A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Post Reply
BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 19th, 2017, 2:48 pm

Thoughts Conquer wrote:Well you can just ignore my earlier comment as the first time I missed the last bit and it turns out this is a suicide note.

I wouldn't do it if I were you; seeing as you were irrational to not kill yourself before making this post, you might as well make it stretch. The pursuit of life is the pursuit of personal pleasure, in whatever form that may be. We agree on this, so why not be "evil"? I'm completely fine with existing, knowing that my existence harms, in some small way, another living thing, as long as I don't empathize with the creature. If I feel fine about what I do, then there's no problem. I'm not a psychopath or anything; I just understand that suffering is a part of life and I plan to enjoy myself before mine ends.
This post, my sharing of this theory regarding the nature of our lives, was not intended to serve as a suicide note. It is intended to help people view their lives, society, and the world in a different light, to consider different possibilities. This is not to say that I will not take appropriate action when I recognize it is the right time for me to quit playing the game of life. For a reason I don't understand, however, for now, I seem to want to stick around or seem to feel that I have to stick around.

I don't blame you for your desire to enjoy your life or for acting on that desire. It is very understandable. I don't believe you can feel or think any other way, right now, no matter what anybody says. I think the same applies to me. I cannot feel or think any way, other than the way I feel and think right now. But the world turns; there are cycles in nature and in life that repeat through history, and we are tacking alone for the ride. It is because of this cyclical turning of the wheel of life that I believe most people, if not all, will eventually get to the position I'm occupying right now and will be able to see the truth of what I am saying from this vantage point. I am hoping that the discussions we are holding right now will help others gain some clarity in their time of confusion.

Now, regarding the taboo of suicide, I find it odd that even people that scrutinize ideas or concepts with strict rationality and logic, such as philosophers, do not dare to contradict, or even question, the mandate against individuals taking full control over their own lives.

Are we, as individuals, property of society, or property of some cosmic force, or of something else? If so, we live in bondage, and living in bondage is not for me.

If we are truly free individuals, are we not entitled to do with our lives anything we see fit? (as long as we do not directly harm others)

Besides that, what does it matter if we take ourselves out before nature does? We will all die eventually. I want to have control over my life and death, not leave it to a random force or event acting on me.

The truth is that we have all been indoctrinated, brainwashed, to have a prejudice against suicide, because it is against the interests of society that people feel completely free to do with their lives and their deaths the way they see fit; and I think we should be questioning this.

-- Updated November 19th, 2017, 2:50 pm to add the following --
Namelesss wrote:
BlindedWantsToSee wrote: The Evil Nature of the Source.
All 'good' and ALL 'evil' exists in the sinful judgmental thoughts/ego of the beholder!
If you perceive 'evil' ('out there', in your reflection), the 'source' is YOU!

"Perhaps it is the curvature of space that, like a fun-house mirror distorting our own reflection, we imagine strangers." - Mythopoeicon
I agree.

User avatar
Albert Tatlock
Posts: 183
Joined: October 15th, 2017, 3:23 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Albert Tatlock » November 19th, 2017, 5:05 pm

BlindedWantsToSee wrote: Besides that, what does it matter if we take ourselves out before nature does?
By the same token: what does it matter if we don't? Suicide is not really something you should be going round preaching the benefits of.
I want to have control over my life and death,
That's fine but why are you trying to be influential over the life and death of others? It's very difficult to stop someone who is set on it from committing suicide, those who bleat on about it beforehand tend to look like sympathy seekers.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Atreyu » November 19th, 2017, 6:51 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:Most of these rare cases are reported as "near death" experiences and all of them happening just a few minutes after signals are detected. Such experiences have been explained scientifically as the effect of specific chemicals in the brain while in the process of dying. No rotten corpse has ever returned to testify, not that I remember. Before you go into your beliefs in paranormal activity, be reminded that it has been debunked zillions of times. There was a one million dollar prize for whomever could demonstrate such thing and no one could claim the pot.
Altered states of consciousness can only be understood by experiencing them (empiricism), therefore the deductions of modern science regarding them is completely meaningless and chintzy, and, in fact, is a violation of their own principles.

If a scientist were really interested in understanding paranormal experiences, he would seek out experiencing them himself...

User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 448
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Count Lucanor » November 19th, 2017, 11:27 pm

Atreyu wrote:
Count Lucanor wrote:Most of these rare cases are reported as "near death" experiences and all of them happening just a few minutes after signals are detected. Such experiences have been explained scientifically as the effect of specific chemicals in the brain while in the process of dying. No rotten corpse has ever returned to testify, not that I remember. Before you go into your beliefs in paranormal activity, be reminded that it has been debunked zillions of times. There was a one million dollar prize for whomever could demonstrate such thing and no one could claim the pot.
Altered states of consciousness can only be understood by experiencing them (empiricism),
That will be like saying that the only way blindness can be explained is by going blind yourself.
Atreyu wrote:therefore the deductions of modern science regarding them is completely meaningless and chintzy, and, in fact, is a violation of their own principles.
If such "altered states" were out of reach for scientists, they would be out of reach for everyone, including the people experiencing them, as they are supposedly witnessing only one part of the whole event. Actually the whole thing must be reconstructed from many observations and experimental data about brain activity, which is what scientists had done. A famous debunker of near death experiences (Dr. Woerlee) has also highlighted the inconsistencies of these accounts, which seem to rely too much on the cultural background of the person claiming to have visited the afterlife. If you die in India, it seems you will find other entities than the ones found by someone who grew up in Canada.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 20th, 2017, 6:51 am

The irony of it all is that all the means we use to prove ourselves autonomous prove that we are not. All these little marks we draw on paper or type into digital systems massively prepared, studied, learned and become facile, prove how hard it is to divest ourselves of each other. All the sounds we make in speech are gibberish to many and yet automatically and instantly understood by others, dividing and unifying the world in a single action. Are we as alone as the stranger or as immediately familiar as the fellow communicator? Communicant, or detached? The ability to prove one proves the other. Even our aloneness and separateness is facilitated, even made glibly facile, by our speaking and writing in a common tongue. No event in the universe is alone. That's why there is no god, no soul, no time 'before' time. What occurs alone, and tries to place itself center-stage and remain, doesn't go anywhere, it is just anomaly that can in all justice be completely ignored and disregarded. But what comes into being and passes away can be contrary to all that would take the stage for its own such that another event just as contrary to that event, and both together are to what would remain and dominate our perceptions and experiences, creates a language between them that no deliberate effort to hog the stage, or to storm off in a huff, can do without. It is the actions of the contrary terms, just as contrary to each other as to what would pretend to unify them by excluding their difference, that is the language and factuality of the real. Nothing is real alone.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 20th, 2017, 9:25 am

Albert Tatlock wrote:
BlindedWantsToSee wrote: Besides that, what does it matter if we take ourselves out before nature does?
By the same token: what does it matter if we don't? Suicide is not really something you should be going round preaching the benefits of.
I believe that what matters is to give all individuals the choice (the right to choose for themselves whether they do or don't, and for society to be at peace with it). But statements such as the one above display a prejudice against allowing individuals sovereignty over their own lives and deaths. I really cannot find any good reason why I should not talk about the benefits of owning our own lives and deciding for ourselves (individually) if suicide is something that may benefit us (as individuals). Society, in an act of wrongness against us, has hammered into our consciousness how wrong and cowardly it is for people to commit suicide. I want to reverse that. There, really, is nothing wrong with it, if we put the interests of the individuals ahead of the interests of the State or of society (which really means the interest of the rulers of humanity, the owners of humanity, the farmers of humanity - those who exploit the human race as a whole).
Albert Tatlock wrote:
I want to have control over my life and death,
That's fine but why are you trying to be influential over the life and death of others? It's very difficult to stop someone who is set on it from committing suicide, those who bleat on about it beforehand tend to look like sympathy seekers.
I don't believe I can be influential over others. Those who love their lives think I'm either crazy, or depressed, or else something is wrong with me. This is great because what I say does not apply to them and is not intended for them. Those who have reasons for which not to love their lives, will feel at peace, knowing they are not alone. I think they will do what they have to do with themselves without harming others. I think tragedies like the recent mass shootings in Las Vegas and Texas could be avoided if those who do not want to be here are allowed to leave in peace.

You are probably right about my giving the appearance of being a sympathy seeker. This is not my intention, as I have assured previously on this post. My intention is to raise awareness.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 20th, 2017, 12:15 pm

Vicissitudes are sometimes unfair, unjust, even criminally inflicted upon us, and sometime even with the backing of social norms and even the law. And we have some responsibility to do what we can to thwart or at least to indict, if only in the minds of those who will listen, those crimes and the edifice of such norms and laws. But that does not spare us responsibility for coping, as best we can, with those vicissitudes that are not criminally inflicted. That is the language of life itself. Hiding from that responsibility, except where it is too criminally inflicted or more than one can cope with even with the help of others, is hiding yourself from that language, as if you do not want to be known to be, or even to have been, at all. You may have a right to complain, you are at liberty to complain, but you certainly have no right to any expectation that we know what the hell you are complaining about, since you have already erased yourself from the language by which we might know what you mean. Nor does it secure a right to any expectation of our finding anything but impertinence in claims and assertions that have no relation whatever to the rigors of discourse that bring us together in such understanding.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 20th, 2017, 11:45 pm

Count Lucanor wrote: What you see in the order of nature is the regularity of the physical forces that intervene in it, none of which appear to have any conscious purpose...
Count Lucanor, the regularity of physical forces are testifying to us that intelligence, purpose and consciousness are attributes or properties of physical forces, of energy, and of matter. The claim that matter or energy is not, or cannot be, conscious or intelligent is just an assumption, not a proven fact. I can't explain it all or prove anything, but it is obvious to me that energy (or at least some of it) is intelligent. You are justified in dismissing my claims or trying to debunk them, if that is what you would like to do. However, this discussion about the material or non-material nature of our reality is really of no consequence to the main idea of this post, to what I'm claiming regarding the nature of life.

As an illustration, let us assume that sunlight or solar radiation is harmful to human skin and can cause skin cancer. I don't know if this is really true, but for this example let's say it is true. I come along and say: 'hey, everybody, I have noticed that exposure to the sun is damaging our skins and giving some of us skin cancer. We should do something to protect ourselves'. The sun may or may not be consciously and purposefully hurting us. But the fact is, in this example, the sun is damaging people's skin and giving some of them skin cancer. The sun may not want people to get cancer or be aware at all, yet it is doing the harm. This is why I say that the exact nature of the Source is not really relevant here. Life is a certain way, and this way is hurtful for the vast majority of the 7 billion human souls upon this world. That is what I am talking about.
Count Lucanor wrote:...It's a fact that biological "design", although superb, is far from perfect. So either you will have to acknowledge the imperfect nature of the "designer"...
Yes! Imperfect nature of the designer is the right answer. Ok, you are going to want proof for everything I say. I don't have proof; I have hints and clues, evidence. Here is where I get the information that helped me arrive to the conclusion of imperfect designer. There is a video on YouTube entitled "Lloyd Pye Everything You Know Is Wrong". I told Gary I would not bring this up, but it's necessary here. In the video, Lloyd Pye explains why he believes that human beings were genetically engineered by an alien race of people about 200,000 years ago. They did not do a good job.
Count Lucanor wrote:... Reality debunks by itself the idea of a supreme ruler that puts harmonious order in the universe.
YES! Right again. I can't agree with you more here. We disagree, it seems, because you believe there is just nothing beyond what we can see, and hear, and touch, and smell, and taste or measure with scientific instruments; and I believe there is something that escapes our perception, and senses, and ability to measure scientifically. It is definitely not a supreme ruler that puts harmony in the universe.

Life is what it is, and there is a reason for that. It is not an accident. I have given my theory of why life is the way it is.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 21st, 2017, 5:45 am

Blinded,
This is faith, not knowledge. Pretty run-of-the-mill dualism, really. Question is, why assert a reality that cannot be verified? You report that you accurately, more or less, perceive this 'reality', and show every sign that you expect others to. You say you have given us evidence, but then imply there can be no conventionally recognized evidence. Evidence is not just what convinces us, it is what invites us to interrogate it. Between conviction and interrogation that invitation is the more convincing than the assertion of conviction. Freedom is not a possession or a gift, it is an invitation to differ. And it is that differing, by invitation, that generates all the terms of discourse. Its energy is our needing each other free. It is therefore confounding to claim conviction as freeing. The starchild skull is a proven hoax. Refusing to recognize the evidence of this evidences a denial of our freedom to interrogate your convictions. You claim to liberate us, but your hidden motive is to ensnare us in a freedom denied. But why throw a party for the uninvited?

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 21st, 2017, 6:02 pm

We all use faith; we have to, in order to function. We are always believing or trusting that some things are true, even though we may not have absolute knowledge of those things. I'm not advocating blind faith here. I think we should critically analyze all of our beliefs; however, we may not be capable of attaining absolute knowledge of reality. Skepticism tells us this. But whether or not we are able to attain certainty about something, that something is what it is. And that something may be affecting our lives, or the lives of some of us; that's why I bring these issues up.

I, absolutely, do not want anybody to just accept my beliefs as their own. What I'm looking for is for people to judge for themselves what I say. If what I say does not make any sense to them, then they can just ignore it, or we can have a discussion to see if I can make some sense. If any of what I say makes sense to people, then I'm hoping for them to put those ideas which make sense to good use or at least to keep them in the back of their minds for later possible use.

Now, regarding the verification of reality, or of the evidence, or of claims regarding reality; what I believe is that there are portions or aspects of reality that we cannot verify because we do not have the means to do it. In other words, our senses and our instruments, to date, are not sensitive to those portions of realty. The fact that we do not have a way of perceiving or measuring something does not deny the existence of that something. Example, before science developed the microscope, people could not perceive or measure microscopic organisms, but those organisms were there; they were real; and they affected people's lives in a very real way.

Regarding the startchild skull, I actually don't know much about it. Lloyd Pye may have been wrong about it. He was a man, like we are. We, all, can make mistakes and be wrong. Let us say the startchild skull is a hoax. That does not make all of his work wrong. I believe he presents important evidence and conclusions, many of which are completely correct, some of them may be only partially correct, and some may be wrong. We can listen to him and take what makes sense.

Gary, I would never purposefully or knowingly mislead anybody. I have nothing to gain from that. I know my heart is in the right place. I am trying to do what I can do (its not much) to help humanity attain a better way of life, to end violence, to end their servitude to a life, to circumstances, and to an environment that are hurtful and harmful to them. My message only applies to those who can already perceive all of this wrongness I'm taking about. Others will not be able too see how my theory can possibly have any truth within it.

User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Atreyu » November 21st, 2017, 9:08 pm

Count Lucanor wrote:
Atreyu wrote: (Nested quote removed.)


Altered states of consciousness can only be understood by experiencing them (empiricism),
That will be like saying that the only way blindness can be explained is by going blind yourself.
No, because I said "understood" not "explained". Nice try.

Of course you can explain things you know nothing about and have never experienced, such as near death states. People do it all the time. What you can't do is understand near death experiences unless you experience them yourself.

So a blind man can explain (falsely) what 'red' is. It will be an explanation based on imagination, but an explanation nonetheless. But the blind man will never be able to understand 'red' unless he can experience it. And in addition to experiencing it he would also need a certain amount of knowledge about it as well.
Count Lucanor wrote:
Atreyu wrote:therefore the deductions of modern science regarding them is completely meaningless and chintzy, and, in fact, is a violation of their own principles.
If such "altered states" were out of reach for scientists, they would be out of reach for everyone, including the people experiencing them, as they are supposedly witnessing only one part of the whole event. Actually the whole thing must be reconstructed from many observations and experimental data about brain activity, which is what scientists had done. A famous debunker of near death experiences (Dr. Woerlee) has also highlighted the inconsistencies of these accounts, which seem to rely too much on the cultural background of the person claiming to have visited the afterlife. If you die in India, it seems you will find other entities than the ones found by someone who grew up in Canada.
But they are 'out of reach' for everyone, including the people experiencing them. Even the experiencers themselves will not be able to understand their experiences without a sufficient amount of knowledge about their nature.

Understanding is the resultant of knowledge and experience.

So you can explain how to hit a baseball without ever playing baseball. But to understand hitting a baseball you must actually play the game and hit one, and also have enough knowledge to explain the underlying mechanisms behind it. A scientist trying to explain a near death experience is akin to a bookworm, having never held a baseball bat in his life, explaining what hitting a home run is all about.

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 21st, 2017, 10:24 pm

The above post (Post Number:#101 postby Atreyu) makes a LOT of sense to me!

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 22nd, 2017, 5:59 am

Atreyu,
Where's Falcor?
You underestimate the powers of empathy. Human beings do indeed experience the situations of others. This can be demonstrated objectively. People who watch, maybe even just talk to, others doing things they (the watchers) have never experienced can be shown to develop patterns in the brain, and even musculature, that can only be applied to that situation or activity. Experiments have shown this.

The Turing machine is a rigged game, rigged, rather dogmatically I think, against the human participant. It sets conditions in which solipsism is presumptive, even axiomatic. But the fact of the matter is that humans have means of communicating that far exceed the conditions of this "Test", and that no machine can engage in at all. That, in fact, would grind any mechanical or digital system to a crashing halt. The solipsist argument collapses with it. Yes, Blinded, what we think we experience does become a system of conviction we cling to for continuity, though reality is discontinuity. Discontinuity, that is, coherent to our ability to disrupt each other's convictions. That disruption, as the freedom our being invited each other to engage in it is, does indeed presume an edifice of conviction as its context. That conviction, and its presumption of continuity, always seems dominant, since it only changes in increments so minimal as to be unrecognized. And yet, we do eventually wake up to realize that all is change. In the interim, however, we must use the terms of a conviction of continuity, not only to express this, but to deliberate in it. And yet, no machine, or conviction, can survive the full term of that deliberation and yet keep its powers of expression current to the change.

DNA does not operate as conventional wisdom would have it. It does not order or direct the life of the cell, let alone the organism as a whole. All it does is serve, rather passively, as a template for constructing proteins. Other parts of the cell, of which there are many, do the rest. And we have barely begun to develop an awareness of this complexity, let alone to search for means to study it. It is a very desultory business to cite misrepresented references to badly understood systems of knowledge to seek agreement in your convictions. If you show no signs of wanting to learn how that science really works, but instead keep begging the question (using your premise as 'evidence'), it is impossible to take you seriously. Yes, there is a lot of injustice in the world. I claim it all derives from our conviction that continuity is what realness is. You keep begging the issue of your conviction and of continuity between that conviction and the 'evidence' you offer. There is none. The whole project is nonsensical. Worse, it is more of the same evil it claims to complain of.

If we are at a complete loss as to what the death of others means to them, are we not at just as complete a loss as to who they are as they live amongst us? Does solipsism rule?

BlindedWantsToSee
Posts: 58
Joined: October 12th, 2017, 10:56 pm

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by BlindedWantsToSee » November 23rd, 2017, 5:46 pm

Gary,
You have a theory regarding why there is so much injustice in the world. You said: "I claim it all derives from our conviction that continuity is what realness is." Your theory is rather abstract, to be honest. I really do not see how it can be true, but I recognize that I don't fully understand what you mean. I believe it is possible your theory may be 100% correct, and I just don't see how. I believe in constant change, like you, so I believe that you are at least partially correct. The same applies to my theory.

You seem to believe there is little value on holding beliefs. You seem to indicate that we mainly exist to ask questions, then get an answer (maybe), and go on to the next question. Gary, you, yourself, are holding a belief you should probably release, which is the belief that says there is little value on holding beliefs. The reason I say this is because even skeptics have to live their lives (from a practical standpoint) as if they knew some things are true, and solipsists have to live their lives also as if they knew they are not alone in the universe. So, we all behave and live as if some things are true. The problem is that the whole world is living their lives based on assumptions which are producing a world full of violence, hunger, crime, disease, injustice, hurt, and other undesirable conditions. If we continue to play dumb, as if we don't know anything; or continue to hold the same assumptions we have always held, then we will continue to get the results I've mentioned, both globally and in our personal lives. Once we rid ourselves of the undesirable conditions we can go back and ask some more questions.

Gary_M_Washburn
Posts: 47
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 8:55 am

Re: A Correct but Forbidden Theory of the Nature of Life

Post by Gary_M_Washburn » November 23rd, 2017, 7:32 pm

Beliefs are inevitable, but never evidence. There can be no continuity in belief, and it is the dynamic character of our convictions that evidences who we are, not our clinging steadfastly to them. It is appealing to our convictions as evidence, or seeing only the convictions of others as who we are, that is the "evil source" you do go on about. Conceptual continuity has been the paradigm of reason from Aristotle to Heidegger, to all the Anglo-American thinkers of recent, and current, vintage. Material continuity was the paradigm of natural science and physics at least until Einstein, and still dominates even the minds of Quantum theorists. It certainly dominates genetic theory, despite it's being an explanation of change. In fact, it is the genetic continuity of human evolution, as well as the genetic continuity of the "Star-child" skull to other relics of the same era, that debunks that 'evidence'. But if time is change, as we know it is, we are still left with the enigma of how it can order such an overwhelming and inevitable appeal to continuity as if this is what realness is. Each of us differs with that conviction in our own way, but none of us alone can really change it or be more real. But a close examination of the science of physical phenomena as well as of rational or 'analytic' structures shows that two contraries can complement each other in opposing it, and so supply the terms of real change and of change as what is real. But this change is the last and final term of the most rigorous conviction that only what persists is real. And it is the character of that rigor that results in that change. But that result belongs to neither of us, yet is essentially of both, and only so by our differing as much in our own convictions as with that edifice of conviction that lets us appear to communicate with apparent facility. As people become intimate with each other this becomes obvious, but in a complex society it becomes harder to recognize how much we mean to each other and even how much each of us mean to our ability, as a people, to know what is real and of worth. Cruelty is only as inevitable as belief. The inevitability of belief is the essence and energy of cruelty, and of why we fail to recognize what we are worth to each other.

FYI: A sentence is a proposition relating a subject to a predicate. That relation, in classic logic, can only justify inference as a rigorous preservation of that relation. This is the central theme in conventional wisdom about how we think, and is the essential axiom of all digital operations, i.e., of the mechanics of the device you are using now.

Post Reply