The Metaphysical Consciousness

bruto said:
... if you casually abandoned what you said before ...
Click to expand...

I did not abandoned what I said before.

What is written in the two following expressions is exactly the same principle, the principle of lever:
doronshadmi said:
It does use the principle of lever, where one side is stable and the other side is not.

Without the two principles (stability and instability) in the same instrument, it can't dig by using its full efficiency.
Click to expand...

doronshadmi said:
Since a lever is one piece of material with a fulcrum, not surprisingly one might as easily point out (hmm, an interesting expression) that at any time the fulcrum is its stable state with respect to its other working parts.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Wrong, ...fulcrum..., no matter what lever's class is used:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lever#mediaviewer/File:Lever_(PSF).png
Click to expand...

No. You can only pretend that the fulcrum on a shovel (for instance) is "stable" if you change the word "stable" to mean "the characteristic I want to assign to a shovel in order to make my woo! sound scienc-y".

(I teach levers to 7th graders. They get it.)

...just like your "unified field" which incorporates psi as a force for which no evidence exists.
 
doronshadmi said:
Another speller's typo. The right one is available.
Click to expand...
I know, but you gotta admit the other word was funny.
:p

Indeed a "great" balanced view of yours on the discussed subject.
No evidence to this claim of yours.
Click to expand...
This is not some devastating point. You want evidence that I opened links in another tab?
It's an unreasonable request aimed at shifting the attention onto my outrageous dishonesty and away from your long-suffering patient reasons for not shouldering the burden of proof.

:boggled:
 
Slowvehicle said:
You can only pretend that the fulcrum on a shovel (for instance) is "stable"
Click to expand...
You can only pretend that the fulcrum on a shovel (for instance) is not stable with respect to the other working parts of the shovel.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
Since when is one side of a lever the fulcrum?
Click to expand...
This time read all of what I wrote:
doronshadmi said:
It does use the principle of lever, where one side is stable and the other side is not.

Without the two principles (stability and instability) in the same instrument, it can't dig by using its full efficiency.
Click to expand...
The keyword is principle, which means that I am not talking about two endpoints of a given instrument, but about two principles (stability and instability) of the same instrument.
 
Last edited:
Slowvehicle said:
(I teach levers to 7th graders. They get it.)
Click to expand...
Great, in that case please air you view about the following:
doronshadmi said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYXCMs4a4BY is a nice video, which demonstrates the lever's principle in gears.

Smaller the gear (or wheel) is, its efficiency to move heavier weights is increased, where the needed length that is used in order to do that is reduced (4:44 from the beginning of the video, which is demonstrated by two wheels with different sizes).

The reason is very simple, more we close to the center of a rotating gear (or wheel), more power is available to move heavier weights by less needed length.

So is the case about one's awareness, more it is closed to its self state (equivalent to the center of a rotating gear (or wheel)) more power is available for thoughts' process by less needed space\time.

In other words, the same principle (stability and instability in the same system) is found whether we describe it as mental or physical phenomena, which give us the hint that mental or physical phenomena are actually the same thing.

So no Mysticism is involved here.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
This time read all of what I wrote:

The keyword is principle, which means that I am not talking about two endpoints of a given instrument, but about two principles (stability and instability) of the same instrument.
Click to expand...

I did read what you wrote. You wrote "...the principle of the lever, WHERE ONE SIDE IS STABLE AND THE OTHER SIDE IS NOT.

I do not actually quite know what you even mean by the term "stability," since, although a lever moves relative to its fulcrum, the fulcrum need not be stable at all (hence the repeated example of the shovel!).
 
doronshadmi said:
You can only pretend that the fulcrum on a shovel (for instance) is not stable with respect to the other working parts of the shovel.
Click to expand...

I see. Now the retractions and equivocations start. You had not, up to now, spoken of "stable with respect to the other parts".

Does it follow, then, that the"stability" of which you woo!-speak, the "stable" "higher states of consciousness" are only "stable" "with respect to" the "unstable", "lower states of consciousness"? Is it, in fact, "(even" higher states of consciousness", all the way "up"?

Have you ever used a shovel? Which hand stayed "stable", even in relation to the other?
 
doronshadmi said:
Great, in that case please air you view about the following:
Click to expand...

I do not do argumentum ad yoob tube, but the text you posted has nothing to do with "stability".

A smaller wheel is not "more efficient" at moving a "heavier weight". If it were, the driving wheels of freight locomotives would be tiny.

As the load gets closer to the axle, the lever arm decreases Think of choking up on a bat, or trying to use your bicycle's smaller (higher) cog to climb hills.

At best, you have provided a faulty analogy to your claimed "higher states of consciousness"
 
bruto said:
I do not actually quite know what you even mean by the term "stability," since, although a lever moves relative to its fulcrum, the fulcrum need not be stable at all (hence the repeated example of the shovel!).
Click to expand...
The fulcrum needs to be stable w.r.t the shovel's movement in order efficiently dig the ground.

Take another look at your avatar.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom