|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 10, 2022 14:28:27 GMT
If Bruce Wayne is the same person as Batman, then it doesn't mean that 'Bruce Wayne' is the same as 'Batman'. At least these two words doesn't share the same number of letters. So, if X is Y only in a logical senset, while 'X' ≠ 'Y', then we cannot identify them. We have to make a leap into semantics, and at the level of it, X and Y mean not 'X' or 'Y', but exactly to what they're referring. Thus any fact means that if x=y, then it does not the same as 'x'='y'.
By stigmating or taggin' names to things is not making names be things. Names and things are just correlating, not interacting. It's impossible to name a thing and to expect this thing to be change by this act. Of course it matters how we conceptualize things and how we combine things together in our heads, but as previously be said - the logical truths (the results of thinking) containing names don't imply names, but things (to take it semantically, not nominatively).
Symbols matter to the one who use them. However, even if a person faces a symbol, it doesn't mean for him to take a symbol as a symbol. If I see '9' it doesn't mean I see only the number nine, or the number six upside down, I can see here either a curverd line, or just someone's trace. It's not necessary for a symbol to be represented as a symbol. The most common example - is another language. If we don't know that something is a language we don't even recognize it. We might suggest there's a language, but that's about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Oct 13, 2022 20:28:28 GMT
If Bruce Wayne is the same person as Batman, then it doesn't mean that 'Bruce Wayne' is the same as 'Batman'. At least these two words doesn't share the same number of letters. So, if X is Y only in a logical senset, while 'X' ≠ 'Y', then we cannot identify them. We have to make a leap into semantics, and at the level of it, X and Y mean not 'X' or 'Y' , but exactly to what they're referring. Thus any fact means that if x=y, then it does not the same as 'x'='y'. By stigmating or taggin' names to things is not making names be things. Names and things are just correlating, not interacting. It's impossible to name a thing and to expect this thing to be change by this act. Of course it matters how we conceptualize things and how we combine things together in our heads, but as previously be said - the logical truths (the results of thinking) containing names don't imply names, but things (to take it semantically, not nominatively). Symbols matter to the one who use them. However, even if a person faces a symbol, it doesn't mean for him to take a symbol as a symbol. If I see '9' it doesn't mean I see only the number nine, or the number six upside down, I can see here either a curverd line, or just someone's trace. It's not necessary for a symbol to be represented as a symbol. The most common example - is another language. If we don't know that something is a language we don't even recognize it. We might suggest there's a language, but that's about it. All things are symbols as symbols are directives and everything directs to something else. To say "symbols are just symbols" is to say "reality is just reality". |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 8, 2022 21:30:35 GMT
If Bruce Wayne is the same person as Batman, then it doesn't mean that 'Bruce Wayne' is the same as 'Batman'. At least these two words doesn't share the same number of letters. So, if X is Y only in a logical senset, while 'X' ≠ 'Y', then we cannot identify them. We have to make a leap into semantics, and at the level of it, X and Y mean not 'X' or 'Y' , but exactly to what they're referring. Thus any fact means that if x=y, then it does not the same as 'x'='y'. By stigmating or taggin' names to things is not making names be things. Names and things are just correlating, not interacting. It's impossible to name a thing and to expect this thing to be change by this act. Of course it matters how we conceptualize things and how we combine things together in our heads, but as previously be said - the logical truths (the results of thinking) containing names don't imply names, but things (to take it semantically, not nominatively). Symbols matter to the one who use them. However, even if a person faces a symbol, it doesn't mean for him to take a symbol as a symbol. If I see '9' it doesn't mean I see only the number nine, or the number six upside down, I can see here either a curverd line, or just someone's trace. It's not necessary for a symbol to be represented as a symbol. The most common example - is another language. If we don't know that something is a language we don't even recognize it. We might suggest there's a language, but that's about it. All things are symbols as symbols are directives and everything directs to something else. To say "symbols are just symbols" is to say "reality is just reality". The problem is that if the everything is also pointing to something else, then the everything isn't it. There must be things which don't point to something else. On the other hand, the everything cannot not be pointing to anything, because it cannot assume itself as itself, and in turn the everything doesn't have any directions at all, that finally is a contradiction for it – and therefore it lacks something. I suppose symbols to not be other things, than symbols. If a symbol is symbol, then whatever it is the symbol component in it is not the thing itself, while rather an outer element. If it occurs for a certain thing to be a symbol, then it doesn't transform to a symbol, it keeps being the thing, and a symbolic component is just an outer, so the thing ≠ a symbol. Symbols may share the same form as things do, but a form isn't a symbol either. I guess a symbol – as you rightly said has a direction. So, technically it can be described as this: Each time taking X we refer to S, or where X occurs it has to be replaced with S, the S is a symbol for X. Where 'X' is whatever it is, and 'S' is a symbol. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Nov 10, 2022 22:27:04 GMT
All things are symbols as symbols are directives and everything directs to something else. To say "symbols are just symbols" is to say "reality is just reality". The problem is that if the everything is also pointing to something else, then the everything isn't it. There must be things which don't point to something else. On the other hand, the everything cannot not be pointing to anything, because it cannot assume itself as itself, and in turn the everything doesn't have any directions at all, that finally is a contradiction for it – and therefore it lacks something. I suppose symbols to not be other things, than symbols. If a symbol is symbol, then whatever it is the symbol component in it is not the thing itself, while rather an outer element. If it occurs for a certain thing to be a symbol, then it doesn't transform to a symbol, it keeps being the thing, and a symbolic component is just an outer, so the thing ≠ a symbol. Symbols may share the same form as things do, but a form isn't a symbol either. I guess a symbol – as you rightly said has a direction. So, technically it can be described as this: Each time taking X we refer to S, or where X occurs it has to be replaced with S, the S is a symbol for X. Where 'X' is whatever it is, and 'S' is a symbol. 1. If all things point to something else then there is an infinite regress/progress which makes every thing a relative center point. This center point is contradictory as it is the stand between of one thing which contrasts to another thing; the center point is empty of characteristics because of it being the contrast itself. 2. If all things point to something else then there is an infinite regress/progress which results in an indefinite state. 3. If all things point to something else then each thing is empty in itself. This results in the infinite regress/progress being empty in itself when observed as a whole. Infinite regresses/progresses result in infinite regresses/progresses and the regress/progress becomes indistinguishable from anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 11, 2022 21:11:27 GMT
Symbols Are Visual Words In Communication, Associating A Common Thought With A Common Visual, I.E Batman's Symbol Is A Bat, Batman = Bat Man, And Bat Refers To The Bat-Shaped Milky Way That The Sun Crosses Over As Bruce Wayne Did To Escape Prison Just After Bats Came Out Of The Well Wall With The Outside Of The Well Being Circular Like The Sun As A Symbolic Metaphor Of Bruce Wayne Facing His Fears The Same Way The Sun Breaks Darkness When It Rises, Hence "Dark Knight Rising" = "Dark Night Rising Sun".
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 16, 2022 21:41:11 GMT
Symbols Are Visual Words In Communication, Associating A Common Thought With A Common Visual, I.E Batman's Symbol Is A Bat, Batman = Bat Man, And Bat Refers To The Bat-Shaped Milky Way That The Sun Crosses Over As Bruce Wayne Did To Escape Prison Just After Bats Came Out Of The Well Wall With The Outside Of The Well Being Circular Like The Sun As A Symbolic Metaphor Of Bruce Wayne Facing His Fears The Same Way The Sun Breaks Darkness When It Rises, Hence "Dark Knight Rising" = "Dark Night Rising Sun". But actually it doesn't really matter. Because, let's say I'm a computer, and for me there is no difference between a phrase: "symbols are visual words"
and a phrase: "Batman's symbol is a bat" I cannot differ "A" and "B" until there is a relevant soft to differ it. A tribe member from Tumba-Yumba might haven't differed them, because he hadn't been taught how to do it. It's also possible that a guy from Cleveland won't be able to get what a guy from New London means by something. Unlike people computers don't care about the input and output, but a human being get the information. I'd say it is quite the same to the signal system. Why? For instance, a baby: it cries when it wants to eat or sleep, so it transcend the signal to a living creature (a mom) to bring some milk for it to drink. Why the baby is so sured mum will hear its cry? - No, this is not pre-programmed to the baby's brain, it's just all what the baby can do. It also can to wave its hands or legs, or to shake its head, or to smell, but that's all. Pets demonstrate their wishes in some quite different way. We don't know very well what exactly they are telling us. Can you read cats' minds, 12 27 2022? Moreover, an infant accepts a sum of information. And the primary elements of them are some constructions. Usually they are plain, like "it is raining" or "cats do meaow". And only later, much later, a cognitive mechanism (which is a person) starts thinking about symbols, numbers, whatsoever. I think that our thinking is nothing, but thinking = which is killing time. As the proverbs reads dead men tell no tales. Thinking is just a tool. That's about it. I do not believe in numbers or namers, I don't believe in symbols. But there is reality. The outdoor. We perceive ourselves, and feel everything in quite a way, however we usually tag the elements of our experience. Those 'tags' are free to have names. If you know names as Mary or Booby, then you can name a squirrel or an elephant with these names. There is a solid argument behind all that. Have you ever noticed that guys crush on girls who live locally? Why they tell that those girls are 'everything for them', but at the same time - those girls have been his neighbors? Quite a strange, isn't it? The same is about our handy things as phones or cars. Why some scientists are poorly trying to assure us that everything is made as computers done?? What weirdos! They had seen some computers, and then they want to claim that 'everything' is being 'made up like computers'??? Not a bit. What we're doing everything is to compare things to things. We may say that "The universe has a shape of a frog" But this is 100% nonsense. Our poor and blinded wander over the universe with such tools are doomed. Instead of comparing less bigger things with the more bigger, we'd better stop at local level, thinking hardly about the things surround us, analyzing them, and entailing the properties from them. We cannot see what is after the horizon. It is out of any possiblilities. Your predictions are the same. You cannot predict future. Not even scientists can do thing. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 17, 2022 2:03:02 GMT
Symbols Are Visual Words In Communication, Associating A Common Thought With A Common Visual, I.E Batman's Symbol Is A Bat, Batman = Bat Man, And Bat Refers To The Bat-Shaped Milky Way That The Sun Crosses Over As Bruce Wayne Did To Escape Prison Just After Bats Came Out Of The Well Wall With The Outside Of The Well Being Circular Like The Sun As A Symbolic Metaphor Of Bruce Wayne Facing His Fears The Same Way The Sun Breaks Darkness When It Rises, Hence "Dark Knight Rising" = "Dark Night Rising Sun". But actually it doesn't really matter. Because, let's say I'm a computer, and for me there is no difference between a phrase: "symbols are visual words"
and a phrase: "Batman's symbol is a bat" I cannot differ "A" and "B" until there is a relevant soft to differ it. A tribe member from Tumba-Yumba might haven't differed them, because he hadn't been taught how to do it. It's also possible that a guy from Cleveland won't be able to get what a guy from New London means by something. Unlike people computers don't care about the input and output, but a human being get the information. I'd say it is quite the same to the signal system. Why? For instance, a baby: it cries when it wants to eat or sleep, so it transcend the signal to a living creature (a mom) to bring some milk for it to drink. Why the baby is so sured mum will hear its cry? - No, this is not pre-programmed to the baby's brain, it's just all what the baby can do. It also can to wave its hands or legs, or to shake its head, or to smell, but that's all. Pets demonstrate their wishes in some quite different way. We don't know very well what exactly they are telling us. Can you read cats' minds, 12 27 2022? Moreover, an infant accepts a sum of information. And the primary elements of them are some constructions. Usually they are plain, like "it is raining" or "cats do meaow". And only later, much later, a cognitive mechanism (which is a person) starts thinking about symbols, numbers, whatsoever. I think that our thinking is nothing, but thinking = which is killing time. As the proverbs reads dead men tell no tales. Thinking is just a tool. That's about it. I do not believe in numbers or namers, I don't believe in symbols. But there is reality. The outdoor. We perceive ourselves, and feel everything in quite a way, however we usually tag the elements of our experience. Those 'tags' are free to have names. If you know names as Mary or Booby, then you can name a squirrel or an elephant with these names. There is a solid argument behind all that. Have you ever noticed that guys crush on girls who live locally? Why they tell that those girls are 'everything for them', but at the same time - those girls have been his neighbors? Quite a strange, isn't it? The same is about our handy things as phones or cars. Why some scientists are poorly trying to assure us that everything is made as computers done?? What weirdos! They had seen some computers, and then they want to claim that 'everything' is being 'made up like computers'??? Not a bit. What we're doing everything is to compare things to things. We may say that "The universe has a shape of a frog" But this is 100% nonsense. Our poor and blinded wander over the universe with such tools are doomed. Instead of comparing less bigger things with the more bigger, we'd better stop at local level, thinking hardly about the things surround us, analyzing them, and entailing the properties from them. We cannot see what is after the horizon. It is out of any possiblilities. Your predictions are the same. You cannot predict future. Not even scientists can do thing. 
The Thing Is Eugene, Computers Are Not Using The Same Cognition As Humans, So You Are Arguing Against Yourself By Saying Computers Do Not Make Everything, Yet Use Computers To Argue Human Cognition In Terms Of Symbology. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 18, 2022 13:24:57 GMT
But actually it doesn't really matter. Because, let's say I'm a computer, and for me there is no difference between a phrase: "symbols are visual words"
and a phrase: "Batman's symbol is a bat" I cannot differ "A" and "B" until there is a relevant soft to differ it. A tribe member from Tumba-Yumba might haven't differed them, because he hadn't been taught how to do it. It's also possible that a guy from Cleveland won't be able to get what a guy from New London means by something. Unlike people computers don't care about the input and output, but a human being get the information. I'd say it is quite the same to the signal system. Why? For instance, a baby: it cries when it wants to eat or sleep, so it transcend the signal to a living creature (a mom) to bring some milk for it to drink. Why the baby is so sured mum will hear its cry? - No, this is not pre-programmed to the baby's brain, it's just all what the baby can do. It also can to wave its hands or legs, or to shake its head, or to smell, but that's all. Pets demonstrate their wishes in some quite different way. We don't know very well what exactly they are telling us. Can you read cats' minds, 12 27 2022? Moreover, an infant accepts a sum of information. And the primary elements of them are some constructions. Usually they are plain, like "it is raining" or "cats do meaow". And only later, much later, a cognitive mechanism (which is a person) starts thinking about symbols, numbers, whatsoever. I think that our thinking is nothing, but thinking = which is killing time. As the proverbs reads dead men tell no tales. Thinking is just a tool. That's about it. I do not believe in numbers or namers, I don't believe in symbols. But there is reality. The outdoor. We perceive ourselves, and feel everything in quite a way, however we usually tag the elements of our experience. Those 'tags' are free to have names. If you know names as Mary or Booby, then you can name a squirrel or an elephant with these names. There is a solid argument behind all that. Have you ever noticed that guys crush on girls who live locally? Why they tell that those girls are 'everything for them', but at the same time - those girls have been his neighbors? Quite a strange, isn't it? The same is about our handy things as phones or cars. Why some scientists are poorly trying to assure us that everything is made as computers done?? What weirdos! They had seen some computers, and then they want to claim that 'everything' is being 'made up like computers'??? Not a bit. What we're doing everything is to compare things to things. We may say that "The universe has a shape of a frog" But this is 100% nonsense. Our poor and blinded wander over the universe with such tools are doomed. Instead of comparing less bigger things with the more bigger, we'd better stop at local level, thinking hardly about the things surround us, analyzing them, and entailing the properties from them. We cannot see what is after the horizon. It is out of any possiblilities. Your predictions are the same. You cannot predict future. Not even scientists can do thing.
The Thing Is Eugene, Computers Are Not Using The Same Cognition As Humans, So You Are Arguing Against Yourself By Saying Computers Do Not Make Everything, Yet Use Computers To Argue Human Cognition In Terms Of Symbology.You've nailed that about 'boobies' =) =) =) =) Actually, I wanted to write 'Bobby', but I think I was thinking too long about Maries, so then I typed occasionally 'Booby'. Computers don't use the same cognition. That is correct. But I see anything weird or unusual here. If computers matched us 1-to-1, like the best terminators copies, then there were no differences. The difference isn't just in a cognition, but a way how we correspond things. I assure you this theme is a hell out of deep. When I was studying organic chemistry there were lotta lotta isomorphisms, circular-typed, and so and so on... seems like the endless similar times. That is why to compare both elements isn't an easy. Just if you want to you can watch these videos, where this theme is pointed, but only partially - to see how broad and fat this question about the identity is. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 18, 2022 16:23:21 GMT
I Can Only Imagine What You Were Thinking When You Wrote "Booby" After Mary, Surely You Meant "Bobby"?
The Thing Is Eugene, Computers Are Not Using The Same Cognition As Humans, So You Are Arguing Against Yourself By Saying Computers Do Not Make Everything, Yet Use Computers To Argue Human Cognition In Terms Of Symbology. You've nailed that about 'boobies' =) =) =) =) Actually, I wanted to write 'Bobby', but I think I was thinking too long about Maries, so then I typed occasionally 'Booby'. Computers don't use the same cognition. That is correct. But I see anything weird or unusual here. If computers matched us 1-to-1, like the best terminators copies, then there were no differences. The difference isn't just in a cognition, but a way how we correspond things. I assure you this theme is a hell out of deep. When I was studying organic chemistry there were lotta lotta isomorphisms, circular-typed, and so and so on... seems like the endless similar times. That is why to compare both elements isn't an easy. Just if you want to you can watch these videos, where this theme is pointed, but only partially - to see how broad and fat this question about the identity is. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 23, 2022 21:28:18 GMT
You've nailed that about 'boobies' =) =) =) =) Actually, I wanted to write 'Bobby', but I think I was thinking too long about Maries, so then I typed occasionally 'Booby'. Computers don't use the same cognition. That is correct. But I see anything weird or unusual here. If computers matched us 1-to-1, like the best terminators copies, then there were no differences. The difference isn't just in a cognition, but a way how we correspond things. I assure you this theme is a hell out of deep. When I was studying organic chemistry there were lotta lotta isomorphisms, circular-typed, and so and so on... seems like the endless similar times. That is why to compare both elements isn't an easy. Just if you want to you can watch these videos, where this theme is pointed, but only partially - to see how broad and fat this question about the identity is. Oh, yeah, that's agreed. (Btw, 'Common understanding' has a scientific term 'intersubjectivity'. If x is intersubjective, then any rational agent R can comprehend or gets what that x is. Mostly, however, it's about 'R can understand principles of how x works'.) Your point traps into the requirement for everyone to accept some other forms of consciousness. For instance, if by you a computer can produce some symbols - as it already does with computer synthesized-commercial projects, then such a computer is some form of consciousness. But again, even if a CPU_1 creates a symbol for CPU_2 to interpret it somehow, I guess it is a weak form of their relations. Computers have already been working in this way: the servers controls the sub-ones. However, their connection are completely rationalized electronic one. A human is another story. Don't you want to say by your previous comment that a human is an electric machine only? |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 24, 2022 17:51:18 GMT
Some Symbols Are Merely Man-Made And Need Examples To Cross-Reference A Common Understanding Of That Symbol, While Other Symbols (The Ones I Mentioned) Are Not Man-Made, But Indeed The Subconscious Logic Of The Cosmos In Its Entirety. Oh, yeah, that's agreed. (Btw, 'Common understanding' has a scientific term 'intersubjectivity'. If x is intersubjective, then any rational agent R can comprehend or gets what that x is. Mostly, however, it's about 'R can understand principles of how x works'.) Your point traps into the requirement for everyone to accept some other forms of consciousness. For instance, if by you a computer can produce some symbols - as it already does with computer synthesized-commercial projects, then such a computer is some form of consciousness. But again, even if a CPU_1 creates a symbol for CPU_2 to interpret it somehow, I guess it is a weak form of their relations. Computers have already been working in this way: the servers controls the sub-ones. However, their connection are completely rationalized electronic one. A human is another story. Don't you want to say by your previous comment that a human is an electric machine only?
Well, A Human Is A Bio-Neurological Being That Operates On Information Gathered By An Assembly Of Constituents, So That Would Make Humans An Organic Machine, Non-Man Made Machines, While Computers Are Non-Organic Machines Created By Organic Machines, As Computers Were Designed By Humans, Meaning Humans Are Emulating The Logical Basis Of Computers. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 24, 2022 18:15:39 GMT
Oh, yeah, that's agreed. (Btw, 'Common understanding' has a scientific term 'intersubjectivity'. If x is intersubjective, then any rational agent R can comprehend or gets what that x is. Mostly, however, it's about 'R can understand principles of how x works'.) Your point traps into the requirement for everyone to accept some other forms of consciousness. For instance, if by you a computer can produce some symbols - as it already does with computer synthesized-commercial projects, then such a computer is some form of consciousness. But again, even if a CPU_1 creates a symbol for CPU_2 to interpret it somehow, I guess it is a weak form of their relations. Computers have already been working in this way: the servers controls the sub-ones. However, their connection are completely rationalized electronic one. A human is another story. Don't you want to say by your previous comment that a human is an electric machine only?
Well, A Human Is A Bio-Neurological Being That Operates On Information Gathered By An Assembly Of Constituents, So That Would Make Humans An Organic Machine, Non-Man Made Machines, While Computers Are Non-Organic Machines Created By Organic Machines, As Computers Were Designed By Humans, Meaning Humans Are Emulating The Logical Basis Of Computers. I don't think humans are machines. Our consciousness disproves a mechanic component. Besides, there are different types of the mechanic; and the heaven mechanic of Newton ≠ to the quantum one. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 25, 2022 4:38:49 GMT
Well, A Human Is A Bio-Neurological Being That Operates On Information Gathered By An Assembly Of Constituents, So That Would Make Humans An Organic Machine, Non-Man Made Machines, While Computers Are Non-Organic Machines Created By Organic Machines, As Computers Were Designed By Humans, Meaning Humans Are Emulating The Logical Basis Of Computers. I don't think humans are machines. Our consciousness disproves a mechanic component. Besides, there are different types of the mechanic; and the heaven mechanic of Newton ≠ to the quantum one. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Nov 25, 2022 7:33:48 GMT
I don't think humans are machines. Our consciousness disproves a mechanic component. Besides, there are different types of the mechanic; and the heaven mechanic of Newton ≠ to the quantum one. I think I agree. This is truly strange and not easy to comprehend (for me), but a human is more a system, than a chaotic agglomeration. But what is quite weird is that "pre-organization". Actually, I think it's explainable why atoms and molecules of a human are cooperating. It is easily. A human body has plenty of (I don't know how many) molecule structures which cooperate in a real time - as a dynamic force. So, if there's an intrusion into a whole body, they're activisating and do their mission to complete the injured places. That is why they keep the body as a whole all the time. I would compare a body to a town: all those firemen, policemen, medical workers and so on - they work cooperatively to sustain the life of the town. If there were no police, no administrations, and so on, no towns were possible. That is why they keep towns being united and workable, and by the same any organism is working. The cells - are tiny police, medics, and so on. So, there are no "pre-existence", there are just a bunch of necessary cells and cooperative work of them. |
|
|
|
Post by IM LITERALLY NEO on Nov 25, 2022 19:13:35 GMT
Humans Have A Neurological And Organ System That Works Like A System, Humans Don't Just "Exist", They Are Existing On A Pre-Organized System Of Machinations, I.E Humans Move By Joints Which Exist For Humans To Move, A Computational Errand. I think I agree. This is truly strange and not easy to comprehend (for me), but a human is more a system, than a chaotic agglomeration. But what is quite weird is that "pre-organization". Actually, I think it's explainable why atoms and molecules of a human are cooperating. It is easily. A human body has plenty of (I don't know how many) molecule structures which cooperate in a real time - as a dynamic force. So, if there's an intrusion into a whole body, they're activisating and do their mission to complete the injured places. That is why they keep the body as a whole all the time. I would compare a body to a town: all those firemen, policemen, medical workers and so on - they work cooperatively to sustain the life of the town. If there were no police, no administrations, and so on, no towns were possible. That is why they keep towns being united and workable, and by the same any organism is working. The cells - are tiny police, medics, and so on. So, there are no "pre-existence", there are just a bunch of necessary cells and cooperative work of them.
However, It IS Pre-Existent, Because The Neuro-Transmitters Inside The Eyes Were Created Long Before The Actual Human Body, Before Earth Was Created, Before Much Was Created, Meaning Everything Was Intelligently Planned (Pre-Existent). |
|
