Philosophy 101 - Chapter 5

Philosophy 101

Chapter 5

Reality - 4  --- The discovery of mind  -  always remember, that's the same as the creation of mind, but don't worry, mind can discover itself, no creator needed.

When we broke matter up into pieces, then pieces of pieces, we ended up with nothing, but a very special nothing that we call relons.  When we start talking about what non-material stuff, (especially mind itself), is made of, we get to start with nothing - relons, the interrelationship of which creates matter.  Don't fall into the trap of believing that something is doing the interrelating, and thus creating.  Sometimes just think 'discover',  although that isn't  a correct word for the concept either.  You must just think about the concept - let your mind wander - meditate - intuit the reality of the concept.  The materialists who believe that matter is the only thing that is really real, and that mind exists in some different way, should be pacified when they see that mind is made of the same non-material stuff that makes up matter.

Like matter, mind is an infinite interrelationship.  We can even start from a material point if you like.  Mind is in the brain - a relationship of cells and electromagnetism and forms of misunderstood energy, all interrelationships of infinite relons.  Mind is concepts and theories and words and ideas and whatever you want to pick from the smorgasbord of possibilities.  All can be broken down into relons and built by relons.

Most of you are saying PFFFFT!! for various reasons.  He's delusional!  He's just talkin' 'bout God!  He misunderstands the physicists!  He misunderstands the philosophers!  He's just plumb loco!  --  And I would have to agree with all of that, depending on your definitions - No one is ever actually wrong - they just understand things differently - explain things differently.  What I'm doing is giving a definition of reality that WORKS - works in a way that will allow scientists, philosophers, ideologues, theists, atheists, materialists, etc., etc. to communicate.

Don't give up!  You might end up believing me!  I'll try to entertain you along the way.  This could take a while.

Communication - 3
Language is innately subjective.  It is an innate part of mind, can only be used by mind and is only descriptive of what has been perceived by mind.  There can, ultimately, be no objectivity in language.  Theoretically, if mind were finite and perceptions were finite, language could be objective, but they are not finite; we're saddled with subjective language as our only tool for communication.

Scientists, especially physicists,  would say that mathematics is a language - I agree with them - However most of them believe it to be totally objective.  Not!  I'm not fluent enough in mathematics to understand all the arguments why it IS objective, and I do believe it gets close.  Wouldn't the language of mathematics have to be internaly logical for it to be objective?  It's not.  One word - Infinity.  Mathematics accepts infinity, but some math doesn't work if infinity is accepted.  I'm  not saying that mathematics isn't 'good' or 'correct', just that it isn't objective.  Reality isn't objective.  I think I said somewhere that if you want to understand reality you must understand infinity and paradox.  If you believe things have to be logical you're going to be disappointed.  The introduction of subjectivity into physics gives birth to Theoretical Physics.  This brings us full circle back to the beginnings of science as a philosophical enterprise.  Theoretical Physics gave birth to Steven Hawking, one of the greatest philosophers of all time, with a mind so powerful that he has been able to maintain it in this Frame of Reference, even in the face of a physiological interrelationship which would have devastated a lesser mind.  (That sentence is a little test.  If you can figure out what I'm talking about you may be getting the point). 

Science and philosophy would both be better off if they could reconcile their differences.  Science should admit true objectivity is not possible.  Science destroys much of its effectiveness by demanding an objectivity which isn't possible.  Science is a tool of mind and mind is inherently subjective.  The scientific method, experimental science, and scientific papers which claim to be an objective representation of reality dissolve into propaganda when they are looked at subjectively.  If subjective interpretation of scientific discoveries were made by scientists, I at least, would take the the papers they produce much more seriously.  The community would not have to be so surprised when a new study comes out 'disproving' what a previous study has 'proven'.  I also hate laws.  Where would we be if scientists were not allowed to break the "Laws of Nature"?  Stuck in this Frame of Reference! - That's where!  Rather than a true/false criteria, science should use a 'Fluctuating Probability Continuum'.

Reality - 5
Of course there are many different ways of looking at reality and all are true.  Now I'm going to give you my concept of 'Frame of Reference', (FOR).  Basically a FOR is a way for mind to look at reality.  Reality is an infinity of relons.  A FOR can be visualized as the infinity of relons in a specific configuration.  Until you are comfortable with visualizing infinity, (reality), as a whole, you can think of a FOR as a subset of reality, that works for now.  Your FOR right now is all the relons which make up your mind and everything your mind perceives.  A slightly higher level, ( Yes, you are temporarily allowed to think of it as a higher level.), is the set of all relons which make up your mind, what it perceives and what it is capable of perceiving.  FORs for others and for you overlap, include, are totally different from, are almost identical to, and completely separate from each other in infinite combinations of an infinity of matrices.  There is also a FOR for mind itself - what you consider mind - and higher levels of FORs for inclusion of minds which you would not even think of as mind until you were in an inclusive FOR, (Totally alien intelligence for instance).  And don't forget the infinity of FORs where mind doesn't exist at all, (Hawking calls these - universes with laws that don't allow mind to exist.  And yes he does speculate that there can be an infinite number of them).
See:  "Mind in Dimensionality"
Whew!  Break time?

Understanding Reality By Bonking Different Examples Into Your Head

Picture yourself standing in the middle of a room.  About 12' by 12'.  No windows - no doors.  I'm standing in one corner with a very hard rubber ball.  I repeatedly throw the ball against the wall.  Sometimes it bounces off the wall and hits you directly in the head.  Sometimes it ricochets a couple of times and then hits you in the head.  Sometimes I don't throw it hard enough and it falls on the floor.  Now I want you to start running around - keep your eyes open - keep your eye on the ball - keep watching me at the same time - keep moving until the ball hits you in the head every time it bounces off the wall.
I always forget the definitions of analogies and metaphors, (among other things), so I'm calling this an analogy replete with metaphor.