doing something incorrectly then i am doing it for the goodness.
“I know that tell a lie is incorrect, but it's still correct because of some reasons.
"I am lying". If he is lying, then he is doing something incorrectly for the goodness. There is no contradiction here.
Third Consequences
The only way to keep "the truth" with "i lie" without contradiction, is by considering that the function of "telling the truth" has relation with the function of "lying".
The farthest extent of the truth (as the correctness) may be related to:
something which is correctly functioning or, a function which is correctly running, in the sense that a function is running however it is without being judged whether it has bad performance or not. It just that running, functioning. The rest is up to us whether we label it as a lie, a sin, improper act, improper function, etc.
The point is, there is function running, and that's correct that there is something running.
It's The Fact:
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie”. The truth in this case may be considered as the fact. The truth is pointing to the fact that there is a lie.
This proposition “I always tell the truth, even when I lie” asking about "what is happening currently?":
“tell the truth” = “i am aware of the facts”
“when I lie” = “the fact is that i lie"
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie” = I am aware of the facts that i lie. I admit that i lie.
There is no contradiction and there is no paradox here.
Rephrasing:
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie", because when i lie then i am doing something correctly as known as lying.
“I know that tell a lie is part of doing something (correctly as categorized as lying)”.
"I am doing which is lying correctly.
“I can do which is lying (correctly) without failure.
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie", because it's the fact that if we need to know the truth about something, then there is the fact that i lie.
"I am lying". If he is lying, then he is telling that there is a fact, moment, acts, events, process which is lying. There is no contradiction here, but there is only the fact (as it's true that it is happening) as it is (lying)
THE POINTS ARE
“I always tell the truth, even when I lie” is related to “SOME OF THE TRUTH IS LYING”
OR, from different point of view: “I confess that I lie” is goodness, and the goodness is part of the truth, therefore confession (that I lie) is goodness (in this case part of the truth), BUT “A LIE” (part of the truth) itself is not a goodness,
Or if you insist, that the truth must be related to "correctness", then “I always tell the truth, even when I lie” asserts that, lying is good for some reasons
Or, the fact is that i lie. The truth is the fact that i lie.
“The truth” in this case is not against "lying" in any forms of reality. There is no contradiction and there is no paradox here.
For better understanding, please first, at least refer to previously related topic “Is there Uncaused Cause?” or further you might want to look at this topic "How many uncaused cause(s)?"
I am not going into debate for this topic, while we are still debating previously related topic. It's to maintain our focus, to avoid confusion on this issue. Debating previously related topic is meaningless.
An Axiom: “something can’t transcend beyond something itself without additional assertion” (an example: from 1 liter water can’t be poured into 1 gallon water)
Further understanding, wherever one of possibilities can be actualized and it provides differences, but this changing on actualization of possibilities must not be considered as “transcending Uncaused Cause beyond Uncaused Cause itself”, otherwise it against axiom. Therefore it’s changing of actualization must be within Uncaused Cause itself.
Since we consider there is something intelligently (at least human has intelligent) then it must be within Uncaused Cause. And this kind of intelligently must be considered as the changing of actualization of possibilities of Uncaused Cause.
Related to axiom, IF for both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can’t give such intelligently, then both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can’t give such intelligently. Meaning, if both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can give such intelligently (whether through any possible combinations of interactions or through any possible means) then it doesn’t mean that for both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can transcend beyond something itself, but it’s because “possibilities as intelligently” is within both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) itself.
Further this kind of possibilities (which it’s a kind of intelligently) must be within Uncaused Cause, since all of possible evolution or through any possible means are the actualization of possibilities of Uncaused Cause.
Whether we believe in evolution or any possible means, eventually there is a kind of intelligently within Uncaused Cause. It asserts that for both (whether through evolution or through any possible means) can give such intelligently (just to remind us, it doesn’t mean that for both, whether through evolution or through any possible means, can transcend beyond something itself, but it’s because “possibilities as intelligently” is within both itself, whether through evolution or through any possible means), and this kind of intelligently can’t be attributed to the functions, but it has to be attributed to an existence, which is Uncaused Cause. Therefore, Uncaused Cause has the kind of intelligently which can be actualized, whether it came from evolution or any possible means.
