I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[turingtest]

...
The history can be changed if people are opened to the unbounded and non-composed substance, where multiplicity is derived from, such that no sum of infinitely many things is their unbounded and non-composed substance (reality is non-entropic, and therefore an ever creative).

Oh, if only folks would embrace Doron's ideas, the world would be a better place...somehow.

The best* woo always seems to have this element of grandeur in the delusions of people who really would be better off aiming first for simple competence (or at least coherence).

*For certain values of "best"; here, to be read as "most entertaining."

 

[Belz...]

The material and the spiritual are both changeable.

Changeable in what way ?

Unity is the invariant substance of the changeable.

That sounds remarkably complicated, especially for something that you have no evidence for.

You are still confused, the changeable can't be the substance of anything.

Why not ?

You are unable to comprehend the 16 logical connectives, and how these connectives are no more than expressions of Unity.

Correction: you are unable to explain them.

Find the word "multiplicity" in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10379299&postcount=619 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10377509&postcount=566 and continue from there

Here's another idea: explain it yourself. Show that you understand it, because so far you have failed.

(but not to a person that forces the changeable as the substance of reality).

That's not even a sentence.

Insult is a "soft" case of being ad hominem where murder is the "hard" case of being ad hominem.

For someone who asks me to look up obscure terms myself, you show little willingness to look for words yourself.

Both of them are forms of violence, therefore force=violence is an ad hominem equation.

You really have no clue what an ad hominem is. It's a form of argument. It's rhetoric. Words. Violence is not mere words.

This is exactly the reason why we very quickly have to do our best in order to enliven force=harmony among

Ah, ok. I see. The problem is that you misunderstand the word "force". I am not surprised.

Simply do not break the law, and avoid violence of any kind.

What if the law is that you cannot say the things you want to say, or love the person you want ? Do you obey the law no matter what it is ? And are you certain that doing so will protect you against despots ?

 

[abaddon]

I am sorry, but I disagree that force=violence is normal, nor to the very narrow view of ad hom as insults.

It's a quote from a movie intended satirically. That you do not comprehend it is a failure of yours and nobody else's.

And you do not get to rRedefine the meaning of common terms like "ad hom" to conform to your baseless argument.

 

[doronshadmi]

Changeable in what way ?

In the way of how finitely or infinitely many bounded things can't be the sum of their unbounded and non-composed sustenance.

That sounds remarkably complicated, especially for something that you have no evidence for.

On the contrary, the simplicity of silence in it self can't be evidenced by only talking about it. Materialism or Idealism are expressions about their substance, and therefore can't be used in order to comprehend the unbounded and non-composed simplicity of silence in it self.

Why not ?

Because the changeable is at most a collection of many bounded things that can't be the sum of their unbounded and non-composed sustenance.

Correction: you are unable to explain them.

Correction: any attempt to comprehend silence by talking about it ,is doomed to fail, because silence is the unbounded and non-composed substance, which is simpler than any collection of bounded expressions about it, for example, Materialism or Idealism.

Here's another idea: explain it yourself. Show that you understand it, because so far you have failed.

On the contrary, please explain it to yourself by being opened to silence as the simplest unbounded and non-composed substance of Materialism or Idealism.

That's not even a sentence.

Sentence it is, and no more than sentence, as long as one can't be opened to silence as the simplest unbounded and non-composed substance of sentences.

For someone who asks me to look up obscure terms myself, you show little willingness to look for words yourself.

You really have no clue what an ad hominem is. It's a form of argument. It's rhetoric. Words. Violence is not mere words.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.

attacking a person's character in order to shut up his\her argument by using force=violence equation, starts by insult and ends by murder, if force=harmony equation does not replace force=violence equation along the way.

Ah, ok. I see. The problem is that you misunderstand the word "force". I am not surprised.

Force is a neutral thing that can be used of destruction or construction.

Each one of us has the responsibility of how to use it.

What if the law is that you cannot say the things you want to say, or love the person you want ? Do you obey the law no matter what it is ? And are you certain that doing so will protect you against despots ?

What you describe is the result of neglecting force=harmony equation along the way by many non-responsible persons and were left with force=violence, as a law that actually returns as a boomerang right to the faces of the many non-responsible persons that neglected force=harmony equation along the way.

In order to transform force=violence in to force=harmony equation among persons, each person has to be opened to the simplest unbounded and non-composed silence, which is the simplest substance of all there is, and only from this simplicity force=violence is actually transformed into force=harmony.

 

[doronshadmi]

It's a quote from a movie intended satirically. That you do not comprehend it is a failure of yours and nobody else's.

And you do not get to rRedefine the meaning of common terms like "ad hom" to conform to your baseless argument.

Who is General Failure? And why you let it reading your hard drive?

Is it because your hard-drive has a solution for General Failure?

 

[Belz...]

In the way of how finitely or infinitely many bounded things can't be the sum of their unbounded and non-composed sustenance.

I don't understand: how does this explain how those things are changeable ?

On the contrary, the simplicity of silence in it self can't be evidenced by only talking about it.

...what ? Why are we talking about silence now ?

On the contrary, please explain it to yourself by being opened to silence as the simplest unbounded and non-composed substance of Materialism or Idealism.

If you cannot explain it to me, how can I explain it to myself ?

attacking a person's character in order to shut up his\her argument by using force=violence equation, starts by insult and ends by murder, if force=harmony equation does not replace force=violence equation along the way.

That makes zero sense, Doron. That's not even English. I'm also not attacking anyone with a movie quote that's just laying there.

Are you on medication ?

Force is a neutral thing that can be used of destruction or construction.

Only if you ignore that the quote is using only one definition of the word.

Anyway it's off topic.

 

[doronshadmi]

I don't understand: how does this explain how those things are changeable ?

Once again, they are changeable because of the non-entropic principle that is derived from the fact that the sum of finitely or infinitely many bounded and composed things can't be unbounded and non-composed.

...what ? Why are we talking about silence now ?

Once again, you are missing the difference of beings silence in itself, or only talking about silence, right in your question.

If you cannot explain it to me, how can I explain it to myself ?

Knowing your substance can really be known only by yourself.

No one else can explain it to yourself.

For more details, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10336151&postcount=170 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10336522&postcount=173.


Let's use what you wrote here:

You seem to be under the impression that thoughts are not physical. They ARE, which is why they interact with the rest of reality. I think this is your fundamental mistake.

1) If thoughts are physical, then any imagination is immediately physical.

2) Are your imaginations are immediately physical and then other persons can "shake their hands" and become their friends?

3) Or may your imaginations can marry with each other and have their own offsprings?

In other words, please explain what principle in your materialist-only reality prevents thoughts (what ever they are) to immediately be physical phenomena until their last details?

Since this principle is also material, by your material-only view, then why the material blocks itself (thoughts) from immediately be physical phenomena until their last details?

That makes zero sense, Doron. That's not even English. I'm also not attacking anyone with a movie quote that's just laying there.

Nothing is just laying there, you are responsible by using it as your signature.

Are you on medication ?

Shell we mark your question as ad hominem?

Only if you ignore that the quote is using only one definition of the word.

Anyway it's off topic.

By this quote force=violence and you are the responsible one to use it as a signature of all your posts. So dear Belz... it is very very on topic.

 

[turingtest]

It's a quote from a movie intended satirically. That you do not comprehend it is a failure of yours and nobody else's.

And you do not get to rRedefine the meaning of common terms like "ad hom" to conform to your baseless argument.

I can't wait to see what Doron makes of my sig-line. "No True Scotsman!"?

 

[deaman]

Best alternative to materialism..........

Giving.

Merry Christmas.

 

[realpaladin]

Once again, they are changeable because of the non-entropic principle that is derived from the fact that the sum of finitely or infinitely many bounded and composed things can't be unbounded and non-composed.


Once again, you are missing the difference of beings silence in itself, or only talking about silence, right in your question.


Knowing your substance can really be known only by yourself.

No one else can explain it to yourself.

For more details, please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10336151&postcount=170 and http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10336522&postcount=173.


Let's use what you wrote here:

1) If thoughts are physical, then any imagination is immediately physical.

2) Are your imaginations are immediately physical and then other persons can "shake their hands" and become their friends?

3) Or may your imaginations can marry with each other and have their own offsprings?

In other words, please explain what principle in your materialist-only reality prevents thoughts (what ever they are) to immediately be physical phenomena until their last details?

Since this principle is also material, by your material-only view, then why the material blocks itself (thoughts) from immediately be physical phenomena until their last details?



Nothing is just laying there, you are responsible by using it as your signature.


Shell we mark your question as ad hominem?



By this quote force=violence and you are the responsible one to use it as a signature of all your posts. So dear Belz... it is very very on topic.

Found you! And you are almost posting/riposting verbatim! Who would have thought!

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

Giving.

Merry Christmas.

Or empathy

 

[Belz...]

Once again, they are changeable because of the non-entropic principle that is derived from the fact that the sum of finitely or infinitely many bounded and composed things can't be unbounded and non-composed.

If you just repeat the stuff that no one but you understands, you'll still not get your point across.

Once again, you are missing the difference of beings silence in itself, or only talking about silence, right in your question.

No, I have no idea why you bring up silence in the first place.

1) If thoughts are physical, then any imagination is immediately physical.

It is a physical process, yes. It doesn't follow that the abstract things being imagined have any independant existence, of course. The PROCESS of thinking about Darth Vader is physical. Darth Vader doesn't exist.

Since this principle is also material, by your material-only view, then why the material blocks itself (thoughts) from immediately be physical phenomena until their last details?

I don't understand your question.

Nothing is just laying there, you are responsible by using it as your signature.

The point is that it's not part of this debate or this topic.

Shell we mark your question as ad hominem?

Only if it's used as an argument. Can you answer my question now ?

By this quote force=violence and you are the responsible one to use it as a signature of all your posts. So dear Belz... it is very very on topic.

The topic is materialism, not politics.

 

[doronshadmi]

It is a physical process, yes. It doesn't follow that the abstract things being imagined have any independant existence, of course. The PROCESS of thinking about Darth Vader is physical. Darth Vader doesn't exist.

An independent existence is impossible by your material-only reality, so thinking about Darth Vader and the existence of Darth Vader can't be but material.

So please show us Darth Vader right now.

The topic is materialism, not politics.

Since reality is material-only by your theory, so is the case of politics, it must be material, therefore it is on topic.

 

[realpaladin]

An independent existence is impossible by your material-only reality, so thinking about Darth Vader and the existence of Darth Vader can't be but material.

So please show us Darth Vader right now.


Since reality is material-only by your theory, so is the case of politics, it must be material, therefore it is on topic.

So this is your standard method of bickering now Doron?

In the Deeper than Primes thread you dismissed all mathematics by saying 'what you say is only true in your |N| view', and here you are saying the same thing but now it is 'material only'.

J'Accuse Doron. I accuse you of just trawling fora just to find something to bicker about, not furthering any discussion.

 

[Belz...]

An independent existence is impossible by your material-only reality, so thinking about Darth Vader and the existence of Darth Vader can't be but material.

Wrong. You are completely wrong. Like a map isn't the territory and a picture isn't the thing you took a picture of, a thought about something doesn't imply that the thing has existence beyond the thought (neurological process) itself.

Since reality is material-only by your theory, so is the case of politics, it must be material, therefore it is on topic.

Sorry, no. Otherwise ANY post is on-topic in this thread, which is insane. Please stop derailing the thread, or you will be reported for breach of rule 11.

 

[abaddon]

An independent existence is impossible by your material-only reality, so thinking about Darth Vader and the existence of Darth Vader can't be but material.

Obviously, yes. The simple act of contemplating Darth Vader means that he exists in the neurochemical interactions in your brain, or mine or anyone elses.

So please show us Darth Vader right now.
Here you go.Did you have a point?

Since reality is material-only by your theory, so is the case of politics, it must be material, therefore it is on topic.

You are proposing that politics does not materially affect your existence. Oh, what fun.

 

[realpaladin]

Doron seems entirely unaware of the nature of the movie and the intent of the quotation. He also seems not to understand what signatures are for nor what ad hom actually means. I don't hold that against him, however. What I find odd is the refusal to countenance any and all explanations of that which everyone else regards as normal.

I am not allowed to refer to other threads (I got warned once, because Doron does not like people to be put onto his schtick), but if you look at my post carefully, you may find a way to find a thread where *everything*, every argument here, has been said and rebutted and resaid and rebutted over the course of 7 years.

Heck, some of the replies of some other posters here are almost verbatim replies from the thread that is not to be mentioned.

If I weren't discussing with Doron for over 7 years in the same thread, I would call him out as a troll.

As it is, I predict how things will go in this thread:

- Doron rehashes the same stuff he has pandered in multiple other threads.
- He is rebutted and proven wrong.
- He starts schoolyard tactics; variations on 'I know what you are, but what am I?'.
- He tells people they don't get it.
- People stop responding because he simply will refuse to follow anyone's lead anywhere.
- The thread will fall silent.
- Doron will post a few more 'musings' (i.e. restating some 'controversial' 'idea')
- The thread will flare up a few more times.
- Doron and I will be the last people in this thread.
- Thread dies silently.
- Doron goes and completely repeats these exact arguments in any other thread where he is not kicked out of for being off-topic (i.e. he makes up some argument so as to shoehorn his 'Organic Mathematics', 'Unity', 'Deeper than primes', 'Rapuctor'... into the thread).

 

[realpaladin]

Sorry, no. Otherwise ANY post is on-topic in this thread, which is insane. Please stop derailing the thread, or you will be reported for breach of rule 11.

I wrote the previous post before reading this one. You are completely right.

Doron *has* a thread where he is able to present and defend his views and which is devoted to his ideas exclusively for over 7 years now.

He is just trying to find people to kibitz with.

 

[tsig]

I wrote the previous post before reading this one. You are completely right.

Doron *has* a thread where he is able to present and defend his views and which is devoted to his ideas exclusively for over 7 years now.

He is just trying to find people to kibitz with.

True, it's no fun preaching to an empty choir.

 

[doronshadmi]

Wrong. You are completely wrong. Like a map isn't the territory and a picture isn't the thing you took a picture of, a thought about something doesn't imply that the thing has existence beyond the thought (neurological process) itself.

Maps, pictures, or puppets of Darth Vader are some material forms that are done by neurological process. We have learned that this neurological process, is not limited to maps, pictures, or puppets but actually enables to shape the territory itself by manipulating more and more stronger forces of nature, so dear Belz... thoughts about something definitely have existence beyond the neurological process itself, and maps, pictures, or puppets are some preliminary stages for more and more stronger material impact on reality's shape.

So dear Belz... how force=violence is transformed into force=harmony by your material-only substance, and what is the impact of thoughts on this trarnsformation ?

Sorry, no. Otherwise ANY post is on-topic in this thread, which is insane.

You are the one that claim that reality is material-only, so nothing can be excluded from being material, including Politics.

So do you claim now that your material-only reality is insane?