Thank you Gnomon for participating! You spent a good deal of time on your post, and will attempt to honor you in kind. We may come into disagreement at point, but know that it is from a place of respect.

c> Nothing cannot be a Cause — Gnomon

You note this as a translation to my point "There comes a time when there is only X, and nothing prior to Y (first cause)"

I want to make sure we're on the same page with this. I am not claiming, "Nothing caused X". That would be the continuation of "Y caused X", and would not be a prime cause. Nothing, did not cause X. X simply is, without any reason for its being. This is a key point.

If you believe in a God, then you believe this as well right? You don't believe anything caused a God right? A God simply is. It has no reason for its being, besides that it is. But we're also jumping the gun here.

there is no rule on how that first cause has to exist
— Philosophim
Yes, the Creator makes the rules. Our local First Cause could be an Eternal Principle of Causation. — Gnomon

Before we even dive into what the definition of a God would be, we have to address the logic of whether there is infinite causality, or a finite starting point first. The points and conclusion that I hold are that there MUST be a first cause, and describe what exactly a first cause must entail.

At this point, I'm not assuming there is a creator, or there is not a creator. I am simply examining whether we can logically conclude that there is an infinite regress of causality, or if there inevitably is a first cause. I conclude based on the logic of what both entail, that all things inevitably arrive at a first cause.

If you believe a creator is a first cause, then that's fine, I say that's a possiblity after the initial logic claim. But it is also possible under the logic that a first cause is NOT a creator. You cannot claim that a creator had to be the first cause, until you can disprove the claim where I show a first cause would not be bound by any rules as to what it had to be.

I'll sum up what you need to disprove first with the below summary.

1. A first cause has no prior reason for its existence. It simply is.
2. As a first cause has no prior reason for its existence, there are no rules that bind it to having to be a particular existence. It simply is.
3. For if you stated, "A first cause MUST be a particular existence", then there is a reason behind that. But if there is a reason behind that, it is not a prime cause, but relies on a previous cause that bounds it to some necessity of being".

I get it, this part trips people up a little until they figure out what is actually being said.

Simplified further.
A = A A is a prime cause.
A -> B is true. A prime cause can cause another.
C -> A cannot be true.

If you say A MUST be X, why?
If A MUST be X
you are claiming X defines -> A, because MUST implies A is limited in what it can be by X. Such a limitation is a rule outside of A, which would then be a cause of A's being.
Since X -> A cannot be true
A is not defined by anything else, and thus can only be understood as its existence, not by something that is not its existence.

Does that imply that the First Cause simply popped into existence at an arbitrary point in eternity, for no reason at all? — Gnomon

Yep. If you imply there is a reason, you imply something BEHIND that first cause. A first cause does not have a reason. It simply is. And this is not as a cop out btw (I undersood what you meant though). This is a logical conclusion, and in fact, the only conclusion I can draw.

The existence of the universe has only one "Why" answer — Gnomon

Until you show the above logic as incorrect, this cannot be claimed.

c> If so, the universe itself would have to possess the power of sudden self-creation or eternal self-existence. — Gnomon

No, if it is a first cause, it did not cause itself. It was not, then it was. If it has the power of eternal self-existence, as a first cause, it does, because it does. Remember that each of these points applies equally to a God (as I defined it remember, not any particular God).

In our real world experience, "Creative Power" is what we call Potential, to bring into existence something that does not yet exist. Intelligent Creative Power would have the power & know-how to create intelligent beings. — Gnomon

This is a fine way to define it. As long as you understand the underlying concept that at any point of creative power, we can imagine a greater creative power, we're good!

Relative to our imperfect finite universe, the First Cause would have to possess infinite Potential — Gnomon

I don't think this is logical. Think of it this way. I can make a house. But that might be my limit. (The universe). Someone else might be able to make lots of houses. Then houses, skyscrapers etc. We can keep adding more to what is created.

So imagine our entire universe. If we are thinking in terms without limitations as to what a first cause would be, then the first cause could be something with only the power to make one universe, our own. But then a first cause could have formed that could have created two universes, but that's it. Or 3. Or more, or infinite. But of course, the infinitely powerful God is only one of an infinite other possible gods.

13. If we take this to its conclusion, there is nothing to stop a God of greater power being . . . An infinite number of beings — Philosophim

I should have written that as, "An infinite number of possible beings". Remember, we're talking about all the possibilities that entail under the rules of a first cause when we do not know what that first cause is.

Ok, I think that addresses the points that are still pertinent to the start. Feel free to ask for clarifications, and of course, keep trying to find holes!

You're making a VERY COMMON unwarranted leap from...

Logic is good for many things.

TO:

Logic is good for everything. — Hippyhead

Ok, this is better. First, I never claimed logic is good for everything. I claimed logic is good for the argument I posted. Can you explain to me why logic is not good for the argument posted? If you aren't addressing the argument in terms of the topic, then we're off topic. We can agree on that right?

The post assumes the rules of human reason are binding upon the subject of gods, without questioning such a huge assumption in any way at all, or offering evidence of any kind to support that assumption. — Hippyhead

Really? Where did I assume that? Can you point out in my post where I did that? I'm pretty sure I did not. Kindly point it out to me.

Pure moral relativism is a translation for, "Morality is an opinion". Such assessments of morality are cop outs because such a morality is useless. Its just a disguise for, "I can't figure it out, so let people do what they want". I call such moral relativism whateverman morality.

Any good moral relativism theory is going to have some common objective basis between two apparently separate moral ideals.

For example, (I apologize if this is grizzly) but many people think it is immoral to kill a baby. However, what if we take a situation in Nazi Germany, that a group of Jews are hiding under a house, and one woman has a baby. If the German's find the Jews, they will be brought to concentration camps...and you know how this ends.

Unfortunately, the baby starts to fuss. The only way the woman can quiet the baby enough is to stifle its ability to breath. For a time, this won't hurt. But unfortunately the German's will be staying longer than the baby can breath and stay alive. Any attempt to let the baby breath, will result in a gasp and a cry.

If the woman has to suffocate the baby, do we call her moral, or immoral? The whateverman moralist would say, "Sure, if they think it is.". But a more discerning moral relativist would try to find a common thread between the two. Yes, there were two opposing actions of moral claim, "A baby being killed, versus we shouldn't kill babies". But surely the reasoning behind both moral claims has a common thread?

Which leads to this point. If there is a common thread, can we truly say, "the way morality functions for you logically, psychologically and emotionally are virtually the same"? What if its not our common emotions, but a common reasoning behind morality? And what if even if our emotions do not bring us disgust, there are actions that we should or should not do regardless?

