Philosophy Now Forum

nothing wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:09 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am Actually you failed to assume the title of the thread and its title/purpose in trying to push your religious beliefs.

This is an assumption(!)

^^^^That is assumption.

I was trying for something else.

Then your model does not really predict much now does it ?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am If "all is one" according to you, (I never said that once, I said reality is one and many,

You did in private correspondence upon inquiry implying all residing in a single 'being': 'Yes.'

I do not know of the 'reality is one and many' reference you are speaking of.

Implication is not a causal argument. Being is triadic. The one and many is in half of my posts.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 amthen you would have respected your own limitations by respecting other's as an extension of yourself.

I am not as unreal as you are.

That is your beleif. You are angry because you wanted a real response to your system, none responded, I did...and it does not work.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 amStart another thread if you have an issue, CKIIT doesn't work...it negates itself.

If it doesn't work, how is it predicting your behavior?

What behavior prediction? You have no proof of anything you are strictly pushing your beliefs...that is predictable.

The ground of CKIIT in quantifying reality makes it subject to fallacies within counting ("counting" thread math section). It also negates it

Of what practical use is a theorem if it can not make predictions?

Predict what?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:30 am Define "alone", we alone interpret the perspectives of others.

The mind agrees with itself, but not always others. The bigger question becomes who sees more clearly. self or other. dare deny this, as we do not see eye to eye, and in hubris, the self determines its own logic true. but how do you 'know'? your version : you cant, so stating you cant makes you 'correct' and anyone who assumes one can, by any method, becomes "False". Look at the screen before you, it is a product of the many. the books you read, the meditation you practice, it was 'taught' to others how to practice it. Because to sit 'alone' and practice it with no other purpose, one would simply sit and waste away without need of food or drink or life, because the physical has become so unnecessary...alone.

I have experienced that form of meditation as well as those types of people who practice it. They are weak and self centered as well as easily pushed over by any form of contradiction the natural world imposes. This form of meditation, you argue, is fit for the dead. It holds no sense of compassion, mercy or balance.

It is a facade and causes the same suffering it seeks to avoid.

Try this, empty your mind and seek a death of the patterns of self...you will be able to push your body past limits you did not know existed, minister to the sick and dying in a manner where there needs for comfort are placed above your own, you will overcome adversity through a lack of fear, you will become detached from petty pursuits, and you will be able to see the delusional self defeating nature of the competitive modern world which causes a deep degree of complexity to most.

This emptiness of the self, real detachment, allows for the acceptance of pleasure without being subject or confined to it. Pleasure has its place, but to indulge the senses leads to confusion and idoltry.

Tesla wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:58 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 6:30 am Define "alone", we alone interpret the perspectives of others.

The mind agrees with itself, but not always others. The bigger question becomes who sees more clearly. self or other. dare deny this, as we do not see eye to eye, and in hubris, the self determines its own logic true. but how do you 'know'? your version : you cant, so stating you cant makes you 'correct' and anyone who assumes one can, by any method, becomes "False". Look at the screen before you, it is a product of the many. the books you read, the meditation you practice, it was 'taught' to others how to practice it. Because to sit 'alone' and practice it with no other purpose, one would simply sit and waste away without need of food or drink or life, because the physical has become so unnecessary...alone.

I have experienced that form of meditation as well as those types of people who practice it. They are weak and self centered as well as easily pushed over by any form of contradiction the natural world imposes. This form of meditation, you argue, is fit for the dead. It holds no sense of compassion, mercy or balance.

It is a facade and causes the same suffering it seeks to avoid.

Try this, empty your mind and seek a death of the patterns of self...you will be able to push your body past limits you did not know existed, minister to the sick and dying in a manner where there needs for comfort are placed above your own, you will overcome adversity through a lack of fear, you will become detached from petty pursuits, and you will be able to see the delusional self defeating nature of the competitive modern world which causes a deep degree of complexity to most.

This emptiness of the self, real detachment, allows for the acceptance of pleasure without being subject or confined to it. Pleasure has its place, but to indulge the senses leads to confusion and idoltry.

All brains are faulty in a real sense. To indulge in it exclusively, empty of the total senses and stimulation of the 'existence' leads to corruption of the minds ability to reason outside of the stream of consciousness. the stream is a construct by the brain. only imagination lays out the rules. Ever watch the twilight zone? There was an episode of a man in a chamber for 2 weeks without any outside contact with a human being. he began to hallucinate this weird world empty of people and cracked. i know, just a show, but lack of human to human contact in all studies affects thought and mental construct.

The emptiness of the mind or the self allows the senses to be assumed for what they are...senses. A meditation principle based upon sense alone causes a deep degree of confusion when not strictly observed for what they are...senses.


ever walked into one of those Halloween bridge tunnels where a light makes it look like the tunnel is spinning? the bridge is not moving, but the brain despite being aware the bridge is not moving, begins to adjust your body unconsciously to avoid falling. brain weakness.

Actually I have seen through some of those illusions before. You claim reasoning stems from the brain alone and if the brain is tricking itself it is aware it is tricking itself and you are left with circular reasoning or "form" determining the nature of what is true and false.

In shorter terms, if all mind is related to the nature of the brain alone...then the brain is telling you this and you are left with a regressivd loop.

consider this: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-42237092

And you tell me with certainty, that your logic is correct. and mine not. but who can answer the truth? others.
I am telling you my logic is grounded in linear and circular form and it is true as form.

As to your "other's"...bandwagon fallacy. History shows others are no less right or wrong as they are strictly points of view assuming internal and external experiences.


You are false to assume you have all the answers alone. yet your first response is going to be 'false' and what does that tell you?


It tells me your argument is easy to negate according to it's own principles and premises and as such there really is no problem. The question itself, "define existence" will always have simultaneous true and false values and as such you have to relegate the answer to a simple symbol that underlies all of definiton: ⊙.

I never assumed I have all the answers alone, hence that assumption as disconnected from other assumptions is false. Your statement claiming my statement will be false, when your statement actually is false (I never made a state where I knew all the answers, thus, such an assumption is disconnected) is a paradox.

I am telling you my logic is grounded in linear and circular form and it is true as form.

It tells me your argument is easy to negate according to it's own principles and premises and as such there really is no problem. The question itself, "define existence" will always have simultaneous true and false values and as such you have to relegate the answer to a simple symbol that underlies all of definiton: ⊙.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:28 pmThis was between me and Tesla, you being here is irrelevant. If you want to debate me one on one in public create your own thread.

Tesla wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 1:31 am

I am telling you my logic is grounded in linear and circular form and it is true as form.

illogical. undefined. paradoxical.

Munchausseen trillema....deal with it. Wittgensteins Tractus...it is all just tautologies. A tautology is just a spiral of on propostion to many. We see think in the dictionary as well as the number line.

So form cannot be sensed? A form is not defined? A form as repeating symmetry (differing very little in nature from a tautology as repeating assumptions) is not logical as the relation of boundaries?

Please, the only constant is form.

It tells me your argument is easy to negate according to it's own principles and premises and as such there really is no problem.

Not really, because I am arguing it is just linear and circular forms...progressive circularity to be exact.

One term manifests to another, this other is a variation of the original and the process repeats.
We see it in nature we see it in abstractions (dictionary/number line).

Under the premises I argue, all fallacies as applied to the fallacies (there is a thread on this "the contradiction of fallacies" or something) negate the fallacies.

The only fallacy, from my stance, is a disconnect assumption but even these assumptions as tautologies are rational.

So you really cannot negate it without using a variation of it, through a tautology, and thus justifying it. If you oppose the trillema, you end up justifying it.

The question itself, "define existence" will always have simultaneous true and false values and as such you have to relegate the answer to a simple symbol that underlies all of definiton: ⊙.

undefined.
False, definition is an observation of limits or boundaries. This leads to a language game problem where the only constant is the tautological nature of language existing through

1. An assumed undefined point of observation.
2. Progressive/Regressive Linear Continuum.
3. Self Referencing Circularity.

Under this tautological nature the only underlying constant in light of the variety of words and symbols is any underlying symbol of "⊙" which reflects this above trillema in form and function.

you call it 'form'. linear and circular.

so it is up and down, backwards and forwards, straight and gay, alive and dead at the same time.

that is perfect sophistry.
From a perspective of everything or "all" existing as a single condensed point....it really isn't a contradiction. From Einsteins relativity neither am I wrong, unless you view his work as sophistry. Tesla viewed this one from a different dimension with the ether.

You see under a premise of "all" everything exists as one timeless moment where all these categories as just approximations of the "one" through the "many" under time.

The sophist can win an argument with any topic with an ignorant audience. lawyers, politicians, they use sophistry a different way, but at the core is to ignore knowledge that can be passed and understood in its 'form' to others.

No you are just dumb. And I will tell you why, so it is not just random insult.

Your screen name is Tesla. This gives the impression you have at least studied or admired him...but this is a guess.

Tesla's understanding was premised on an "ether".

This "ether", which may be argued as similar to the eastern "akashic record" is strictly just a binding space that contains any and all information at one moment and above time.

So you see, up/down, etc from a the starting point of the "one" is simulateous. We see is in contexts or parts through time as "many". Tesla's ether reflects this connection.

I tried. Thank you for the discussion.

Actually you didn't try, you barely provided a definition for energy and started spouting off highschool physics like it was some moral code or religion.


At least here you are not alone.

After reading what you posted, you may one to go back to hanging out with teenagers and smoking pot.

I mean the whole physics thing in light of moral questions, meaning, consciousness, mathematics, logic....well it comes off as a fad.

And you want to know the real ugly sad truth? This physics you believe as absolute truth...is actually just rhetoric. The speed of light has been found to change, and they just hide it under redefinitions. If you don't believe me Google it yourself. And the majority of the rest of physics?
Theories...just ghost stories.

It literally is the rhetoric you accuse me of.

And you know what rhetoric is? Persuasive speech.
Dialect? The truth of opinions.

Google it...or not.

Truth is just rhetoric under these definitions, as was is deemed true or not true is that which persuades us.

HexHammer wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:56 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:28 pmThis was between me and Tesla, you being here is irrelevant. If you want to debate me one on one in public create your own thread.

Dear Skitzo Retard, shut up, go do something useful!

jayjacobus wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:46 pm Does the following observation prove the existence of the precedent?

Seems to be so.

Does the precedent prove the existence of the following observation?

Not so.

What if the following observation is an illusion?

Does that prove there is no precedent?

The following observation proves existence of something.

Color proves that a precedent to color exists.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:03 am

Actually you didn't try, you barely provided a definition for energy and started spouting off highschool physics like it was some moral code or religion.




I mean the whole physics thing in light of moral questions, meaning, consciousness, mathematics, logic....well it comes off as a fad.

And you want to know the real ugly sad truth? This physics you believe as absolute truth...is actually just rhetoric. The speed of light has been found to change, and they just hide it under redefinitions. If you don't believe me Google it yourself. And the majority of the rest of physics?
Theories...just ghost stories.

It literally is the rhetoric you accuse me of.

And you know what rhetoric is? Persuasive speech.
Dialect? The truth of opinions.

Google it...or not.

Truth is just rhetoric under these definitions, as was is deemed true or not true is that which persuades us.[/color]

I warned you ahead of time. Even gave you the option of any set of rules. You challenged me and you backed out. Under your own terms, which I let you define, as well as you coming to challenge me...and then this?

I have an idea, why don't you meditate on this moment and suck it all in and enjoy....lol!

Tesla wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 4:56 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:03 am

Actually you didn't try, you barely provided a definition for energy and started spouting off highschool physics like it was some moral code or religion.




I mean the whole physics thing in light of moral questions, meaning, consciousness, mathematics, logic....well it comes off as a fad.

And you want to know the real ugly sad truth? This physics you believe as absolute truth...is actually just rhetoric. The speed of light has been found to change, and they just hide it under redefinitions. If you don't believe me Google it yourself. And the majority of the rest of physics?
Theories...just ghost stories.

It literally is the rhetoric you accuse me of.

And you know what rhetoric is? Persuasive speech.
Dialect? The truth of opinions.

Google it...or not.

Truth is just rhetoric under these definitions, as was is deemed true or not true is that which persuades us.[/color]

I warned you ahead of time. Even gave you the option of any set of rules. You challenged me and you backed out. Under your own terms, which I let you define, as well as you coming to challenge me...and then this?

I have an idea, why don't you meditate on this moment and suck it all in and enjoy....lol!

If there were rules, it would be pointless to have a discussion with honesty. we are discussing existence as a noun. The thing that has to be first before anything else can be a part of it. its actual 'stuff'. How can you put rules on a discussion like that?

I must apologize. I did not intent to upset you.

The real problem is only you understand your logic. Physics? high school? indeed. most of it is. maybe not the chemistry equation, but examine: The data from physics and science has been so effective the greatest minds on the planet agree. From that knowledge technology was built, and continues to be built.

See? 'others' are necessary for real truth of reality and how it works, what it is. Not our own. not alone. alone everything is whatever we believe it is --right or wrong.

I don't want you to give up your beliefs. I want you to make sense. If you really hold some great knowledge and just cant find someone intelligent enough to understand it, learn to accept maybe your wrong. or prove your right.

You don't have to reply. You can discuss with others. You understand my beliefs, and I feel I understand enough of yours. it was interesting to try to marry them.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am ^^^^That is assumption.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am Then your model does not really predict much now does it ?

i.The title says for Eod, ii. if you want to debate me one on one in public create your own thread.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am Implication is not a causal argument. Being is triadic. The one and many is in half of my posts.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am That is your beleif. You are angry because you wanted a real response to your system, none responded, I did...and it does not work.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am What behavior prediction? You have no proof of anything you are strictly pushing your beliefs...that is predictable.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am The ground of CKIIT in quantifying reality makes it subject to fallacies within counting ("counting" thread math section). It also negates it

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am Predict what?

nothing wrote: ↑Thu Oct 31, 2019 1:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am ^^^^That is assumption.

It's actually a knowledge. See:

This is assumed.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am Then your model does not really predict much now does it ?

It did actually: I tried you by your response to know what you would choose between dialogue and enmity (ie. idol worship).

You choose the latter, and simultaneously revealed viz.

Not really, I am just saying your premises are assumed and as such are empty...how can saying void is idol worship when void is void of idols? Enmity is not idol worship...it is a negation property and I am negating CKIIT .

i.The title says for Eod, ii. if you want to debate me one on one in public create your own thread.

i. reveals you taking yourself way too real/seriously (ie. worship of self)
ii. reveals enmity

No, Tesla wrote it. But in light of his last post saying it is irrelevant...now I can annihilate your theory...which is a theory hence a belief...you take yourself too seriously and obviously wanted to push your topic on top of Tesla .

Hell, I told you just to make a thread...

Once enmity sets in, the being is limited to/by that, thus engaging further is "void" (since you seem to love the word).

Not really, I argue 0d space, assumption, form as 1d+ space, etc.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am Implication is not a causal argument. Being is triadic. The one and many is in half of my posts.

It is, if you are the one implying in/of/as yourself. I don't need to read the posts: any being is defined by their limitation(s), so to know the limitation(s) of that being, is to know the being. I already know you to your enmity and know you will not / can not see past it until much later.

Really? So I already claimed my stance is put up in multiple threads and you claimed to know me? Wow...judgy judgy....you are the enmity you project.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am That is your beleif. You are angry because you wanted a real response to your system, none responded, I did...and it does not work.

This is just a projection of what you want to be true. It happens with enmity (it is a blinding agent).

You sure do use that word alot...what does it even mean to you? You wants criticism...and when is was given you call it enmity....tsk, tsk.

In reality I used your "technical" way of thinking to improve CKIIT by subjecting you to it (you were/are not aware of it) until you started getting angry and upset. I am very happy with your contributions, as it is certainly stronger because of.

If CKIIT is made up, it is made up...I already stated prior to CKIIT in the math/logic section reason is made up...it is imaginary...this was prior to you being here .



Also in the reality: I know you know it is sound. I know this because your attempts to undermine it progressively become more and more nonsensical: it just happens.

Uh...no you wanted criticism to make it stronger...you just got in over your head .

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am What behavior prediction? You have no proof of anything you are strictly pushing your beliefs...that is predictable.

You are the proof.

And what is that...last time I looked proof is subjective.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am The ground of CKIIT in quantifying reality makes it subject to fallacies within counting ("counting" thread math section). It also negates it

i. It doesn't "quantify" reality (?)
ii. You are clearly being dishonest

...I never said it did not quantify reality...I said "in quantifying reality it makes it subject to fallacies within counting".

Who is being dishonest now? Hashtag#:)

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 3:04 am Predict what?

Something you do not / can not know, because even if I showed it to you, you would be in a state of denial.

Really, because I argue all phenomenon existing through loops and you seem to be in a regressive one trying to avoid the fact your system is full of contradictions.

Wow are real life fortune teller...this is so exciting!

It has to do with knowledge of good and evil as it relates to motive and intent. As more context(s) surrounds subject P, these two can be further defined such to define P down to their own limitation(s). Any being is defined by such: what holds them back.

Your system is subject to the intent of the observer and as such is subject to it's own rules.

I tried to play it nice at first and drop hints every now and then, but you missed them, then collapsed into enmity where you will be left (no longer useful). It's too bad too.


Tried to play nice? Look at this forum...there is nothing nice about it. And even if you played nice...noone would care.

This is assumed.

Not really, I am just saying your premises are assumed and as such are empty...how can saying void is idol worship when void is void of idols? Enmity is not idol worship...it is a negation property and I am negating CKIIT .

No, Tesla wrote it. But in light of his last post saying it is irrelevant...now I can annihilate your theory...which is a theory hence a belief...you take yourself too seriously and obviously wanted to push your topic on top of Tesla .

Hell, I told you just to make a thread...

Not really, I argue 0d space, assumption, form as 1d+ space, etc.

Really? So I already claimed my stance is put up in multiple threads and you claimed to know me? Wow...judgy judgy....you are the enmity you project.

You sure do use that word alot...what does it even mean to you? You wants criticism...and when is was given you call it enmity....tsk, tsk.

Uh...no you wanted criticism to make it stronger...you just got in over your head .

And what is that...last time I looked proof is subjective.

...I never said it did not quantify reality...I said "in quantifying reality it makes it subject to fallacies within counting".

Who is being dishonest now? Hashtag#:)

Really, because I argue all phenomenon existing through loops and you seem to be in a regressive one trying to avoid the fact your system is full of contradictions.

Wow are real life fortune teller...this is so exciting!

Tried to play nice? Look at this forum...there is nothing nice about it. And even if you played nice...no-one would care.