A collection of infinitely many distinct elements

Status
Not open for further replies.
doronshadmi said:
You as an observer has an observable effect.

Challenge yourself in order to get it.

I see that you are unable to get http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4075327&postcount=2204 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4075823&postcount=2210 .
Click to expand...


So, you have no answer. Your whole concept bundle has no observable impact on anything. It remains a disease without symptoms. It is an entity of no concept. It is an ex-parrot....
 
doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Doron you are doing extremely poor maneuvering in order to deny that “the possibility that yourself is not any particular thought, but it is the source of any possible thought” are just your thoughts on the “source of any possible thought”.


doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Now you conflate personality with thought and assert some ludicrous claim that I never made, keep searching for straw.

doronshadmi said:
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).
Click to expand...

Again being aware of awareness would require thinking about it.


doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Let’s not put aside your “inability to dirctly get” that “the calm state of your mind (its non-local aspect)” is just you thinking about not thinking.

doronshadmi said:
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.
Click to expand...


A critique of circular reasoning again from someone who has repeatedly claimed that the validation of his local/ non-local complementation arises from his local/ non-local complementation, or that it can only be explained to people who understand it.

doronshadmi said:
No explanation can be given instead of direct awareness of yourself as the non-local aspect of any particular (local) thought, definition, intuition, filling, reasoning, etc.

As long as you unaware of the simultaneity of your Non-local\Local aspects, you cannot get the Organic paradigm of the mathematical science.
Click to expand...

Your reasoning is nothing but circular, but let’s put aside your inability to directly perceive your circular reasoning and explore the lack of reasoning in your claim that “you have no logical basis of how two thoughts are related to each other”. Well, you have just given a logical basis right there, by defining them as “thoughts” which would relate them in that respect. Another logical approach would be to apply data like a PET scan showing the areas and sequences of activity in the brain while considering those thoughts. The bottom line is if you what to consider “how two thoughts are related to each other” you have to think about them, if you do not think about them then they are not thoughts and once you do think about them or even think about the “logical basis of how two thoughts are related to each other” then they are all just thoughts.


doronshadmi said:
As about data it is both inside AND outside you, and it cannot be called data unless you are aware of it.
Click to expand...

Then it would only be data if and when it is “inside” of you or “you are aware of it”


There is plenty of data that I am not aware of and even more it seems that you are not aware of (like the definition of data) even though some of it has been presented to you.


doronshadmi said:
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...
Click to expand...


Well, “the fundamental form that enables ideas, fillings, etc...” would be a particular idea, can we help it that your “local (noisy) aspects” reverberating that idea in your head blocks out “your non-local (calm)” aspects that would help you to objectively perceive that it as just a “particular idea”. Because, if in the “calm state of your mind (its non-local aspect)” your are thinking about or aware of the “fundamental form that enables ideas, fillings, etc...” then that state is not devoid of thought as you have claimed and if you can only think about or be aware of the “fundamental form that enables ideas, fillings, etc...” in your “local (noisy)” state then it is just a “particular idea” of that state which you deny.

Your “non-local aspect” or “calm state” seems to be just a reference to Transcendental Meditation, again I am not surprised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation
 
Last edited:
The Man,

You did not answer to the question, which is:

How at least two thoughts are related to each other?

If you say: by another thought, then I ask how this thought is related to the two thoughts, etc … ad infinitum.

So please show how you avoid this non-finite regression.
 
Last edited:
As for TM or any other mental practice that can change your awareness, it can be helpful as long as you are aware of the fine and dynamic balance of your self-body interaction, or in other words, the balance between your non-local and local aspects as a one organic form.

At the moment that you are out of balance (mainly local or mainly non-local) problems come up.

Some analogy:
You can think about a muscle that is not used (non-locality) or overused (locality). Both stats are harmful, where the dynamic balance between them is healthful.

Thoughts are your local (expressed) aspect; direct self-awareness is your non-local (calm) aspect.

Both aspects complement each other into a one organic form.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man,

You did not answer to the question, which is:

How at least two thoughts are related to each other?

If you say: by another thought, then I ask how this thought is related to the two thoughts, etc … ad infinitum.

So please show how you avoid this non-finite regression.
Click to expand...

I see very little math in your last posts. In fact, none at all. What you're doing here is philosophy. Maybe the thread needs moving to another subforum?
 
doronshadmi said:
The Man,

You did not answer to the question, which is:

How at least two thoughts are related to each other?

If you say: by another thought, then I ask how this thought is related to the two thoughts, etc … ad infinitum.

So please show how you avoid this non-finite regression.
Click to expand...


As I told you before, you answer the question yourself; by defining them as “two thoughts” you require them to be related in that respect.

As for your infinite regression strawman, since we do not have infinite knowledge or infinite time to regress, your non-finite regression is not obtainable. If you can not show how your “non-finite regression” can be obtained, then your question about how it can be avoided is irrelevant.
 
doronshadmi said:
As for TM or any other mental practice that can change your awareness, it can be helpful as long as you are aware of the fine and dynamic balance of your self-body interaction, or in other words, the balance between your non-local and local aspects as a one organic form.

At the moment that you are out of balance (mainly local or mainly non-local) problems come up.

Some analogy:
You can think about a muscle that is not used (non-locality) or overused (locality). Both stats are harmful, where the dynamic balance between them is healthful.

Thoughts are your local (expressed) aspect; direct self-awareness is your non-local (calm) aspect.

Both aspects complement each other into a one organic form.
Click to expand...

Classic eastern philosophy of “balance”.

How we build muscles is by overusing them thus strengthening them. What can be harmful can also be helpful, another classic part of eastern philosophy.

Also an indication that this thread is in the wrong category.
 
The Man said:
I agree this is entirely philosophy.
Click to expand...

How do you know that this is entirely philosophy, and Mathematics has nothing to do with it?


Here is some clue:

A = Philosophy

B = Mathematics

Code: 
    A           B        
    .           .     (Locality)
    |           |    
    |           |    ... etc.
    |           |   
    |           |    
   _______________  (Non-locality)
 
doronshadmi said:
How do you know that this is entirely philosophy, and Mathematics has nothing to do with it?


Here is some clue:

A = Philosophy

B = Mathematics

Code: 
    A           B        
    .           .     (Locality)
    |           |    
    |           |    ... etc.
    |           |   
    |           |    
   _______________  (Non-locality)
Click to expand...

You're clearly stepping outside the bounds of mathematics in this picture. The picture shows that your notion of "locality" - whatever it may be - is not a mathematical notion, but a philosophical notion at best, for want of a better word.
 
The Man said:
Also an indication that this thread is in the wrong category.
Click to expand...

No, it is an indication of your limited abstract ability to distinguish between analogy and the thing itself.

As for building muscles, you do not build your mussels if you do not find the right balance between rest and action. Ask any Olympic athlete (you will find that most of them have problems if they do not define the needed balance between rest and action, that is needed for their chosen sport's branch).
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
You're clearly stepping outside the bounds of mathematics in this picture. The picture shows that your notion of "locality" - whatever it may be - is not a mathematical notion, but a philosophical notion at best, for want of a better word.
Click to expand...

No,

Wihout this form you are unable to get, for example, number 2.
 
The Man said:
As I told you before, you answer the question yourself; by defining them as “two thoughts”
Click to expand...

You cannot define two without this fundamental form:

Code: 
    .           .     (Locality)
    |           |    
    |           |     
    |           |   
    |           |    
   _______________  (Non-locality)

and indeed (as you wrote) youself (Non-locality\locality complementation) is a factor of the ability to get two.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
As for your infinite regression strawman, since we do not have infinite knowledge or infinite time to regress, your non-finite regression is not obtainable. If you can not show how your “non-finite regression” can be obtained, then your question about how it can be avoided is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Please do not play the fool.

This regression can be shown as thought, thought, thought, ...
 
doronshadmi said:
No, it is an indication of your limited abstract ability to distinguish between analogy and the thing itself.

As for build muscles, you do not build your mussels if you do not find the right balance between rest and action. Ask any Olympic athlete (you will find that most of them have problems if they do not define the needed balance between rest and action, that is needed for their particular sport's branch).
Click to expand...


Again more baseless claims and ill defined philosophical applications, try doing some research, any professional information on bodybuilding will clearly indicate the need to overstress or overuse muscles in order to build them.

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

Weight training
Weight training causes micro-tears to the muscles being trained; this is generally known as microtrauma. These micro-tears in the muscle contribute to the soreness felt after exercise, called delayed onset muscle soreness (DOMS). It is the repair to these micro-trauma that result in muscle growth. Normally, this soreness becomes most apparent a day or two after a workout. However, as muscles become adapted to the exercises, soreness tends to decrease.[9]
Click to expand...

This is specifically your “overused (locality)” and “harmful” state, but in repairing the damage from overuse the muscle becomes stronger. It is specifically this “unbalanced” aspect of activity that causes the body to “rebalance” by increasing muscle mass. Your understanding and application of your own analogies is clearly as poor as your understanding and application of everything else.
 
The Man said:
Again more baseless claims and ill defined philosophical applications, try doing some research, any professional information on bodybuilding will clearly indicate the need to overstress or overuse muscles in order to build them.

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



This is specifically your “overused (locality)” and “harmful” state, but in repairing the damage from overuse the muscle becomes stronger. It is specifically this “unbalanced” aspect of activity that causes the body to “rebalance” by increasing muscle mass. Your understanding and application of your own analogies is clearly as poor as your understanding and application of everything else.
Click to expand...
I used the term dynamic-balance ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4077968&postcount=2225 ) and not just balance.

Before you reply, please try to get what you read.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You cannot define two without this fundamental form:

Code: 
    .           .     (Locality)
    |           |    
    |           |     
    |           |   
    |           |    
   _______________  (Non-locality)

and indeed (as you wrote) youself (Non-locality\locality complementation) is a factor of the ability to get two.
Click to expand...

So without “yourself” there is no “two”? As you are “yourself” the product of two, your parents, clearly “two” existed before “yourself” and is not dependent on “yourself”. If you simply whish to claim that in order for “yourself” to understand anything, like the concept of “two” or “yourself”, requires “yourself”, well that is just redundant.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom