For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:28 amOK. So you agreed to take part in my little experiment..
What I would like you to do:-
1. Gain as much insight from this image as possible relating to this entity we are talking about.
2. Tell me as much as you can about your inner sight regarding the image (you may see more in it than eye):-
If you say you are, then MUST BE.
Why do you think or believe that that is what I am doing?Lacewing wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:24 pmWhy do you feel the need to "correct" people and tell people HOW IT IS?Age wrote: ↑Thu Mar 07, 2019 8:03 amThere does not have to be, according to us. There just IS perfect order on ALL scales.Lacewing wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 8:09 pm
Maybe because we are little gods organizing what we can comprehend (or pretend to) into consistent bits that we can feel in control of? The "consistency" we perceive probably relies on ourselves as the "ordering agent". If something doesn't fit... if something seems magical (beyond our usual scope) on a grand scale... many of us will dismiss it, while others will claim to be the messengers/knowers of it... both approaches are ways of having/claiming order... and reducing it to our level of contrived understanding and definitions. Why does there NEED to be order on a grand scale according to us?
Of course NOT. They NEVER have been and NEVER will be.
If that is your view, then fair enough. I am pretty sure it was not the first time and will NOT be the last time i miss the point and take a statement out of the intended context. The very reason WHY I ask a lot of clarifying questions is so that I gain more clarity in order to not miss the point and not take the statement out of the intended context.
Okay.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:28 amOK. So you agreed to take part in my little experiment..
What I would like you to do:-
1. Gain as much insight from this image as possible relating to this entity we are talking about.
2. Tell me as much as you can about your inner sight regarding the image (you may see more in it than eye):-
What? That you have been chewing on crayons in the hope that you will sound enlightened?Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:18 amOkay.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:28 amOK. So you agreed to take part in my little experiment..
What I would like you to do:-
1. Gain as much insight from this image as possible relating to this entity we are talking about.
2. Tell me as much as you can about your inner sight regarding the image (you may see more in it than eye):-
There is NO 'your' in relation to the phrase 'inner sight'. There is sight that comes from with-in, which some may know this as 'inner-sight' and this can SEE ALL, or SEE and KNOWS the Truth of ALL things. But there is NO 'thing' that has/owns 'inner sight'. The 'Entity', Itself, is inner-sight, and/or the One that can SEE ALL.
Human beings have a VIEW on things, but 'inner sight' is behind/within those VIEWS as 'inner sight' is within ALL things and thus this is the reason WHY It can SEE EVERY thing.
Did you not understand this last time I said it?
Fair enough. You are free to LOOK AT and SEE things anyway you WANT to.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:34 amWhat? That you have been chewing on crayons in the hope that you will sound enlightened?Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 12:18 amOkay.attofishpi wrote: ↑Wed Mar 06, 2019 10:28 am
OK. So you agreed to take part in my little experiment..
What I would like you to do:-
1. Gain as much insight from this image as possible relating to this entity we are talking about.
2. Tell me as much as you can about your inner sight regarding the image (you may see more in it than eye):-
There is NO 'your' in relation to the phrase 'inner sight'. There is sight that comes from with-in, which some may know this as 'inner-sight' and this can SEE ALL, or SEE and KNOWS the Truth of ALL things. But there is NO 'thing' that has/owns 'inner sight'. The 'Entity', Itself, is inner-sight, and/or the One that can SEE ALL.
Human beings have a VIEW on things, but 'inner sight' is behind/within those VIEWS as 'inner sight' is within ALL things and thus this is the reason WHY It can SEE EVERY thing.
Did you not understand this last time I said it?
The above spouted out like verbal multicoloured vomit.
Is there anything in particular about the image that stands out as a rather strange anomaly to our reality, from the perspective of someone not understanding or accepting that this entity exists?
I understand and accept that this entity does exist, so I would NOT know from the perspective of someone not understanding nor accepting that this entity exists. There is nothing, to me, about that image that stands out as a rather strange anomaly to 'our' reality.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:06 amIs there anything in particular about the image that stands out as a rather strange anomaly to our reality, from the perspective of someone not understanding or accepting that this entity exists?
The main component - the lettering of the Alphabet - the fact that the Alphabet has an organised balanced structure between the vowels and the consonants, just thought you might have picked up on that. Anomaly 1. being, that it is unlikely that this structure was via natural etymology of the development of the Alphabet used in English.Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:57 amI understand and accept that this entity does exist, so I would NOT know from the perspective of someone not understanding nor accepting that this entity exists. There is nothing, to me, about that image that stands out as a rather strange anomaly to 'our' reality.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:06 amIs there anything in particular about the image that stands out as a rather strange anomaly to our reality, from the perspective of someone not understanding or accepting that this entity exists?
I did notice that - admittedly after I responded earlier, but before I read your post here - but I do NOT see this as an 'anomaly' at all.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:42 amThe main component - the lettering of the Alphabet - the fact that the Alphabet has an organised balanced structure between the vowels and the consonants, just thought you might have picked up on that. Anomaly 1. being, that it is unlikely that this structure was via natural etymology of the development of the Alphabet used in English.Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:57 amI understand and accept that this entity does exist, so I would NOT know from the perspective of someone not understanding nor accepting that this entity exists. There is nothing, to me, about that image that stands out as a rather strange anomaly to 'our' reality.attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 3:06 am
Is there anything in particular about the image that stands out as a rather strange anomaly to our reality, from the perspective of someone not understanding or accepting that this entity exists?
I don't know what the mind is. I have a conception/model of what the mind is like.
Easy. I have a well-developed bullshit filter. My mind is closed to bullshit.
Can you elaborate on what this conception/model of what the mind is LIKE?
Saying, "I have a well-developed bullshit filter" again comes across as though "others" do NOT have as "well-developed bullshit filter" as you THINK/BELIEVE you do. Some might say that this is a 'superiority complex' SHOWING its self again.
It's like a computer.
Just did. If you want more information see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_computation
The question above applies when asked as "What are the fundamental capabilities and limitations of human minds?"In theoretical computer science and mathematics, the theory of computation is the branch that deals with how efficiently problems can be solved on a model of computation, using an algorithm. The field is divided into three major branches: automata theory and languages, computability theory, and computational complexity theory, which are linked by the question: "What are the fundamental capabilities and limitations of computers?"
No. It should come across as "some do have a well-developed bullshit filter and some do not".
No it doesn't.
False dichotomy. What I believe is LESS bullshit than what YOU believe.
What answer would appease you?
To WHOSE satisfaction?
That is a strange request. You put the bar for evidence SO HIGH when you want ME to explain something, yet you remove the bar for evidence when YOU need to explain something.
Yet a computer is made up of physical parts, which by the way can be pulled down and put back together again.
First you have to clear up what the 'mind' is LIKE before we could go onto some thing like this.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:22 amJust did. If you want more information see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_computation
The question above applies when asked as "What are the fundamental capabilities and limitations of human minds?"In theoretical computer science and mathematics, the theory of computation is the branch that deals with how efficiently problems can be solved on a model of computation, using an algorithm. The field is divided into three major branches: automata theory and languages, computability theory, and computational complexity theory, which are linked by the question: "What are the fundamental capabilities and limitations of computers?"
How do 'you' know that your "bullshit filter" is working properly or even working at all? Who/what decides if the "filter" is doing its job properly AND correctly?
So, name one thing that "your" "bullshit filter" KNOWS, and then, if you do, we can LOOK AT and SEE just how OPEN you really ARE.
It really is True that NO matter how many times I tell you that I do NOT believe, you want to INSIST that I DO.
YET I do NOT believe nor disbelieve any thing, like YOU DO.
An Open and Honest answer.
To the READERS. They are the ones who make decisions.
You used the words 'my' and 'mind' together in the phrase 'my mind'. I just asked the straight forward simple question above.
When have I HAD to explain some thing?
The deflective measures are working overtime now.
Some might suggest that that is because you are incapable of answering, and thus also incapable of teaching.
That is IT, bring in the "I am BETTER than you are" ATTITUDE again. Come across as "YOU are to stupid to learn anything that I could teach because I am superior to you" ATTITUDE, and HOPEFULLY that will divert reader's attention away from "me" only being able to answer SOME of the questions posed to "me" and NOT to ALL of them.
Please deposit 1 bitcoin into this account to continue this interaction: 371tHcXY1yHdEZU1YTLnhkVQYpTU2mDZNsAge wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 10:16 amYet a computer is made up of physical parts, which by the way can be pulled down and put back together again.
Are you suggesting the 'mind' is LIKE this?
First you have to clear up what the 'mind' is LIKE before we could go onto some thing like this.Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 09, 2019 9:22 amJust did. If you want more information see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_computation
The question above applies when asked as "What are the fundamental capabilities and limitations of human minds?"In theoretical computer science and mathematics, the theory of computation is the branch that deals with how efficiently problems can be solved on a model of computation, using an algorithm. The field is divided into three major branches: automata theory and languages, computability theory, and computational complexity theory, which are linked by the question: "What are the fundamental capabilities and limitations of computers?"
You have already expressed how fundamentally incapable and limited you are because to you there are some things that are very complex and extremely hard to solve/understand in Life, which by the way is the exact opposite of how I LOOK AT and SEE things.
Now, WHY would that BE?
How do 'you' know that your "bullshit filter" is working properly or even working at all? Who/what decides if the "filter" is doing its job properly AND correctly?
A self-regulating filter of what could be there or not even there would be some kind of creation.
So, name one thing that "your" "bullshit filter" KNOWS, and then, if you do, we can LOOK AT and SEE just how OPEN you really ARE.
It really is True that NO matter how many times I tell you that I do NOT believe, you want to INSIST that I DO.
Maybe this is ALL the EVIDENCE I NEEDED to SHOW of how if one has a 'If any thing contradicts or opposes what I BELIEVE is True, then I am NOT at all open to it' ATTITUDE.
YET I do NOT believe nor disbelieve any thing, like YOU DO.
So, WHAT am I meant to be more gullible of EXACTLY?
Also, the 'superiority complex' creeping back into VIEW again.
An Open and Honest answer.
And do NOT let that STOP you from now answering.
Diversion tactics can only last for so long.
To the READERS. They are the ones who make decisions.
But do NOT forget you have to PROVIDE some thing FIRST, before any one could be satisfied, or NOT.
You can only divert for so long before it becomes clearly OBVIOUS that you are TRYING TO deflect away from the POINT in question.
You used the words 'my' and 'mind' together in the phrase 'my mind'. I just asked the straight forward simple question above.
When, and if, you ever find out what the ACTUAL ANSWER IS, then you will REALIZE that it was NOT a strange request at all.
When have I HAD to explain some thing?
You have to challenge or question me FIRST if you want ME to explain some thing.
Also, IF you can NOT explain what the 'my' and what 'mind' is, then just say so.
I certainly was NOT expecting that you could, so do NOT feel to bad about it.
The deflective measures are working overtime now.
Some might suggest that that is because you are incapable of answering, and thus also incapable of teaching.
That is IT, bring in the "I am BETTER than you are" ATTITUDE again. Come across as "YOU are to stupid to learn anything that I could teach because I am superior to you" ATTITUDE, and HOPEFULLY that will divert reader's attention away from "me" only being able to answer SOME of the questions posed to "me" and NOT to ALL of them.
The MORE you TRY TO divert away from what I am POINTING OUT, then the MORE EVIDENCE you are PROVIDING, and the MORE EVIDENCE I also HAVE to SHOW and PROVE just how the Mind and the brain actually work.
Also, are you absolutely 100% sure that I show absolutely NO signs at all of being capable of learning any thing at all?
If yes, then 'you' MUST REALLY BE that far more superior than 'I' am.
