Most Important Question in All Fields of Knowledge...for me.?

Question

Who are you -- to answer anything I might ask?
Yes, you, who are you?
[[[[[As of me, who am I to ask you who you are, and if you know who you are, what serves as the foundation of your identity cognition, is it pure logic inference? Is it concrete, almost mathematical derivatives?
And, if you have any concrete answers, tell me why you do not ask yourself why mankind does not reduce its population to 20% of its actual number, even if it means that YOU would be one of those of the billions comitted to be disposed of.
And, blah, blah, blah...(ad infinitum)]]]]]

Answer 1

I yam what I yam. From the great philosopher....Popeye

Answer 2

I have been by similarly structured entities that I am an entity supposedly composed of billions and billions of subatomic particles. My particular grouping of subatomic particles is intricately configured in such a way that it supports life - specifically classified as human. What is life? Who the hell knows? A majority of the entities of which I speak of have logically inserted their kind into a group -- one that they officially accredited with the description of scientists. These scientists are said to have a superior linkage of combinations of subatomic particles and chemical reactions, which are located similarly on all entities deemed the classification of human, atop the physical structure that has been named the body. This location in the subatomic network is called the brain.

So scientists are those humans that have similar interests in the field of science, a word chosen by them to identify the process their brains use to describe what they percieve through their senses and explain the on a logical system based comprehensive disocveries -- those that build upon each other as what we call time progresses (I have no room for the explaination of time).

So anyway, these scientists have described life to be a natural phenomenon (meaning the don't really know) were certain subatomic particles grouped together in patterns similar enough to each other that they can be put in a classification. The human species is an example of a sub-system of particles within this classification. These humans have their own classification, which is how and why we can use the word "human" to describe it. Once a pattern is similar enough to be noticed by the critical thinking process of one of these brains, which is governed by a set of rules (in its most basic sense, the scientific method; needed because although there are similarities in our classification, this also means they are not identical -- just close enough for enough of these brains designated to the scientists to agree upon). . . and whatever.



But certain words in this document, such as agree, and other indications imply that this world is actually based on choices, which are governed by the free will of the world's organic entities. So this means that the world itself is actually governed by to different methods. The scientific method and free will. For example, the experimentation that is requried to prove a fact about any form of existence requires a certain number of variables and trials. This means that the whole system is based on limitations, since we have to put a limit on these numbers. The trials, for instance need to be "as many as possible". That's generic. How will you know if you did as many as possible. Technically, there'll always be someone able to do more trials in most cases. And an ideal number of trials is described as a sufficient number -- meaning enough to be efficient enough according to a set of standards -- our standards. (We limit the world to our mental limitations.)

So actually, the ideal number of trials is infinite. If this is true, we will never have enough evidence to say we "know" anything. Science bases its knowledge on how the presence fits in with the past and as long as it contiues work that way it's fact, but some trials in experiments occur naturally. What if the pattern of successful attempts finally reaches a failure? We can't know the future of anything let alone attempts, therefore we can never know if something will remain to be true in the future.

So anyone who thinks that science is the only way to discover and the universe. They are overlooking the other evidence that has been presented. Some things can be explained through science, but some remain to be misteries, because we they don't follow our rules. Just because something keeps working, we assume that it will keep working that way becuase we never know it do be different. We adapt and become so used to things being a certain way that we assume that's the way it will always be. How does the past tell the future? Think about that old "tree in the forest" riddle: if a tree fall down, but no one is there to prove it, does it make a sound. Exeprience says that when things move they convert their mechanical energy into heat and sound. We see the tree standing upright one day and the next we see it parallel with the ground. It must have made a sound, because when you're next a tree that falls down any other time it makes noise. Yet we can never truley be confident that it made a sound. If we can't prove it, it didn't happen. So technically the tree either fell or it didn't. We can't officially state that it did because our senses weren't in range to prove it. If we can't prove the past, how can we prove the future, where our senses don't even exist yet. What if we're only seeing the logical part of the world and ignoring what we can't explain.

So the world can be explained through a combination of scientifc evidence gathered through our senses (and the trust of our predecessors' senses) and what we believe blindly. So the world varies from what everyone agrees is there and what is there when we disagree. So who am I? Well, my name is Josh, but who do you believe I am?

Answer 3

Who am I you ask? I am a child of God, created in His image. This is the the foundation of my identity and cognition. As a member of mankind I have not the authority to reduce the population to any percent.

Who are you, I ask?

Answer 4

Who am I? The question must be asked to yourself as well...
Who am I to answer anything you might ask--I am an inquisitive ritualistic person, meaning one of my personality traits is that of being a nurturing person.

I ask people whats wrong, when they are hurt, I want to search out learning experiences, and to delve into the psychology of what we are all.

Identity cognition...I'd say it is both mathematical and logic, because identity is one of the parts of psychology people fight to understand using the nature-vs-nurture idea.

____________________________________________________
I don't ask myself why we haven't reduced our population to 20% of the number it currently resides on, because it has to do with psycho-biology.

Think to the Neanderthals (not stupid, and we didn't evolve from them...didn't paint the cave paintings!) If a crisis were to happen, and people were to die (such as the black plague) those who survived were lucky too, and reproduction or sex, is a primary drive in psychology.

We need it in order to procreate the next generation, if we didn't have the technology we have now the majority of people would die in birth.

1) no survivals for Pre-mature babies
2) no survivals of colds in young infants
3) no survivals of children with epilepsy (spelling)
4) no quadruplets, no quintuplets...etc. etc.

there would be an extremely low level of survivability rate fpr children with servere cases of birth defects.

Answer 5

Check yourself before you ask a question because it sounds like you don't even know yourself

Answer 6

Whatever......blah,blah,blah...

Answer 7

Switch to decaf.

Answer 8

Ummm, what?