Immanuel's Law: Scientifically Falsifiable Evidence of God's Existence
Video can’t be displayed
The Church Stands upon Faith; therefore, Why is there a Need for a Scientific Proof for God's Being?
The foundational doctrine of the New Testament is that Christians' relationship with God through Lord Jesus the Christ stands upon God's election of the heart through grace by faith (Ephesians 2:8-9). The doctrine has unparalleled benefits for peaceful relationships between Christians and non-Christians: when correctly understood, the doctrine compels Christians to love all regardless of who they are.
In the light of the cardinal doctrine of an election by grace through faith, we understand that faith does not require scientific proof of God, because for the Christian, the Holy Spirit's presence in his or her heart is absolute evidence of God: evidence that science cannot grasp. Therefore, why does our ministry, TWEA, support Immanuel's Law, which purports to champion objective evidence for the reality of God's true being?
In fact, we do not support any purported evidence for God's being in order to enhance our faith, for that would actually undermine the very nature of faith. We support objective evidence in order to safeguard the Church's standing in an increasingly secularized society that questions the very worth of human morality and the human experience's significance in general.
How the Framers Who Enshrined Human Rights into Our Modern Constitutions Could Not Anticipate How the Scientific Revolution would Call into Question Humanity's Inherent Capacity to Have Those Rights
From May 25 to September 17, 1787; delegates from 12 of the original American states gathered to write a national constitution that would unite the states under republican government for generations to come. While most had strong Christian upbringings from various Christian denominations, some held beliefs that the Age of Enlightenment inspired. And so, while the vast majority believed in a Creator, some believed that one could only approach understanding through reason. But despite their various opinions on religion, what united the delegates was the belief that all people were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The framers of the constitution united under the belief that the people had the inherent capacity to look past family, clan, and other factional allegiances and govern themselves in the pursuit of justice for the general welfare of all.
.jpg)
The noble signers of the United States Constitution had good reason to hope that posterity was rendered safe by their acts. Yet, at the dawn of the United States of America's becoming a constitutional Republic in 1789; a renowned German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, had just published his formidable work, Critique of Pure Reason, in 1781. Until this day, Kant's Critique demonstrates to many secular thinkers that one cannot make a scientifically demonstrable argument for the existence of God or even the human soul, in general: Kant seemingly demonstrated that all religious arguments for God's existence and the human soul can be reduced to repetitive passionate arguments (dogma) that entail no objective proof from which one can frame a hypothesis that leads to predictions. Hence, after Immanuel Kant's work became popular, the Church's moral influence upon the West slowly faded.
After the West's modern democracies flourished, striking advances in the applied sciences, such as chemistry and biology, began to call into question whether human behavior solely resulted from their environment or genetic makeup. Novel legal questions such as an individual’s culpability vs free volition began to come into question. Even so, the individual freedoms that Western constitutions still guarantee so far remain, since all (despite religious or social background) generally have a vested interest in the constitutional freedoms’ preservation.
As Immanuel Kant's criticism still overshadows the public voice of the Church, the daunting problem for Western democracies that remains is the growing belief in humankind's insignificance in the face of advancing science. The worth of human nobility in art, reason, and morality are laid low as such technology as artificial intelligence (AI) demonstrates its capacity to outpace human creativity. Artificial intelligence, in fact, advances without ethical safeguards solely because scientists fail to grasp what constitutes human self-awareness, that is, consciousness, and human freedom over one's environment to make moral judgements.
To counter the drastic effects of Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, Immanuel's Law presents three statements: two of which are scientifically demonstrable, detailing the manner in which God expresses the Creation and the manner in which the brain obtains consciousness to interpret the expressed creation. The third statement reflects how God's expression epistemologically establishes human personhood within one's social and environmental community. To be sure, the third statement (to some extent) even compliments the Creeds of Christendom.
After 5000 Years of Recorded History, A Simple Working-Class Mechanical Designer Scientifically Proves God's existence. See the Open Letter that He Sent to Cognitive Neuroscientists, Demonstrating His Discovery; Moreover, See His Open Letter that Critiques the Flawed 19th-centry Evolutionary Framework that Undermines the Efforts of A Group of Cognitive Neuroscientists Who Published Almost Identical Conclusions Months After the Designer's Initial Open Letter:
The First Open Letter, first Published March 29, 2022 on thelandscapeoftruth.com, before being distributed to more than 250 cognitive neuroscientists. The original work, entitled Immanuel's Law, was published in May 2014, in the doctrinal treatise the Landscape of Truth: An Orthodox Understanding of the Biblical Testaments for the Truth Worshippers
The Mechanism of Consciousness and its Qualia from an Aerospace Mechanical Designer
"Good day,
Throughout my 30 year career as an aerospace mechanical designer, I fully recognize that mechanical application (the producing of mechanisms to assist us in our interacting with the environment) is the greatest scientific proof that we philosophically comprehend the immediate environmental domain that our mechanisms operate upon. However, I also recognize that as engineers continue the quest to test and establish scientific theories; engineers face increasing difficulties in devising technology for testing apparatuses, as well as securing material and monetary resources. As a consequence, I have observed that perspective project teams face increasing difficulties in magnifying the importance of their work to potential funders and the general public. Having recognized the challenges, I have acquired an acute appreciation for the importance of being able to frame the theories philosophically, in regards to gaining an epistemological understanding of what information the theories produce for the general public; as well as securing an ontological understanding of the theories, in regards to the mechanical relationship between distinct parts.
With that said, I understand that a major obstacle in achieving a full philosophical conception of proposed projects is the reality that philosophical concepts have long since lost their capacity for scientific verification; from the time when the German philosophy Immanuel Kant’s work, the Critique of Pure Reason, demonstrated that conceptions of the self or metaphysical understandings of God’s creative work are impossible to prove objectively within space and time. And so, as theories are becoming increasingly harder to demonstrate or prove, scientific research increasingly advances as a ship without a rudder.
Thankfully, however, I have grown in appreciation of the fact that the discipline of cognitive neuroscience proves itself to be the most capable discipline to rescue our philosophical speculations with hard science. I believe that neuroscientists could demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience should be considered the leading science; if and only if neuroscientists can publicly prove their theories by demonstrating mechanical application: essentially, they must demonstrate that they have found the mechanism of consciousness. Indeed, only by demonstrating that they have found a scientifically falsifiable mechanism for consciousness (the most valuable thing to everyone) can cognitive neuroscience capture the general public’s regard for the discipline’s being essential to science.
And so, for your consideration, I would like to offer what I have determined to be the mechanism for consciousness, that is, again from the design perspective of an aerospace mechanical designer. To begin, however, I must emphasize that cognitive neuroscience relies heavily upon envisioning how the process of natural selection developed the brain, as the fitness of neurological systems adapted to seemingly random processes. Yet, while I recognize the impact of the natural selection process, I must underscore the fact that Charles Darwin envisioned the theory of evolution upon the backdrop of a Newtonian, classical physics’ understanding of the world, which had no notion of the world’s true statistical nature, as quantum mechanics now reveals. Therefore, I understand that our merely envisioning how the brain adapted to random processes does not reveal the brain’s necessary capacity to model statistically the world, in order to present consciousness’ uniform and normalized perceptual concepts.
I am sure that you are acutely aware that a multitude of pseudo-science theories of consciousness exploit the mysterious nature of quantum physics; however, by stressing only a mechanical model that we can observe, we can bypass the nonsensical (the nonsense) and grasp a sound understanding of the world that the brain and the nervous system interface with, in order for the brain to achieve and maintain consciousness.
So to distinguish a straightforward and sober understanding of the quantum implications that we must factor into our understanding of how the brain interfaces with the world, we have only first to distinguish the accompanying philosophical building blocks that the mechanism of consciousness must entail: the mechanism must integrate the brain and its nervous system to establish a unified perception of the self, as the mechanism rationalizes conceptions of the immediately perceived environment within perceived universals that transcend the immediate perceptions. In other words, the mechanism must resolve the ancient question of universals, that is, how the mind grasps universal occurrences in the environment from which the mind can construct knowledge through analysis, categorization, and typification: the building blocks of consciousness. Of course, Plato attempted to resolve the problem of universals with his description of how we through reason grasp perfect ethereal ideals; Immanuel Kant attempted to describe how we grasp an apperception of space and time upon which we ground perceptions; and phenomenologists like Martin Heidegger imagined that we apprehend a background (Dasein) through which we integrate prior, at-hand, and ongoing perceptions within space and time. Even the designers of artificial intelligence struggle with the problem of universals, as they seek to employ “Deep learning” artificial programming networks to simulate the precognitive knowledge base of humans.
Keeping our pursuit of the mind’s grasping universals in mind, the key principles that we must note from quantum mechanics are the following: first, for the converging and expanding forces of energy to extend spacetime, energy must be discrete and permeate in distinct values; because absolute energy would constitute a singularity. Second, we can only statistically locate the exact position and momentum of subatomic matter within the atomic configuration; and we can only statistically locate the exact position and momentum of subatomic matter that interfaces with the atom, because specific locations would imply a linear graduation that would accumulatively undermine the a prior distinct definitions of allowable energy levels that enable ordered interactions. Hence, definitive measurements only yield nonsensical infinities results. As an outcome, any direct observation of a subatomic particle renders the accompanying alternate quantum state unobservable; therefore, lastly, the priority of the natural laws that govern the quantum interactions and the mathematical invariance that govern and normalize quantum interactions through the exchange of forces (like the exchange of light-photons between electrons) are what the brain must statistically associate with to model conceptions of the normalized world. In short, the brain’s capacity to grasp the invariant constants of proportionalities that coordinate and normalize the discrete and distinct manifestations of energy is the means for the brain to grasp universals, as I shall briefly describe in our identifying the mechanism of consciousness:
Currently, cognitive neuroscience is adept at mapping brain regions that enable such sense-perceptions like touch, facial recognition, sight, and hearing; however, the discipline does not factor that in the real world, great variations of energy and its magnitudes constitute what the brain seeks to mimic. Therefore, to envision how the brain mechanically produces sense-perceptions of the real world as it achieves the mechanism of consciousness; we must keep in mind that the brain has to capture, isolate, reconcile, and statistically generate calibrated and recalibrated conceptual relationships of magnitudes within ordered spacetime intervals. At the same time, we must understand that the brain must reconcile all in an invariant relationship of a constant of proportionality between the conceptual magnitudes. Like so, we will understand how the brain achieves a normalized perception of the real world.
We call our falsifiable hypothesis Immanuel’s Law: it is an epistemological understanding of, first, how the world is invariantly expressed to us in a manner that enables us to reconcile instances of phenomenon within universal constants of proportionality and, second, how the brain apprehends the universal proportionality. To this end, Immanuel’s Law entails four principles: first, cognition results from the brain’s mechanical operation that semi-autonomously employs its nervous system to perform a renormalizing process that seeks to engage the body’s environment (an environment that results from invariant force exchanges that normalize energy’s quantum indeterminacy). Second, the brain’s mechanical operation entails an initial renormalizing process; third, a personalizing renormalizing process; and finally, fourth, a matching and retention renormalizing process that constitute consciousness, itself.
The essential points of how Immanuel’s Law hypothesizes the mechanism of consciousness is as follows: the input of the mechanism proceeds from the simple reflex arcs of sensory neurons throughout the body. The signals then travel through the autonomic area of the brain stem unto the brain’s cortex, where the initial renormalizing process occurs: rather than executing only simple electro-chemical reflex arcs; the cortex executes more complex electro-chemical exchanges that bears a plasticity that isolate and capture instances of magnitudes, while statistically capturing the potentiality of like ongoing instances within the discrete domains that the particularity of the cellular structures allow. To be specific, the isolating of discrete magnitudes occurs as a result of the particular architecture of neuron cells, the neural transmitters between the cells, and the specialized neuronal cell layers within the cortex. And the capturing of discrete magnitudes (by the particular neuron cells, neural transmitters, and the cortex’s specialized layers) occurs as the neurons’ electrochemical exchanges generate electromagnetic fields that consist of particle-waves, which exchange force carrying protons. And so, the electromagnetic fields have both quantum and macroscopic properties, to the end that one cannot argue that the quantum effects of the brain are merely localized.
Next, the personalized renormalizing process begins as the thalamic circuit possesses complementing neuronal structures like the cortex structures. As a result, the complementing neural layer structures between the thalamic circuit and the cortex apprehend constants of proportionality through the respective electromagnetic waves. And so, the matching and retention renormalizing process ensues as existing cortical and thalamic proportional neuronal allotments either assimilate or adapt new sensory inputs. As a final outcome, during the process of the brain-mechanism’s attempts to adapt new sense impressions to the neuronal nets proportional allotments, the brain’s mechanism is instantly translated into a dynamic references frame, that is, the neuronal correlate of consciousness that actively seeks to assimilate ongoing sense-perceptions unto its a priori sense of the universality of proportional wholes.
And so, Immanuel’s Law concludes that the haecceity—the qualia, like-thisness—of consciousness is a magnitudinous sense, bearing the mechanistic physicality of a dynamic reference frame; that is, not merely a classical Cartesian reference frame or an Einsteinian relativity reference frame, but more so an dynamic participant in the fluid unpacking the normalized emergence of spacetime.
Much more can be said about the content of Immanuel’s Law, especially in regards to its scientific, theological, and physical implications. Indeed, evolutionary theory’s describes how, through long periods of time, species increase sophistication through adaptive processes, according to the species’ fitness; however, evolutionary theory cannot explain how the brain anticipates the modal effects of processes that occur on the subatomic level, with no definitive spacetime values. Nonetheless, the mechanism that Immanuel’s Law describes is entirely falsifiable; therefore, many supporters of science’s pursuit of objectivity will welcome its perspective. Also, the general public, with faith-based leanings, will embrace the theory as well. For example, Immanuel’s Law’s ultimate conclusions correspond with Greek philosophers’ conception of a first-cause, prime mover initiating the world, logically. Likewise, Immanuel’s Law corresponds with Christian theology’s description of God’s absolute ontological being, YHWH (I am), expressing the world through a Logos (a logical expression). Immanuel’s Law even agrees with German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s concession that there is at least epistemological utility in imagining that an ordered world proceeds from the designs of a supernatural creator.
Whatever your personal perspective, please consider Immanuel’s Law’s merit for the betterment of all. You can find out more information by searching for the Immanuel’s Law promotional video on YouTube (see section VII at 1hr 6min). The video is audaciously titled “Immanuel’s Law: the World’s First Scientifically Falsifiable Proof for the Existence of God and the Human Soul”
Or I can provide you with a copy of the doctrinal treatise that Immanuel’s Law assumes the third chapter of. Otherwise, the doctrinal treatise can be found on Amazon, entitled “The Landscape of Truth: an Orthodox Understanding of the Biblical Testaments for the True Worshippers”
Thank you,
. . . ."
Throughout my 30 year career as an aerospace mechanical designer, I fully recognize that mechanical application (the producing of mechanisms to assist us in our interacting with the environment) is the greatest scientific proof that we philosophically comprehend the immediate environmental domain that our mechanisms operate upon. However, I also recognize that as engineers continue the quest to test and establish scientific theories; engineers face increasing difficulties in devising technology for testing apparatuses, as well as securing material and monetary resources. As a consequence, I have observed that perspective project teams face increasing difficulties in magnifying the importance of their work to potential funders and the general public. Having recognized the challenges, I have acquired an acute appreciation for the importance of being able to frame the theories philosophically, in regards to gaining an epistemological understanding of what information the theories produce for the general public; as well as securing an ontological understanding of the theories, in regards to the mechanical relationship between distinct parts.
With that said, I understand that a major obstacle in achieving a full philosophical conception of proposed projects is the reality that philosophical concepts have long since lost their capacity for scientific verification; from the time when the German philosophy Immanuel Kant’s work, the Critique of Pure Reason, demonstrated that conceptions of the self or metaphysical understandings of God’s creative work are impossible to prove objectively within space and time. And so, as theories are becoming increasingly harder to demonstrate or prove, scientific research increasingly advances as a ship without a rudder.
Thankfully, however, I have grown in appreciation of the fact that the discipline of cognitive neuroscience proves itself to be the most capable discipline to rescue our philosophical speculations with hard science. I believe that neuroscientists could demonstrate that cognitive neuroscience should be considered the leading science; if and only if neuroscientists can publicly prove their theories by demonstrating mechanical application: essentially, they must demonstrate that they have found the mechanism of consciousness. Indeed, only by demonstrating that they have found a scientifically falsifiable mechanism for consciousness (the most valuable thing to everyone) can cognitive neuroscience capture the general public’s regard for the discipline’s being essential to science.
And so, for your consideration, I would like to offer what I have determined to be the mechanism for consciousness, that is, again from the design perspective of an aerospace mechanical designer. To begin, however, I must emphasize that cognitive neuroscience relies heavily upon envisioning how the process of natural selection developed the brain, as the fitness of neurological systems adapted to seemingly random processes. Yet, while I recognize the impact of the natural selection process, I must underscore the fact that Charles Darwin envisioned the theory of evolution upon the backdrop of a Newtonian, classical physics’ understanding of the world, which had no notion of the world’s true statistical nature, as quantum mechanics now reveals. Therefore, I understand that our merely envisioning how the brain adapted to random processes does not reveal the brain’s necessary capacity to model statistically the world, in order to present consciousness’ uniform and normalized perceptual concepts.
I am sure that you are acutely aware that a multitude of pseudo-science theories of consciousness exploit the mysterious nature of quantum physics; however, by stressing only a mechanical model that we can observe, we can bypass the nonsensical (the nonsense) and grasp a sound understanding of the world that the brain and the nervous system interface with, in order for the brain to achieve and maintain consciousness.
So to distinguish a straightforward and sober understanding of the quantum implications that we must factor into our understanding of how the brain interfaces with the world, we have only first to distinguish the accompanying philosophical building blocks that the mechanism of consciousness must entail: the mechanism must integrate the brain and its nervous system to establish a unified perception of the self, as the mechanism rationalizes conceptions of the immediately perceived environment within perceived universals that transcend the immediate perceptions. In other words, the mechanism must resolve the ancient question of universals, that is, how the mind grasps universal occurrences in the environment from which the mind can construct knowledge through analysis, categorization, and typification: the building blocks of consciousness. Of course, Plato attempted to resolve the problem of universals with his description of how we through reason grasp perfect ethereal ideals; Immanuel Kant attempted to describe how we grasp an apperception of space and time upon which we ground perceptions; and phenomenologists like Martin Heidegger imagined that we apprehend a background (Dasein) through which we integrate prior, at-hand, and ongoing perceptions within space and time. Even the designers of artificial intelligence struggle with the problem of universals, as they seek to employ “Deep learning” artificial programming networks to simulate the precognitive knowledge base of humans.
Keeping our pursuit of the mind’s grasping universals in mind, the key principles that we must note from quantum mechanics are the following: first, for the converging and expanding forces of energy to extend spacetime, energy must be discrete and permeate in distinct values; because absolute energy would constitute a singularity. Second, we can only statistically locate the exact position and momentum of subatomic matter within the atomic configuration; and we can only statistically locate the exact position and momentum of subatomic matter that interfaces with the atom, because specific locations would imply a linear graduation that would accumulatively undermine the a prior distinct definitions of allowable energy levels that enable ordered interactions. Hence, definitive measurements only yield nonsensical infinities results. As an outcome, any direct observation of a subatomic particle renders the accompanying alternate quantum state unobservable; therefore, lastly, the priority of the natural laws that govern the quantum interactions and the mathematical invariance that govern and normalize quantum interactions through the exchange of forces (like the exchange of light-photons between electrons) are what the brain must statistically associate with to model conceptions of the normalized world. In short, the brain’s capacity to grasp the invariant constants of proportionalities that coordinate and normalize the discrete and distinct manifestations of energy is the means for the brain to grasp universals, as I shall briefly describe in our identifying the mechanism of consciousness:
Currently, cognitive neuroscience is adept at mapping brain regions that enable such sense-perceptions like touch, facial recognition, sight, and hearing; however, the discipline does not factor that in the real world, great variations of energy and its magnitudes constitute what the brain seeks to mimic. Therefore, to envision how the brain mechanically produces sense-perceptions of the real world as it achieves the mechanism of consciousness; we must keep in mind that the brain has to capture, isolate, reconcile, and statistically generate calibrated and recalibrated conceptual relationships of magnitudes within ordered spacetime intervals. At the same time, we must understand that the brain must reconcile all in an invariant relationship of a constant of proportionality between the conceptual magnitudes. Like so, we will understand how the brain achieves a normalized perception of the real world.
We call our falsifiable hypothesis Immanuel’s Law: it is an epistemological understanding of, first, how the world is invariantly expressed to us in a manner that enables us to reconcile instances of phenomenon within universal constants of proportionality and, second, how the brain apprehends the universal proportionality. To this end, Immanuel’s Law entails four principles: first, cognition results from the brain’s mechanical operation that semi-autonomously employs its nervous system to perform a renormalizing process that seeks to engage the body’s environment (an environment that results from invariant force exchanges that normalize energy’s quantum indeterminacy). Second, the brain’s mechanical operation entails an initial renormalizing process; third, a personalizing renormalizing process; and finally, fourth, a matching and retention renormalizing process that constitute consciousness, itself.
The essential points of how Immanuel’s Law hypothesizes the mechanism of consciousness is as follows: the input of the mechanism proceeds from the simple reflex arcs of sensory neurons throughout the body. The signals then travel through the autonomic area of the brain stem unto the brain’s cortex, where the initial renormalizing process occurs: rather than executing only simple electro-chemical reflex arcs; the cortex executes more complex electro-chemical exchanges that bears a plasticity that isolate and capture instances of magnitudes, while statistically capturing the potentiality of like ongoing instances within the discrete domains that the particularity of the cellular structures allow. To be specific, the isolating of discrete magnitudes occurs as a result of the particular architecture of neuron cells, the neural transmitters between the cells, and the specialized neuronal cell layers within the cortex. And the capturing of discrete magnitudes (by the particular neuron cells, neural transmitters, and the cortex’s specialized layers) occurs as the neurons’ electrochemical exchanges generate electromagnetic fields that consist of particle-waves, which exchange force carrying protons. And so, the electromagnetic fields have both quantum and macroscopic properties, to the end that one cannot argue that the quantum effects of the brain are merely localized.
Next, the personalized renormalizing process begins as the thalamic circuit possesses complementing neuronal structures like the cortex structures. As a result, the complementing neural layer structures between the thalamic circuit and the cortex apprehend constants of proportionality through the respective electromagnetic waves. And so, the matching and retention renormalizing process ensues as existing cortical and thalamic proportional neuronal allotments either assimilate or adapt new sensory inputs. As a final outcome, during the process of the brain-mechanism’s attempts to adapt new sense impressions to the neuronal nets proportional allotments, the brain’s mechanism is instantly translated into a dynamic references frame, that is, the neuronal correlate of consciousness that actively seeks to assimilate ongoing sense-perceptions unto its a priori sense of the universality of proportional wholes.
And so, Immanuel’s Law concludes that the haecceity—the qualia, like-thisness—of consciousness is a magnitudinous sense, bearing the mechanistic physicality of a dynamic reference frame; that is, not merely a classical Cartesian reference frame or an Einsteinian relativity reference frame, but more so an dynamic participant in the fluid unpacking the normalized emergence of spacetime.
Much more can be said about the content of Immanuel’s Law, especially in regards to its scientific, theological, and physical implications. Indeed, evolutionary theory’s describes how, through long periods of time, species increase sophistication through adaptive processes, according to the species’ fitness; however, evolutionary theory cannot explain how the brain anticipates the modal effects of processes that occur on the subatomic level, with no definitive spacetime values. Nonetheless, the mechanism that Immanuel’s Law describes is entirely falsifiable; therefore, many supporters of science’s pursuit of objectivity will welcome its perspective. Also, the general public, with faith-based leanings, will embrace the theory as well. For example, Immanuel’s Law’s ultimate conclusions correspond with Greek philosophers’ conception of a first-cause, prime mover initiating the world, logically. Likewise, Immanuel’s Law corresponds with Christian theology’s description of God’s absolute ontological being, YHWH (I am), expressing the world through a Logos (a logical expression). Immanuel’s Law even agrees with German philosopher Immanuel Kant’s concession that there is at least epistemological utility in imagining that an ordered world proceeds from the designs of a supernatural creator.
Whatever your personal perspective, please consider Immanuel’s Law’s merit for the betterment of all. You can find out more information by searching for the Immanuel’s Law promotional video on YouTube (see section VII at 1hr 6min). The video is audaciously titled “Immanuel’s Law: the World’s First Scientifically Falsifiable Proof for the Existence of God and the Human Soul”
Or I can provide you with a copy of the doctrinal treatise that Immanuel’s Law assumes the third chapter of. Otherwise, the doctrinal treatise can be found on Amazon, entitled “The Landscape of Truth: an Orthodox Understanding of the Biblical Testaments for the True Worshippers”
Thank you,
. . . ."
The Mechanical Designer's Second Open Letter (first Published on November 3, 2022 on thelandscapeoftruth.com) responds to and critiques a published work that cognitive neuroscientists published on the NIH website on July 4, 2022, after the mechanical designers first open letter. The NIH work reaches almost identical conclusions as the Mechanical Designer's First Open Letter. However, the Second Open Letter highlights how the NIH published work falls short of its goal because the work struggles under its 19th-century natural-evolution framework. The work in question is entitled “Qualia and Phenomenal Consciousness Arise From the Information Structure of an Electromagnetic Field in the Brain”. Again, the work can be found on the NIH National Library of Medicine website.
Creator-Design vs Natural-Evolution Approach to Discovering Consciousness in the Brain
". . . .
-The Needed Scientific Proof for God’s Existence (the Creator-design approach to determining consciousness’ origin in the brain)-
As we consider the dire threats to modern democratic society, which increasingly loses the general public’s ethical oversight; we may take comfort from the fact that the advent of artificial intelligence (A.I.) forces scientists, A.I. engineers, and philosophers alike to confront a poignant fact: to mimic the natural intelligence of humans and animals; A.I. developers must frame the criteria for natural intelligence in terms of purpose, causality, and logical consequences, in order to design the mechanical operations of artificial intelligence. In other words, the development of A.I. forces many to reconsider if the mechanism of consciousness is either the effect of an intelligent designer (God) or the effect of random processes that yield no ethical criteria for us to conduct our knowledge and oversee the technological instruments that our knowledge creates.
Thus, let us quickly highlight the two most recent opposing approaches that seek to answer the question of whether God created natural intelligence or evolutionary processes gave rise to natural intelligence: the first approach, a Creator’s design approach, is by an aerospace mechanical designer, Derick M. Fuller, who named the approach Immanuel’s Law, meaning the natural laws of physics are a logical expression of God, who is the basis of all things. Moreover, the designer published the approach in the third chapter of a doctrinal treatise, the Landscape of Truth, in 2014; and he produced an online video presentation in October 2020, followed by an open letter to cognitive neuroscientists in March 2022.
True to his profession, the designer initially framed the necessary mechanical system that consciousness requires: he considered the physical requirements that support the basic structure of cognition and the nature of the environment that the system must operate upon. Recognizing how philosophers, since Plato, have developed the philosophical discipline of epistemology to define consciousness; he understood that conscious-cognition’s basic structure is a capacity to apprehend universal perceptions of the environment and thereby ground those perceptions into categorical concepts (judgements) per the unified sense of one’s state of being. And so, he understood that to distinguish a physical system that corresponds with conscious-cognition’s fundamental operation of rationalizing universal perceptions; he knew that he must distinguish how the brain interacts with the physical system that proves to be the substrate that all other physical systems emerge upon. Like so, he knew that he could readily distinguish how the brain models magnitudinous relationships as categorical concepts of the real world’s physical systems.