The point is:
- Whether we believe there is evolution or not, whether intelligently came from evolution or came from any possible means, BUT ACTUALLY IT (intelligently) CAME FROM THE UNCAUSED CAUSE. IT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO UNCAUSED CAUSE as THE ONLY EXISTENCE. IT’S OWNED BY UNCAUSED CAUSE. It's because all of that were caused are inside Uncaused Cause. Therefore, Uncaused Cause has intelligently.
OBJECTIONS
//These objections are selected and those are not on the basis of receiving all forms of objection, but only fundamental objections to be selected, which through studying these objections, we can understand the fallacy on another objections//
//It’s like putting the logical structure of argument which asserting Uncaused Cause, where any form of objection can be configured to be placed on the logical structure of argument which asserting Uncaused Cause, and further to be analyzed, whether the error of an objection can be detected by this logical structure of argument which asserting Uncaused Cause or whether it is an objection that needs to be explained further//
_____
There are terms and related crucial understanding which will be used on this discussion. There are two states related to existence and functions:
There are changing, there are differences, there are functions. Changing of functions must not assert that there is a thing transcends beyond a thing itself, in the sense that changing of functions will not add a thing beyond a thing itself.
Consider this: changing of function of a water, which is an ice, from one shapes to different shapes of an ice or from one characteristic of water to another characteristic of water doesn’t transcend (related) water beyond the water itself.
Further, this changing of function must be within a thing (in this example, it’s the water). Therefore we can assert, that there are functions within water, or there are functions of water. Don’t be confused between function and existence. If you use existence as “the changing” then use understanding of the consequences with consistency, where existence must be within functions. Or if you use the term function as “the changing”, then use understanding of the consequences with consistency, where functions must be within existence. But the essence remains the same, that there is "a changing" within a thing.
In this case, i am using the term function as “the changing”, in the sense, that the term functions itself are representing the changing. Therefore, functions are within (of) existence. Where the existence is The Uncaused Cause itself. Functions are changing, and Functions are within Existence (functions of Existence, functions of Uncaused Cause). Any other things to be considered not Uncaused Cause are functions. In other words, there is Existence (Uncaused Cause with its functions as all things (that were caused by Uncaused Cause).
1st OBJECTION: The laws of physics, chemistry and matters through processes provide intelligence. Without these (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”), there will be no intelligence.
Answer:
These (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”) came from previous (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”), again and again. These functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters) came from previous functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters). These functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters) came from previous functions (which could be “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters” or could be another kind of things in any possible means). These functions came from previous different functions. These regression can be traced back to The Uncaused Cause.
OR, these (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”) were started by previous (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”), again and again. These functions (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”) were started by previous functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters). These functions (the laws of physics, chemistry and matters) were started by previous functions (which could be “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters” or could be another kind of things in any possible means). These functions were started by previous different functions. These regression can be traced back to The Uncaused Cause.
These asserts sequences, where one point of the sequences are specific “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters”.
Further, which one do you choose? Relatively or absolute?
Asserting that, the laws of physics, chemistry and matters provide intelligence can be understood as, specific “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters” of the sequences provide intelligence, and it’s relatively, in the sense that intelligence can’t be related absolutely to only specific “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters”, since “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters (which provide intelligence)” came from previous “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters”. It’s relative understanding that intelligence came from one of the kind of “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters or things in any possible means (which provide intelligence)” of the sequences.
There is no absolute ownership of these (which could be “the laws of physics, chemistry and matters” or could be another kind of things in any possible means) to intelligence. But absolute understanding is that intelligence came from Uncaused Cause. Uncaused Cause has absolute onwership to intelligence.
It’s ABSOLUTE UNDERSTANDING RATHER THAN RELATIVE UNDERSTANDING.
2nd OBJECTION: If you can point to just kind of intelligence that exists that does not have to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes” then I’ll concede.
Answer:
Consider this, there is a water, we can see an ice, WE CAN PERCEIVE AN ICE. It’s the kind of actualization for an ICE (cold, etc) of the water. But this ice can disappear within a water (AND WE CAN’T PERCEIVE AN ICE), and this TYPICAL OF AN ICE is still there (still within water) because it’s at different level of actualization which we can’t perceive as when it formed as an ice.
We can’t perceive it (“nonactualized ice”), but it’s there (within the water). IT’S AT DIFFERENT LEVEL OF ACTUALIZATION. IF WE DENY THIS REASONING to be used as comparison in explaining about “non actualized intelligence” or “different level of actualization of intelligence, then it’s unreasonable thinking. Since there is no way for us to understand God OR ANYTHING (whether we can only grasp just a little bit of something) unless through comparison to reality. SINCE REALITY IS THE CLOSEST THAT CAN BE OBSERVED BY US TO LEARN ABOUT SOME OTHER THING BETTER. THAT’S THE CLOSEST UNDERSTANDING TO THE TRUTH THAT WE CAN DO.
Yes, there is kind of intelligence that exist on its own level of actualization which does not have to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”
3rd OBJECTION: Whatever intelligence you may think for your version of the uncaused cause (different level of actualization) had needs to be supplied some other way than biological and physical processes. And, right now, I just don’t see that it’s happening.
Answer:
As i already stated that, there is kind of intelligence that exist on its own level of actualization which does not have to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, BECAUSE actually this intelligently is not depending upon those processes (various physical and chemical processes), but it can only be asserted as “depending upon” Uncaused Cause”. In the sense that, it (intelligence) exists within Uncaused Cause at different level of actualization (at different level of the way it exists without “various physical and chemical processes”). BUT UNCAUSED CAUSE (must be considered) HAS ANY KIND OF INTELLIGENCE AS FAR AS WITHIN UNCAUSED CAUSE ITSELF, WHICH ONE OF THEM CAN ONLY BE PERCEIVED BY US (AT THE LEVEL OF THE WAY WE AND OUR ENVIRONMENT EXIST) THROUGH “various physical and chemical processes”.
Meaning, intelligence at different level of actualization which at the state as Uncaused Cause which does not have to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, is already and always exist properly (on its own level of actualization). But once this intelligence must be perceived through different level of actualization (which at the state where it has to be caused by “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, then there must be “various physical and chemical processes” to provide intelligence which we can understand it.
There is no need to perceive intelligence at the level of actualization of Uncaused Cause, IOW, it doesn’t make sense, it’s irrelevant, since we are as perceiver and what must be perceived by us are at different level actualization. We can only perceive kind of intelligence that has the same level of actualization in between us and intelligence, which it must be provided through “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”.
4th OBJECTION: An electron in and of itself is not intelligent on any scale. A quark is not intelligent on any scale either, and neither are any of the other physical particles that exist. But if you put a ton of chemicals and some physics together you get a human being with intelligence over a large period of time. This may sound like intelligence comes from seemingly nowhere. But that’s it.
Answer:
Whether through short time or over a large period of time, it concluded that intelligence didn’t come from nowhere, it’s already there at different level of actualization. Consider this, if there are possibilities for making combinations, and these possibilities can’t create specific uniqueness, can’t create specific of something related to combinations, THEN IT WILL NOT HAVE SPECIFIC UNIQUENESS OUTSIDE POSSIBILITIES OF THESE COMBINATIONS. IOW, IF (FOR) a ton of chemicals and some physics together over a large period of time don’t have possibilities to show such intelligence, then there won’t be such intelligence through the COMBINATION OF THE processes of a ton of chemicals and some physics together over a large period of time. Meaning, +++ for each part of processes, including an electron (Whether just a small or in any portion of intelligently), there must be possibility to support such intelligently, otherwise it against axiom (something – without additional assertions – can’t transcend beyond something itself) +++. Outside this understanding (related to this case) is not reasonable. That doesn’t mean that an electron is intelligent, but wherever we are pointing to one or several thing(s) and trying to relate these to another consequences, then another consequences had already been contained within those one or several thing(s), it’s axiom.
But if someone denies this (an electron is not supporting a kind of intelligently), then it (electron) must be excluded from the team (as supporter which can cause such intelligence) and there must be something else as supporter (and included inside, integrated with the kind of such intelligently on its own level of actualization) that has ability to support “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means, working together, further to be changed to different kind of intelligence at different level of actualization which it has typical of intelligence with uniqueness as far as can be provided by (through) “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible mean.
5th OBJECTION: This is pseudo-science. You have stated an axiom which loosely resembles a scientific law but lack the clarity and exactness of a scientific law and furthermore has no experimental basis. Compare “something can’t transcend beyond something itself without additional assertion” to “Energy cannot be created nor destroyed–only changed in form”. To a layperson, these statements might seem similar, but the difference is that “energy” has a clear definition and is used consistently throughout a large body of scientific work. In your axiom, “transcend” and “assertion” have some kind of meaning which is unclear to me because they do not have consistent meaning in a large body of work. Perhaps your axiom could be made scientific if you defined the terms, but then you would be faced with the greater challenge of providing evidence for it. It certainly is not a self-evident truth.
Answer:
While some of us may understand this (“something can’t transcend beyond something itself without additional assertions” with an example: from 1 liter water can’t be poured into 1 gallon water), but for the others may consider this ambiguous or it’s not enough, therefore i will provide clarity on this case:
Something is fixed, therefore it can’t be expanded beyond its possibilities, otherwise what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities of something itself has already contained as possibilities within it or what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities something itself is coming from outside of it and working (actualized) on it.
6th OBJECTION: The conception of the universe in terms of cause and effect stems from our limited 3D view of the world in snapshots. We never see the whole 4D universe; only a frame at a time. We see two connected events in a sequence, so one happens before the other, so we call the first one the cause and the second one the effect. But the universe doesn’t care about cause and effect. It is just two events occurring at different time points. If we flip time backwards, then the cause becomes the effect and vice versa. The universe has no cause, because it lives outside this limited 3D view.
Answer:
Causality must be asserted as “before this” there must be (no) relevant beginner to this. Whether it can be considered as “through creation” or “through a change” or through any possible means, but there is (or there is no) something “before this”. And wherever we points to a thing(s) “before this”, eventually it will lead us to a thing as Uncaused Cause that has no beginning. It’s The First.
The point is, whether we consider it as “cause & effect” or “previously” or whatever it is, but we can trace back within the sequence(s), and it must be ended to the Uncaused Cause or The First, otherwise it’s infinite regression which is impossible as already mentioned on related argument.
7th OBJECTION: Why do you think the first cause has intelligence? Intelligence is not fixed. An adult usually has more intelligence than a baby.
Answer:
Whether intelligence was caused by the structure of the brain, or because of DNA, or because of specific pattern of something within ourselves or because of any possible means, but there was moment where the possibilities of a kind of our intelligence was fixed. Further (at childhood stage) through development, this kind of intelligence was increasingly developed (possibly) to a complicated level (at adulthood stage). Further understanding related to this:
The development of our intelligence must be caused by the potentiality within ourselves (whether it can be considered because of possibility of our brain, because of possibility of our DNA, or because of any possible means within ourselves)
Or if we consider that we do not have ability (possibilities) to make intelligent responses specifically, then we must consider that possibilities for us to make intelligent responses must be supported by (connected to) another outside ourselves
And for answering an objection: “why do you think the first cause has intelligence?":
Whether we believe there is evolution or not, whether intelligently came from evolution or came from any possible means, BUT ACTUALLY IT (intelligently) CAME FROM THE UNCAUSED CAUSE. IT MUST BE ATTRIBUTED TO UNCAUSED CAUSE as THE ONLY EXISTENCE AS THE WHOLE. IT’S OWNED BY UNCAUSED CAUSE. Therefore, Uncaused Cause has intelligently.
Whether intelligence must be asserted as it came from “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means, but actually, intelligence at the level of actualization of these cases (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means) can be traced back to THE FIRST INTELLIGENCE OF UNCAUSED CAUSE (The first intelligence on its own level of actualization), where this First Intelligence can be actualized properly (to different level of actualization) which can be perceived by us in any possible means. AGAIN, Uncaused Cause is Uncaused Intelligently Being. Intelligence is owned by Uncaused Cause on its own level of actualization and it can be actualized to different level of actualization which can be perceived by us.
8th OBJECTION: Just because something can possibly become intelligent doesn’t mean that it was intelligent to begin with. Monkeys pressing random keys on a typewriter can possibly type out Shakespeare’s plays, but this doesn’t mean that Shakespeare’s plays exist inside the monkeys or the typewriters.
Answer:
The monkey was typed out “Shakespeare’s plays” once, and human did this (Shakespeare’s plays) many times with more complicated proccess to be involved. And yes, there is no “Shakespeare’s plays” fully involved inside the monkey, just a small portion (how small it is) of it, otherwise it against axiom or there must be additional explanation to support it.
The monkey or typewriter was typed out “Shakespeare’s plays” many times, and human did “Shakespeare’s plays” many times with more complicated proccess to be involved. And yes, STILL there isn’t “Shakespeare’s plays” fully involved within the monkey, just a small portion (how small it is or closer to) of it, since the monkey or typewriter is not a human, otherwise it against axiom or there must be additional explanation to support it.
But if somehow, the monkey is doing “Shakespeare’s plays” many times, further talking to human, drinking, driving, just like human did,… marriage, encourage us, cure us when there is no doctor helping us, learning, then there must be the kind of intelligence that has level of similarities MORE closer to human that must be there within the monkey OR there must be a connection from the monkey to another intelligence from outside the monkey that is working on the monkey to support more intelligent acts closer to the level of intelligence of human.
If something can possibly become intelligent it means that it has connection with previous events which is intelligently, or IOW, If something can possibly become intelligent it means that it has connection with previous thing(s) which is intelligently, or IOW, If something can possibly become intelligent it means that there must be intelligent thing(s) to be involved. Again and again if we do this reasoning, eventually it will end to The First Cause as The First Intelligence.
9th OBJECTION: In the universe, there is potential for so many possible outcomes. Quantum mechanics dictates that precise outcomes are random, but due to chaos, we see orderly structures form. Our intelligence is just a result of a lot of random outcomes following specific laws of the universe.
Answer:
Whether it’s because of quantum mechanic, or because of evolution or because of creationist or because any kind of beliefs or because of random or because of any possible means, but:
There must be possibility whether it’s from quantum mechanic, or from evolution or from creationist or from beliefs or from random or from any possible means that can be considered as the cause for our intelligence.
Stating that there is no possibility for quantum mechanic, or for evolution or for creationist or for beliefs or for random or for any possible means to provide such intelligently (our intelligence or any kind of intelligence), then there is no possibility for our intelligence or for any kind of intelligence to be actualized, otherwise there must be possibility for quantum mechanic, or for evolution or for creationist or for beliefs or for random or for any possible means to provide such intelligence.
Further, whether there is evolution or not, whether there is quantum mechanic or not, whether there is random or not and whether there is any possible means (that has possibility to provide intelligence) as the cause for actualization of a kind of intelligence, but:
If we consider there is intelligence then it can be traced back to a thing that has possibility of intelligence, otherwise it against axiom.
And if we consider that human has intelligence and human has consciousness as currently stated, then at least The First Cause must have intelligence and consciousness:
Not less than human, otherwise The First Cause (if less than human then) against axiom which is impossible
Further if we consider that the kind of our intelligence or the kind of our consciousness has different level of actualization compared to what is actualized (intelligence and consciousness) for The First Cause, then The First Cause must be intelligent and conscious differently (it’s not “the same”, since it has difference and it’s not “less than human”, since it against axiom) compared to intelligence and consciousness on ourselves, therefore the only option for the difference is that intelligence and consciousness of The First Cause must be more than human (not the same and not less than human or not the same and not less than any kind of thing that may be considered as having intelligence higher than human).
