The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth

[James S Saint]

Then you are probably using the wrong meaning for "Framework and System". Try looking up "epistemology" this time, see if that better fits what you mean. If not, you really need to define your unique language.

Epistemology refer to the Philosophy of Knowledge.

To establish what is knowledge there is a need for a Framework and System.

Note I have already explained in my earlier post by what is meant by Framework and System.

We well know what "epistemology" means. But you don't know what "Philosophy of Knowledge" means, so you probably should look more into it.

And no, you have never "explained what you mean by Framework and System". You do not understand what "explain" means. You merely give the specific example that you want to preach about, ignoring the meaning of your words or any actual explanations and definitions. You have invented your own grammar and language.

Even after looking up "ontology", you still have no idea what it means, nor "epistemology". You make this obvious by the way you try to substitute your own version of those words so as to twist meanings toward what you want people to believe.

And why are you capitalizing "Framework and System"?

[Anomaly654]

More influential people have promoted a similar skewing of the language (and for identical reasons) such as to alter the meaning of "reality" from meaning "objective or absolute existence" into meaning "relative perception of existence"

Well, of course no one ever will accuse me of being among the influential, but I'm taking the position that the unorthodox use of language is only "skewing" from a certain perspective. I seem to recall you taking issue with me in another thread when I stated that everyone has a different reality, but suspect you didn't grasp what I meant. Individual realities are created by subjectivity; but all individual realities draw from a single, overarching reality/existence. This is a realist, not idealist, position. We each have our own subjective view of reality which creates the reality [worldview] we operate within. Call this a sub-reality. One sub-reality touches many others, and others touch the one, and all are changed to some extent, small or large, in the touching and having been touched. This does not stand against the idea of a single, objective reality because each sub-reality can only ever participate in the one, single, objective reality to form its own.

We have x number of words to use to signify concepts. I don't use words to "alter the meaning of "reality" from meaning "objective or absolute existence" into meaning "relative perception of existence" and I expect neither does anyone else who constructs a serious, rational worldview. There are more concepts and ideas than there are words to signify them. At the end of the day, minds will either try to grasp what is being said within the context of the user's explanation or stop at the usage, draw a line in the sand and use refuse to enter in. Nothing I or anyone else can do about that. Lord knows I've been on the refusing side enough times.

Fixed Cross has been promoting his "Value Ontology" founded on the idea that all objects exist solely because of the virtue of being "self-valuing". Typically the first comment everyone makes when hearing the theory is that "objects do not assign value so there can be no self-valuing". He tried to explain that he doesn't intend the word to be used in that mind-only way, but as a more philosophical, universal way. This has been going on for years and still happens.

Haven't read him. Sounds initially interesting, depending on how he defines terms. I'll have to look his stuff up.

•Value = assigned worth relating to a desire

This is the subjective value intellectual beings place on their views of others, states of affairs, relationships, etc. This value exists independently of the absolute value-states of individual's physical components, but is highly correlational to one's prescriptive value state.

•Value = innate virtue of objects

"Objects" don't have virtue, only intellectual beings do.

•Value = force/energy

This is the tough one because it's most abstract and furthest from accepted word meanings. I only came to this conclusion in the last year or so. In process of peeling back layers trying to simplify and find common denominators I came to value as a component or attribute of force/energy. Didn't seem complete, and in peeling back one more layer came to believe energy-power-dynamism-force are just words hiding, or standing in for, a single term, value. This goes against the grain of definition and imo justifies your and others' complaints of epistemic speciousness--for this one usage.

But this is my worldview and I'm stickin' with it. At least until something convinces me to change it. I reserve the right to alter my worldview at any time without notice.

[James S Saint]

I seem to recall you taking issue with me in another thread when I stated that everyone has a different reality, but suspect you didn't grasp what I meant. Individual realities are created by subjectivity; but all individual realities draw from a single, overarching reality/existence. This is a realist, not idealist, position.

That is an abuse, an incorrect use, of the word "reality". The word "reality" refers ONLY to that which is objective, not subjective. You have substituted "my perspective" with "my reality", forming a fictitious entity posing as a real entity ("my reality").

We each have our own subjective view of reality which creates the reality [worldview] we operate within.

Yes, the "subjective views of reality" (not the "individual realities") create the belief system within which we operate. They do not create the reality, merely a part of that overall reality, the beliefs part. You are substituting subjective belief for reality.

Call this a sub-reality.

Ask why you are calling it "reality" at all. Subjective views are NOT reality. Why are you trying to "force" the alteration of that particular word? Your change opens the gate to language manipulated magic trickery (screwing with heads to create conflict). Why empower the Devil?

I don't use words to alter the meaning of "reality" from meaning "objective or absolute existence" into meaning "relative perception of existence"

You just did. When you refer to a subjective view as a reality, you imply that reality is nothing more than a subjective view, which is objectively false and an attempt to redefine what the word "reality" means.

There are more concepts and ideas than there are words to signify them.

"Subjective view" or "individual perspective" works fine. There is no valid need to redefine an existing word into an insidious tool.

Nothing I or anyone else can do about that. Lord knows I've been on the refusing side enough times.

And still appear to be, but yes, there is something that you can do about that. Ask yourself WHY YOU are insisting on, forcing, redefining that particular word.

•Value = force/energy

This is the tough one because it's most abstract and furthest from accepted word meanings. I only came to this conclusion in the last year or so. In process of peeling back layers trying to simplify and find common denominators I came to value as a component or attribute of force/energy. Didn't seem complete, and in peeling back one more layer came to believe energy-power-dynamism-force are just words hiding, or standing in for, a single term, value. This goes against the grain of definition and imo justifies your and others' complaints of epistemic speciousness--for this one usage.

There is a possibly confusing use of the word "value" perhaps getting in the way of rationality here. The word "value" is also used to refer to the measure of a state or condition; e.g. the value of the variable, the meter reading value.

To remove confusion, I would suggest using "measure" or "condition" instead of "value". Then you would be talking about "the force of its measure" or "its potential". And that would play coherently into physics.

But this is my worldview and I'm stickin' with it. At least until something convinces me to change it. I reserve the right to alter my worldview at any time without notice.

It is your petulance concerning the right to change the language that others use .. and toward one specific direction that I am certain you have not investigated. Again, ask WHY change those particular words in that particular direction? And why YOU? Why fight that battle? Who does it serve? Is changing the language a hidden desire of yours? Is that your goal? What is your real goal?

[Anomaly654]

I had claimed all truth are conditioned to their specific Framework and System, e.g. Science has its Scientific Method and System, so thus Economics, Mathematics, Physics, Legal, etc. Legal truths cannot be Scientific truths per se and vice-versa.

Carving up truth—a universal quality that pertains to every and any topic universally to fit it into separate, isolated niches is just relativism. The interesting thing to me is not that folks think in ways the lead to this, but why they do. And this leads into the next response….

…one has to stick to [one’s framework] requirements.

Indeed. And as noted earlier, you’re providing an excellent opportunity to demonstrate my framework. Thank you Prismatic.

Not sure of your point here. [that the evidence speaks for itself]

You mean the evidence I provided speaks for the fact that the idea of God arose out of psychological factors in the brain/mind. Thus God do not exists as real within an empirical-rational reality?

No. I mean the evidence your posts so enthusiastically provide that authenticates the principles laid out in the op.

Btw, I am not interested in your OP, The "Spiritual Mechanics" of Truth…

That was apparent to me with your first post, my friend. But you’re my case study now, so I’ll humor you.

I think it would be more effective [philosophically] to establish 'what is truth' first.

