Deeper than primes - Continuation

[realpaladin]

As for Unity, it is the invariant thing that is the source of variant opposites like NOthing and YESthing.

If one's mind is aware of thing during NOthing and YESthing variant opposites, then one's mind is actually at Unity awareness, which is the actual fulfillment of communication.

- If you are aware of something, then you perceive, by whatever means. If you perceive you must have a location outside that which you perceive (even inside a sphere you are outside of the wall you look at). Therefore; if you are aware of something you can not have unity but must have at least duality.

A clear signature of a mind that does not fulfill actual communication is its inability to get variant opposites like NOthing and YESthing, simply because it is not aware of them right from the invariant thing.

Prove me that this is a clear signature. I.e. show that it follows that if someone is not aware right from the invariant thing that this is due to inability and not due to lack of effort or lack of will.

Current computation is an agent of a mind that is trapped at the dichotomous level of NOthing|YESthing (SOMEthing) variant opposites, and as a result it can't get thing as their invariant source.

A good friend of mine works with quantum computing (we covered that fun waaay earlier in the first thread, remember?) and she works with all states (not merely a boolean yes/no) at the same time.
So what does that say about your knowledge of the current state of technology?

By actually be at Unity awareness, ones mind enables to get the following:

1) NOthing between X and Y is actually two symbols of the same thing.

2) YESthing between X and Y is actually two symbols of different things, where the YESthing is a gap that can't completely be covered by any amount of collection of X,Y things.

You have yet to show why this is so. I already said in the first thread AND in the second thread that saying that 'an apple is not an orange' does not prove that 'the orange is an orange'.

You try to prove your stuff by focussing on what other work does not fit in with yours.

So again. Prove it. Show it. Demonstrate it. Sing a song about it.

3) Given any amount of collection of X,Y things, it does not have the power of the continuum of the YESthing gap among them.

The word continuum means 'unbroken' so the words continuum and gap preclude each other.
Find different words to explain yourself please.

4) (1),(2) and (3) are known only by Unity awareness.

Yes, 'there's a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza...'

And Punshhh had the audacity to say that all the other stuff 'falls back on itself'. I am laughing out loud now.

5) Mathematics of the past 3000 years is not based on Unity awareness, and can't achieve actual communication, where one of the clear signatures of actual communication is the ability to unify Ethics with Logic under a one comprehensive framework, which is not less than the Technology of the Consciousness.

Your stuff is an orange, so don't try to prove it by saying the apples aren't the orange.

I am long past looking at any remarks you make about any math or other established science.

I try to keep looking at what you, on your own merit, produce.

Organic Mathematics is an afford to develop the Technology of the Consciousness, and actual Unity awareness among minds is its goal (without it no actual communication is achieved).

Without actual communication among minds, they will not survive further manipulations of nature's forces.

Good, show that the last sentence is true.

So where we are at is:

- There are some properties of Doronetics that have a circular reference. That makes it simple; only one of them has to be proven outside of that circular reference and the causality of the 4 points needs to be proven.

- A claim is made (I am happy I live to see the day) about what Doronetics will achieve; manipulations of nature's forces.
Since we can then interact, we can measure. So even if the rest of us do not understand Doronetics, we can finally see it influencing the world.

But there is also a new item:

- A claim that without Doronetics we can not survive manipulating nature's forces.
That is a bold claim but it offers us some handholds:
+ What does 'not survive' mean? Do we all die? Do we become apathetic? What?
+ If we know the answer to the previous question, then the next question is: what is Doronetics doing differently?

Again, since it is clearly stated that there is interaction with the non-unity minds, we can measure any interaction or observe any change (maybe over generations).

This should be good.

 

[zooterkin]

Fortunately you do have sufficient actual mathematical understanding (based on developed awareness) to join in this debate.

Well, I can't argue with that.

 

[doronshadmi]

if you are aware of something you can not have unity but must have at least duality.

Being aware of SOMEthing (YESthing) is an awareness at least at the level of Dichotomy, where in this case the opposite of SOMEthing is NOthing.

YESthing and NOthing are expressed dichotomies of thing ,which is the Unity among them, and actually enables their comparison, in the fist place.

A good friend of mine works with quantum computing (we covered that fun waaay earlier in the first thread, remember?) and she works with all states (not merely a boolean yes/no) at the same time.

