First Principles, Left and Right

This is a rough draft of the concept of principles which underlie the Left and Right. It's a first cut, and there might be errors or omissions which need correction. Each point is debatable and debate is encouraged for those with sincere, non-troll, ideas.

First Principles, Right and Left: Fundamentals of the Culture War

First Principles: "Deemed self-evident and requiring no further justification."

Left:
1. Globalism over national laws.

2. Disregard for US Constitution and national laws.

3. Promotion of Marxist Class War: (Identity tribalism). Use of Victimhood to generate Ideological Compassionate Slavery, both of Victims as well as Othered Classes. All humans and cultures are equal (e.g., Islam equals western Leftism equals black culture equals communists equals African dictators, etc.), except for those which are not equal (e.g., “fascism”, “western culture - aka the patriarchy”, “conservatives”, “constitutionalists”, etc).

4. Anti-Free Speech.

5. Anti-Free Assembly.

6. Anti-dissent. Vilify and neutralize dissent (enforced unity vs punishment).

7. Information control: MSM; social media;

8. Nietzschean Will To Power: Deep State; emotional control of new generations via postmodern rejection of Enlightenment Empirical intellect, truth and internal coherence.

9. Relativism; Destiny of history validates all possible means (without regard for harm).

10. Humans can be molded into utopian compliance, and must be, by whatever means or force is necessary. The Left will supervise and control the compliance processing as well as the final utopian product.

Right:
1. Humans are unique and have “unalienable rights” which are granted by authority superior to man and are not to be violated by man.

2. Those unalienable rights are also guaranteed in the US Constitution, including the Bill of Rights.

3. The USA is unique in regard to the protection of those unalienable rights.

4. Civil health depends on laws, local and national, to be obeyed. The existence of laws requires a common cultural civil and moral compact, which is codified.

5. Civil dissent and debate is healthy. Violence against dissent, suppression of dissent, is anti-human rights.

6. Humans behaving lawfully have the right to be left alone, to pursue their own path through life starting with the circumstances and opportunities available to everyone, but not guaranteed outcomes, nor guaranteed special assistance which is not available to every human.

7. Humans have the right to own unlimited property without state interference or social interference.

8. Humans do not have a right to the property owned by others. Nor do humans have a right to enslave other humans, nor to force any human who is abiding by the law into unwanted activity.

9. Humans have a right to participate in their own governing.

10. Humans have a right to change governments which are oppressive to human rights, which are parasitical or non-responsive.

More Activity At This Post...

The Principles of the First Principles

This is a good and welcome discussion. Feel free to chime in.

Radical Skepticism: An Answer for Shizmoo

Shizmoo,
This question reminds me of the time that I posted a question on Massimo Pigliucci’s blog asking him how he kept his arguments grounded to avoid circularity and infinite regress in order to make sure that the arguments were true. He always kept his comments moderated, and that question never saw the light of day. But I can answer for him, and I will at the end of this article.

This is a legitimate issue regarding the grounding of rational arguments. Radical skepticism seems to bump into the grounding process, run it over, flatten it in the road, producing chaos. But it really doesn’t.

Let’s take a slow walk through the issues.

“You said to post any question in latest post. Read some of your first principle articles and I was just curious about you and your response to the Münchhausen/agrippa trilemma.
Axioms are question begging unjustified assumptions, circular reasoning is obviously fallacious, and infinite regress isn't possible. There is no way to know truth or anything being a finite human forced to employ fallacious reasoning as noted above. “

As a preliminary, it is easy to reject circularity and infinite regresses, because they are not grounded in anything like true knowledge. Circularity refers back to itself as the authority for its claims; infinite regressions have no stopping point which can be called authority for its claims. This leaves two possibilities (there are four, not three as the trilemma implies, total). It leaves axioms and chaos. So we need to compare how axioms are known to the proposition that chaos is “known” to be the foundation of human knowledge.

First, when asserting that one “knows that nothing can be known”, as you acknowledge below, that is internally contradictory. But the issue then becomes twofold: that the concept of internal contradiction has the issue of apparently not being a known true principle, having no axioms for itself, other than its own self-evidence, and that the chaos proposition refers only to itself (circular).

Second, axioms are not “question begging unjustified assumptions”, they are self-evident truths, theoretically requiring and receiving no independent “proofs”. But if radical skepticism is asserted as an a priori truth, then nothing is ever self-evidently true, including radical skepticism. Nor can it be reasoned whether this circularity is fatal to reasoning, because there is no longer any reasoning possible.

Third, if radical skepticism is asserted (as truth, of course), then it cannot be known whether the basic statement of the trilemma itself is or is not contradictory, or whether the principle of Noncontradiction is or is not valid, or whether the universe, when observed, would hold to non-contradiction. So asserting radical skepticism as an axiom in order to prove axioms are false is a chaotic statement, which has no meaning.

This idea of axiomatic radical skepticism leads to Nietzsche’s Anti-Rationalism theory and the presumptive “knowledge” that, in the absence of knowledge, only the natural progression of “will to power” exists, and that this cannot be refuted since logic, truth, good and evil cannot exist.

But if the observation of “will to power” is to be asserted as valid and true, then that presupposes that (a) truth actually does exist; and (b) observation, itself, is a valid operator in the pursuit of validity and truth.

And if observation is a valid and true operator in the pursuit of what is true, then the observation of self-evident truths cannot be discarded as invalid. I.e., it cannot be self-evidently true that self-evident truths do not exist, even in a chaotic and irrational universe. Further, if observation of order in the universe exists, then the universe is observably not chaotic. Thus it is possible that self-evident truths exist which can be used to ground processes of rational thinking about the universe.

That, in turn, negates the first horn of the trilemma, because no longer can axioms be declared to be “question begging unjustified assumptions”, the axioms themselves having been grounded in observation of the universe, and the concept of self-evidence.

The slow walk continues briefly into the darkness as we explore the presumption of the necessity of radical skepticism and intellectual chaos:

However, it is also “true” that ultimate, non-axiomatic, presupposition of radical skepticism cannot be logically defeated, because it merely denies the rational ability of logic, and that denial comes from an illogical and irrational basis. An argument based on irrationality cannot be defeated using logic. There actually is uncertainty and unknowablility which exists. For that reason alone, (but with other reasons which support it), fallibility is built into rational reasoning, with the use of the following caveats:

1. Observation is never complete.

2. Self-evidence is based on observation; thus self-evidence is never complete.

3. In practice, the confidence in observation and self-evidence is based on induction of numerous observations which all are congruent. However, induction is then necessarily presupposed as at least contingently valid, and self-evident in a probabilistic fashion. Should induction be proven false, then rationality is not possible. But how could rationality be PROVEN false in a presumed irrational universe where, under radical skepticism, intellectual chaos reigns? Because it cannot be proven false under radical skepticism, it is merely intuited to be false, thus rendering intuition to be a presupposed valid and true condition of thought,

4. Intuition must be asserted, in order to work free of circularity. For radical skeptics to intuit chaos, they must assume intuition to be true. This is necessary in order to intuit that (a) induction is completely false; (b) observation is a false pursuit; (c) congruence cannot be known; (d) self-evidence is false.

Further, the radical skeptic must intuit that he is NOT a brain in a vat totally dependent upon hardwired inputs, nor is he an AI routine programmed solely for non-intuitive rejectionism.

If intuition is NOT true, then the radical skeptic cannot assert the truth of intellectual chaos vs. intellectual order and rational capabilities.

5. Because the radical skeptic has by default asserted that intuition truly exists, is valid, and is a useful intellectual tool since it is necessary for intuiting radical skepticism (to be true), it is therefore also available as a tool for the logician who is not a radical skeptic. If the skeptic can use intuition then it must also be granted to the non-skeptic. If it is not granted, then he cannot assert radical skepticism either.

6. Further, if the radical skeptic intuits that items 4 (a)-(d) are true statements, then he automatically grants the existence of truth.

7. Because the radical skeptic has granted that intuition exists, and is a valid tool for declaring truth, and that truth exists, then it is possible to intuit that observations and inductions can lead to at least a contingent truth. This has been granted by the radical skeptic in order for him to claim radical skepticism.

8. Induction depends upon observations to look for and find non-chaotic, orderly categories of existence in the universe. It can be intuited that this process works, because of historical successes in doing so. One of the observations of existence is non-contradiction. This can be asserted as a contingent truth, which a contingency absurdly low and vanishingly small.

So now we have some criteria for knowability: intuition, observations, inductions, contingent truth, and non-contradiction of existence. These criteria must be granted by the radical skeptic since they arise purely by the process of justifying radical skepticism; they are both presumed valid and presumed necessary. They must be granted also then as tools available to the non-radical-skeptic.

But here we still have two competing assertions:

A. It is true that intuition proves radical skepticism is valid.

B. It is true that intuition proves that self-evidence is valid.

This presents us with a Truth Table, which the radical skeptic cannot deny due to having used all the element it contains in justifying radical skepticism:

1. Radical skepticism is true; self-evidence is false.

2. Radical skepticism is false; self-evidence is true.

3. Neither radical skepticism nor self-evidence is true.

4. Both radical skepticism and self-evidence are true.

Now we can do an analysis of the Truth Table, point by point:

1. If radical skepticism is true, it is also unknowable and cannot be true. This is an outcome of both the assertion of unknowability and the rejection of noncontradiction. Option one is false because it makes a false and impossible statement about the truth value of radical skepticism.

2. If radical skepticism is false, then self-evidence is valid and knowability exists; Option 2 is viable.

3. It is possible that some other kind of reasoning, which is neither skeptical nor grounded is valid; Option 3 is presumably possible but not observed.

4. It is not possible for radical skepticism to be true, IF self-evidence is true. Option 4 is false.

Now we must choose between truth table options 2 and 3.

If Option 2 is false, then option 3 is the remaining possibility. But option 3 is not observed; it is not produced by induction; it cannot be self-evidently “true”; it is purely a logical construct without any correlate in observable existence. Option 2, however, is observable, it is congruent with the properties which are granted by the radical skeptic, and therefore is the only option remaining which fits the criteria of knowability.

At this point we must acknowledge that the analysis process itself – used above – can be denied a priori and without reasoning by radical skeptics. But they cannot claim to have used logic or evidence or reasoning in their process, and so their conclusion is completely outside of logic and rational processes, rendering it completely irrational.

The ability to invalidate rationality by asserting the Truth of irrationality is a closed loop, one which is incestuous and yet intuits the existence of truth and other rational tools in order to arrive at the “truth” of irrationality. But we have now shown that asserting intuition does not lead to radical skepticism.

”I know that sentence is a knowledge/truth claim, but if say the Law of Non-Contradiction(question begging assumption you hold) isn't true then my statement isn't "contradictory" or "false".

I don't see how one can not have an epistemology of radical skepticism which is part of atheism compared to theists who claim to know things such as truth when they aren't omniscient and trapped in the fallacious circle unable to justify their knowledge/truth.”

Radical skeptics are the least able to prove their position to be valid and true of any worldview. They can produce no argument or truth claim at all under their own assertion of unknowablity. In fact, your assertion that circularity is a problem cannot be a truth principle under radical skepticism. Your assertion that they aren’t omniscient cannot be a known truth in an environment of complete unknowability. Your requirement that they justify any argument logically cannot be a known requirement in a universe of unknowability - an environment where no knowledge can be justified, where absurdity such as noncontradiction cannot be judged.

You have, in fact, relied on traditional logic in your assertions of unknowability. But if you really believed in unknowability and radical skepticism, you could not use traditional logic, you could only “not know” anything, period. The rejection of conditions for judging absurdity – for example, rejecting noncontradiction – means that the radical skeptic cannot judge anything to be absurd, for there are no knowable conditions for making such a judgment under radical skepticism.

The additional issue is that if there is no knowability, then radical skeptics cannot “know” anything about the validity of theist claims, and therefore any criticisms of theism by radical skeptics actually are absurd since they are made using traditional logic, not radical skepticism, and therefore qualify for being judged for absurdity.

So the use of radical skepticism to assert the validity of Atheism fails, using its own criteria. Further, Atheism cannot make a case for itself using either disciplined logic, or radical skepticism, or observations made in the discipline of empirical, hypothetico-deductive, experimental, falsifiable, replicable, open data, peer-reviewed and published scientific contingent knowledge.

Yet Atheists and skeptics must be held to their common claims of being grounded in logic and science. They are not so grounded. And they cannot defeat theist arguments, so they make false claims such as “having no theist beliefs” when it is clear and obvious that they do, in fact, believe theist arguments are false and that they reject them, but cannot prove it. So Atheism is a false basis for worldview construction, and leads to false worldviews.

To return to Massimo's rejection of my grounding question: Philosophers such as Pigliucci are not engaged in making arguments regarding subects which have the capability of being grounded in axioms or truths. What they do is to opine on subjects which have no possible grounding at all. That is their intellectual environment. So their intellectual maunderings are usually circular and are based on their own authority, and in the final analysis, in the authority of their tribal associations.

Readers: FYI

There is activity on the subject of First Principles here.

Fred on Details of The First Principles.

I apologize to Fred for the delay in answering his question concrning the Details of the First Principles; it is a timely question, so I will answer it in a post:

Fred:
”Stan, Thank you for the answers and clarifications. I appreciate your time. In the third-to-last paragraph of your answer (Materialists do in fact claim...) you state Materialists' adherence to Cause and Effect doesn't allow for any human agency which in turn doesn't allow for any "original" - uncaused - thought, since this requires agency. You then say that because of this, reason,... also cannot exist under naturalism. How do you draw this conclusion? Would not a Materialist say that reason does not have to be uncaused (original) for it to exist? Would not a materialist also state that even granting for the non-material transcendent nature of thought one cannot deny the chemical and cellular processes occurring in the material brain in tandem with these thoughts as evidenced by countless scientific experiments; many of which have demonstrated that human behavior (and therefore thoughts) can be altered as a result of material changes through various means to the brain?”

For Cause and Effect to be completely in control of every aspect of human thinking, every thought (which must be material itself) must have a direct physical cause and that cause must be an effect of a prior cause, clear back to the big bang. Now Cause and Effect is ruled by entropy, which means that every effect must be less than its cause, with at least a portion of the cause resulting in disorder such as heat. A relentless trek toward disorder is the fate of the physical universe, and this is a rule that allows no exceptions: there can exist no reversible machines in our physical universe.

The emergence of life is the first anentropic (non-entropic) event, and that has been followed by generations of further anentropic events, all constrained to living systems. The universal law of Cause and Effect fails to account for the increasing order that is found in living systems. So there is some attempt to claim that things like sentience and thought “emerge” from complex systems somehow, yet there is no explanation for why complex systems exist in an entropic universe in the first place.

Cause and Effect as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics are universal and undeniably applicable to every and all physical systems… except living systems. But for Philosophical Materialism to be valid, everything that exists must exist physically and obey the laws of physics. This means that, given the conclusion first and trying to fit premises to it, all life must not be exceptional, all life must also fit into the rules of the physical universe, including Cause and Effect and Entropy.

Now if entropy dictates the degradation of effects within a long chain of causes, how might we account for sentience, thought and rationality? It has to be argued that a) these things are physical, and b) they are not exceptional, so that c) if they seem to be exceptional, that is an illusion or delusion. Even the self and consciousness as well as intentionality and agency are declared illusory or delusory. (If we believe an illusion it becomes a delusion).

Brain activity is given as definitive evidence of this delusion; moreover, damage to the brain shows that no mental activity can be correctly performed without a proper brain, with all segments hooked up and working together as shown under MRI. That physical hardware is exercising software of unknown origin escapes this description, which requires that a hardware brain be hardwired with physical connections, and that these connections fire just right somehow to perform a thought, the results of which are then transferred to the conscious mind – which is a delusion.

So it is the firing of the synapses that create the thought, and the thought is a transient state, existing only in time.

We are deluded into thinking that we somehow control these transient states, even creating sequences of them as would be required for critical thinking. There is no agency in the physical universe according to Philosophical Materialism. There is only response to stimulus (effect from a cause) and the response is lossy at that. So we are locked into our delusions.

I am not making this up, as ridiculously absurd as it appears. It is the necessity of a physical-only, material-only dogmatic philosophy that forces such absurd conclusions. Those who think that these positions are not absurd should pledge to abstain from using the results of intentional, conscious agency, including clothing, buildings of all types, transportation of all types, toilets, water and power utilities, and communications devices; these are concrete products of intentional agency. Denial of agency is dumfoundingly absurd. And so are the claims that we all live in a shared delusion.

The existence of the mind, rationality, agency and self requires a completely separate understanding of our existence within a physical universe. Our existence defies the natural laws, and requires a separate and extended view of reality beyond the Materialist viewpoint. The Materialist viewpoint is not sustainable even using its own standards of empirical knowledge: it cannot prove the limits it self-imposes on reality. But even more damaging is the boatload of absurdities that become necessary to believe, if Materialism is to be preserved.

“I suppose the question then is whether it is these material processes in the brain which are the material precursors to non-material thought, or vice versa? Or is it that the two are in a circular relationship where one causes the other and back and forth, back and forth, etc. Of course, a Materialist would give the "first/original" cause of all this as being purely material, the big bang. And a theist would give first cause as the "thought" or original act of creation of God. Is this not then an endless argument which can never be resolved since neither claim can be proven?”

The Atheist / Materialist claim can be proven false, due to the non-rational absurdities required for all humans to be living in a shared delusion. Theism is an understanding of a non-physical, non-material reality that presumes that, for one thing, a sentient being is required to create sentience in other objects such as humans. This cannot be proven empirically because it is not an empirical hypothesis, but it is not non-coherent nor is it paradoxical nor does it depend on mass or individual delusion.

"Of course, you rightly point out that because of this inability to prove their claims atheists cannot claim to be any more rational than deists. Is this the main, and only, point of your blog: to deny atheists the claim of rationality? Do you go on to make any arguments in favor of the claims of theists? (I suppose I could answer the last question myself by reading your posts further!) Best wishes.”

Please do feel free to read the posts, they are categorized by subject for your reading convenience. I do not indulge in theodicies because they are not proof of anything to the materialist mind. There are a great many theological sources but very few logical assaults on the Atheist worldview such as is done here. So that is the focus of this blog. However, I provide an insight into the study and use of real logic, and that can be used to find a coherent theology; that is a particular journey that I feel every seeker must make for himself, not one that I try to influence.

Again sorry for the delay in answering your question.

Open Letter To Singring

Singring, you and others there are arguing a philosophy of science. You apparently are not familiar with the foundations of science in basic principles of logic and rational thought: The First Principles.

For compactness, the First Principles will be stated, then their source will be outlined, and finally their foundational properties for science will be stated.

The First Principles are these:

1. The Intuitive Principles.

These principles, while not provable, are known to be valid intuitively.

a. Identity. If it is true, then it is true; if it exists, then it exists.

b. Non-Contradiction. If it is true, then it cannot be false; if it exists, it cannot NOT exist.

c. Excluded Middle. A (singular, unity) concept cannot be somewhat true and somewhat false; a (singular, unity) thing cannot somewhat exist and somewhat not exist.

d. Cause and effect. Every effect has a cause that is both necessary and sufficient, as well as prior to and greater than the effect.

e. Cogito (Descartes). Because I doubt my own doubt, it is true that I think; because I think (truth), I must exist (fact)[While the premises behind the Cogito might be discredited, the Cogito, as a First Principle is hard to deny without denying one's own existence].

2. The Probabilistic Principles.
These Principles seem to encompass both truth and existence.

a. The Immutability of math throughout the universe.

b. The Immutability of physical law throughout the universe.

c. The mutability of all levels of verifiability (Godel's laws).

3. The Presuppositional Principles.
These principles are declared either as empirical constraints, or as part of a worldview.

a. No form of reality exists that cannot be either observed and measured directly or by the use of instrumentation.

b. No Singularities (temporary violations) exist in the physical laws of the universe.

4. The Principle of Rational Thought; Skepticism; and Rational Deniability
These two principles demonstrate the philosophical tension between the Rational Empiricists and the Anti-Rationalists.

a. No premise should be accepted without evidence.
( This is the Principle of Rational Thought, and the basis for “skepticism”: Hume, Russell, Ayer)

b. Existence of evidence via intuition is denied.
(This is the basis for Anti-Rationalism: Nietzsche)(Notice that deniability is declared true as a rational premise, which premise requires the intuition of its truth; so intuition is denied via the use of intuition, which is a paradoxical process to Rationalists – but not to Anti-Rationalists who deny that paradox exists).

5. The Principles of Evidence
Evidence is demanded by Rationalists and Skeptics. Anti-Rationalists deny all basis for evidence, except (paradoxically) Darwinism; Anti-Rationalists also deny paradox, having denied the First Principles due to their intuitive basis. So the following principles are Rational principles only, and are not necessarily accepted by the Anti-Rationalists.

a. All evidence ultimately devolves to the First Principles and is therefore intuitively based.

b. “Universals” can be assumed valid without proof. These include Mathematics, Logic, and Language (a syllogistic form of logic deriving from the First Principle of Cause and Effect). (Notice that this is an intuited principle).

c. Empirical evidence:

1. Physical; Sensate only: Therefore, measurable.

2. Local (inductive)

3. Repeatable (deductive)

4. Universality cannot be proven so must be assumed (intuited, based upon probability, which can be increased by numerous replications of tests)

5. Validity is probabilistic only (intuited, based upon statistical probability, which can be increased by numerous replications of tests)

6. Assumes the validity of the Presuppositional Principles, # 3 above.

7. Valid Empirical evidence can be falsified, but has not been. (Popper).

Source of the First Principles
Observation of the operation and charateristics of the universe has been observed for millenia, and these principles seem to be consistent. However they are not obtainable through the means of experimental empiricism. For example it cannot be proven conclusively that mathematical principles are consistent across the universe, but it can intuited that the universe would be different than it is were they not consistent. Intuitions such as this are the basis for understanding and accepting the First Principles.

The Philosophy of Empirical Science
The philosophy of empirical, experimental science presupposes the First Principles; they are unspoken axioms. If any of the First Principles is found to fail for some reason, that failure reflects on scientific knowledge, because the value of that knowledge is dependent upon the truth of those principles. The obverse is not the case: failure of any scientific concept has no affect upon the First Principles. The First Principles are not subject to empirical study or validation.

The First Principles are axiomatic precursors to logic, rationality, mathematics and empirical science. These principles are as close to Truth as fallible humans can get. Science on the other hand produces contingent hypotheses which are subject to falsification as future experimental results might produce. Science does not ever produce truth, it produces contingent factoids, based on material inputs only.

Science, therefore cannot produce evidence that satisfies the stipulations of Philophical Materialism, which is a necessary adjunct of Atheism.

Richard Carrier: Advice to Everyone on Becoming a Philosopher.

Richard Carrier, PhD., is a philosopher, lecturer, blogger and contributor to several naturalist websites.

On a recent blog post, he gives instructions on being a philosopher, and rightly suggests that everyone should perform self-examination. And one can’t help but agree with Carrier’s conclusion:

”Everything that's important follows from this process: what's right and wrong, what's important and unimportant, beautiful and ugly, true and false, better and worse, worthwhile or a waste of time. You will thus be able to make yourself a better person, and enjoy a better life, a life of less error and ignorance and greater wisdom and contentment--all at least within the limits set upon you that you can't escape.”

Carrier gives what he calls his four pillars of philosophy, written as tasks:

”Task Number 1. Spend an hour every day asking yourself questions and researching the answers.

Task Number 2. Read one good philosophy book a month.

Task Number 3. Politely argue with lots of different kinds of people who disagree with you on any of the answers you come to above.

Task Number 4. Learn how to think.”

But he immediately goes awry by insisting on three fundamental questions of philosophy, or at least to be answered first by the philosophically inclined, followed by three analytical examination questions:

"Who am I?"
"What do I really want in life? "
"How do I safely obtain it?"

…and to every answer to any of these questions then ask …

"Why is that the case?" and
"How do I know that's true?" and
"Are there other, better ways to answer that question?"

And to any of those answers, ask those same three questions, and so on, all the way down the line.”

First I suggest that his tasks are not in a proper order. “Learn how to think” should be first, and the task should be well established before any other philosophical tasks are attempted. While this seems obvious, apparently it is not. So here is the rather obvious reason why: If you still don’t know the proper process for analytical thinking, then you shouldn’t be doing analytical projects. Certainly not projects of enough import to direct the formation of your worldview. Learn the proper process first and thoroughly, and only then proceed into analytical philosophical projects.

Next I suggest that the original questions posited by Carrier are not the fundamental questions of philosophy. The questions posed by him are not basic to anything but narcissism in the seeker. Those question should be answered only after a solid grounding in deeper questions, such as these in the two lists below. The first list is mine, and is based on Russell’s list, below, and on “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”, by John Locke, and “the Laws of Thought”, by George Boole”, and ”An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding,” by David Hume.

1. What is universal, and underlies valid thinking? (ontology)
2. What is truth? (epistemology)
3. What is knowledge? (epistemology)
4. What is life? (idealism vs. metaphysics)
5. What is a mind? (idealism vs. metaphysics)
6. What are origins and purpose? (teleology)

Bertrand Russell discusses the remaining philosophical questions to be answered by modern philosophers in his book, ”The Problems of Philosophy”. These can roughly be listed as,

a) Perception, reality, matter and idealism;
b) Knowledge, induction, general principles, universals and intuitive knowledge;
c) Truth, Falsehood and error;
d) The limits of philosophical knowledge.

Russell outlines and critiques the three basic first principles [1]:

”For no very good reason, three of these principles have been singled out by tradition under the name of ‘Laws of Thought’. They are as follows:

(1) The law of identity: ‘whatever is, is’.
(2) The law of contradiction: ‘nothing can both be and not be.’
(3) The law of excluded middle: ‘Everything must either be or not be’.

These three laws are samples of self-evident logical principles, but are not really more fundamental or more self-evident than various other similar principles: for instance, the one we considered just now, which states that what follows from a true premiss is true. The name ‘laws of thought’ is also misleading, for what is important is not the fact that we think in accordance with these laws, but the fact that things behave in accordance with them; in other words the fact that when we think in accordance with them we think truly”

Russell also attacks issues of the metaphysics of the self and mind as uncaused causers and non-empirical “substances” in his ”Fifteen Lectures on the Mind”. Ultimately he declares that mind must be of some non-material substance, as elemental and fundamental as matter, but not the same as matter, because the mind, as an uncaused causer, does not behave according to the laws of matter and is not therefore material. Russell was not a materialist.

Carrier offers no guidance toward the objective of validity in thinking. This is, in my opinion, a severe flaw in any recommendation to beginning seekers of validity and truth. Moreover, he has an a priori bias toward idealism, which is a generally discredited thought process, even amongst modern public intellectuals.

[1] Russell, "The Problems of Philosophy"; Oxford Univ Press; 1912 / 1997; pg. 72.

Rebellion, Freedom and Reality

When the movie, “Rebel Without a Cause” came out in 1955, I felt as if they had made it about me. Being adolescent in a time of gang warfare, football hero worship, drag racing, and back seat bingo – none of which applied to me – put me in a peripheral category. Being a peripheral adolescent is not fun, especially if it includes life at home, a place where I was pretty much just in the way. Mom and Dad both had careers and their expectations for me were that I be a scholar and keep quiet. Neither of which appealed to me, both which I ignored. I felt marginalized and without a definition of being anyone.

In those days, they cracked down on peripheral slackers. These days I suppose slackers and peripherals get lots of sympathy, and co-dependent support. I got cracked down on. James Dean got co-dependent support in the movie. Either way, rebellion is inevitable, because there is no way to develop a sense of ownership of one’s own self, if that self is controlled by someone else. Adolescent rebellion is one of the ways that youth sheds dependence and becomes. It is the need to become that drives rebellion, the need to differentiate oneself, to become autonomous, and in control. In adolescents, it is normal.

Not long after the James Dean movie, the James Bond movies started coming out. Talk about cool and in control. Bond always survived the worst attacks and then had sex with the most beautiful women. Not so the peripheral adolescent. The lack of control became omnipresent and painfully so.

Yet with the acquisition of adult age, a self-financed degree, a good professional job, the peripheral adolescent in me should have disappeared. It faded, but never really seemed to disappear, in the sense that rebellion against authority was always still just subcutaneous, barely repressed but also not really visible to the casual observer.

Rebellion is a destructive force. When it is not released, it becomes an attitude, a worldview. As it gets worse, it metastasizes into internalized negativity, then externalized as a substitute for rational thought. In an adult, it is a toxin.

Here’s what I mean by that. Rebellion might originally have legitimate causes such as seeking oneself by eliminating the forces that control. But it has illegitimate tactics that go along with that, including a thoughtless rejection of articles that are perceived as threats, which really are not. The pursuit for autonomy can and frequently does eliminate every input from standard cultural sources as wrong, and then: evil.

Such rebellion, when not abated in adulthood, can become stultifyingly irascible, belligerent, reflexive, uncompromising and destructive to rationality. This sort of individual finds support from like minded belligerents who come to feel that their pain is a source of moral superiority, a source that cannot be comprehended by the “Other”. Rebellion thus becomes a moral statement, a decree against almost everything cultural which might inhibit or control the rebel. Rebellion becomes a force against the tyranny of others, the tyranny of external control, of standards, of rules, of mores and of ethos. Rebellion leads to a reflexive rejection of most everything which the host culture values.

It is this reflexive rejection that gives chronic rebellion its irrational character. The adult rebel will immediately reject or deny a cultural standard without a shred of evidence to support his premise. The common path of rebel thought includes rejection, Reductio Ad Absurdum, ridicule, Ad Hominem attacks, and verbal violence upon foes. The adult rebel automatically knows better than his foes, still without a shred of supporting evidence. Generally seen as a fractious belligerent, the rebel will not succumb to reasoned debate, but will frequently explode tangentially into a non-coherent tantrum in the face of persistent logic.

This sort of worldview is seen by the rebel as freedom, total freedom of thought. Rather, he is captive to negative reflexion away from standards, all standards, whether rational or not, beneficial or not, moral or not. The rebel’s morality is merely to reject.

What suffers for the rebel is the loss of contact with universals. To present universals to a rebel is to meet with instantaneous rejection. Sometimes the rejection is based on scientism. No matter, the just the idea of universals is an idea of external control: psychologically anathema to the rebel.

But for rationality, universal reality is the only guideline we have. Coherence can only be derived from a condition of universal consistency, a trait that we can observe ourselves without external coercion. In fact, universal reality is deduced after inductive observation of the characteristics of the universe; it is falsifiable by continuous observation, and philosophical observations over millennia have observed some consistent characteristics that are inherent to the basic construction of the universe, and which render it coherent. These principles allow the deduction of First Principles, which apply to reality, and how we can think about reality coherently and produce valid thoughts through structured processes of thought. Such structured thinking about universal realities is called “logic”. And symbolic math. And ultimately science.

But rebellion is against the external control of things like roots, which demand subservience as they require recognition of their validity. Here again, reflexive rebellion goes astray, goes awry, as it rejects the implacable validity of the universal characteristics to which we are subject. Misreading roots as threats rather than foundations for valid thinking is endemic in rebels.

The freedom that rebels crave, they also reject because freedom of thought comes with the ability to apply rationality to every and all propositions, at least those subject to rational analysis.

And this brings us to morality. The rebel’s presumed morality, mentioned above, is derived from the pain produced by the rebellion, which the rebel presumes confers moral authority upon himself. But it can be seen that irrationality rules the rebel; so why would morality be invested upon such an individual? And invested by whom?

The intellectual world is infested with rebels of the sort discussed above. Their forte’ is to reject all the norms for thought and behavior that are present in the culture which provides for them. And they self-anoint (in Sowell’s terminology) with mantles of extraordinary morality, priests of differentiated thinking and Consequentialism. They gather into groups of self-appellated intellectuals, remaining in and taking control of university lounges, and venturing into government advisory positions from which to pontificate and maneuver the masses.

But their rebellious rejectionism remains a distinctive characteristic, the immediate defiance in the presence of rational alternatives to their “moral advances” and progressivism for the herd. Again, a mark of the irrational rebel is that they know better than us about everything (and in a moral way), without a shred of supporting evidence, in fact despite the masses of evidence to the contrary. Morality is not influenced by evidence, if you are possessed of irrational rebellion. The lack of personal freedom that the rebel incurs for himself everyday is to be compensated by the removal of personal freedoms from the Other, leveling the field once and for all, and this is morality. As Alinsky said in his tenth rule, “…clothe it in moral garments.” He didn’t mean be moral. He meant, make it look moral, regardless of the tactic: make the ends look moral, and the means will justify themselves: Consequentialism.

The inevitable Consequentialism of the rebellious is merely a self-justification for doing whatever they wish (frequently to whoever they wish). This illusion of freedom results in either incarceration of the Consequentialist in a just world, or abuse of the Consequentialist’s fellow man, in a Consequentialist world. Frequently in history it has been the latter, at least for those who aspire to control rather than be controlled. Rebellion in adults is not without victims, not in the victimology sense of co-dependence, but real victims. The first victim is the rebel himself, trapped in a fearful state of perceived persecution by forces that want to control him, unable to free himself into rational thought and worldview behaviors, because that requires his submission – subservience – to outside forces, the universals which cannot be recognized. Rejection of these necessary roots is fatal to rationality, and the rebel suffers under his own constrictions, imprisoned away from the reality of the universe as shown through its coherence.

In short, the rebel is miserable and frequently without recourse. The rebel is frustrated by the refusal of the Other to abandon rationality and join him in his irrational, miserable state. So he is also angry. And an angry, miserable, irrational Consequentialist is not a pleasant companion. Or correspondent. Or politician.

Rebels are beyond help, at least logical help. It is a deep seated psychological issue. But like most mental issues these days, it is not considered pathological until an actual crime is committed. The damage they do can be controlled, until they seize the three branches of government. Uh oh. Our reality is changing, and not to the more rational state.

The Trouble With Truth

The Trouble With Truth: Freedom vs. Subservience

Freedom is the advantage of Atheism, while subservience is the plague of religion: that is the message from PZ Meyers last Sunday. The perfect freedom that Atheism provides is a release from authority and obligatory moral tenets. According to Meyers, the Atheist has,

”...no gods and no masters, only autonomous agents free to think and act”.

The Trouble With Truth: Rebellion

Many Atheists arrive at their Atheism during or after a journey of personal rebellion. Rebellion is part of the adolescent process of determining who one is. An adolescent is captured under rules of behavior that restrict. The restriction is resented. If the person is to be self-sufficient, then those rules made by others are onerous. Many youth rebel, and some rebel against all authority over them. In the manner of a prisoner rebelling against captors, the youth rebels, seeking personal control. In many cases, the youth is released from the restrictions as he reaches legal maturity, and he becomes independent and moves on, having accomplished personal control at last. In others, the resentment lingers, and rebellion continues. For some it continues throughout life. Some never reach the degree of personal control they seek.

So it is no wonder that the ultimate freedom and personal control that Atheism promises is popular amongst the young. And it is no wonder that it, rebellious Atheism, declines with age, along with Leftist, omni-control political leanings. But there remain those who cannot let go of the resentment they felt at the restrictions placed on them during their formative years, who retain the need for personal control over everything to the very end.

Another factor is the type of fathering that the youth received. In today’s distributed families, the fathers very often are not present. The youth are raised in an estrogen-rich environment, one which tries valiantly to provide the needs of the young person, but fails to provide a stable masculine role model. It is now known that male rebellion against the single female parent is a direct link to Atheism, and that faulty fathers produce the same issues in children, especially males.

When Meyers promises the great relief of omni-freedom and personal control via Atheism, he knows what he is doing. Freedom from all constraint is the main offering that Atheism has to bestow. Complete freedom is an attractive feature to a person who has been afflicted with onerous restrictions, real or imagined.

But freedom always comes at a price. Complete, unrestricted freedom costs dearly. It costs the connection to reality through truth, because for the Atheist there is no truth, it is all relative. Relativity gives one freedom to choose, whereas truth can restrict you to predetermined answers.

The Trouble With Truth: Definition

That’s the problem with truth. Or at least one of the problems. Truth has some characteristics that are uncomfortable for the rebel, the seeker of perfect freedom. Because truth, by definition, is uncompromising. Truth is incorrigible, unchangeable by the opinions of humans. Truth is not controllable by humans. Worse, logic and rational thought require that truth exists. And worst of all, truth might not be on the side of the rebel.

Humans are not the source of truth. The universe is not the source of truth. The source of the universe and humans is the source of truth. So controlling truth and bending it to an individual’s personal needs is out of the question for actual, universal truth. Any concepts that are manufactured for personal benefit are opinions, not truth. So it is opinion that is relative, not truth.

How should truth be defined then, in order to capture its incorrigible, universal quality? There are so many definitions of truth, that I have condensed them before;

Here is another condensation:

”Original Truth reflects observable characteristics of the universe that are inferred to be incorrigibly valid and perpetually unchanging within our universe, and which, if not so, would require a different sort of universe than ours in order to accommodate them.”

The Trouble With Truth: The Role of Inference.

Inference of truth is the only possible manner in which it can be apprehended. It is not possible to use empirical scientific methods to generate a truth, ever. This is because of the “inductive defect” and its spawn, the deductive defect, upon which empiricism depends. Truth is known only through the process of observation, inference and introspective examination. Before any objections about using inference for truth are raised, consider the widespread use of inference to declare the truth of the evolution hypothesis. Empirical science also infers a probability of the validity of an hypothesis after performing experiments that fail to falsify the hypothesis. Science is no stranger to inference: it uses it extensively.[1]

Inference of universal truth is different only in that the validity is inferred from the consequences that would be seen if the concept were not true, universally. It would take a much different universe to accommodate realities where a tautology was not valid, where cause and effect was not valid, or where an large, non-quantum object could both exist and not exist simultaneously. Our universe would not be what it is if these concepts were not true.

It is certainly valid to declare that these concepts cannot be proven, especially empirically. But it is not valid to declare them false because of that. Nietzsche did that and invented anti-Rationalism. But rationality remains a desirable characteristic amongst most humans today. In fact, rationality is an inborn human faculty that is well described in Locke’s “An Essay Concerning Human Understanding”. If a person denies rationality as a valuable trait, then a rational conversation cannot be had with him.

There are also arguments against introspection, declaring that mental activity such as that is subject to error. But this neglects the fact that all decisions are mental activities which are carried on in the individual mind, and which use the same Lockian human faculties that are exercised when analyzing empirical data. Moreover, introspective conclusions can be compared against those of others who have considered the same issues and have come to conclusions. Differences between individual findings can be considered evidence for consideration, just as is done in empiricism, comparing experimental results. The declaration that introspection and other mental considerations are faulty is a fallacy of failing to consider the full use, and consequences of full use, of the mental faculty and using only data favoring the desired conclusion (Exclusionary Fallacy). After all, Atheism is itself an inference which would automatically fail if introspection and mental agitations are not valid by definition.

The Trouble With Truth: Subservience.

Since it is demonstrable that truth does exist, and that it is incorrigible and its validity is not dependent upon what humans think about it, then it is necessary for human thought, if it is to be valid, to work within the framework of that truth.

I have been lucky enough to have observed and worked with some individuals who were independently brilliant. These individuals all exhibited a singular characteristic: intellectual humility. None of these people considered themselves to be “intellectuals”, especially “Public Intellectuals” endowed with the duty to moralize to the masses. What made them special was their willingness to look into physically abstruse matter with a totally open mind, a mentality that wished to know and understand rather than to control. By objectively exercising causes and observing all – All – the effects, or vice-versa, the truth of the phenomenon being examined could be found.

In other words, the observations were subject to the principle of cause and effect. The entire environment was allowed to be subservient to that principle. And the other First Principles as well, all were assumed as axioms. Valid thought can only happen under such subservience. Rebellion against these axioms produces the Nietzschean anti-rationality, which has no place in science, math, logic or rational discourse.

In fact, one can see that coherent information converges into knowledge, while incoherent information, i.e. noise, disperses into the chaos of more noise. Coherence is the First Principle of Non-Contradiction. Another way to say this is that denying Non-Contradiction produces chaotic thinking. So the total freedom that is the objective of Atheism and Materialism, the open thinking that denies absolutes, that claims control over its thoughts while denying external limits as arbitrary constructs, this total freedom brings only chaotic thinking.

Rebellion against absolutes and external control over the thought process is a faulty mind set, one which prevents the submission of thought to the reality of truth.

The Trouble With Truth: Reality.

Consider this. If there is no truth, then there is no reality, at least none that is stable and consistent. If there are no absolutes governing the universe, then the universe has no stable characteristics that we can call laws. And there is no consistency in an unstable reality that we can use to produce rational decisions, and thus rationality is non-existent.

Are we to believe this? Can this be inferred from any observations of the properties of the universe? Is language merely unintelligible mutterings without any logical meaning? Is there no personal experience with the reality that is described by the First Principles? Are there no absolute principles governing the behavior of the universe in a consistent and stable?

We can only infer answers to these issues. But if Atheism is valid, if there is no meaning to the principles of consistency, if total freedom of thought reigns, then all these things are so: and the consequence of that is another tenet of Atheism – we are meaningless, valueless, irrational creatures in an irrational, valueless, meaningless universe: so anything goes, anything whatsoever.

The Trouble With Truth: Ethics

Which brings us to ethics and truth. The most common ethic of Atheists is Consequentialism which is focused on the masses as Humanism. Here Atheists are forced to consider whether Consequentialism is “truth”, or whether it is merely a tactic.

It almost seems that I needn’t say any more about that, yet I am compelled to point out that ethics are never “truth” for Atheists, who deny that truth exists. So the default is “tactic”. They do claim loud and long that they are moral, Meyers does so frequently. But that resolves to “tactic” as well, since it cannot be truth either. And tactics are what Consequentialism is all about. It is no different than the procedures for carrying on warfare; once again, anything goes, if it produces results.

The Trouble With Truth: Not-Truth

The final yet universal problem for Atheists is that truth, when denied, produces an environment of not-truth. Without truth, only not-truth remains. That is the environment of Atheism: not-truth. In such an environment, as was pointed out earlier, anything goes, including all sorts of denials of the obvious. Atheism cannot be true for several reasons, in this case, the fact that it denies the existence of any arbitrary, uncontrollable, external, incorrigible, absolute… truth.

So it cannot be true.

[1] Note that science does not warrant inferred results to be truth: science, including empirical science, produces only contingent factoids, tentative information that is always subject to further investigation and findings.

Why I Am Not A Philosopher

”Philosophy is concerned with two matters: soluble questions that are trivial, and crucial questions that are insoluble”

Stefan Kanfer; quoted in Martin Gardner, “The Whys Of A Philosophical Scrivener”

The right hand banner at Massimo Piggliucci’s blog quotes the Marquis de Condorcet and Noam Chomsky, both of whom claim that the responsibility of public intellectuals is to reveal the institutional lies and prejudices:

” It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies.”

Thus does Piggliucci assume the mantle of Public Intellectual, and the presupposed responsibility attached to it.

How does one achieve the vaunted title of intellectual, anyway? There is no college regimen that produces intellectuals after studying intellectualism. There is no award that I know of which promotes a person from herdmate to intellectual elite. There is no guild or union for journeyman intellectuals, no licensing requirement, no on-the-job training for apprentice intellectuals preparing to certify as Master Intellectual.

Thomas Sowell declares that “Intellectual”, especially “Public Intellectual”, is a job name. These are to be strictly differentiated from people who use their intellect. Public Intellectuals typically are people who stay in school much longer than almost everybody else. Many never ever leave school their entire professional life. This, they presume, gives them wisdom. And the wisdom attained through constant schooling by other permanent school dwellers is thought to be superior to any wisdom attained in the outside world. Such superior wisdom, of course, is a characteristic of eliteness. Hence the urgent responsibility to dispense wisdom to the less wise.

The same goes for Philosopher. “Philosopher” is a job name, like doctor, engineer, produce manager at the grocery store, Mary Kay salesman. It is a profession. And these people also are to be strictly differentiated from people who have philosophies, which is everyone else in the world.

As a profession, Philosopher has several requirements and limitations.

It cannot accept the norms and mores of the current society, otherwise there is no path to eliteness.

It cannot accept any objective basis for irrefutable truth, or else its job is done and unemployment looms.

It must, however, supply derived subjective truths as rational, despite the lack of any firm basis for rationality due to the lack of objective truth.

Its product is words, and its success depends on selling those words. The sale of its words is enhanced by its controversy, both in erratic thought and erratic personal habits. Some claim that the more obscure the words, the higher the quality of the philosophical product.

Controversy in thought comes directly from condemnation of popular culture and the populace in general, including arrogations of the need for populace control that is necessitated due to the errors and stupidity of the populace.

Controversy in thought comes directly from denying absolutes, then declaring new absolutes which are morally imperative and binding. After which detractors are attacked with Ad Hominems and public cursings in gutter-speak. If you think this is an exaggeration, you need to get to know Dennett and Chomsky better.

This is the Dennett-Chomsky-esqe philosopher job description. One which attacks unreasoningly, places blame before data is in, verbally crucifies those who disagree, declares a demographic to be evil against all evidence to the contrary. One which uses the job description as the basis for truth, as if a title imbues every thought with the power of Truth. One which first chooses a “truth”, then vigorously searches out rationalizations to support it, even if those rationalizations must be meticulously fabricated out of thin air.

The professional Philosopher bears no resemblance to those of a philosophical persuasion, those who wish for accuracy, validity and truth, as well as an intellectual basis for thinking that those things might exist.

Professional Philosophers are no longer formed by introspection: in fact the value of introspection is denied outright as error-prone subjective delusion. Nor are they formed by any searching for first principles, which also are denied outright. Professional Philosophers are hired for their belief in, and ability to sell, preconceived and approved agendas. In fact, Professional Philosophers and Modern Skeptics travel in herds, or at least gaggles, all producing and selling the exact same product.

In short, Professional Philosophers are salesmen. They sell books. They sell universities. They sell worldviews. Primarily they sell Philosophical Materialism, Atheism and relativism.

What they sell doesn’t matter for my purposes here. It suffices to observe that selling a product requires taking a firm and unshakably positive position on the value and validity of that product. It becomes irrelevant whether the product actually has those qualities: the sales pitch is leveraged toward sales, not truth.

The victim in this is intellectual integrity and the search for truth - intellectual integrity because the buyer no longer has any need to think beyond the massive oversimplification which he buys, and the search for truth because the search is over: “truth”, however paradoxical, is prepackaged to sell easily. But wait, you also get eliteness, too!

In a sense, I am selling something too, although not for personal gain, and certainly not the canned product which the Professional Philosophers are now selling. What I pitch here is a need for individual intellectual accuracy in the search for validity in a worldview. This is an intellectual habit, one of personal inspection and introspection; one of finding those principles that are basic to rationality; those that underlie logic; those that, if false, would change the entire nature of the universe, and can be known to valid because of that non-falsification. It is a habit of personal intellectual integrity regardless of whether it is congruent with anyone’s packaged philosophical product.

And high on the list, it is an intellectual habit that does not deny any validity a priori and without scrutiny, because to do so is to live under a dogma.

Upon those incorrigibly valid intellectual principles, both a process for determining validity, and a worldview based on valid principles can be derived.

This is not Professional Philosophy, however. In fact, it seems to go against the professional job holders in Philosophical positions. Nonetheless, those of the original philosophical bent usually go against the intellectual journeymen of their time anyway; they are radically individualist in their search mechanisms, in their demand for validity, in their rigid intellectual integrity.

I aspire to the latter over the former, which is why I am not a Philosopher.

Insane Clown Posse as Philosophers of Science.

On Massimo Piggliucci’s blog, Julia Galef wonders why some of the masses distrust science. She takes a clue from the analysts at Insane Clown Posse, Violent and Shaggy, who have produced a video on the subject of knowledge, apparently.

”At first, "Miracles" sounds like a paean to scientific curiosity, urging us to appreciate the wonders all around us instead of dismissing the natural world as prosaic and mooning over the imaginary supernatural. I wholeheartedly agree with this. The "magic" we marvel over in stories is not inherently any more marvelous than what already exists in our world -- it just seems that way because we're so used to the real stuff. After all, are dragons and wizards really any more amazing than real things like -- well, let me hand the mike to Shaggy and Violent: "The sun and the moon, even Mars! The Milky Way! F-ckin' shooting stars!" Well said. Thanks guys.”

Of course, dragons and wizards are not what Philosophical Materialism and Atheism are all about; dragons and wizards are a sideshow, a red herring, one that is easy to refute. So the knowledge video is off to a great scientistic start.

This is something I really do think is important to keep in mind, because getting excited only by the supernatural isn't simply unjustified, it's also a recipe for unhappiness. "Sooner or later you're going to be disappointed in everything," Yudkowsky writes. "Either it will turn out not to exist, or even worse, it will turn out to be real."

Real? What she really means of course is “Material”: that is all that is real in her protected philosophical hot house. What is worse for her is that non-materiality is, in fact, real.

And as for unhappiness, who is an Atheo-Materialist to judge my happiness? For them, it is tautological that they are happier. It is a definition they have. PZ could have told her that.

After all, they get to make up their own morals and change them every day if they want to, to coincide with their proclivities; that's a sure road to happiness, is it not? On the other hand, the poor absolutists must control their behaviors to co-incide with concepts of Good and Evil which are archaic and denied by Nietzsche, of course.

Charismatic science popularizers like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, and Neil deGrasse Tyson have argued again and again that understanding the world scientifically should increase our sense of wonder, not decrease it. And listening to them waxing rhapsodic about the universe, it's hard not to ask yourself, "How can people think there's no poetry in science?" Or as Richard Feynman put it, "What men are poets who may speak of Jupiter if he is a man, but if he is an immense spinning sphere of methane and ammonia must be silent?"

Feynmann also had an abiding disdain for philosophers and their philosophies, which he sneered at. He was an Atheist but not a Philosophical Materialist. Presumably this comment on science poetry was made in a similar vein: sarcasm. OK then, so much for the poetry of science.

” But I've been making an effort recently not to get stuck on the rhetorical question, "How can people think that?" and instead push onward to the earnest question, "Why do people think that?" If a belief is widespread, even if it's a mistaken belief, it cries out for some explanation. Hence, I ask: why are so many people with an innate curiosity about the natural world so uninterested in, even hostile to, scientific explanation?”

But the answer to that is so EASY! It is not the science, the scientist or the scientific explanation that is producing hostility, it is the morality and the uncompromisingly elitist worldview that is unrelentingly pimped along with the answer. Of course, sometimes it is the explanation, but only when the explanation is declared unchallegeable, impermeable to questions, fixed and certain for all time (think global warming and its unshakably loyal “science” adherents). Once again the semiconscious perpetrators do not even see the crimes they commit.

” And as Neil deGrasse Tyson describes in Death by Black Hole, scientific explanations can require multiple layers of abstraction, each of which takes people successively farther away from the immediacy of the phenomenon. "[To] explain how we know the speed of a receding star requires five nested levels of abstraction," Tyson writes…

So people just can’t grasp that which they (special that they are) have grasped.

Are we too unintelligent to comprehend abstraction, to dimwitted to follow the simple idea of red shift and doppler effects? This explanation is, itself, rather dimwitted. Not to mention its arrogance by ignoring that there are plenty of scientists who are not fooled by the Materialist ignorance of scientific boundary conditions. Materialists presuppose that all scientists are also Scientism-ists and Philosophical Materialists. This presupposition is false.

No, that is actually not the problem at all. We don’t hate science and we are not stupid; to the contrary, many of us do science. We love real science, objective determinations made without oppressive worldviews attached to them. It is not science, but science worshippers that are the issue. The problem is that Atheo-science worshippers like Dawkins, Piggliucci et al. (who are not science promoters, they are anti-religion hate promoters who use a false aura of science for their purpose of attempting to demolish religion) also wish to tell us what is True; and that followed by what our morals and politics should be. The problem is that such “scientists” cannot be trusted to tell the truth, or even to recognize it; for the most part they are not contributers to science at all, they are teachers and science parasites. And the result of that problem regarding these certain scientists is that they have driven away respect for elitism in science, and from that the scientism-ists deduce that science itself has lost respect.

There is no “loss of emotional contact” present in the skepticism toward real scientists and their products. There is skepticism toward elitist, Atheist, false intellectuals. This is what is totally transparent to science worshippers who have no knowledge of history or philosophy or logic and little knowledge of current events outside of rock groups (or whatever the Insane Clown Posse might be). This hermetic knowledge enclosure allows in no perspective for understanding the actual place of science in the overall world of knowledge; the enclosed myope in fact assumes that science is knowledge, all of it; there is nothing else to be known. This naïve oversimplification personifies the Materialist approach to every aspect of life and the universe: the axioms are very simple and easy both to understand and to parrot:

Axiom #1: material stuff is all there is.

And axiom #2: science says so.

Both of these simplistic axioms are incorrect; they are unprovable tenets of a religion. But for the Philosophical Materialist and Atheist these are First Principles, beyond which there is no use in thinking.

” And as for the hostility that some people feel towards scientific explanations, that might have something to do with the fact that unlike magic, science doesn't allow humans to be special. The anti-materialist notion that the universe is shaped around us, or that our thoughts and feelings can produce tangible effects in the world has a particular kind of romance to it that people find appealing. Scientific explanations, for all their objective beauty, take that away from us.”

The motivation to find an irrational reason for people to distrust scientists bearing truth statements leads to interesting depths, depths that are irrational themselves. It is perfectly valid to conclude that science, or at least evolution which attempts to pass as science, declares outright that a) no non-material cause may be thought of as a cause; b) therefore there is no deity and c) humans are not only just another animal, they are merely meat machines, hosting DNA, and have no value beyond that. And from that point the Materialists attempt to derive an ethic, a worship of humanity but not individual humans. Why should anyone be uncomfortable with that?

”Nevertheless, I think the perfect quote to close with is this one, from 18th-century bishop Samuel Horsley:

"Wonder, connected with a principle of rational curiosity, is the source of all knowledge and discovery... but wonder which ends in wonder, and is satisfied with wonder, is the quality of an idiot."

A great quote, and one I would wholeheartedly endorse, except for that fact that I'm a little skittish about calling Violent and Shaggy idiots. I hear they stab people.”

The Horsley ditty is a perfect description of SCIENCE, a fact that is completely lost on the Materialist author who tries to apply it to anti-science. Scientists are satisfied with exactly that: the fact that every question answered opens up ever more questions to be answered; and all answers, however glorious the explanations, are contingent. This is what Horsley is against: the denial of absolutes, a fundamental of Materialism. The idea that the infinite regression which is scientific knowledge leads to all actual knowledge, and therefore, wisdom. Horsley does not refer to material knowledge; he refers to wonder, to rational inquiry, and to knowledge and discovery. Galef erroneously plugs into Horsley's statement her own limited understanding of the source of knowledge: science.

Horsley is right, but the Galef doesn't even understand his position!

If there ever were to be an indictment of the complete lack of science comprehension of Materialist, Atheo-Scientism-ists, this article would qualify as evidence for the prosecution.

However, all this is right at home on the blog of Massimo Piggliucci.

A Conversation Between Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg

Three great physicists met in Copenhagen 25 years after the Copenhagen Meeting of 1952 when quantum theory became endowed with the Copenhagen interpretation. Niels Bohr, Wolfgang Pauli, and Werner Heisenberg gathered to discuss the impact of their 1952 conference and of the universe in general. The following are the final paragraphs of the notes of Heisenberg about his conversation with Pauli during a long walk. [1]

“We walked on in silence and had soon reached the northern tip of the Langelinie, whence we continued along the jetty as far as the small beacon. In the north, we could still see a bright strip of red; in these latitudes the sun does not travel far beneath the horizon. The outlines of the harbor installations stood out sharply, and after we had been standing at the end of the jetty for a while, Wolfgang asked me quite unexpectedly:

“Do you believe in a personal God? I know, of course, how difficult it is to attach a clear meaning to this question, but you can probably appreciate its general purport.”

“May I rephrase your question?” I asked. “I myself should prefer the following formulation: can you, or anyone else, reach the central order of things or events, whose existence seems beyond doubt, as directly as you can reach the soul of another human being? I am using the term ‘soul’ quite deliberately so as not to be misunderstood. If you put your question like that, I would say yes. And because my own experiences do not matter so much, I might go on to remind you of Pascal’s famous text, the one he kept sewn in his jacket. It was headed “Fire” and began with the words: “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob – not of the philosophers and sages.”

“In other words, you think that you can become aware of the central order with the same intensity as of the soul of another person?”

“Perhaps.”

“Why did you use the word ‘soul’ and not simply speak of another person?”

“Precisely because the word, ‘soul’, refers to the central order, to the inner core of a being whose outer manifestations may be highly diverse and pass our understanding.

“If the magnetic force that has guided this particular compass – and what else was its source but the central order – should ever become extinguished, terrible things may happen to mankind, far more terrible even than concentration camps and atom bombs. But we did not set out to look into such dark recesses; let’s hope the central realm will light our way again, perhaps in quite unsuspected ways. As far as science is concerned, however, Niels is certainly right to underwrite the demands of pragmatists and positivists for meticulous attention to detail and for semantic clarity. It is only in respect to its taboos that we can object to positivism, for if we may no longer speak or even think about the wider connections, we are without a compass and hence in danger of losing our way.”

“Despite the late hour, a small boat made fast on the jetty and took us back to Kongens Nytorv, whence it was easy to reach Niels’ house.”

[1]The World Treasury of Physics, Astronomy, and Mathematics; Ferris, ed.; pp 826, 827.

The Nature of Logic, Part 2

There is another feature of binary logic that is possibly not immediately apparent to the new student. It is this: there is a large difference between the access to true/valid conclusions and false/non-valid conclusions.

It might seem that true and false should be about the same: if it isn't one then it's the other. In computers, one or zero.

But the paths are far different. For a true/valid conclusion, there is only one combination of premise components that can succeed, those that are all true. If just one component of the premise, sub-premises, or axioms is false, then the conclusion is false. Truth is incorrigible that way; it tolerates no falseness. It is exclusively true/valid, top to bottom.

A false/non-valid conclusion is far different from that. There are many paths to falsity, and most of those paths can contain elements of truth. Any combination of truth and falseness, is false, not true. In this regard, falseness is not exclusive, it is very inclusive; it tolerates many paths to a false conclusion, in fact all paths except the one path that contains all and only true elements.

So truth is specific in a sense, where falseness is broad and pervasive. Truth must be carefully shepherded, crafted with care, skill and discipline. Falseness requires no such diligence. Perhaps this is one of the reasons that some folks are not able to see any truth in their environment; there isn't that much there to start with. It has to be cultured and nourished, with intellectual humility and in the spirit of honest pursuit of what is actual rather than what is sensory.

Can The First Principles Be Refuted Using Logic?

Logic is based on axioms, which it presumes to be universally and perpetually valid. These axioms are the First Principles.

If a logical case is made that appears to prove that the First Principles are not valid, then the necessary consequence of that apparent proof is that logic, itself, is also not valid. If logic is not valid, then case (built on logic) against the First Principles is also not valid.

However conclusive this case against the use of logic for negating its own underlying axioms might be for rationalists, it is no barrier for anti-rationalists who are not attached to rationalism as much as they are attached to agendas. For promoting an agenda, logic is frequently sacrificed.

As a rationalist, I like to ask some questions in those circumstances:

If you don’t value truth, what DO you value?

And,

Are there absolutely no absolutes?

Let’s take the idea of refutation. First of all, refutation is just that, an idea. Refutation is an abstraction. It is the idea that another idea can be proven false. This presumes two things. First, that there is a firm category called “false”; and that an idea can be logically placed into that category, absolutely.

So refutation is based on the two things that the refuter of First Principles hopes to eliminate: absolutes and truth/falseness as absolutes.

There are more in-depth articles on the First Principles as the basis for logic and rational thought in the side-bar under "First Principles".

The Mathematics of Reason: The First Principles According To Boole.

In 1853, George Boole published his treatise, ”An Investigation of the Laws of Thought”, and gave the world “Boolean Algebra”, the mathematics of logic that ultimately made digital electronics and digital computing possible. To me, the most remarkable aspect of Boole’s work is his ability to resolve rational processes into simple equation form, even into tables for determining propositional truths.

His algebra varies only slightly from classical (numeric) algebra. It is necessary to envision sets, their intersection or non- intersection, rather than multiplication or division. For example, xy is the set that contains both x’s and y’s; this might not include all x’s or all y’s... but it could.

While there are other considerations, that one principle leads off to a remarkable conclusion. Here’s how it works:

If two entities are equal sets (identical), where y = x, then,
xy = x. (The intersection of the sets x and y are identical to the set x.)

This is the Principle of Identity.

And if y = x, then,

xx = x,

or
x² = x.

next,

0 = x – x²,
0 = x ( 1 – x).

The sole solutions are x = 1 and 0, where 1 is a full set, and 0 is an empty or null set. Also, (1 – x) is the contrary set to x, where x is not a universal set.

This equation demonstrates several important things.

First, it represents the conjunction of both x and “not x”, making it a universal description. For example it could mean “truth” and “not truth”, covering the entire universe of possible validities. So it is a “universal” equation.

Second, it has only two solutions, 0 and 1. So in the case of “truth” and “not truth”, there is no intermediate value, meaning that only “true” and “not true” exist. This is the Principle of Excluded Middle. (Also called the Law of Duality, the principle of dichotomy in analytical thought.)

Third, it can be seen that x cannot be both 0 and 1 at the same time. This is the Principle of Non-Contradiction.

From just one equation, Boole demonstrates mathematically the axioms that underlie all rational thought.

Further, in order to demonstrate that dichotomy is the limit of human comprehension, Boole writes a trichotomy:

x = y = z (identical sets);

xyz = x;

then,

x³ = x ;

This factors into

x ( 1 – x )(1 + x) = 0;

The solutions are 0, 1, and –1. To illustrate the cognitive disconnect: If x = “all men”, and (1 – x) = everything that is not “all men”, then what does (1 + x) represent? Boole points out that this is surely beyond the comprehension of human minds. So trichotomies are outside the realm of rational thought, at least in this universe, and for human faculties.

As beautiful and remarkable as this is, it occupies only the first three chapters of Boole’s work. He goes on to analyze propositions, including if/then, and then it’s off into probability theory.

If You Don’t Value Truth, Then What DO You Value? [Updated]

In the previous posts the idea that relativism can be rational, true and absolute is explored, along with the need for truth as an incorrigible absolute, if logic is to exist. Now the question is asked, if you deny absolutes and incorrigibles such as truth, then for you, what exists as a basis for your thought?

For example, Bertrand Russell said, in his Atheistic speech, "Why I am Not A Christian",

“We must require evidence for a thing if it is to be believed”.

[Note: The Russell attribution just above is incorrect. The correct attriution is the following: In "Why I Am A Rationalist", Russell said this: "As far as I can see, the view to which we are committed, one which I have stated on a former occasion, is that we ought not to believe, and we ought not to try to cause others to believe, any proposition for which there is no evidence whatever."
I'm no longer sure where the quote I used actually came from; I read a lot of Russell back at that time.]

For Russell, this was a law of the universe, one upon which to base one’s thought process and worldview. In other words, it is an incorrigible absolute. And further, it is an imperative: a moral statement, and as such no evidence is provided to sustain the truth of the statement, it is to be believed based on the moral force of its intuited truth. And further still, there is no empirical test that could possibly be devised that would produce evidence in support of this statement.

So Russell’s statement is intuited, imperative, moral, without any evidence needed or empirical support. So, evidence is said to be "required", yet evidence is not provided for Russell’s truth statement. This is self-refuting, yet it is commonly used as a law for Materialism

And even further still, Russell does not provide any definition of “evidence”, where it is to be found, How it is to be recognized, and how it is to be measured.

This single error in logic serves as a case study in Philosophical Materialism. It is fairly clear that Russell meant “physical, empirical evidence”. And it is also clear that he had not thought through the self-refutation contained in his declaration of the moral law.

What Is Truth?
It is always necessary to define the terms in use if confusion is to be avoided down the line. So let’s define truth now, in terms of its characteristics.

Truth is an absolute concept, and is an exclusive, discriminatory thing. There is truth, and there is not-truth: falseness; that’s all there is, epistemologically: just the two categories with no in-betweens, no partial truths. And these two entities, truth and not-truth, are mutually exclusive. There is no not-truth in truth. This means that truth is highly discriminatory, discriminating ruthlessly against non-truth. Truth is exclusively truth.

Tolerating falseness as a value is valuing not-truth, and therefore is false.

Truth has one form and is absolute; not-truth can take a great many forms and is unrestricted by any absolutes other than being absolutely not-true.

Truth is totally independent of outside influences; it doesn’t recognize or respond to our opinion of it, how we malign it or abuse it, or even deny it. Truth cannot be eliminated or destroyed. It is. In other words, it is also ontologically incorrigible, as well as epistemologically incorrigible.

Truth must exist if we are to be logical and rational; if there is no truth, then logic is impossible, having no solid base. If that is the case, then our thoughts have no value whatsoever. We consistently presume otherwise.

