A New Logical Proof that Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Samana Johann
Posts: 313
Joined: June 28th, 2022, 7:57 pm
Contact:

Re: A New Logical Proof that Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Post by Samana Johann »

The All might shed light on the matter here.

As for the very attentive oberservation:
the question might not be about what got things started or how long they have been going, but rather what keeps them going...
"the black (unseen)" force:
Mother

“From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. A being who has not been your mother at one time in the past is not easy to find… A being who has not been your father… your brother… your sister… your son… your daughter at one time in the past is not easy to find.

“Why is that? From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries — enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.”
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: A New Logical Proof that Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Post by Count Lucanor »

Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm I do own the criteria by which I measure how accurately the explanation meets the criteria, because I am my conscious experience, and I understand what is my conscious experience according to my own inner reflections thereof. We can never find a satisfactory explanation of how matter and motion, etc produces sensation, feeling and experience, because we can never make ourselves the “subject” of that interaction as a means to prove it.
The problem is that in that case you can only own your subjective, personal criteria, but you can never own the other subjects' own criteria, which means your explanation does not apply to them. You're still left with the inability to provide a "full explanation", since whatever you can provide stays within the boundaries of your self. In your own explanation, the causes of anything are internal to your subjective experience, they are not objective causes outside the domain of your self that can be grasped by external observers.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm We can only prove our own conscious experience by thinking -- “I think therefore I am”. Furthermore, we can only define our conscious experience through thinking about our conscious experience. The definition is satisfactory if our thinking about our conscious experience describes what our conscious experience does, according to our conscious experience. What consciousness does could not be deciphered according to anything else. It is satisfactory because it is consistent with empirical observations (my own thinking, other peoples descriptions of their own thinking).
Notice that there is no correspondency between the amount of subjects implied in the problem and what you claim is the criteria of proof: "I think, therefore I am". You have kept saying "WE" because that's what is required for a satisfactory explanation: the other subject's acknowledgement of the objective causes of something, but then you resort to what you think proves your own conscious experience. At best it only proves yours to you, but not anyone else's. You cannot jump from the "I think, therefore I am" to the "we think, therefore we are". You're still left with the inability to provide a "full explanation".
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm If you need the physical to infer the non-physical, it doesn't follow that the non-physical is bound by the physical. The manner in which I comprehend the relevant concepts plays no role in their causal structure. Rather, it would be logical that a non-physical ontological ground could not be reduced to anything -- physical or otherwise -- simply because such implies no possible prior explanatory basis.
We are talking ontology here. It's not about inferring the concept of the non-physical from the concept of the physical, but about inferring the existence of the non-physical from the existence of the physical. You said that "we can infer nonphysical properties based on physical evidence", which implies some ontological relation of dependency: whatever you call the non-physical, its existence cannot be explained without the existence of the physical.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm Regardless, my post does not indicate that there are objects of perception, and things in themselves (non-physical or otherwise). It merely presupposes that the world is composed of concept and percept, which are bridged together by knowledge. This demonstrates two sides of a single reality. We could say that the world presents itself to us as a duality, but knowledge fuses these together as a unified whole. This is not dualism. Dualism assumes two worlds totally distinct from one another, and attempts to show how one of these two worlds offers an explanation for the other. Dualism does not indicate there to be two sides of a single reality.
That is not consistent, however, with how you have replied to my points. You indeed behave as if things in themselves existed outside of you and were, therefore, objects of perception, which in this case also happen to be subjects to which you want to show a logical proof. The world that you presuppose as composed ONLY of concept, percept and knowledge, can only be your own subjective world. Who are you trying to prove something if not yourself? If I and this forum are nothing but products of your consciousness, there would be nothing to prove, as there would be nothing objectively true.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm
Yes, I cannot point to anything non-physical. But I also cannot point to my consciousness, or your consciousness.
From the approach you adopt, you cannot point to anything. That's what Idealism always leads to: to nothing.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
Grant R Henderson
Posts: 17
Joined: August 7th, 2022, 7:58 pm

Re: A New Logical Proof that Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Post by Grant R Henderson »

Count Lucanor wrote: August 24th, 2022, 12:13 am
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm I do own the criteria by which I measure how accurately the explanation meets the criteria, because I am my conscious experience, and I understand what is my conscious experience according to my own inner reflections thereof. We can never find a satisfactory explanation of how matter and motion, etc produces sensation, feeling and experience, because we can never make ourselves the “subject” of that interaction as a means to prove it.
The problem is that in that case you can only own your subjective, personal criteria, but you can never own the other subjects' own criteria, which means your explanation does not apply to them. You're still left with the inability to provide a "full explanation", since whatever you can provide stays within the boundaries of your self. In your own explanation, the causes of anything are internal to your subjective experience, they are not objective causes outside the domain of your self that can be grasped by external observers.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm We can only prove our own conscious experience by thinking -- “I think therefore I am”. Furthermore, we can only define our conscious experience through thinking about our conscious experience. The definition is satisfactory if our thinking about our conscious experience describes what our conscious experience does, according to our conscious experience. What consciousness does could not be deciphered according to anything else. It is satisfactory because it is consistent with empirical observations (my own thinking, other peoples descriptions of their own thinking).
Notice that there is no correspondency between the amount of subjects implied in the problem and what you claim is the criteria of proof: "I think, therefore I am". You have kept saying "WE" because that's what is required for a satisfactory explanation: the other subject's acknowledgement of the objective causes of something, but then you resort to what you think proves your own conscious experience. At best it only proves yours to you, but not anyone else's. You cannot jump from the "I think, therefore I am" to the "we think, therefore we are". You're still left with the inability to provide a "full explanation".
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm If you need the physical to infer the non-physical, it doesn't follow that the non-physical is bound by the physical. The manner in which I comprehend the relevant concepts plays no role in their causal structure. Rather, it would be logical that a non-physical ontological ground could not be reduced to anything -- physical or otherwise -- simply because such implies no possible prior explanatory basis.
We are talking ontology here. It's not about inferring the concept of the non-physical from the concept of the physical, but about inferring the existence of the non-physical from the existence of the physical. You said that "we can infer nonphysical properties based on physical evidence", which implies some ontological relation of dependency: whatever you call the non-physical, its existence cannot be explained without the existence of the physical.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm Regardless, my post does not indicate that there are objects of perception, and things in themselves (non-physical or otherwise). It merely presupposes that the world is composed of concept and percept, which are bridged together by knowledge. This demonstrates two sides of a single reality. We could say that the world presents itself to us as a duality, but knowledge fuses these together as a unified whole. This is not dualism. Dualism assumes two worlds totally distinct from one another, and attempts to show how one of these two worlds offers an explanation for the other. Dualism does not indicate there to be two sides of a single reality.
That is not consistent, however, with how you have replied to my points. You indeed behave as if things in themselves existed outside of you and were, therefore, objects of perception, which in this case also happen to be subjects to which you want to show a logical proof. The world that you presuppose as composed ONLY of concept, percept and knowledge, can only be your own subjective world. Who are you trying to prove something if not yourself? If I and this forum are nothing but products of your consciousness, there would be nothing to prove, as there would be nothing objectively true.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 21st, 2022, 7:01 pm
Yes, I cannot point to anything non-physical. But I also cannot point to my consciousness, or your consciousness.
From the approach you adopt, you cannot point to anything. That's what Idealism always leads to: to nothing.

The problem is that in that case you can only own your subjective, personal criteria, but you can never own the other subjects' own criteria, which means your explanation does not apply to them. You're still left with the inability to provide a "full explanation", since whatever you can provide stays within the boundaries of your self. In your own explanation, the causes of anything are internal to your subjective experience, they are not objective causes outside the domain of your self that can be grasped by external observers.

By granting that you are conscious, I am granting an instance of a category that I know to be true within myself. Thus, I can reasonably infer that other subjects are also conscious. I can then ask other subjects if this explanation about their own consciousness applies equally to them. If we can all agree that we, fundamentally, experience content with qualitative meaning, then the axiom holds. It doesn’t matter that external observers can’t grasp my own conscious experience, because we can compare notes about the content of our individual experiences, and create a shared model thereof. This is no different than how, say, multiple subjects can agree that there is a tree in front of them. They compare observations to achieve a consensus.

And remember, we are now talking about “satisfactory explanations” not “full explanations”. This explanation is satisfactory because it is consistent with empirical observations (my own thinking, other subjects' descriptions about their own thinking).

Notice that there is no correspondency between the amount of subjects implied in the problem and what you claim is the criteria of proof: "I think, therefore I am". You have kept saying "WE" because that's what is required for a satisfactory explanation: the other subject's acknowledgement of the objective causes of something, but then you resort to what you think proves your own conscious experience. At best it only proves yours to you, but not anyone else's. You cannot jump from the "I think, therefore I am" to the "we think, therefore we are". You're still left with the inability to provide a "full explanation".

This is addressed by my previous paragraph.

And again, I am not concerned about providing a “full explanation” of anything. Even you said such is impossible.

We are talking ontology here. It's not about inferring the concept of the non-physical from the concept of the physical, but about inferring the existence of the non-physical from the existence of the physical. You said that "we can infer nonphysical properties based on physical evidence", which implies some ontological relation of dependency: whatever you call the non-physical, its existence cannot be explained without the existence of the physical.

How we infer the existence of something from something else does indicate that there is some sort of dependency — codependent, causal or otherwise — but it does not indicate what that dependency is. I infer that the leaves on a tree are dying based on the change in their color, but this doesn’t mean that the change in leaf color causes the leaves to die. We know that the opposite is in fact true; the dying leaves cause the leaves to change color. Likewise, how we infer a “physical property” or a “nonphysical property” indicates nothing about their causal relationship, or ontological dependence.

And besides, I don’t consider “non-physical phenomena” and “physical phenomena” to have separate existences with a definitive causal structure, but rather as being codependent phenomena in a shared reality.

That is not consistent, however, with how you have replied to my points. You indeed behave as if things in themselves existed outside of you and were, therefore, objects of perception, which in this case also happen to be subjects to which you want to show a logical proof.

According to my experience/observation, I cannot confirm if objects do or do not exist independent of experience. But according to my logical proof, I demonstrate how objects cannot exist independent of experience. I speak on both accounts. This might be why you think that you detect inconsistencies in my descriptions.

The world that you presuppose as composed ONLY of concept, percept and knowledge, can only be your own subjective world. Who are you trying to prove something if not yourself? If I and this forum are nothing but products of your consciousness, there would be nothing to prove, as there would be nothing objectively true.

I take the stance that content is a factor in our shared consciousness, not a product of my own consciousness. Why should that mean there is nothing objectively true?

From the approach you adopt, you cannot point to anything. That's what Idealism always leads to: to nothing.

I am not denying the existence of physical properties. I adopt the view that the world is composed of concept and percept (physical), which are bridged together by knowledge. This, as a unity, cannot be pointed to. We can point into the physical aspect of this, but not the qualitative aspect.
User avatar
Count Lucanor
Posts: 2318
Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
Location: Panama
Contact:

Re: A New Logical Proof that Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Post by Count Lucanor »

Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am By granting that you are conscious, I am granting an instance of a category that I know to be true within myself. Thus, I can reasonably infer that other subjects are also conscious. I can then ask other subjects if this explanation about their own consciousness applies equally to them. If we can all agree that we, fundamentally, experience content with qualitative meaning, then the axiom holds. It doesn’t matter that external observers can’t grasp my own conscious experience, because we can compare notes about the content of our individual experiences, and create a shared model thereof. This is no different than how, say, multiple subjects can agree that there is a tree in front of them. They compare observations to achieve a consensus.
Doing that would require that you acknowledge the existence of a reality independent of your consciousness. That includes conscious subjects, of course, but also trees, rocks, rivers, plants, cars, cities, etc., which are perceived by the conscious subjects as unconscious objects. If there's an independent reality where we find non-conscious objects, it follows that consciousness is not fundamental to reality.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am And remember, we are now talking about “satisfactory explanations” not “full explanations”. This explanation is satisfactory because it is consistent with empirical observations (my own thinking, other subjects' descriptions about their own thinking).
But if multiple subjects can agree, based on their observations, that a physical body is essential for having consciousness, cannot that be a satisfactory explanation?
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am How we infer the existence of something from something else does indicate that there is some sort of dependency — codependent, causal or otherwise — but it does not indicate what that dependency is. I infer that the leaves on a tree are dying based on the change in their color, but this doesn’t mean that the change in leaf color causes the leaves to die. We know that the opposite is in fact true; the dying leaves cause the leaves to change color. Likewise, how we infer a “physical property” or a “nonphysical property” indicates nothing about their causal relationship, or ontological dependence.
You're confusing causality (the instances of cause and effect) with relational dependency. If I say that I infer the existence of my fingers from the existence of my fist, I don't mean to say that the fingers are the cause of my fist. Likewise, when inferring the existence of a non-physical property from the existence of a physical property, we can be pretty sure that there's an ontological dependency of the former from the latter.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am And besides, I don’t consider “non-physical phenomena” and “physical phenomena” to have separate existences with a definitive causal structure, but rather as being codependent phenomena in a shared reality.
What is a “non-physical phenomena”? Can you provide some examples?
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am According to my experience/observation, I cannot confirm if objects do or do not exist independent of experience. But according to my logical proof, I demonstrate how objects cannot exist independent of experience. I speak on both accounts. This might be why you think that you detect inconsistencies in my descriptions.
But I assume that, according to your experience /observation, objects do appear as having independent existence. Among the objects that appear to have independent existence, there are the other subjects that appear to be conscious, and have their own experience and observations. Now, if you're unable to confirm that those subjects really have independent existence, all that you said about "reasonable inferences" made from the agreement with those subjects that experience, lacks all objectivity and falls down to pieces. It remains as your own subjective experience, from which you cannot escape. All proofs are for yourself, with your own criteria, and at most you could only prove that objects cannot exist independent of YOUR experience. You can't say anything about the experience of others, which you cannot confirm as having real, independent existence.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am I take the stance that content is a factor in our shared consciousness, not a product of my own consciousness. Why should that mean there is nothing objectively true?
Again, belief in the existence of a "shared consciousness" implies belief in the existence of real subjects having independent existence from your own consciousness.
The wise are instructed by reason, average minds by experience, the stupid by necessity and the brute by instinct.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
User avatar
3017Metaphysician
Posts: 1621
Joined: July 9th, 2021, 8:59 am

Re: A New Logical Proof that Consciousness is Fundamental to Reality

Post by 3017Metaphysician »