Just a line of thought to consider.

Hi there Philosophim, thanks for engaging.

Say I make claims X,Y and Z by referencing the Bible as the relevant authority. In that case it would be my burden to demonstrate that the Bible is in fact a qualified authority on the subjects of X,Y and Z.

Point being, it's not my burden to prove that the methodology you've chosen is qualified for the task to which you've applied it. It's your burden.

If you wish just to play a logic game while admitting it has no proven relevance to reality, ok, no problem.

All that said, I would agree it's entirely normal, almost universal, for folks to just assume without questioning that human reason is qualified to address any topic, no matter how large. Normal, but not very good philosophy. Imho, if your professors didn't already present you with this challenge (so far it sounds like you've not heard it before), then you should request a refund. — Hippyhead

I think you are letting your bias against religion cloud your ability to partake in some fun. Or is it you're worried you won't be able to figure out the flaw? If you wish to say, "Well you have to prove with human reason, why we should use human reason," before a topic can be addressed, why think on anything then? Now I COULD dive into a few pages on this topic, but that's not the point of the original post is it? You don't go to other topics and tell them, "You haven't proven logic first, so its pointless!"

Sorry, but I'm going to have the completely unreasonable demand that we will assume human logic is a safe starting point. To participate in even talking about tying your shoes, you need this. Within human logic, where is the flaw in the original post? You can point out where I am being illogical within human reason, but you cannot reason as a human, that using human reason is illogical.

Not a worry on the reply speed TVCL, we all have lives. =) Also, I have read quite a bit of your work as well. I have mainly read it to make sure I understood the points you were addressing. A very valuable link, and a great resource.

The first point that I might contend is that the approach that I've suggested only regards the self-subjective viewpoint. — TVCL

What we could posit is that the same principles of the heuristic apply directly over to a social context. — TVCL

Fantastic. I think these two quotes together help me understand where you are coming from. If I understand correctly, what you are looking for is that the steps, or methodology of obtaining knowledge, should be the same whether your goals are from a self-subjective view, or a group-subjective view.

While our process for obtaining knowledge can be defined by logic and avoiding contradictions, this does not necessitate that our knowledge is actual truth. Lets go back to the example of our person who traveled to the South pole while thinking that they were going to the North Pole. Recall the GPS knows they are actually at the South pole. Does the person who has traveled to the North pole know that they are at the South pole?

This is why I consider knowledge a methodology (or the result of a methodology to be more accurate). If the person in question had used the correct methodology of knowledge, and arrived at the conclusion that they were in the North pole without any contradictions or deviations from this methodology, they would by application, know that they were in the North pole, even though they were in truth, at the South pole.

Lets contrast that with a person who ignores their compass entirely, and just travels in a direction until it gets really cold. They then declare, "I know I'm at the North pole!" Whether they are actually at the North or South pole is irrelevant. The methodology they followed was an induction. A guess at best. They do not have knowledge, but a guess that either happens to align with the truth, or against the truth.

This is what I believe you are trying to put into words as well. This conclusion does not come easily to many, and I am again impressed by your thought process. As for your point of applying your heuristic to a group, I agree.

I'm going to repost a section from Chapter 3 here. I think you'll find its very similar to your statement.

"If other people exist as other “I’s” like myself, then they too can have deductive beliefs. I will call another I a “subject” and their ability to deduce is their “subjective deduction”. How do we handle that two of us can have different distinctive knowledge? The sensible way is to realize we must come to agreement on two things. First, there needs to be agreement about our distinctive knowledge. To agree, there must be an agreement of enough essential properties that we would conclude the same deductive result when applying this new distinctive agreement.. What properties are agreed to be essential between two people is called “distinctive context”.
To demonstrate a resolution of conflicting distinctive context, imagine I walk by a field and spy what I distinctively and applicably know to be a sheep. It has curly fur, hooves, and lacks a beard. A rancher is in the field tending the sheep. I call to him saying, “Nice sheep!” The rancher turns to me puzzled and states, “Actually, that’s a goat.”
I assume it is a difference in distinctive knowledge within the definition, so I politely ask the rancher what it is that makes that a goat.. Smiling the rancher explains not all goats have beards, but one distinction between sheep and goats is their tails. He shows me the short upright tail of the creature and explains that this property is essential to define a goat.
I reply, “I didn’t know that, thanks!” If I do so, I am expanding my distinctive knowledge to equal the rancher’s. However, context adds another layer of choice and complication. My agreement might amend my personal definition, or, it could be my definition is only within the context of speaking with ranchers, while keeping my old sheep definition the same for non-rancher contexts.
Alternatively, I could reject the distinctive knowledge of the rancher. Instead, I could state “The tail is unimportant. Its just a sheep with a short upright tail! Its silly to call it a goat when the defining feature of a goat is its beard.” There is nothing innate to reality which requires I accept the distinctive context of the rancher, just as there is nothing innate to reality that requires the rancher to accept my personal distinctive context. Distinctive contexts are choices of “I”s, and not laws of reality."

Note that I establish there is the knowledge of discrete experiences, or what one identifies in the mind, and then applicable knowledge, or how one takes that identity of the mind, and applies it to reality. I can define, and accept as a definition from others in my mind by my choice. There is nothing in reality that necessitates I do otherwise. However, the methodology of how I apply that distinction to reality, determines whether I have knowledge of that application, or if it is an induction. It does not matter if the context of the distinctions I hold is within the self-subjective, or the multisubjective, the steps of applicable knowledge are the same. To your point, we cannot have a relative methodology of applying our distinctions to reality, but we can have relative distinctions, or definitions.

What we have to be careful about in our assessment of contradictions, is whether these are contradictions in applying our definitions to reality, or contradictions within our definitions within ourselves, or against other people's definitions.

I can hold a definition that contradicts another's definition. And then I can use the methodology of knowledge to ensure that within the bounds of my definitions, I am not contradicted by reality. This may result in two people having knowledge within their own definitions, but then arrive at a logical conflict when these definitions and applications come together. I will leave it at this point to make sure you follow what I am saying, and if this matches with the intuition of your heuristic.

"A deduction as defined here will be "A conclusion that cannot be contradicted from the premises, and any further information we introduce.""? — TVCL

I knew I was going to get in trouble on this one! I needed to break this down, I will do so now. Lets say I deduce that when something is burned, it loses mass. Everything I have ever burned has lost mass, there is no contradiction. I then conclude, "Part of the definition of something being burned means that it will lose mass." Fair enough. One day I burn a new metal, and I discover (this is real btw), that it GAINS mass. I have to decide what to do with this information. Do I include it within the category of "burning", or it is something else new? If I decide that this does count as burning, then I can no longer deduce, "All things that burn lose mass".

I once knew that things that burned lost mass, but now I know that things that burn can also gain mass. So if knew information comes into our context while we discuss a deduction, if that new information invalidates that deduction, it once was a deduction, but now it is no longer.

If this sounds like we are somewhat on the same page, feel free to introduce where you would like to take it. I am enjoying the conversation, and will gladly go where it takes us.

With thanks for your answers;

I meant that ; sometimes we get a probability ratio of for example of : 1/ 5 ∧ 23 from a calculation

but,in fact,a number of; 1/ 5 ∧ 8 for that is perfectly the absolute answer. — boby

Are you talking about significant digits? So lets use the decimal system for a second.

We do a calculation that shows we need to make a board 1.0000000000001 meters long. But we just round it to 1.0. Is that what you mean by meaningfulness?

If so, we use significant digits depending on our need for accuracy. That depends both on how accurate you need the measure to be, and how accurate you can actually use. If I have a meter stick, nanometers are pointless to me, because I cannot measure in that. And if I really only need something to be within a few millimeters of a meter, nanometers are also pointless, so we don't use them.

Did that answer what you were looking for?

Thanks for that link! I never know about that. I would definitely say his own bias affects that equation. It notes that he started with a 50/50, and used things like the existence of goodness as positive for a God. That doesn't fly in this argument. There is nothing to state that such a God in my argument would be good, evil, flying spaghetti monster, or even still alive today.

And no worry, you don't need any analytical training in philosophy or knowledge of any specific author. Just take the definitions, take the arguments, and see if the conclusion is correct using the premises of the argument and logic. No fancy word play needed here!

I'm reluctant to tell you where to look specifically, because I may have missed a flaw and would like it pointed out. Also, the exercise should be fun to think through. I've always enjoyed constructing the argument in my head, seeing the puzzle, and determining if the argument works. Once someone starts like saying, "Well on point 5, you can't conclude this because..." then I'll be giving hints.

Of course, it may be that people aren't that interested in reading it and thinking through it. I'll leave it up for at least a week to give people a chance though.

Hi Hippyhead. So in discussions like these, we assume the norm. If you can show that the norm is wrong in this instance, then feel free. But it kind of like someone saying, "Lets discuss metaphysics" with another replying, "But can you prove you're not an alien first?!" =)

So how to examine this argument? There are premises and definitions I put forward. Assume norms like the fact English is a viable language to discuss this in. Then, run with the logic.

If you cannot find a flaw within the premises and definitions, then take the logic that I put forward to its conclusion. I'll post some hints if you're in the ballpark.

To Mayael, I'm not sure if you were repyling to myself or tim wood. I don't think tim was addressing the big bang, so I'm assuming its me. The big bang is only an example of a first cause that does not entail a God. It does not mean that the big bang IS the first cause. For all we know, its something else. I'm using familiar ideas so that way the argument isn't just an abstract equation, but has something more concrete to relate to as well.

Please read up on the scientific method. — TheMadFool

If you wish to end this discussion, that's fine, I don't mind. But we're here to discuss and show each other what we think of the issue. I did not simply dismiss your argument and tell you, "Please read up on neuroscience." I gave you some links, and explained some points.

If I am wrong in my claim in my post, point out where my flaw is, show me why, and we can continue to discuss. I can be wrong, its happened before! If not, I've stated my points, and we can be done.

Depends on what you mean by suffering. Do you mean being in a state of uncomfortableness or displeasure that will eventually dissapate? I consider some of the tests I had to take back in the day suffering under that definition. =)

I would say that type of suffering is not objectively bad. Having emotional states that we do not like can motivate us to actions that could be called, "good".

But what about suffering that is permanent? Like losing a leg? Having irrecoverable brain damage? Having a child die on you? At a first glance, I lean towards those things as being objectively bad. If I could save someone from such a fate, I would do so in a heartbeat without any reservation or regret. Such suffering is not I think the emotional state, but the diminishing of one's capabilities and person.

Not a worry tim wood, its a new argument A lot of times people want to apply their knowledge of old arguments in this, and miss what I'm trying to say. I presented this to several fellow grad students back in the day, and it took a while before they understood what the argument was trying to say. They weren't slouches, so feel free to ask questions and follow ups.

Its meant to be a fun thinking exercise and awaken that wonder of philosophical exploration again! There are no stupid questions or attacks on it, so feel free to throw anything out there. I also will not be offended, take anything personally, or think anything less of anyone. I just want a good, fun discussion from people who like philosophy. =)

I always enjoy your comments tim wood. Where does the logic break exactly though?

I predicated that there are only two options. Either everything has a cause, or there is a certain point in the causal chain in which there is no prior cause. This is a first cause, and it has no reason for its being besides the fact that it is.

Yet I show that this choice is actually false. That it is necessary and inevitable that even in the idea that there exists an infinite chain of causes, why it is the case this is, cannot be explained by anything else than, "That's the way it is".

I may not be clear enough on this point, which is on me. Lets look at it this way.

Let us say we conclude that there is actually an infinite causal chain of explanations for why anything exists.

Lets call this realization set(infiniteRegress). There is still one question which is not answered.
Why is it that existence has an infinite regress of causality?

We can't say, set(InfiniteR) exists because of Y, which then exists because of Z, which then...

Because it leads back to the samepoint. Set(infintiteRegress2) (which honestly is the same as 1).

And again the question of, "Well why is THAT set of answers an infinite regress of causality over a finite regress of causality?" appears. You can always go outside of that and ask the question. You can take the entire metanarrative of it, and that question remains. The only answer at the end is, "Because it is". The fact of realizing there is an infinite regressive causality (if true) is realizing that its existence has no explanation, besides the fact that it is.

This means that all causality inevitably leads into a first cause. This cause has no prior explanation or rule for why it is, it simply is. And I'm not talking hypothetically, I'm talking logically. It is impossible by how we understand causation for there to exist a cause, that does not eventually up its chain of causation, have a first cause.

Second, its perfectly possible that a God as defined above is a flying magic purple hippopatami. That doesn't counter the logic or the conclusion. The logic embraces it. I note this in point 15.

One might ask, if all beings have causes, what the being of a being that is uncaused would be. — tim wood

But I did not state that all beings have causes. All I stated was that since it is true that there must be at least one first cause in the causal chain of existence, and it is necessary that the first cause could be anything, what is the probability that it is a God as I defined it above, or not a God?

A scientific theory must be falsifiable or it becomes a matter of "anything goes" and although we'd have confirmation of a theory it would be impossible to know if we're wrong. — TheMadFool

Just a quick clarification. If something is not falsifiable, it is impossible to have confirmation of it as a theory. Confirmation of something means that it has not been proven to be false. If you invent an idea in your head that cannot be falsified, it means you have never attempted to confirm it against reality, or you cannot confirm it against reality. Falsification means it must be falsifiable when applied against reality. In other words, there are clear properties that match, and cannot match with reality. A dog is falsifiable for example, because it has clear properties that are not a cat. So If I believe something to be a dog, when I apply it I must have clear distinctions that must be matched. If I try to match the identity of a dog to a cat, I will be proven false, because the real properties of a cat falsify my attempt to label it as a dog.

If reincarnation is not falsifiable, then it has not, and cannot be confirmed. Reincarnation must match certain specific rules and limits. We would then use those as markers against reality to see if our claim that what is happening in reality, is true or false in regards to reincarnation.

As such, your point here:

The only way a theory of reincarnation based on memories can be proven wrong is if the absence of past life memories is inconsistent with reincarnation but that isn't the case. — TheMadFool

I don't feel is quite correct. First, it must be shown that between two people, A, and B, both must share the memory of A, even though B was never in the situation in which A formed that memory.

Think back to Phlogistim. There was the theory of Phlogistim and oxygen. But one thing which was confirmed for sure, was that certain things caught on fire.

So let us pretend that science does eventually two people, A and B, share a memory A had, that B was not there for. This is so we can clarify the what falsification for reincarnation would mean. If this were the case, several different theories would form. One might be brain wave resonance that extends through space and time like quantum mechanics. One might be that its rare, and might just be random chance. These are all theories that at least base themselves on testable things. They have clear definitions of what they are. They may be wrong, but they are identifiable.

Where does this leave reincarnation as a theory in all of this? If we know that memories are formed in the brain, how do you say that a person today is the same person of yesterday when their brains are different? I suppose one way to do this is to keep brain scans of famous people and see how similar they are to another. So over decades, you could have a pool of brains of famous people. When someone has a memory of a famous dead person's experience (because lets face it, no one has past memories of non-famous people), we could examine their brain and see how similar it was to the dead celebrity. This allows something we can falsify. If the brains match, then maybe we can say nearly identical matching brains have a chance of triggering similar memories. We could call this, "Reincarnation" if we wanted to.

This is a falsifiable theory of reincarnation based on memories, if it is actually true that one can have the memories of a dead person. If however you include a soul into this mix, you cannot create a falsifiable theory. That is because you cannot define a soul in a way that can be applied to reality with clear properties. I can say, "Memories belong to the mind," and that is falsifiable, because we might be able to show that memories do not belong to the mind. However, we have never been able to do that. You can say, "Memories belong to the soul," but since you cannot clearly define a soul, we have no way to apply this claim to reality.

Science deals in what can be applied to reality. If you cannot find a way to apply it to reality, it has no chance of being an identifiable thing in reality with clear rules and definitions of what it is. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?

But being unfalsifiable relegates any theory of reincarnation based solely on memories of past lives to pseudoscience. Can we do anything to repair such theories to make them scientific? — TheMadFool

I was answering this point from your second post.

This is why I was looking for ways to fix the theory of reincarnation predicated on verifiable memories of past lives. Making such a theory scientific will push up its credibility rating to 100%, a desirable state of affairs, don't you think? — TheMadFool

I was answering these points.

Well, that's the point. It can't be tested. — TheMadFool

Then you have your answer. It cannot be scientific.

I don't wish to go that far. All I'm interested in is showing that a theory of "something" that retains memories of its past existence and gets transferred from one life to another is one possible explanation for "past life" memories. — TheMadFool

If you want to keep it scientific, then you have to demonstrate how we can test that something. So first, you have to identify what a memory is, because we will need to identify a memory from one person, and from another.

Here's a layman's terms breakdown of memory and the brain. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/health-and-human-body/human-body/human-memory/
A few points.
1. We know where certain memories reside in the brain.
2. People can forget memories through brain damage.

These are testable, and found as repeatable.

Now refer back to my post where I break down possibilities to prove that a person can have an identical memory of another human being, when when human being had not been there to form that memory. Recall that you must first show that someone can actually recalled the memories of another person. That has not been shown as of now. The tests from Stephenson are not enough to show this. Science must be testable, and repeatable. Meaning you would need to show multiple tests from different scientists confirming that when all other phlogiston possibilities are shown to be wrong, the only remaining conclusion is that these children have actually recalled the memories of dead people.

So again, even prior to reincarnation, you must show it is scientifically possible that people can recall the memories of dead people. Only then can reincarnation even be a considered explanation of why this is. Can you do so?

I mean that there are many cases in which, when we calculate and get a probability ratio number like that; P(A),but
in real for Pa(A) less than P(A),the absolute and certain answer is Pa(A) . — boby

Sorry, I'm lost. Its been years since I took a statistics class, and a google search did not easily reveal what P(A) and Pa(A) were.

So P is the probability of A (our thing happening). Does Pa stand for the Probability Actual of thing thing happening?

So if we say its a 50% chance that something happens over 10 flips, but the actual probably is 13%?

If this is the case, this is described by "Standard deviation", which is the understanding that our probability has a likelihood of varying a certain degree over X number of attempts.

Meaning that if I have a 50% chance of something occurring, and I flip the coin once, the pa(A) would be 100% heads with one iteration. The more iterations we do of the coin flip, the lower the standard deviation becomes with different calculations.

But at this point I'm not sure this is a philosophy question anymore, but a statistics question. Statistics has been utilized for centuries, I'm quite certain that what you are trying to ask a question about has an answer there.

I would argue at this time Alex that philosophy of mind has now been merged with neuroscience. The days of postulating on what a mind are without reference to science are now over. This is the natural course of philosophy. Philosophy asks questions about things we have no defined concept of until it can become a science. Mind is now science. Mind is a physical reality we can study and learn about in a lab. To say the mind is not physical, is to say it cannot be tested. I have cited a few articles that show very much, that thoughts can be read, memories can altered, and tested on.

Why do you think the idea of souls is unscientific? If there are cases where a person has verifiable memories of being someone else before s/he was born then, one explanation, among others, is that there's something that survives death and enters another person and that something is the soul. — TheMadFool

A good question. Science is about proposing hypotheses that can be tested. So first we have to construct what a soul is. Do you have a definition of a soul that can be tested? Where did someone get the idea of a soul? Was it from an experience, or is it only an idea?

To get an idea, I'm going to revisit an old scientific theory called Phlogiston theory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory
Essentially, the idea was that fire occurred in things because there was a substance called phlogiston that existed inside of flamable objects. If you'll check the link, a lot of effort went into building up the theory, with plenty of scientists pushing their ideas such that, "Air absorbed the released phlogiton eventually, which was then absorbed by plants. This is why air eventually stopped burning and did not continue on forever."

Theories that sound nice on first glance, but cannot or have not yet been tested, are called "plausiblities". They are the initial creative ideas of our mind that appeal to us. As Phlogisiton was tested, certain contradictions began to show up that could not be explained. For example, some metals when burned actually increase their mass, meaning they are not losing phlogiston. Eventually the oxygen theory of knowledge became the scientific standard. It wasn't because it was want people wanted. It was because the testing showed conclusions which contained repeatedly verifiable results without any competing theory.

Soul theory is the same as phlogiston theory. It sounds nice. We can make all of these nice explanations and reasonings, but they are only explanations and reasonings of creative concepts in our head, not things we apply and test in reality.

Soul theory is simply a story. Its a nice comforting story. Who wouldn't want to live forever or assume they have a greater power then simply being another animal with intelligence? Who doesn't want to think we are special over all of the other living creatures on the planet? But at the end of the day, its just a story. There's no definition of a soul to test. We can't even agree what mind is, you think we can agree on what a soul is?

And to your point that "isn't a soul an explanation about verifiable past memories?" No, it is not. Just like me saying, "Perhaps the person has psychic powers" is not. Or "God gave the man the memories of a famous person" is not. All of those are fun stories that we WANT, but cannot be verified through experimentation. So understand that I do not come at this with derision, or as insulting to your beliefs. Neither do I think believing such things is an insult to anyone's intelligence. We all start off thinking these things sound amazing, and wouldn't it be cool if they were real?

We've found out our intelligence can make us very susceptible to creating stories that we believe might be real. This is incredibly important to our creativity, growth, and discovery. But, like anything about us, we have to learn the right way to use these gifts so they do not get out of hand. You might think exercising 7 days a week with the heaviest weights will get you stronger, but it turns out science (by using the found methodologies that consistently have been shown to have the best chance of matching reality) show you will get stronger if you actually put a few rest days in between. You might think the Sun revolves around the Earth watching the Sun rise in the East, and set in the West. It turns out science found we actually revolve around the Sun.

So before you even address reincarnation, which assumes the soul is something real, you must show how a soul is something which can be scientific. I could try to come up with something for reincarnation, but I am honestly at a loss as to how to make a soul scientific, because I don't even know what one is. Can you try? I'm willing to give it a shot.

Aw shucks tim wood, that's a helluva compliment! Hopefully I can keep it clear as we discuss here as well.

I posit that this is the best we can hope for as a starting point of epistemology, or it may even be considered a heuristic for proto-epistemology because I believe that this is the point that we must start from the moment the enquiry commences, prior even to any formal epistemology. — TVCL

I agree TVCL. In my reading I see argument expressed in different ways within Descartes, Locke, Popper, etc. If you construct a theory of knowledge, it must be able to be applied to itself. So to start, you must come up with a conclusion that cannot be contradicted. From there, you can build upon it. How one words its is important, and how one builds upon it can lead to different places that can end up very wrong.

For my point, I avoid the idea of "truth" in the formation of knowledge. If you do not know what knowledge is, how can you know the truth? Earlier in your posts you stated, "In all fairness, I never define truth and am not altogether sure whether I should at this point." You knew that something bugged you about it right?

If you use the word truth in your initial premise without quite knowing what it is, your foundation is based on an induction, and not a deduction. A deduction as defined here will be, "A conclusion that cannot be contradicted from the premises, and any further information we introduce." So we don't get too confused on that point either, if you read the link you'll note that definitions are based upon the contexts of two people. Since its you and I at this point, a deduction for both of us will be a conclusion that neither of us can contradict with the information at hand. In including more people, we make it more difficult to deduce, but can be more hopeful that it is exposed to more "potential contradictions" then you or I alone could throw at it.

An induction is by our definition, "A conclusion that does not necessarily follow from the premises and information on hand. Again, this will be within the context of both of us. I note in link four that an induction is less valid, which I'm sure most will agree on. This leads us to your use of truth without a clear definition.

We first need a clear definition that we can then attempt to deductively apply to reality. Since your use of truth is not clear, it can only be inductively applied to reality. We can induce many things against reality, but this is where knowledge theories fail. If we are to claim, "I know what knowledge is," there must be as little induction as possible.

But I feel we can remove the word "truth" in your writing and replace it with "knowledge". Truth is generally seen as an objective reality apart from the subjective. You are talking about truth as a subjective, and used as a tool. To me, that is what knowledge is. It is a tool human being use to understand their world as correctly as possible to obtain their goals.

You are also currently examining the self-subjective viewpoint, and have not yet expanded it into contexts like societies. Once you start doing that, you'll see your use of truth runs into some problems. People generally think of truth like an objective, but you'll run into a situation in which your "truth" and another "truth" will come into conflict.

For example, lets say you decide your goal is to get to the North Pole using only a compass as a directional guide. You let everyone know, then shut off communication for a month as you make your way North, and finally arrive at the North Pole! You did it! You reached your goal! Except unknown to you, a prankster flipped your compass signals, you you're actually at the South Pole. Did you travel both North and South? No, as you mentioned, that is a contradiction. But your "truth", and the "truth" of the GPS signal that tells the world where you are are in contradiction. At that point you have contradictory truths, and your base starts to crumble as you try to reconcile them without quite knowing what truth means. Make it knowledge instead of truth, and we can view these conflicts as a puzzle to be worked through.

And finally, changing you "truth" to "knowledge" helps solve the circularity issue of truth measuring truth. You are talking about two separate identities. An objective reality that you have a difficult time defining, and a methodological attempt to create conclusions about the world that fit within that objective reality. I postulate the objective reality, which is something that cannot be contradicted, is truth, while our methodology to grasp this is knowledge. What do you think?

Regardless, I believe we can both agree that knowledge is a tool, and like any good tool:

1. Knowledge must be useful to us
2. Knowledge must be consistent
3. And one way we can establish knowledge is consistent, is if its methodology is built on a foundation of deductions, not inductions. This is because inductions are beliefs that can potentially be contradicted with the information we have.

The first deduction you realized was, "To claim knowledge of something, it must be free of contradictions".

As for my statement, "Any discussion of knowledge must begin with beliefs", that's just because I suck at introductions. =) A better sentence would probably have been, "All discussions of knowledge eventually must address beliefs, so that is where I will begin." You can begin anywhere in the discussion of knowledge, but I believe it has to inevitably address a few issues, beliefs being one of them.

Regardless, feel free to continue to use your heuristic in the manner you understand in our discussion. Since I think I know where you are coming from, I think we both have a context that we can understand. If the heuristic runs into potential problems, I'll point them out. Please do the same with mine. Maybe we'll get somewhere with knowledge, and if not, I think we'll both have a good time.

The problem with Karma is it is an article of Faith, and therefore is not philosophy.

Faith - the belief in something one desires, despite there being no evidence of it, or even evidence that contradicts its existence.

We can examine the value of faith in philosophy, but as philosophers, we cannot use faith in our reasoning. Karma sounds nice. It appeals to the desire that there be justice for evil, and rewards for the good. But it is only ever wishful thinking.

While it might sound defeatist or cruel, philosophy is about figuring out reality so that we can live a life empowered with the knowledge of our actions. No, the good you do will not come back to you. So why be good? No, the evil you do will not come back and punish you later on. So why not do evil? Those are the questions that you avoid when you hold onto articles of faith. Since Karma is not reality, you will make decisions on beliefs of things outside of reality. This can get you, and others, extremely hurt, life ruined, or killed.

If you are interested in the mind, study neuroscience and psychology. Philosophy has had its day, but it is really not much of a contributer at this point in history.

I view philosophy in comparison to science. Science has a theory based off of a known phenomenon, and attempts to prove and disprove it. But science deals in the objectively defined. We knew that lightning existed. We just didn't know why it existed. That is the job of science.

Philosophy is the job of defining identities in the world on an objective level that can then be tested with science. It is to take what we simply use for granted, and analyze it to a point in which we are better able to understand it and use it. Knowledge for example. We have a general understanding of what knowledge is, but it is not an objective definition, or even known to be real. We are trying to define that which is undefined. If we are successful, then we discover a base definition of something that can then be tested.

The goal of philosophy is honestly to destroy itself. It is to take the ideas within all of us that we suspect or objective share conditions, and define them in such a way that they can be confirmed as such.

Here's where the meat of the issue is: "it certainly appears non-physical". — TheMadFool

What appears to us as physical or non-physical has no bearing on rational discourse. There are plenty of things that we interpret or wish to be that are wrong. Neuroscience has shown very clearly that the mind is tied to the brain, and is a result of its chemical processes. This isn't really a debate anymore. It doesn't matter what anything appears to be, when we have the facts and studies to show what it is.

Its like looking at the sun across the sky and saying, "Huh, the Sun goes around the Earth." By appearance, that's the only conclusion one can make. But we've studied it, gone into space, and realized that WE go around the Sun. Its an absolute shock to our common sense conclusion, but that is reality, not our personal perception of it.

The soul seems like a good candidate for reincarnation - that immaterial substance that, like a rolling drop of water gathers sawdust, collects memories of existence as a particular person/being; these memories giving it identity, defining it as to who it is. — TheMadFool

At this point, you've removed yourself from science though. The only way you can get reincarnation and science to work together, is if you can define reincarnation as something science can examine.

A soul is simply an idea someone came up with. Like a unicorn. No one has ever observed a soul. People can think, "I will live forever in some way," but they never do. A soul does not exist by fact, because no one has ever observed a soul. No one has ever observed it gathering memories, or forming an identity. It is only an idea that our mind exists as something separate from the real universe.

To believe in something that cannot be tested or thought of apart from faith is religion. Philosophy can ask questions about faith, and whether it is viable and helpful in our lives. But philosophy itself is not having faith, it is seeking the truth as reality is. If faith is viable, a philosopher would know this because their logic shows that it is, not because they desire that it is.

I'll try to give a reasonable answer to your points.

1. If the observable universe had not manifested would sufficient preconditions necessarily have been absent?

This is impossible to know. First, there is the assumption that there actually were preconditions. Second, there is the assumption that the laws of the universe are the same today as they were at inception. This is outside of our knowledge.

2. If preconditions existed outside of what is observable what would the most basic effective characteristics of that state or force be?

This is also impossible to know, unless we see observable evidence of its impact. For example, we knew about lightning. As we studied lightning, we started to realize there was something that "caused" the lightning, due to the fact that if it suddenly just "appeared" it would violate other observations and conclusions about reality. So I would suppose if you observed something that seemed impossible to just appear, within our understanding of physics, we would believe that there was likely an underlying cause we could find.

3. What are the most basic reasonable implications about the nature of preexisting conditions based on observable physical law?

I think this was answered by point 2. We believe there is a pre-existing condition to a cause when it seems the cause appearing without any prior pre-condition, violates our understanding of the universe.

4. Which of those implications is most likely to cause human beings to attribute personal character or deity?

If you're saying why do people think God caused the universe, its simple. The universe is complicated. The world is complicated. We don't think its possible to just, "Happen" without any prior explanation. We also don't think its probable that something as complex as life just happened by chance. People are more likely to believe in agency over chance. Think about people who purchase lottery tickets. They think purchasing it and wishing on it makes its likely enough they will win, even though statistically, you just won't.

5. Is it possible to know, derive meaningful understanding of, and predict the future action of an unobservable force based on present observations of the material universe?

In some ways, yes. Have you ever heard of the doppler blue shift? Doppler blueshift is used in astronomy to determine relative motion:

The Andromeda Galaxy is moving toward our own Milky Way galaxy within the Local Group; thus, when observed from Earth, its light is undergoing a blueshift.
Components of a binary star system will be blueshifted when moving towards Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift

We often times use the results of an unobservable action, to judge and predict what that unobservable existence has done, and might do.

Since I see you're talking about God (its ok to say it) people likely believe God to be an orderly being because of the current day of our universe. If we believe there is a prior cause, and that prior cause intended things to be this way, then we attribute the characteristics of that cause based on the state of the world today. Since mankind is pretty important in our minds, and a lot of us think we're hot stuff, its natural to believe that God did everything to create us. So why?

Since we cannot observe God directly, we must examine ourselves and the world and try to predict what kind of God it is. At least, as a new idea. Of course the idea of God can evolve from there into a great many concepts as the world has shown.

6. Is it necessary for such a precondition or force to remain intact subsequent to initiating material consequence?

Nope. I suppose the reason why people think God would still exist is
A. If you're powerful to start an entire universe, you're powerful to keep existing beyond aging
B. Humanity has no concept of what a trillion years is
C. We're social animals. We like to feel like we matter to others, and that we're cared for.

7. Is it reasonable to ascribe continuing agency to this preexisting condition or unseen force?

Depends on how you define the force. Since the force in question can't be known itself, you can invent whatever attributes to it as you like for a hypothesis. If you believe the force still exists, you would likely need to show certain things that happen today, that seemingly could not happen without that force in question. An example of this is a miricle.

8. How might an investigator reorient further investigation, self-concept, and disposition toward such a precondition or force if able to know its characteristics more concretely?

Again, I believe you would have to look at the world as it is today and find evidence of its impact that can only be attributed to it, and nothing else.

It doesn't matter if you would be oblivious of who "you" are today, in your head that "you" would be much happier and have a better life.

It is saying, "I wish my perspective were with a better being in a better situation then I am right now."
— Philosophim

That's fine, but it's still not true that you could be anything else but you. It is just a turn of phrase in the way you describe it, but not an actual point of fact. — schopenhauer1

I did not fully answer your point. I agree 100% that it is impossible to be anything else but you. All I was doing was describing the thought process behind it. We as human beings can imagine impossible things. It is more of a desire and expression of woe or longing in a manner that is entertaining to ourselves. Humans have "mirror neurons" which allow us to envision ourselves in the place of another being. Since we have this, its natural that people would want to also envision themselves as having their cognition and self while being another being.

Philosophy of mind is disappearing into neuroscience, so metaphysics is best answered through there. Ethically and metaphysically with mirror neurons understood, it means we can envision ourselves as other beings, and likely allows us to sympathize and treat other things better. We can imagine ourselves as that being suffering, so we try not to cause it any suffering ourselves.

Much appreciated Wayfarer! This was very informative, thank you.

Lets look at it this way. Lets pretend that even if "you" were something different, that core perspective of living and thinking within that perspective would still exist. It doesn't matter if you would be oblivious of who "you" are today, in your head that "you" would be much happier and have a better life.

It is saying, "I wish my perspective were with a better being in a better situation then I am right now."

Great! I think we both understand. Having read both your reply to myself and tim wood, I think I know what you're trying to describe. The understanding of what may be true, versus what is true, is the question of knowledge.

I believe if you replace "truth" with knowledge, your steps will make more sense. What you're doing at this point is the initial conclusion that many theories of knowledge have started with. Namely, that knowledge must start with elimination of what is contradictory. You ask where you should go from here? That is what every philosopher asks at this point. There have been many roads, but they usually end poorly. That doesn't mean we don't try though!

I have some writing of my own that I will share with you. Part one is basic, and generally concludes a similar line of thought as yourself. Part 2 is where I go from there. Part 3 I introduce societal context. Part 4 I introduce rational inductions. They aren't too long, and you might enjoy them, at least for a spring board of ideas. I do suggest at first if you don't understand a point, keep reading. I generally keep referencing back a bit, so it may become clearer as you go.

Part 1 The basics of knowledge
https://docs.google.com/document/d/17cHCI-_BY5k0tmpWXSoHCniGWW8hzpbVDDptLp5mIgg/edit?usp=sharing

Part 2 How to apply knowledge within personal contexts
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Crx8zMpD9cdZ47Zw4RDhsS7VUzyb4xCdhIbEfcV10oA/edit?usp=sharing

Part 3 Knowledge within societal contexts
https://docs.google.com/document/d/14_KGMPbO2e_z8icrjuTmxVwGLxxUA0B_CqNT-lF6SXo/edit?usp=sharing

Part 4 Rational Induction
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q84NCGIcwkjytFZaLBIv9JmRGzhKHDjlV7j_dDPTDAY/edit?usp=sharing

I'm sharing this because you're the real deal, a person who genuinely wishes to consider epistemology, knowledge, and truth. Some of it may overlap with what you've considered, some may be a spring board to further thought, and some might be flat out wrong. =) I welcome the discussion.

↪Philosophim that is logical, but quite not what major religious sources would agree with — Augustusea

I suppose this can be the case. I think this is an indicator of those who are willing to bring logic to their religion, and those who are not.

I don't think it exposes a fatal flaw in his beliefs, just a fatal flaw in his definitions. I think I responded similarly to a post you had on omnipotence. If you define a word as being impossible, then there really is no conversation. Such "victories" will change no hearts or minds.

As a philosopher, we should be fair to the people we discuss with in the pursuit of truth. See if your friend is able to accept the fact that "omniscience" cannot mean an impossible word, but something possible. For example, "As knowledgeable as a being can be." You can site the fact that God genuinely does not know what a person will do before they do it, as why would God bother telling people to act a certain way?

If he's insistent that God must be an impossible omniscience, then just understand that your friend is not interested in a logical conversation trying to get to the truth, but an insistence on defending their own biases and beliefs. Everyone generally argues from such a standpoint, but those who refuse to consider alternative viewpoints and branches of thought are not worth your time. You will not change them. If you are interested in exploring topics about God with people who are interested in such conversations, stick around here!

There is no reason. If we are to postulate that the big bang was the "beginning", then there should be no reason for any rules on what could, and could not form.

So lets take this to its logical end. Lets say that there was matter that didn't follow rules, and matter that did follow rules. If anything could have formed, by probability with that amount of mass, we would have both.

If we understand stability for, "Things to exist the same way over a tick of time", then instability would be for something to "Eventually exist differently over a tick of time".

This leads to a second question, "Why is there still existence after all of these trillions of years?" After all, the question of, "Why don't things just vanish? is in the same vein. Again, logically, there must have been bits of matter that just vanished after a period of time, and for all we know, some matter that exists today has a rule that it will vanish after a period of time from existence.

But we could put the two questions together and postulate that matter that would be limited in its existence over trillions of years is likely less stable. Matter that existed for trillions of years is highly stable.

Thus we could conclude that the reason why after trillions of years, we have matter that behaves in a predictable fashion is because it is stable enough to last trillions of years. Perhaps the first few millions of years were quite a chaotic time, and what is left over is that matter that just won't quit, and insists on existing, and being what it is.

Tell your friend to think of a physics problem. We can calculate that if we release a mass of x, under gravity of y it will fall with a force on the ground of z. Are we to say that God cannot understand this? Of course God can. Therefore his knowledge includes determinism. Perhaps your friend may try to claim God has some knowledge outside of determinism too, but it doesn't preclude God's obvious knowledge of determinism as well.

And to answer your title, God's knowledge that of the equation above doesn't mean God affects that equation. If a person decides to test the equation themselves, God will know the answer to what will happen without God's involvement.

If you define omnipotent as, "The power to do anything." then you aren't proving that God is impossible, you are proving that your word, "omnipotent" is impossible.

We can define words however we like. But they only have meaning in reality if they can apply to reality. One thing we can know for certain is that a contradiction is impossible. If you define omnipotent as, "The most power a being in this universe can have", then you're good.

Some may state, "This limits God!" No, it makes God a real possibility. Compared a a human, an "omnipotent being" might have limits, but it would still be greater than us.

Also, I think its quite obvious God has limits. God tells human beings to act a particular way. Why not just design the human beings to act that way? The simple solution is, that's the limit of designing a human being. A human has the capability to act in a way God would like, but God can't force the human being to act the way God would like. That's a pretty obvious limit that few would argue.

If the ability of a person to remember another dead person's memory is not reincarnation, what is your definition of reincarnation?

1. There are verifiable memories of past lives — TheMadFool

Ok, then we can make reincarnation falsifiable.

If it is true that memories have been found to be located within the brain, then we know that a dead person's memories resided in their brain.

In theory, if the same physical and chemical properties were repeated within a brain, then the memory of a previous brain would be identical.

Thus, "Reincarnation" would have to be defined as an instance in which a new brain has the identical physical and chemical properties of an older dead brain. Of course, there's nothing to stop this from happening between two living brains either.

Further, reincarnation implies that one can remember an event that has never happened to itself directly. So we would have to have two people recollecting the same event, even though one person was never in the location of the other. (This also does not rule out two people having the same memory of something neither have experienced, but I don't want to go there).

Since it would be more difficult to measure between a dead and a living brain, a starting point would be to see if identical memories, as specified above, could happen in two living people. The simplest place to start would likely be between identical twins.

First, you might attempt to see if it is possible for a pair of twins to have an identical memory of something they have both experienced. We will need to take and record both of their brain states over a set period of time while they are trying to remember something. A success would be if both could remember the same memory state that the other had never encountered before.

You could go on from there I think. Perhaps if you could prove that people can have the same memory of something, when one did not have the experience, then we could look at the idea of brains that aren't as similar being able to experience the same thing. Finally, if that was possible, we could probably set up records of a few generational decades in which a person recounted a memory in detail while their brain state was recorded, and someone else happened to do the same after that initial person was dead.

Does this sound like something viable?

I love this post! Its a good point. We know what hurts us and what we fear, but we don't know very well what obtaining "heaven" would be like. I think heaven is often times described as the "absence of pain.". It is peace. Which is amusing if you think about it, because heaven is often described as having an absence, not of having "some thing".

Could we create such a place on the world where displeasure is completely eliminated, and every single need and want is fulfilled? We could try. I think you would need enough wealth that you did not need to work. Work would be optional, as in a pursuit that satisfies your personal desires. If you trained your mind and body to be healthy, and could do so with optimal nutrition and rest, to avoid pain or damage. Finally you would need safety, security, and people who loved you to the rate that you would find fits you best.

So heaven is freedom from having to do anything for others for survival, health, and adequate love. I think there are a few lucky individuals who fit this on Earth. What do you think?

To Benj96 and Tim Wood. Let me clarify what I mean by "fear death". It does not mean crippling terror or despair. Go to the roof of the tallest sky scraper you can think of, walk up to the edge, look down, and tell me you do not have some fear.

When you are driving along the road, a car careens in front of you, you instantly mash the brake and wonder if you were in time to stop what could be a fatal crash. If you walk in the woods and a large viscious and angry bear charges at you, you will feel fear. That is all fear of death.

If you had no fear for your own safety at all, you would likely not survive very long. Also, this is not to be confused with deciding to act on that fear or not. You can still fear something, and act against it.

Ok TVCL. I think I was viewing parameters as specifics you would feed to the goal. You're basically saying the goal and its results are set. Kind of like F(x) = y. X is the parameter, and Y is defined in terms of that parameter. If you changed the parameters to F(x, z) = y, we are also changing the goal, which is the entire equation.

If I'm understanding this correctly, then truth is merely the outcome of whatever we place into our goal. As long as X is plugged in, we'll get y. If we plug in X and Z, we get a different type of y. You are not speaking about a universal truth, but the result in regards to the goal, or the equation we have made.

The one barrier we are putting up is that the goal and truth must not be contradictory. It can't conclude up is down for example. That is fair, and good. I think, in writing this, that you should forgo the phrase "makes sense", as it is a loose term that will be up to the reader to define. Trust me, I know how easy it is to make a phrase or use that sounds like one particular thing in my head, then its read 40 different ways by others.

Perhaps to keep within your vein of speaking, simply state that logic is useful, and contradictions in logic are not. Myself concluding that up is down helps me in no way if I am to try to use up or down as useful directions. We may not know exactly how to define truth, but contradictions we know are the negation of truth. I don't think you'll find many people who will disagree with that.

So we have personal goals (We'll ignore society for now), when we meet those goals with the parameters we have, we feel it is true. To eliminate one aspect of this being an opinion, we state that the fulfillment of the goal must not be a contradiction.

Goals -> fullfillment -> cannot have contradiction = personal truth.

At this point you state that logic cannot be the sole measure of truth. But it can be the sole measure for what is not true correct? At this point I think you can safely say, "Any pursuit of truth must use logic, for logic is the one thing we can ascertain that can show something that is not true." That is, as long as you define logic as that which identifies a contradiction.

For example: 7 = 7. If we were to claim that 7 = 8, we would be in a contradiction. We can realize at this point that if I tried any other number to be equal to 7, besides 7, there would be a contradiction.
Thus, I could make a goal saying, "My goal is to see if another number can equal seven, besides 7 itself." If I concluded, "8 is the other number", then I am wrong because logic shows me that 7 equally 8 is a contradiction.

Do I have this correct? All of these assumptions are made as the start to a personal "truth", and do not involve other people coming in and mucking with the equation. =) If I have a correct understanding, feel free to continue from here. I see nothing wrong with this as a springboard into further points.

Ok. That's how it looks and I won't disagree but if given to categorize a list of items, say, "thoughts", "water", "iron", "number", you surely wouldn't put "thoughts" in the same class as "water" and "iron". The question is, why not? — TheMadFool

Well for one, they aren't supervenient. You would need to compare thoughts to sight, sound, fire, chemical reactions, etc. If you agree that thoughts are supervenient, then I think we are on some level of agreement. Do you have anything to add to the proposal of thoughts? Do you think they are something different from matter and energy? If so, what are they, and can you demonstrate this in some way?