Cont: Deeper than primes - Continuation 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Among the developed exactly become harmonious organs, since the ultimate goal of Unity, since, unlike Unity as their cause.

From this notion, the direct awareness among the other organs of infinitely many numbers by using fixed sizes like Unity, multiplicity is limits to its development of vibration of infinitely many numbers by a single finite result, blocks the full potential of Unity and tautology, life phenomena, that has no limits to its development of Unity, multiplicity is Limited.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
I find http://lensesofperception.com/2016/03/lenses-of-perception/ important exactly because its aim is to unleash our brain to first become an actual explorer by developing the parallel (simultaneous) dialog among different points of view into one organic unified realm, where the explorer, the explored and the tool of exploration are inseparable aspects of it.
Click to expand...

If you think that, then you haven't actually read the book, at least not with comprehension.

The author is a pop-culture pseudo-philosopher promoting the premise that there is some remarkable interaction between consciousness and physical matter. Even subatomic particles have consciousness in his view.

He's a crank and a crackpot.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11784784&postcount=2691 is based on the same aim of Doug's work.
Click to expand...

I find it curious you'd claim that alignment.
 
jsfisher said:
He's a crank and a crackpot.
Click to expand...
A typical reply of a person the gets the issue at hand only by his verbal_symbolic brain skills.

As for Doug, we write to each other and there is agreement among us about the need of Unity consciousness in daily life, which is something that your partial use of your brain skills (verbal_symbolic-only skills of the issue at hand) naturally can't comprehend.

For example http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11784784&postcount=2691 is taken by you as gibberish exactly because you can't comprehend it by partially using your brain skills.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
The author is a pop-culture pseudo-philosopher promoting the premise that there is some remarkable interaction between consciousness and physical matter. Even subatomic particles have consciousness in his view.
Click to expand...
The author is an open minded person that simplifies the interaction between consciousness and physical matter by defining the physical matter as different degrees of consciousness exactly because the observer, the observed and the tool of observation are inseparable aspects of one unified filed that is aware of itself.

Another work on the issue at hand is given in http://www.ijmac.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/all05.pdf but it is unnecessarily complicated because the author tries to express his work only by using his verbal_symbolic brain skills because he wishes his work to be accepted by the community verbal_symbolic-only skillers (for example he does not understand that each time that he uses outer parentheses in his paper, they are the visual_spatial aspect of Unity consciousness, that can't be defined by collection of symbols between them).

Moreover, by using his verbal_symbolic-only brain skills, his mathematical work can't be used as a tool that enables to develop Unity consciousness in daily life.

Using only verbal_symbolic brain skills in order to understand reality provides the illusion that one can define everything in terms of an external observer, which his observations\definitions are not factors of the results.

The external observer attitude is exactly what makes one a crank and a crackpot.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The external observer attitude is exactly what makes one a crank and a crackpot.
Click to expand...

No, he's a crank and a crackpot in his own right. Don't belittle his accomplishment by trying to project his incompetence onto others.

Insulting me is no way to defend him. Instead, you should focus on his crackpot ideas to show why they are not crackpot ideas if you want to make your case.
 
doronshadmi said:
...for example he does not understand that each time that he uses outer parentheses in his paper, they are the visual_spatial aspect of Unity consciousness, that can't be defined by collection of symbols between them...
Click to expand...

You should point this out to him. I'm sure he would appreciate your observation. After all, in a review of a sciency paper he particularly liked, he commented that the authors, while brilliant, got a few things backwards.

I am sure Doug will accept your candid critique at least as well as Moshe did when you corrected him.
 
jsfisher said:
Insulting me ...
Click to expand...
By partially use your brain skills in order to express yourself on any one or everything you insult the full potential of both the critic AND the criticized.

When you will be opened to use both your visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic brain skills, it will be your first step into a real dialog on the abilities of mathematics to be used as tool in order to develop Unity consciousness in daily life.

Before that step "No, he's a crank and a crackpot" is your premise AND conclusion on the issue at hand.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Instead, you should focus on his crackpot ideas to show why they are not crackpot ideas if you want to make your case.
Click to expand...
Already done couple of years ago, as seen, for example, by the visual_spatial AND verbal_symbolic model of numbers as defined visually AND verbally from the title Number's notion, which is derived from verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills stating at page 13 in https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3hcPBRBCzClakdJZjNNOW5RSTQ/view?usp=sharing (an alternative link to Paolo Mancosu work is https://books.google.co.il/books?id...v=onepage&q=Weierstrass' and von koch&f=false).

In other words jsfisher, you have no case whatsoever by using your verbal_symbolic-only brain skills on the issue at hand.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
..."No, he's a crank and a crackpot" is your premise AND conclusion on the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the conclusion was evidence-based. I gave examples of him being such. You haven't addressed them; instead you continue your fiction of reasoning skills.

doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
I'm sure he would appreciate your observation.
Click to expand...
Well jsfisher, in order to actually support your "I'm sure ..." you first have to prove that you can deal with...
Click to expand...

Curious non sequitur. If you think Doug won't appreciate your observation, then I can understand why you'd hesitate to share it with him...but that choice is yours. What I think on this matter and what you allege I must "deal with" aren't relevant to what is entirely your decision.

doronshadmi said:
jsfisher said:
Instead, you should focus on his crackpot ideas to show why they are not crackpot ideas if you want to make your case.
Click to expand...
Already done couple of years ago...
Click to expand...

No, doronshadmi. The current matter before us is Doug's crackpot ideas as presented in his publications. What you did was circle back to your ideas as presented in your publications. Not the same thing, now are they?

For example, I don't recall you ever asserting that subatomic particles have a consciousness. Doug the Crank does assert that subatomic particles have a consciousness.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
For example, I don't recall you ever asserting that subatomic particles have a consciousness. Doug the Crank does assert that subatomic particles have a consciousness.
Click to expand...
As usual, by using your verbal-symbolic-only brain skills, you can't comprehend the self interference of cybernetic kernels as different levels of consciousness, where subatomic particles are the results of many fragmented curvatures of "flat" bits of consciousness, where a complex organism like us is the result of a single continuous curvature which smoothly links its internal and external aspects into one fully aware harmoniums phenomena that has the actual ability to be in Unity consciousness in daily life.

Persons that partially use their brain skills, are not aware of the simple fact that consciousness is all there is, and wrongly get, for example, numbers as some objects that exist independent of them, in so called, platonic realm.

By using only the, so called, external point of view, the materialist paradigm is rooted in their consciousness and blocks their abilities to actually smoothly link their external and internal aspects into one Unified reality that is naturally aware of itself.

Another wrong perception of reality is being aware only on the internal point of view, known as the spiritual point of view, which is unaware of the "flat" aspect of consciousness and wrongly values everything only in terns of the curved aspect of consciousness.

Our spices can survive only if it actually uses its abilities to smoothly unify the external and internal aspects into one Unified reality that is naturally aware of itself.

Only then reality is actually endless evolution of harmoniums expressions, where no amount of expressions is Unity consciousness in itself (it is not the sum of its expressions since it is non-composed (totally smooth)).

Your "No, doronshadmi ..." response to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11848541&postcount=2712 is another concrete example of your current inability to comprehend Doug or Me on the issue at hand, and as long as you try to value everything by partially use your brain skills, the "the best you can do is "No, doronshadmi ..." or "No, he's [Doug] a crank and a crackpot".

The beautiful thing is that in every given moment you can do the needed paradigm-shift that leads to a smooth reality among the external (objective) and the internal (spiritual) which is naturally aware of itself and it is not the sum of its expressions.
 
Last edited:
Hevneren said:
Doron, what does this mean? How could a member of a set ever be missing from that set?:confused:
Click to expand...

Doronshadmi has a unique perspective on notation. Consider something as humble as a parenthetical remark in a publication:

doronshadmi said:
...for example he does not understand that each time that he uses outer parentheses in his paper, they are the visual_spatial aspect of Unity consciousness, that can't be defined by collection of symbols between them...
Click to expand...

I predict you will soon be treated to a convoluted monologue of the meta-physical meaning of braces used in conventional set notation.

I will also predict the word, consciousness, new to Doron's repertoire, will be added to and prominently placed in the recycled word salad you have summoned.
 
doronshadmi said:
The beautiful thing is that in every given moment you can do the needed paradigm-shift that leads to a smooth reality among the external (objective) and the internal (spiritual) which is naturally aware of itself and it is not the sum of its expressions.
Click to expand...
Quite impressive. And all it takes is to suck at math?
 
Hevneren said:
Doron, what does this mean? How could a member of a set ever be missing from that set?:confused:
Click to expand...
It is not about missing members, but about the inaccessibility of endless expressions between the outer "{" and "}", to the outer "{" and "}".
 
Hevneren said:
Quite impressive. And all it takes is to suck at math?
Click to expand...
Math is no more no less than a tool which is used to train ones brain to actually become a smooth linkage among the external (objective) and the internal (spiritual), which is naturally aware of itself and it is not the sum of its linked expressions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom