Pyramids of the Ancient Pre-Socratics as a Physicalization of Abstract Philosophical Theory

[Eodnhoj7]

If I got around the "laws" of causality...I would just chill out and relax...I wouldn't need money anymore...lol!

Why can't you chill out and relax now?

If you got around the "laws" of causality - the Nobel prize is the most you are going to get paid for it. It's a million dollars, or some such insignificant amount in the course of a human lifetime. Definitely not enough to "chill and relax" for the rest of your life.

Discovering things doesn't pay well, unless you also commercialise your discovery.

False, considering these discoveries set the grounds for identity properties that give an axiomatic base for one or more systems of metaphysics that set the grounds for how we interpret and meld reality.

We form reality in accord to perspective with this perspective as "awareness" itself setting the grounds for "being". Mold perspective, mold reality.

Metaphysics, as being through being, with being grounded in awareness, is a universal axiom of "reflection" inherent within the human constitution. In simpler terms, we are what we reflect on and metaphysics is less of a science but rather a mode of being that all people participate in regardless of whether they paradoxically are aware of it or not.

All civilizations are built in axioms, with the sciences and religions being interwoven within these civilizations througn these axioms. Change the axioms...change both "the self" (implying philosophy is about self reflection) and "civilization".

So "no", the "most" is not a Nobel prize or money...

[Arising_uk]

Thanks for bumping the thread with your responses.

No problem as I wouldn't like others to miss what a loon you are.

[FlashDangerpants]

I am claiming the boundaries of a now old experiment and that it needs further testing due to incompleteness. You keep going after the fact I used dousing rods, when I clearly stated stated that the experiment cannot be limited to dousing rods however they are required because of the historical context of usage...again "historical context" is necessary because whether you believe in them in or not, they are used historically.

That's a shit reason for using them.

In the past, Roman generals used haruspicy to determine whether to fight battles. We are not required to do so today just because some dudes made that mistake in the past. Haruspicy is the art of predicting the future by reading animal entrails after all, which is stupid. No more so than your stupid little sticks though.

Your 'experiment' has nothing but trivial witchcraft for its body of evidence, it is worthless and you are insane for keeping this thread alive.

The dousing rod thing has been way over beaten.

Oh we can go back to your other sources of data if you think that's going to help you. Sitting near a triangle and getting the heebie-jeebies is your other best evidence.

And third, I still don't know what you contribute. I never put any value to what threads you start, if you started any at all, so please provide a link so I can see the angle from which you are coming from.

I don't give a fuck if some witch doctor with a personality disorder is impressed or not. The only reason you would ever show respect for somebody is if you need them for a counterpart in your fantastical delusions of genius. I'm not auditioning to be the fake Moriarty for your delusional Holmes.

[Eodnhoj7]

I am claiming the boundaries of a now old experiment and that it needs further testing due to incompleteness. You keep going after the fact I used dousing rods, when I clearly stated stated that the experiment cannot be limited to dousing rods however they are required because of the historical context of usage...again "historical context" is necessary because whether you believe in them in or not, they are used historically.

That's a shit reason for using them.

In the past, Roman generals used haruspicy to determine whether to fight battles. We are not required to do so today just because some dudes made that mistake in the past. Haruspicy is the art of predicting the future by reading animal entrails after all, which is stupid. No more so than your stupid little sticks though.

Scientific "theories" are merely the haruspicy or rather "Ghost stories" of our time. We use them to predict the future. We use them to define the boundaries of the unknown. Of course haruspicy did not work in determining the future, it was strictly just a means of definition. And neither does the probabalistic materialistic empiricism determine the future either, it is just strictly a means of definition.

Haruspicy was merely the "slicing open" of reality, in which agrarian/farming and hunting cultures and the respective livestock/prey where its "foundations", is no different than the modern "slicing open" of reality we currently employ under the context of modernism evidenced by genetic and atomic "engineering". Engineering is strictly the seperation of one phenomenon and the connection of those parts into further phenomenon. Take "engineering" out of the equation and strictly look at the Hadron Collider...and it is just a variation of Haruspicy. The collider, litterally, breaks open "reality" and the remnants are read out in a manner which help us to define it...much in the same manner one slices open any other phenomenon (an animal in haruspicy, the "ego" in psychoanalyticism, etc.) in an effort to use it as a means to determine.

You have to keep in mind the context of Haruspicy. The animals, as consumers and producers, where extensions of the reality around them. They consumed what was in front of them. They where formed by the ease or harshness of the elements. They where the summation of the grounds from which they were derived, thus the "psychology" of it was strictly using the pinnacle of some point of existence to determine the surrounding environment. Today we have many "pinnacles", most specifically the "particle" or "field", that we slice open to determine or predict reality.

The simple truth is that all we can do is define reality, prediction is part of that ability to define, but considering prediction is relative to an unobservable future



Your 'experiment' has nothing but trivial witchcraft for its body of evidence, it is worthless and you are insane for keeping this thread alive.

Your responses keep the thread alive...

The dousing rod thing has been way over beaten.

Oh we can go back to your other sources of data if you think that's going to help you. Sitting near a triangle and getting the heebie-jeebies is your other best evidence.

Yes and No. As stated before, further testing is required (ie modern scientific equipment, such as measuring changes in emf, sound, light waves, etc....the test can go on and on). However part of that testing, if the pyramids represented a "unified" philosophy where consciousness, matter, biology, math, religion, etc. where "inseperable", requires psychological testing as well considering the human condition and consciousness are inseparable under these premises. This obviously needs further testing as well.

As I said before and will say again:

1. Everything I stated are results relative to a specific context.
2. The context is defined.
3. The context needs to be expanded as well as further contexts applied.

Get over it. I am arguing the experiment is not complete...you have no grounds for criticism without agreeing with me.

And third, I still don't know what you contribute. I never put any value to what threads you start, if you started any at all, so please provide a link so I can see the angle from which you are coming from.

I don't give a fuck if some witch doctor with a personality disorder is impressed or not. The only reason you would ever show respect for somebody is if you need them for a counterpart in your fantastical delusions of genius. I'm not auditioning to be the fake Moriarty for your delusional Holmes.

Good then stop responding to my thread and bumping it. Second, I want a link to one of your threads.

[Eodnhoj7]

Thanks for bumping the thread with your responses.

No problem as I wouldn't like others to miss what a loon you are.

Tell me a universally agreed upon interpretation of "science", "evidence" and "proof"...I don't want others to miss what religious dogmatist you are.

Save the science book thumping and your ritual sacrifices on the laboratory tables of sciences as "offering proof for our salvation" fanaticism. It's delusional.

[Eodnhoj7]

...
1. The dowsing rods are one interpretation that must be used because of the historical context of how the pyramids where most likely built. ...

Give us the links that support this claim? As what is apparent is that the pyramids were planned using the rope method for right-angles.




"A Neolithic cave drawing discovered in Algeria, carbon dated to 6,000 BC, has been interpreted as showing a man with a forked stick in his hand. This would imply that dowsing has a very long history. Illustrations on pottery, paintings and statues reveal that the art of dowsing was practised in ancient Egypt and China. Many passages in the Bible allude to dowsing, and Greek historical records indicate dowsing was widely practised on the Island of Crete as early as 400 BC. It has also been suggested that Cleopatra used dowsers to find gold, and the Oracle of Delphi used a dowsing pendulum to answer the questions posed by nobility and military commanders."

https://vitalitymagazine.com/article/lo ... f-dowsing/

2. The experiment "cannot" be limited to dowsing rods alone and other means of interpretation must be applied. ...

Such as?

3. The experiment, as I said multiple times, is incomplete and whatever "successes" where observed where within a given context and this context is relative. ...

And as we've told you repeatedly, you don't even have an 'experiment' as the tools you are using have not been tested to do the job you claim them to do.

The truth is you are just dumb. You thought me an logic where the same person. ...

You need to be careful calling others dumb when you don't know the difference between "where" and "were" and "an" and "and".

...You: Der...SCIENCE...it is what people believe in!!!!

ROFL!!!!!!

Er!? No, 'Der SCIENCE' are the methods that people have agreed produce neutral testable repeatable experimental results, something your 'experiments' would fail to do if you ever implemented the scientific method upon them.

By the by, do you know what an exclamation mark sounds like? As your use of them makes you sound like the loony you are.

[FlashDangerpants]

Haruspicy was merely the "slicing open" of reality, in which agrarian/farming and hunting cultures and the respective livestock/prey where its "foundations", is no different than the modern "slicing open" of reality we currently employ under the context of modernism evidenced by genetic and atomic "engineering".

It's incredibly different. One is the result of superstition and doesn't in any way work at all. The other depends on thorough understanding and works in ways that are demonstrated every day. You are trying to equivocate between what are blatantly extremely dissimilar things, that's just stupid. Try gene splicing with your stupid little twigs and you will achieve nothing, just as you have not measured any electromagnetic phenomena with them either.

I have no idea why you are boasting that we are keeping your thread alive for you, it is a discussion where you are soiling yourself, if you continue to do so, it's not my problem.

[Eodnhoj7]

Haruspicy was merely the "slicing open" of reality, in which agrarian/farming and hunting cultures and the respective livestock/prey where its "foundations", is no different than the modern "slicing open" of reality we currently employ under the context of modernism evidenced by genetic and atomic "engineering".

It's incredibly different. One is the result of superstition and doesn't in any way work at all. The other depends on thorough understanding and works in ways that are demonstrated every day. You are trying to equivocate between what are blatantly extremely dissimilar things, that's just stupid. Try gene splicing with your stupid little twigs and you will achieve nothing, just as you have not measured any electromagnetic phenomena with them either.

I have no idea why you are boasting that we are keeping your thread alive for you, it is a discussion where you are soiling yourself, if you continue to do so, it's not my problem.

You could have just not responded...but you can't stop and in regards to similiarities and differences this is grounded in pure assumption where the phenomenon is strictly observed "as is". Considering both divination and "gene splicing" in this case are objectively observed (ie multiple points of observations stem from the same assumption) as acts of seperation...there is a common bond between the two phenomenon.

Actually, science is merely an interpretation of phenomenon very little from divination.

There is no interpretation that consists of a complete knowledge without depending upon localizing some specific event and placing it in a context that necessarily separates it from other contexts. Whether an animal is cut open to determining the nature of a phenomenon or an atom of some form, a context of interpretation is applied. The animal being cut open may be used as interpreting an environmental issue in one respect or may be used strictly as an interpretation of how "all other animals" are.

Second gene splicing requires linear instruments (needles,etc.) that exist of the similar form and function as the "twig" (with both having internal "movements" of fluid) considering the "line" as both a form and projective function sets the universal spatial foundation for both to exist. Space is the the composition of both phenomenon with both phenomenon being variations of space.'

Third try "gene splicing" with a wrench...your argument is premised on ineffectual contexts where certain tools do no apply for certain jobs.

Fourth, gene splicing is manipulating genes in order to gain a specific result. Certain foundations of the gene are separated and reconnected in order to determine the future nature of a biological phenomenon. This is merely fortune telling where the future is interpreted by our ability to "interpret" "now". Considering "now" is never fully observed in its unity neither divination or science provide the the necessary means for predicting the future considering both are absent of specific variables.

[FlashDangerpants]

Actually, science is merely an interpretation of phenomenon very little from divination.

You know what, that sentence on its own should be sufficient for any observer to make the necessary judgment of your capabilities as both scientist and philosopher. Any more just dilutes the message, and we've gone past the point where I should feel guilty about taking advantage of your condition. It might be different if I could honestly say you had a chance of learning anything from this exchange.

I have no idea why you are boasting that we are keeping your thread alive for you, it is a discussion where you are soiling yourself, if you continue to do so, it's not my problem.

You could have just not responded...but you can't stop

Normally I would celebrate the self basting quality of that response, but I'm starting to get a sense of ennui here. I can't even be bothered to think of an amusing way to accuse you of using your triangular witchery to remove my mojo on this one.

You should totally just do your last word winner dance now.

[Eodnhoj7]

Actually, science is merely an interpretation of phenomenon very little from divination.

You know what, that sentence on its own should be sufficient for any observer to make the necessary judgment of your capabilities as both scientist and philosopher. Any more just dilutes the message, and we've gone past the point where I should feel guilty about taking advantage of your condition. It might be different if I could honestly say you had a chance of learning anything from this exchange.

Learn what? This is defining the nature of phenomenon, as a phenomenon in itself where you have done little on your part because of how lazy and intellectually weak you are.