10th OBJECTION: Quantum mechanics dictates that precise outcomes are random, but due to chaos, we see orderly structures form. Our intelligence is just a result of a lot of random outcomes following specific laws of the universe.
Answer:
If there is “a lot random” outcomes following “specific laws” of the universe then:
The specific laws must not be considered as random, therefore there is no possibilities for the specific laws to provide “a lot of random”, otherwise it against axiom, OR
A lot of random must be considered came from another kind of random, but then it didn’t come from specific laws of the universe and it must be considered that there will be no orderly structures form.
11th OBJECTION: You do realize, that this argument extended, means God has all of the same flaws that man does in him too? All of the same flaws as Satan?
Answer:
It’s about the facts (truth as it is) and it’s not about our considerations (relatively), it can’t be compared one to another since it’s irrelevant.
12th OBJECTION: Potential for a thing is not the same as the thing itself. If a chicken can fly, that doesn’t mean an egg can fly. If humans are intelligent, that doesn’t mean that the universe is intelligent. Things change over time. Things evolve over time. The characteristics are not the same.
Answer:
Examples: If a chicken can fly, that doesn’t mean an egg can fly, and yes because the truth is, ...
Something is fixed (chicken can’t fly), therefore it can’t be expanded beyond its possibilities (chicken can fly), otherwise what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities of something itself (chicken can fly) has already contained as POSSIBILITIES (whether it’s DNA or any possible means) within it (egg) or what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities something itself is coming from outside of it and working (actualized) on it.
The ability for the chicken to fly has already contained as POSSIBILITIES (whether it’s DNA or any possible means) within it (egg), otherwise there must be something else support its ability to fly.
Computer is making calculation and human is doing the same, and both capable to show the same result accurately.
Something is fixed (computer and human is idle or there is moment where computer is different than human), therefore it can’t be expanded beyond its possibilities (to make calculation), otherwise what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities something itself (from idle suddenly having ability intelligently to make calculation; or compared one to another that computer/human having ability intelligently to make calculation just like human/computer) has already contained as possibilities (that can be perceived currently as processor/brain) within it (computer/human) or what is considered to be evolving beyond possibilities something itself is coming from outside of it and working (actualized) on it.
Further
The structure of possibilities or the way for possibilities exist may differ one to another:
possibilities to make calculation from computer compared to human is different, because the possibility for the computer to make calculation that can be perceived by us currently as processor differ to the possibility for human to make calculation that can be perceived by others currently as brain, compared to
the structure of possibilities for “solid matter” can be related currently to molecule structure, where they attract each other with a strong force and so close, and it has difference compared to liquid and gases
But why the structure of possibilities or the way for possibilities exist differ compared to its actualization?
It doesn’t mean that from possibilities (molecule structure or the way particle behave or any possible means whether we know it or we don’t or never know it) compared to its actualization (that can be perceived by us differently) against axiom, because a thing as the possibility (molecule structure or the way particle behave or any possible means whether we know it or we don’t or never know it) on its own level of actualization compared to its actualization (at the level that can be perceived by us), asserts that its actualization (that can be perceived by us) is perceived by us differently (since we are perceiving its actualization of possibilities at different angle, relatively), but there is no changing of boundary beyond as it should be.
CONCLUSION
Whether intelligence must be asserted as it came from “matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means, but actually, intelligence at the level of actualization of these cases (“matters, the laws of physics and chemistry processes”, biology or evolution or in any possible means) can be traced back to THE FIRST INTELLIGENCE OF UNCAUSED CAUSE (The first intelligence on its own level of actualization), where this First Intelligence can be actualized properly (to different level of actualization) which can be perceived by us in any possible means. AGAIN, Uncaused Cause is Uncaused Intelligently Being. Intelligence is owned by Uncaused Cause on its own level of actualization and it can be actualized to different level of actualization which can be perceived by us.
