Deeper than primes

Status
Not open for further replies.
Apathia said:
Errors et al, that presentation did open up for some of us here a crack in a window on Doron's philosophy of Organic Numbers.
It would be sad to see it entirely dismissed as "floppy."
Especially when it repeats a lot of Doron's own presentations.
Click to expand...

The crack is not based on any formula that calculates the quantitative results of Organic Numbers.

It is direct perception that is expressed by Non-locality\Locality linkage that can be reduced to at least n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Tree.

Jsfisher, is a good example of a person that living in the past and using straw man techniques in order to hide his inability to get even
n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Tree.
 
doronshadmi said:
The crack is not based on any formula that calculates the quantitative results of Organic Numbers.

It is direct perception that is expressed by Non-locality\Locality linkage that can be reduced to at least n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Tree.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Doron, for not entirely boarding up that window.
Good, the "Tree" is still there.
It helps me see what you are about.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Oh, no! Say it isn't so. Even the acolyte has lost his faith.
Click to expand...

No wonder, since Doron is the only one he claims has a direct perception of OM and does not seem able to explain what that entails. Perhaps more specifically he might say that he can not tell himself or others what his direct perception actually is since that would not be the direct perception itself. However Doron does assert that others can have that same direct perception of what OM is and again we would be unable to tell Doron or others what that perception is since such ‘telling’ is not the perception it self. This leaves Doron in a bit of a conundrum as there is no way to confirm if ones direct perception is the same as another’s if they can not, as asserted, effectively express that perception, perhaps even to ones self.
 
The Man said:
No wonder, since Doron is the only one he claims has a direct perception of OM and does not seem able to explain what that entails.
Click to expand...

The Man,

I think that at least in principle you already can understand that direct perception is not an explanation, definition, thought, filling, intuition, or any mantel activity state.

Direct perception is the base ground that enables any of these mantel activities, whether they are unconscious (for example dreamless deep sleep) or conscious (for dreams or "normal" awareness).

It is clear that no one in this thread has direct perception awareness (where the mind is fully aware of its silent base ground, where this awareness is not a thought, filling, intuition, etc. ... about that state, but it is exactly that state).

Since this is the case, all is left is to discuses about the reduction of direct-perception expression, as it appears both in our mind and in the physical world.

This reduction is called n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Tree.

Please tell us The Man what do you get about this tree.
 
Last edited:
This just in:

Scientists around the world are busy assessing the latest discovery by Israel's leading fabulist, Doron Shadmi. Today, Doron announced a new form of energy, previously undetected by others. This announcement, according to Doron, is a result of his studies of what he terms direct perception, an investigative technique heretofore unknown to the western world.

Today's announcement is a follow-on to Doron's report from last year, his discovery of a previously unknown disease. Its complete lack of symptoms of any kind have frustrated all attempts by the medical community to find a cure for the disease. Meanwhile, unconfirmed reports indicate the disease may be reaching pandemic levels. Needless to say, the general public is unconcerned.

Currently, Doron Shadmi is the only known qualified practitioner of direct perception. Some forty years ago, a small group of British researchers, disguised as rock musicians, traveled to India to learn the cult practice of direct perception, but, to date, the surviving members of the group have been unable to adapt the method to scientific study. It was believed Doron's ally and chief supporter, Moshe Klein, had some skill with the technique, but recent revelations suggest otherwise. Moshe thought he had observed this new energy form announced today by Doron. Unfortunately, what he thought he thought was just that, a thought.

In light of these developments regarding Moshe, Lego has tabled all negotiations with him. Lego had hoped to expand its existing "+ Power Functions" product line with materials focusing on the new power source. An unnamed spokesman for Lego stated that Moshe's thought he thought he thought has cast doubt that Moshe can deliver a working prototype.

Some scientists have expressed concerns about their inability to detect Doron's new energy form. Doron responded quickly and with frequent, extensive rewrites that scientists by their very nature would be unable to detect the energy.

Meanwhile, homeopaths have applauded Doron's latest announcement. They view Doron's results and investigation techniques as confirmation of the effectiveness of homeopathy. They also recognize him as the leading authority for making something out of nothing.
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
This just in:

Scientists around the world are busy assessing the latest discovery by Israel's leading fabulist, Doron Shadmi. Today, Doron announced a new form of energy, previously undetected by others. This announcement, according to Doron, is a result of his studies of what he terms direct perception, an investigative technique heretofore unknown to the western world.

Today's announcement is a follow-on to Doron's report from last year, his discovery of a previously unknown disease. Its complete lack of symptoms of any kind have frustrated all attempts by the medical community to find a cure for the disease. Meanwhile, unconfirmed reports indicate the disease may be reaching pandemic levels. Needless to say, the general public is unconcerned.

Currently, Doron Shadmi is the only known qualified practitioner of direct perception. Some forty years ago, a small group of British researchers, disguised as rock musicians, traveled to India to learn the cult practice of direct perception, but, to date, the surviving members of the group have been unable to adapt the method to scientific study. It was believed Doron's ally and chief supporter, Moshe Klein, had some skill with the technique, but recent revelations suggest otherwise. Moshe thought he had observed this new energy form announced today by Doron. Unfortunately, what he thought he thought was just that, a thought.

In light of these developments regarding Moshe, Lego has tabled all negotiations with him. Lego had hoped to expand its existing "+ Power Functions" product line with materials focusing on the new power source. An unnamed spokesman for Lego stated that Moshe's thought he thought he thought has cast doubt that Moshe can deliver a working prototype.

Some scientists have expressed concerns about their inability to detect Doron's new energy form. Doron responded quickly and with frequent, extensive rewrites that scientists by their very nature would be unable to detect the energy.

Meanwhile, homeopaths have applauded Doron's latest announcement. They view Doron's results and investigation techniques as confirmation of the effectiveness of homeopathy. They also recognize him as the leading authority for making something out of nothing.
Click to expand...

More of jsfisher's straw man maneuvers, which their purpose is to hide from the rest of the posters here its inability to get even
n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy tree.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
The Man,

I think that at least in principle you already can understand that direct perception is not an explanation, definition, thought, filling, intuition, or any mantel activity state.
Click to expand...

I think we all understand that you ascribe direct perception some significance without any meaning.


doronshadmi said:
Direct perception is the base ground that enables any of these mantel activities, whether there are unconscious (for example dreamless deep sleep) or conscious (for dreams or "normal" awareness).
Click to expand...

Your usual claim about your notions or some aspect of your notions being the basis of the very aspects needed to, well, describe or define your notions or some aspect of your notions. Again this is more of an ameba paradigm where you simply absorb and consume everything into some amorphous blob as opposed any mathematical paradigm.


doronshadmi said:
It is clear that no one in this thread has direct perception awareness (where the mind is fully aware of its silent base ground, where this awareness is not a thought about that state, but it is exactly that state.
Click to expand...

What, based on your direct perception that “is not an explanation, definition, thought, filling, intuition, or any mantel activity state.”?


doronshadmi said:
Since this is the case, all is left is to discuses about the reduction of direct-perception expression, as it appears both in our mind and in the physical world.

This reduction is called n-Uncertainty x n-Redundancy Tree.

Please tell us The Man what do you get about this tree.
Click to expand...

The fact that you exclude ordering distinctions in that ‘tree’ which is the basis of your notions that you claim are primarily about distinctions.
 
The Man said:
I think we all understand that you ascribe direct perception some significance without any meaning.




Your usual claim about your notions or some aspect of your notions being the basis of the very aspects needed to, well, describe or define your notions or some aspect of your notions. Again this is more of an ameba paradigm where you simply absorb and consume everything into some amorphous blob as opposed any mathematical paradigm.




What, based on your direct perception that “is not an explanation, definition, thought, filling, intuition, or any mantel activity state.”?




The fact that you exclude ordering distinctions in that ‘tree’ which is the basis of your notions that you claim are primarily about distinctions.
Click to expand...

Please demostrate exactly how ordering distinctions is not one of the cases of that tree.

You can use 2-Uncertainty x 2-Redundancy tree:
Code: 
2X2                                             
                                                
(AB,AB) (AB,A)  (AB,B)  (A,A)   (B,B)   (A,B)   
                                                
A * *   A * *   A * .   A * *   A . .   A * .   
  | |     | |     | |     | |     | |     | |   
B *_*   B *_.   B *_*   B ._.   B *_*   B ._*   
                                                
(2,2) = (AB,AB)                                 
(2,1) = (AB,A),(AB,B)                           
(1,1) = (A,A),(B,B),(A,B)
 
Last edited:
jsfisher said:
Perhaps The Man had (A, AB) or (B, A), among others. in mind.
Click to expand...
How, for example, (A,B) excludes ordering distinctions ?

For example, let us take (A,B,C) case of 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy tree:

Code: 
A *  .  .                                                                               
  |  |  |                                                                               
B .  *  . = (A,B,C) , (C,B,A)                                                           
  |  |  |                                                                               
C .__.__*                                                                               
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
A .  *  .                                                                               
  |  |  |                                                                               
B *  .  . = (B,A,C) , (C,A,B)                                                           
  |  |  |                                                                               
C .__.__*                                                                               
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
A *  .  .                                                                               
  |  |  |                                                                               
B .  .  * = (A,C,B) , (B,C,A)                                                           
  |  |  |                                                                               
C .__*__.

The tree is there, all you have to do is to play with it.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
It is clear that no one in this thread has direct perception awareness (where the mind is fully aware of its silent base ground, where this awareness is not a thought, filling, intuition, etc. ... about that state, but it is exactly that state).
Click to expand...
How can you tell?

As you say, direct perception can't be expressed in words, so we only have your word that you have it, and if we have it, the only way you will know (by your own logic) is if we tell you - and since you can't communicate what it is like, we'll never know for sure if or when we have it, because we can't know if it's the same perception you have...

As it happens, I do have direct perception awareness - but whether it's the same thing you're talking about, we'll never know.
 
dlorde said:
As it happens, I do have direct perception awareness - but whether it's the same thing you're talking about, we'll never know.
Click to expand...
Worng.

Direct peception is exactly the common base ground of any phenomenon (absctract or not).


As long as your awareness is not that state, you can't be sure about that state (exactly as you wrote).
 
Last edited:
MosheKlein said:
I can see your point of view. Will you agree to give more chance to the first possibility if I let you know that there are people who view this forum, don't write here but sent me direct e-mail of support ?
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, "I've got secret e-mail supporters!" excuse. The excuse of the internet crank who is universally laughed at and manages to convince nobody of his "genius". I say you're almost certainly lying, and that these "supporters" are imaginary.

Then again, there IS another possiblity. Cranks typically consider everybody who isn't rude to the point of gross incivility their "secret supporters".

A form letter saying "that's nice" from some company is enough to convince them the world is soon going to invest billions in their muddled idea; a professor telling them "that's interesting" (meaning "you're nuts") as they corral him on his way to lunch is "evidence" the academic world is soon to recognize their genius, etc.

Apparently Doron and Moshe had a few run-ins with mathematicians or workers in some large corporation that didn't end in them being physically thrown out of the meeting room or else laughed at to their face. This is enough for them to think they're on the road to success.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Direct peception is exactly the common base ground of any phenomenon (absctract or not).

As long as your awareness is not that state, you can't be sure about that state (exactly as you wrote).
Click to expand...
Oh good, then my direct perception awareness must be the same as yours :)
 
Skeptic said:
Ah, yes, "I've got secret e-mail supporters!" excuse. The excuse of the internet crank who is universally laughed at and manages to convince nobody of his "genuis".

I say you're almost certainly lying, and that these "supporters" are imaginary.
Click to expand...
I like your "almost certainly" nonsense.

You are the best garbage collector of this thread.
 
Last edited:
(A,B,C) case of 3-Uncertainty x 3-Redundancy tree, can be repseneted as:

ABC.jpg


So the A,B,C ids can be picked as you like, in any wished order.

The representation blow is a 2-D version of the 3-D representation above.

Code: 
A *  .  .                                                                               
  |  |  |                                                                               
B .  *  . = (A,B,C) , (C,B,A)                                                           
  |  |  |                                                                               
C .__.__*                                                                               
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
A .  *  .                                                                               
  |  |  |                                                                               
B *  .  . = (B,A,C) , (C,A,B)                                                           
  |  |  |                                                                               
C .__.__*                                                                               
                                                                                        
                                                                                        
A *  .  .                                                                               
  |  |  |                                                                               
B .  .  * = (A,C,B) , (B,C,A)                                                           
  |  |  |                                                                               
C .__*__.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom