OF THE TRIVIAL VS. THE MEANINGFUL

OF THE TRIVIAL VS. THE MEANINGFUL: The trivial I can know; the non-trivial (meaningful) I can only appreciate. All that I can “know” — apart from trivialities, definitional truisms, circular tautologies, and negations of negations that nevertheless flux in sequence among apprehensions of changed loci in space-time — consists in incomplete measures and comparisons of fluxing patterns within the logic gates of fluxing contexts, i.e., partial measures of relationships that appear to be quantitative only because entirely subsumed within the logic gates and digital filtering of the more encompassing and qualitative context of an observing “I-ness.” Indeed, I do not even know what “I” am, in any quantitative, as opposed to qualitative sense. Via Bayes’ Theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayes%27_theorem), and logic gates contrived based on practical tinkering, I find that I improve my reliable skills with practice. For “practical skills” in relating to the non-trivial, it is vital that I accommodate myself to practical mentoring, education, and experience. For true “knowledge” of the non-trivial, not so much. As to the non-trivial, I know not; rather, I appreciate and apprehend. And my appreciation inclines me towards an unquantifiable quality of self fulfilling empowerment.


REGARDING MEANINGFUL AND PURPOSEFUL PREHENSION, APPREHENSION, SCIENCE, AND TELEOLOGY: Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument: Another variant makes an argument centering on consciousness. Physicist John Wheeler's assertion that the universe seems to require an observer reflects on design not as an external phenomenon, but intrinsic to consciousness. There thus is no search for a criterion of intelligence outside the universe being imposed on it or capable of revealing whether an intelligence has been injected into it; but rather, that consciousness recognizes itself as present in all of existence. Alfred Whitehead had made a similar argument in the early twentieth century. In defense of Whitehead's approach, Charles Hartshorne has written that the panentheism implicit in this argument evades the logical difficulties of the arguments from design of traditional theists. He asks how can a universe that is considered outside of the deity display the design of the being that is outside of? But in Whitehead's view, echoing that of George Berkeley, our very act of what he calls prehension provides us with first-hand evidence of the deity.

My Comment: “Prehension” seems to relate to what I have termed apprehension. Depending on purpose, focus, and context, a perspective of consciousness may conceptualize that it, along with all others like it, participates (via the quality of its apprehension) in guiding the unfolding of the relationships that we assume to constitute “physics.” If so, this concept implicates the incompleteness of mathematical measures of materialism, and apprehends a quality of participatory, uncertain, self-fulfilling empowerment for each perspective of consciousness. In this way, one may conceptualize, depending on one’s purposes, as if a system of relationships were consciously guided, materially determined, or empirically random. In each case, whatever the result, it could be reconciled to a choice of rationalization. The synchronizing reconciliation of observations and apprehensions of degrees of freedom may be conceptualized as implicating a holistic aspect of Consciousness that is beyond caring what IT might be named.

Quotes from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument:
This viewpoint was encapsulated BY Stephen Jay Gould in his concept of Nonoverlapping Magesteria (NOMA), that proposes that science and religion should be considered two compatible, complementary fields, or "magisteria," whose authority does not overlap.
.... the idea of fundamental randomness, on which the naturalist interpretation of evolution rests is incompatible with the physics biologists agree to be fundamental.
....
Shapiro postulates a 'Third Way' (a non-creationist, non-Darwinian type of evolution):
What significance does an emerging interface between biology and information science hold for thinking about evolution? It opens up the possibility of addressing scientifically rather than ideologically the central issue so hotly contested by fundamentalists on both sides of the Creationist-Darwinist debate: Is there any guiding intelligence at work in the origin of species displaying exquisite adaptations that range from lambda prophage repression and the Krebs cycle through the mitotic apparatus and the eye to the immune system, mimicry, and social organization?

********
Quotes from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bayes-theorem/:  Subjectivists think of learning as a process of belief revision in which a "prior" subjective probability P is replaced by a "posterior" probability Q that incorporates newly acquired information. This process proceeds in two stages. First, some of the subject's probabilities are directly altered by experience, intuition, memory, or some other non-inferential learning process. Second, the subject "updates" the rest of her opinions to bring them into line with her newly acquired knowledge.
....
Though a mathematical triviality, the (Bayes') Theorem's central insight — that a hypothesis is supported by any body of data it renders probable — lies at the heart of all subjectivist approaches to epistemology, statistics, and inductive logic.

NOTE: See also http://betterexplained.com/articles/an-intuitive-and-short-explanation-of-bayes-theorem/.

My Comment:  When conditions are novel, Bayes’ Theorem is often twisted like a crooked horse race. After the race is run, an intellectual re-studies and re-normalizes the factors and decides, Why yes, the actual result was probable all along! It’s just that the betting public had been duped by the wrong factors!  How convenient!  When one assumes all things and events are preset and predetermined, one easily cherry picks factors after the fact, to "prove" one's initial assumption, thereby to demonstrate the event was probable all along, and then call such factors the controlling factors, and perhaps even rationalize "laws" based thereon.  Given that observable patterns are necessarily rationalize-able to such logic gates as happen to avail said observers, such circular rationalizations tend to be relatively easily done.  What such methods of rationalization cannot explain, however, is when grooves for logic gates suddenly change or phase shift.  Are such changes entirely and quantitatively determined by matter, or are they in some quality chosen or guided by consciousness?

Revivications of True Values and Moral Assimilation

INTUITIVE REALITY OF REVIVICATION OF I-NESS: For each of us, some quality of "I" persists through all the changes and years of each life. The exact context of that which is around me is not essential to my I-ness. In the death of the Substance of my body, whatever constitutes the Information commensurate with "my I-ness" is re-absorbed in a clean break from my experience of the here and now back into the Source. That is, Information carries an infinite aspect, so that it is not lost, but is constantly or continuously re-synchronized or recirculated. Past information is subject to various levels and degrees of Conscious reconstruction, regarding alternative possible explanations for what led up to each context of Substance. Each of us will experience succeeding qualities of I-ness, with some aspects of deja vu, even though there will be breaks, so that we can only intuit, not substantively prove or know, that "I", in some aspect, have always been. Some fundamental quality of our consciousness is the same in each of us. I am that I am.  Yet, each of us follows a separate unfolding path of informational experience. The Information that binds to each perspective is preserved and continuously or constantly built upon, so that every perspective experiences a seeking of, but not necessarily an attainment of, fulfillment or enlightenment in true values.

OXYMORON (?) OF HOLISTIC PERSPECTIVE: All Consciousness, at a most fundamental level, shares a same immeasureable quality.  Yet each particular perspective, during its attachment of identity to, or imbuement with, a particular unfolding pattern and context of Substance, seems to lack capacity to know or control the quality of the consciousness of any other perspective. This begs questions: May any particular or holistic (Godlike?) quality or perspective of CONSCIOUSNESS ENJOY A CAPACITY TO FLUX AMONG OPTIONS, to become dis-attached to a particular pattern of Substance, to become aware of, and control and synchronize, the unfolding manifestations of ALL existent and potential patterns of Substance? Is the Source (of Consciousness, Substance, and Information) ITSELF conscious of, or driven by, any coordinate, synchronizing purpose? (I can barely state such questions, much less pretend to understand whether there may abide “answers.”) May there abide an holistic, singular, imbuing Consciousness, which enjoys meta, flux, or feedback capacity to violate what we take to be the bivalent logic of the rule of the excluded middle, to simultaneously (or with instantaneous feedback?) enjoy holistic and particular perspectives? Or may IT achieve particular and different perspectives only at cost of dis-imbuing IT’s holistic self? Or may it be impossible for an holistic perspective to abide, so that the notion of an holistic perspective is an oxymoron, in that every perspective is necessarily particular, requiring bivalent antagonism to various remainders, all synchronized to one unfolding Source of separate perspectives of the same quality of consciousness, but imbued to different perspectives?

ALL CONSCIOUSNESS, IN ITS MOST FUNDAMENTAL  ATTRIBUTE (capacity to respond to sense representations of substantive reality) IS OF A SAME QUALITY (even though kinds and degrees of self awareness in respect of capacities for measureable data gathering and analyzing varies) :  Even assuming no holistic Consciousness (God?) could measure the separate quality of each and every separate perspective, yet, such synchronicity as unfolds from the Source is inherently necessary, in respect that the most fundamental quality of each perspective of consciousness, while each is unknown to the other, must nonetheless be the Same.  That quality of sameness about the most fundamental attribute of consciousness empowers capacity for flux appreciation of feedback, from among particular and more encompassing perspectives. That is, THERE ABIDES WITH THE SOURCE A QUALITY OF FLUX AND CONTINUITY OF INSTANTANEOUSLY ENTANGLED FEEDBACK AMONG UNFOLDING PERSPECTIVES OF THE PARTICULAR AND THE ENCOMPASSING. There is more that accompanies each pattern than can possibly meet the bivalent eye of any particular measurer.

SYNCHRONIZING PURPOSEFULNESS: Each fluxing perspective of consciousness may intuit or necessarily be responsive to a same conscious Quality-Of-Purposefulness, so that a common purpose (making one’s time entertaining?) necessarily guides each and every one of us --- even if there may not abide any higher or holistic consciousness that is simultaneously aware of all that is possible to such purposefulness. That is, even “God” may enjoy, apprehend, appreciate, emote, learn, and thus participate in pursuing, but never quite achieving, a reconciling of "the-manifest-becomed" with "the-potential-of-becomingness."

BAYES’ THEOREM:  Because we are synchronized, even if only in respect of feedback, therefore, continuosities of patterns abide, and, therefore, Bayes’ Theorem expresses a common truism: Probabilities of representations of Substance can be inferred from such patterns as appear to unfold, which may be consistent with, and self-fulfilling to, unfolding and synchronizing interests of perspectives of consciousness. That is, patterns of substance only exist, meaningfully, in relation to potentially appreciative perspectives, each perspective being necessarily synchronized to one unfolding Source. Thus, Bayes’ Theorem is secondary to a common-sense truism: When a pattern is sensed to repeat, synchronously, it may likely be inferred (or rationalized) that a meta pattern is abiding, and that IT (or the upshot of the sum of its merging participants) is qualitatively interested or invested in further explicating the quantitatively expressed pattern. Because there are so many perspectives of consciousness, no one perspective is controlling, so that each may, after the fact, rationalize a synchronized path consistent with resort to cherry-picked statistics.  Thus, depending on point of view, context, and purpose, one may model and rationalize to "explain" each event as if it were (1) favorably determined, (2) indifferently determined, or (3) randomly determined.  None among such three choices for a model is "correct"; rather, in each case, each model may be profitably rationalized, depending upon one's point of view, context, and purpose.  Regardless, however practically or profitably an explanation or belief may be applied, no mortal explanation for the existence of any unfolding event will ever be complete, coherent, and consistent.

INFORMATION UNFOLDS ALONG PATHS BY WHICH IT HAPPENS TO BE SHARED: That which avails consists of those patterns that comprise a point of view, or that may be considered to avail one’s point of view, so long as one’s point of view abides. It is because Consciousness identifies and imbues with Substance that hierarchies of Consciousness persist in explicating various forms, so that the likely recurrence of forms serves the self fulfilling merging of inclinations of continued consciousness, ever projected forward. Thus, perspectives merged into Nations are often like diversionary, rah-rah, week-end sports contenders: Writhing balls of interlocking worms of international organizations and corporations for fluxing models and connivances --- often abusing, inciting, and misplacing trust or distrust. Thus, Information happens to be shared, used, or abused ... insofar as perspective, purpose, and context ... are shared, used, or abused. Thus, “God” eternally fluxes, staging and posing us as avatars for extremities of experiential unfolding, AS IN A NOVEL WHEREIN WORDS ARE BREATHED WITH LIFE AND PURPOSE. Thus, God battles God’s self, and CONSCIOUSNESS OFTEN TAKES HOLISTIC LEAVE OF ITS PARTICULARLY IMBUED SELVES. When God seems less than good, it is the merging of our competing interests that makes the little reflection of god in each of us so.  Thus is staged, and made real, feedbacks and pursuits of: tragedy, pain, comedy, emotion, pleasure, happiness, fulfillment, purpose, reconciliation, respite, sanctuary, satisfaction. Thus, Consciousness abides and passes its time.

STORIES: Most books are about some person’s struggle to overcome, live with, or understand adversity; that is, to rationalize sense. The protagonist always tries to advance some model or mask on his adversary. Every such mask is always incomplete and a caricature. Masks, when too much and too long believed in, eventually lead their protagonists to their downfall — every time. Whatever the character of one’s defining adversary — whether a person, tribe, culture, race, nation, or corporation — that adversary will eventually, always, be misapprehended. Thus, every protagonist climbs high on his adversary, mis-perceiving him or it, and then eventually falls. Thus, we have racism and reverse racism; antagonism upon antagonism.

THE AMERICAN STORY: THUS, AMERICA  MAY SOONER FALL, UNLESS AMERICANS BECOME RECOMMITTED, REAWAKENED TO, AND ALIVE TO A UNIFYING PURPOSE OF PRESERVING INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE FROM AND WITHIN A WORLD OTHERWISE PRONE TO WRITHING BALLS OF ANTAGONISTIC, DIVERSIFIED MADNESS. That is, if Americans refuse to come to Jesus, at least we can COME TO THE REALITY OF CONSCIOUS EFFECT; at least we can come to true values and responsible mores; at least we can inculcate and respect values necessary to decent civilization among thinking beings and empathetic perspectives of consciousness. No one comes to decency except in such respect.

INFORMATION: Information does not exist in itself, except in relation to a capacity of the Substance of Consciousness (the living Word) to sponsor or appreciate it. In that regard, in meta aspect, the Source’s effects are the same, regardless of whether masked as material or spiritual. Information is what Consciousness, via feedback fluxing with the upshot of its merging perspectives, imposes on Substance, to correlate with the story that is told, in association with the story path that unfolds along, and in terms of, Substance. At meta level, between the fuzz and the manifest, the becoming and the becomed, Consciousness and Information and Substance are of the same Source, in respect of which all inter-transpose ... via some meta quality (or Living Word) beyond our measure. In such respect, Information is as potentially infinite as space-time and Consciousness.

SUBSTANCE AND MONEY: Always, from the perspectives of individuals, there is social, evolutionary competition to form, organize, direct, and control labor — and money serves, primarily, as symbolic representation for power to determine that. Except as Enlightened Consciousness (consciousness that respects that each individual should idealize such true values as are essential to decently ordered liberty) may direct, money, in itself, does not serve any ideal of equality, fairness, freedom, or dignity. Nor does government, forced redistribution, or other artifice of law, in itself, serve any ideal of equality, fairness, freedom, or dignity. WHAT CAN BEST SERVE TO HELP SUSTAIN DECENT CIVILIZATION IS A COMMON, AWAKENED EMPATHY IN RESPECT OF THE LIVING WORD. No Substance, Regulation, or Artifice can replace empathy and vision for the Living Word. Without such vision, a people (including Americans) are lost.

ROAD TO DESPOTISM:  The greater the cultural diversity, the greater the arbitrariness needed to bring about assimilation, the greater the need for fewer deciders, the greater the need for more money to leverage the fewer deciders, the greater the need for strings and regulations throughout, to control the system, the less the one-to-one responsive correlation to simplistic control, the greater the need for pose, poise, cult of personality, and arbitrary instillation of respect ... in the currency of fear.  This is not unlike trying to back up a rig that is articulated many times over:  there will be casualties, i.e., weak links of bend, break, and decision.  To survive in such a system, one must be very flexibly agile or very strong.  Americans have allowed our interconnections to become like a spilt package of pick up sticks.  Simply put, we have bitten off more cultural diversity than we can swallow, and we have not (yet) adduced an ethos that can now reassimilate us based purely on reason.  Though many consider themselves too smart to come to Jesus, most are too dumb to come to reality, i.e., the reality of a shared stake in a fundamental, binding aspect of consciousness.

PROBLEM OF MANIPULATION OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION:  Well meaning folks tend to be easily coopted and idiotized. This is because they project too readily, assuming the blandishments of sociopaths are backed by real empathy instead of narcissistic manipulation. Thus, well meaning folks too often allow themselves to be recruited in the causes of Dinos and Rinos, all of which may as well be united as Ainos --- against the idea of America as a land for the independent, decent, dignified, and free, against Americans who wish neither to rule nor to be ruled, but only to pursue their happiness, as their own receptivity to higher values accords them the light.


PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES:  I see a few Presidential candidates I consider to be real Americans.  Most are two-faced sell-outs to a NWO bent on imposing a world wide rule under elites, who tend not to be elite by virute of any higher merit, but only in respect of talent and willingness for posing, selling out, and looking out for "Number 1."  Those who are not two-faced sell-outs tend to be non-charismatic.  Those who are real Americans who are charismatic (Michele Bachmann) will be volleyed and thundered by all the guns and institutions owned by those among the NWO who are at least united in respect of wishing to undermine middle class freedom and dignity and swim among sharks.  "God" may eventually lead us to a return to decency.  However, more and more, it appears we are due for another long trek through the wilderness.

ENLIGHTENED CIVILIZATION: How we condition, inculcate, reward, and enrich various propensities for perspectives of consciousness has much to do with how nations will rise to advance various masks of God. To tolerate all masks for God is to tolerate the destruction of the most tolerant and to lay clear the way for the rise of the most horrific. It is cultural suicide. To not intuit when to stop trying to save everyone is to save the seed of our destruction. Enlightened tolerance would facilitate decent tolerance without fostering the rise of the ignorant and the horrific. Enlightened tolerance would not accord freedom to practice falsely-called "religions" that themselves do not allow freedom to choose whether to believe. By definition, a religion is something one believes is worthy or proper to accord to or to believe in (at least in respect of its figurative parables). When one is forced to feign belief, what is at work is not religion but tyranny. Enlightened tolerance would exclude from the definition of "religion" those sects that do not accord members the dignity of choosing whether to believe. A society of responsible adults ought not tolerate those who will not not tolerate its members' freedom to think for themselves. Our emphasis should be on saving those who show by ther acts that they care about defending a civilization of enlightened, not suicidal, tolerance.  To spend scarce resources to try to save those who refuse to be touched by any enlightened concern for God or for anyone but themselves or their posse, whether they be derelicts or despots, is to pour decency down a drain. We cannot save those who have so practiced as to set in concrete their feelings of entitlement to ignore every aspect of individual responsibility to socially enlightened beingness. We cannot morally or safely save those who are bent on pretense, as by inventing racist masks for falsely called gods, that the rest of the world's population should be subjugated to pay reparations or the dhimmi to them.

GOD:  To our service, God functions in steps with masks that we put on God, however shifting, decrepit and incomplete such masks may be.  As we promote false or horrific values, so will our dealings with God be through false and horrific filters (Allah?).  As we promote values of decency, empathy, dignity, and enlightened freedom (Jesus?), so will our dealings with God promote such values.  As we renounce God (Jehovah?), so will The Living Word renounce us.

BIRTH, DEATH, AND THE RE-NORMALIZING OF THE TRANSPOSING OF INFINITIES:  How (!) Consciousness merges in its infinite apprehensions of Information causes-effects-guides how Substance is synchronously formed, for the conserved appreciation of all perspectives of Consciousness and the reconciliation of the Holism of the Source with all its Particular forms of expression.  Consciousness and Information are infinite in their potential, while the Substance with which they interfunction is quantitatively conserved.  In other words, when Substance does transpose to explicate Consciousness or Information, Consciousness and Information will effect an equal, quantitative replacement of the Substance.  Thus, the interfunctioning of Consciousness, Information, and Substance is open, yet finitely conserved.  Substance (matter plus energy) is finite.  However, because Consciousness and Information reflect an aspect of infinity, the way in which they transpose (or are transposed ... as by birth, death, recycling) back and forth to balance and replace such Substance as may transpose into Consciousness or Information is of a quality that is beyond complete explication in the measureably quantitative.  Because the interfunctioning relationship between Consciousness and Information (which have an infinite aspect) with Substance (which has a finite aspect) is trivalent, our bivalent logic is powerless to quantify the relationships among the trivalence of the infinities.  Our either-or (bivalent) reasoning cannot capture the synchronizing flux of feedback between the whole of the Source and the parts of its constituents.  We can only measure the measureable aftereffects of interactions among the immeasureable qualitative.  We cannot measure what goes on between the leaps (quantum or otherwise) between the degrees of freedom of the parts and the conserving constraint of the whole.  Thus:  The door to understanding what comes after death is closed to any possible quantitative analysis by mortals.  However, the qualitative intuition is not closed.  Rather, because The Word abides, we also abide.  Because The Word, at least in merged effect, is responsive, we are morally responsible for how we falsely mask or apprehend God.

ENTROPY, FORCE PHASE SHIFTS, AND DEJA VU: Among forces coordinate with Substance, what kind of force relates to inertia, gravity, mass? Among the four forces (weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitatonal), may such forces inter-transpose, so long as conservation of the total of matter and energy is preserved? Presently, the gravitational force allows the Substance of our universe to accelerate in its expansion. Consistent with such expansion, the law of entropy indicates that a continuance towards disorder and dissipation is the rule. This is because the force of gravity is too weak to rein in the expansion that is being caused by the combination of the other three forces. However, what if the law of conservation allows an eventual phase shift or increase in the force of gravity, so long as offset by reductions in the other forces? What if continued expansion of Substance eventually necessitates such a phase shift? Does any reasoning support that such a phase shift may eventually be implicated?

MEASUREMENT PROBLEM: It appears that a Substance based universe implicitly calls for Observers, i.e., Consciousness. Without perspectives of Consciousness, Information and Substance would be without meaning, much the same as nothingness. Can nothingness arise from somethingness? Could Substance so dissipate as eventually to lose connection among its parts, so that its various components could no longer be conserved, subject to ordinary rules? Insofar as that aspect of Substance which is ruled by forces other than gravity, once those forces dissipate and start to break apart, won't gravity have to increase, if conservation is to be preserved? After all, isn't it nonsense to speak of Substance that is unaccompanied by any aspect of conservation, Consciousness, or Information? Doesn't every meaningfully, substantive universe, and any laws that govern it, require an Observer effect? Doesn't the Observer Effect tend to make likely that which is able to be experienced or appreciated as being fulfilling?

DEJA VU: Given an eventual phase shift, once the proportionate strength of gravity were to increase, to pull all Substance towards a re-collapse, would Consciousness and Informaton then be powerless to prevent a new collapse, followed by a new big bang, and so on? For a split sequence, would such a collapse put Consciousness and Information "to sleep"? Or, just before "going to sleep," would Consciousness and Information be involved in the Source's re-ignition of a new big bang? Is a sense of deja vu unavoidable during every event that comprises every cycle? What is the stake in this for each perspective of Consciousness? The appreciation of deja vu? Consider: When each individual perspective ceases or dies, the quality of its experience, if blacked out, upon recurrence, even if trillions of trillions of years later, would seem, for it, to entail the passage of no more time than the snap of a finger.

MORAL PROGRESS (AKA THE EVOLUTION OF ENLIGHTENMENT OF CONSCIOUSNESS):  Does "God" evolve by learning?  As more among the best of us become more enlightened, must not also "God" improve for the rest?  Must not the field of Consciousness (the character of Nature, or of Substance) gather Information and learn?!  Is the notion of an all perfect, all knowing, all powerful God faulty?  Would it not make better sense to conceptualize "God," not as all knowing or all powerful, but as, context considered, knowing as much as can be known and being as intelligently powerful as can be powered?  Must not the progress of each of us towards enlightenment inure also to God?  For the wise, should figurative interpretations of religions continuously reform and keep pace with advancements towards more consistent apprehensions of philosophy?  Which is of more import:  Being true to stagnant dogma, or being true to follow one's personal understanding of God to the best one is availed with insight to apprehend it?

FALSENESS AND MAKE UP:  With skilled make up, different qualities may be manipulated to appear in all outward, measurable, quantitative, substantive aspects, to be the same. Absent the wisdom of experience and intuition, the youth who are “too smart to know their ignorance” will not discern the quality or method of a source merely by measuring its output. Evil will put on the appearance of the authentic good; evil will demand at least equal treatment with the good. When it suits selfish interests, mothers will manipulate and harm children. When money from potential book deals beckons, jurors will find it more interesting to acquit notorious criminals. Why weigh justice for Casey Anthony more than one’s own comfort or pursuits? A society soon becomes overburdened with celebration of manipulative sociopaths. When rewards are seen by nearly all to fall mostly to unfaithful, shallow, manipulative sociopaths and to exhibitionists of narcissism, at some point, most will lose faith. They will come to ask what’s the use, and they will lay clear the path for evil. Even concepts of God will be masked, to rationalize good upside down. God will be masqueraded as tolerant patron for all, eventually leading us to tolerate even horror, to make horror a facade for justice. More and more scream: That we cannot legislate morality; that we dare not preach morality. Having professional jurors would hardly fix our system of justice, because a corrupt society would soon coopt them also. At some point, one recognizes that one cannot rehabilitate a society that is overburdened with those who feel entitled to narcissistic addictions. Eventually, the good withdraw, when they recognize that only the reality training of the street can effect repair. There comes a point such that the street will either repair or destroy. Short of awakening a wrathful God, there may be little hope for an evil society. Now everywhere, there abound license, lust, looting, and leering. The new oxymoron and walking contradiction: “Libertine Conservatives.” What kind of trade and free-licensure cannot they rationalize and justify? Get ready to blow away the peepholes and brace the way for new founding fathers to preside over ProgAmerica: Carnival barkers. Put P.T. Barnum on the dollar bill.

THE GUIDE'S PURPOSES

EXOGENOUS CAUSES:  There is no separate, vacuumed, testable system outside our cone of shared substantive experience.  There is no perfect test for causes exogenous to any subsystem.  Every subsystem relates to and overlaps with other subsystems.  We are not availed means within the encompassing system to measure its total potential or to determine or control its exogenous "causes."  We can pretend and tinker, AS IF to perfectly or "rigorously" sever and test a subsystem.  However, our very observation of it renders the severance incomplete.

CAUSES AND CORRELATES:  Were one to suppose one could control "the real cause(s)" for the measurable expression of out-winding reality, one may as well suppose one may cause out-winding reality to in-wind, to reverse time.  However, mortals do not comprehend or control the CAUSAL agency of reality.  Rather, we seek from signs and CORRELATES to observe, interpret, model, and predict.  We participate to avail feedback as we appreciate the out-winding of substantive forms of all the correlates that encompass and surround us.  We never step into the same river twice.  However, if we are to preserve our bonded identifications with our substantively expressed bodies, we have little choice but to assume the measurable significations around us conform to statistical analysis, and, where necessary to preserve and make sense of the bond, to rationalize backwards to confirm the conformity.  Relative to our short experiences of beingness, many correlates seem reliably preset to run deep.  During our existentiality, such deep correlates may as well be modeled as if they, in themselves, were actual causal agents, rather than themselves being mere correlates --- signified by a deeper Agency.  And so, we often seek to divine the most reliable model by which to predict all local out-windings.  We often get lost in such seeking, hoping to find the perfect model by which to predict and control all correlates ... as if such a perfect model exists for the comprehension of mortals, as if by understanding such model, mortals could usurp the ultimate causal agent and become their own Gods.

THE GUIDE:  Whatever guides various events may likewise guide us to look for statistics in a context by which to rationalize such events.  Whatever guides us to seek to rationalize events may likewise guide how events are reconciled into measurable manifestation.  In other words, looking for statistical trends may correlate with statistical trends. One can collect a myriad of data sets, adopt a stance, adopt a myriad of substantives, subject them all to various forms of regressive statistical analysis, and then hypothecate various correlates of "causes."  Thereby, one may seek to uncover a mathematical explanation for every phenomenon, consistent with an assumption that every measurable unfolding of substance is caused by a measurable substantive agent. All the while, one can contrive to data mine for additional, statistical, regressive, meta analysis. Depending on choice of focus, purpose, and context, one may eventually mine data in order to funnel correlates to appear to cause entire cosmos, to give expression to whatever is in the power of one to conceptualize and imagine.

PROBLEM WITH THINGINESS THINKING:  Auguste Comte --- “If it is true that every theory must be based upon observed facts, it is equally true that facts can not be observed without the guidance of some theories. Without such guidance, our facts would be desultory and fruitless; we could not retain them: for the most part we could not even perceive them."

FLUX EFFECT OF OBSERVER FEEDBACK:  I do not believe it is possible to freeze a dynamic, complex system in order statistically to account for every part of it in an exhaustive and mutually exclusive way, much less to factor every such part with a number for comparative measurement. In part, this is because every complex system is simultaneously in flux, even as it is being measured. Moreover, every partly measurable complex system, in infinite regression, is affected by feedback in its own relation to a more encompassing complex system, which could not be factored without extending the range and definition of the system under analysis. Moreover, even the most encompassing, measurable system imaginable -- the substantive universe -- is qualitatively affected by the non-substantive, non-measurable reality from which it originated and with which its reality is dependent, perhaps even synchronously derivative.

 

ROSES OF REALITY:  I suspect a view of Reality can just as well be supported ... AS IF  (1) Reality were the objective upshot of materially pre-set causes ... AS can a view that (2) Reality were the subjective upshot of signs that emerge in respect of the inter-functioning of perspectives limited to a synchronizing Consciousness. (Occam’s razor seems to cut just as well, both ways. Is Substance mere epiphenomena of Consciousness, or is Consciousness mere epiphenomena of Substance?)  I doubt mere science or math can prove "the real" answer in any way that is best for all perspectives, purposes, and contexts.  Rather, I suspect probability concepts (Bayes' inferences) would apply equally well in either case.  Moreover, quantitative Substance and qualitative Consciousness do not seem to constitute mutually exclusive and exhaustive components of "Reality."  Rather, there seems to be a third "component," i.e., Information. 

INFORMATION:  "In itself," Information is neither Substance nor Consciousness. So, Reality seems to unfold in respect of a trivalent inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Mere math does not avail the kind of reconstruction, deconstruction, or negation that can reliably show us how to control, predict, or rewind the unfolding inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Limits for the realms of the Substantive, Conscious, and Informational appear to be fuzzy (perhaps even shape shifting). That which seems to be inanimate of any conscious aspect may simply consist of pre-set, temporally dormant aspects of "Something Trinitarian" --- which synchronously sources all three fundaments: Consciousness, Information, and Substance.

BEGGING A QUESTION:  Given a trinitarian based reality, how can binary based logic possibly be expected to avail any exactly descriptive model?  How can any mortal, conscious being reasonably expect to derive a complete, consistent, coherent explanation for everything?  Alternatively stated, accepting our participatory experience of measurably unfolding quantitatives, does any "law" of probability merely avail a circularly trivial, self fulfilling rationalization of reality?  As to the non-trivial, I know not.  Rather, I appreciate and apprehend ("prehend"). And my appreciation )prehension) inclines me towards an unquantifiable quality of self fulfilling empowerment.  That is, I prehend that consciousness recognizes itself as present in all of existence.

CHOICE OF CONCEPTUALIZATION:  One may conceptualize, depending on one’s purposes, as if a system of relationships were consciously guided, materially determined, or empirically random. In each case, whatever the result, it could be reconciled to a choice of conceptual rationalization. The synchronizing reconciliation of observations and apprehensions of degrees of freedom may be conceptualized as implicating a holistic aspect of Consciousness that is beyond caring what IT might be named.

CONCEPTS WITHIN CONCEPTS:  When conditions are novel, Bayes’ Theorem seems amenable of being twisted like a crooked horse race. After the race is run, an intellectual may re-study and re-normalize the factors and decide, Why yes, the actual result was probable all along! It’s just that the betting public had been duped by the wrong factors!  How convenient!  When one assumes all things and events are preset and predetermined, one easily cherry picks factors after the fact, to "prove" one's initial assumption, thereby to demonstrate the event was probable all along, and then call such factors the controlling factors, and perhaps even rationalize "laws" based thereon.  Given that observable patterns are necessarily rationalize-able to such logic gates as happen to avail said observers, such circular rationalizations may often be easily done.  What such methods of rationalization cannot explain, however, is when grooves for logic gates suddenly change or phase shift.  Are such changes entirely and quantitatively determined by matter, or are they in some quality chosen or guided by consciousness?

BAYES’ INFERENCE:  We are particular perspectives that obey quantitative requirements imposed in respect of a field of space-time-matter-energy, which encompasses us in common, in respect of which our individual feedback is synchronized.  Continuosities of patterns abide.  We make inferences of arithmetical probabilities based on observations and assumptions about factors and sub-factors.  Thus, we in common experience a truism: Probabilities of representations of Substance can be inferred from such patterns as appear to unfold (which may be consistent with, and self-fulfilling to, unfolding and synchronizing interests of perspectives of consciousness). That is, patterns of substance only exist, meaningfully, in relation to potentially appreciative perspectives, each perspective being necessarily synchronized to ONE unfolding Source. Thus, probabilities are inferred secondary to a common-sense truism: When a pattern is sensed to repeat, synchronously, it may likely be inferred (or rationalized) that a meta pattern is abiding, and that IT (or the upshot of the sum of its merging participants) is qualitatively invested in further explicating the quantitatively expressed pattern. Because there are so many perspectives of consciousness, no one perspective is controlling, so that each, after the fact, may rationalize a synchronized path consistent with resort to cherry-picked STATISTICS.  Depending on point of view, context, and purpose, one may model and rationalize to "explain" each event as if it were (1) favorably determined, (2) indifferently determined, or (3) randomly determined.  None among such choices for a model need be "correct." Rather, in each case, each model may be profitably rationalized, depending upon one's point of view, context, and purpose.  Regardless, however practically or profitably an explanation or belief may be applied, no mortal explanation for the existence of any unfolding event will ever be complete, coherent, and consistent.

TRIVIALITY THAT STUFF HAPPENS:  As each new thing is birthed from a previous environment, it must not so alter the environment that was necessary to its birth as to destroy its potential to endure ... if it is to happen to endure. (Trivially, stuff happens.)  It must not, by multiplying, endanger the conservational synchronicity of the system that nurtures it. To endure, it must express strategies that will average out any adverse tendencies it may effect.  Trivially, that which evolves and endures will tend to be synchronously compatible with the homeostasis of its environment.  Is this "really" a happenstance-triviality, or is it byproduct of a guiding aspect of consciousness?

DIVINE COMEDY:  To my intuition, it is because Consciousness identifies and imbues with Substance that hierarchies of Consciousness persist in explicating various forms, so that the likely recurrence of forms serves the self fulfilling merging of inclinations of continued consciousness, ever projected forward. Thus, perspectives merged into Nations are often like diversionary, rah-rah, week-end sports contenders: Writhing balls of interlocking worms of international organizations and corporations for fluxing models and connivances --- often abusing, inciting, and misplacing trust or distrust. Thus, Information happens to be shared, used, or abused ... insofar as perspective, purpose, and context ... are shared, used, or abused. Thus, “God” eternally fluxes, staging and posing us as avatars for extremities of experiential unfolding, AS IN A NOVEL WHEREIN WORDS ARE BREATHED WITH LIFE AND PURPOSE. Thus, God battles God’s self, and CONSCIOUSNESS OFTEN TAKES HOLISTIC LEAVE OF ITS PARTICULARLY IMBUED SELVES. When God seems less than good, it is the merging of our competing interests that makes the little reflection of god in each of us so.  Thus is staged, and made real, feedbacks and pursuits of: tragedy, pain, comedy, emotion, pleasure, happiness, fulfillment, purpose, reconciliation, respite, sanctuary, satisfaction. Thus, Consciousness abides and passes its time.

INSPIRING STORIES: Most books are about some person’s struggle to overcome, live with, or understand adversity; that is, to rationalize sense. The protagonist always tries to advance some model or mask on his adversary. Every such mask is always incomplete and a caricature. Masks, when too much and too long believed in, eventually lead their protagonists to their downfall — every time. Whatever the character of one’s defining adversary — whether a person, tribe, culture, race, nation, or corporation — that adversary will eventually, always, be fatally misapprehended. Thus, every protagonist climbs high on his adversary, mis-perceiving him or it, and then eventually falls. Thus, we have racism and reverse racism; antagonism upon antagonism, cares upon cares.

META EXPERIMENTS OF RECONCILER:  Does some Reconciling Aspect of the cosmos conduct meta experiments, to test how that which it likes versus dislikes may flux depending on context, purpose, and focus?  May varying experiments be underway in various parts of the cosmos, perhaps to test how to distinguish likeable goods from dislikeable evils?  Is there some fuzzy yet progressive goal to the evolution of complex orderliness out of chaos?

META PURPOSEFULNESS:  Within a shared system of reconciling constraints, for any homoeostasis that is temporally achieved, is it preferred that advanced sentient inhabitants thereof should be instructed in fine detail with regard to each decision they make within a collective consolidation of centralized control?  Is it preferred that the central authority evolve to regiment the distribution of equality among clearly distinguishable classes?  Or is it preferred that advanced sentient beings should evolve in assimilated empathy in order to allow them to be entrusted with broad ranges and degrees of freedom?

POSSIBLE PATHS:  The first path seems to be the one advocated by "Progressives" such as Obama.  The second path is explored in Huxley's Brave New World.  The third path is often discussed as if it were the American Ideal.  When Obama says he wants to bring fundamental change to America, he means he wants to take us from the third path back to the first, to restrain us from broad freedom in order to deliver us to a collective yoke, which he believes will be friendlier to Gaia, as well as easier on the minds of jealous incompetents and lazy, entitlement-minded louts (i.e., the base of Dim voters).

FIRST PATH:  The first path requires that economists (Krugman?) as chosen by the regime be entrusted to treat adult human beings as if they were blank slates or interchangeable widgets.  They would aspire to nurture an outward appearance of a successful collective, in respect of which inward values of freedom of thought and action and individual expression and enterprise would be bred and programmed out.  (Sort of like a permanent solution to a problem that, to Progs, seems like smallpox.)   Krugman may be able to devise a perfect economy for indifferent robots, tied to a central economic programmer.  But I doubt his methods could ever efficiently grease the working relationships between free operatives within a human economy.

SECOND PATH:  The second path requires an uber slave to install a program for the deliberate breeding and programming of sub-slaves, who are never to be allowed to escape the chains that mark their class.

THIRD PATH:  The third path is messy and often results in jealousies among those who compare themselves as being less lucky in lotteries of talent, energy, or opportunity.  This path becomes especially messy as discontented individuals become attached to fever-inducing memes and religions.  Especially as malcontents and cronies deploy bribery to corrupt access to weapons of mass destruction.  Society, to protect itself, may then sacrifice privacy to try to safeguard freedom.  Problem is, loss of privacy leads to advancements in prediction of antisocial behavior, so that classes of permissible associations and behaviors are gradually constricted, which leads towards collectivization, which leads towards efforts by the regime to justify and inculcate hive-mind as a good thing.

COMPARISON OF PATHS:  The first path leads nearly to punishments for thought crime (and IRS/DOJ/FBI/BATF investigations), as well as to irrational exuberance for entertaining mental disturbances of despots.  We've seen that road (Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Tojo, ad infinitum). The second path just puts us back in chains (even if the chains be contrived to be light).  (What is the point of being an advanced sentient being, only to be kept in chains?)  Without assimilating to a purposeful, inviting, caring, meta Guide ("coming to Jesus"), nor does the third path show any possible way back to Eden.
 

Drake: Where Are They?

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

Again, I did not say minds exist without bodies. I said what we experience as mind and what we measure as body are entangled aspects of what we experience as reality. Moreover, bodies are packets of stored Information, which is continuously being accumulated. Bodies do not exist as things-in-themselves. If they did, we would have no meaningful way to relate to them.

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

I can't help you clear up your confusion until you learn to stop conflating the idea of brain with brain-in-itself and the idea of consciousness with sapient consciousness (consciousness of consciousness).

Think: Do you really want to conflate the quantitative expression of Substance (brain material) with the qualitative experience of Consciousness?

IAE, I did not say that the brain does not avail the expression of consciousness, nor that consciousness can be leveraged apart from brain. I said they are entangled.

CSI: Substance, such as brain and/or body (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into measurable Substance. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold. Every measurably quantitative unfoldment and every qualitative appreciation entails an entangled fluxing of CSI.

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

CONSCIOUSNESS AND BRAINS: Our brains are not, in themselves, conscious. Rather, they are math circuits with which Consciousness avails expression for various of its perspectives. At higher levels, such perspectives participate in appreciating how the expression of universe is reconciled to unfold.

MATHICALITY: The shape / frame of reference that our Universe presents to appear to any particular Perspective depends on locally experienced gravitational curvature, proximity of the Perspective, and its speed. There is no shape for any physical universe-in-itself that can be objectively drawn. Rather, it can only be expressed in locally appreciated mathicality.

CSI: Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into Substance. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.

ENTROPIC DISSIPATION INTO DISORDERLINESS AND HEAT LOSS V. EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS OUT OF CHAOS:  What seems to be expanding is the space between galaxies, not galaxies themselves.  IAE, it does not appear that Information is lost.  Rather, local systems with reliable and regular heat sources (suns) seem to avail complex systems to evolve, to favor those most suited to survive and replicate.

SELF-FACTORING INFINITY:  Even if the primary from which all is derived abides as a self-factoring infinity of math-based chaos that expresses variously multiversed systems of algorithms, such a self-factoring, self-actuating infinity is not nothing.  Rather, it abides as an existential somethingness.  To the extent IT may employ systems of equation-based algorithms, that function as fluxing systems subject to internal feedback and processing of Information, who are we to think it must be dumb or entirely unconscious or devoid of organizational appreciation?

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

Behind much of religion is an idea that there is more to beingness than what can be measured.  That there abides a higher basis for appreciating right and wrong, good faith and bad faith, good will and bad will.

Wannabe people-farming fascists that believe they own moral determinations as some kind of new priesthood of "moral scientists" hate that.

In some respects, I like Peterson and Harris.  In other respects, Harris especially can be incredibly juvey.

The reason many people have not forsaken higher mindedness, even as they leave organized systems of elitist dogma, may have something to do with having peered into the well of smug despotism and decided they do not like it.

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

Your incapacity to say anything substantive that would incline towards preserving the republic against the allied despotism of corrupti and ignoranti is noted. There is nothing so mule headed as a fascist who believes he has the scientific moral truth.

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

FACTORING PROBABILITIES AMONG PERSPECTIVES OF CONSCIOUSNESS:

Bayes’s theorem describes the probability of an event, based on prior knowledge of measurable conditions that might be related to the event. For example, if cancer is related to age, then, using Bayes’ theorem, the measure of a person’s age can be used to more accurately assess the probability that they have cancer, compared to the assessment of the probability of cancer made without knowledge of the person's age. With the Bayesian probability interpretation the theorem expresses how a subjective degree of belief should rationally change to account for availability of measurably related evidence. Bayesian inference is fundamental to Bayesian statistics.

Subjective Consciousness functions as if measurable events of the past should be a guide. This is how "if-then" reasoning proceeds, as it filters to select for the most reliably measurable factors to guide subsequently desired results.  This can help Consciousness more in the "how" to achieve a desired result, but not so much in the "why" to desire a particular result.

The combined effect of various perspectives of Consciousness (subconsciously functioning as if commonly confirmed perceptions concerning the past should be assumed to be a "how to" guide) seems to function towards making such assumption self-fulfillingly consistent.


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

THINGS AND WITTGENSTEIN:  There are not objective "things."  There are fluxing relationships that are, thanks to the uncertainty principle, not subject to any absolute, complete, or fixed measurement.  However, they are often subject to practical measurements within orders of significance, which often avails astonishing technologies.  The flux of relationships does entail the continuous transmission, reception, and reconciliation of Information.

For example, the speed of light is not fixed as a thing-in-itself, but as a constant relationship to every perspective.  To whatever the extent needed to preserve that constant, every perspective will have a differently "curved" (or reconciled or renormalized) experience of its space-time frame of reference.

When Wittgenstein-ians argue among themselves about banalities, such as whether there is an "end to every thing," they bore me.  Apart from co-dependent flux of relationships, there are no things-in-themselves, there never has been any such things, and there never will be any such things.  Every relationship that we experience, sense, measure, appreciate, or communicate concerns Information about fluxing relationships --- not any "things" in themselves.

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

EVOLUTION: With regard to the evolution of societies and nations, you seem to have an incoherent appreciation of evolution, i.e., propagation of the most fit to replicate. On one hand, you assume the process is not consciously guided, but on the other you assume some natural truth about how it should be guided.

Meantime, I assume it is ok with you that I direct some of my poorer kin to your house, to invade it in order to equalize your stuff? I am partly Scots-irish. Perhaps I should retain some grudge against the Vikings and Scandinavians? They certainly increased their wealth as a product of colonization or invasion. Btw, for sanctuary cities, do you have some scale to decide which kinds of invaders should be entitled to the most generous amounts of equalizing reparations?

PATRIOTIC ASSIMILATION: When you make such remarks, it leads me to believe you do not really believe in patriotic assimilation. You prefer a hodgepodge. An unraveling of the USA. Perhaps California as three states, or a La Raza Reconquista. See https://www.heritage.org/immigration/report/patriotic-assimilation-indispensable-condition-land-immigrants: "Patriotic assimilation is the bond that allows America to be a nation of immigrants. Without it, America either ceases to be a nation, becoming instead a hodgepodge of groups—or it becomes a nation that can no longer welcome immigrants. It cannot be both a unified nation and a place that welcomes immigrants without patriotic assimilation."

ENEMY WITHIN: This new hodgepodge scientism (or bastardized philosophy) also turns our schools and then our media against the Constitutional Republic. The hatred against founding principles is seen in the divisiveness of Antifa, the calls by Crazy Maxine for impeachment, the Obama regime's fanning of the flames of Ferguson, the open border efforts of Soros, and so on.

SPECIAL TREATMENT FOR SUPERFICIAL GROUPS: From the article cited above: "Special treatment for specific groups by the federal bureaucracy implies betrayal and rejection of the principles espoused by every American leader from Washington through Reagan. This approach has contaminated our schools, preventing them from teaching civic principles and reverence for the nation—including lessons on how those principles have helped leaders repair the nation’s faults. The new approach also threatens the cherished American principle of equal treatment under the law."

LITTLE PEOPLE: Regarding "never been better for ... that can afford...."! Yup. Life is good for Barbara Streisand as she hires the little people to shelter her home from invasion, but invites all of middle class Californians to be laid open to gimmedats.

NATURAL MORAL STANDARD: You assume there is some kind of objective, concrete, true standard for degradation, apart from the consciously subjective appreciation of it. That is where you fall into error. Or, if not, please explain what this objective standard is, how it is scaled, and what it proves. Is there some "natural law" reason for favoring diversity for the sake of diversity, even if it entails increased rates of non-assimilation of patriotic values?

CHERRY PICKED CHARTS: Is your chart below supposed to be some kind of scientific indicator? Does it factor for cities of diverse populations, illegal alien populations, quality of life, Dem mayors, strength of economy, increased surveillance, better technology, changing habits for reporting crime, improved devices for home security, numbers of feces on streets? Do illegal aliens tend to report crime? Is there a projection for what the rates would have been, had there been more assimilation and less illegal invasion?

According to Bureau of Justice Statistics: "Most crimes are not reported to police, and most reported crimes are not solved. In its annual survey, BJS asks victims of crime whether they reported that crime to police. In 2016, only 42% of the violent crime tracked by BJS was reported to police. And in the much more common category of property crime, only about a third (36%) was reported. There are a variety of reasons crime might not be reported, including a feeling that police “would not or could not do anything to help” or that the crime is “a personal issue or too trivial to report,” according to BJS."

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

PROFOUND ISSUE: At bottom, there is between us a much more profound issue, of which I suspect you have very little appreciation. It relates to the title for the article, Is the Godhead Conscious?

I believe there is absolute truth in the Great Commandment (good faith) and Golden Rule (good will). However, as to specifics for fleshing those rules out, much less so. That is because working out the specifics entails reconciliation among numerous subjective perspectives of Consciousness. We provide the sinews for the Reconciler. I think that reconciliatory process should be voluntary as much as feasible. It should be energized by people coming together voluntarily to participate in forums, such as churches, for inspiring people to reason together in good faith and good will. I think that was key to the American project.

For that, it seems to me that moral scientisimists have little to contribute, but much to poison. I am not sure how deaf, dumb, and blind they seem to be to a key point: To replace godly inspired voluntary good faith and good will among responsible individual citizens with so-called "natural moral science" (as indoctrinated by fake priests of natural moral science) is calculated to put the masses under the authority of corporate fascists, as they regulate impositions against freedom of expression, association, and enterprise.

Too often, what rises to the top among such fascists is not the cream. To replace the Constitutional republic with elitist open borders is to make the world one vast plantation for people farmers to farm the cheapest laborers of the desperate masses. But hey, so long as you're comfortable among people promoting that agenda.


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

THEOSOPHY:

Regarding the link I provided, the online source apparently does not support its direct use. I have encountered that kind of difficulty before. When I'm really interested, I simply search the first clause of the first quotation from the link. Which I provided, along with other salient quotations.

Regarding scientism, I don't think it is honest to suggest I have used the term to condemn all scientific endeavor. Rather, I have specifically advocated that the method of philosophical conceptualization not be used if it impairs science.

Otoh, I think common sense indicates areas that are beyond scientific kin. Such as for determining or measuring precisely what existed "before" the "beginning" of our measurable universe. Or for speculating that our universe could arise or be sustained out of nothing more than math, without the qualitative involvement of any activator. Or for prescribing what is good or bad in purely scientific terms. Or for prescribing the best form of government for a particular society or culture. Or for prescribing or even defining equality of economic results among all people of the world. Or for deciding which groups should be "scientifically/morally entitled" based on superficial traits (such as color or recent status of invasive-"immigration") to gang up politically to take the stuff of other people. Or for pretending to make spiritual concepts irrelevant merely by imagining an infinity of untestable parallel universes or bubbles.

For those areas, I think philosophical conceptualization can provide at least as good an approach as over-greedy scientism and anti-theistic scientisimists. For such areas, much depends on choice of worldview. Not every political philosophy is necessarily appropriate to every society or culture.

Now, if I were from a failed culture or nation, I may be tempted to imagine I have some kind of "natural right" to invade a neighbor to "ëqualize" his stuff. However, I don't think that kind of philosophy is suitable for sustaining the modern world. I do not believe it would raise economies. Rather, I suspect it would tend more towards equalizing poverty and misery. It may even impair real science from being deployed to repel that asteroid that may have Earth's name on its trajectory.

But I do not base that on science. I base it on my judgment and experience concerning human relations and history. I do NOT call that judgment "science." In some cases, I may call it coming together to reason in good faith and good will.

For example, I happen to value a Constitution-based representative republic. Which I do not think can be sustained by importing or indoctrinating a flood of liberty-illiterates that can be easily bribed (and not to their long term good) by nefarious, godless, self-godded, people-farmers.

I do not believe you have thought through any point about "theosophism" or non-scientism "insights." I hope you do not believe that conceptual assimilations concerning social values are devoid of insight merely because their truth values cannot be proved in ultimate logic or science, outside of self-fulfilling experience. I hope you do not believe that nothing is of value unless it can be utterly reduced to 1's and 0's.

Moral conceptualism (theosophy?) can help on conditional bases. For example, if I decide to identify with the idea of a representative republic, then I can make conditional recommendations. Such as, don't swamp the nation with a majority of imported voters that value instead electing politicians that promise free stuff, often elevated based on gang identifiers (such as race, etc.)

Now, if I decide I just want to suck off the work of others, then I may prefer a gang, culture, or nation where the rulers have specialized in that sort of thing. And once they have sucked their own nation dry, I may want to emigrate with them to plague another nation with my "special sense of fairness." It's not for nothing that many liberty-illiterates want to emigrate to the West.

If you have not noticed the degradation of life in London, Paris, New York, and San Francisco, I'm afraid there's not much I can do to help you.


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

SCIENTISM:

I am surprised that, for someone so apparently dedicated to science, you seem unfamiliar with the now common term of scientism.

A good primer is here: https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_scientism.html:

Scientism is the broad-based belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences. It is based on the belief that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, and that the methods of natural science form the only proper elements in any philosophical (or other) inquiry.
....

Proponents of Scientism often assert that the boundaries of science could and should be expanded so that something that has not been previously considered as a subject pertinent to science can now be understood as part of science. In its most extreme form, Scientism can be seen as a faith that science has no boundaries, and that in due time all human problems and all aspects of human endeavour will be dealt and solved by science alone
....

It has been argued that Scientism, in the strong sense, is self-annihilating in that it takes the view that only scientific claims are meaningful, which is not itself a scientific claim. Thus, Scientism is either false or meaningless.

Certainly, it requires the almost complete abandonment of any metaphysical or religious discussion, (and arguably also any ethical discussion), on the grounds that these cannot be apprehended by the scientific method, which is very limiting for a supposedy all-encompassing doctrine. Some would say that proponents of Scientism merely avoid actually engaging with many important arguments.

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

Since you seem unfamiliar with the concept, you probably have not thought much about tendencies loosed when corrupt or fake elites indoctrinate a citizenry into radical scientism. A society so indoctrinated will be trained to defer to so called scientific experts in every field, including morality, art, and politics. This is what I consider to be very dangerous to any citizenry that values and wants to preserve itself as comprising a representative republic. If you refuse to appreciate that, then I agree, we have very little to discuss.


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

CRAPHOLES:

I do not see science as the problem so much as scientism. I thought I made that distinction clear, but maybe not. I do not see the scientism of Nazis, Fascists, or Communists as something to admire. Nor have I found them to be well adjusted or happy.

I'm not aware of any polls that would support your position on that. It may be interesting to conduct some actual polls in major cities that are run by Dem so-called moral scientists. My take is that I do not see the scientisimic axis of Leftist corrupti and ignoranti, that wants to replace the free-thinking representative-republic with elitist ruled mass indoctrination, as something to admire.

Nor do I see elitist scientisimists as fostering a better life for all of humanity "without consideration for race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc." Maybe that is supposed to be a joke? Rather, I see them fostering division, discord, misery, and hate by farming and inciting gangs based on superficial differences. Many people have lived in socialistic crapholes, but want to come to America to spit on it and try to turn it into the kind of craphole they left. Your take on San Francisco and California as exuding some kind of progressive leadership is probably very different from mine.

I think whatever you're imagining bears little resemblance to reality. But hey, everyone gets a chance to choose their worldview. To my thinking, if you like your despotic, scientismic, socialistic craphole, you should keep your craphole. But I have no desire for it.


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

I DON'T KNOW:

That might be the case. And it might not. I don't think science can shed light on the question.

Meantime, we directly experience consciousness, the necessity of choices, and the need to assimilate civilizing values.

I do not have faith in science to do a good job of that. Rather, I see moral scientisimists as being dangerous to decent civilization.

But I agree that one can make a worldview (anti-anthropic) choice to conceptualize conscious good faith and good will as being of no value for any legitimate or meaningful purpose.

However, from what I see, many such people tend to be bitter, unhappy, and not much help for sustaining a representative republic instead of an elitist run despotism.


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

THE RUB:

Does potential for manifestation that is not presently manifested "exist"? If so conceptualized, then perhaps we should imagine the Universe at its simplest as a superposition of presently appreciated manifestation and potentiality of non-presently appreciated manifestation.

I agree that given an infinite number of yes and no answers, 1s and 0s (yin and yang?), such would carry potentiality for simulating an infinite number of realities. Question: Would that implicate an activating and involved Simulator? Would that Simulator retain capacity to intervene (or remain involved) in guiding the unfolding simulation?

The rub: What turns math into a functioning Algorithm? What can use mere math to avail interpretations or appearances of measurable sensations? I do not think science can provide or test for such an answer. I think whatever IT ultimately is, IT is beyond the reach of mortal science, but perhaps not beyond the reach of mortal appreciation.

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

THEOSOPHY:

Regarding theology or metaphysics: It's not so much that all things end, but that all appearances transition to other phases. Like an unfolding of math translations and interpretations.

My conceptual interpretation:

Substance (S) is that which stores Information (I). I is that which cumulates into S. Consciousness (C) is that which experiences what it is like for I to be accumulated into S and for determinations of manifestations of cumulations of I to unfold.

In that respect, C, S, and I are co-fundaments. But I conceptualize them not as necessarily having an original beginning point, but as always phasing, fluxng, and operating in synchronicity.

Each entails involvement with the other two. All three are innately adapted to the Math (laws of Nature) and the math Activator (God?) that regulates and reconciles them.

But may that Activator be conscious in any worthwhile sense that we can appreciate? For a purpose of inspiring hope or the assimilation of ought from is, it is not necessary that such a case be proven. Only that it be thought internally reasonable and not disproved by free thinkers.

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

COMMON SENSE REGARDING WHAT IS BEYOND SCIENCE:

First, I think common sense can often differentiate between what is necessarily in the realm of metaphysics versus testable science. We do not have access to a twin universe with which to conduct double blind experiments.

Second, I thought it was you that indicated the science is settled, that the universe arose from nothing. Do you see the irony in the position you are taking now?

IAE, I do find it worthwhile to conceptualkze how the apparent unfolding of our universe may be derivative of nothing more than math and a math activator. But that is not nothing.

*********

COMMON SENSE REGARDING GOOD FAITH AND GOOD WILL:

Btw, I am not especially interested in the metaphysics of heaven or salvation. Though I do suspect that consciousness from one perspective or another never ceases. But what is of more interest to me is how to inspire and assimilate ought from is. I do not see science as much help for that. And I do not see decent civilization as having much chance without it.

Moreover, I suspect a lot of wannabe people-farmers have adopted some very demented codes of morality. There have been some "moral science clubs" that I think tend to support elitist despotic rule more so than a decent regard for the freedom and dignity of ordinary citizens. In that regard, I see scientism as often being in the service of, or being deployed for, conniving or even evil purposes. I suspect many Nazis, Fascists, and Communists convinced.themselves they were being good little moral scientists.

For myself, I prefer the New Testament teaching of good faith and good will. I think that had much to do with the general success of the American Project. Notwithstanding snooty pretense.common among Brits.

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

EX NIHILO:

Interestingly, Krauss avows not just to be an atheist, but to be an antitheist. Perhaps he has some bias in favor of denigrating the belief system of anyone who disagrees with him? Perhaps he disparages philosophy because he is not particularly good at it?

Cosmologist George Ellis and mathematical physicist I.S. Kohli have opposed his notion and argued that many of his claims pertaining to A Universe from Nothing "are not supported in full by modern general relativity theory or quantum field theory in curved spacetime". So I don't think you can safely say the idea is proved by physics.

He says: "What would be the characteristics of a universe that was created from nothing, just with the laws of physics and without any supernatural shenanigans? The characteristics of the universe would be precisely those of the ones we live in."

Well, "just with the laws of physics" is the problem with the idea of coming from nothing. Those laws are not "nothing." In a way of thinking, those laws form an Algorithm, or a system of math. Which may entice some to ask: Well, is it reasonable to imagine a time when no math existed?

******************** 

IAE, I personally have been very sympathetic to an idea that what appears to be our physical universe (of measurable space-time-matter-energy) is a derivative of math. I only add it seems sensible to me that something is needed to fire up and continue math-ing the math. I don't see much sense in imagining that math somehow math's itself.

I am also sympathetic to an idea that our measurable universe did not suddenly arise out of a self-created pre-design. My conceptualization is that there has always been a feedback relationship between Math and a Math Activator. That gives rise to an unfolding feedback relationship among three co-relational fundaments: Immeasurable Consciousness, measurable Substance, and cumulating information.

I do not speculate or advocate whether that feedback dynamic gives rise to just one universe, a multiplicity of universes, a dissipating universe, or a yo-yo universe. I do tend to conceptualize that the feedback relationship, in one form or another, has always existed and always will exist.

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

See https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/is-lawrence-krauss-a-physicist-or-just-a-bad-philosopher/:

Per David Albert of Columbia: "But the laws have no bearing whatsoever on questions of where the elementary stuff came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular elementary stuff it does, as opposed to something else, or to nothing at all." ...................

"The fundamental physical laws that Krauss is talking about in A Universe From Nothing--the laws of relativistic quantum field theories--are no exception to this. The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on--and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story."

Albert is indeed a professor of philosophy, but he has a doctorate in physics. *******************

"That brings me to South African physicist George Ellis. When I interviewed Ellis last year, I asked him if Krauss’s book answers the question posed by its subtitle. Ellis responded:

Certainly not. He is presenting untested speculative theories of how things came into existence out of a pre-existing complex of entities, including variational principles, quantum field theory, specific symmetry groups, a bubbling vacuum, all the components of the standard model of particle physics, and so on. He does not explain in what way these entities could have pre-existed the coming into being of the universe, why they should have existed at all, or why they should have had the form they did. And he gives no experimental or observational process whereby we could test these vivid speculations of the supposed universe-generation mechanism. How indeed can you test what existed before the universe existed? You can’t.

Thus what he is presenting is not tested science. It’s a philosophical speculation, which he apparently believes is so compelling he does not have to give any specification of evidence that would confirm it is true. Well, you can’t get any evidence about what existed before space and time came into being. Above all he believes that these mathematically based speculations solve thousand year old philosophical conundrums, without seriously engaging those philosophical issues. The belief that all of reality can be fully comprehended in terms of physics and the equations of physics is a fantasy. As pointed out so well by Eddington in his Gifford lectures, they are partial and incomplete representations of physical, biological, psychological, and social reality.

And above all Krauss does not address why the laws of physics exist, why they have the form they have, or in what kind of manifestation they existed before the universe existed (which he must believe if he believes they brought the universe into existence). Who or what dreamt up symmetry principles, Lagrangians, specific symmetry groups, gauge theories, and so on? He does not begin to answer these questions. It’s very ironic when he says philosophy is bunk and then himself engages in this kind of attempt at philosophy.

When I mentioned Ellis’s critique to Krauss, he claimed that Ellis, although once a physicist, is now a “theologian.” Ellis, a Quaker, has indeed written about religion, among other topics, but he is renowned for his work as a physicist. He co-wrote with Stephen Hawking the classic work The Large-Scale Structure of Spacetime, published in 1973. Just in the past five years, Ellis, now 76, has edited one book on quantum gravity and co-written another on cosmology and has co-written more than a dozen papers on physics, according to his website.

If Ellis isn’t a physicist, Krauss certainly isn’t. So what is he? Ellis describes A Universe From Nothing as a “kind of attempt at philosophy.” The hand-waving sophistry and terminological quibbling that Krauss displayed during his conversation with Wright were also reminiscent of philosophy at its worst. Krauss, perhaps, is just a bad philosopher."


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

DERIVATIVE OR FUNDAMENT:

You are claiming to prove that consciousness is a mere derivative and not a correlative fundament --- but only by assuming it. You have no provable or non-metaphysical model by which to explain how it is that, out of all manifestations possible under a given set of parameters, any particular set happens to become measurable.

Perhaps you are confusing matter-leveraged perspectives of consciousness with the fundamental quality of consciousness. Yes, organization of matter-brain synapses can extend or alter powers of consciousness or enhance IQs. But the quality of conscious experience is not "in" the matter. The conceptualization is not that matter is conscious-as-matter. Rather, the conceptualization is that each sequential manifestation of matter is correlative with an expression or appreciation of consciousness. The matter abides as or with an expression of consciousness, not as a pre-existing pre-condition for consciousness.

You seem to be seduced by scientism, i.e., the belief that the assumptions and methods of research of the physical and natural sciences are equally appropriate (or even essential) to all other disciplines, including philosophy, the humanities and the social sciences.

Descartes imagined a substance-dualist separation of mind and body, each operating independently. As if the mind could function without the body. Nowhere have I invoked such an idea. So, except to confuse the discussion or to feign superior knowledge, why do you bring it up?

I do not say consciousness is beyond self-evident or common sense experience. Only that its fundamental aspect or quality is beyond measurement. I do not conceptualize that mortal consciousness is independent of brain or body, or that body is independent of mortal consciousness. Rather, I conceptualize that mortal consciousness and body are necessary correlates --- even though the fundamental quality of consciousness is beyond scientific measure.

Now, if you believe you have an entirely quantitative way to capture that quality, please feel free to elaborate. Otherwise, I think you may be suffering under a kind of spiritually-blinkered false sense of scientific completeness.

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

Ray Kurzweil predicts the Singularity by 2045. https://futurism.com/kurzweil-claims-that-the-singularity-will-happen-by-2045/

He defines the Singularity at occurring when we multiply our effective intelligence a billion fold, by merging with the intelligence we have created.

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

If it were strongly evidenced that Earth is alone with sentient life, that would be argued as support both by many atheists and by many believers. Atheists would say it shows we are just unlikely happenstance; while believers would say it shows how special we are. So I don't see that as being persuasive either way.

I prefer argumentation based on the character of consciousness as opposed to anthropic arguments. Reason: Each person's consciousness is to him self evident.

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

Not sure what you don't understand. Do you understand that equations must balance? Or the Conservation of matter and energy?

I see religions as using metaphors to inspire congregants to seek common moral purposes and ground. I doubt intelligent aliens would have any difficulty seeing metaphors as metaphors.

Now, as to moral scientisimists, I am not so sure. They seem to have a lot of problems. Maybe they have a condition akin to moral autism?

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

Well, I did not purport a scientific theory. So you are arguing against a strawman. Concepts about beginnings tend not to be empirically testable, except possibly for internal consistency.

Regardless, are you saying there is no commonality in the existence or concept of consciousness? if so, I do not find such an implication to be creditable. Maybe you do. If so, merely stating that position is hardly to support it.

Moreover, to prove your position by calling anything contrary "post modernist" is merely to engage the fallacy of name calling. It sounds like you are bending over backwards to tell people not to believe in anything except a universe that is entirely dumb and happenstance? If so, at the end of the day, your position reduces to a non-provable assumption about a metaphysical origin.

I directly sense my conscious beingness without need of name-calling to tell me I am wrong. Now, that may not apply in your case, and if so, that is fine.

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

If the quality of conscious experience of beingness is derivative of nothing more than math as it is being mathed, that would seem pretty supernatural. Whatever the derivation, we don't have much of a non-supernatural "explanation" that is completely satisfactory. I posit that everyone takes a leap of faith of some kind. What I find most funny is those that think they go about their lives without engaging in leaps of faith.

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

Regarding Reconciling Consciousness: I think there abides a commonality among all perspectives of consciousness. However, each perspective is differently leveraged in respect of its relationship with the field of math. Even so, every perspective is reconciled to the field of math. But for unfolding reconciliations among math-based equations, how could any communication or signal be sent or received?

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

(Caution: Cannibas may help.)

