It seems logical ,so far. Um, what is time and how does it relate to that infinite and permanent base reality?

Hi, I've seen your passionate call to philosophers to speak out more against nuclear weapons with respect to a possible nuclear fallout. I'm wondering, isn't the core of that topic already established? While the talk has already been talked, I don't see how philosophers can also walk the walk for everyone.
My thinking is that the measure you give to a negative outcome, is the same given for the need to have them (nuclear weapons). Worse, the arguments against nuclear weapons falls short as insufficient and hysterical when contrasted with the practical value that they provide in these uncertain political waters. Wouldn't a nation argue that it's better to have and not need than to need and not have? Also, I think if not for the presence of nuclear weapons in most, if not all, of the powerful nations, then the war to colonialism would still be on-going. Presently, there seems to be attempts at indirect approaches to colonization and while still potentially dangerous, especially in such a politically unstable world, they do not seem to imminently disrupt the overbearing stalemate.

I think another reason why we do not make too big an issue of this subject is to avoid unnecessary antagonism. This is because we still have a lot of tyrannical and unhinged leaders across the globe who would see the extra focus directed at the subject as a stage set for them to showcase what they've got or add to their arsenal in rebellion to the cause (Kim Jong-Un and Trump do readily come to mind).

As you say, it's like a gun to our heads. However, philosophers do understand their limitations too. How can we convince individuals that they don't need to own guns to protect themselves from criminals who would take them at gun point? One person's philosophy cannot address the fear in the other person. The same with nuclear weapons - it would be a hard sell for nations to give up their ultimate defense against another 'hitler' situation.

Perhaps the only consolation to this madness is that, happy as the fingers on those hair triggers may be, the risk of losing everything overcompensates against their need to gain something. Right now the stalemate exists because of mutual distrust and the high risk of mutual destruction.

I think we need a very creative way of addressing the issue, and even then, the best we could probably hope to accomplish is a lie that they have been disarmed or destroyed. In the end, because we've set this precarious situation ourselves, we must learn to endure, and live with the outcome should anything happen.

Evolution is a theory about the origin of species. — Wayfarer

Not quite. We still don't know the origin of any life-form. What we have in the evolution theory is a guide as to how the first perceived, already present, life-form(s), origins unknown, provided the ingredients for the present known life-forms through a series of transformations based on adaptation and acclimatization to resources and circumstances. It's why I used the term progress since it's basically a theory of overcoming limitations and transcending events both favourable and unfavourable towards survival of life.

The significance of evolution is progress. Disabilities and other afflictions are ways in which our weaknesses/deficiencies are highlighted by nature. The end goal is that we should recognize them and deal with them appropriately. What the OP is suggesting is a distorted view of the idea of survival of the fittest. It fails to understand that humans without humanity or inhumane humans (who cannot express empathy, sympathy, compassion, etc.,) are 'diseased' or deficient in terms of human nature and it is through evolution that we have recognized the need to take care of the sick, disabled, etc. To suggest otherwise implies a retardation (perhaps, a disability).

Simply put, should we let evolution do what it does best which is filter out the weak? — intrapersona

Evolution filters out weaknesses not lives. The increase in the number of disabled people in productive fields both physical and intellectual, implies that we can learn to overcome inability in disability. Initially, way back in 'em days, we considered the disabled as failed human types and, in our ignorance, caused them a lot of suffering but, fortunately, presently, we have arrived at the realisation of how primitive that designation is. By incorporating deliberately directed and well-filtered human interactions with the disabled, we help them overcome the major limitation and threat which disability poses - social ostracism, which in turn leads to a larger host of issues. Finding ways to involve the disabled in all human activities has served as a therapeutic measure which has helped to counter some discomfitures. There is no doubt that the way to the future is through more integration and the outlook promises further success. Such is the true path of human evolution.

Isn't the statement, 'Disability is not inability!' a testament to our capacity to evolve?

Ahhh, I see. Namaste. :pray:

Then I defer to your omniscience. For myself, I cannot scale such heights. I seek logic that works for me, with all my faults and deficiencies. — Pattern-chaser

My conclusion is the result of application of logic. To suppose an illusion indistinguishable from reality is like claiming an ocean submerged within another ocean. Where's the logic in that?
By definition, either we have an illusion or reality. Having both as one implies illusion is just a synonym for reality.

There is no illusion indistinguishable from reality. To succumb completely to an illusion implies a deficiency (disease or deliberately applied constraint e.g., influence of drugs) which impairs the cognitive apparatus.

So please, go ahead and explain how, for example, we can detect the "texture" of an illusion. — Pattern-chaser

One example is that: All illusions, whether dreams, day-dreams, fantasies, hallucinations, delusions, etc., are narratives. Mental narratives. They are stories we tell ourselves. If you stop/pause the narrative, then the illusion stops. However, it is not possible for everyone, all the time, to consciously/deliberately halt the narrative. One sure method which interrupts the narrative is the insertion of choice or deliberateness. You will find that in dreams, the succeeding sequence of events seems to be governed by a pre-determined and undisputed necessity. Therefore, if you can, try challenging that necessity or choose not to adhere to it. By training your attention/focus, it is possible to shift from the un/sub-conscious to the conscious just like in meditation or trance the reverse can be achieved.

Another difference between reality and illusion is the multifaceted/versatile nature of reality in contrast to the one-sided nature of illusions. To put it in layman's terms, illusions do not have a series of whys, whens, hows, etc., unlike reality where multiple sequences of causes and effects are open for consideration. This means that in an illusion the one event in focus is the only event in existence while in reality attention can be shifted between multiple concurrent events. An attempt to shift focus in an illusion will most likely disentangle it to some degree. I would express it thus: to the mind, illusion is all-consuming while reality is always open-ended and accepting of a variety of choices.

Illusions seem to bypass the reflective and intellectual mechanism, or use them to establish a pre-set state of affairs before acting directly on the instinctive and emotional part. Therefore, a good deal of emotional control can help one in identifying between illusion and reality. Most illusions keep by their grip on our emotional reins. Thus, to be able to take a breath while in distress can, hypothetically, instantly dissipate an illusion. I dare even say that to mock an illusion is to overcome it.

There are many other ways and factors in the distinction between illusions and reality. For most people the mechanism is un/sub-conscious even when trained. For example, a person may wake up at a particular time every morning, sometimes having to exit a dream sequence part way through, without realizing the significance of the choice/deliberateness applied.

If what I say is not agreeable at face value, try any of the exercises and see if in time you do not develop some degree of ability to rouse yourself mid dreaming or at least develop the capacity to realize you're dreaming as it unfolds.

Yes, of course. A real illusion is, of course, real. — Pattern-chaser

I'm not saying illusions are real. Only that the components of illusion are borrowed from our perception of reality.

The point of this discussion is to ask how we deal with speculations for which there is no evidence. It seems that logic takes us so far, but no farther. And when we reach that point, we must stop. — Pattern-chaser

I agree that beyond logic no argument is appropriate or necessary, and should proceed no further.

As to BIV and RL, I would ask that you formulate a personal test for which to recognize the difference between reality and illusion. A kind of litmus test for the difference between the 'texture' of illusion vs that of reality. I believe you will find it impossible to mistake one for the other.

First, I should say that while I have beliefs (a chosen path of inference) in terms of what the larger picture of life may be, in the traditional sense I do not believe in God and, therefore, have no strong objection to being identified as an atheist. My aim is to give an alternate view and hope to stir some mental cogs into action.

As to the OP,

I don't think God is hidden because all the teachings in the Bible by the prophets (men of God) imply that if we gave life the right consideration then His (God's) presence would be quite obvious. My point is, God is not hidden, He is ignored.
For example, the Israelites on their sojourn from Egypt. Having witnessed the many miraculous events attributed to God, they kept ignoring His commands and requests at every turn. The same sequence of events seems to repeat itself over and over => God comes into people's lives; He gives commands or tries to establish a particular kind of discipline based on worship of His greatness; then humans eventually realise they should really get back to their own business, and they ignore everything about God.

As to God's influence, I find that majority of the people think of Him (God) primarily as a meddler who seems to show up when people have no choice but to initiate a certain course of action and He then begins to pretend to dictate those actions. The reason I say this is because of instances like Moses' where, even before God appeared to him, he had outwardly manifested his dissension against his distaste of slavery by 'accidentally' killing an Egyptian in a scuffle. So, it's not too far-fetched to think that eventually he (Moses) would have engineered a revolution against the Egyptians. Remember Moses was highly educated by the standards of those times. Also, the same may be said of most of the other circumstances in the Bible which don't appear to be too symbolic not to be actual events.

However, outside of the 'God argument', I will concede that the influence on those human societies where those impulses and intelligences (enacted by those people referred to as prophets and leaders) played a part, have revolutionised humanity in many positive ways and have played a massive part in opening people's minds to the considerations of the 'bigger picture'.

I thought I should add this:

Don't eliminate emotional highs from your life (especially those which are shared), instead determine how best to incorporate them. It could be like attempting a life of full awareness where you limit the idea of 'chance' or 'luck' as much as possible by increasing the level of self-actualization. Life becomes more of what you choose to do than what just happens.

Vice and virtue come to visit him while he is solitary in the mountains. Vice offers him a pleasing, pleasurable life, but virtue, a hard and difficult life, but with the possibility of glory. — All sight

The above quote by @All sight is a reflection of something Socrates says: "For I am in want, and he has enough; and he only gives you the appearance of happiness, and I give you the reality."
He (Socrates) was pointing out the imbalance between material justice (based on flawed human perception) vs real or absolute justice.

The point I'm trying to make is that, even in your depression you seem to have cultivated quite a discerning level of self-awareness that self-improvement seems inevitable if not fated. That, perhaps, your rehabilitation from depression may have began long before the realisation of it.

So, perhaps the reality of your struggle is not how to counter the depression but to accept a state where you transcend the need for (or dependency on) emotional highs (especially those which are shared) and choose to live with the meagre rewards which accompany the solitary life of self-reflection and self-assertion. Maybe a re-definition of your depression is in order.

This (depression) seems to often be a concern with many philosophers and it may have presented you with the challenge of whether you can integrate in the world again in your individuality after having overcome the social bond of 'mass dependency'. A kind of re-defining your stance/stake in life.

Outside of metaphysics the brain-in-a-vat theory is not as striking. It may be seen as an 'atheists' version of 'God and his creation'. The brain is omni-present/scient/potent in its influence on the illusion it creates. However, this theory also suffers the same flaws that religious theories do. In a literal sense, we get to ask what the origin of God/brain is; and to what capacity does creation/illusion exist or interact with the reality of their creators; or what does free-will and choice mean, etc.

I believe the brain-in-a-vat theory only addresses the idea of our perception of reality and cannot, due to its many deficiencies, form any lasting imprint on reality. Every consideration about reality infers that it is a composite of innumerable factors which cannot be simply represented by a singular configuration, whether it be God, brain-in-a-vat, or otherwise. It is why those theories keep getting a face-lift over time, in order to adjust certain inconsistencies, perhaps in our understanding or their telling.
However, fundamentally, something absolute will never be explained satisfactorily using relativity. And because all we have are our perspectives, only our perception of reality can be explained by any theory but, as to reality itself, we must be resigned to a blanket acceptance of its undeniable presence. Also, the fact that we learn means that we know that our perception of reality is continuously short of actual reality and, therefore, we make constant efforts to catch up to it as much as we can.

The idea that the illusions of the brain define our reality, means that it must be one brain in one vat generating a single illusion representing the whole of existence, reality and everything. If every one of us is/has a separate brain-in-a-vat, then the relativity of perception and perspective and the consequent interactions fail to solve the problem of perception vs reality which it attempts to do.

For the brain-in-a-vat to create any illusion, it must have perception for its raw materials. Therefore, what part of its reality is it perceiving? That connection between illusion and reality calls for a mechanism which governs their interrelation. This brings logic into play. Consistency and connection are always implied in the identity of what logic is. The laws which determine reality, akin to logic, are rigid and do not alter. Therefore, logic has to surpass the limits of illusion and must as well relate to the reality of the brain-in-a-vat. This logic dictates that everything in the illusion is born of and bears a connection to the objects in the brain-in-a-vat's reality. In this way consistency is maintained throughout and the overall intelligence avoids conflict with individual circumstances. Also, because all the elements of illusion are based on perception, there is no significant line of demarcation between the illusion and reality when they are thus interrelated. Thus, reality is manifest in the illusion even when disguised. So, in the same way our reality (or perception of it) fades into illusion, it just as well fades back into our reality.

Personally, I choose to accept a theory which states that illusion is a part of reality, in that, it is a representation of it, though with certain modifications which may distort or disguise the relation. Nonetheless, they are always related.

So, for me, if the illusion corresponds to our common-world reality then the reality where the brain-in-a-vat exists has been misrepresented.

Morals/Ethics is just a code of conduct, so how can any life-form lack it.

Speaking in terms of belief, I would say that we (atheists) are a decent people and attempt to be in line with that most basic law of reciprocity, "do unto others as you would that they do unto you." Basically, we treat people as we treat ourselves; and people will feel compelled to treat us in the same way. Perhaps it is some kind of instinctive logic towards harmony in interactions. I don't know its origin, but it works.

What if I thought to myself: "My depression is a low, how about I indulged in the high." Would that alleviate my depression? By highs I don't mean use of stimulants. I mean finding natural expressions of life which allow me to indulge in my passions (or what I would consider my best self-appreciated expressions of life), like hobbies and stuff. Perhaps if I included them regularly into my life schedule I could stave off depression. Is this practical?

Hi, and welcome to TPF.

This interdependence is one of the fundamental beliefs of mine. I try to avoid metaphysics and spiritual philosophy when I explain it to myself (I try to omit ideas such as consciousness, self, the 'I', etc). Personally, I think the intelligence which governs evolution is adjusted or tweaked and applied in small doses into all the various forms of existence. What we believe is the significance of our lives and the need to protect it or the 'sacredness' of it, is just a mechanism to ensure we extract the most from our experiences. Ultimately we are fodder for the greater life - it works through us and we work for it - therefore, we are dependent upon it just as it is dependent upon us.

I'm not sure if objective knowledge from a third perspective of emotions will necessarily tell us much about how to deal with emotions. — ChatteringMonkey

Me too. I think we have to figure a way to express the whole range of perspectives in order to determine a comprehensive study of emotions. When its too subjective it seems to exclude others and when its too objective it doesn't seem personal enough to cover our individual intricacies. Limited perspective is a philosopher's worst nightmare.

Perhaps a combination of both eastern and western philosophies could work. One to speak directly to the individual and the other to the community at large or the underlying principle. Maybe this would better explain emotions as a subjective experience as well as having objective range of interactions.

Ok. Though I should say that it's probably began and it's at the ground level - trying to establish a 'base-reading' as it were. Eventually both psychology and psychiatry will be fundamental to understanding emotions.

Your repeated use of "objective" bothers me — Pattern-chaser

The fact of relative perspective makes it difficult to use terms like 'objective'. It's why Einstein had a problem with Newton's theory of gravity. To him gravity existed beyond our planet while Newton's theory was limited to events within the planet. It wasn't that either was wrong, only that they observed the same mechanism from different perspectives and scales.
If perspective and scales of consideration were always equalized then there would be fewer disagreements.

I think the brain-in-a-vat theory is a good analogy for the relationship between our perception and reality. However, it cannot be limited to either.

I think the brain-in-a-vat example is a very intelligent thought experiment. However, it ignores the reality of our perception. While most of our perception relates to our senses directly, there is a level of perception which seems to be beyond them. I mean instances where we meet a person and we perceive them as compatible/incompatible or as having some kind of good/ill intentions, etc. Intuition and gut-feeling may not be right all the time or exactly scientific but the accuracy and the degree of dependability by the instinctive mechanism is quite telling. I would say it's akin to how sometimes we know we're dreaming during the dreaming process itself. I think our perception of reality questions itself as much as it asserts itself. A computer based on '2-D logic' could not surpass it indefinitely. By '2-D logic' I mean the computer will generate reality based on the queries you posit to it. But, how will it respond to 'mindless wondering'? This is because, if it does, then it may raise questions. And if it doesn't, then it will at some point seem suspect.
And, how will the computer deal with our capacity to will? This is because it is also our capacity to override our reality.

There's an informality about life which no computer or any one person can seem to replicate. I think it's because we don't just perceive direct responses, we also look into the meanings behind the meanings and at the same time we can ignore meaning and indulge in some illogical or fantastical prose which to any program would be 'chaos' - something no computer however super can relate to due to its '2-D logic'.
I think it's what 'The Matrix' tried to explain.

I believe the limit to the brain-in-the-vat theory is our relative perspective or perception. At some point someone will notice that the computer's responses are not their own.

Unfortunately, one big problem with what I've just said is, "how do we coordinate objective agreement?"
Most of the time objective agreement is not filtered through logic and therefore perhaps a personal take on issues is the best remedy even against objective agreement especially when it rests on 'popular belief' minus the common sense.

Theories without evidence. How do we deal with them? — Pattern-chaser

We consider them logically especially in the way we all experience or perceive their applications. For example, we may not have evidence of consciousness, thought or emotion but we do agree on the activities which describe those identities. So, perhaps we start there, with the definition of that activity and then we include other activities related to it. Also, we should consider the objective applications when it comes to excluding other activities in the same way we considered them to include them instead of shifting to a subjective perspective. This means that if we all agree as to what consciousness, thought and emotions are, then we should also all agree as to what they are not. We should not attempt to exclude based on personal perspective something born of objective agreement. Maybe that could work for a while before actual objective proof is found.

This argument of consciousness is like what the argument of gravity used to be (before Newton). Everyone knows the activity they are trying to describe but cannot express it in objective terms. Everything seems to depend on subjective language and none of the contradictory arguments show that anybody is wrong, only that they disagree because they have an alternate explanation of their own. Perhaps, this is a subject we all need to work together to be able to define all the parameters of its identity.

I think now that psychology is advancing much further, it will eventually discover a way to discuss emotions in objective and perhaps even logical terms. Eastern philosophy had the advantage that its fundamentals rested on metaphysics so a discussion on emotions was easier without necessarily being answerable as to the objective relevance of it.

I love it! Nowadays to lack food, clothing and shelter is not poverty, it's stupidity. We are too well informed not to be able to sought ourselves out, even if it's not decent. Modern day poverty is not a lack of any of the basic human needs, it is more of a lack of social needs. I bet they also tweet and instagram themselves while on their journey to salvation.

Also, while religion has its 'dark' side, I think we could better understand it if we learnt how to translate its colourful language and imagery with a bit more realism and simplicity. For example, 'God created the world and everything in it', probably just means that if the world exists, it must have a way of coming into existence. The only controversial part is that religion calls the 'way of coming into existence' or 'the cause of existence' simply as God. But, either way, in whatever field of knowledge, no matter the language, process or identity, the significance remains the same. Life and the world are no different even after the realisation that this earth has evolved over millions of years instead of the 'six business days' catalogue lightly implied in the bible.

Therefore, perhaps we should perceive religion as a form of philosophy which, like most others, has been turned into a caricature of its actual identity.

We may not want to accept it but the various 'great' religions are a philosophical success. Religion is not about mere ethics and morality but it's also aimed at moving people politically and socially as well as educate them a little while at it. To that respect, religion is a marvel of unprecedented proportions especially that it persists so heavily in this day and age.

Imagine if you could travel back in time and reveal some of modern day scientific achievements during any period of any of the religious revolutions. It might be that they would think of you as a prophet. Now, imagine how hard the religious instinct must have fought to survive through, at the least, all the scientific revolutions we've had. Clearly, it's no mean feat.
I think the need for religion is a genuine one whether addressed appropriately or not. There is an innate need to realise the greater unity or that we are 'bigger' than ourselves and religion does that better than any other philosophy has. In this sense, I think religion has, so far, been superior than philosophy.

I think philosophy demands a certain degree of mental activity such that, when engaged in correctly, it is inevitable that one's capacity for intellectual acuity receives a boost. I don't think it matters how diluted philosophical teachings are provided they retain their integrity.

To engage seriously with philosophy one needs to have the capacity for independent thinking — Marcus de Brun

Philosophy does not cause independent thinking; independent thinking causes philosophy. Or at least it leads to philosophy — Pattern-chaser

I like this because it is what philosophers have been accused of over the years. Also, there seems to be a positive correlation between intellectual acuity and the ability to holding one's perspective in relation to that of others; as well as a correlation between idiocy/shallowness and blind dogma or unhealthy dependence on doubtful beliefs.

General interest in philosophy is low, but it has always been so. Thinking for its own sake is something that few people enjoy. I think that has always been so too. — Pattern-chaser

Is there a way we can make philosophy into a friendlier endeavour for the average guy?

Other things being equal, more intelligence seems better than less. Unfortunately it is not unusual for folks to be clever dicks; mere intelligence is not enough. — unenlightened

I think the answer to this is: it's not intelligence if not coupled with sympathy. For me, sympathy is what brings out the harmony and understanding in interrelations.

If you looked at her writing next to mine you would conclude that I'm the better philosopher. If you looked at her life next to mine you would come to the opposite conclusion. — Jake

This has been quite a conundrum for me. What part of philosophy is pure mental exercise and what part is our life discipline?

Thanks for this cartographic inspiration!

Thanks to you, I'm actually trying to re-orient my perspective into seeing the various branches and distinctive features of philosophy as maps with the hopes of ultimately being able to consolidate them all mentally into a coherent whole. It's something I've been attempting to do in an amateur capacity but now, thanks to you, I believe I can get a clear outline of what it might be.

It's easy being negative because most people do it and, after having done it for quite a while, we've become quite adept at it. But, what if we took into consideration a few factors which we know about ourselves (as a society) and, for the hell of it, indulge in them with a little positivity. Take progress, for example. One may ask, 'are we justified in having intellect?' Remember, through out our evolution, no capacity or ability has begun at its peak. So, to question parenthood because we are imperfect is to open 'pandora's box' on a whole lot of issues since we are quite immature even by our own portrayal of what we mean by intelligence. On the flip side, we are learning. Very fast! We've gone from 'every nation for itself' to a world wide association of nations; from knowing only what happens in my community to world wide news; from 'only this matters to me because it concerns me' to 'everything matters to me because this is my world'; from 'I need this therefore I will take it and use it' to 'I need this therefore I must take care of it if I'm to use it'; and all this in a span of about a hundred years. Two hundred years ago humanity couldn't think it would be this connected, informed or invested in a 'general-welfare' type of circumstance. And even those who lag behind are not doing so out of sheer malice, but from a kind of inertia mostly born of fear, and which will eventually be overcome.
We started moving a long time ago and the window of opportunity for us (humanity as a whole) to stop to consider has closed. Therefore, we have to do things on the go. Some of us will take matters into consideration while the rest continue with what they're doing and then they'll find a way to fill them in on the outcome of their deliberations, all the while, on the go. It's the way of our lives. You know how, when you're in a car moving really fast, everything outside seen through the window seems to be a blur of moving objects while inside everything seems stationery? It's the same for us. If you can take a moment to look outside of the window, you'll see how fast human progress really is. I think the best we can do is to help humanity advance even faster.

If 'free-will' means ability or capacity to overcome all limitation, then we (humans) neither have it nor met a being with it. I think what we mean by 'free-will' is the potential to develop and evolve past limitations. However, since there is no end to that progress, our 'free-will' becomes an ever-changing circumstance.

Even if there are morally objective truths, how can we, limited by perspective, recognize them as such? I think, for us, relativity is infinite. Therefore, everything has to depend on perspective. It is inevitable that there will always be a scale beyond which our objectivity becomes subjective.

I think, instead of 'superior', we should say, "religion is more popular than philosophy."

I think it's because religion seeks to accommodate people using the least degree of qualification and then allows them to progress from there. Meanwhile, philosophy demands a great deal more qualification before it awards its acceptance.
Religion asks that we follow a path already worked out while philosophy dictates that we must understand and make our own path even if it corresponds to that of others.
Religion also absolves people of personal responsibility, to some extent, and allows them the excuse that "I'm doing this or that for my religion or for God, etc. However, philosophy holds everyone accountable for their own deeds in every circumstance.
Philosophy is a 'tougher customer' than religion hence it will have fewer numbers since the mass of people are either not willing or not ready to put in the work that philosophy demands.

The idea of a first cause is rather paradoxical and my hypothesis may be quite distant from being logical. However, I hope you can help develop it further.

=> Following the chain of cause and effect in reverse towards the origin, builds what seems like an 'infinity-chain' with no clear ending or beginning in sight. This is because we seek to find something which is not caused and therefore determine that it is itself the first causative agent. This, to me, seems impossible.
However, let us use principles and take the general idea of existence, which represents everything we mean by anything, and apply to it that reversal in the cause-effect chain. What can be said to have existed prior to existence? The answer is probably nothing because whatever identity there is, it would still have to satisfy the definition of existence. And here lies the paradox. The only way out is to concede that existence is the fundamental nature of everything, of reality.
Also, this existence must have its fundamental characteristics which are constantly mapping out its nature. This nature is inherent in existence and can be identified as a necessity. Firstly, existence must have a form, which is the constitution of its existence or 'being-ness' (a need to have); secondly, it must have influence or power to exert itself as an existence or to assert its 'being-ness' (need to be); and thirdly, it must manifest activity, which is the constant expression of itself as an existence (need to do). That necessity which is fundamental to existence is the impulse or stimulus or will which drives existence and may be referred to as a cause.

What if the first cause is causation?

I think metaphysics and science have the same origin - Philosophy. Both metaphysics and science went hand in hand, each in its own place and with its own utility. This was the case in the classical period of the likes of Pythagoras, Hippocrates, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle, etc., and later with Leonardo da Vinci, Newton, Swedenborg, Einstein, etc. Newton's Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy) is a good example of it.
Today, philosophy is being restricted to pure logic while metaphysics is being discarded as nonsense. And while science's basis of empiricism is admirable, we know there is more to experience than the physical or tangible. Hence, metaphysical themes are returning under the guise of science, e.g., psychology, acupuncture, etc. This is because, even though we cannot categorize them as tangible or physical we understand that, empiricism, being limited to a person's capacity, is not comprehensive enough and, therefore, as long as we can reflect on effects and deduce a system/methodology of application, then they may as well be included in science, e.g., the modern theory of dark matter and dark energy which is a modern reprisal of the ancient theory of aether.

I don't think good and evil have anything to do with 'God'. Firstly, I think the 'God' represented in the Bible, especially the OT, is quite fantastical and is based on misguided fanaticism. That 'God' is not the most intelligent or loving, among other negative qualities. The other religions have their short-comings as well. This makes me think that some of the representations were not as comprehensively and intelligently expressed as they should have been. Perhaps, at that time, they passed the bill. But, as is now obvious, not any more.

Good and evil is about wisdom and ignorance. Also, it is about us, humans. Religion began as a way to understand life. However, due to human inadequacies, it reflected more of our bias than intelligence. I think it is why philosophy is steadily replacing religion, as more people choose to actively participate intelligently in their lives instead of blindly following others. If people questioned religion more often, it would be possible to discover the errors in those teachings (which are clearly human), correct them and participate more reasonably. Still, some people can filter out the madness and feed on the nectar therein; though, few indeed.

Your take on these riddles is quite inspiring. Thank you for this!

Allow me to venture a few propositions:

1. “What does the hairdresser see between mirrors?” — Thomas Stevenson

=> It is interesting that this question is never asked when there is a discussion about image reflection on two mirrors parallel and opposite to each other. While most would argue an endless procession of images, the other truth is that the same reflections obscure the fact of the hairdresser's reality. The images on the mirror will always be a dimension short of reality - 2D not 3D. Also, in the mirror, the hairdresser does not see a person between two mirrors, they just see a person (or only what is between the mirrors), over and over, which is not the right perspective.

- This riddle may explain the saying by Carl G. Jung which states, "who looks outside, dreams; who looks within, awakes." All the significant details are right there in between the mirrors where direct observation is possible. Within the mirrors is the reflection (image, facade) but not the reality. We seek the truth of our lives by seeking meaning from external phenomena when we should be studying ourselves because we are that truth manifest. Our lives are absolute to us, what else can be greater?

2. “Is the dot inside the circle the dot outside the sphere?” — Thomas Stevenson

=> "...When love beckons to you, follow him, Though his ways are hard and steep.
And When his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound you.
And When he speaks to you believe in him, Though his voice may shatter your dreams as the north wind lays waste the garden..."
"...But if in your fear you would seek only love’s peace and love’s pleasure, Then it is better for you that you cover your nakedness and pass out of love’s threshing-floor,
Into the season-less world where you shall laugh, but not all of your laughter, and weep, but not all of your tears..." (From The Prophet by Kahlil Gibran - It's a teaching on love.)

The second riddle can be explained from the above quote. This is a world of pleasure and pain, of highs and lows, of relativity. Those who think they can choose one without recourse for the other are lost. They are like that dot within the circle which from the bigger perspective is a dot outside the sphere. The highs of this generation are the lows of the next. Human evolution is a flower that blooms on the grave (or from the demise) of past civilizations. Our greatest feats, the 'epicentre of our circle', are to the next generation a cautionary tale, 'a point outside their sphere'.

3. “When the pieces stop moving, the witness goes blind.” — Thomas Stevenson

=> Perception is perspective. Perspective is a frame of reference, a relative aspect between viewpoints. Without perspective, there is no perception. (This is kind of a layman's interpretation - Here, perception is a part of the process towards knowing and understanding and therefore action.)

=> Also, Life is activity. To 'be' is to 'do'.

"3:5. No one can stay truly action-less even for a moment, for the properties of prakriti (matter or substance) compel all to act!
4:18. They who see non-action in activity and action in inactivity are truly conscious... "
(From The Bhagavad Gita - teachings by Krishna.)

It's about what you said about personal experiences:

I am seeing..., and I am translating my own meaning..., and I am using..., my own experience? — Blue Lux

I think we can't really limit experience as being independent of others. A big part of an individual is the interaction with society, therefore, an experience is established only when it relates with others. And I think that's what you meant by 'reference' in,

I am using as the most absolute reference knowable... — Blue Lux

. Meaning that even personal experiences must, at some level, infer a relation with that of others to be established.