I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

[Nonpareil]

Any asymmetry, including the weak force, is derived from and returns to the absolute symmetry (the simplest state of existence) all along space\time phenomena, in the past, right know and in the future, where only absolute symmetry remains unchanged all along space\time phenomena as its invariant substance.

But has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

 

[doronshadmi]

That's not what you said. You said you were aware of [brain waves]' invariant substance.

Here is what I have said:

Yes, and I am also directly aware of their invariant substance,

In other words I am aware of the variant aspect of existence (brain waves, in this case) and I am also directly aware of their invariant substance (awareness without thoughts) which is the simplest state of existence, which is naturally invariant.

 

[Belz...]

Here is what I have said:

In other words I am aware of the variant aspect of existence (brain waves, in this case) and I am also directly aware of their invariant substance (awareness without thoughts) which is the simplest state of existence, which is naturally invariant.

And yet that is STILL unevidenced. Are you going to tackle that anytime soon ?

 

[turingtest]

Any asymmetry, including the weak force, is derived from and returns to the absolute symmetry (the simplest state of existence) all along space\time phenomena, in the past, right know and in the future, where only absolute symmetry remains unchanged all along space\time phenomena as its invariant substance.

This is exactly the reason of why one's awareness can be aware of itself without thoughts.

Great- your "reason" is based on circular assertions. It's true that without "symmetry," you wouldn't be able to define (or use the word) "asymmetry"; but only trivially true, and kind of a weak point to throw so many words at.

You're really on a roll here, Doron; please don't stop, I have to admit I find it kind of entertaining to see what kind of pretentious knots people can tie themselves into with words.

 

[ctamblyn]

But has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I'm sure he been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can.

 

[doronshadmi]

But has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

It is called Unified Field Theory, and here are some who looked for it:

http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2004-2/download/lrr-2004-2Color.pdf

and still looking for it:

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

 

[Nonpareil]

It is called Unified Field Theory, and here are some who looked for it:

http://www.emis.ams.org/journals/LRG/Articles/lrr-2004-2/download/lrr-2004-2Color.pdf

and still looking for it:

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

Doron, this is the third time that I have made this same joke, and every time, you have interpreted it as an actual coherent question.

"Has anyone really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like?" is one of the most famously incoherent phrases in the history of the internet. Posting it in response to something is essentially shorthand (or longhand, whatever) for "this is meaningless word salad".

You can find the thread that spawned it here, though it is mildly NSFW for use of naughty language.

The fact that, despite this being the third time this same joke has been made in the thread, you repeatedly and consistently think that I am both being serious and that I am actually asking a coherent question only illustrates my point. You are so deep into word salad that this looks coherent to you.

Take a step back and really, seriously think about what that means.

 

[Belz...]

But has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I'm sure he been further even more decided to use even go need to do look more as anyone can.

<<< SYNTAX ERROR >>>

I was actually trying to decipher this and I think I broke my brain.

 

[doronshadmi]

And yet that is STILL unevidenced. Are you going to tackle that anytime soon ?

All what can be said about it was explained to you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10423465&postcount=1092.

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, this is the third time that I have made this same joke, and every time, you have interpreted it as an actual coherent question.

Let's see:

"But has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I have simplified it and got:

"But has anyone really decided to go far enough in order to research such thing?"

So as you see, it is possible to go beyond the joke aspect because of the plasticity of our brain.

 

[ctamblyn]

Would that be verbal pareidolia?

 

[Nonpareil]

Let's see:

"But has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?

I have simplified it and got:

"But has anyone really decided to go far enough in order to research such thing?"

So as you see, it is possible to go beyond the joke aspect.

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[Belz...]

All what can be said about it was explained to you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10423465&postcount=1092.

Then you have literally nothing to say about it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Thank you for proving my point.

Yes, the proof that you are stuck in your jokes, so?

 

[Belz...]

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.

Doron, get this through your head: EVIDENCE THAT IS OBJECTIVE. You are asking me to say "**** the evidence" and instead look for subjective musings.

You have nothing. You lose.

 

[Belz...]

Yes, the proof that you are stuck in your jokes, so?

Actually, you are stuck in his jokes.

So as you see, it is possible to go beyond the joke aspect because of the plasticity of our brain.

All I see is that it is possible for you to make stuff up and believe it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Then you have literally nothing to say about it.

Once again:

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.

 

[Nonpareil]

Yes, the proof that you are stuck in your jokes, so?

We're at the point where doronshadmi is claiming to have found meaning in the phrase "has anyone really been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?", and that it is actually a coherent question despite the fact that it was explicitly posted as a joke.

I think we're done here.

 

[doronshadmi]

Doron, get this through your head: EVIDENCE THAT IS OBJECTIVE. You are asking me to say "**** the evidence" and instead look for subjective musings.

The objective aspect of it was already given in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10422401&postcount=1076.

The simplest state of existence is not objective or subjective, but it is the substance of both of them.

The only way to get concrete evidence of it (and not just writing, drawing, talking or thinking about it) is by actually practicing techniques like Transcendental Meditation.

As long as you are not actually practicing it, you are not going to get your requested evidence.

 

[Nonpareil]

The simplest state of existence is not objective or subjective, but it is the substance of both of them.

Yes, we know that, but I really must ask again: has anyone, anyone at all, really, truly been far as decided to use even go want to do look more like?