|
|
Post by jonbain on Feb 19, 2023 15:45:30 GMT
This could mean a psychological state of knowing, but more vitally to this society is what the alleged academic institutions, take to be this foundation.
And if this cannot be agreed upon, then chaos and war degenerate the process further.
Be it a moral or logical answer, or both entwined...
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Apr 29, 2023 8:25:31 GMT
There are numerous ways to describe a perfect circle, r^2=X^2+y^2
or using pi, and some loops, can also be done with sin and cos
so there are virtually an infinite number of ways to describe It. When they open your skull one day (to insert some wires in your brain) they will not see any of those forms in the space which is your brain.
It appears to exist in astrophysical shapes beyond measure, even the pebbles in a stream.
And yet not any of those things are It,
for those are imperfect, mere shadows of the Perfect Circle.
Wherefore is that which can exist in 4 or 5 or 47 dimensions unseen except by the inner-eye of the geometer?
1. In opening my skull to insert wires they are interrupting the activity within the brain that results in said formulas and visualizations. I have empirically seen this with my neighbor and her brain cancer. 2. You are ignoring: "It may also be argued that a perfect circle is not viewed abstractly either as the viewing of the circle is subject to the observer thus is subjective. It other terms we may not know what a perfect circle looks like." In other terms you have no empirical proof of a perfect circle and your abstractions, which are not empirical and cannot be shared as they are within your perspective, are subject to your point of view. Every time you travel in a vehicle with a wheel, you don't end up with tarmac in your brain because the mechanic relied on the invisible concept that is a perfect circle.
You conflate subjective with observed. You then reduce this idea to "does not exist".
When the geometer beholds the perfect circle that allows you to take the bus or drive in a big red SUV, or skateboard,
that observation is objectively realized beyond the subjective, because they actually work.
Like the fan in the pc that stops it from overheating, without which this conversation would be impossible.
But then you still believe in black-holes cos they said so on a tv.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 3, 2023 18:49:57 GMT
1. In opening my skull to insert wires they are interrupting the activity within the brain that results in said formulas and visualizations. I have empirically seen this with my neighbor and her brain cancer. 2. You are ignoring: "It may also be argued that a perfect circle is not viewed abstractly either as the viewing of the circle is subject to the observer thus is subjective. It other terms we may not know what a perfect circle looks like." In other terms you have no empirical proof of a perfect circle and your abstractions, which are not empirical and cannot be shared as they are within your perspective, are subject to your point of view. Every time you travel in a vehicle with a wheel, you don't end up with tarmac in your brain because the mechanic relied on the invisible concept that is a perfect circle.
You conflate subjective with observed. You then reduce this idea to "does not exist".
When the geometer beholds the perfect circle that allows you to take the bus or drive in a big red SUV, or skateboard,
that observation is objectively realized beyond the subjective, because they actually work.
Like the fan in the pc that stops it from overheating, without which this conversation would be impossible.
But then you still believe in black-holes cos they said so on a tv.
You are ignoring the empirical cancer argument. Even taking your perspective in which the brain cools the blood, this cooling of the blood enables thought to occur thus the brain is part of the thinking process. Is thought reduced to the brain? No. Can thought occur without the brain? No. The brain is connected to thought. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 3, 2023 21:21:46 GMT
Every time you travel in a vehicle with a wheel, you don't end up with tarmac in your brain because the mechanic relied on the invisible concept that is a perfect circle.
You conflate subjective with observed. You then reduce this idea to "does not exist".
When the geometer beholds the perfect circle that allows you to take the bus or drive in a big red SUV, or skateboard,
that observation is objectively realized beyond the subjective, because they actually work.
Like the fan in the pc that stops it from overheating, without which this conversation would be impossible.
But then you still believe in black-holes cos they said so on a tv.
You are ignoring the empirical cancer argument. Even taking your perspective in which the brain cools the blood, this cooling of the blood enables thought to occur thus the brain is part of the thinking process. Is thought reduced to the brain? No. Can thought occur without the brain? No. The brain is connected to thought.
Cancer is misconstrued, its often formerly labelled a 'virus'. And that is just snake-oil marketing.
There is nothing empirically profound about adding sophistry to death as a weak comfort for that which they are powerless to stop.
You say that thought cannot occur without the brain. You do not even attempt to offer proof, just the standard snake-oil marketing slogans.
I cannot offer YOU proof that ghosts are real. I can only claim to have spoken to ghosts; and the first time was so empirically REAL, I could in no way find reason to doubt it at all.
It was proven more real than this conversation, which could still technically be to a bot for all I know, even though I would hazard a 99% guess that THIS is real.
I could recall the tale, but it will persuade you little? From my vantage point it can only be 100% real.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 18:05:20 GMT
You are ignoring the empirical cancer argument. Even taking your perspective in which the brain cools the blood, this cooling of the blood enables thought to occur thus the brain is part of the thinking process. Is thought reduced to the brain? No. Can thought occur without the brain? No. The brain is connected to thought.
Cancer is misconstrued, its often formerly labelled a 'virus'. And that is just snake-oil marketing.
There is nothing empirically profound about adding sophistry to death as a weak comfort for that which they are powerless to stop.
You say that thought cannot occur without the brain. You do not even attempt to offer proof, just the standard snake-oil marketing slogans.
I cannot offer YOU proof that ghosts are real. I can only claim to have spoken to ghosts; and the first time was so empirically REAL, I could in no way find reason to doubt it at all.
It was proven more real than this conversation, which could still technically be to a bot for all I know, even though I would hazard a 99% guess that THIS is real.
I could recall the tale, but it will persuade you little? From my vantage point it can only be 100% real.
1. I never said cancer was or was not a virus. I said my neighbor had brain cancer. Prior to the cancer and treatments she could do math. After the cancer and the treatments she could not. 2. Face palm... the proof was the neighbor. Now taking my proof out of the equation and arguing from your perspective: The brain cools the blood. The spine is responsible for thought. The spine uses blood and cannot act without it. The cooling of the blood allows for thought to occur as it, i.e. the blood, is connected to thought. The brain influences thought. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on May 5, 2023 18:50:21 GMT
xxxxxxxxxand my point was simply that intense pain prevents all complex thoughts, like math, regardless of where in the body the pain occurs(which you are ignoring) and you project your thoughts into the brain because it is located between the ears and eyes, a type of anthropomorphism, sais vous plaît, that is reinforced by popular media, aka snake-oil marketing and besides that more well studied in more detail than your 'neighbor' whose can only lay claim to exist if, were you not using a pseudonym... is Phineas Gage.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on May 5, 2023 19:29:05 GMT
xxxxxxxxx and my point was simply that intense pain prevents all complex thoughts, like math, regardless of where in the body the pain occurs(which you are ignoring) and you project your thoughts into the brain because it is located between the ears and eyes, a type of anthropomorphism, sais vous plaît, that is reinforced by popular media, aka snake-oil marketing and besides that more well studied in more detail than your 'neighbor' whose can only lay claim to exist if, were you not using a pseudonym... is Phineas Gage. All feelings are reduced to thoughts considering we percieve them. Under these terms a thought prevents a thought. Considering existence is in a constant state of suffering then math is not the highest power. As to the rest, you are failing to take account how things are connect: if the brain cools the blood (according to you), and we need the blood cooled in order to properly think, then the brain influences thought. |
|
