Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:57 am I am proof God exists. You are proof God exists. Mankind is proof God exists. And it does not matter whether one is a saint or sinner, but rather that fact we can choose to be a saint or sinner which gives man a dignified place as "meaningful".

• I exists.
  You exists
  Therefore God exists.

What kind of logic is that?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:57 amActually the core principles of Buddhism are not clearly defined and subject to the fallacy of equivocation, as evidenced by its many schools and metaphysics systems over time. It is subject to entropy.

Nirvana is a non physical state as the physical is subject to continuous change...Hence the pursuit of nirvana is something beyond empiricism.

Buddha negates the subjective self, there was no implication as to an empirical negation except in one of the practice of Buddha staring at a point in space. If one focuses on a point in space, are the empirical senses really in use? The point is a center of all being, I cannot look at a point without seeing the center of something, whether abstract or physical, hence the middle path.

If one focuses on a point in space, are the empirical senses really in use?

Hardly a tangent, you are not objective and you claim to hate injustice and ignorance when you do not. You are a hypocrite, worse than the Muslims and other faiths you condemn.

As to Logic, both of us are perceiving separate definitions of God stemming from a medial conception of God as x. God exists through perception, therefore God exists as perception forms phenomenon and the interpretation of phenomena.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:57 am I am proof God exists. You are proof God exists. Mankind is proof God exists. And it does not matter whether one is a saint or sinner, but rather that fact we can choose to be a saint or sinner which gives man a dignified place as "meaningful".

• I exists.
  You exists
  Therefore God exists.

What kind of logic is that?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 10:57 amActually the core principles of Buddhism are not clearly defined and subject to the fallacy of equivocation, as evidenced by its many schools and metaphysics systems over time. It is subject to entropy.

If you have read Buddhism extensively you would have understood there are common principles across all the schools of Buddhism, i.e.
The 4NT, N8FP, Dependent originations, impermanence, anatta, 5 Precepts, Nirvana, and a few others.
There are concepts like rebirth, karma, which are not common across all the Buddhist schools.
As for Nirvana there is also a core principle to it with various forms across different schools.

Nirvana is a non physical state as the physical is subject to continuous change...Hence the pursuit of nirvana is something beyond empiricism.

Nirvana in essence is ultimately tied to the human conditions.
We don't have the knowledge and technology to explain the human grounded state of Nirvana yet at present until the Human Connectome Project has achieve >75% of its objectives.
Regardless Nirvana is not any state that is absolutely independent of the human conditions.

Buddha negates the subjective self, there was no implication as to an empirical negation except in one of the practice of Buddha staring at a point in space. If one focuses on a point in space, are the empirical senses really in use? The point is a center of all being, I cannot look at a point without seeing the center of something, whether abstract or physical, hence the middle path.

Nah, the Buddhist Middle Path has nothing to do with a center point.
It is equivalent to the Middle Path of a road of an ongoing journey, of one's life in this case.

Note higher knowledge is always empirical-rational, i.e. we do not rely on five senses alone but combine the five senses with the intellect and other faculties of the brain to arrive at credible knowledge.

There is no such thing as an absolute point nor center that is independent of the human conditions.

If one focuses on a point in space, are the empirical senses really in use?

Why not if one is looking at it or in a certain direction.
If one is not using the senses, then one is using the rational faculty.
But the rational faculty has to rely on previous past empirical experiences embedded in the brain/mind.
Ultimately it is still grounded on the empirical [past or present].

Hardly a tangent, you are not objective and you claim to hate injustice and ignorance when you do not. You are a hypocrite, worse than the Muslims and other faiths you condemn.

It is obvious you are like an eel when faced with a task to escape a lie and defending an illusion as really real.

Whatever you accuse me of, prove it.

As to Logic, both of us are perceiving separate definitions of God stemming from a medial conception of God as x. God exists through perception, therefore God exists as perception forms phenomenon and the interpretation of phenomena.

God exists through perceptions??
you mean like the schizo who believe gnomes exist because he "phenomenally" saw and spoke with them?

I have provided evidences [there are tonnes of research on this] where mad people [including the VERY mad], those with brain damage, drugs/hallucinogens takers, those under severe stress, has reported experiences of God which is similar to those claimed by the founders of theism and serious practitioners of theism.
The above should have provided any rational person the doubts to the claim that real God exists???

But the fact is the existential impulses and forces are so strong in you that it is not likely you will ever rationalize the truth, it is like the person who could never see the 500 pound gorilla in the room or the schizo who insist real talking gnomes exist.

Reflex wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:26 pm (...) Holophany: The Loop of Creation.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:41 am

Reflex wrote: ↑Fri Nov 09, 2018 11:26 pm (...) Holophany: The Loop of Creation.

The danger with this book/idea is that it comes SO close and then it falls into abyss!

It fails to notice the subtle distinctions between circularity (loops) and recursion. Recursion is difficult to demonstrate or narrate in any passive medium because it is a temporal phenomenon.

The moment you recognise the distinction and you recognise that when you say "loop" you really mean "recursion" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recursion ) you end up exactly where science has ended up in 2018.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:34 am I read about three words then realized according to you this is 99.9 percent hallucination, as 99.9 percent of all phenomena are hallucination. Where is the .01 percent that is right?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:43 am What is 99.9999999 hallucination is the idea of God as generated to deceive you.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 9:45 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:43 am What is 99.9999999 hallucination is the idea of God as generated to deceive you.

Since I proved God to you (and you seem to have ignored it!). I am just going to continue with the subject switch every time you utter the word "God" and see how ridiculous you sound.

What is 99.9999999 hallucination is the idea of energy as generated to deceive you.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:46 am I will not be responding unless I note there is something of substance.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:47 am I understand the mechanics of the "zombie parasites' in my brain...

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:43 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:34 am I read about three words then realized according to you this is 99.9 percent hallucination, as 99.9 percent of all phenomena are hallucination. Where is the .01 percent that is right?

You missed and misunderstood my point.
Where did I state all are 99.9% hallucination.
What is 99.9999999 hallucination is the idea of God as generated to deceive you.

An example is 0.01% hallucination [inversely 99.999% real] are from Scientific Theories [not all]. Relative some scientific theories could be 10% hallucination, e.g. the Big Bang theory.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:51 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 10:46 am I will not be responding unless I note there is something of substance.

I am sure...

By some subjective criteria for "substance" that you are unwilling to be transparent or questioned about
David Hilbert had you all figured out!

The statement "I will not be responding unless I note there is something of substance." is begging the question: Has Veritas Aequitas noted anything of substance?

decisionproblem.png

I am willing to bet money that you can't tell us what your algorithm (THOUGHT PROCESS!) is

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 6:47 am I understand the mechanics of the "zombie parasites' in my brain...

No you don't.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_problem

To claim that you can answer that yes/no question is to claim that you have somehow solved the two biggest problems in science AND philosophy!

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem

I don't think you have done any of that...

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:25 pm Forgetting veritas as veritas tends to forget, that is actually an important philosophical point: all process as substance?

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:25 pm Hence quantity and process are inseparable, and logically we are left with a "quantity function" (poor wording but it will do for now) that is recursive in nature with this recursive nature being both a quantity and process.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:39 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:25 pm Forgetting veritas as veritas tends to forget, that is actually an important philosophical point: all process as substance?

The Black Box is the simplest dynamic model there is: Input -> MAGIC -> output.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box

This is the relationship between the "I" and "The Universe". It's how science works. Test -> Result.
It's the Ying and Yang.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 5:25 pm Hence quantity and process are inseparable, and logically we are left with a "quantity function" (poor wording but it will do for now) that is recursive in nature with this recursive nature being both a quantity and process.

Just about anything can be modelled as a black box/transfer function: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_function

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:27 pm The black box concept, appears, as a means of inversion between input (unity/multiplicity of a structure) and output (symmetrical multiplicity/unity) and as inversive further reflects the nature of 0d point space/void and all axioms existing as inversive in nature.

The nature of inversion is dependent upon linear alternation, one direction inverting to another with the input/output being defined by there inversive directional qualities.

One of the stronger theoretical implications of this version of the Curry-Howard isomorphism, briefly discussed by Sørensen and Urzyczyn [2], is that proof normaliza- tion (the process of eliminating redundant steps from constructive proofs in natural deduction) and β-reduction turn out to be two sides of the same coin. Intuitively this can be grasped by thinking of proof normalization as a conclusion-preserving opera- tion and, on the computational side, β-reduction as a type-preserving operation.

TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 8:47 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 10, 2018 7:27 pm The black box concept, appears, as a means of inversion between input (unity/multiplicity of a structure) and output (symmetrical multiplicity/unity) and as inversive further reflects the nature of 0d point space/void and all axioms existing as inversive in nature.

The nature of inversion is dependent upon linear alternation, one direction inverting to another with the input/output being defined by there inversive directional qualities.

If understand you correctly I think what you are observing is actually the process of reduction/transformation itself it is an implication directly from Lambda calculus.

https://sites.math.washington.edu/~morr ... /kazuo.pdf

One of the stronger theoretical implications of this version of the Curry-Howard isomorphism, briefly discussed by Sørensen and Urzyczyn [2], is that proof normaliza- tion (the process of eliminating redundant steps from constructive proofs in natural deduction) and β-reduction turn out to be two sides of the same coin. Intuitively this can be grasped by thinking of proof normalization as a conclusion-preserving opera- tion and, on the computational side, β-reduction as a type-preserving operation.

The inversion you speak of is the way to either normalize a proof (which is holism, synthesis etc. - this is also where Monads appear in computer science), or β-reduce a conclusion (which is systemic/holistic change-over-time behavior and it appears in Object Oriented Programming paradigms).

After all deduction is bi-directional. You should be able to get from premises to conclusion and from conclusion to premises (reverse computability).