>>5798355
Questions anticipate answers. Correct answers reference a set of facts. Some points of access upon a domain have opposite denial. Parsing apparent factoids while reducing the amount of redundant material is asking questions.
Cyclical karmic patterns chain events.
>I suspect when I run these experiments, I'm dealing with either a reflection of my own consciousness through the interplay of questioning and interpretation of random stimuli (and my reflection is a great deal smarter than I am) or I'm dealing with something conscious that I don't have direct control over or can't have solid trust in.
Interesting, if you define unknowns with abiding operants. Then re-catalyze those operants as the unknown what you do know and what you don't know are reducible by oppositely polarized drawing outwards from a toroidal set of facts
> I find that I can get the most optimal decisions by slaving the virtual system to a physical decay system like a dreidel, dice, a coin toss or a few, or even licence plates passing me on the stree
Two different webs to test in-streamings; one given precedence
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-transcendental/
Kant’s Transcendental Arguments
First published Fri Aug 21, 2009; substantive revision Fri Mar 2, 2018
Among Immanuel Kant’s (1724–1804) most influential contributions to philosophy is his development of the transcendental argument. In Kant’s conception, an argument of this kind begins with a compelling premise about our thought, experience, or knowledge, and then reasons to a conclusion that is a substantive and unobvious presupposition and necessary condition of this premise. The crucial steps in this reasoning are claims to the effect that a subconclusion or conclusion is a presupposition and necessary condition of a premise. Such a necessary condition might be a logically necessary condition, but often in Kant’s transcendental arguments the condition is necessary in the sense that it is the only possible explanation for the premise, whereupon the necessity might be weaker than logical. Typically, this reasoning is intended to be a priori in some sense, either strict (Smit 1999) or more relaxed (Philip Kitcher 1981, Pereboom 1990). The conclusion of the argument is often directed against skepticism of some sort. For example, Kant’s Transcendental Deduction targets Humean skepticism about the applicability of a priori metaphysical concepts, and his Refutation of Idealism takes aim at skepticism about external objects. These two transcendental arguments are found in the Critique of Pure Reason (1781, 1787), but such arguments are found throughout Kant’s writings, for example in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), in the Critique of Practical Reason (1788), in the Critique of the Power of Judgment (1790), and in the Opus Posthumum (1804; Förster 1989). This article focuses on the Transcendental Deduction, the Refutation of Idealism, and more recent transcendental arguments that are inspired by Kant’s work.