Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
So, what is your point?



Domesticated cat's day-by-day complex existence is the result of __\. associations, whether it is cognitively aware of it or not. This is exactly the beautiful thing about __\. associations, they work whether one is aware about them or not.

An intelligent complex system has the privilege to be aware of __\. associations and it is done only by awareness' direct perception. Any other level of understanding like verbal-only notions are already some particular results of __\. associations, and as particular results they do not provide the general notion of __\. associations that is achieved by direct perception of __\.
Click to expand...

That answers enough. Hogwash I call it. If you can not prove it verbally or with an abstract language like math, then you are just preaching religion in a new way.
 
MosheKlein said:
Hi Man

Thank you for sharing about you hobbies - nice indeed.
Concerned sciences , since you declare in this forum
that you see a line as made of points
I really can't see any value to the discussion between us.
You see, we are living in two different universe.

I am sorry
Moshe
Click to expand...

So like Doron do you either simply not understand the meaning of a line being defined by points or do you both simply and deliberately confuse “defined by points” it to mean "made of points".

What exactly was that degree you asserted you have before and from where was it obtained?
 
The Man said:
So like Doron do you either simply not understand the meaning of a line being defined by points or do you both simply and deliberately confuse “defined by points” it to mean "made of points".

What exactly was that degree you asserted you have before and from where was it obtained?
Click to expand...

Defined by points?

Please show us how ____ , which is a pointless element, is defined by . element, for example, this case:

__.___
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
That answers enough. Hogwash I call it. If you can not prove it verbally or with an abstract language like math, then you are just preaching religion in a new way.
Click to expand...
This is the beautiful thing about direct perception. It does not need any proof, it simply is.

Furthermore, direct perception is stronger than any axiomatic state that is based on verbal notion (be aware that even axiomatic verbal notions, which are weaker then direct perception notions, do not need any proof).

realpaladin said:
I read it. Pure nonsense. So what?
Click to expand...
Read but not get. So what?
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
So the inability of OM proponents to simply communicate effectively and efficiently amongst their own species certainly does not bode well for the ability of OM to actually enable communication just for a group of people on the web, let alone meet its intended “aim”.
Click to expand...
A group of people that are limited to verbal-only notions and can't get that ___ element is not defined, made, etc ... by any amount of . elements.
 
doronshadmi said:
A group of people that are limited to verbal-only notions and can't get that ___ element is not defined, made, etc ... by any amount of . elements.
Click to expand...

No, doron. Your line may not be defined by points, but the line from Euclidean geometry is. You are free to imagine whatever inconsistent, contradictory world you like, but stop alleging your nonsense supersedes real Mathematics.

Real math works. Yours doesn't.
 
doronshadmi said:
Very "intersting" The Man.

Indeed let us know when some virus will have a long term agreement with you, which is based on your bla bla bla ... verbal-only agreement.
Click to expand...

When have I ever required an “agreement” between myself and a virus? Stop trying to pawn off your lame CRAP on others.

doronshadmi said:
It is quite obvious to see a complex system (called The Man) contradicts its own bla bla bla ... verbal-only understanding, exactly because the depth of his notions is limited to bla bla bla ... verbal-only notions (he can't grasp the fact that his verbal-only method is actually based on __\., which can be known only immediately and only by direct perception).

The line is made of tiny tiny elements, isn't it "point dragger" The Man?


It is excluded only in your fantasy, which its depth is limited to verbal-only notions.

The Man, no direct percaption, no OM's understanding.

Simple as that.
Click to expand...

It is quite obvious to see that Doron does not even understand his own survival depends on him (specifically his immune system) ‘disagreeing’ not only with virions but a whole host of other organisms. All of which would quite readily agree to consume him, I’m sure they will all be agreeably glad to find him, his direct perception and his OM all so amicable to that end.
 
doronshadmi said:
This is the beautiful thing about direct perception. It does not need any proof, it simply is.
Click to expand...
Buddhist nonsense.

Nothing *is* everything mutates. First and quite fundamental flaw.

doronshadmi said:
Furthermore, direct perception is stronger than any axiomatic state that is based on verbal notion (be aware that even axiomatic verbal notions, which are weaker then direct perception notions, do not need any proof).
Click to expand...

Axioms are axioms because they are axioms.

Does not explain:

a) What direct perception is.
b) Why it is stronger.
c) Why it can be compared to axioms at all.


doronshadmi said:
Read but not get. So what?
Click to expand...
Read, but you can not explain? So that!
 
doronshadmi said:
Defined by points?

Please show us how ____ , which is a pointless element, is defined by . element, for example, this case:

__.___
Click to expand...

We have been over it time and time again Doron, are you expecting your OM to now have given you some ability to communicate that you were lacking all those times before? However, if you insist the interval [5,10] defines a line segment from 5 to 10. Please show us how OM might define a specific line segment.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
We have been over it time and time again Doron, are you expecting your OM to now have given you some ability to communicate that you were lacking all those times before? However, if you insist the interval [5,10] defines a line segment from 5 to 10. Please show us how OM might define a specific line segment.
Click to expand...
You miss it The Man.

5 or 10 or any other verbal-only notion, say exactly nothing about the fact that _____ element is not made or defined by . elements.

For example, we can call _____ "5", we can cal . "2" and we can call another . "7", but it does not change the fact that _____ element is not made, defined (or any other bla bla bla ... verbal-only notion) by any amount of . elements.

This beautiful and simple fact can be understood only by direct perception, something that you simply not aware of.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You miss it The Man.

5 or 10 or any other verbal-only notion, say exactly nothing about the fact that _____ element is not made or defined by . elements.

For example, we can call _____ "5", we can cal . "2" and we can call another . "7", but it does not chage the fact that _____ element is not made, defined (or any other bla bla bla ... verbal-only notion) by any amount of . elements.

This beautiful and simple fact can be understood only by direct perception, something that you simply not aware of.
Click to expand...

What you are explaining to me right now is that direct perception is for dumb people who have lost their faculties for language and descriptions.
 
realpaladin said:
What you are explaining to me right now is that direct perception is for dumb people who have lost their faculties for language and descriptions.
Click to expand...
No, this is something that you explain to yourself by your limited verbal-only notion.
 
realpaladin said:
No, this is something you explain to everyone by example.
Click to expand...
Direct perception is its own example, it does not need any further bla bla bla ...

Giving or not giving a name to something does not change its existence.

The existence of _____ element or . element, and the fact that ____ is not made or defined by any amount of . elements, is a direct perception fact that is not chaneged by any bla bla bla … verbal expressions.
 
Last edited:
realpaladin said:
No, this is something you explain to everyone by example.
Click to expand...

Ah!!! but there's the rub. Doronshadmi is incapable of explaining it. It therefore substitutes that we should be able to get it without explanation.

Convenient, eh?
 
jsfisher said:
Ah!!! but there's the rub. Doronshadmi is incapable of explaining it. It therefore substitutes that we should be able to get it without explanation.

Convenient, eh?
Click to expand...
Exactly, all is needed is direct perception, which is its own immediate explanation (there is no room for circularity here).

Verbal-only thinkers can't get this beauty.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom