A Word about Kurt Gödel and "The Incompleteness Theorem"

This may seem somewhat out of place to bring up a mathematical theorem. However, I feel this is important for several reasons.

First, mathematics itself is a language of logos. In fact, mathematics is the most formal and logically rigorous language we have. If your supposition is that Thought is unspoken language then surely any limitations that apply to language must necessarily apply to thoughts (given your proposition that these concepts are inseparable)

Secondly, this Incompleteness Theorem does indeed have deeply philosophical implications concerning consciousness and was in fact, discussed within this course I'm currently studying "Consciousness an Its Implications" although I won't go into the details that were presented there.

Third, please note that we are speaking about a mathematical theorem here and not merely a theory. In the formal language of mathematics an idea is not permitted to be called a theorem until it's been proven to be true. Kurt Gödel's Incompletely Theorem, is a mathematical theorem (i.e. it's been logically proven to be true within the formalism of the logical rigors of mathematics.

So what is this theorem and why does it have such profoundly deep philosophical implications?

Well, the theory basically sates that no self-contained system can be complete, and decidable within the framework of a closed system.

Ok, that's quite a mouthful. And I don't even pretend to fully understand this myself. I think this is similar to Quantum Mechanics, we just need to accept that it's been proven to be true. I also confess that I have never fully understood the actual proof of why this needs to be true. It's quite complex. Just the same the idea is that non-self-contained system can be complete, nor decidable. And it's this last concept of decidability that seems to be of significance with respect to philosophy.

Based on this mathematical theorem a self-contained brain could not be decidable! In other words, it should not be able to construct meaningful though patterns! Because in order for them to be meaningful they must be decidable.

Well, without going into great depth here, and offering this only as food for thought (which may seem quite ironic in the context of our overall discussion) , allow me to just say that Gödel's theorem seems to be implying that our brains must be directed from outside of this physical dimension.

Now, please know that this has not been formally accepted in the philosophical community by far, not in the least.

None the less, I bring it up for two reasons.

First, it at least points to the idea that a language-based analytical thought process taking place solely within the brain would be incomplete and undecidable. Yet your supposition seems to be that all thought is language based within the brain. (The impossibility of this scenario has been suggested by several philosophers some of whom were mentioned in this course I'm taking).

Secondly, it at least points to the idea that the scenario suggested via such concepts as the Zen and the Tao appear to have merit. That some external spiritual pure conscious awareness is required to actually guide the physical brain in its through processes.

So, ok, I'm done sharing now.

My apologies if I sounded like I was upset. I think what actually happened was that I became frustrated by your demand that pure conscious awareness does not qualify as thought thus dismissing my entire view based on this single semantic demand.

If Pure Conscious Awareness is the driving force that actually directs and orchestrates our thought processes, then surely it is so intimate to the process of thinking that it can hardly be dismissed as something altogether different.

So I guess what I'm actually saying is that I believe the Pure Conscious Awareness is at the root of our understanding as well as the very essence of our being.

James,


Ahhh...

That is quite a bit to digest!

I very much appreciate the manner in which you have done this. I am going to think about these things a more prior to responding...



Very interesting additions.

Awesome post James. I too cannot imagine how a brain can actually make a decision. I can't find myself inside my brain. I don't live there.

Ok, James, I believe that I am ready for this...

I first want to say that elements necessary to realize a path to our mutual understanding are here - I believe so - at least. Thank you for the time and mental effort put forth thus far. I realize how mentally and emotionally 'taxing' a conversation with somone like me can be... I exhaust myself at times!

There indeed seems to be the semantic issue(s) of the same terms meaning different things to us both, as you have been saying - and I(very quietly) have been acknowledging. That is one of the reasons why I earlier began to explain my own correlations without actually using the terms in question to develop their own meaning.

While I would never expect nor demand another to agree with me, I feel completely at a loss if I know that my meaning is mis-understood, because that equates to not understanding my expression(s). That bothers me on a deeply private level, because I feel as though if I truly understand *something* in my own mind, then I should also be able to impart that same understanding(or the equivalency thereof) into another through the meaning contained within the words that I use - assuming of course that the other shares a common language(using the term language as it is commonly understood) to convey ideas.

I feel that by taking smaller steps in dialogue, we can reach a point to where you understand my meaning as I believe that I understand yours, although I may not as much as I believe that I do. As a result of these things, I think starting from the beginning of your last series of posts would be a good idea. If, at any time, there seems to be a misunderstanding within what you believe that I think that you mean, please do not hesitate to pause the discussion before it 'snowballs'.



I wonder if you still think this by reading some other things that I have written on the topic... like below...



So, you see, this concern of yours does not match my own understanding of these things. I recognize the fact that language as is commonly understood(English, German, French, etc.) is not necessary for one's ability to have knowledge or understanding of 'the world'. One must not necessarily know the name of a thing to know *something* about that thing - to understand that that thing has a correlation to another thing. That recognition of that correlation constitutes understanding in my view. That correlation is representative understanding. That is how I define language, because of the inherent inadequacy presented to us by the more commonly held definition.

I want to stop here for now and wait for your response to this.

I actually read this in the other thread on "Truth", I think it was a response to a concern Jeremy had brought up? I almost responded to it directly there, but decided that to come to this thread and just elaborate on the meaning of thought or thought processes would be more fruitful.

I actually found your above words a bit contradictory with respect to what I thought I understood your position to be.

In stating that thought is unspoken language you had previously asserted that bees (and presumably most, if not all animals, do not "think". At least not in terms of language).

But in the above quote you seem to be equating a basic understanding that knowing water quenches thirst qualifies as some sort of form of unwritten language. Yet, surely bees and other animals have a some basic understanding that water quenches thirst. If this is an example of language-based thought, then surely we'd have to credit bees with language-based thinking.

So I found your comments above to only further muddle my understanding of what it is that you are attempting to convey rather than as a clarification. It just appears to me that your above statement is an attempt to define language so loosely that it no longer has any definite meaning at all. But where does that lead? From my point of view it can only lead to the idea that bees must also think in terms of language if we are to allow that the understanding that water quenches thirst to be based on a language connection.

So I'm afraid that I'm only further confused concerning the significance or meaning that you are attempting to convey between language and thought.

Allow Me to Make a Raid on the Inarticulate

This is Deepak Chopra's way of referring to poetry when he turns to a poem by Rumi for the purpose of clarifying ideas and concepts that are difficult to express through the language of prose.

I won't turn to Rumi, I'll just write a spontaneous limerick to see if I can convey my thoughts. Sometimes spontaneity can indeed be a raid on the inarticulate.


Choosing Thoughts for the Annals of our Mind

We choose our thoughts through pure awareness
not the other way around
consequently, in all fairness
awareness is profound

If choosing thoughts can set us free
then pure awareness must be key
for thinking thoughts is potpourri
without awareness to decree!

If understanding comes to us
it's the wind within the wind
for if we place our trust in thoughts
we will surely be chagrinned

Thoughts are tools to tuck away
the tidbits of our knowledge
Like placing books upon the shelves
of a grand cerebral college

But we are free to write those books
in the annals of our mind
It's when we think those books are us
that our consciousness is blind

To think we are the sum of thoughts
is a thinking that deprives
When what we truly need to learn to be
is the authors of our lives




Abracadabra 6/28/2009

Beautifully written! I love it and so true.

James,

Nice write!


Regarding the rest of the response...



I suspected that was so as a result of the your responses stemming from mine earlier in this thread. My position was being misunderstood. That is also shown below...



Presumably...

I believe that 'thinking' necessitates the existence of certain things that a bee does not have, namely memory and the ability to consciously perceive correlations between objects and themselves, as well as within the content of observation itself. Bees, and many other insects as well, instinctually follow chemical trails. We have no reason to believe otherwise, although it is not absolutely out of the question, I do not think that it can be shown to be otherwise. However, I would not say this about most animals, so - in that sense - there are considerations which may have been affecting your perception of my meaning that are/were misunderstood.

Actually, my understanding necessitates the acceptance of the idea that language(as I think of it) exists within most complex animals as well. That must necessarily be the case, because it is common knowledge to begin with.



That I do!

As I wrote in the last response...

... One must not necessarily know the name of a thing to know *something* about that thing - to understand that that thing has a correlation to another thing. That *conscious* recognition of that correlation constitutes understanding in my view. That correlation is representative understanding. That is how I define language, because of the inherent inadequacy presented to us by the more commonly held definition.



So we come upon the first term in question here... understanding.

Some animals, most without much doubt, drink water out of thirst - but do they know - are they consciously aware of the fact -that water quenches thirst, or is it just an instinctual behaviour driven by things unknown to the creatures themselves. Do they even know(are they consciously aware of the fact) that they are thirsty?



It is understandable given the differences between what you thought I meant, and what that meaning is. Hopefully, this will begin to clear this up some.

The meaning to any and all observation - including the terms in this very post - is applied by one's conscious mind through their own *unspoken* representational understanding.



You are applying a mental understanding where it cannot be known to exist... to an insect.

If bees consciously recognize the correlation between the instinctual physiological desire called 'thirst' and the fact that when water is drank that 'thirst' is then removed, then they have consciously made that correlation between those two things. Then they possess a representational understanding(without labels) of things in the world.

Anything less is pure instinct and not conscious thought, or the terms thought, belief, knowledge, and understanding can and would need to be applied to an earthworm as well, but...

The have no brains...at least none to speak of. Removing their brain produces very little noticable change(s) in behaviour...

They do not 'think' either.



I will await again.

James...

I believe, based upon what I think you are meaning and what must follow, that this below constitutes the source of our differences in understanding. Since below is from my thinking, if this does represent the source of the divide in our thinking, then it may be time to pursue your line from here... which involves awareness, I think.





I think that my problem lies within equating awareness and conscious thought.

I truly appreciate your thoroughness and deep desire to convey your idea and thoughts. And I truly don't mean to sound argumentative, but I can't help see inconsistencies in the things you appear to be asserting.

I guess there are some points on which I simply disagree with your assertions. Again, this is not intended as 'argument' but rather just to explain why it is that I feel your assertions appear, in some cases, to be nothing more than mere opinions that seem to be lacking rigorous evidence.

For example, about the bees you say:



Well, you are certainly being honest enough in your statements. You begin by saying that you "believe" the following to be true, and you end by saying that you do not think that it can be shown to be otherwise.

Ok, on the topic of bees I would like to elaborate, as I believe that it can be shown that bees necessarily have memory and the ability to make correlations between objects and themselves. (although this in and of itself does not require a self-awareness, but that it not the issue.

I use to keep bees myself so I have actually learned quite a bit about the litter critters. In any case, the question in point is whether or not bees have memory or can make correlations between objects and themselves. It seems to me that their behavior demonstrates that they must necessarily be able to both remember things, and correlate them with themselves, or at least with the general orientation of the very hive itself.

Bees have a very well-organizes social structure, that I personally feel goes far beyond rote instinctual behavior. As an example, I offer the following:

Considering honey bees. Typically a bee is born either a worker, a queen, or a drone. So those three classes of the bee structure are innate and dependent on their DNA (or to be more precise, it is dependent upon how the bee develops and what it is fed, and how it is cared for, as it initially grows from an egg). Any bee egg can be raised to become a queen, drone, or worker. So how the DNA unfolds is dependent upon the early care and food given to developing bee.

However, let's just focus our attention on the class of bee called the "worker" (the working class). Workers can take on many different careers (so-to-speak). For example there are workers that do nothing but tend to the queen. There are workers that do nothing but tend to the task of feeding the newly developing baby bees. There are workers that do nothing but go out and get nectar and bring it back to the hive. There are workers that do nothing but cap off the fully packed cells of honey with wax caps. There are workers that are janitors and maintenance crew that do nothing but clean out the hive all day and remove the carcasses of any bees that may have died with in the hive, ect. There are workers that go out just to scout new sources of nectar and report back to the hive the location of these sources of nectar.

Finally, these careers seems to be interchangeable. In other words, any given worker may change their career at any given time depending on what needs to be done within the hive. It's quite amazing actually. So their choice of career seems to be dependent on what is require rather than being a mere innate instinct. Precisely how it is decided which bee will do what I have no clue. All I know is that they are highly organized and seem to always have the correct number of bees assigned to the proper tasks depending on what needs to be done. Precisely how this is orchestrated is probably not fully known even by the scientists who study bees. Although I think they have established that it's done mostly with pheromones, but how that could work is truly beyond my comprehension. I mean, if you become a pizza maker just because you smell a pizza then everyone who entered a pizza shop would become a pizza chef and never leave. So there must be more to it than just these aromatic instructions.

In any case, to establish my disbelief, of your belief that bees do not have memory or the ability to make correlations between objects and themselves let's just focus on the career of a scout bee. A scout bee goes out randomly from the hive (not in the same direction with the nectar gathers). The nectar gathers have already been assigned to a particular source of nectar. The scout bee is going out to find new sources of honey.

So the scout bee flies around until it finds a large source of nectar. I personally feel that this simple task, in and of itself, require some broader conscious awareness beyond an innate instinct. After all, it doesn't just report back that it found a single lone flower in the middle of nowhere, on the contrary it's job is to find a large source of nectar. So it must be able to have a realization in a sense that a particular nectar source is quite profound and not merely just a couple of flowers here and there.

Once it has found an recognized such a source it returns to the hive and does a dance (or a walk). These dances are quite complex and they convey information to the other honey gathers concerning the direction from the hive as well as the distance that this nectar source is from the hive.

I personally feel that this automatically established that bees have memory. After all, how could a scout bee remember where that honey source is, or even that it had found such a source if it could not remember where it had been and what it had experienced at that location. So you assertion that bees have no memory seems to be to be an impossible assertion. Clearly scout bees must have memory or they would not be able to remember where they had seen the nectar source.

Also they very dance implies that some form of communication is going on there. Obviously this is a form of language based on the more common definition that language is any means by which information is conveyed. So based on the very careers of the scout bees we must conclude that bees are quite capable of memory. They have an ability to correlate objects to themselves, and they also have the ability to communicate this information to other bees.

At the very least we must conclude that bees use language. Therefore the use of language cannot be what sets humans apart from the bees.

I think what sets humans apart from the bees is not language but the very simple fact that humans are aware that they are aware. Especially in terms of self-awareness.

A bee may even be 'self-aware', yet not be aware that it is 'self-aware'. In other words, it recognizes that it exists, but not as an individual. It hasn't yet created this dichotomy we call self.

It's like if you could talk to a bee and ask it if it is a bee it would say, "Well of course I'm a bee, whadda think?"

But then if you pressed further to ask the bee its name it would say, "What do you mean? I'm a bee? Bees are bees? We're all the same other than we have different careers, but that doesn't make us different, we're all still just bees."

Then you might press father again saying, "But how do you tell each other apart?" Again they might just look at you like you're crazy and say, "What do you mean by apart? We're bees? A bee is a bee by any other name."

They simply haven't created this dichotomy of being aware of self-awareness. But that doesn't meant that they can't comprehend other things or be aware that they exist.

A bee philosopher would proclaim, "We're bees therefore we are!"

A human philosopher dichotomizes this further and says, "I'm self-aware therefore my self exists!"

The self exists because we have decided to become aware of it. We create the self by dichotomizing ourselves from the rest of the universe by simply becoming aware that we can indeed choose our own careers.

Does a bee have "free will". Maybe they do and maybe they don't. Maybe they freely choose to just serve the whole doing whatever needs to be done the most. Maybe they are extremely family-oriented and that's just their nature. They are the epitome of homebodies who take care of their own family.

In some ways I can identify with this. I personally could live my entire life on a small homestead and just take care of the homestead and raise a family. In a sense, I could almost be content living the life of a bee. Even though I'm self-aware and aware of my self-awareness.

Many other humans would view such a life as dreadfully boring. They would want to go out and visit as many different places as possible and do as many different things as possible. They would feel like they had been sentenced to prison if they had to stay at home all the time and just care for the homestead.

So in a way I can sympathize with the bees. Who are we to say that how they choose to live must be because of a lack of intelligence or awareness? Maybe they're just homebodies who are content living in a hive of a close-knit family and just carrying out the seemingly mundane chores required to support that existence.

So in response to your following statement:



This just appears to me to be a totally unwarranted and unproven assertion on your part that clearly does not match up with the behavior that bees have been observed to exhibit.

Bees are quite sophisticated and clearly have the ability to remember what they done, correlate that with the location and distance from their home, and even communicate this knowledge to their coworkers.

To attempt to reduce this to mere instinctual behavior is ludicrous IMHO.

If humans are different from bees, it's not in our level of knowledge, but simply due to the importance we place on our awareness, and in particularly on are awareness of the fact that we are aware.

What is it that we are aware of that is so important?

This is what the Buddha would ask.

What sets humans apart from the other animals?

Nothing more than an awareness that they can pretend to be separate from the rest of the world and build up an arrogant sense of egocentricity?

And what's so great about that? All it has humans doing is attempting to prove that they are better than all other creatures.

How is that such a great thing?

Maybe self-awareness was the worst thing that ever happened to us!

I love the way that Deepak Chopra puts it. I won't try to quote his exact words, but the essence of his thoughts on this are as follows.

On Becoming Self-Aware

Becoming self-aware is the greatest thing that has happened to our species. It has enabled us to enrich our lives to an unimaginably profound level of intellectual fullness. We are able to conceptualize deeply abstract concepts such as love and empathy and bring to fruition all that can be manifest from these totally abstract ideas and concepts. Ideas and concepts that come to LIFE through the manifestation of genuinely physical emotions and feelings that are undeniable as the tears of happiness and sadness can indeed be measured as they become manifest in the physical world.

Yet as will all things that are worthwhile their potential for constructive and destructive manifestations are equal. A knife can be used to cut the wedding cake of a loving newlywed couple, or that same knife can be used to stab a friend in the back.

Along with the wonderful enlightenment of our self-awareness also comes the dichotomy of "Me versus You". If I am separate from you, then you must be separate from me. So our wonderful gift of self-realization has brought with it the potential to create enemies a label them as being something other than the self. Enemies of the self.

Thus the same self-awareness that has the potential to fill our lives with so much love and compassion for one another, also brings with it the potential to fill us with hatred and arrogance for those whom we have decided to view as being our enemies.

Thus Deepak Chopra suggests that is it not our self-awareness that will ultimately bring us fulfillment, but rather a deeper awareness of that awareness. A deeper understanding that we create love and hate. We are the creators of these things. They do not happen to us. We create them via our awareness.

Whatever we become aware of is what we bring into manifestation by the simple act of becoming aware of it!

We cannot love someone without being aware of it.

We cannot hate someone without being aware of it.

Yet we are fully free to choose whatever it is that we would like to become aware of!

And it's That Freedom that we must ultimately become aware of.

Our self-awareness is crap.

What we really need to become aware of is that we are self-aware an that it is our self-awareness that brings into fruition our reality and the reality that we help to create for those around us.

Deepak Chopra suggests that we are about to embark on an new age of awareness.

The age of becoming conscious of our consciousness.

What we become aware of is what we bring into fruition.

We create our world according to how we apply our awareness.

Forget about thoughts. Instead focus on awareness.

Thoughts can only beget more thoughts.

Awareness begets experience.

Experience is life.

James...

I think this direction regarding insects could be helpful. I knew that a door was open for further discussion regarding memory and understanding. I intend on going into it 'deeper'...

We must come to a mutaul understanding on a few things, as you are aware.

What would qualify as only instinctual behaviours to you James?

What would make the difference between a creatures conscious awareness and one which just perceived environmental stimulus?

I think three words cause most problems in these types of conversations.

Instinct.
Consciousness.
Self-awareness.

Why are these things important? I really do not think they are important. I could make a very strong case that all desires are based on instinct. What is a choice but a desire for one outcome over another? Regardless of subjective, objective, rational, irrational it makes no matter, at some point a choice is made based on a value assessment which is coded as proteins and other macro molecules or other such biological identifying structures.

I could make a very strong case that computers are conscious, this is becuase this shot gun term is too wide for the purposes of analytical reductionism. The criteria by which these terms are defined are so much a shotgun style that they are nearly useless when we attempt a reductionist style of analysis.

Shot gun term + reduction = useless.

If you want to say that consciousness is only that which humans have, then you have just self narrowed the term to fit your desire. We could then willy nilly add in any critter is that human like enough to make us feel good about calling them conscious, this is usually how people do it . . . .

I think all life that retains any memory is conscious on some scale. Otherwise you need to redefine consciousness where a distinct functionality is required . . . I see a lot of flailing about to do just that in this thread, but the failure is not one of capability, but one of scope.

We have too many examples of creatures that defy any rule we set out to help us define consciousness.

Same with language as an informational relationship system.

I will go even further than that. All things have a degree of consciousness and memory. Even rocks, trees, water, minerals etc.

If memory is a requirement for consciousness then rocks must indeed be considered as potential candidates for some level of memory at least.

We know for a fact that rocks can be tuned to certain frequencies, and that they take on these vibrational frequencies and can retain them, or they be used to spark oscillators into a certain frequencies of vibration.

This is the fundamental principle of crystals used to tune radios as well as to keep quartz clocks in perfect time. In fact, crystals are used to orchestrate the operation of computers. Every computer contains a crystal that keeps the CPU in time with the Memory and Data busses. Without that dumb rock computers wouldn't even work.

Not to mention that the CPU and Memory themselves are made of silicon crystals. The whole computer is just a bunch of dumb rocks remembering a whole bunch of stuff.

Witches use crystals to store and transform emotional (or spiritual) energy. Whether or not these energy patterns can be measured by science yet is irrelevant. If not, perhaps science just hasn't yet figured out how to sense these frequencies?

The whole idea of the crystal ball is based on the idea that it can resonate with psychic energy and be used to project the images of the mind. I read some really good material on this. What I've discovered is truly amazing.

Think about this for a moment.

We can form images in our mind's eye. (wherever the hell that is) If I tell you to imagine a cello right now you will most likely conjure up a picture of a cello in your mind (assuming you know what a cello is supposed to look like). If you don't know what one looks like you might conjure up some imaginary image that may coincidentally look something like a cello or something altogether different.

However, the point is, that most people will conjure up some image in their mind. What a wonderful ability!

Well, now if you want to learn how to use a crystal ball what you do next is take that image of a cello that you have in your mind's eye, look into the crystal ball and imagine seeing that image in the crystal ball. It shouldn't take much to be able to do this.

Now you say, "Fine! So now you're causing me to create hallucinations!" In fact, it's true that you don't even need the crystal ball, if you are good at this you can see a cello everywhere you look.

But that's missing the point.

Getting back to the crystal ball and why they are used. When a crystal ball is used for this purpose the crystal become attuned to your mental projections. It becomes easier and easier for you to project the images that come into your mind into the crystal ball. In fact, if you become intimate with your crystal ball (not sexually intimate you doofus! Just psychically intimate!) you will soon find that your crystal ball can start showing you your thoughts even when you aren't making a conscious effort to project them.

This is where transcended meditation comes in. You enter into a state of pure awareness that is detached from thought. However, your brain is still thinking like crazy! It's like "The Cocktail Party Effect" I had mentioned in a previous post. Your brain is still thinking (running like a computer), but your awareness is focused on the crystal ball of which you are not thinking about analytically. You're simply watching it and absorbing what appears there. You are in a state of pure awareness.

What you will see is a panorama of your thoughts taking place within the crystal ball. You may see scenes from your childhood, your future hopes and dreams, your nightmares, or even events that seemingly have nothing at all to do with you.

You will soon discover that what you are viewing is the cosmic mind that has no boundaries in space or time and will reveal to you any place and time you wish to observe.

Ok, clearly this is not going to happen for you the night you run out to your local mystic shop and buy a cheap crystal ball to test this out on. It's going to require quite a bit of intimacy with the rock, quite a bit of practice of projecting and holding mental images over sustained periods of time, and a depth of transcendental mediation that would make a Zen Buddhist Priest appear to be a neophyte.

But still. It's possible.

What were we talking about?

Oh yeah, consciousness.

Ok, sorry for the rocky ramble. I just thought it might be an interesting aside for witchy-minded people.

YES!!!



I'd go farther: much worse than useless. It creates a false sense of certainty - one of the worst kinds: the certainty that one has used air-tight logic (while being completely unaware of how the use of a 'shotgun' term undermined the logic).



YES!

I think the main parallel I wanted to develop with my illustration of the patchwork consciousness and the informational reference system (language) is again one of scope.

The human mind in its currently evolved form is very good at certain things. Pattern recognition is one of them.

However does this mean that we see patterns everywhere, or that we create patterns where there may or may not be such patterns?

The answer is both.

This works in our favor and against us on many accounts.

Language as an information reference system broadens the concept from man made to be more organic in origin. Perhaps minds seek out the patterns of nature that make minds possible?

All forms of recall then would be a information reference system and therefore would have language like structures of meaning.

This would happen in everything from DNA to your PDA.

Problems with scope indeed.

The term consciousness has many problems, I agree. I do not even like it, to be honest with you.

I feel that language(representational understanding), belief, knowledge, and conscious thought are all intrinsically tied together. They may even be the different facets of the same thing.



Jeremy,

I would like to hear you develop that idea of language and dna... how one effects the other, or how they are known to be linked.

If you would.

Massage wrote...



What certainty is not 'false' in some sense?

Now James I want to run out and get me a crystal ball.

Why is certainty so important? What's wrong with accepting that nothing can be certain?

"I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong." - Richard Feynman.

Perhaps it is the quest for certainty that is futile?

I am in absolute total shock that you don't already own one!

Of all people you would be the last I would suspect to be without a cyrstal ball.