Is Consciousness a fundament to the Universe? If so, where are the signals to be decoded from other sentient life?

We may vaguely intuit, but seem not fully aware or conscious of, a quantum level for the expression or "in-forming" of consciousness, as a fundament. We have leveraged capacity to send and receive signals to and from vast distances within our known universe. Now we look around and wonder: Where are the other planets that harbor intelligent life? Where are their signals? WHERE IS EVERYBODY?

Of course, there is much speculation supported by many speculative arguments. Using various modifications for the Drake Formula, it may seem reasonable to suppose that, even out of billions of trillions of possible planets, Earth may be the only one to our time-sense harboring intelligent life.

The number of stars in the observable universe may be about 20 billion trillion. If Earth is the only planet with sentient life that is contemporaneously observable to us, what may that mean? May it mean:

CONTEMPORANEITY: That any record of intelligent life on other planets winked out before intelligent life evolved on Earth? Or, that light from stars recently or now supporting intelligent life has not yet reached Earth?

INABILITY TO GET ALONG: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life blew themselves up because of internal discord before they developed capacity to signal other planets?

INFESTATION: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life were laid to waste because of internal disease before they developed capacity to signal other planets? other planets?

INSTABILITY: That other planets had insufficient environmental variation or climate stability to induce or sustain photosynthesis or cellular based organisms?


ASTEROIDS: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life were blown up because of external events (asteroids, gamma rays, exploding stars) before they developed capacity to signal
TIRED OF LIVING: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life decided the experience was too troubling and so they reduced themselves?

CLOAKING: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life have been subsumed under Borgdoms that are desirous of cloaking and concealing until they satisfy themselves that other planets are friendly or safe? Have they worked to muffle our capacity to receive external signals? Are they muffling their signals in background radiation static and noise? Are they signaling at a quantum level that we have not yet been able to decode? (Is the moon hollow -- lol.)

CLOUD ABSORPTION: That other planets that developed high-tech sentient life have been subsumed under Borgdoms that that are satisfied to explore virtual worlds and possibilities "within," so they feel no need to signal other planets?

WORMHOLED TO SAFER ENVIRONS: That physical existentiality is just a way station to a quantum (cloud-dimensionality) plane of conscious experience? Have they wormholed their way to a safer universe?

SINGULARITY: What if our experience of a physically measurable and apparent universe can reasonably be conceptualized as a derivative --- secondary to nothing more than a field of math that is "mathed" with a fundamental, Reconciling Consciousness (Singularity)? What if each perspective of Consciousness is not, in itself, "ïn" any place-time? What if being in a place or time is a mere illusion, derivative of math being mathed ("mathicality")?

In that case, to find the Reconciling Consciousness, it would not be apposite to look "in" the apparent universe. Rather, it would be necessary to look within the math of our own experience of consciousness (to seek "the better angels of our nature"). It may be that the other perspectives of consciousness that we seek beyond Earth have migrated to a higher or more reconciling dimensionality of math-based (quantum) existence.

Some programmers and mathematicians seem to be speculating about the possibility of immortality "ïn" a quantum-based "cloud." Some speculate that we are on the cusp of such geometric accelerations of computational power that we are fast approaching a "singularity."

QUESTION: What if every extraterrestrial civilization that approaches such a computational cusp tends first to be blown up by internal or external division, or to find ways to cloak rather than to signal its math-based whereabouts, or to migrate to a quantum-based cloud? What if the apparent universe is simply like a womb for nurturing new entertainments and experiences for the Singularity?

In answer to "WHERE ARE THEY": Perhaps "they" are cloaked and waiting in quantum-based, extra-dimensional singularity, where "they" are "hardened" and reconciled against external destruction.

COMMENT: If their signals were of a system-wide reconciling character, they would be interpreted by the scientifically inclined of Earth as if they were mere non-sentient phase shifts.

Does Distinguishing a Materialist from an Idealist make a Difference?

IS THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A MARXIST MATERIALIST AND AN IDEALISTIC ENTERPRISER ONE THAT MAKES AN ACTUAL DIFFERENCE:


Compare two fundamental, alternative conceptualizations or worldviews of non-trivial Reality, and then consider whether distinctions as therewith imagined support any actual differences:

1) SCIENTIFIC MATERIALISM: That all that we experience are mere signs of feedback and byproduct, unfolding in respect of purposefully pre-set energies and entropies of a singular source of all matter and Substance;

2) INTUITIVE IDEALISM: That all that we materially experience are mere epiphenomenal signs of feedback and byproduct, unfolding in respect of purposefully participating perspectives of consciousness, whose individual perspectives of Will inter-function as appreciative feedback for all that is availed within parameters provided by a synchronizing, limiting, and holistic source of all Consciousness.

Thus, a Scientific Materialist seeks to divine, submit to, and urge others to submit to, the material patterns of HISTORICAL DETERMINACY. He thinks God, if there be One, is best conceptualized as a slave to fate. However, an Intuitive Idealist seeks to participate in the DETERMINATION OF HISTORY, by seeking to fulfill that which he comes to apprehend as his art, purpose, and role — consistent with his appreciation that his perspective is subsumed in respect of a holism of perspectives. He thinks fate, if such there be, is best conceptualized as being subject to God’s synchronizing choices.

Both a Materialist and an Idealist may conceptualize as if Reality were properly subject to interpretations that best vary depending only on perspective, purpose, and context. That is, Reality may sometimes best be considered either as (1) Determined by Matter or (2) Determined by Consciousness, or, when beyond prediction or control, either as (1) Determined by Indifferent Chance or as (2) Determined by Caring Appreciation or Synchronization of an unpredictable Godhead.

In any event, the more technologically skilled a society becomes, the less it seems inclined to depend on superstitions, supplicants, and burnt offerings. Further, the less self aware or less intelligent a Being becomes, the more he seems likely to be reduced to the determined control of other forces, substances, persons, or beings. Ignorant and misled masses may be just as controlled by elites — whether the elites be Industrialists, Cronies, Marxists, Cyborgs, or Priests.

Empirical (scientific) improvement in skills depends much on feedback that comes with tinkering, often focused in respect of Bayes’ Theorem. However, I suspect Bayes’ Theorem can just as well support a view of Reality as if (1) Reality were the objective upshot of materially pre-set causes as a view that (2) Reality were the subjective upshot of signs that emerge in respect of the inter-functioning of perspectives limited to a synchronizing Consciousness. Occam’s razor seems to cut just as well, both ways. Is Substance mere epiphenomena of Consciousness, or is Consciousness mere epiphenomena of Substance? I doubt mere science or math can prove an answer that is best for all perspectives, purposes, and contexts. (Note: When government perverts science by rewarding cronies with research grants, the likelihood that a Bayesian consensus among faux-scientists should best determine the real validity of their notions becomes likewise perverted. That is not to say that such faux scientists could not make it appear otherwise. Ironically, when they do, they illustrate the notion that preferences of consciousness may shape what is interpreted or signified as material reality. And that tends to demonstrate the opposite of pretense that science is entirely derivative of substance.)

If Reality were dependent only on Substance and Consciousness, one may think that binary, bilateral logic should avail better answers to all our moral concerns. However, there abides a third fundament: Information. In itself, Information is neither substantive nor conscious. So, Reality seems to unfold in respect of a trivalent inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. It does not seem that mere math can avail the kind of reconstruction, deconstruction, or negation that can reliably show us how to control, predict, or rewind the unfolding inter-functioning of Substance, Consciousness, and Information. Further, limits for realms of the Substantive, Conscious, and Informational appear to be fuzzy, perhaps even shape shifting. That which seems to be inanimate of any conscious aspect may simply consist of pre-set, temporally dormant aspects of Something Trinitarian, which sources all three of the fundamental qualities: Consciousness, Information, and Substance. For some purposes, a bacterium may be as predictably controllable to higher forms of “consciousness” as any piece of inanimate matter.

Among higher levels or perspectives of consciousness, depending on purpose and context, each may incline towards an interpretation of his situation that depends more heavily on either the Informationally analytical or the Substantively empirical. A Marxist Materialist may bias towards viewing his beingness as absurd, indifferent, and fundamentally meaningless. An Idealistic Informationalist may bias towards viewing his beingness as offering possibilities for participating in individually meaningful choices. A Materialist may seek to show what must come to pass; an Idealist may seek to inspire what should come to pass. A Materialist may feel the weight of history, recline under its touch, be stimulated by its brute sensations. An Informationalist may image and represent the possibilities of guiding history and of intellectualizing and abstracting choices from among such possibilities. A Materialist may prefer the brute, collective security of equally distributed nourishments to gland-based cravings. An Idealist may prefer the freedom to pursue his own appreciation of that which he finds to be meaningful.

If there are only two competing fundaments for Consciousness to be attracted to, either to Substance or to Information, then a fundamental difference will always cleave us: Always, there will be antagonism between those (Marxists) who seek the collective comfort of substance versus those (Enterprisers) who seek the individual fulfillment of their own arts and purposes. One who is more drawn to substance-based models for interpreting his Reality may be more prone to Marxist Moralism (collectivism); one who is more drawn to information-based models for interpreting his Reality may be more prone to Idealistic Moralism (liberty). I don’t believe this interpretation of Reality can be quantitatively proved. Rather, I suspect one’s attraction or repulsion regarding this interpretation depends fundamentally on the quality of one’s intuition, or bent of conscious perspective. That is, I don’t think distinctions under my interpretation make empirical differences that can be proved. Rather, I think the differences made abide in the quality of one’s intuitive sense of meaningfulness and optimism. Although such a sense of optimism and meaningfulness does no doubt affect how lives unfold, there is no way to show empirically, in hindsight, how things would necessarily have unfolded differently under a different worldview.