I have no idea why you are boasting that we are keeping your thread alive for you, it is a discussion where you are soiling yourself, if you continue to do so, it's not my problem.

You could have just not responded...but you can't stop

Normally I would celebrate the self basting quality of that response, but I'm starting to get a sense of ennui here. I can't even be bothered to think of an amusing way to accuse you of using your triangular witchery to remove my mojo on this one.

You should totally just do your last word winner dance now.

Yes, I think I will do the last word winner dance...and thanks for giving credit where credit is due.

1. All phenomena of an empirical, intellectual and intuitive nature are assumptions for they are strictly taken "as is".

2. As assumption they project and are recieved through the observer and through eachother considering if something it is assumed:

2a: it is imprinted thus necessitating the reciever to have a passive formless state of awareness conducive to "emptiness" as a boundless state of being synonymous point space.

2b: it is imprinted thus necessitating the phenomon to have projective formed state conducive to a directional quality where the phenomenon as projective exists because of its directional qualities. This directional nature requires a base linear form considering all directions exist at there root form as linear space.

2c: this process of imprinting, through a projective and receptive state observes a circularity between the two where all phenomena as assumed alternate between form and formless and are circular.


3. All assumptions are grounded in their base form and function through spatial properties because of their directional nature. Reality is assumptive by nature and the purest assumption is space.

The egyptians where aware of these spatial properties of all phenomenon being the foundational nature of "being" itself and created, "hijacked", or where recipients of a means of construction that reached deep within the psyche of individuals while at the same time "possibly" affecting weather control (evidenced by historical interpretations of egypt being a very fertile land at one point).

[Skepdick]

Tell me a universally agreed upon interpretation of "science", "evidence" and "proof"...I don't want others to miss what religious dogmatist you are.

The universality of science is not supposed to be inter-subjective. It's supposed to be entirely 100% subjective. Whatever standards for 'evidence' and 'proof' you use, you need to hold yourself accountable to apply them consistently.

You are the first person accountable and responsible for any methodical errors.

We aren't here to convince you of that. We are only here to point out your methodical errors.
We are only here to point out when you are playing the same silly, philosophical re-interpretation games with yourself.

[Eodnhoj7]

Tell me a universally agreed upon interpretation of "science", "evidence" and "proof"...I don't want others to miss what religious dogmatist you are.

The universality of science is not supposed to be inter-subjective. It's supposed to be entirely 100% subjective. Whatever standards for 'evidence' and 'proof' you use, you need to hold yourself accountable to apply them consistently.

Evidence is group subjectivity, where the subjective state as unknown and fundamentally chaotic due to its roots in the unconciousness, is replicated in such a manner where it given form in the respect it is connected to other subjective perspectives. Multiple subjective states, connected to eachother, cease to be subjective and become objective. This objectivity, or "form" rooted in the word "object", sets the foundation for consciousness.

You are the first person accountable and responsible for any methodical errors.

True and False. The individual and the group are "both" responsible.

We aren't here to convince you of that. We are only here to point out your methodical errors.

And what errors are those considering you claim I lack definition yet pose no definition of your own as to what science is? If science is grounded in the negation of subjectivity through objectivity, but there are multiple subjective interpretations of what science is...then how scientific are you?

We are only here to point out when you are playing the same silly, philosophical language games with yourself.

False, I define my terms...you resort to ad-hominums when you cannot define your own.

[Skepdick]

False, I define my terms...you resort to ad-hominums when you cannot define your own.

You get to define your terms. You get to define your inference rules.
You get to define your introduction and elimination rules.
You get to define your conclusions, consequences and your predictions.

You don't get to define the outcomes of your experiment.

It doesn't matter how beautiful the guess is. It doesn't matter how smart you are or what your name is. If it disagrees with experiment - it's wrong

[Skepdick]

how scientific are you?

I am as "scientific" as the error rate and utility of the models I construct.

The more errors I can detect/correct in my own thinking - the more "scientific" I become.

The goal is to be less wrong, not more right.

[attofishpi]

how scientific are you?

I am as "scientific" as the error rate and utility of the models I construct.

The more errors I can detect/correct in my own thinking - the more "scientific" I become.

The goal is to be less wrong, not more right.

Fuck off oxy.