How the Brain Works ~ A Treatise by Namron Soar ~ Oh-1 Digital Press ~ Friday October 14th 2011 ~ Chapter Three ~ Brain and Logic ~ ID 2500

For those that enjoy science in the classical sense it might come as a bit of a shock to hear of an explanation of brain function in which the brain itself contains the generators that control all that is seen and heard. Well you have been reading so much theory and have been convinced by those that write the stuff that it’s true, and now you are beginning to believe it. All theories are not actually communicable from one human to another because of the missing models mentioned in chapter one. The theory of brain function is related to the theory of the mind in modern science, physiology and psychology and anything written on those subjects are rife with wild guesses and very complicated explanations that are not easy to comprehend. Any theory that relies on the afore mentioned preconditions of the existence of sentient matter and the external space to put this matter are in error and it’s just as simple as that. The only complete System known to mankind accounts for the matter of the brain, the actual location of the mind, it’s functions and also the space to put these things. That system was almost discovered by philosophers many years ago and was referred to as Idealism in all the writings throughout the English speaking world and much of these writings came originally from Greek, Roman and French sources. Translations have done no favor to these passages since the translators probably could not understand the original connotations expressed in another language and they may not have agreed wholeheartedly with the sentiment either. A good example is the Aristotle, Plato and Socrates translations that make you wonder whether any of them were even Idealists though most philosophers consider at least one of the three to be the first recorded to expound at length on this philosophy. Compounding that problem is the fact that many of the Idealists were forbidden to write such things and condemned by the Church or State for doing so. Most had a wide variety of caveats that ruined their true Idealist outlook such as René Descartes who completely missed the point for some unknown reason and teachers have been mulling this nonsense of dualism for years since the 1600s thinking that there was some value in a mind and body explanation that really has nothing at all to do with true Idealism.

At INTS we have found a quite unused word in the English language called Figmentalism that was usurped to describe our brand of Idealism that is pure and has no caveats to dilute it. If you search the web with this key word you will come to our Institution and can read all about the things that have been developed from non-theoretical science. These are not postulation and account for the lack of matter or the creation of same by the mere fact that there is none or at least not in the classical sense of matter being combined with energy to produce life and reality. The brain could be better referred to as ’the mind’ and it functions within an internal space that seems to have actual limitations, those being that of perception itself. The Brain is considered an organ of the body as is the Heart but when it comes to understanding the latter it is very simple. All the heart does is pump blood around the body and any problems with it are directly related to diet and exercise, for the most part and to fix these problems which are largely mechanical in nature is quite easy for surgeons (relatively speaking) coupled with a change in lifestyle. The Doctors do understand most of the rest of the body in this way and to a large extent are perfectly correct but when it comes to the function of the mind with regards to thinking and memory there is only one way of truly understanding it and it has nothing whatever to do with synapses and electrical current as all common theories declare.

Even the Maya knew the big secret of how the mind works and very few except the modern surviving Maya themselves understand what they knew. Just listen to those that have studied and latched on to the latest craze of explaining Maya predictions and philosophy to the public. They all forget to mention that the first thing the Maya say is that we create ourselves and our world, collectively and they found this out and passed it on for generations along with their predilection for Magic Mushrooms and Peyote. Einstein knew the secret but continued to toy with the modern world using math and pronouncements that he knew were nothing more than interesting, including his famous equation E=Mc² (Energy equals Mass times a constant squared) which he knew to actually be E=M. To quote him: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" so as the world concentrated on his feigned dilemma of combining the ’Strong electromagnetic or nuclear force with the weak one’ and the other dilemma that he supposedly died trying to solve; that being the cause of Gravity, he knew the answers all along. Trust me, no one reports Einstein in that way except INTS. He knew that we create the very molecules beneath our microscopes and actually to date we have never seen such a thing because even science is not really comfortable with present day molecular or atomic theory and is now opting en masse for the latest in ultimate BS, namely Supersymmetry.

This brings us around to Religion. Basically in this world today there are two main types. One type is the True belief systems that rely on making the followers Believe in something that does not exist, or at least not in the way that it is taught. This type of system tries to guilt the believers into donations and rituals to control the populace but in turn produces the most violent of all civilizations, those being any Christian based religious cults such as Catholicism, Protestantism, Judaism and Islam. Some wear miniature torment symbols around their neck, pray to them or just believe in the myth of same. This is most unfortunate since the other main type such as is practiced by most Oriental countries, India and much of the older civilizations, should not actually be called a religion but rather a social system, teaches Enlightenment which in it’s raw form is the same as Pure Idealism or Figmentalism. That is another statement that you won’t hear from any other source. If you were educated in Europe or the Western World you would probably not have heard of such a thing as Enlightenment because the school system in these places is much more interesting in preparing you for subjugation to god spelled with an L (Gold) to make you into a good tax payer and producer of wealth, rather than giving you any information that can release you from this type of devil worship. Little do they realize that the people of Japan, for example, can co-operate and live peacefully knowing their true creation and still have a real good work ethic regardless of this knowledge. To learn Shinto, Buddhism, the Hindu Vedas, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, Tao or a variety of other ancient systems you would need guidance for a number years and be better raised within the culture of same during that time to become Enlightened but here at INTS we can put the whole thing into one quick sentence. Figmentalism states that "We collectively create the world we live in, are the very God that creates ourselves, are indelibly interconnected with everyone and everything, are in fact everyone and everything, were never created and do not have the ability to die." and that’s the whole story. Get used to it!

Is there really such a thing as Pure Logic?

So there you now know ’The System’ in it’s fully revealed form and that brings us to ’Pure Logic’ and I’m going to Google it first just to see if the world at large has anything comparable. Wait here, I’ll be right back with my findings. (Two Minutes pass)........ Well apart from a commercial website, several blogs that I didn’t read, a Band name and some songs by that name I found this on Wikipedia: The Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant, first published in 1781, second edition 1787, is considered one of the most influential works in the history of philosophy. Also referred to as Kant’s "first critique," it was followed by the Critique of Practical Reason and the Critique of Judgement. In the last section of the introduction (section VII: Idea and Division of a Particular Science, under the Name of a Critique of Pure Reason) Kant states that "... If this Critique itself does not assume the title of transcendental philosophy, it is only because, to be a complete system, it ought to contain a full analysis of all human knowledge a priori (from previous knowledge)."

Before the time of Kant, it was generally held that whatever knowledge was a priori must be of the nature of an analytic judgment, that is, what is stated in the predicate must already be present in the subject and it is therefore, independent of experience (e.g., "An intelligent man is intelligent" or "An intelligent man is a man"). In either case, the judgment is analytic because it is arrived at by analyzing the subject. Before the time of Kant, it was thought that all judgments of which we could be certain a priori were of this kind: that in all of them there was a predicate which was only part of the subject of which it was asserted. If this were so, we would be involved in a contradiction every time we would try to deny anything that could be known a priori. Thus according to the philosophers before Kant, the Law of contradiction is sufficient to establish all a priori knowledge. {end of Wiki quote}

Well I have no idea what all that means but I do know that Kant was an Idealist but he wrote in French and we have only English translations (in the English speaking world) and their meaning is so obscure because his writings were specifically for the Philosophic community of the time and they had their own jargon it has lost it’s meaning over time (for us.. well for me, maybe you know what the hell he was on about!).

Pure Logic as stated within Figmentalism

Pure Logic is simply logical explanations of reality and the world we live in and does not vary as do theoretical logical pronouncements depending on the author, theological logical beliefs depending on the Theologs, Boolean algebra (logic) which varies little but is only math, plain logic which is just average human sayings and also not empirical logic based on material science but could be empirical logic based on the tenets of Figmentalism.

Figmentalism/Idealism/Enlightenment.

Pure logic is based on Non-theory and the absolutes developed thereof. Now you may have gone to Philosophy classes in University and learned that ’There are no absolutes’, but that statement confounds itself since it is an absolute statement bent on proving that there is no such thing. There is no way of stating that absolutes do not exist, therefore they must! Within Fig (and I’m using the short form) the fundamental absolute is a very short and simple sentence "We Exist" and you may try semantic arguments against it such as "we don’t know How we exist or Why we exist" but that is not what the statement says; It says we exist and the more you argue against it the more you prove it, because how could you debate something if you didn’t exist. Another semantic argument might be; "That’s such a basic statement it really means nothing" or "Everyone knows that!". That’s what’s so wonderful about semantic arguments, they seem to make so much sense but beware, they don’t make any sense, they are just silly semantic nonsense. (I was gonna say Bullshit)

From that you can develop many more ’We’ statements like; we eat, drink, poop, fly, swim, die, have sex and things like that. Well if’s that logic, you say, any fool knows that! and I agree. Pure logic is so basic and simple that any fool or student could understand it, so why don’t they? Well it isn’t taught in school.. and I couldn’t even Google it because no one believes that there is such a thing. Remember that the only thing I found on the Web was a 1781 dissertation by Kant that was only a critique and it was about reason not logic. Here’s how it works: Since we know that we exist we might ask ourselves where did we come from? and the answer would usually involve some theoretical explanation such as ’Aliens made us’, ’God created us’ or the theory of ’Evolution created us’ but that isn’t what the question was asking. Where did we come from? and non-theory or rather anti-theory asks "What makes us think we came from anywhere?" The purely logical answer is that "We have no reason to think that we have the ability to move so therefore we didn’t come from anywhere. We are still here, wherever that is and we are going to stay here."

How were we created?

Anti-theory is a basic logical system within Fig and Pure Logic that simply takes the most obvious response to all questions and produces the answer by going against the theoretical approach. In this case the how of ’How were we created?’ is a moot point or question because there is no reason to believe that we have ever been non-existent. As a matter of fact there is a very good reason to understand that we were not created because it would involve a change in the continuum of our non-existing and there is no explanation as to how this could occur. Pure Logic answers this question by stating "We have always been." The creation of the individual is another question again and that will be addressed within Entitic Science.

What happens after death?

Anti-theory doesn’t mess around with this one very long either. First of all what makes you think you have the ability to die? You aren’t made of anything that can deteriorate because you are only composed of thought. You can experience your aging and your death because contrary to popular belief we really don’t want to live forever, even though we do. So we forget our previous life and our memory is wiped clean and we begin again as a baby, again and again ad infinitum.

How do we remember things?

Unfortunately this is one of the questions that cannot be answered by anti-theory, non-theory or pure logic. We are working on it but it may never have an/the answer.

Namron Soar

(a note about the date: it is out of sync because the original chapter 3 was a proof document that was scrapped and became chapter 7)

©