A collection of infinitely many distinct elements

[doronshadmi]

First you tell us non-locality (whatever it actually is) is completely outside reality.

Not at all.

Please see http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4073716&postcount=2200 .

 

[jsfisher]

Again with more meaningless diagrams and verbal.

Doron, seriously, since you can't / won't define your terminology, and there's no hope of getting you to change that, and since all your claims and examples are self-fulfilling, how about doing this instead:

Provide a meaningful example where your distinction actually has an observable effect.

If you cannot, then we are stuck in that disease without a symptom rut.

 

[jsfisher]

Not at all.

You are lying.

 

[doronshadmi]

Here is jsfisher's Venn diagram:

By doing a cross section along this diagram, we get this diagram:

R (non-locality) \ M (locality) complementation.

TSSSRC (non-locality) \ D (locality) complementation.

Blue-Grey (non-locality) \ (R (locality),TSSSRC (locality)) complementation.

The fundamental form is Non-locality\Locality complementation.

Try to avoid it, and you don't have a researchable framework.

 

[jsfisher]

By doing a cross section along this diagram, we get this diagram:

No, we don't. You are adding things to the diagram that were not in the original.

Be that as it may, please answer my challenge: Provide a meaningful example where your distinction (your so-called "hidden assumption") actually has an observable effect.

 

[The Man]

Each one of us is simultaneously at a particular state of some thought (or a collection of them, whether they are distinct or not) and at the ground base of any thought (which is not a thought).

Since you are unaware of this complementation (you are actually using Dichotomy and blame me by your fallacy) you get anything only at the local (particular) level of yourself.

At the moment that you are enable to be aware of yourself both as the ground of thoughts (which is not any thought (it is "not a one of many" state)) and as some thought of collection of thoughts (whether they are distinct or not)), then and only then you do your first step to get the Organic paradigm.

“and at the ground base of any thought” is just a thought, specifically yours, in simply claiming that it “is not a thought” you merely professes that you arrived at your thought “at the ground base of any thought” without thinking about it, again I am not surprised.

Since you are unable to understand the definition of dichotomy and simply impose your own self-serving, ludicrous and irrelevant meaning so you can blame it as a fallacy of others while you employ it yourself.

“At the moment you are enable to be aware” that “yourself both as the ground of thoughts (which is not any thought (it is "not a one of many" state)) and as some thought of collection of thoughts (whether they are distinct or not)),” is just a collection of your own thoughts “then and only then you do your first step to get the” fallacy of your “Organic paradigm” collection of thoughts.

 

[The Man]

What enables you to know that there are three aspects?

Because, that is the simplest way we can define them, as three primary colors , due to the fact that our retina contains three different types of color receptors (of different frequency response).

Any choice of primary colors is essentially arbitrary; for example, an early color photographic process, autochrome, typically used orange, green, and violet primaries.[2]

Ooh, I know this one! It's .... the study of human physiology, and I claim my 5$.

Give that man $5.

Primary colors are not a fundamental property of light but are often related to the physiological response of the eye to light. Fundamentally, light is a continuous spectrum of the wavelengths that can be detected by the human eye, an infinite-dimensional stimulus space.[3] However, the human eye normally contains only three types of color receptors called cone cells. Each color receptor responds to different ranges of the color spectrum. Humans and other species with three such types of color receptors are known as trichromats. These species respond to the light stimulus via a three-dimensional sensation, which can generally be modeled as a mixture of three primary colors.[3]

 

[doronshadmi]

“and at the ground base of any thought” is just a thought

No, it is not less than the complementation of the base ground of any thought that is not a thought (non-locality) and some thought (locality).

 

[doronshadmi]

Because, that is the simplest way we can define them, ...

The simplest way of ant researchable state is not less than Non-locality\Locality complementation, where in this case we have:

    R             G             B     
    .             .             .   (Locality)
    |             |             |
    |             |             |  ... etc.
    |             |             |
    |             |             |
   _______________________________  (Non-locality)

 

[doronshadmi]

No, we don't. You are adding things to the diagram that were not in the original.

No I do not.

By avoiding Non-Locality TSSSRC (some local) and R (some local) are not comparable and no conclusion about their relations can be found.

 

[The Man]

No, it is not less than the complementation of the base ground of any thought that is not a thought (non-locality) and some thought (locality).

Your "(non-locality)" is just a thought you have had, "it is not less than the complementation of the base ground of any thought that is not a thought (non-locality) and some thought (locality)" is just a collection of thoughts you have had. Thought is the "base ground of any thought", we could address some of the physiological aspects of thought, electrochemical excitation of cognitive brain centers, but they too would just be thoughts about thought. Yes, we all know that you’re “thought (locality)” about thinking has “the base ground” “that is not a thought (non-locality)”. However, most thinking individuals have thought as the base ground of thinking.

 

[The Man]

The simplest way of ant researchable state is not less than Non-locality\Locality complementation, where in this case we have:

    R             G             B     
    .             .             .   (Locality)
    |             |             |
    |             |             |  ... etc.
    |             |             |
    |             |             |
   _______________________________  (Non-locality)

Again you miss the point, the simplest way to research the visual spectrum requires the superposition (or complementation) of not less then three aspects (wavelengths).

 

[doronshadmi]

Again you miss the point, the simplest way to research the visual spectrum requires the superposition (or complementation) of not less then three aspects (wavelengths).

It does not matter if we deal with superposition or not, both are Non-Locality\Locality compelementation, as can be seen in ONN3 case:

 

[doronshadmi]

Your "(non-locality)" is just a thought you have had, ...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4075796&postcount=2208

 

[The Man]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4075796&postcount=2208

Your continued repetition that your thoughts do not involve thinking is irrelevant, as I have told you, the lack of thought (as well as reasearch) in your thinking is quite evident.

 

[doronshadmi]

Your continued repetition that your thoughts do not involve thinking is irrelevant, as I have told you, the lack of thought (as well as reasearch) in your thinking is quite evident.

Multiple Personality Disorder is a mental illness of any one how totally identifies himself at the level of thoughts. In this case one's personality is collapsed into several personalities, where each personality deals with some particular (local) aspect of his personality (that also has non-particular (non-local) aspect that is not a thought but the relator between thoughts).

Any normal personality is not less than Non-Locality\Locality complementation where both aspects (the non-particular and the particular) are in relation.

Omit the particular (local) and you cannot express yourself. Omit the non-particular (non-local) and you get Multiple Personality Disorder.


Do you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4076081&postcount=2213 ?

 

[The Man]

The simplest way of ant researchable state is not less than Non-locality\Locality complementation….

In the case of the visible spectrum the simplest researchable state is not less then a complementation of three aspects. Your diagram shows nothing of that complementation and you again try to impose a complementation of just two aspects for something that in its simplest form requires three. Apparently your simplest researchable state has not given you the ability to research anything other then what you insist must be the simplest researchable state.


You have asserted your local/non-local complementation as the basis of and any particular thought.

Each one of us is simultaneously at a particular state of some thought (or a collection of them, whether they are distinct or not) and at the ground base of any thought (which is not a thought).

Since you are unaware of this complementation (you are actually using Dichotomy and blame me by your fallacy) you get anything only at the local (particular) level of yourself.

At the moment that you are enable to be aware of yourself both as the ground of thoughts (which is not any thought (it is "not a one of many" state)) and as some thought of collection of thoughts (whether they are distinct or not)), then and only then you do your first step to get the Organic paradigm.

Thinking about things is not researching things, although that seems to be all there is in your brand of “research” and not much of it, at that. In order to research something you need data, which is not a thought or the basis of thought, although you do need to think about data to research something. Data can both support or refute what you think about what you are researching. Data must be local with regard (applicable) to what you are researching and non-local with regard to its repeatability (reliably reproducible). So, just your two aspects (as you identify them) the basis of thought and any given though do not produce a “researchable state” but only a thinkable state. For research you need that third aspect of data which is not one or both of your two aspects and what your notions have consistently lacked.

 

[The Man]

Multiple Personality Disorder is a mental illness of any one how totally identifies himself at the level of thoughts. In this case one's personality is collapsed into several personalities, where each personality deals with some particular (local) aspect of his personality (that also has non-particular (non-local) aspect that is not a thought but the relator between thoughts).

No, a person that “identifies himself at the level of thoughts” does not fit the classification of multiple personalities. Do you have any evidence to support your claim or do you simply wish to apply your “simplest researchable state” to something else that you have not bothered to research.

Please show us where “Multiple Personality Disorder is” defined as “a mental illness of any one how totally identifies himself at the level of thoughts”.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_personality_disorder


Please also research the following link with regard to your tendency to simply assert ridiculous (and easily refutable) claims (like quoted above).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion

Any normal personality is not less than Non-Locality\Locality complementation where both aspects (the non-particular and the particular) are in relation.

Again provide some evidence, otherwise the only evidence you are providing is that you are in fact delusional.

Omit the particular (local) and you cannot express yourself. Omit the non-particular (non-local) and you get Multiple Personality Disorder.

So, you must lack “the particular (local)” since you have demonstrated an inability to “express yourself” or your notions?

Please go ahead and present your cause for “Multiple Personality Disorder” to the American Psychiatric Association or any similar organization in your local region. I am sure they will be more then happy to listen to you, so happy in fact that they may not let you go.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Psychiatric_Association

Do you get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4076081&postcount=2213 ?

Do you get ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusion ?


Once again you have refuted your own notions, by claiming

No, it is not less than the complementation of the base ground of any thought that is not a thought (non-locality) and some thought (locality).

and then asserting existing and researchable conditions that

Omit the particular (local) and you cannot express yourself. Omit the non-particular (non-local) and you get Multiple Personality Disorder.

So what was once “not less than the complementation” now becomes “Any normal personality is not less than Non-Locality\Locality complementation”. Finding yourself unable to defend your assertion that

Each one of us is simultaneously at a particular state of some thought (or a collection of them, whether they are distinct or not) and at the ground base of any thought (which is not a thought).

You now limit that application to “Any normal personality”. What evidence do you have that you are a “normal personality”? If it is just your assertion that “Any normal personality is not less than Non-Locality\Locality complementation”, I again refer you to your local Psychiatric Association.

 

[doronshadmi]

The Man,

You are doing any possible maneuver in order to avoid the possibility that yourself is not any particular thought, but it is the source of any possible thought.

By doing these maneuvers you force your perception that is based on the particular thought that anything in your personality does not exist unless it is a thought.


In is clear that your noisy mind is unaware of the simplest and calm state of its awareness (which is not any thought but the relator between them).

In that case let us put aside your inability to dirctly get the calm state of your mind (its non-local aspect) and instead let us explore the reasoning of your claim, that any awareness is some thought.

By this approach you are using a circular reasoning because you have no logical basis of how two thoughts are related to each other, whether this relation is simultaneous and parallel or a serial step-by-step case.

As about data it is both inside AND outside you, and it cannot be called data unless you are aware of it.

In that case both your non-local (calm) AND local (noisy) aspects are used and again, I am not talking about any particular idea, but about the fundamental form that enables ideas, fillings, etc...

 

[jsfisher]

[P]lease answer my challenge: Provide a meaningful example where your distinction (your so-called "hidden assumption") actually has an observable effect.

*bump*