It does not matter how many YESthings (SOMEthings) are taken simultaneously, still they are the expressed level of Unity.

The rest of your post, realpaladin, is derived from your ignorance about Unity (your awareness is trapped at the level of at least Dichotomy).

Prove me that this is a clear signature.

Only you, by directly being aware of Unity, can prove it to yourself (the state of Unity is the source of all possible thoughts, which is itself not a thought (please look at the analogy of Unity awareness in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583)).

 

[Little 10 Toes]

Being aware of SOMEthing (YESthing) is an awareness at the level of Dichotomy, where in this case the opposite of SOMEthing is NOthing.

Nope, it's everything.

EDIT: are you done editing your post for the third or fourth time doronshadmi? I have things to do..

 

[realpaladin]

Nope, it's everything.

EDIT: are you done editing your post for the third or fourth time doronshadmi? I have things to do..

Yeah... I usually copy his post to a notepad and reply to that. I have no use for his redacts. For someone claiming to have a unified mind he sure is hopping on multiple thoughts.

 

[realpaladin]

The rest of your post, realpaladin, is derived from your ignorance about Unity (your awareness is trapped at the level of at least Dichotomy).

Conveniently skipping the part where you are called upon to mention exactly *what* your imaginary contrivance might accomplish, hmm?

Read back, it was *you* who claimed it would do some stuff with the forces of nature. It was *you* who claimed that the non-unified would be failing there.

Only *you* manouvred yourself into this 'put up or shut up' moment Doron.

Explain what Doronetics can do or else concede that we all had a few years of fun in wandering from 'deeper than primes' to 'a Frankensteinish version of Buddhism'.

There is nothing you can post, bar the explanation of what your unity might accomplish, that would not make you seem an utter, utter loser.

To quote a popular game show: "You are the weakest link, goodbye!"

 

[doronshadmi]

Nope, it's everything.

EVERYthing is many SOMEthings, so the amount does no change the fact the both cases are the opposite of NOthing.

 

[doronshadmi]

Conveniently skipping the part where you are called upon to mention exactly *what* your imaginary contrivance might accomplish, hmm?

Read back, it was *you* who claimed it would do some stuff with the forces of nature. It was *you* who claimed that the non-unified would be failing there.

Only *you* manouvred yourself into this 'put up or shut up' moment Doron.

Explain what Doronetics can do or else concede that we all had a few years of fun in wandering from 'deeper than primes' to 'a Frankensteinish version of Buddhism'.

There is nothing you can post, bar the explanation of what your unity might accomplish, that would not make you seem an utter, utter loser.

To quote a popular game show: "You are the weakest link, goodbye!"

Prove me that this is a clear signature.

Only you, by directly being aware of Unity, can prove it to yourself (the state of Unity is the source of all possible thoughts, which is itself not a thought (please look at the analogy of Unity awareness in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7672352&postcount=16583)).

 

[doronshadmi]

Your stuff is an orange, so don't try to prove it by saying the apples aren't the orange.

My stuff is a one tree where both oranges and apples complement each other.

Once again it is shown that your dichotomous awareness can't get the Unity of infinitely complex organism.

 

[realpaladin]

What forces of nature can your unity manipulate that science can not?

 

[gentlehorse]

What forces of nature can your unity manipulate that science can not?

Forces of nature for which there is no evidence, of course. Sheesh.

 

[dafydd]

Fortunately you do have sufficient actual mathematical understanding (based on developed awareness) to join in this debate.

Neither do you.

 

[doronshadmi]

What forces of nature can your unity manipulate that science can not?

Forces of nature are manifestations of Unity (including one's awareness), so in order to harmonically manipulate them, the manipulator must have Unity awareness. The development of The Technology of The Consciousness is exactly the development of Science, simply because real Science is not less than the harmoniums association among the developed, the developer and the used tools for development.

The word continuum means 'unbroken' so the words continuum and gap preclude each other.

Wrong, the gap is actually the "host" (mathematical or physical) space, which enables "hosted" spaces or subspaces to be gathered into one organism and still leave a "room" for further complexity's development.

Once again, the "host" (mathematical or physical) space exists even if no "hosted" collection of lower spaces or subspaces exist on it.

Conveniently skipping the part where you are called upon to mention exactly *what* your imaginary contrivance might accomplish, hmm?

Harmony among "hosted" (mathematical or physical) spaces.

we can measure any interaction or observe any change (maybe over generations).

There is no "we" without "host"\"hosted" association.

+ What does 'not survive' mean? Do we all die? Do we become apathetic? What?

We shell not survive as ever developed responsible communicators between Simplicity and Complexity.

It is already shown in http://www.scribd.com/doc/16669828/EtikaE

and

 

[Little 10 Toes]

****must avoid commenting on CK's****must avoid the ban-hammer and/or suspension-slips****

601

 

[doronshadmi]

there are still a lot of people that try to do it by using old philosophies that had no knowledge of methods to go beyond their own senses.
They thought they did, they said they did, but they did not.

Actual extension of senses is really achieved by extending awareness into Unity awareness.

Without actually be at Unity awareness, one's awareness is stuck at the level of manifestation and uses external tools in order to translate other manifestations into the narrow range of the stuck awareness.

For example: Gamma rays that are translated into the range of your ability to see them, definitely do not cause your senses to be developed beyond your current sensual range.

And so is the case about any given sense, it is really being developed only by being aware of the unified source of all possible manifestations.

realpaladin, you still have no clue about the development of Unity awareness, which can actually be done by using practice that directly develops your awareness, without any need of some external tool (external tool actually translates manifestations in order to be fitted into your non-developed awareness).

 

[punshhh]

Because you have not verified it. Doubting is easy, proving is not.


That may be a matter of opinion.


Oddly, the book is about spiritual enlightenment and calls 'facts' rather the illusions that people must cling to so as not to get lost in their muddled world.
I rather think you will like it actually.
It was one of the great hits of seekers of enlightenment in the 1970's and 1980's.


Obviously.


Click my name, then click my profile then check the first lines of the posts I made, or search for realpaladin sidekick in the forum search, as I called them that more than once.


So, how do you know there is such a thing as spirituality and that this is not an offset of any of the chemical processes that govern your brain?
Or said in another way, how do you know that the feeling you have on what you 'hear' Doron saying is what he means to say?


I seldom make mistakes. Your style of writing shows the urge to be taken for a humble, balanced person, but exactly that urge to be taken as such is evidence to the contrary.


So I did. Can you oblige me as easily as not to defend any of the above mentioned points and humbly let my opinion be mine?


Yes, let's.


Good idea, always have some bailouts at hand.


So you believe you can make a good assessment on 'Doron has something here' without reading up. No problem with me.


I would not call the written language hamfisted; it has accelerated understanding and peace more than any other method.
It has spread the concepts (true or false or inbetween) of 'spirituality' and 'science' through more cultures than any other method.


And so you will have, but since it is you who are joining I find the burden of courtesy of getting some background on you, and this courtesy you have not yet extended.



The reason this thread is so long may have given you a clue of that and so I will excuse you for not seeing the finer points already made.
What you 'think' you are seeing are merely manifestations of frustration of not getting anywhere with Mr. Shadmi who, if you would have taken the time and made the effort to read (or skim at the very least) through this thread and it's predecessor, is constantly revising information, contradicting himself and even blatantly misrepresenting things.

The feeling of adversity I put entirely at your end, as you decided to 'side' with Doron, and this may just be because you do not like the methodology or thoroughness with which people here are trying to get somewhere.

Please do re-read your own posts and I think you will see quite quickly where you have appeared to take a side and hence started any adversarial behaviour.

There are many examples of threads on this board that show a non-adversarial, disharmonious co-operation that actually gets things accomplished.


On purpose, as we will see in a bit.

I appreciate what you have said above. I suggest that we focus on the issue at hand for now.

Rather like my lack of knowledge of the beyond primes thread, your lack of knowledge of my position could be improved by some reading of my post history. Such catch up reading is time consuming and lacks the engagement of current debate, I would not expect you to wade through it and I doubt I will feel inclined to wade through the beyond Primes thread.

This does not have to be entirely true. The thought experiment (and even real-life experiments that corroborate this) on 'Schroedinger's Cat' shows that two states that absolutely rule each other out can co-exist.
In fact, you mentioned it yourself; quantum entanglement is one of the effects of this.

Yes, this concept is usefull and makes sense of how something may have come into existence out of nothing.

Not necessarily, one thing does not preclude many properties; and when more than 1 property exists, there is no unity.

Not necessarily, we cannot be certain of what form "one thing" takes or what existence as we perceive it is.

Well, as I mentioned earlier, we experienced from existence that:
- Two opposing states can co-exist at the same time
- From nothing can come something
- Light is schizophrenic
etc...I will address this tomorrow, I am short of time today.

And the big lesson from all those experiences is that we can only learn by extending our senses with systems that we can communicate, replicate and verify.
Almost all other attempts have been proven wrong at some time or another, but the information of that has not yet disseminated enough so that there are still a lot of people that try to do it by using old philosophies that had no knowledge of methods to go beyond their own senses.
They thought they did, they said they did, but they did not.


But being selective in tools will rather get you were you want to be, not where you should be.
How come you do not take up reading and studying science as some extra tools?
In the very least I took up just about any spiritual direction that came along my way and actively seeked out some others.

I will address this tomorrow, I am short of time today.

So, I say, get cracking, there's a world of tools out there you never have laid your eyes on!


Please read the first posts of the first thread. This 'discovery' has been changed over the years into one where he gets the most people taking his side.
It started out as something completely different and opposing anything you just said.



Don't look at any of us; we kept telling him the science setting is not the right one and that he probably would have more luck in a spiritual setting.

But he went on about how his 'invention' would revolutionize maths, how Microsoft would give him millions for it... I gave him the email address of Steve Balmer and pointed him to Israels Microsoft Research labs.

Your reply now more or less speaks against you. You said you did not like the adversarial method, but still took a side without knowing what he is on about

. I am a late comer and observer here, I appreciate what you are saying here, but will not get involved.

You said that you hold no beliefs, but still you talk about being subjective and having opinions.

Yes, belief is not required to do this.

Now, unless you can add to the thread instead of contributing just some balmy bickering, I would ask you to just 'lurk' or 'observe' for a while whilst Doron makes his point.

I am happy to if you would prefer. Dorons point may not be put across successfully again.

 

[doronshadmi]

An example of direct method of awareness' development is used here:

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/56/xYFOECodaKo

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/54/_0rbfSaRwCU

http://www.youtube.com/user/meditationchannel?blend=21&ob=5#p/u/13/t_dJkjND5AQ

Organic Mathematics ( http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7788100&postcount=206 ) uses the same direct principles in order to develop one's awareness. In on order to be effective, one's mind has to use its full range of verbal_symbolic AND visual_spatial skills.

 

[realpaladin]

And again: the burden of proof is upon the claimant, so prove it.

 

[realpaladin]

Not necessarily, we cannot be certain of what form "one thing" takes or what existence as we perceive it is.

Read carefully, I just explained that your causality failed when saying that if one thing exists we must have unity.

I did not say unity *could* not exist. Merely pointed out that your conclusion was a foregone one.

Also, remember that you can not speak of form or any other property than existence. If unity exists, it does only that; exist, and nought else.

Yes, belief is not required to do this.

I beg to differ; having an opinion is based upon conjectures and conjectures are made of the belief that something will hold true so that no time needs to be wasted on that specific part of a hypothesis.
If it did not rely on a belief (not a belief-system) then it would rely on a fact.

I am happy to if you would prefer. Dorons point may not be put across successfully again.

See if you can follow his Wittgenstein aquarel this time

 

[realpaladin]

Doron, you are unable to prove anything at all. You can not set up a coherent philosophic system and when I Google the terms you invented I either get half-ars** cherry-picked copy/pasting from other philosophers/mathematicians or I get forum threads where people were saying just about the same things as we are saying here to you.

I let a psychiatrist read your posts and your reactions... well, you are scoring high on the possibility of having some personality disorder.
Or are having a midlife crisis. she tells me...

But anyway, my guess is that you were mocked at being bad at pilpul and now you need to make it up in some way.

It does not matter a single iota if you are right or not. It does not matter a single iota if you are the only one understanding it.

If you behave as you do now, nobody will understand, nobody will even want to understand and in the end you die alone and all of the energy you put into this has gone wasted.

Nobody will ever herald you as the inventor of anything and nobody will ever remember your name.

The moment you stop posting online... you are history.

If I and the rest of the people here would stop answering, you would graze the net trying to find a new forum where you can start all over again, just so you have the misguided idea that someone cares.

But nobody does.

All that happens here is that some people, like your sidekicks, or people like Punshhh, become adverserial just because they have an odd idea of 'underdog struggle' and need to show compassion.

Get serious about this stuff Doron, or don't get it at all.