Knowing his physics, the designer understood that the mechanical basis of the material universe is a mathematical constant of proportionality: the constant governs energy transfer to normalize the statistical nature of subatomic particles into the macroscopic materials and extreme magnitudes of the universe that the brain enables consciousness to observe. However, also knowing that the brain cannot actually store but only correlatively model the universe’s extreme magnitudes; the designer, Fuller, recognized that the mechanical system equating consciousness must be a series of renormalizing processes that likewise normalize the subatomic world’s statistical nature unto scaled proportional magnitudes that mimic the real world. For example, the designer knew that for the brain to model the appearing world, it must perform an initial normalizing process to distinguish scaled magnitudes that equate cognitive percepts; moreover, he understood that the brain must sequentially perform an augmented normalizing process that correlates the scaled magnitudes into a constant of proportionality that equates a grounding of perceptions as concepts, per one’s personal state of being. And lastly, he realized that the brain must persist with a matching and retention of ongoing renormalizing processes that amounts to conscious will, itself.
To observe and demarcate the brain’s mechanical operation of renormalizing statistically based sensor-input into the magnitudinous models of conscious-cognition; the designer, Fuller, distinguished the brain’s underlying power source: he essentially distinguished that which survives the brain’s tendency toward entropy, that is, the brain’s mechanical breakdown that manifests as disease. In this way, he could map out the entire mechanical system. The designer’s obvious choice for the brain’s power source was the brain’s electromagnetic (EM) waves, which the brain’s neuron-cells’ electro-chemical exchanges generate. You see, each tree-like shaped neuron connects to other neurons and exchanges electro-chemical signals. Thereby, the neuronal net generates particular magnetic fields; as each neuron, neuronal layer, and electro-chemical signaling bears unique composition that renders to each part of the brain specific functions.
Currently, having no further understanding other than knowing the brain’s neuronal structure, cognitive neuroscientists can only point to brain regions that are active during cognitive behavior: the neuroscientists’ natural-evolution approach to framing the brain’s workings leaves them with no understanding of how the brain’s functioning actually amounts to consciousness. Many scientists, therefore, believe as Immanuel Kant held, that scientific knowledge of the self cannot be known. Some even go to the extent of believing that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, a mirage, of neuronal processes.
In contrast, the mechanical designer’s approach, Immanuel’s Law, entails philosophy’s strong epistemological structure that reinterprets the brain’s workings and closes the mind-body explanatory gap, by reconciling Christian theology, Western philosophy, and contemporary science to define the mechanical workings of consciousness. For example, Immanuel’s Law observes that the brain’s initial renormalizing process occurs at the cerebral cortex; where the cortex’s neuronal layers systematize sensory input into magnitudinous concepts. Next, Immanuel’s Law observes that the personalizing renormalizing process occurs at the thalamus, near the brain’s center, as the cortex-thalamus circuit transfers the cortex’s EM waves to the thalamus where the thalamus region obtains the constant of proportionality. Then finally, Immanuel’s Law observes that the matching and retention renormalizing process occurs as memory centers, like the hippocampus, reconcile ongoing sensory input with existing impressions upon the neuronal net. In fact, the mechanical designer calls the whole circuit, which obtains consciousness’ constant of proportionality, a dynamic reference frame: the first-person magnitudinous sense of self, which is a standing on one’s being that physically corresponds with an intra-dimensional experience of spacetime that seamlessly reconciles past, present, and forecasted perceptions, due to the dynamic reference frame’s grasping of the background—that is, energy’s proportionality—as the reference frame reconstitutes, representationally, the normalized world that again stands upon statistically based subatomic interactions.
The mechanical designer, Derick M. Fuller’s, design approach works because the approach simply seeks to reverse engineer a purposeful design; moreover, the designer establishes that the brain’s operation is by design because the electro-chemical exchange; the integrating of the EM waves through renormalizing processes; and the ultimate obtaining of a constant of proportionality all stand upon quantum mathematical relationships that preexist the physical worlds that emerge upon quantum proportionalities. The preexisting mathematically scheme matches Greek philosophers’ logos supposition of a prime mover, initiating all things; and of course the preexisting mathematical scheme matches Christian theology’s description of God the Father’s creating all things through God’s Logos, the second person of the Trinity. In short, the design approach reestablishes the moral and ethical foundations of Western civilization, from which the general public can scrutinize ongoing technological and social innovations:
To be specific, the design approach pursues the sense of purposefulness that results from the logical consequences of any given physical system’s operation. Then from the sense of purposefulness, society can theologically and philosophically structure an ethical compass; moreover, from the logical consequences of the system, society can derive hypotheses that scientists can falsify, that is, prove true or false.
Undeniably, when understood correctly, the mechanical designer, Derick M. Fuller’s, model shows striking promise. Yet, in order for the mechanical designer to prove that his model for the mechanism of consciousness is true; scientists must subject the designer’s model, Immanuel’s Law, to the scrutiny of the scientific method. In other words, scientists must test Immanuel’s Law as a hypothesis, in order to see if the hypothesis makes valid predictions; whereby all would recognize Immanuel’s Law as exemplifying true laws of physics. Still, though Immanuel’s Law has yet to undergo scientific scrutiny, the recent natural-evolution approach to determining consciousness’ origin in the brain independently reaches nearly identical conclusions as the mechanical designer, Fuller; therefore, the natural-evolutionary approach vindicates, Immanuel’s Law, though Immanuel’s Law points to far more reaching theological, philosophical, and political consequences.
Thus, to vindicate either the design approach or the natural-evolution approach to determining consciousness’ origin in the brain, we must establish that the authors of either approach appropriately apply the scientific method; which depends upon the integrity of the observer, in regards to the observer’s capacity to acquire objective knowledge. Indeed, the question of the integrity of the observer has haunted the practitioners of the scientific method, since the applied sciences of the 16th through 19th began to outpace philosophical institutions in gathering such knowledge that we have yet to comprehend philosophically. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant conceded that the design approach to understanding the universe is necessary in the effort to secure rational understanding, though Kant unfortunately concluded that we are unable to secure an objective understanding of one’s personhood or God. And so, despite the design approach’s utility in acquiring rational understanding, the natural-evolution approach has by far been the context in which scientists conceive the universe’s workings. And so, since scientists lack philosophical definition, the true natures of conscious-cognition and the universe have remained cryptic and mysterious at best.
You see, the design approach expects purpose, even a design intent that the designer can gainfully reconcile with Western philosophy’s descriptions of the structure of conscious-cognition, which produces our knowledge. In contrast, the natural-evolution approach also recognizes the structure of cognition and even the physics of the brain and the environment; however, the neuroscientists, who employ the natural-evolution approach, do not consider the advent of the brain’s capacity for conscious-cognition to be the outcome of purposeful intent. Rather, the neuroscientists consider the advent of conscious-cognition to be a consequence of the evolved fitness of biological systems that adapt to their environments. Therefore, scientists expect the emerging material world and biological systems to be meandering to the extent that they believe that the advent of conscious-cognition is merely a fortuitous outcome. In the end, the scientists’ natural-evolution approach stymies knowledge because the scientists do not expect purposeful structures that directly facilitate our cognitive faculties.
For example, two key pioneers of modern physics, Albert Einstein and Max Planck, revered the utility of the design approach to understanding the universe. Both expected beauty and elegance as they fathomed how to unpack the workings of the universe. First, Planck discovered energy’s discrete constant of proportionality. Later when quantum physicists discovered that subatomic behavior is statistical, as a consequence of energy’s discrete nature; Einstein objected to physicists incorporating themselves (the observers) into their observations by their mathematically factoring Planck’s proportional constant, in order to reconcile the subatomic world’s statistical behavior with the macroscopic world’s normal, uniform behavior. Einstein understood that the physicists lacked a philosophical understanding of the subatomic world’s behavior; therefore, he recognized that by their incorporating themselves into their observations, they compromised their objective ability to employ the scientific method.
In direct response to Albert Einstein’s observation, the mechanical designer’s model, Immanuel’s Law, understands that cognition itself stands upon our incorporating our perspectives into our environments through the generating of magnitudinous models, which are synonymous with cognitive concepts, through renormalizing processes. To be specific, the designer, Fuller, kept in mind that energy’s discrete proportionality forms the basis of the chemical bonds and compounds that regulate energy’s emission and absorption, ultimately to normalize the forces of the appearing world; therefore, Fuller understood that the brain must also quantify discrete magnitudinous representations, per a constant of proportionality, in order to retain conceptions of the appearing world. Like so, the mechanical designer, Fuller, closed the mind-matter explanatory gap and so audaciously reconciled Christian theology and Western philosophy with modern physics.
-The natural-evolution approach to determining consciousness’ origin in the brain-At this point, we have sufficiently considered the mechanical designer’s creator-design approach to determining conscious-cognition in the brain; however, to recognize the merits of the creator-design approach, we must now assess the natural-evolution approach. But since the natural-evolution approach reaches similar material conclusions as the mechanical designer, our assessment will be very brief: we will only highlight how the natural-evolution approach fails to establish the integrity of the observer, in regards to the natural-evolution approach’s entirely ignoring Albert Einstein’s warning to physicists that our science is unsound unless we philosophically grasp how to maintain objectivity while reconciling the statistical behavior of the subatomic world with the uniform world that we observe. You see, the cognitive neuroscientists who champion the natural-evolution approach frame their hypotheses in the context of 19th Century classical physics in which Charles Darwin framed the theory of evolution; therefore, evolutionary theory does not encompass the early 20th Century quantum physics understanding of the subatomic world. And so, though the following natural-evolution approach reaches similar material conclusions as the mechanical designer, we shall here briefly delineate how the approach falls apart: we shall see how their framing their hypotheses in the evolutionary context does not yield the philosophical (or even epistemological) framework for their hypotheses to predict outcomes that correspond with observations, in regards to the actual nature of conscious-cognition. To be specific, we shall see that their approach ultimately fails because the classical physics based theory of evolution cannot reconcile with the neuronal network’s quantum physics based operations.
