I challenge you: your best alternate to materialism

Nonpareil said:
then calling one of the results "the simplest state of existence".
Click to expand...
Nonpareil said:
Which isn't hard, really. It's just too tedious for most to bother with. (Un)fortunately, my brain finds some sort of perverse enjoyment in picking this sort of thing apart.
Click to expand...
You have failed to understand it right from the beginning of the explanation.

The simplest state of existence is marked by the center point, it is not one of the results.

So please look and very carefully read again what I actually drew and wrote, and if you don't understand any part of it, then please ask about it.

After all your questions are answered by me, and it is clear to both of us that you understand this post (including the content of its links), then and only then you can really air you conclusions about it.

Currently, dear Nonpareil, you are very very far from this stage.
 
Last edited:
punshhh said:
It is a variation on cloning.

Yes, if one adopts solipsism, it doesn't follow. However as I pointed out near the beginning of the thread, if one regards all of humanity(or life in general) as one organism it does follow.

there are other 'isms for which it does follow.
Click to expand...

If one regards all of humanity as fish bait then we ought to be putting them on hooks.
 
doronshadmi said:
This is the multiplicity view of existence that can't be used in order to directly know the simplest state of existence, which is the substance of all possible points of view that is not bounded by any one of them or all of the together.

This is exactly the reason of why one can be developed into 100% harmoniums factor among multiplicity by directly be aware of the simplest state of existence, where one of the results is no need of violence in order to efficiently communicate among multiple things.

Please look at the following diagram:

[qimg]http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7043/6840987626_c9c426828a_z.jpg[/qimg]​

By this diagram (which uses a cross section through the poles of Riemann sphere) the neutral is thing (which is not one_of_many thing), where multiplicity is:

NOthing is contradiction.

YESthing is tautology.

SOMEthing is one_of_many thing.

EVERYthing is all_of_many thing.

The simplest state of existence is neutral among its NO\YES\SOME\EVERY multiple expressions.

If one directly aware of thing, one can be developed into 100% harmoniums factor among its multiple expressions, and this is exactly Neutral monism's practical fulfillment.

Techniques like TM enable direct awareness of thing.

Also please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10437465&postcount=1409.
Click to expand...

That thing looks like a tuning fork with a circle in it.
 
tsig said:
If no one understands you then you are not communicating.
Click to expand...
If you don't understand it then please at least ask some question about it, unless you don't wish to communicate about anything that you don't immediately understand (or think that you immediately understand, which can also can be only your wrong first impression, as long as you don't ask anything about it).

So if you have any questions please air your view, instead of defining misunderstanding as an axiom.
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
"Analogy" is being generous. It's more that it looks impressive but has little actual meaning, so it gives him something grand-looking to hide behind and claim intellectual superiority while others attempt to work out what he's actually saying.

Same thing as his binary trees and semicircles. Just enough basis in reality to make him look intelligent, but no actual meaning to anyone who actually understands what he's saying.

Which isn't hard, really. It's just too tedious for most to bother with. (Un)fortunately, my brain finds some sort of perverse enjoyment in picking this sort of thing apart.
Click to expand...

He's getting kind of lazy and recursive about the whole thing, too; I think he puts his fancy diagrams and whatnots in here so, if he's stuck for an answer to a specific question, he can just say "you clearly do not understand, please refer to post #x" instead of having to actually explain anything.
 
Last edited:
Nonpareil said:
It's a demonstration of certain gear positions, I think. The shapes in the bottom-right (those labeled "CK") are the pieces of the gears, which are layered on top of one another and rotated to form the other images.

Gears, some sort of locking mechanism, or something of that sort is my best guess. No idea if it's correct, but there you are.

It's certainly not anything meaningful in the context of doron's arguments, though.
Click to expand...
Try interference of a thing with itself in several degrees, starting from high redundancy and low diversity and developed into low redundancy and high diversity, which actually enables direct awareness of the simplest state of existence as the substance among diverse multiplicity.

In other words, multiplicity is developed from (low awareness of the simplest state of existence) AND (high self interference that results by redundant multiplicity) into (high awareness of the simplest state of existence) AND (low self interference that results by diverse multiplicity).
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
You have failed to understand it right from the beginning of the explanation.
Click to expand...

No, no, I understand it perfectly. Pointing out that something is bunk is not the same as not understanding it.

doronshadmi said:
So please look and very carefully read again what I actually drew and wrote, and if you don't understand any part of it, then please ask about it.
Click to expand...

No.
 
turingtest said:
He's getting kind of lazy and recursive about the whole thing, too; I think he puts his fancy diagrams and whatnots in here so, if he's stuck for an answer to a specific question, he can just say "you clearly do not understand, please refer to post #x" instead of having to actually explain anything.
Click to expand...
Where exactly is your specific question, in this case?
 
Nonpareil said:
No, no, I understand it perfectly.
Click to expand...
Prove your claim because
Nonpareil said:
Gears, some sort of locking mechanism, or something of that sort is my best guess. No idea if it's correct, but there you are.
Click to expand...
does not support your "I understand it perfectly".

Nonpareil said:
Pointing out that something is bunk is not the same as not understanding it.
Click to expand...
As long as you can't prove your claim, you can't conclude any meaningful thing about it.

Nonpareil said:
No.
Click to expand...
Evasion of proving your claim has been noted.

Please look at http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10439351&postcount=1449.
 
Last edited:
doronshadmi said:
Prove your claim because

does not support your "I understand it perfectly".
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you,

The simplest state of existence is marked by the center point, the increased degree of complexity is marked by decreasing redundancy and increasing the diversity among the shared components.

The increased degree of the ability to directly be aware of the simplest state of existence is marked by decreasing the number of short arrows and increasing the length of a single arrow that smoothly passes through all the diverse levels among the shared components of the bot\right figure.

The figures marked by CK1 to CK6 are called by me Cybernetic Kernels, where only CK6 in that diagram enables direct awareness of the simplest state of existence, because it does not interfere itself (which enables awareness to be developed all along the shared components).
Click to expand...

also does not support understanding. It doesn't mean anything. It sounds nice, but that's it. It's a representation of something, but not an explanation.
 
turingtest said:
Sure; they'd get more use from mine than they would from yours.

BTW- is there any room at all in your philosophy for a little harmless fun? Yes, that's a serious question.
Click to expand...
Ho, did you forget to provide some harmless electricity to those who need it? that's a serious question.
 
doronshadmi said:
Originally Posted by turingtest View Post
Sure; they'd get more use from mine than they would from yours.

BTW- is there any room at all in your philosophy for a little harmless fun? Yes, that's a serious question.
Click to expand...
Ho, did you forget to provide some harmless electricity to those who need it? that's a serious question.
Click to expand...

Evasion of my question noted; either that, or the answer is just "no" wrapped in nonsense.
 
doronshadmi said:
Evasion of proving your claim has been noted.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's not evasion. It's a refusal.

I am not going to jump through your hoops. I have already said everything that needs to be said about your gibberish. Even if there was anything left to say, I really don't see any point when it would just result in more condescension and lack of comprehension on your part.

Post something other than meaningless waffle that tries to look more intelligent than it actually is, and then we'll talk.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom