A Piece Of Dough Can Learn Just Like Animals And Humans

[milk_lover]

I know and read your comment toward homosexuals,it wasn't respectful,caring as you deem necessary.
You then attack atheists without respect or caring,hopefully you can realise atheism is clearly a religion.

The rest of your post is a desperate straw man using terms like- attacking me,throwing accusations around etc.
I don't believe everything I here in media,you shouldn't believe everything you here in your media/bible.

Most of you people who claim to be religious are ego driven, you want to keep your ego in an afterlife and most of the religions you believe in allow you to keep said ego in the afterlife ,you have built up this ego for years,it's a deep self love hidden under the guise of religious scripture,no empathy for others and the ego will do whatever it takes to maintain the illusion of you,can't handle regressing back into the whole as true individual/indivisible.

How is it that all of you religious people cannot allow the genius light of Christ/Alah et al shine through you? What are all of you lacking that we can't see this in you?
Yet without this light/genius of sorts you all feel the need to proselytize or quote scripture like you are a chosen one,surely if you were a chosen one we would see this in your actions and words that cut like a sword.

Drareq, how is it not caring if I say I don't want to watch gay agenda in my home tv or computer? I just don't enjoy those stuff as gay people don't enjoy watching women vaginas. Dude, you are overthinking this so much. I feel if we met in person, we would be nicer to each other and we would be comfortable that each person has an opinion and that is ok. It's just what I believe is right to my heart and soul. You don't need to force me with your ideals. I am comfortable that I may not seem ideal for you really. I believe everything written in my book 100% because I feel it is THE book of all books. Sorry if that notion is offending your intelligence.

I am not an ego driven. I am a self lover. I am fearful I would enter hellfire and I am looking forward to be in heaven. I want to drink from milk and honey rivers all afterlife long in lunch and supper. So how can I achieve all of this and reach my purpose? By being the best individual I can be. By being altruistic to others. By fulfilling my prayers and enjoying the process. So it's not a clear egotism.

Drareq I don't think I have light shining through me either. You can't see this light because we're lacking super powers. We are just weak humans in awe to super powerful entity in the sky.

 

[Steven Bussinger]

What I found interesting is that the "learning" happened via a change in structure. So what we perceive as "learning" could be an epiphenomenon of physically measurable changes in the universe. It sounds materialistic, but I do not think it means life is deterministic.

For instance, there is no accounting for the existence of thoughts or theories in this model. In other words, we haven't found internal forces, just induced changes with external forces.

Perhaps a thought is an extremely rapid self-induced structure change that allows you to evaluate potential realities. Each thought is a reality you simulate in your head.

 

[haidut]

What I found interesting is that the "learning" happened via a change in structure. So what we perceive as "learning" could be an epiphenomenon of physically measurable changes in the universe. It sounds materialistic, but I do not think it means life is deterministic.

For instance, there is no accounting for the existence of thoughts or theories in this model. In other words, we haven't found internal forces, just induced changes with external forces.

Perhaps a thought is an extremely rapid self-induced structure change that allows you to evaluate potential realities. Each thought is a reality you simulate in your head.

Exactly! It is the changes in the Universe that we perceive as time and in Aristotelian physics those changes are simply the purposeful movement of matter from potential to actuality. We being matter are subject to the same laws. And assuming that thought is an extremely rapid self-induced structure change, the question becomes what is consciousness. I'd say consciousness is the flow of electrical energy that enables the change (thought) to happen. Function (consciousness) builds structure (thought) and that structure further increases function.

 

[jaa]

Exactly! It is the changes in the Universe that we perceive as time and in Aristotelian physics those changes are simply the purposeful movement of matter from potential to actuality. We being matter are subject to the same laws. And assuming that thought is an extremely rapid self-induced structure change, the question becomes what is consciousness. I'd say consciousness is the flow of electrical energy that enables the change (thought) to happen.

Could you expand on the change (thought) part? That seems extremely loose (change) or extremely tight (thought). For example, I don't think consciousness requires thought like humans have, I think sensory experience is adequate, and I think that lies in between those two extremes.

 

[haidut]

Could you expand on the change (thought) part? That seems extremely loose (change) or extremely tight (thought). For example, I don't think consciousness requires thought like humans have, I think sensory experience is adequate, and I think that lies in between those two extremes.

You are right, consciousness does not require thought it's the other way around. There was a collection of neurological studies published in the 1950s about people with peculiar abnormalities, diseases, trauma, etc that allowed doctors to reach the conclusion that consciousness precedes thought and learning (even though it may be self-evident to most people). There could be at least two types of learning - from thought (which implies self-driven) or through environmental stimuli (as in the example with the dough above). The environmentally driven learning may or may not lead to thought but it does change structure and as such is a prerequisite for formation of subsequent thoughts. Some people like Nikola Tesla claimed that there can be no learning from pure thought - it is all from environmental stimuli. Thought is simply the "massaging" of the structure that consciousness and stimuli (environment) built. Babies are a great example of how this process unfolds (in humans at least) - i.e. in the beginning they seem to have nothing but consciousness (seemingly confirmed by fMRI studies), later on they have consciousness and basic stimuli-driven learning and the structure that learning builds leads to thought, emotions and allows for richer subsequent learning from the environment and the person's own thoughts. But it is consciousness that is primary and the intense flow of electrons due to babies' fast metabolism is what allows them to build the great and intricate CNS structure required for learning. It is not a coincidence that older people seem rigid and unable to learn - they have reduced electron flow and without a doubt reduced level of consciousness which medicine likes to frame as various "dementia" conditions as if the problem was purely of thinking (which it is not).
This is why genetics is such a nightmare to reconcile with consciousness - if everything is blindly encoded and randomly occurring it seems to remove the requirement of consciousness (i.e. no need for an "orienting reflex"). The reasoning above is partly why most geneticist believe consciousness is an illusion. It simply isn't necessary in a genetically driven reality. But consciousness is hard to argue away, and to me this is one of strongest pieces of evidence that genetics is a dead end as a tool for studying life.
Now, if learning (through thought or through stimuli) requires consciousness then what does that mean for the dough above?? How about other material objects??
https://www.inverse.com/article/222...-matloff-panspychism-rocket-science-astronomy

 

[Regina]

What I found interesting is that the "learning" happened via a change in structure. So what we perceive as "learning" could be an epiphenomenon of physically measurable changes in the universe. It sounds materialistic, but I do not think it means life is deterministic.

For instance, there is no accounting for the existence of thoughts or theories in this model. In other words, we haven't found internal forces, just induced changes with external forces.

Perhaps a thought is an extremely rapid self-induced structure change that allows you to evaluate potential realities. Each thought is a reality you simulate in your head.

I love that.

 

[Steven Bussinger]

Thanks.

I really like the explanation of electron flow affecting intellectual flexibility.

I don't really understand why genes are the reigning scientific theory explaining life (inb4 'monied interests'). I may be wrong, but my understanding is that genes just determine what kinds of proteins and enzymes you have available to use in your organism and nothing else beyond that. They don't even determine the quantity (or even quality) of enzymes available to you. There's very little explanatory power there. The interplay between energy and matter, as touched on by haidut in his last two posts, is far more intriguing.

 

[Regina]

You are right, consciousness does not require thought it's the other way around. There was a collection of neurological studies published in the 1950s about people with peculiar abnormalities, diseases, trauma, etc that allowed doctors to reach the conclusion that consciousness precedes thought and learning (even though it may be self-evident to most people). There could be at least two types of learning - from thought (which implies self-driven) or through environmental stimuli (as in the example with the dough above). The environmentally driven learning may or may not lead to thought but it does change structure and as such is a prerequisite for formation of subsequent thoughts. Some people like Nikola Tesla claimed that there can be no learning from pure thought - it is all from environmental stimuli. Thought is simply the "massaging" of the structure that consciousness and stimuli (environment) built. Babies are a great example of how this process unfolds (in humans at least) - i.e. in the beginning they seem to have nothing but consciousness (seemingly confirmed by fMRI studies), later on they have consciousness and basic stimuli-driven learning and the structure that learning builds leads to thought, emotions and allows for richer subsequent learning from the environment and the person's own thoughts. But it is consciousness that is primary and the intense flow of electrons due to babies' fast metabolism is what allows them to build the great and intricate CNS structure required for learning. It is not a coincidence that older people seem rigid and unable to learn - they have reduced electron flow and without a doubt reduced level of consciousness which medicine likes to frame as various "dementia" conditions as if the problem was purely of thinking (which it is not).
This is why genetics is such a nightmare to reconcile with consciousness - if everything is blindly encoded and randomly occurring it seems to remove the requirement of consciousness (i.e. no need for an "orienting reflex"). The reasoning above is partly why most geneticist believe consciousness is an illusion. It simply isn't necessary in a genetically driven reality. But consciousness is hard to argue away, and to me this is one of strongest pieces of evidence that genetics is a dead end as a tool for studying life.
Now, if learning (through thought or through stimuli) requires consciousness then what does that mean for the dough above?? How about other material objects??
https://www.inverse.com/article/222...-matloff-panspychism-rocket-science-astronomy

This is wonderful Haidut.
I think the ability to respond to the reality that is actually there with free and unrestricting seeing is the place where consciousness and learning are at its highest.
Today my original teacher came to a 'beyond the burbs' area in the woods to teach a weapon's seminar. He spent most the time changing our structure. He first had us just walk a straight line a certain way and the change in thought was so dramatic.
I mean, this stuff is talked about in the zen literature. The Discourse On the Inexhaustible Lamp or Takuan's Unfettered Mind and the entire notion of Kanzeon (free and unrestricted sight) in the heart sutra. Literally, only what is there is there; so cut through that directly, swallow it whole and see. How does the mind stay free-flowing (where it operates at its optimum) and not get stuck.

 

[jaa]

You are right, consciousness does not require thought it's the other way around. There was a collection of neurological studies published in the 1950s about people with peculiar abnormalities, diseases, trauma, etc that allowed doctors to reach the conclusion that consciousness precedes thought and learning (even though it may be self-evident to most people). There could be at least two types of learning - from thought (which implies self-driven) or through environmental stimuli (as in the example with the dough above). The environmentally driven learning may or may not lead to thought but it does change structure and as such is a prerequisite for formation of subsequent thoughts. Some people like Nikola Tesla claimed that there can be no learning from pure thought - it is all from environmental stimuli. Thought is simply the "massaging" of the structure that consciousness and stimuli (environment) built. Babies are a great example of how this process unfolds (in humans at least) - i.e. in the beginning they seem to have nothing but consciousness (seemingly confirmed by fMRI studies), later on they have consciousness and basic stimuli-driven learning and the structure that learning builds leads to thought, emotions and allows for richer subsequent learning from the environment and the person's own thoughts. But it is consciousness that is primary and the intense flow of electrons due to babies' fast metabolism is what allows them to build the great and intricate CNS structure required for learning. It is not a coincidence that older people seem rigid and unable to learn - they have reduced electron flow and without a doubt reduced level of consciousness which medicine likes to frame as various "dementia" conditions as if the problem was purely of thinking (which it is not).

I like those thoughts on babies vs elderly. I'm on board with the better metabolism correlating with better learning ability. But I don't see how that transfers to electron flow in other settings (i.e. I don't consider a lightbulb conscious). Structure matters. The structure of a human brain differs from the structure of a fly's brain differs from the structure of a lightbulb. And the structure within the set of human brains differs.

This is why genetics is such a nightmare to reconcile with consciousness - if everything is blindly encoded and randomly occurring it seems to remove the requirement of consciousness (i.e. no need for an "orienting reflex"). The reasoning above is partly why most geneticist believe consciousness is an illusion. It simply isn't necessary in a genetically driven reality.

I think we can agree that people who say consciousness is an illusion are kidding themselves or have convoluted some non-colloquial definition of the word consciousness and if we removed that word and explained what we expect to happen in ordinary language we would all be in agreement.

Genetics can be blindly encoded and randomly occurring and still trend in a direction of non-randomness due to selection pressures. Though I am quite open to the idea that environmental stimuli can direct evolution quicker than previously described process and think it is more likely than not to be true. I think your post on the fish in a mexican cave helped change my mind on this.


When I talk about genetics and consciousness, I mean as it relates to potential brain structure given a range of environments humans may find themselves in. Genetics dictates that range. A lizard does not have the potential to develop a human brain.

As for the requirement of consciousness, I don't think evolution could produce such philosophical zombies. ie. if you have a human brain structure, you get consciousness. You can't get a humanoid with the lights off. I think that the idea that you can is just human intuition of dualism gone awry.

I think human consciousness is pretty much what you see is what you get. We have the ability to take sensory data, sync it to the same moment of time and use our memory and pre wired hardware to simulate future potential outcomes given different actions and then choose the action that gives us the best results. Of course, we don't always make the best decisions, are brains aren't optimally designed for that. We are the products of 4.5B years of evolution, and the brain is an iterative (forwards and backwards) product of that. We evolved with limited resources, and evolution was not always directed towards better brain function. If it was, it was because it corresponded to better survivability.

But consciousness is hard to argue away, and to me this is one of strongest pieces of evidence that genetics is a dead end as a tool for studying life.
Now, if learning (through thought or through stimuli) requires consciousness then what does that mean for the dough above?? How about other material objects??
https://www.inverse.com/article/222...-matloff-panspychism-rocket-science-astronomy

I don't think that learning requires consciousness, unless where using the terms differently. What experience do you think the dough has that roughly matches the experience of consciousness that humans have?

That's an interesting hypothesis by Matloff, and good on him that he laid out what he expects to uncover if his hypothesis is true. But right now, it seems that that is just one of a sea of possibilities of explanations within an order of magnitude in weight.

Wouldn't he be able to measure the consciousness of a brain before and after it dies?

 

[haidut]

Thanks.

I really like the explanation of electron flow affecting intellectual flexibility.

I don't really understand why genes are the reigning scientific theory explaining life (inb4 'monied interests'). I may be wrong, but my understanding is that genes just determine what kinds of proteins and enzymes you have available to use in your organism and nothing else beyond that. They don't even determine the quantity (or even quality) of enzymes available to you. There's very little explanatory power there. The interplay between energy and matter, as touched on by haidut in his last two posts, is far more intriguing.

 

[haidut]

I like those thoughts on babies vs elderly. I'm on board with the better metabolism correlating with better learning ability. But I don't see how that transfers to electron flow in other settings (i.e. I don't consider a lightbulb conscious). Structure matters. The structure of a human brain differs from the structure of a fly's brain differs from the structure of a lightbulb. And the structure within the set of human brains differs.



I think we can agree that people who say consciousness is an illusion are kidding themselves or have convoluted some non-colloquial definition of the word consciousness and if we removed that word and explained what we expect to happen in ordinary language we would all be in agreement.

Genetics can be blindly encoded and randomly occurring and still trend in a direction of non-randomness due to selection pressures. Though I am quite open to the idea that environmental stimuli can direct evolution quicker than previously described process and think it is more likely than not to be true. I think your post on the fish in a mexican cave helped change my mind on this.


When I talk about genetics and consciousness, I mean as it relates to potential brain structure given a range of environments humans may find themselves in. Genetics dictates that range. A lizard does not have the potential to develop a human brain.

As for the requirement of consciousness, I don't think evolution could produce such philosophical zombies. ie. if you have a human brain structure, you get consciousness. You can't get a humanoid with the lights off. I think that the idea that you can is just human intuition of dualism gone awry.

I think human consciousness is pretty much what you see is what you get. We have the ability to take sensory data, sync it to the same moment of time and use our memory and pre wired hardware to simulate future potential outcomes given different actions and then choose the action that gives us the best results. Of course, we don't always make the best decisions, are brains aren't optimally designed for that. We are the products of 4.5B years of evolution, and the brain is an iterative (forwards and backwards) product of that. We evolved with limited resources, and evolution was not always directed towards better brain function. If it was, it was because it corresponded to better survivability.



I don't think that learning requires consciousness, unless where using the terms differently. What experience do you think the dough has that roughly matches the experience of consciousness that humans have?

That's an interesting hypothesis by Matloff, and good on him that he laid out what he expects to uncover if his hypothesis is true. But right now, it seems that that is just one of a sea of possibilities of explanations within an order of magnitude in weight.

Wouldn't he be able to measure the consciousness of a brain before and after it dies?

I think at least in humans learning has been shown to require consciousness. There have been studies with people in coma whose brains have been subjected to all kinds of manipulation to see if they would remember (i.e. learn) something when they wake up. They didn't, but maybe the experiments were not designed well. I guess if we have a way to map change in brain structure to expected behavior we could try to change the brain of a comatose person and see if he/she acquires new skills/thoughts/abilities when awoken. You see, if structure was primary and not function (consciousness) we should be able to manipulate brain structure through surgery to change that person. There are countless examples from everyday neurosurgical experience where the majority of a person's brain has been removed and they wake up. Then, after a period of adjustment during which there is "deranged" behavior they mostly revert back to normal in the presence of substantially reduced brain mass and structure. So, how were they able to recover their "me" with all (well, most) of their thoughts, feelings, abilities, etc if the brain structure is where it was encoded? Something does not add up IMO. Either consciousness is capable for somehow encoding personal features that do not depend on structure or the person's "me" is encoded elsewhere and not jut the brain. Otherwise, with severely changed brain structure why would they revert to their previous "me"? I think Aristotle was on to something with his idea of the Nous:
Nous - Wikipedia

As far as what would the dough experience in terms of consciousness, I don't know how to articulate that yet. Let me think about it and come back with something sensible. I do have an idea I just don't think the current language framework supports properly expressing it. I guess I'll have to come up with an analogy of some sort to illustrate it.

 

[jaa]

I think at least in humans learning has been shown to require consciousness. There have been studies with people in coma whose brains have been subjected to all kinds of manipulation to see if they would remember (i.e. learn) something when they wake up. They didn't, but maybe the experiments were not designed well. I guess if we have a way to map change in brain structure to expected behavior we could try to change the brain of a comatose person and see if he/she acquires new skills/thoughts/abilities when awoken. You see, if structure was primary and not function (consciousness) we should be able to manipulate brain structure through surgery to change that person. There are countless examples from everyday neurosurgical experience where the majority of a person's brain has been removed and they wake up. Then, after a period of adjustment during which there is "deranged" behavior they mostly revert back to normal in the presence of substantially reduced brain mass and structure. So, how were they able to recover their "me" with all (well, most) of their thoughts, feelings, abilities, etc if the brain structure is where it was encoded? Something does not add up IMO. Either consciousness is capable for somehow encoding personal features that do not depend on structure or the person's "me" is encoded elsewhere and not jut the brain. Otherwise, with severely changed brain structure why would they revert to their previous "me"? I think Aristotle was on to something with his idea of the Nous:
Nous - Wikipedia

The converse of that is that some people lose chunks of their brain and are profoundly affected, and loss of certain parts corresponds to predictable losses in human behaviour. Also no brain, or limited function of brain activity is correlated with zero to little consciousness.

It's hard to imagine in tact full sized brains not conferring an intelligence advantage, otherwise why waste the resources to make a brain so big?

I think the burden of proof is on panpyschism. It proposes extra stuff, which immediately complicates matters, and so far offers little in the way of evidence. It's easy to imagine a stream of evidence that comes in that could make panpyschism more and more likely, but I don't think we're there yet. That doesn't mean I don't think it's worthy of attention (I think it is), just that I don't think it's in the same sphere as the leading explanatory model.

As far as what would the dough experience in terms of consciousness, I don't know how to articulate that yet. Let me think about it and come back with something sensible. I do have an idea I just don't think the current language framework supports properly expressing it. I guess I'll have to come up with an analogy of some sort to illustrate it.

Haha that sounds like a very difficult thing to convey over the internet. I don't envy you, but I appreciate the effort and look forward to seeing what you come up with.

 

[mayweatherking]

So does everything u put in ur body feel pain.when its digested? damn heavy bro

 

[haidut]

So does everything u put in ur body feel pain.when its digested? damn heavy bro

Nope, that requires a nervous system IMO. I am proposing that a rock simply has nous (as Aristotle defined it, see above link) - the property of being able to learn. I think all matter does. It is not the same as panpsychism as I don't think a rock is alive, has a soul or personality.

 

[haidut]

The converse of that is that some people lose chunks of their brain and are profoundly affected, and loss of certain parts corresponds to predictable losses in human behaviour. Also no brain, or limited function of brain activity is correlated with zero to little consciousness.

It's hard to imagine in tact full sized brains not conferring an intelligence advantage, otherwise why waste the resources to make a brain so big?

I think the burden of proof is on panpyschism. It proposes extra stuff, which immediately complicates matters, and so far offers little in the way of evidence. It's easy to imagine a stream of evidence that comes in that could make panpyschism more and more likely, but I don't think we're there yet. That doesn't mean I don't think it's worthy of attention (I think it is), just that I don't think it's in the same sphere as the leading explanatory model.



Haha that sounds like a very difficult thing to convey over the internet. I don't envy you, but I appreciate the effort and look forward to seeing what you come up with.

See my response to @mayweatherking above. A rock does not have a "me" abilty (i.e. personality), it simply has capacity to learn, which I think is present in all matter and it goes beyond mechanistic conditioning. I think this noetic ability of matter is due to the physical properties of electrons themselves (hint: electrons are NOT particles). A bit more articulate description on the theory behind this is below.
http://wsminfo.org/articles/GREIT6Oct06.htm

 

[Drareg]

Drareq, how is it not caring if I say I don't want to watch gay agenda in my home tv or computer? I just don't enjoy those stuff as gay people don't enjoy watching women vaginas. Dude, you are overthinking this so much. I feel if we met in person, we would be nicer to each other and we would be comfortable that each person has an opinion and that is ok. It's just what I believe is right to my heart and soul. You don't need to force me with your ideals. I am comfortable that I may not seem ideal for you really. I believe everything written in my book 100% because I feel it is THE book of all books. Sorry if that notion is offending your intelligence.

I am not an ego driven. I am a self lover. I am fearful I would enter hellfire and I am looking forward to be in heaven. I want to drink from milk and honey rivers all afterlife long in lunch and supper. So how can I achieve all of this and reach my purpose? By being the best individual I can be. By being altruistic to others. By fulfilling my prayers and enjoying the process. So it's not a clear egotism.

Drareq I don't think I have light shining through me either. You can't see this light because we're lacking super powers. We are just weak humans in awe to super powerful entity in the sky.

Let's forget this,it's ruining a good thread.
If you meet me in person I am the same as on here,I will ask questions all day.

What you believe is your lense for reality,yours is a book and you won't change from this,what is the point of reading Ray Peat,studying biology,your books can't answer any of this.
You have fulfilled your purpose by deciding your lense to reality will be one book,because this book is your lense its a given you will believe this is THE book.

 

[jaa]

See my response to @mayweatherking above. A rock does not have a "me" abilty (i.e. personality), it simply has capacity to learn, which I think is present in all matter and it goes beyond mechanistic conditioning. I think this noetic ability of matter is due to the physical properties of electrons themselves (hint: electrons are NOT particles). A bit more articulate description on the theory behind this is below.
Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) - Articles - The Wave Structure of Matter (WSM) and the Origin of the Natural Laws

Can you explain what you mean by learn? Does it possess "free will" or does it "learn" in a predictable way completely transparent to humans? I think I disagree with you here in that I view it as mechanistic conditioning, but I'm not sure.

We are in agreement on the rock not being alive part, but that "nous" is throwing me for a bit of a loop. That wiki article you linked is the first I've read about it, and Aristotle is using it in a way that says animals lack "nous". What makes you think a rock has it?

I haven't had a chance to read the article, but I did read the conclusion, and there's a lot I agree with there. e.g. the universe is a quantum wave function and everything is connected. It sounds like there are some deviations from the standard model and some things I probably won't understand when reading the body of the text, but I am looking forward to it and may quote you again if I have any questions or comments.

 

[Drareg]

Conciousness is coming through the 5 senses/lenses.
Consciousness can potentially be more vast than human lenses?
The Rock has/is a lense.

Gauging pattern formation their is potential,for a more advanced organism with more lenses for filtering consciousness? May exist already.

 

[milk_lover]

Let's forget this,it's ruining a good thread.
If you meet me in person I am the same as on here,I will ask questions all day.

What you believe is your lense for reality,yours is a book and you won't change from this,what is the point of reading Ray Peat,studying biology,your books can't answer any of this.
You have fulfilled your purpose by deciding your lense to reality will be one book,because this book is your lense its a given you will believe this is THE book.

I don't mind questions at all; in fact, I think they are nourishing to the soul. You cannot say "let's forget this" and then proceed to belittle my "lense" and reality. So I have to say something here.

Who said if I believe in my book, I don't believe in other writings? In fact, in the Quran we have this verse: "And We did not send before you except men whom We inspired to. So ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know."

 

[Drareg]

I don't mind questions at all; in fact, I think they are nourishing to the soul. You cannot say "let's forget this" and then proceed to belittle my "lense" and reality. So I have to say something here.

Who said if I believe in my book, I don't believe in other writings? In fact, in the Quran we have this verse: "And We did not send before you except men whom We inspired to. So ask the People of the Reminder if you do not know."

Ok but the book is taken credit for the people sent before you,you waited to read the quote before thinking it's ok.
In the real world however you are using multiple lenses even if claimed to use one book,everything is A lenses of sort,my point would be to see the lenses in everything as having equal merit to the bibles/quarans.