Furthermore, to demonstrate the contrast between the creator-design and the natural-evolution approaches to distinguishing conscious-cognition’s origin in the brain; we chose the most recent work that represents the decades old development of the natural-evolution approach. Moreover, the paper that we chose is a contemporaneous work, which the authors fortuitously published in July 2022, several months after the mechanical designer, Fuller, distributed his open letter to cognitive neuroscientists, in March 2022.
The paper, representing the natural-evolution approach, is entitled “Qualia and Phenomenal Consciousness Arise From the Information Structure of an Electromagnetic Field in the Brain”; moreover, the work can be found on the NIH National Library of Medicine website.
Recognizing the criteria for being a true scientific paper that presents logically formed hypotheses that others can test and verify, the authors of the natural-evolution paper present a series of hypotheses that seek to answer four main questions, which the authors deem to be necessary for determining how the brain obtains conscious-cognition: the first question seeks to answer what constitutes the physical substrate for subjective, phenomenal, consciousness (i.e., P-consciousness). The second question seeks a determination concerning whether the substrate is generated in a particular part of the brain or the entirety of the body. The third question seeks to determine where does qualia, the actual qualitative sense (i.e., the like thisness), arise. And finally the fourth question seeks to determine what differentiates P-consciousness electromagnetic (EM) fields from other naturally occurring electromagnetic fields.
To answer the first question (i.e., what is consciousness’ physical substrate), the authors hypothesize that the brain’s electromagnetic (EM) waves, which moving electrical currents generate as synchronic neurons fire, are the physical substrate to consciousness. For similar reasons as the mechanical designer, the authors reach their conclusion because the physical characteristics of the EM waves correspond with conscious-cognitions ability to store and transmit information, almost instantly: the authors note that the particularities of the EM fields directly reflect the particularities of each charged neuronal circuit that generates the field; moreover, the authors note that the EM fields are more integrated than the electro-chemical exchanges throughout the neuronal network. For this reason, the authors note how the EM waves superimpose their more generalized structure upon the neuronal network.
In short, the premise that the authors establish in their initial hypothesis is that the complexity and integration of neuronal networks enable the resulting EM waves to generalize sensory inputs and manifest consciousness. And so, in deference to this their first hypothesis, the authors of the natural-evolution approach answer the second question by further hypothesizing that consciousness appears in the thalamus because of its neuronal structure’s complexity. Recall that the mechanical designer also considers the thalamus as being the location for conscious-cognition but for more critical reasons than neuronal complexity: remember, the designer recognizes the need for the brain to have a processing capacity that corresponds with the manner in which quantized energy regulates the world with normalized degrees and demarcations. For this reason, we noted how the designer concludes that the thalamus fits the circumstance that enables the brain to perform a personalized renormalizing operation. And so, interestingly, like the mechanical designer, the authors also ponder whether the brain’s neuronal network reflects quantum-like operations, as the authors deduce that conscious percepts occur at the collapse of the EM wave-functions where the EM waves interface with one another; however, as we shall shortly note, their natural-evolution context prevents the authors from fully recognizing the implications of the brain’s performing quantum-like calculations.
Hence, only recognizing the brain’s quantum-like calculations to be a subject that they should consider later, the authors of the natural-evolution approach confidently step ahead to hypothesize an answer to the third question, which they deem to be necessary for determining the origin of consciousness in the brain. Again, the third question seeks to determine where do qualia (that is, consciousness’ qualitative senses) arise. To answer the third question, the authors simply hypothesize that the particularity of each sensory neuron’s resulting EM field carries particular information of the sensed experience. And so, the authors postulate that the thalamus’ EM fields simply emulate the initial sensory fields and so render a subjective experience. Of course, we saw that the mechanical designer reaches similar material conclusions but with mechanical and epistemological understanding.
At the close of the authors’ paper, we finally begin to see the authors’ natural-evolution approach fall apart as the authors seek to answer the fourth question (that is, what differentiates “conscious” EM fields from natural EM fields). To answer the fourth question, the authors hypothesize that the complexity of the thalamic EM fields supervene over less complex contributing sensory fields, in a manner that renders a best-estimate generalization of the information from the contributing fields. Though confident in their answers; to their credit, the authors recognize that their hypothesis, of complexity manifesting consciousness, falls short of a full explanation since the less complex neuronal systems in animals manifest consciousness, as well. What is more, they also recognize that their work does not answer what many cognitive neuroscientists consider to be the hard questions, like why does the brain’s integrated neuron network interpret naturally occurring wavelength-frequencies photons as color, and why does the neuronal network interpret some wavelength-frequencies as sound pitch. Thus, at the last, the authors empathize with many cognitive neuroscientists who consider consciousness as an epiphenomenon (a mirage), since many brain functions that instruct the body occur regardless of consciousness.
-Conclusion-The authors of the natural-evolution approach (like so many contemporary scientists who retreat to the belief that consciousness is an epiphenomenon) not only do society a disservice, but also do other proponents of the scientific method a disservice: first, we must say that their dismissing consciousness as an epiphenomenon dismisses the meaning, purposefulness, and truths that motivate human aspiration. Indeed, a description of the societal fallout that results from the scientific community’s indifference to human meaning is beyond the scope of our current discussion. However, one must know that their dismissal of consciousness as an epiphenomenon directly undermines the integrity of the observer who seeks to employ the scientific method: a method that stands upon the conviction that we have the philosophical capacity to frame logical hypothesis in the context of our self-conscious perspectives, upon which we build knowledge upon observable predictions.
As we have mentioned, Albert Einstein expressed his grave concern over quantum physicists’ failing to establish the objective integrity of the observer, as the physicists factored their statistical computations into their observations of the subatomic world’s statistical nature. Understandably, the quantum physicists grappled with the realization that an exact knowledge of the subatomic world cannot be known; however, as contemporary scientists embrace the belief that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, they inadvertently call into question our capacity to make observations objectively and thereby employ the scientific method, altogether.
The commentary of the 20th Century German philosopher Martin Heidegger is most instructive here. Heidegger criticized modern physicists for casting their theories and hypotheses in what Heidegger described as atomism; which basically is to prioritize and consider incremental aspects of observed phenomena within spacetime, without considering the priority of the whole system that entails the observed. Essentially, what Heidegger recognized is that today’s scientists ignore the millennia old rationalist verses empiricist debate, that is, whether we can acquire knowledge through the rational means of logically comprehending whole systems or whether we can acquire knowledge through what we empirically observe. Heidegger recognized that contemporary scientists fail to regard the dynamic nature of our cognitive experience: his remarkable work fully understands that one cannot separate the stream of consciousness, in regards to separating a present (ready-at-hand) awareness within spacetime from the affectedness of past and expected awareness. And so, Heidegger’s work concludes that to identify the physical substrate of conscious-cognition, one must identify how the substrate gives conscious-cognition the capacity to stand upon its being in correspondence to the world that conscious-cognition becomes aware of.
The theory of evolution is above all an incremental and empiricist concept; therefore, the natural-evolution approach inhibits a full perspective for scientists who seek to determine the origin of consciousness in the brain. For example, when the authors of the above example paper conclude that consciousness occurs at the collapse of integrative and complex wave functions; they ignore certain quantum-based realities that not only make the electro-magnetic waves’ integrative relationships possible, but also relegate the resulting conscious-cognition to be dependent upon the quantum relationships rather than the integrative electromagnetic waves, as the mechanical designer concludes. You see, physicists Max Planck and Albert Einstein destroyed the classical physics understandings that frame the theory of evolution: Planck and Einstein demonstrated that materials interface and exchange forces based upon mathematically quantifiable frequencies of discrete energy. Previously, classical physicists maintained the assumption that such observable things like volume, intensity, or duration caused the universe’s force exchanges; however, contemporary physicists soon found that the discrete quantifiable nature of energy mathematically characterizes the demarcations and measures of the universe’s forces; whereas, non-discrete and infinite energies would render the universe an amalgamated singularity of nothingness.
And so, the brilliance that we find in the mechanical designer’s conclusion that conscious-cognition stands upon a renormalizing substrate is the following: by distinguishing that conscious-cognition corresponds with a renormalizing process of reconciling quantized energy’s subatomic statistical relationships with the uniform material relationships appearing within spacetime; the mechanical designer, Fuller, grasps a mechanical operation that corresponds with the structure of knowledge. As an outcome, within the context of the operational expectancies of the designer’s mechanical model, scientists can employ the scientific method to test and perfect our understanding of brain function.
For example, recall from above that the designer, Fuller, distinguishes the mechanical operation by distinguishing how the brain’s neuronal network integrates the brain’s EM fields to model and correlate the sensed magnitudes of the material world in a way that grasp the world’s proportional transfer of forces. Remember, the designer in this way distinguishes that as the brain independently grasps the material world’s proportional constant, the brain grasps conscious-cognition, which then reimagines the world per its state of being.
The benefit to society that the mechanical designer’s model, Immanuel’s Law, brings is that Immanuel’s Law reconciles science with Western philosophy and theology to the end that the model yields an ethical framework to advance science. In point of fact, Immanuel’s Law description of the brain’s renormalizing process matches Heidegger’s description of consciousness’ being a self-aware stand upon one’s being (Dasein); where one grasps the background upon which all things unfold within spacetime. Too, Immanuel’s Law’s description matches Immanuel Kant’s description of the self: its being a grounding of concepts per one’s grasp of space and time. And because the classical physics based theory of evolution cannot account for the brain’s quantum based operations (since the non-dimensional quantum-based operations enable the macroscopic evolutionary processes within the spacetime dimensions rather than being an outcome of the evolutionary processes); Immanuel’s Law theologically demonstrates that the appearing universe stands upon the priority of a logic-based divine expression (God’s Logos), from which we can philosophically frame the emergence of our knowledge structure and ethical understanding.
Howbeit, Immanuel’s Law theological consequences are far beyond the scope of our discussion. We are only sufficed to say that the natural-evolution approach, as demonstrated by the example paper, holds no mechanical content from which we may glean philosophical or ethical understanding. The authors of the paper’s conclusion that consciousness occurs at the collapse of integrative and complex wave functions yields no mechanical operations that we can assess as contributing or diminishing the structure of knowledge. Again, one must note that the authors’ conclusions maintain a classical physics world view of volume, intensity, and duration effecting force exchanges. In simpler terms, their conclusions beg the following questions: at what point in the neuronal networks’ increasing complexity does consciousness occur? What is the exact operation that the increasing complexity must achieve to establish consciousness?
Decidedly, the natural-evolution approach to determining conscious-cognition’s origin in the brain fails. The correct response for us is to advance the mechanical designer’s model, Immanuel’s Law, for the betterment of society.
-We Need Your Support-We must again emphasize that we do not mean to single out the authors of the example paper that we cite above. Nor are we entirely dismissing certain observable conclusions of the theory of evolution, which the authors’ paper stands upon. We fully recognize that biological species adapt to their environment over long periods of time; however, we understand that evolutionary theory is a macroscopic effect and not necessarily the cause of our coming into being. And so, we are sure that the authors of the paper and the institutions that have supported their work are consummate professionals with brilliant understandings of their craft. In fact, we are sure that if the authors could see beyond the narrow scope of evolution and recognize the wide scope of the mechanical design approach, they would more than likely embellish Immanuel’s Law far beyond the humble mechanical designer’s capacity.
But until such a time, we need your support in promoting the mechanical designer, Derick M. Fuller’s, work: Immanuel’s Law. Please spread the word. You may find Immanuel’s Law in the third chapter of the doctrinal treatise: “The Landscape of Truth: An Orthodox Understanding of the Biblical Testaments for the True Worshippers”.
You may purchase the treatise from any online retailer or find a link on thelandscapeoftruth[dot]com. The Landscape of Truth is a systematic theology of the Holy Bible, designed for Church Bible studies and Church institutes. The Landscape adheres to the Creeds of Christendom and maintains a mainstream view of Reformed Theology, from the Protestant Reformation.
For more information about Immanuel’s Law, itself, please view the promotional video (Immanuel’s Law: the World’s First Scientifically Falsifiable Proof for the Existence of God and the Human Soul) on YouTube, which you may also find here on our thelandscapeoftruth[dot]com. Also, find the mechanical designer’s open letter to cognitive neuroscientists, on the website or thelandscapeoftruth[dot]com’s facebook page.
Thank you. . . ."
As we consider the dire threats to modern democratic society, which increasingly loses the general public’s ethical oversight; we may take comfort from the fact that the advent of artificial intelligence (A.I.) forces scientists, A.I. engineers, and philosophers alike to confront a poignant fact: to mimic the natural intelligence of humans and animals; A.I. developers must frame the criteria for natural intelligence in terms of purpose, causality, and logical consequences, in order to design the mechanical operations of artificial intelligence. In other words, the development of A.I. forces many to reconsider if the mechanism of consciousness is either the effect of an intelligent designer (God) or the effect of random processes that yield no ethical criteria for us to conduct our knowledge and oversee the technological instruments that our knowledge creates.
Thus, let us quickly highlight the two most recent opposing approaches that seek to answer the question of whether God created natural intelligence or evolutionary processes gave rise to natural intelligence: the first approach, a Creator’s design approach, is by an aerospace mechanical designer, Derick M. Fuller, who named the approach Immanuel’s Law, meaning the natural laws of physics are a logical expression of God, who is the basis of all things. Moreover, the designer published the approach in the third chapter of a doctrinal treatise, the Landscape of Truth, in 2014; and he produced an online video presentation in October 2020, followed by an open letter to cognitive neuroscientists in March 2022.
True to his profession, the designer initially framed the necessary mechanical system that consciousness requires: he considered the physical requirements that support the basic structure of cognition and the nature of the environment that the system must operate upon. Recognizing how philosophers, since Plato, have developed the philosophical discipline of epistemology to define consciousness; he understood that conscious-cognition’s basic structure is a capacity to apprehend universal perceptions of the environment and thereby ground those perceptions into categorical concepts (judgements) per the unified sense of one’s state of being. And so, he understood that to distinguish a physical system that corresponds with conscious-cognition’s fundamental operation of rationalizing universal perceptions; he knew that he must distinguish how the brain interacts with the physical system that proves to be the substrate that all other physical systems emerge upon. Like so, he knew that he could readily distinguish how the brain models magnitudinous relationships as categorical concepts of the real world’s physical systems.
Knowing his physics, the designer understood that the mechanical basis of the material universe is a mathematical constant of proportionality: the constant governs energy transfer to normalize the statistical nature of subatomic particles into the macroscopic materials and extreme magnitudes of the universe that the brain enables consciousness to observe. However, also knowing that the brain cannot actually store but only correlatively model the universe’s extreme magnitudes; the designer, Fuller, recognized that the mechanical system equating consciousness must be a series of renormalizing processes that likewise normalize the subatomic world’s statistical nature unto scaled proportional magnitudes that mimic the real world. For example, the designer knew that for the brain to model the appearing world, it must perform an initial normalizing process to distinguish scaled magnitudes that equate cognitive percepts; moreover, he understood that the brain must sequentially perform an augmented normalizing process that correlates the scaled magnitudes into a constant of proportionality that equates a grounding of perceptions as concepts, per one’s personal state of being. And lastly, he realized that the brain must persist with a matching and retention of ongoing renormalizing processes that amounts to conscious will, itself.
To observe and demarcate the brain’s mechanical operation of renormalizing statistically based sensor-input into the magnitudinous models of conscious-cognition; the designer, Fuller, distinguished the brain’s underlying power source: he essentially distinguished that which survives the brain’s tendency toward entropy, that is, the brain’s mechanical breakdown that manifests as disease. In this way, he could map out the entire mechanical system. The designer’s obvious choice for the brain’s power source was the brain’s electromagnetic (EM) waves, which the brain’s neuron-cells’ electro-chemical exchanges generate. You see, each tree-like shaped neuron connects to other neurons and exchanges electro-chemical signals. Thereby, the neuronal net generates particular magnetic fields; as each neuron, neuronal layer, and electro-chemical signaling bears unique composition that renders to each part of the brain specific functions.
Currently, having no further understanding other than knowing the brain’s neuronal structure, cognitive neuroscientists can only point to brain regions that are active during cognitive behavior: the neuroscientists’ natural-evolution approach to framing the brain’s workings leaves them with no understanding of how the brain’s functioning actually amounts to consciousness. Many scientists, therefore, believe as Immanuel Kant held, that scientific knowledge of the self cannot be known. Some even go to the extent of believing that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, a mirage, of neuronal processes.
In contrast, the mechanical designer’s approach, Immanuel’s Law, entails philosophy’s strong epistemological structure that reinterprets the brain’s workings and closes the mind-body explanatory gap, by reconciling Christian theology, Western philosophy, and contemporary science to define the mechanical workings of consciousness. For example, Immanuel’s Law observes that the brain’s initial renormalizing process occurs at the cerebral cortex; where the cortex’s neuronal layers systematize sensory input into magnitudinous concepts. Next, Immanuel’s Law observes that the personalizing renormalizing process occurs at the thalamus, near the brain’s center, as the cortex-thalamus circuit transfers the cortex’s EM waves to the thalamus where the thalamus region obtains the constant of proportionality. Then finally, Immanuel’s Law observes that the matching and retention renormalizing process occurs as memory centers, like the hippocampus, reconcile ongoing sensory input with existing impressions upon the neuronal net. In fact, the mechanical designer calls the whole circuit, which obtains consciousness’ constant of proportionality, a dynamic reference frame: the first-person magnitudinous sense of self, which is a standing on one’s being that physically corresponds with an intra-dimensional experience of spacetime that seamlessly reconciles past, present, and forecasted perceptions, due to the dynamic reference frame’s grasping of the background—that is, energy’s proportionality—as the reference frame reconstitutes, representationally, the normalized world that again stands upon statistically based subatomic interactions.
The mechanical designer, Derick M. Fuller’s, design approach works because the approach simply seeks to reverse engineer a purposeful design; moreover, the designer establishes that the brain’s operation is by design because the electro-chemical exchange; the integrating of the EM waves through renormalizing processes; and the ultimate obtaining of a constant of proportionality all stand upon quantum mathematical relationships that preexist the physical worlds that emerge upon quantum proportionalities. The preexisting mathematically scheme matches Greek philosophers’ logos supposition of a prime mover, initiating all things; and of course the preexisting mathematical scheme matches Christian theology’s description of God the Father’s creating all things through God’s Logos, the second person of the Trinity. In short, the design approach reestablishes the moral and ethical foundations of Western civilization, from which the general public can scrutinize ongoing technological and social innovations:
To be specific, the design approach pursues the sense of purposefulness that results from the logical consequences of any given physical system’s operation. Then from the sense of purposefulness, society can theologically and philosophically structure an ethical compass; moreover, from the logical consequences of the system, society can derive hypotheses that scientists can falsify, that is, prove true or false.
Undeniably, when understood correctly, the mechanical designer, Derick M. Fuller’s, model shows striking promise. Yet, in order for the mechanical designer to prove that his model for the mechanism of consciousness is true; scientists must subject the designer’s model, Immanuel’s Law, to the scrutiny of the scientific method. In other words, scientists must test Immanuel’s Law as a hypothesis, in order to see if the hypothesis makes valid predictions; whereby all would recognize Immanuel’s Law as exemplifying true laws of physics. Still, though Immanuel’s Law has yet to undergo scientific scrutiny, the recent natural-evolution approach to determining consciousness’ origin in the brain independently reaches nearly identical conclusions as the mechanical designer, Fuller; therefore, the natural-evolutionary approach vindicates, Immanuel’s Law, though Immanuel’s Law points to far more reaching theological, philosophical, and political consequences.
Thus, to vindicate either the design approach or the natural-evolution approach to determining consciousness’ origin in the brain, we must establish that the authors of either approach appropriately apply the scientific method; which depends upon the integrity of the observer, in regards to the observer’s capacity to acquire objective knowledge. Indeed, the question of the integrity of the observer has haunted the practitioners of the scientific method, since the applied sciences of the 16th through 19th began to outpace philosophical institutions in gathering such knowledge that we have yet to comprehend philosophically. The German philosopher Immanuel Kant conceded that the design approach to understanding the universe is necessary in the effort to secure rational understanding, though Kant unfortunately concluded that we are unable to secure an objective understanding of one’s personhood or God. And so, despite the design approach’s utility in acquiring rational understanding, the natural-evolution approach has by far been the context in which scientists conceive the universe’s workings. And so, since scientists lack philosophical definition, the true natures of conscious-cognition and the universe have remained cryptic and mysterious at best.
You see, the design approach expects purpose, even a design intent that the designer can gainfully reconcile with Western philosophy’s descriptions of the structure of conscious-cognition, which produces our knowledge. In contrast, the natural-evolution approach also recognizes the structure of cognition and even the physics of the brain and the environment; however, the neuroscientists, who employ the natural-evolution approach, do not consider the advent of the brain’s capacity for conscious-cognition to be the outcome of purposeful intent. Rather, the neuroscientists consider the advent of conscious-cognition to be a consequence of the evolved fitness of biological systems that adapt to their environments. Therefore, scientists expect the emerging material world and biological systems to be meandering to the extent that they believe that the advent of conscious-cognition is merely a fortuitous outcome. In the end, the scientists’ natural-evolution approach stymies knowledge because the scientists do not expect purposeful structures that directly facilitate our cognitive faculties.
For example, two key pioneers of modern physics, Albert Einstein and Max Planck, revered the utility of the design approach to understanding the universe. Both expected beauty and elegance as they fathomed how to unpack the workings of the universe. First, Planck discovered energy’s discrete constant of proportionality. Later when quantum physicists discovered that subatomic behavior is statistical, as a consequence of energy’s discrete nature; Einstein objected to physicists incorporating themselves (the observers) into their observations by their mathematically factoring Planck’s proportional constant, in order to reconcile the subatomic world’s statistical behavior with the macroscopic world’s normal, uniform behavior. Einstein understood that the physicists lacked a philosophical understanding of the subatomic world’s behavior; therefore, he recognized that by their incorporating themselves into their observations, they compromised their objective ability to employ the scientific method.
In direct response to Albert Einstein’s observation, the mechanical designer’s model, Immanuel’s Law, understands that cognition itself stands upon our incorporating our perspectives into our environments through the generating of magnitudinous models, which are synonymous with cognitive concepts, through renormalizing processes. To be specific, the designer, Fuller, kept in mind that energy’s discrete proportionality forms the basis of the chemical bonds and compounds that regulate energy’s emission and absorption, ultimately to normalize the forces of the appearing world; therefore, Fuller understood that the brain must also quantify discrete magnitudinous representations, per a constant of proportionality, in order to retain conceptions of the appearing world. Like so, the mechanical designer, Fuller, closed the mind-matter explanatory gap and so audaciously reconciled Christian theology and Western philosophy with modern physics.
-The natural-evolution approach to determining consciousness’ origin in the brain-At this point, we have sufficiently considered the mechanical designer’s creator-design approach to determining conscious-cognition in the brain; however, to recognize the merits of the creator-design approach, we must now assess the natural-evolution approach. But since the natural-evolution approach reaches similar material conclusions as the mechanical designer, our assessment will be very brief: we will only highlight how the natural-evolution approach fails to establish the integrity of the observer, in regards to the natural-evolution approach’s entirely ignoring Albert Einstein’s warning to physicists that our science is unsound unless we philosophically grasp how to maintain objectivity while reconciling the statistical behavior of the subatomic world with the uniform world that we observe. You see, the cognitive neuroscientists who champion the natural-evolution approach frame their hypotheses in the context of 19th Century classical physics in which Charles Darwin framed the theory of evolution; therefore, evolutionary theory does not encompass the early 20th Century quantum physics understanding of the subatomic world. And so, though the following natural-evolution approach reaches similar material conclusions as the mechanical designer, we shall here briefly delineate how the approach falls apart: we shall see how their framing their hypotheses in the evolutionary context does not yield the philosophical (or even epistemological) framework for their hypotheses to predict outcomes that correspond with observations, in regards to the actual nature of conscious-cognition. To be specific, we shall see that their approach ultimately fails because the classical physics based theory of evolution cannot reconcile with the neuronal network’s quantum physics based operations.
Furthermore, to demonstrate the contrast between the creator-design and the natural-evolution approaches to distinguishing conscious-cognition’s origin in the brain; we chose the most recent work that represents the decades old development of the natural-evolution approach. Moreover, the paper that we chose is a contemporaneous work, which the authors fortuitously published in July 2022, several months after the mechanical designer, Fuller, distributed his open letter to cognitive neuroscientists, in March 2022.
The paper, representing the natural-evolution approach, is entitled “Qualia and Phenomenal Consciousness Arise From the Information Structure of an Electromagnetic Field in the Brain”; moreover, the work can be found on the NIH National Library of Medicine website.
Recognizing the criteria for being a true scientific paper that presents logically formed hypotheses that others can test and verify, the authors of the natural-evolution paper present a series of hypotheses that seek to answer four main questions, which the authors deem to be necessary for determining how the brain obtains conscious-cognition: the first question seeks to answer what constitutes the physical substrate for subjective, phenomenal, consciousness (i.e., P-consciousness). The second question seeks a determination concerning whether the substrate is generated in a particular part of the brain or the entirety of the body. The third question seeks to determine where does qualia, the actual qualitative sense (i.e., the like thisness), arise. And finally the fourth question seeks to determine what differentiates P-consciousness electromagnetic (EM) fields from other naturally occurring electromagnetic fields.
To answer the first question (i.e., what is consciousness’ physical substrate), the authors hypothesize that the brain’s electromagnetic (EM) waves, which moving electrical currents generate as synchronic neurons fire, are the physical substrate to consciousness. For similar reasons as the mechanical designer, the authors reach their conclusion because the physical characteristics of the EM waves correspond with conscious-cognitions ability to store and transmit information, almost instantly: the authors note that the particularities of the EM fields directly reflect the particularities of each charged neuronal circuit that generates the field; moreover, the authors note that the EM fields are more integrated than the electro-chemical exchanges throughout the neuronal network. For this reason, the authors note how the EM waves superimpose their more generalized structure upon the neuronal network.
In short, the premise that the authors establish in their initial hypothesis is that the complexity and integration of neuronal networks enable the resulting EM waves to generalize sensory inputs and manifest consciousness. And so, in deference to this their first hypothesis, the authors of the natural-evolution approach answer the second question by further hypothesizing that consciousness appears in the thalamus because of its neuronal structure’s complexity. Recall that the mechanical designer also considers the thalamus as being the location for conscious-cognition but for more critical reasons than neuronal complexity: remember, the designer recognizes the need for the brain to have a processing capacity that corresponds with the manner in which quantized energy regulates the world with normalized degrees and demarcations. For this reason, we noted how the designer concludes that the thalamus fits the circumstance that enables the brain to perform a personalized renormalizing operation. And so, interestingly, like the mechanical designer, the authors also ponder whether the brain’s neuronal network reflects quantum-like operations, as the authors deduce that conscious percepts occur at the collapse of the EM wave-functions where the EM waves interface with one another; however, as we shall shortly note, their natural-evolution context prevents the authors from fully recognizing the implications of the brain’s performing quantum-like calculations.
Hence, only recognizing the brain’s quantum-like calculations to be a subject that they should consider later, the authors of the natural-evolution approach confidently step ahead to hypothesize an answer to the third question, which they deem to be necessary for determining the origin of consciousness in the brain. Again, the third question seeks to determine where do qualia (that is, consciousness’ qualitative senses) arise. To answer the third question, the authors simply hypothesize that the particularity of each sensory neuron’s resulting EM field carries particular information of the sensed experience. And so, the authors postulate that the thalamus’ EM fields simply emulate the initial sensory fields and so render a subjective experience. Of course, we saw that the mechanical designer reaches similar material conclusions but with mechanical and epistemological understanding.
At the close of the authors’ paper, we finally begin to see the authors’ natural-evolution approach fall apart as the authors seek to answer the fourth question (that is, what differentiates “conscious” EM fields from natural EM fields). To answer the fourth question, the authors hypothesize that the complexity of the thalamic EM fields supervene over less complex contributing sensory fields, in a manner that renders a best-estimate generalization of the information from the contributing fields. Though confident in their answers; to their credit, the authors recognize that their hypothesis, of complexity manifesting consciousness, falls short of a full explanation since the less complex neuronal systems in animals manifest consciousness, as well. What is more, they also recognize that their work does not answer what many cognitive neuroscientists consider to be the hard questions, like why does the brain’s integrated neuron network interpret naturally occurring wavelength-frequencies photons as color, and why does the neuronal network interpret some wavelength-frequencies as sound pitch. Thus, at the last, the authors empathize with many cognitive neuroscientists who consider consciousness as an epiphenomenon (a mirage), since many brain functions that instruct the body occur regardless of consciousness.
-Conclusion-The authors of the natural-evolution approach (like so many contemporary scientists who retreat to the belief that consciousness is an epiphenomenon) not only do society a disservice, but also do other proponents of the scientific method a disservice: first, we must say that their dismissing consciousness as an epiphenomenon dismisses the meaning, purposefulness, and truths that motivate human aspiration. Indeed, a description of the societal fallout that results from the scientific community’s indifference to human meaning is beyond the scope of our current discussion. However, one must know that their dismissal of consciousness as an epiphenomenon directly undermines the integrity of the observer who seeks to employ the scientific method: a method that stands upon the conviction that we have the philosophical capacity to frame logical hypothesis in the context of our self-conscious perspectives, upon which we build knowledge upon observable predictions.
As we have mentioned, Albert Einstein expressed his grave concern over quantum physicists’ failing to establish the objective integrity of the observer, as the physicists factored their statistical computations into their observations of the subatomic world’s statistical nature. Understandably, the quantum physicists grappled with the realization that an exact knowledge of the subatomic world cannot be known; however, as contemporary scientists embrace the belief that consciousness is an epiphenomenon, they inadvertently call into question our capacity to make observations objectively and thereby employ the scientific method, altogether.
The commentary of the 20th Century German philosopher Martin Heidegger is most instructive here. Heidegger criticized modern physicists for casting their theories and hypotheses in what Heidegger described as atomism; which basically is to prioritize and consider incremental aspects of observed phenomena within spacetime, without considering the priority of the whole system that entails the observed. Essentially, what Heidegger recognized is that today’s scientists ignore the millennia old rationalist verses empiricist debate, that is, whether we can acquire knowledge through the rational means of logically comprehending whole systems or whether we can acquire knowledge through what we empirically observe. Heidegger recognized that contemporary scientists fail to regard the dynamic nature of our cognitive experience: his remarkable work fully understands that one cannot separate the stream of consciousness, in regards to separating a present (ready-at-hand) awareness within spacetime from the affectedness of past and expected awareness. And so, Heidegger’s work concludes that to identify the physical substrate of conscious-cognition, one must identify how the substrate gives conscious-cognition the capacity to stand upon its being in correspondence to the world that conscious-cognition becomes aware of.
The theory of evolution is above all an incremental and empiricist concept; therefore, the natural-evolution approach inhibits a full perspective for scientists who seek to determine the origin of consciousness in the brain. For example, when the authors of the above example paper conclude that consciousness occurs at the collapse of integrative and complex wave functions; they ignore certain quantum-based realities that not only make the electro-magnetic waves’ integrative relationships possible, but also relegate the resulting conscious-cognition to be dependent upon the quantum relationships rather than the integrative electromagnetic waves, as the mechanical designer concludes. You see, physicists Max Planck and Albert Einstein destroyed the classical physics understandings that frame the theory of evolution: Planck and Einstein demonstrated that materials interface and exchange forces based upon mathematically quantifiable frequencies of discrete energy. Previously, classical physicists maintained the assumption that such observable things like volume, intensity, or duration caused the universe’s force exchanges; however, contemporary physicists soon found that the discrete quantifiable nature of energy mathematically characterizes the demarcations and measures of the universe’s forces; whereas, non-discrete and infinite energies would render the universe an amalgamated singularity of nothingness.
And so, the brilliance that we find in the mechanical designer’s conclusion that conscious-cognition stands upon a renormalizing substrate is the following: by distinguishing that conscious-cognition corresponds with a renormalizing process of reconciling quantized energy’s subatomic statistical relationships with the uniform material relationships appearing within spacetime; the mechanical designer, Fuller, grasps a mechanical operation that corresponds with the structure of knowledge. As an outcome, within the context of the operational expectancies of the designer’s mechanical model, scientists can employ the scientific method to test and perfect our understanding of brain function.
For example, recall from above that the designer, Fuller, distinguishes the mechanical operation by distinguishing how the brain’s neuronal network integrates the brain’s EM fields to model and correlate the sensed magnitudes of the material world in a way that grasp the world’s proportional transfer of forces. Remember, the designer in this way distinguishes that as the brain independently grasps the material world’s proportional constant, the brain grasps conscious-cognition, which then reimagines the world per its state of being.
The benefit to society that the mechanical designer’s model, Immanuel’s Law, brings is that Immanuel’s Law reconciles science with Western philosophy and theology to the end that the model yields an ethical framework to advance science. In point of fact, Immanuel’s Law description of the brain’s renormalizing process matches Heidegger’s description of consciousness’ being a self-aware stand upon one’s being (Dasein); where one grasps the background upon which all things unfold within spacetime. Too, Immanuel’s Law’s description matches Immanuel Kant’s description of the self: its being a grounding of concepts per one’s grasp of space and time. And because the classical physics based theory of evolution cannot account for the brain’s quantum based operations (since the non-dimensional quantum-based operations enable the macroscopic evolutionary processes within the spacetime dimensions rather than being an outcome of the evolutionary processes); Immanuel’s Law theologically demonstrates that the appearing universe stands upon the priority of a logic-based divine expression (God’s Logos), from which we can philosophically frame the emergence of our knowledge structure and ethical understanding.
Howbeit, Immanuel’s Law theological consequences are far beyond the scope of our discussion. We are only sufficed to say that the natural-evolution approach, as demonstrated by the example paper, holds no mechanical content from which we may glean philosophical or ethical understanding. The authors of the paper’s conclusion that consciousness occurs at the collapse of integrative and complex wave functions yields no mechanical operations that we can assess as contributing or diminishing the structure of knowledge. Again, one must note that the authors’ conclusions maintain a classical physics world view of volume, intensity, and duration effecting force exchanges. In simpler terms, their conclusions beg the following questions: at what point in the neuronal networks’ increasing complexity does consciousness occur? What is the exact operation that the increasing complexity must achieve to establish consciousness?
Decidedly, the natural-evolution approach to determining conscious-cognition’s origin in the brain fails. The correct response for us is to advance the mechanical designer’s model, Immanuel’s Law, for the betterment of society.
-We Need Your Support-We must again emphasize that we do not mean to single out the authors of the example paper that we cite above. Nor are we entirely dismissing certain observable conclusions of the theory of evolution, which the authors’ paper stands upon. We fully recognize that biological species adapt to their environment over long periods of time; however, we understand that evolutionary theory is a macroscopic effect and not necessarily the cause of our coming into being. And so, we are sure that the authors of the paper and the institutions that have supported their work are consummate professionals with brilliant understandings of their craft. In fact, we are sure that if the authors could see beyond the narrow scope of evolution and recognize the wide scope of the mechanical design approach, they would more than likely embellish Immanuel’s Law far beyond the humble mechanical designer’s capacity.
But until such a time, we need your support in promoting the mechanical designer, Derick M. Fuller’s, work: Immanuel’s Law. Please spread the word. You may find Immanuel’s Law in the third chapter of the doctrinal treatise: “The Landscape of Truth: An Orthodox Understanding of the Biblical Testaments for the True Worshippers”.
You may purchase the treatise from any online retailer or find a link on thelandscapeoftruth[dot]com. The Landscape of Truth is a systematic theology of the Holy Bible, designed for Church Bible studies and Church institutes. The Landscape adheres to the Creeds of Christendom and maintains a mainstream view of Reformed Theology, from the Protestant Reformation.
For more information about Immanuel’s Law, itself, please view the promotional video (Immanuel’s Law: the World’s First Scientifically Falsifiable Proof for the Existence of God and the Human Soul) on YouTube, which you may also find here on our thelandscapeoftruth[dot]com. Also, find the mechanical designer’s open letter to cognitive neuroscientists, on the website or thelandscapeoftruth[dot]com’s facebook page.
Thank you. . . ."
TWEA thanks you, the readers, for having the wisdom and discernment to recognize the intellectual merit of Immanuel's Law. We, therefore, need your support for helping us raise awareness. And we need your support for our pending production of supporting videos promoting Immanuel's Law. Please donate above. You can find the full exposition of Immanuel’s Law in the third chapter of our the doctrinal treatise, The Landscape of Truth: An Orthodox Understanding of the Biblical Testaments for the True Worshippers: the work covers a survey of the philosophical and scientific history that today’s world is built upon; moreover, the work shows how today’s science has outpaced philosophical understanding, leading us to our scientific struggle, concerning how to understand the implications of the epistemological (i.e., our capacity to know) and ontological (i.e., the nature of what we observe) implications of such things as cognitive neuroscience’s investigation of the brain and software engineer’s building of artificial intelligence.
And so, ongoing productions and teachings are forthcoming. The work done until this time has been performed by volunteers with little costs; however, to sufficiently treat our ministry efforts, we need a full and part time committed team.
Check back soon for upcoming instructional material! Until then, again, for a full understanding of Immanuel's, please see the third chapter of our the doctrinal treatise, The Landscape of Truth: An Orthodox Understanding of the Biblical Testaments for the True Worshippers.
Any donation is greatly appreciated!