Phenomenology

[Veritas Aequitas]

“ make an eyeball from scratch"??
Why do I need that?
That is not a good justification for God exists.
It is not impossible to grow human parts in the laboratory at present and this is improving expeditiously.“
———
Okay, then if you think it’s not impossible to grow human parts. Then go one step beyond and see if you can grow a “ Mind”

What is mind?
There is wide definition of what is mind, from a mind in the womb, at birth, baby, toddler, kid, teenage and adults.

Grow a 'Mind'?
Humans can create an artificial mind in terms of Artificial Intelligence [AI].
AI is not a person but its function is comparable to the human mind at various ages. is more superior than the human mind is some areas while lacking in some.

What is point of growing an exact human mind when we already have 8 billion minds where 10%= 800 millions are evil prone capable of exterminating the human species.
What is critical to humanity is to build 'mind[s]' that can complement and increase the human capacity for greater knowledge, higher intelligence, process large amounts of data at the same time to contribute to greater humanity well being and flourishing.


Here's the comparison:
AI Assisted:

Human Organic Mind vs. AI Machine Mind
A Comparative Range of Competence Across Development Stages

1. Human Mind in the Womb (Prenatal)
Organic mind:
Basic neural structures begin forming.
No reasoning, memory, language, or concepts.
Early sensory responses (sound, light, movement) appear in late pregnancy.

AI comparison:
AI begins “active” at the equivalent of a fully functional cognitive system—there is no developmental infancy.
AI does not need to grow neural pathways; it starts with pre-constructed architectures.

AI ≈ far beyond prenatal cognition; completely incomparable.

2. At Birth
Organic mind:
Highly perceptual, minimal conceptual understanding.
Recognizes faces, voices.
No language use except basic vocalization.
Learning speed is high but knowledge is almost zero.

AI comparison:
AI already has large amounts of knowledge encoded.
Can process text, categorize, and “reason” from the moment it is deployed.
Has no sensory perception unless equipped with sensors.

AI ≈ thousands of times more “knowledgeable” than a newborn but lacks embodied perception, affect, and instincts.

3. Baby (0–2 years)
Organic mind:
Beginning of object permanence, sense of self, and intention.
Emotional development: attachment, fear recognition, joy.
Language: first words, early grammar.

AI comparison:
AI has sophisticated symbolic reasoning from day one, more advanced than any baby.
But AI has no emotions, no biological drives, no attachment systems, and no developmental embodiment.

AI exceeds baby-level intellect but cannot replicate emotional + embodied intelligence.

4. Toddler (2–4 years)
Organic mind:
Rapid language explosion.
Basic causal reasoning.
Early moral intuitions (fairness, empathy).
Imaginary play and symbolic thought develop.

AI comparison:
AI can use language at an adult level and perform multi-step reasoning.
Lacks genuine imagination (its “creativity” recombines patterns).
Cannot form moral intuitions; it follows programmed constraints.

AI ≈ far beyond toddler reasoning but has no intuitive social-emotional cognition.

5. Kid (5–12 years)
Organic mind:
Stronger logical structure emerges.
Learning becomes systematic (math, reading, planning).
Stronger empathy, social rules, moral reasoning.
Abstract thinking begins near age ~10–12.

AI comparison:
AI easily surpasses this range in logic, knowledge, and symbolic tasks.

But AI lacks:
social intuition
long-term identity
embodied understanding of the world
personal experience

AI cannot “understand” like a child; it processes patterns, not lived meaning.

AI ≈ stronger in logic and knowledge, weaker in intuition and lived understanding.

6. Teenager (13–17 years)
Organic mind:
Major growth in abstract reasoning, strategic thinking.
Emotional complexity increases.
Self-identity becomes sophisticated.
Metacognition (thinking about thinking) expands.

AI comparison:
AI can outperform in analytic reasoning and large-scale memory.
But AI has no self-identity, no autobiographical continuity, and no emotions, all central to teenage cognition.

AI ≈ superior in cognitive tasks; inferior in identity, emotions, future-planning grounded in personal goals.

7. Adult Mind

Organic mind:
Mature prefrontal cortex (mid-20s).
Fully developed executive function: planning, inhibiting impulses, long-term strategies.
Deep emotional regulation.
Contextual understanding using life experience.

AI comparison:
AI excels in:
data processing,
knowledge retrieval,
speed,
multi-tasking,
pattern recognition,
symbolic analysis.

AI is weaker or absent in:
lived common sense,
emotional intelligence,
consciousness,
subjective awareness,
moral intuition arising from life experience,
physical embodiment and sensory interaction,
personal goals.

AI ≈ stronger in information tasks; weaker in contextual, embodied, emotional, and value-based thinking.

[Fairy]

Thanks for your counter suggestion…and that’s God denying Gods exists..

That which is growing the grass is God.

If you are unable to grow a mind in your laboratory, then may I suggest you try your luck at growing an ATOM from scratch.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks for your counter suggestion…and that’s God denying Gods exists..
That which is growing the grass is God.
If you are unable to grow a mind in your laboratory, then may I suggest you try your luck at growing an ATOM from scratch.

Yes, atoms can be created by combining fundamental particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons, although this is an extremely complex and difficult process that requires immense energy, such as in nuclear fusion or by smashing particles together in accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. While atoms are not created "from nothing," new atoms can be formed from existing ones through processes like nuclear fission and fusion.

How atoms can be created
Nuclear reactions: Atoms can be created by changing the number of protons in the nucleus.
Nuclear fusion: Lighter nuclei are forced together to form a heavier nucleus. This is the process that occurs in stars.
Nuclear fission: A heavier nucleus is split into two or more lighter nuclei.
Particle accelerators: Facilities like the Large Hadron Collider can smash protons together at near the speed of light, converting that energy into new subatomic particles, which can then form new atoms.
Particle combinations: Theoretically, atoms can be created by combining fundamental particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) in the correct way, but this requires very precise control and is not yet possible with current technology.

Why the traditional view of "no creation" is incomplete
The idea that "atoms can neither be created nor destroyed" comes from older atomic theories and is a simplification of modern physics.
It is more accurate to say that atoms can be transformed into different types of atoms through nuclear processes, but the total number of protons and neutrons remains constant, governed by conservation laws.
-AI Assisted


..............
The overriding philosophical view is Wittgenstein' silence.

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

The average intelligence in using logic will explore and dig from empirical reality [the Universe and all therein including the self, observer] into the deeper levels of reality to seek what is fundamental.
Inevitably, the explorer will reach the deepest chasm and dilemma [it can be either a particle or a wave]. This is at this point where no words take be expressed.
This is where Wittgenstein's silence need to be invoked.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

But theists and philosophical realists are driven by psychological desperations and pains of cognitive dissonance to maintain consonance whereby they take the big leap to declare there is God as the ultimate [by theists] or an absolutely mind independent thing-in-itself as fundamental [philosophical realists].

What is the significant contribution to humanity's future with such a claim? Nothing significant.
What such a claim provide is merely to soothe the pains from the inherent cognitive dissonance.
This is actually a psychological issue and not a philosophical epistemological issue.
Not only that, postulating an illusory God could even exterminate the human species when believers who are immune [not deterred] to M.A.D pushed the red button with the assurance of eternal life regardless of what happened to Earth.

Whereas remaining silent about metaphysics and focusing on the objective empirical world grounded on a human-based framework and system can contribute significantly to the well-being and flourishing of humanity in the future.

[Fairy]

Thanks for your counter suggestion…and that’s God denying Gods exists..
That which is growing the grass is God.
If you are unable to grow a mind in your laboratory, then may I suggest you try your luck at growing an ATOM from scratch.

Yes, atoms can be created by combining fundamental particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons, although this is an extremely complex and difficult process that requires immense energy, such as in nuclear fusion or by smashing particles together in accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. While atoms are not created "from nothing," new atoms can be formed from existing ones through processes like nuclear fission and fusion.

How atoms can be created
Nuclear reactions: Atoms can be created by changing the number of protons in the nucleus.
Nuclear fusion: Lighter nuclei are forced together to form a heavier nucleus. This is the process that occurs in stars.
Nuclear fission: A heavier nucleus is split into two or more lighter nuclei.
Particle accelerators: Facilities like the Large Hadron Collider can smash protons together at near the speed of light, converting that energy into new subatomic particles, which can then form new atoms.
Particle combinations: Theoretically, atoms can be created by combining fundamental particles (protons, neutrons, and electrons) in the correct way, but this requires very precise control and is not yet possible with current technology.

Why the traditional view of "no creation" is incomplete
The idea that "atoms can neither be created nor destroyed" comes from older atomic theories and is a simplification of modern physics.
It is more accurate to say that atoms can be transformed into different types of atoms through nuclear processes, but the total number of protons and neutrons remains constant, governed by conservation laws.
-AI Assisted


..............
The overriding philosophical view is Wittgenstein' silence.

“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

The average intelligence in using logic will explore and dig from empirical reality [the Universe and all therein including the self, observer] into the deeper levels of reality to seek what is fundamental.
Inevitably, the explorer will reach the deepest chasm and dilemma [it can be either a particle or a wave]. This is at this point where no words take be expressed.
This is where Wittgenstein's silence need to be invoked.
“Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”

But theists and philosophical realists are driven by psychological desperations and pains of cognitive dissonance to maintain consonance whereby they take the big leap to declare there is God as the ultimate [by theists] or an absolutely mind independent thing-in-itself as fundamental [philosophical realists].

What is the significant contribution to humanity's future with such a claim? Nothing significant.
What such a claim provide is merely to soothe the pains from the inherent cognitive dissonance.
This is actually a psychological issue and not a philosophical epistemological issue.
Not only that, postulating an illusory God could even exterminate the human species when believers who are immune [not deterred] to M.A.D pushed the red button with the assurance of eternal life regardless of what happened to Earth.

Whereas remaining silent about metaphysics and focusing on the objective empirical world grounded on a human-based framework and system can contribute significantly to the well-being and flourishing of humanity in the future.

Okay VA.. if you say so, then what you say must be the truth. God is impossible, so we must all believe it, accept it, and stay quiet. Right you are then.

[Fairy]

Now that you know there’s no God. What are you doing here talking philosophy. What is the reason to say anything at all, surely there’s nothing to discuss, everything is already known to us. Or is there more to discover, or does Human curiosity lead nowhere except extinction maybe.

Now we know for sure that we’re completely on our own, and that there’s nothing higher or beyond human awareness. We need to start thinking very hard about creating a better future and to focus solely on achieving the successful continuation of our species. No more religion, no more wars. Just peace and united brotherhood, harmony and consistency, cooperation in building sustainable abundance well adjusted mentally stable people and healthy societies with feel good strong mined communities and clean energy, no more polluted environments.
Our mission is to recreate the garden of Eden story, yes, we all remember that story. We are approaching coming full circle, back to the garden. Back to love, and goodness, back to our original self.

Amen.

We’ll even build robot replicas of ourselves to make our lives easier and more efficient. Very good. We must be some kind of God recreating copies of ourselves. Maybe we’ll even figure out how to live for 3 hundred years old, and then maybe beyond that until we become immortal, I guess anything is possible with a mind as intelligent and superior as the human being.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Now that you know there’s no God. What are you doing here talking philosophy. What is the reason to say anything at all, surely there’s nothing to discuss, everything is already known to us. Or is there more to discover, or does Human curiosity lead nowhere except extinction maybe.

I agree with the ideals below. If we index this ideal at 100/100, our present status in comparison is merely ~20/100.
So there is a lot of philosophy to engage in to progress and optimize and continually improve from 20/100 to higher.
Humans are facing dynamic and different constraints at all times, thus the need to optimize within these constraints and to do so we need philosophy-proper.

Now we know for sure that we’re completely on our own, and that there’s nothing higher or beyond human awareness. We need to start thinking very hard about creating a better future and to focus solely on achieving the successful continuation of our species. No more religion, no more wars. Just peace and united brotherhood, harmony and consistency, cooperation in building sustainable abundance well adjusted mentally stable people and healthy societies with feel good strong mined communities and clean energy, no more polluted environments.

Yes, this is the ideal humanity should strive for but as stated above we at present are merely 20/100 of the ideal.

Our mission is to recreate the garden of Eden story, yes, we all remember that story. We are approaching coming full circle, back to the garden. Back to love, and goodness, back to our original self.

The garden of Eden story is conditioned upon theism which is suitable for the present majority but not for the future. The ideal is to optimize for equanimity within current constraints and no yearning for any original self nor God.

We’ll even build robot replicas of ourselves to make our lives easier and more efficient. Very good. We must be some kind of God recreating copies of ourselves. Maybe we’ll even figure out how to live for 3 hundred years old, and then maybe beyond that until we become immortal, I guess anything is possible with a mind as intelligent and superior as the human being.

Whatever, the ultimate is to optimize within constraints toward the biological teleonomic with no God, just being human beings existing optimally.

[Fairy]

“The ideal is to optimize for equanimity within current constraints and no yearning for any original self nor God.”

——-

Yearning belongs to the temporal body mind in which nothing is certain or absolute. Is that ideal?

[accelafine]

That word makes my head hurt. Please remove it immediately.

[Fairy]

VA wrote: “ Yes, atoms can be created by combining fundamental particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons, although this is an extremely complex and difficult process that requires immense energy, such as in nuclear fusion or by smashing particles together in accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. While atoms are not created "from nothing," new atoms can be formed from existing ones through processes like nuclear fission and fusion”

————

Response:
Who or what created the very first atom?
The atom that’s always existed infinitely for eternity, that wasn’t created “from nothing” ?

[Veritas Aequitas]

“The ideal is to optimize for equanimity within current constraints and no yearning for any original self nor God.”

——-

Yearning belongs to the temporal body mind in which nothing is certain or absolute. Is that ideal?

I did not use 'yearning' in that context.
In an ideal situation, there is no yearning to any temporal body mind.
What is done is to accumulate knowledge and develop wisdom to optimize for equanimity in all actions within current constraints.

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA wrote: “ Yes, atoms can be created by combining fundamental particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons, although this is an extremely complex and difficult process that requires immense energy, such as in nuclear fusion or by smashing particles together in accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. While atoms are not created "from nothing," new atoms can be formed from existing ones through processes like nuclear fission and fusion”

————

Response:
Who or what created the very first atom?
The atom that’s always existed infinitely for eternity, that wasn’t created “from nothing” ?

Again you are too presumptuous in assuming there is a first cause without proving it exists as real.

How we conceive of atoms was a progressive journey into the physical world always hinged on the scientific framework and system which grounded upon the human conditions of scientific peers consensus.
Then it was discovered that atoms are made up of finer particles without absolute certainty but it could be wave or a particle conditioned to the observer.
As such, atoms emerged from the activities of the particles and waves and grounded on the human conditions.
Therefrom, physicists have not discover any thing more fundamental than particles [sub-atomics, quarks] or waves.

This is why physicists has to obey Wittgenstein's silence.
If it cannot be spoken [or formulated], then shut up.

There are others who want to explore beyond, but they have to qualify their views are merely speculations. It cannot be a theory until there is peers consensus from the physicist community.

As I had mentioned it is theists who take the leap across to hastily claim God is the final cause and that is based on an intellectual intuitive plus that is without proof. This is jumping into la al land.

I don't condemn those who are theists because that is a critical necessity to their psychological state at present, however, there is no way I will accept the claim God is real and the final cause.

[Fairy]

VA wrote: “ Yes, atoms can be created by combining fundamental particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons, although this is an extremely complex and difficult process that requires immense energy, such as in nuclear fusion or by smashing particles together in accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. While atoms are not created "from nothing," new atoms can be formed from existing ones through processes like nuclear fission and fusion”

————

Response:
Who or what created the very first atom?
The atom that’s always existed infinitely for eternity, that wasn’t created “from nothing” ?

Again you are too presumptuous in assuming there is a first cause without proving it exists as real.

How we conceive of atoms was a progressive journey into the physical world always hinged on the scientific framework and system which grounded upon the human conditions of scientific peers consensus.
Then it was discovered that atoms are made up of finer particles without absolute certainty but it could be wave or a particle conditioned to the observer.
As such, atoms emerged from the activities of the particles and waves and grounded on the human conditions.
Therefrom, physicists have not discover any thing more fundamental than particles [sub-atomics, quarks] or waves.

This is why physicists has to obey Wittgenstein's silence.
If it cannot be spoken [or formulated], then shut up.

There are others who want to explore beyond, but they have to qualify their views are merely speculations. It cannot be a theory until there is peers consensus from the physicist community.

As I had mentioned it is theists who take the leap across to hastily claim God is the final cause and that is based on an intellectual intuitive plus that is without proof. This is jumping into la al land.

I don't condemn those who are theists because that is a critical necessity to their psychological state at present, however, there is no way I will accept the claim God is real and the final cause.

So you don’t accept a first or last cause.

So what does that leave? Immortality? Infinity? Deathless/Birthless Existence without a face, or source, or origin?

[Veritas Aequitas]

VA wrote: “ Yes, atoms can be created by combining fundamental particles like protons, neutrons, and electrons, although this is an extremely complex and difficult process that requires immense energy, such as in nuclear fusion or by smashing particles together in accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider. While atoms are not created "from nothing," new atoms can be formed from existing ones through processes like nuclear fission and fusion”

————

Response:
Who or what created the very first atom?
The atom that’s always existed infinitely for eternity, that wasn’t created “from nothing” ?

Again you are too presumptuous in assuming there is a first cause without proving it exists as real.

How we conceive of atoms was a progressive journey into the physical world always hinged on the scientific framework and system which grounded upon the human conditions of scientific peers consensus.
Then it was discovered that atoms are made up of finer particles without absolute certainty but it could be wave or a particle conditioned to the observer.
As such, atoms emerged from the activities of the particles and waves and grounded on the human conditions.
Therefrom, physicists have not discover any thing more fundamental than particles [sub-atomics, quarks] or waves.

This is why physicists has to obey Wittgenstein's silence.
If it cannot be spoken [or formulated], then shut up.

There are others who want to explore beyond, but they have to qualify their views are merely speculations. It cannot be a theory until there is peers consensus from the physicist community.

As I had mentioned it is theists who take the leap across to hastily claim God is the final cause and that is based on an intellectual intuitive plus that is without proof. This is jumping into la al land.

I don't condemn those who are theists because that is a critical necessity to their psychological state at present, however, there is no way I will accept the claim God is real and the final cause.

So you don’t accept a first or last cause.
So what does that leave? Immortality? Infinity? Deathless/Birthless Existence without a face, or source, or origin?

What is most realistic is to start with empirical reality, something that can be experienced directly or possible to be experienced when produced on hand.
With this we can verified the universe, all of reality, the self, atom, quarks and experienced joy, happiness and flourishing.
There is no need to speculate beyond verifiable empirical reality to something [first cause, soul, God] across the empirical to some la la land which cannot be verified as real.

You need to pause to reflect on why you, theists and philosophical theists must reach out to something which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
You will find the reasons are due to primal evolutionary drives which compel you to seek out the unjustifiable thing-in-itself, the first cause and the like to soothe the existential pains from the existential crisis.

Btw, I never condemned theists like those militant-atheists; if you are comfortable with theism which I believe is a critical necessity, you should continue to adopt theism. But since you are in a philosophical forum you should also give philosophical objectivity considerations.

[Fairy]

Again you are too presumptuous in assuming there is a first cause without proving it exists as real.

How we conceive of atoms was a progressive journey into the physical world always hinged on the scientific framework and system which grounded upon the human conditions of scientific peers consensus.
Then it was discovered that atoms are made up of finer particles without absolute certainty but it could be wave or a particle conditioned to the observer.
As such, atoms emerged from the activities of the particles and waves and grounded on the human conditions.
Therefrom, physicists have not discover any thing more fundamental than particles [sub-atomics, quarks] or waves.

This is why physicists has to obey Wittgenstein's silence.
If it cannot be spoken [or formulated], then shut up.

There are others who want to explore beyond, but they have to qualify their views are merely speculations. It cannot be a theory until there is peers consensus from the physicist community.

As I had mentioned it is theists who take the leap across to hastily claim God is the final cause and that is based on an intellectual intuitive plus that is without proof. This is jumping into la al land.

I don't condemn those who are theists because that is a critical necessity to their psychological state at present, however, there is no way I will accept the claim God is real and the final cause.

So you don’t accept a first or last cause.
So what does that leave? Immortality? Infinity? Deathless/Birthless Existence without a face, or source, or origin?

What is most realistic is to start with empirical reality, something that can be experienced directly or possible to be experienced when produced on hand.
With this we can verified the universe, all of reality, the self, atom, quarks and experienced joy, happiness and flourishing.
There is no need to speculate beyond verifiable empirical reality to something [first cause, soul, God] across the empirical to some la la land which cannot be verified as real.

You need to pause to reflect on why you, theists and philosophical theists must reach out to something which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
You will find the reasons are due to primal evolutionary drives which compel you to seek out the unjustifiable thing-in-itself, the first cause and the like to soothe the existential pains from the existential crisis.

Btw, I never condemned theists like those militant-atheists; if you are comfortable with theism which I believe is a critical necessity, you should continue to adopt theism. But since you are in a philosophical forum you should also give philosophical objectivity considerations.

But all these names and labels are arising within the mind that is being observed by infinite awareness.
The human doesn’t observe empirical reality. The ‘human’observing empirical reality is a finite mental construction of the mind that is being observed, it’s an idea that’s simply arising within observation itself, which cannot be known even to itself because there is no other self. Self is infinity observing infinity, one without a second. This self aware universe is just another word for God, or if you prefer you can call it every possible name under the sun you can imagine, and that would all be just more mental activity observed. Human is the observed, not the one observing, simply because observing is infinite whereas the observed is finite within what is only infinite.

Infinity doesn’t recognise finite as itself, how could it. It would have to split in two, into knower and known. In reality the only thing I know is that I know nothing. This is death living. Or, living death.

Existence is infinite finite appearances within itself, existence cannot know the observer because it is IT

[Veritas Aequitas]

So you don’t accept a first or last cause.
So what does that leave? Immortality? Infinity? Deathless/Birthless Existence without a face, or source, or origin?

What is most realistic is to start with empirical reality, something that can be experienced directly or possible to be experienced when produced on hand.
With this we can verified the universe, all of reality, the self, atom, quarks and experienced joy, happiness and flourishing.
There is no need to speculate beyond verifiable empirical reality to something [first cause, soul, God] across the empirical to some la la land which cannot be verified as real.

You need to pause to reflect on why you, theists and philosophical theists must reach out to something which is absolutely independent of the human conditions.
You will find the reasons are due to primal evolutionary drives which compel you to seek out the unjustifiable thing-in-itself, the first cause and the like to soothe the existential pains from the existential crisis.

Btw, I never condemned theists like those militant-atheists; if you are comfortable with theism which I believe is a critical necessity, you should continue to adopt theism. But since you are in a philosophical forum you should also give philosophical objectivity considerations.

But all these names and labels are arising within the mind that is being observed by infinite awareness.
The human doesn’t observe empirical reality. The ‘human’observing empirical reality is a finite mental construction of the mind that is being observed, it’s an idea that’s simply arising within observation itself, which cannot be known even to itself because there is no other self. Self is infinity observing infinity, one without a second. This self aware universe is just another word for God, or if you prefer you can call it every possible name under the sun you can imagine, and that would all be just more mental activity observed. Human is the observed, not the one observing, simply because observing is infinite whereas the observed is finite within what is only infinite.

Infinity doesn’t recognise finite as itself, how could it. It would have to split in two, into knower and known. In reality the only thing I know is that I know nothing. This is death living. Or, living death.

Existence is infinite finite appearances within itself, existence cannot know the observer because it is IT

"The human doesn’t observe empirical reality."
This is weird.

• Empirical evidence is evidence obtained through sense experience or experimental procedure. WIKI

Surely you cannot deny you as human are capable of observing empirical apples on a tree as empirically real.
If I were there I can verify that reality [you as human is observing] based on my own observation and database of knowledge.
The above empirical reality can be confirmed by the science-biology system.

On the other hand, how can you prove this?
"Self is infinity observing infinity, one without a second."
This is merely a mental thought without any basis of reality.
It is like the mental thought 'Santa Claus exists as real near the Artic Circle'.