…said the guy trying to define the parameters by which the op was allowed to be relevant to ensure he could win his arguments. Please note my earlier reference to the common circularity that grounds virtually all atheist’s arguments. You’ve been taught well, grasshopper. If you think this a good thing to do you should consider stop trolling this thread and start your own on that very topic.

Let’s set aside our cheerful banter and focus on one thing, Prismatic. I want you to answer one simple question.

I’ll preface what follows by repeating the claim that you erroneously applied the argumentum ad populum fallacy to my earlier proofs showing that God is an information-bearing concept as evidenced by the sheer amount of objective discussion that has always taken place about Him and still does today. Even though you were shown to be wrong in your misapplication of the aforementioned fallacy, I’ll leave it out below because it’s moot anyway.

Again.

1.Concepts that present information to the mind pass at minimum the first test for possibility of existence of some sort. We are able to see this clearly by comparing concepts with actual impossibilities.

2. A round triangle only has information appropriate to the separate terms used to form it. “Round” and “triangle” present information. A “round triangle” cannot be conceived of because it possesses no information.

3. God—who may or may not exist in ways you, I or others are willing to define—does not belong to the realm of impossibilities because the concept provides information to minds which can thus be objectively discussed, just as your own posts so often do.

I’m not asking you to accept that God is real, only wish to see if you’ll answer honestly that the concept “God” possesses information in comparison to actual impossibilities, which plainly do not. Will you now concede that given the three points above your claim that God is an impossibility is wrong?

[Prismatic567]

Since I am not agreeable to your OP, I will not address the details, but I note this point;

...
I’m not asking you to accept that God is real, only wish to see if you’ll answer honestly that the concept “God” possesses information in comparison to actual impossibilities, which plainly do not. Will you now concede that given the three points above your claim that God is an impossibility is wrong?

To be more precise, it is not accurate to view 'God' as a concept per se.

Kant classify thoughts in terms of intuition, concepts and ideas.

Intuition is based on experiences, i.e. a priori [inherited as nature] and a posteriori [nurture].
http://www.askphilosophers.org/question/204

Grounded on intuitions [emprical], human utilize the intellect and reasoning to conceptualize concepts [empirical].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept

Ideas are thoughts that are empty of empirical concepts. Ideas are pure concepts of pure reason that are not grounded on any empirical elements.
http://www.blackwellreference.com/publi ... 510_ss1-10

“I understand by idea a necessary concept of reason to which no corresponding object can be given in sense-experience. .."

There are only 3 philosophical ideas, i.e. the soul, the Whole Universe, and God.

Since for these ideas no corresponding object can be given in sense-experience, their existence is an impossibility within an empirical-rational reality.

I have argued with evidences, the idea of God is more likely due to psychological impulses driven by the existential crisis within.

There had been no direct empirical evidence of a God since the idea of God emerged onto human consciousness since thousands of years ago but we have empirical evidences of how the idea of God arose in people's brain and mind.

[Anomaly654]

My repeated attempts to persuade Prismatic to address my proof that the position he has taken in multiple posts in multiple threads—that the idea of God is an impossibility—was posed repeatedly here to demonstrate the process by which value mechanics (or spiritual mechanics), posted in the op, functions. I ran across some old graphics (see below) made years ago that might help clarify. (Apologies for their crudity; I’m neither an artist or particularly skilled on the computer beyond word processing.)


Each circle in the graphics represents an iota of information. White iotas exist in a true condition, black are false. The Obscure Apprehension graphic symbolizes a sample of the general content of a soul or intellect—living information—as it exists in a fragmentally falsified condition. The other two represent illustrations of true and false informational belief states within the intellect. In the case of obscure apprehension, the diagram illustrates how value affects cognitive functions generally, the other two more specifically.

The reception of false descriptive propositions in cognition (4+4=6, the surface temperature of the sun is 128.5 degrees Fahrenheit) produce only a mild cognitive tension. Factual reality is essentially inert (no ought from is). One reason for this may be that the actual falsity or state of falsification which produces factual error is peculiar to the animated intellect. Because the animating principle of the agent is prescriptive and falsifiable—and the descriptive information she processes possesses value different in kind and immutably true—its mathematical patterning (or some combination of matter’s features) in apprehension of the t¬f discord in descriptive propositions may be automatically intuited [the sense or discovery of error] as just a feature of internal dysfunction absent of moralistic force.

But discord raised in prescriptive (or prescript-affiliated) propositions go beyond mere tension to produce a much more robust resistance, and are of primary interest here. Prismatic’s responses to the proof provided—assuming this proofs is true in the whole, i.e., the proposition that God is an impossibility is a demonstrable error—illustrates the power of prescriptive truth in connection with one or more insuperable false beliefs (IFB).

Prismatic’s oft-repeated claims—“I have not come across any poster here who has cracked my argument 'God is an Impossibility.'”—and subsequent responses to requests to repent of this claim on the basis of proffered evidence to the contrary provides an example of how the IFB functions.

The strength of an IFB in the f^f union is such that its holder, unable to form a proper t^t synthesis, will perform any of a number of evasive maneuvers to avoid the t¬f pressure true prescriptive propositions convey to the IFB. This pressure is illustrated by the multiple red lines of resistance between the IFB and surrounding true information in the False Belief graphic. Prismatic’s responses to repeated presentation of the truth-bearing rebuttal of his ‘God is impossible’ claim can be read in posts above to corroborate these principles. Most here have had enough experience with different personalities in life’s conversations and in message board dialog to recognize the their applicability here.

In an aside, it seems plausible that in prescriptive matters the holding of one or more false beliefs by agent “A” that are provably wrong lends credence to the notion that some significant quantity of the associated set of beliefs “A” draws from his worldview—which stand in various degrees of difficulty to disprove—to support his provably wrong beliefs, are themselves largely or wholly false as well by virtue of their standing in the same category of moral (dis)belief, and are likely to have been developed by motives similar to those used to develop and hold his provably erroneous IFBs.

While this seems intuitively true, the issue is more complicated. Virtually all atheists also hold moral beliefs in common with their theist brethren—i.e., beliefs that justice is a good that should prevail, murder and rape are wrong, humans are innately entitled to certain rights (though the rights applicable to this set are controversial), etc. Theists also hold IFBs and these inevitably enter into their moral and ethical discussions. And the issue is made more difficult by the general obscurity fragmental falsification in essence imposes on one’s ability to acquire, process and rationalize external and internal information, again referencing the Obscure Apprehension graphic.

It’s hypothesized here that the power of prescriptive value drives motives, and causally the majority of human behavior. Value interactions can explain why some minds tend toward philosophies like physicalism, materialism, relativism, etc.—worldviews that strongly embrace human autonomy—while others tend toward philosophies which stand in degrees of opposition in one or more respects to them.


The False Belief graphic illustrates some features for how an IFB affects other functions. While resistance excludes any possibility of union between the two, the IFB differs from one’s natural “fragmentally falsified” state in that the fragmental state only creates impedance to clear thought [and probably degrees of impurity to proper function of emotions], producing only mild dispositions to reject propositional truths over falsehoods. This would be the case in granting credence to a falsehood because of insufficient information or due to vagueness of the truth of a matter imposed by t-f impedance (weak value affiliations).

IFBs might be thought of as “clusters” of concentrated falsity. An analogy is that beliefs that populate a worldview are like pages in a manila folder. It’s generally held that if consistently pursued, wrong choice leads to a process of cognitive “deadening”, or increase of predilection away from what a consensus of reasonable agents would deem proper and appropriate lifestyle preferences, as for example the choice to experiment with drugs is thought to sometimes lead to heavier usage and eventual addiction. Following this pattern, frequent wrong choice leads to an informational state in which sufficient falsity is generated with respect to a certain belief that it saturates and occupies a page [one belief] in a folder [worldview]. An agent logically exists in some established quantity or amount of information, so that falsification is not added to essence, existing truth-bearing iotas are rendered false. We exist as contiguous information packages, in various percentages of true and false value.

In the possession of IFBs, the t^t union is lost, and the t¬f conflict common to simple contemplation in prescriptive issues morphs into a f^f union by repeated willful subjection to propositional falsity. In the IFB, a false belief is established and held as true, and ensuing energies applied to the topic are thereafter exercised by the holder in trying to produce true propositions in support of it. The natural loss of affiliation between true and false information would be naturally imposed on apprehension by the juxtaposition of opposite values within the information of the whole; these would contribute to the mind’s ability to live with disparate prescriptive beliefs—if we can’t clearly “see” the contradictions in our worldviews, we aren’t forced to deal with them.

Prismatic’s contrived rationale (falsely imposed logical fallacy as a pretext of refutation) is a common diversion employed by an agent whose allegiance to his IFB (and affiliated system of false beliefs) shrinks from truth it cannot unite with. The true-false moral opposition is every bit as strong as its material [electromagnetic] plus-minus value counterpart. Prismatic’s unwillingness to concede the truth of the evidence presented is based on an inability to overcome the strong f^f link to unite with the truth in the proposition offered.

It follows from the principles suggested that societal norms, because they’re formed by the predispositions appropriate to the truth- or falsity-bearingness of its members, will reflect these accrued values and either advance toward the establishment and maintenance of true ethical/moral models or deteriorate in the direction of further falsehoods. It should be obvious that increases in holding to the false are inevitably directed to moral/behavioral deterioration and eventual chaos, while progression toward truth-bearing ideals results in advancement of the good.

[Anomaly654]

That is an abuse, an incorrect use, of the word "reality". The word "reality" refers ONLY to that which is objective, not subjective. You have substituted "my perspective" with "my reality", forming a fictitious entity posing as a real entity ("my reality").

Noun: reality (ree'a-li-tee)
1. All of your experiences that determine how things appear to you
2. The state of being actual or real
3. The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be

It appears from the above the I'm able to claim #1, we both own #2 and you have #3. This is a non-issue for me James; I don't see the cash value in jumping off my understanding and onto yours, so let's agree to disagree on this one.
I enjoy and appreciate your posts, you give me good stuff to think about...still trying to get my head around affectance ontology.

[James S Saint]

That is an abuse, an incorrect use, of the word "reality". The word "reality" refers ONLY to that which is objective, not subjective. You have substituted "my perspective" with "my reality", forming a fictitious entity posing as a real entity ("my reality").

Noun: reality (ree'a-li-tee)
1. All of your experiences that determine how things appear to you
2. The state of being actual or real
3. The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be

It appears from the above the I'm able to claim #1, we both own #2 and you have #3.

I think that you are misinterpreting #1.
Definition #1 states that "reality" refers to the actual experiences that cause an appearance. It is not saying that "reality" refers to the appearance, perception, or perspective. How reality appears to you is never the actual reality that causes the appearance.

..still trying to get my head around affectance ontology.

Affectance Ontology is actually pretty simple. Proving it gets complicated, but is available.

RM:AO begins with the declaration of definition of "existence";

• Existence == that which has affect or potential to affect. For anything to be said to exist, it must be accepted as having affect or such potential. And for anything to be said to not exist, it must be accepted as having no affect whatsoever nor any such potential. Immediately there is an implied equivalence between existence and affectance. And that is a significant philosophical step (I don't think ever mentioned throughout history).
  
• The second step is to realize that affects propagate in waves or pulses of increasing and decreasing potential-to-affect other propagating waves (PtA). This constitutes "affect-upon-affect". Increasing PtA is declared "positive" while decreasing PtA is declared "negative", merely as lexicon definitions. Their propagation speed is as fast as logically possible.
  
• And when affects cross each other's path, their propagation gets delayed due to the buildup of simultaneous affecting; "affect upon affect" leads to "affect upon propagation of affect". Such delays are due to the fact that each propagating affect is already changing space (increasing or decreasing the PtA at each point) as fast as possible. When multiple affects attempt to change the same point in space, the rate of changing of that point cannot increase, thus the propagation through that point must decrease. Each propagating wave retards the others.
  
• That delayed propagation is then what leads to the formation of spots of congestion that we call "mass particles" with inertia and momentum.
  
• If the congestion of propagating waves is formed mostly of increasing PtA, the particle that is formed is what we know as a "positive particle" (specifically a "positron"). And when the congestion is formed of decreasing PtA waves, the particle is what we know as a "negative particle, specifically an "electron". And when on average the congestion is neither increasing nor decreasing, a "neutral particle" is formed, "neutrino".
  
• From those three fundamental "monoparticle" types all larger congestions form as larger "polyparticles"; neutrons, protons, anti-protons, and so on.
  
• If there are many pulses propagating as a group in the same direction, it is what we know as a "photon" (or in Quantum Physics as a "virtual particle").

Those fundamental forms of existence combine to form literally all physical existence. How and why they each behave as they do is a longer story that explains gravitation, electromagnetism, magnetism, radioactivity, .. literally every known physical phenomenon.

One of the far more complex results of such affectance behavior is what we call a

• "mind" that utilizes symbols, pictures, and language in forming a simulated representation of remote affects, a "map of the terrain", the process we then call "consciousness" - awareness of a remote environment.
  
• And as it turns out, that consciousness is also formed through propagating waves and pulses of perceived affects, "perceptions of affects", "perceptions of the scene". The waves are propagating perceptions of either remote hopeful affects or remote threatening affects, "PHT" (analogous to PtA).
  
• And just as propagating PtA waves delay each other, propagating PHT waves also delay each other, forming congestions of senses and thought in the basic forms of Hopes, Threats, and Inconsequentials ("positive, negative, and neutral").

Those fundamental forms of perception combine to form literally all psychological behavior.

And again, the analogy extends from individual psychological behavior into sociological behaviors of communities and nations.


All topics of concern have

• affects,
• propagations,
• congestions,
• positive,
• negative,
• neutral

And all of the associated relationships and interactions of those form all reality.

[Anomaly654]

Noun: reality (ree'a-li-tee)
1. All of your experiences that determine how things appear to you
2. The state of being actual or real
3. The state of the world as it really is rather than as you might want it to be

It appears from the above the I'm able to claim #1, we both own #2 and you have #3.

I think that you are misinterpreting #1.
Definition #1 states that "reality" refers to the actual experiences that cause an appearance. It is not saying that "reality" refers to the appearance, perception, or perspective. How reality appears to you is never the actual reality that causes the appearance.

As noted above, there's no reason to argue this, it's a matter of semantics. When the day comes you can tell me what I dreamed last night, what my or anyone else's nightmares, hopes and ambitions are--I'll agree with your definition. The idea of subjectivity creating a personal reality doesn't impugn the notion of a single reality (as I've pointed out a number of times now)--from which all subjective realities draw their material. My thoughts don't "cause an appearance" to you and vise versa. I think you would understand me better if you used my translation of reality as information. Everything, even dreams and fictions are created information, draw from and give back to the pool of information that's everything (reality). I don't see any important difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying except that you hold to a rabid 'reality fundamentalist' position that has no space outside your interpretation of the matter for expansion. So be it.

Affectance Ontology is actually pretty simple.

Having admitted I struggle with it, thanks for building up my self image. I think I'll just go drink some poison now.

[James S Saint]

Affectance Ontology is actually pretty simple.

Having admitted I struggle with it, thanks for building up my self image. I think I'll just go drink some poison now.

Oh geeezzz..

I freely admit that tend to make things seem more complicated than they are.