So Bertrand Russell must have valued truth, since he used the concept as the basis for his declaration of the necessity of evidence as the basis for belief in a thing.

But what about this evidence? We need to define that too, a challenge that Russell ignored.

Types of Evidence
There are two types of evidence for a thing, (a) objective and (b) subjective.

Objective evidence is evidence of the material world, which can be shared with other observers, measured, re-measured and so on. This is the universe of empirical discovery. Empiricism admits up-front that it is capable only of objective measurements of those things with physical, material characteristics that can be demonstrated in a physical, material experimental fashion. So empiricism is voluntarily materialistic, restricting what it will deal with to material entities. Additionally material evidence is never without the possibility of being overturned by future empirical findings: it is never incorrigible[1].

Subjective evidence is inferentially derived from internal, intuited mental explorations. This is the case of Russell’s ruling on the necessity of evidence. Intuited truths are not testable empirically, because they are not material in and of themselves, even though they might refer to material things, as Russell’s declaration does. Because they are not hampered with a physical, material existence, it is possible for subjective evidence to be incorrigibly valid.

Subjective evidence of this type includes the First Principles of Logic and Rational Thought; mathematics; language. These are intuited and can be represented second-hand by symbols for use in assisting thought and communication of thought. This subjective evidence exists in a non-material reality, where meaning exists but materiality does not.

There can also be false subjective evidence, such as imagined, deluded, anti-rational, and deceptive. Frequently the real incorrigible intuited evidence is charged with being one of these false types. But this can be tested by examining the rational, logical basis underlying the charge.

Going back to the original issue, what is it that one values, if one does not value the absolute, incorrigible truth? Devaluing truth eliminates the subjective evidence that is needed for rational thinking. It opens thought to an uncontrolled baseless anarchy of meaningless fluctuations. But there are other consequences too.

By eliminating absolutes, character values and cultural values float adrift. In fact, the term “values” hardly applies, since there is no differentiation in “value” between competing theories of behavior, ethics and morality: they are all relative and may be chosen as convenient. Gone are such valued permanent character traits as responsibility, honesty, truthfulness, reliability, trustworthiness, persistence.

But oddly and illogically (what else) new absolutes are put in place of the rejected absolutes: tolerance-of-everything, and equality reduction of all outcomes (the new “justice” for victims). These become the New Rights, which dominate when juxtaposed with the diminished old rights: Tolerance over free speech; equal outcomes over equal opportunities.

Tolerance-of-everything produces this Daughter Right: the right not to be offended; it’s a hate crime to offend through thought or deed. Tolerance-of-everything conflicts directly with liberty. Intolerance of intolerance is self-refuting.

Equal outcomes requires the leveling of wealth, which in turn requires the theft of wealth from those who have it and redistributing it to those who don’t. But those who don’t have it now will squander what they are given, requiring more wealth to be removed from the now-poor populace; it’s a never-ending spiral downward to complete impoverishment of the entire population (except of course those in charge of the redistribution).

The new absolutes are part of an “absolute-free” doctrine, and this alone puts the doctrine into self-refutation. The idea that absolutes don’t exist, are not important, and everything is relative is not merely flawed, it is false, blatantly irrevocably, and incorrigibly. It is not “absolutely true that absolute truth does not exist”, another self-refutation.

This all resolves to personal valuations. A person may choose to be tough minded and discriminatory, valuing truth over falseness, agendas and irrationality. Or a person may choose to be open-minded and anti-discriminatory: valuing diversity over truth; valuing tolerance of any and everything over liberty; valuing variable falseness over absolutes such as truth.

Are there any in-betweens? Being in-between is just as irrational as pure falseness. This means that there are really only the two choices: choosing absolute truth as the basis for you worldview; or choosing whatever. Which do you choose?


[1] Except for being incorrigibly unincorrigible: Godel’s discovery and Russell’s lament.

Is There Truth and How Could I Know? An Essay

Occasionally I run into Relativists who insist that nothing is constant, the world is in a continual state of flux, and therefore there is no Truth; certainly not absolute truth – nothing is absolute. What was thought to be true 50 years ago now seems quaint and erroneous. Not only is this the case for the progress of science and technology, it is also the case for our culture and its view of values and morality. In fact, nothing in the physical universe is the same, moment to moment, as particles move, are created and destroyed, masses move, and energy is deployed.

This idea of change over truth is so ingrained that it is used as an axiom, a basis for an entire panoply of beliefs. This axiom is a statement of complete variability, randomness and instability. “Whatever we think now will seem quaint and obsolete in the future; we cannot predict what will be 'truth' in the future”. This, then, justifies the idea that there can be no absolutes and that those who claim otherwise are irrational, or at least misguided, at best. At worst they are dangerously deluded, needing to be isolated for the good of all.

The previous two posts deal with rational thought and logic, and the need for a solid, permanent foundation on which to build ones ideas, a foundation known as the First Principles. I have made the case for the absolute need for consistency in order to produce coherence and stability in thought. Because without consistency and coherence there is absolutely no stable logic in our statements: it would all be untethered and irrational.

While there is much of our thought process that is merely functional daily activity oriented thinking, our worldviews are definitely in need of a rational, logical foundation. What could be worse, we might think, than an irrational worldview? Empirical science requires consistency in its axioms, or researchers would be wasting their time taking data in an inconsistent universe. Empirical science also requires that its axioms be valid, at least in the boundaries of the field that is being investigated. So some of the axioms of science incorporate the known variability of the universe, such as entropy, for example. But mostly empirical science depends on the invariability of physical laws across time and space, within our universe.

But not our worldviews; they have become relative and variable, without absolutes and morphing to fit the culture at the moment. If our worldviews are fluctuating, truth-free and value-free, accommodating the momentary convenience and not the eternal decencies, then why bother to have one? This is precisely the issue with Relativism: it engenders intellectual anarchy, which is the definition of irrationality. And intellectual anarchy engenders moral anarchy.

Enlightenment values seem to favor such an anarchy, certainly over the hated absolutism which the Enlightenment pretends to have overthrown. It allows the imagination of a discomfited proletariat where in reality there is no proletariat, much less a discomfited one. It allows the imagination of personal and class and racial superiorities based only on subjective proclivities. It allows the rationalized manufacture of axioms that are convenient, but not true, and the use of those axioms in a worldview. Relativism and its accompanying intellectual anarchy are dangerous.

The idea that there can be logic requires that there be a consistent base of truth available to those who would use that logic in deriving their worldviews. This body of consistent truth is a problem for Relativists, for whom it cannot exist, absolutely: there can be no absolutes in a fluctuating universe. So are there, really, universal, consistent truths?

If there were to be consistent, absolute truths in the universe, how would we know them? For a start, and to make it easy on ourselves, we will question the philosophers, for whom such questions make their careers. I like to go straight to Nietzsche, who denied their truth, thereby revealing their existence, at least intellectually. These principles and others are contained in the previous posting today, here.

We can examine these principles and see immediately that there is nothing there that can be measured, empirically. These principles are not physical, material things; they are metaphysical. So they cannot be validated or invalidated, empirically, using weights and measures or any physical techniques.

Next we can see that they are true, obviously and incorrigibly. They cannot be otherwise, even though they can be denied, obstreperously and without any accompanying validation. But viewed objectively and without prior agenda, they are so intuitively valid that they cannot be reasonably denied. Their truth is incorrigible.

And we can also see that without these intellectual foundations in play as axioms, logic cannot exist as a principled endeavor and rational thought becomes impossible.

So we can know, without material validation, that they are true, inexorably and incorrigibly. And because of this, we can also know that truth exists, that it is non-material (metaphysical) in nature, and that it must be either intuited as are the First Principles, or developed rationally from an intuited base.

Relativists, Materialists and Atheists deny – or at least decry – intuition. Either it doesn’t exist for the Relativist, or it is inherently faulty and subjective. This is in part the Nietzschean argument, which led him to develop Anti-Rationalism. But Anti-Rationalism is once again an absolute-free intellectual anarchy. And if nothing is true, then why bother thinking about anything at all? This produces a self-oriented, declining narcissism, a decay of purpose for being, a devaluation of life and self. (In fact, Nietzsche came to produce a power-based totalitarian philosophy that was needed to overcome the enervation of such intellectual and moral anarchy.)

But Relativists and other Enlightenment fans claim to be rational, not irrational. And they seem to succumb to irrational proofs of their rationality, such as placing the conclusion (agenda) into the premises in order to 'prove' the conclusion/agenda; or rationalizing false or fantasy premises to support a presupposed conclusion. The analysis of Materialist arguments always seems to turn up such fallacious reasoning.

In order to be truly rational and logical, the order must be reversed: it is the process which must be held dear, not the conclusion. The conclusion must roll naturally out of the process, and regardless of one’s opinion of the conclusion, if the process is valid, the premises are valid, and the testing against the First Principles succeeds, then the conclusion – whatever it is – will be valid. If such a conclusion contradicts ones agenda, it is the agenda that must be rejected, not the conclusion.[1]

Further, if there is Truth, if Truth is metaphysical, and if there is support from the process of rationality and the First Principles, then “incorrigibility” follows: it makes no difference what anyone thinks about it, says about it, does about it, it is totally independent in both existence and validity. Non-belief and denial have no effect on incorrigible truth.

Are there other metaphysical truths, incorrigible and independent? If one asks the questions, “Is there a source for this incorrigible truth? And if so what is it?”, a new level of answers becomes apparent. But that is not the subject of this essay.

[1] It is this process that drove me out of my Atheist, Materialist worldview.