Count Lucanor wrote: September 13th, 2022, 10:45 pm
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am By granting that you are conscious, I am granting an instance of a category that I know to be true within myself. Thus, I can reasonably infer that other subjects are also conscious. I can then ask other subjects if this explanation about their own consciousness applies equally to them. If we can all agree that we, fundamentally, experience content with qualitative meaning, then the axiom holds. It doesn’t matter that external observers can’t grasp my own conscious experience, because we can compare notes about the content of our individual experiences, and create a shared model thereof. This is no different than how, say, multiple subjects can agree that there is a tree in front of them. They compare observations to achieve a consensus.
Doing that would require that you acknowledge the existence of a reality independent of your consciousness. That includes conscious subjects, of course, but also trees, rocks, rivers, plants, cars, cities, etc., which are perceived by the conscious subjects as unconscious objects. If there's an independent reality where we find non-conscious objects, it follows that consciousness is not fundamental to reality.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am And remember, we are now talking about “satisfactory explanations” not “full explanations”. This explanation is satisfactory because it is consistent with empirical observations (my own thinking, other subjects' descriptions about their own thinking).
But if multiple subjects can agree, based on their observations, that a physical body is essential for having consciousness, cannot that be a satisfactory explanation?
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am How we infer the existence of something from something else does indicate that there is some sort of dependency — codependent, causal or otherwise — but it does not indicate what that dependency is. I infer that the leaves on a tree are dying based on the change in their color, but this doesn’t mean that the change in leaf color causes the leaves to die. We know that the opposite is in fact true; the dying leaves cause the leaves to change color. Likewise, how we infer a “physical property” or a “nonphysical property” indicates nothing about their causal relationship, or ontological dependence.
You're confusing causality (the instances of cause and effect) with relational dependency. If I say that I infer the existence of my fingers from the existence of my fist, I don't mean to say that the fingers are the cause of my fist. Likewise, when inferring the existence of a non-physical property from the existence of a physical property, we can be pretty sure that there's an ontological dependency of the former from the latter.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am And besides, I don’t consider “non-physical phenomena” and “physical phenomena” to have separate existences with a definitive causal structure, but rather as being codependent phenomena in a shared reality.
What is a “non-physical phenomena”? Can you provide some examples?
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am According to my experience/observation, I cannot confirm if objects do or do not exist independent of experience. But according to my logical proof, I demonstrate how objects cannot exist independent of experience. I speak on both accounts. This might be why you think that you detect inconsistencies in my descriptions.
But I assume that, according to your experience /observation, objects do appear as having independent existence. Among the objects that appear to have independent existence, there are the other subjects that appear to be conscious, and have their own experience and observations. Now, if you're unable to confirm that those subjects really have independent existence, all that you said about "reasonable inferences" made from the agreement with those subjects that experience, lacks all objectivity and falls down to pieces. It remains as your own subjective experience, from which you cannot escape. All proofs are for yourself, with your own criteria, and at most you could only prove that objects cannot exist independent of YOUR experience. You can't say anything about the experience of others, which you cannot confirm as having real, independent existence.
Grant R Henderson wrote: August 28th, 2022, 8:22 am I take the stance that content is a factor in our shared consciousness, not a product of my own consciousness. Why should that mean there is nothing objectively true?
Again, belief in the existence of a "shared consciousness" implies belief in the existence of real subjects having independent existence from your own consciousness.
Substances are particulars that are ontologically independent: they are able to exist all by themselves. Physical stuff can be described in terms of a persisting substance gaining or losing properties. Attributes or properties, on the other hand, are entities that can be exemplified through substances. Properties characterized by their bearers; well, they express what their bearer is like. Or, what it's like to have a feeling about some-thing. That all relates to quality v. quantity of a thing-in-itself, like the thing called consciousness.

With respect to 'independent existence', an example of something that has an independent existence has many implications and manifestations. Any-thing that is self-organized or self-directed, like an auto-immune system, biological propagation of a species, one's own stream of consciousness, or information itself, provides for that sense of independence/conception of something that's independent.

Also, think about the definition of sound as a hearable noise. A tree that falls will make a sound, even if nobody heard it, simply because it could have been heard. If we define sound as the waves themselves, then sound would be produced. This basically means that the correct response to the question: "if a tree falls in the forest with no one to hear it fall, does it make a sound?" is "yes", and "no", dependent on whether being answered using the physical, or the psychophysical/metaphysical/subjective definition, respectively.

One can also think of 'independent' existence in a most obvious cosmological way too. Apparently, the universe existed prior to human's having emerged or arrived on the scene. The causes of existence 'prior to' in general, seems to be that which breathed fire into the Hawking equations. And that suggests the information narrative precedes the matter narrative.
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021