|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 16, 2022 20:12:58 GMT
If observation is dependent upon only itself, as it must be if one considers there is nothing separate from observation, it is dependent upon nothing as only observation existing leaves no room for comparison thus resulting in formless no-thingness.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jun 17, 2022 8:42:45 GMT
It's the "thus resulting in" part that you pull out of thin air that amazes me
It's like you state things that are true, and that are obvious, and that are seemingly a fact, and then your conclusion is randomly pulled out of thin air non-logically. Quite impressive..
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jun 19, 2022 17:41:56 GMT
This is really interesting topic, and a profound question. Indeed, this question looks like the question about the outer world or the reality. It's the question about: whether ot not something exists beyond my view.
A spectacular is the one who observes. But I don't think I can agree with you about the conclusion. The truth is: in such a way, there cannot be any realiable answers.
I'll try to illustrate that inner logic of the spectacular:
1. I watch/I observe 2. I see something 3. But how do I know that that something is something, not someting else? 4. How do I suppose to differentiate that something from another something, and 5. What is 'something' anyway? 6. I am not sure that that something, which is being observed, is something, and 7. I don't know what should I named it 8. If I name it "banana', it is absolutely the same if I would name it "a computer", or "milk", or "John Percey Bill". 9. If I am not aware about anything, I do not know what is that "banana", "computers", "milk", or "John Percey Bill". 10. I just don't know anything, or I cannot be certain in anything.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 23, 2022 22:25:36 GMT
It's the "thus resulting in" part that you pull out of thin air that amazes me It's like you state things that are true, and that are obvious, and that are seemingly a fact, and then your conclusion is randomly pulled out of thin air non-logically. Quite impressive.. Comparison is required for form. With the absence of comparison is the absence of form. This absence of form is no-thingness. With the observation of observation there is only observation thus no comparison.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jun 23, 2022 22:30:20 GMT
This is really interesting topic, and a profound question. Indeed, this question looks like the question about the outer world or the reality. It's the question about: whether ot not something exists beyond my view. A spectacular is the one who observes. But I don't think I can agree with you about the conclusion. The truth is: in such a way, there cannot be any realiable answers. I'll try to illustrate that inner logic of the spectacular: 1. I watch/I observe 2. I see something 3. But how do I know that that something is something, not someting else? 4. How do I suppose to differentiate that something from another something, and 5. What is 'something' anyway? 6. I am not sure that that something, which is being observed, is something, and 7. I don't know what should I named it 8. If I name it "banana', it is absolutely the same if I would name it "a computer", or "milk", or "John Percey Bill". 9. If I am not aware about anything, I do not know what is that "banana", "computers", "milk", or "John Percey Bill". 10. I just don't know anything, or I cannot be certain in anything. If I observe my observation then observation becomes self-referential. As self-referential it has nothing to compare to as it relative only to itself thus leaving only itself as existing. Without comparison observation is no-thing as comparison is required for form.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 1, 2022 7:07:03 GMT
This is really interesting topic, and a profound question. Indeed, this question looks like the question about the outer world or the reality. It's the question about: whether ot not something exists beyond my view. A spectacular is the one who observes. But I don't think I can agree with you about the conclusion. The truth is: in such a way, there cannot be any realiable answers. I'll try to illustrate that inner logic of the spectacular: 1. I watch/I observe 2. I see something 3. But how do I know that that something is something, not someting else? 4. How do I suppose to differentiate that something from another something, and 5. What is 'something' anyway? 6. I am not sure that that something, which is being observed, is something, and 7. I don't know what should I named it 8. If I name it "banana', it is absolutely the same if I would name it "a computer", or "milk", or "John Percey Bill". 9. If I am not aware about anything, I do not know what is that "banana", "computers", "milk", or "John Percey Bill". 10. I just don't know anything, or I cannot be certain in anything. If I observe my observation then observation becomes self-referential. As self-referential it has nothing to compare to as it relative only to itself thus leaving only itself as existing. Without comparison observation is no-thing as comparison is required for form. And, again, a) how do I know what the self-referential is and where did I get this notion? b) what made me be certain about that self-referentiality? maybe it was an illusion or mistake c) if the observation haven't completed, there's no certainty that self-referential it is the one: the true statement.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 1, 2022 13:39:38 GMT
It's the "thus resulting in" part that you pull out of thin air that amazes me It's like you state things that are true, and that are obvious, and that are seemingly a fact, and then your conclusion is randomly pulled out of thin air non-logically. Quite impressive.. Comparison is required for form. With the absence of comparison is the absence of form. This absence of form is no-thingness. With the observation of observation there is only observation thus no comparison. Not hardly , there can be form without comparison, I promise you that form existed long before things with the cognitive ability to compare things existed
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 7, 2022 20:38:03 GMT
If I observe my observation then observation becomes self-referential. As self-referential it has nothing to compare to as it relative only to itself thus leaving only itself as existing. Without comparison observation is no-thing as comparison is required for form. And, again, a) how do I know what the self-referential is and where did I get this notion? b) what made me be certain about that self-referentiality? maybe it was an illusion or mistake c) if the observation haven't completed, there's no certainty that self-referential it is the one: the true statement. 1. Self referentiality is sameness. To observe an observation is result in both the observation of observation and the observation being observed as the same thing considering both are observation. To observe observation is to only observe, to only observe results in observation being without comparison thus formless as only the observation exists. 2. And what makes you sure things can be reduced to an illusion given this can be an illusion? 3. Self-referentiality is sameness, sameness is completeness given only that which is observed as existing exists in the given context.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 7, 2022 20:43:20 GMT
Comparison is required for form. With the absence of comparison is the absence of form. This absence of form is no-thingness. With the observation of observation there is only observation thus no comparison. Not hardly , there can be form without comparison, I promise you that form existed long before things with the cognitive ability to compare things existed Given me an example of a form that exists without comparison given one form must be relative to another; a circle has the contrast of inner/out form, a blade of grass has the contrast of the field and animals. Give me an example of something that exists prior to cognition given that cognition, as impressions through action/reaction, can be observed in atoms. Give me proof that reality existed before cognitive beings.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Jul 8, 2022 2:32:35 GMT
Not hardly , there can be form without comparison, I promise you that form existed long before things with the cognitive ability to compare things existed Given me an example of a form that exists without comparison given one form must be relative to another; a circle has the contrast of inner/out form, a blade of grass has the contrast of the field and animals. Give me an example of something that exists prior to cognition given that cognition, as impressions through action/reaction, can be observed in atoms. Give me proof that reality existed before cognitive beings. Literally probably most things exist without comparison because comparison is a human philosophical "thing" it's something we started doing probably post agriculture because it enabled us to have the time to sit around and think about stuff this is why your comparison is a mental exorcize and not a bunch of people with tape measures comparing and measuring things all over the cosmos As far as showing you something prier to are ability to cognition? Is that a joke? , I hope so And I'm assuming you are referring to the double slit experiment when you say "action and reaction through atoms" And that's a can of worms for a different time so I'll just say no we don't that's just the explanation given by evil last scientists that don't want to lose funding or tenure so not valid.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 4, 2022 22:49:19 GMT
Given me an example of a form that exists without comparison given one form must be relative to another; a circle has the contrast of inner/out form, a blade of grass has the contrast of the field and animals. Give me an example of something that exists prior to cognition given that cognition, as impressions through action/reaction, can be observed in atoms. Give me proof that reality existed before cognitive beings. Literally probably most things exist without comparison because comparison is a human philosophical "thing" it's something we started doing probably post agriculture because it enabled us to have the time to sit around and think about stuff this is why your comparison is a mental exorcize and not a bunch of people with tape measures comparing and measuring things all over the cosmos As far as showing you something prier to are ability to cognition? Is that a joke? , I hope so And I'm assuming you are referring to the double slit experiment when you say "action and reaction through atoms" And that's a can of worms for a different time so I'll just say no we don't that's just the explanation given by evil last scientists that don't want to lose funding or tenure so not valid. 1. If comparison is a "human philosophical thing", and as such is not real, then comparison does not exist therefore reality is under a unified sameness....this necessitates all as one. 2. An atom moves (action) and another atom moves in response (reaction). The movement of one atom leaves an impression on another and this same act of impression is the same act of impression found in observation (ie a form imprints itself on the psyche and the psyche reacts in turn). Because atoms share the same nature of impression found in the nature of observation the atom is quasi aware thus necessitating these building blocks, the atoms that is, as having a certain degree of cognition. If atoms have cognition and atoms are universal then cognition is universal.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 5, 2022 4:04:48 GMT
Literally probably most things exist without comparison because comparison is a human philosophical "thing" it's something we started doing probably post agriculture because it enabled us to have the time to sit around and think about stuff this is why your comparison is a mental exorcize and not a bunch of people with tape measures comparing and measuring things all over the cosmos As far as showing you something prier to are ability to cognition? Is that a joke? , I hope so And I'm assuming you are referring to the double slit experiment when you say "action and reaction through atoms" And that's a can of worms for a different time so I'll just say no we don't that's just the explanation given by evil last scientists that don't want to lose funding or tenure so not valid. 1. If comparison is a "human philosophical thing", and as such is not real, then comparison does not exist therefore reality is under a unified sameness....this necessitates all as one. 2. An atom moves (action) and another atom moves in response (reaction). The movement of one atom leaves an impression on another and this same act of impression is the same act of impression found in observation (ie a form imprints itself on the psyche and the psyche reacts in turn). Because atoms share the same nature of impression found in the nature of observation the atom is quasi aware thus necessitating these building blocks, the atoms that is, as having a certain degree of cognition. If atoms have cognition and atoms are universal then cognition is universal. Ummm just because it's a human thing that not me saying that it doesn't exist so idk why your putting words I'm my mouth that I didn't say. And I'm not sure where you got your concept of how atoms interact ? But for argument sake I'll pretend that it's the way you say it is that still doesn't mean that each atom has some level of cognitive awareness Do you think that each atom has feelings and has a life story to tell? Are any of them part of the LGBT community?
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 11, 2022 21:08:41 GMT
1. If comparison is a "human philosophical thing", and as such is not real, then comparison does not exist therefore reality is under a unified sameness....this necessitates all as one. 2. An atom moves (action) and another atom moves in response (reaction). The movement of one atom leaves an impression on another and this same act of impression is the same act of impression found in observation (ie a form imprints itself on the psyche and the psyche reacts in turn). Because atoms share the same nature of impression found in the nature of observation the atom is quasi aware thus necessitating these building blocks, the atoms that is, as having a certain degree of cognition. If atoms have cognition and atoms are universal then cognition is universal. Ummm just because it's a human thing that not me saying that it doesn't exist so idk why your putting words I'm my mouth that I didn't say. And I'm not sure where you got your concept of how atoms interact ? But for argument sake I'll pretend that it's the way you say it is that still doesn't mean that each atom has some level of cognitive awareness Do you think that each atom has feelings and has a life story to tell? Are any of them part of the LGBT community? All consciousness, when broken down empirically, is the result of atoms interacting.
|
|
|
Post by MAYA-EL on Aug 12, 2022 16:51:01 GMT
Ummm just because it's a human thing that not me saying that it doesn't exist so idk why your putting words I'm my mouth that I didn't say. And I'm not sure where you got your concept of how atoms interact ? But for argument sake I'll pretend that it's the way you say it is that still doesn't mean that each atom has some level of cognitive awareness Do you think that each atom has feelings and has a life story to tell? Are any of them part of the LGBT community? All consciousness, when broken down empirically, is the result of atoms interacting. If you believe in atomism then yes
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Sept 1, 2022 23:30:41 GMT
All consciousness, when broken down empirically, is the result of atoms interacting. If you believe in atomism then yes To negate the atom would first require pointing to the atom; all negations require a phenomenon to first exist because of the act of pointing to it which occurs through words.
|
|