balios on Jan 2 2009, 08:19 PM, said:

I would say that your thoughts are your own because you define them as such. If your thoughts are not your own, then what does the word "own" mean? "Own" is refering to the collection of thoughts that you've defined as an individual. If that individual is part of a creater being or system, then that 'person' still exists as a subset of that greater being.

My take:

[a] I would first conclude that there are relationships which define logic. For example, 4 is twice as big as 2. That's a relationship that exists without the need for a physical 4 or 2. Mathematics is the reality of those relationships, which along with other logical relationships form the set of all possible relationships that we express as numbers, formulas, and logical expressions.

** Then I'd conclude that there is a subset of possible relationships, a particular group of relationships that define processes that I experience/define as the universe. **

[c] Then I'd conclude that conciousness is the subset of those particular processes, namely the ones that include higher order processes: ones that include self-referential processes regarding relationships between relationships.

If logical relationships didn't exist, then your statement "anything past this statement is conjecture" cannot exist (which uses logical ordering). If there is conciousness then there must be logic. If a particular groups of relationships that define individual processes didn't exist, then individual logical relationships such as "there is consciousness" (that's a particular grouping of logic relationships) cannot exist. If self-referential relationships didn't exist then there wouldn't be conciousness to acknowledge. So [c] is a subset of [b] which is a subset of (a), imho.

Now, I can postulate that the subset of [c] = [b], that what I acknoweldge as conciousness = universe. That would require the assumption that the particular subset that is 'my' conciousness is "special" from all others possibilities. So although not provable, it is logical to assume that I am not special, that I am a conciousness that exists in a greater set of processes that I define as the universe, that there are other subsets of processes in that universe which define other conciousnesses of varying forms.

Alright .. logic is the relationship between "One or more than one variables". So if we have just one variable, logic ceases to exist:

**If Brahman is all that existed, then there can be no logical concepts, (as logic requires two things), nor indeed any understanding of how this One thing could cause the Many changing things which we experience in the world. (Vivekananda)**If

**Brahman** here is the whole existence, so we can conclude that logic does not exist!

How?!

Everything is energy .. there is nothing but only energy. We are not more than forms of energy.

So we can conclude that there is nothing but energy (Existence). That's a possibilty

Look at our world, it is formed by

**Actions** and

**Rections** (Variables). These

**actions** and

**reactions** cancel each other to reach ZERO (Nothing exist)

So if you looked at the big picture of our world .. the big picture that include all actions and reactions that cancel each other, you will see nothing .. because they already cancelled each other.

If that's true .. That nothing exist (Because of actions and reactions that cancelled each other), so logic that forms the relationship between these variables, also does not exist. That's another possibility

So we can conclude that all this reality that we experience is not more than a temporary illusion.

Another possibility is disproving logic by logic itself

There is a logical fallacy called "The circular argument" .. Which is that we can not prove "A" by "A" itself.

if we applied this on logic itself, we will find that if we were asked to prove logic, we will use logic itself!

So we here can prove that logic is right and wrong at the same time.

Right because we applied its fallacies on it

And wrong because we proved that it's wrong!

So we can finally conclude that we are forced (programmed) to think that way (Logic), but that does not mean that law of nature should be logical.

We are only projecting logic on nature

we are wearing the glasses of logic to see everything logical.

Any thoughts?!

**Edited by hadeka, 03 January 2009 - 03:15 PM.**