The Metaphysical Consciousness

[Slowvehicle]

How transparently you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154922&postcount=334.

You are using the term, "ignore", as incorrectly as you try to use the terms, "stable" and "unstable".

The fact that you do not read (or, at least, pretend not to read) something does not make it go away.

But then, I suppose the "higher consciousness" need not be trammeled by mere fact...

 

[doronshadmi]

I did not ignore your rhetorical strategem; I pointed out its transparent dishonesty. In detail.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10157477&postcount=355

 

[doronshadmi]

You are using the term, "ignore", as incorrectly as you try to use the terms, "stable" and "unstable".

The fact that you do not read (or, at least, pretend not to read) something does not make it go away.

But then, I suppose the "higher consciousness" need not be trammeled by mere fact...

Once again you ignore it, maybe this time you will do some effort to look, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10157477&postcount=355, instead of continue your misinterpretation-loop of what I actually say, with yourself.

The fact that you do not read (or, at least, pretend not to read) something does not make it go away.

The fact that you ignore stability AND instability as essentials of the lever's principle (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154114&postcount=332), does not make them go away.

 

[bruto]

So basically you ignore http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10156317&postcount=343.

No, I don't ignore it, I regard it as irrelevant. You're saying that a couch, being furniture and movable by definition, can be moved, but once that part of its definition is settled, it's a couch whether it is moved or not.

Referring back to a statement you have made does not make that statement stronger. What was wrong when you said it first is wrong when you say it again.

 

[Slowvehicle]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10157477&postcount=355

I understand that you are helplessly bound up in thrall to your own woo!-perstition, but simply reposting links to your own posts where you repost your own posts does not constitute an argument.

You are using (for want of a better term) several common terms; not just idiosyncratically, or heterodoxically, but incorrectly (that is, in a way that those who understand the terms do not use them).

It is fundamentally dishonest of you to pretend that pointing out where you, personally, have uniquely misused those terms comprises evidence of how those terms are used.

Unlike woo!-sings about "higher states" ("states" that, somehow, seem to be exempt from honesty, and integrity), basic physics descriptions of basic physics concepts have a common vocabulary. Correct use of that vocabulary is your ante. Without that, it is clear that you are not (be it through unwillingness,or incapacity) using the terms correctly, or usefully ("Congruence". Fruitfulness. Luminosity."). Or even interestingly.

I still await your evidence that anyone else uses "stability" and "instability" to explain the function of any class, or kind, of lever.

 

[jond]

I understand that you are helplessly bound up in thrall to your own woo!-perstition, but simply reposting links to your own posts where you repost your own posts does not constitute an argument.

You are using (for want of a better term) several common terms; not just idiosyncratically, or heterodoxically, but incorrectly (that is, in a way that those who understand the terms do not use them).

It is fundamentally dishonest of you to pretend that pointing out where you, personally, have uniquely misused those terms comprises evidence of how those terms are used.

Unlike woo!-sings about "higher states" ("states" that, somehow, seem to be exempt form honesty, and integrity), basic physics descriptions of basic physics concepts have a common vocabulary. Correct use of that vocabulary is your ante. Without that, it is clear that you are not (be it through unwillingness,or incapacity) using the terms correctly, or usefully ("Congruence". Fruitfulness. Luminosity."). Or even interestingly.

I still await your evidence that anyone else uses "stability" and "instability" to explain the function of any class, or kind, of lever.

Dooood. (Takes hit, passes bong.) Yer jus not deeeeeeep enough to understand, maaaan.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Once again you ignore it, maybe this time you will do some effort to look, for example, in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10157477&postcount=355, instead of continue your misinterpretation-loop of what I actually say, with yourself.


The fact that you ignore stability AND instability as essentials of the lever's principle (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154114&postcount=332), does not make them go away.

Sweetie, you keep quoting yourself, instead of reality.

I read, and corrected, your inaccurate misstatements the first time.

You, on the other hand, have yet to provide an example of anyone else (that means, anyone other than you) using "stability" and "instability" as characteristics necessary to the function of any class of lever.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Dooood. (Takes hit, passes bong.) Yer jus not deeeeeeep enough to understand, maaaan.

"Save the watches--it's too late for the boots."

 

[doronshadmi]

No, I don't ignore it, I regard it as irrelevant.

Sorry, I provided the wrong link, in this case.

The right one is my reply to you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154922&postcount=334 and you ignored it.

 

[doronshadmi]

I wonder what you think this means?

I know what it means, the problem is that you don't know what it meas.

How transparently dishonest. You link to a Wiki that does not mention, not once, the terms "stable", or "unstable"; then you pretend to support your falsehood by defining words falsely.

You have yet to show any source that refers to levers as functioning because of a combination of "stability" and "instability".

Well, you have problems to understand that fixed means stable and movable means unstable.

How transparently dishonest. Repeating unsupported claims does not support them.

This is no more than hands waving reply.

Please try detailed reply about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154922&postcount=334 content.

 

[doronshadmi]

I understand <snip>

No, you don't, exactly because you ignore it again and again.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Sorry, I provided the wrong link.

The right one is my reply to you in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154922&postcount=334 and you ignored it.

You may have been misled by your shallow websearch-fu.

This one:
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Desktop/Folder%20of%20Holding/wallpaper/Svalbard%20trip%20walpaper/ijms-10-02084.pdf
...links to a .pdf wherein the only mention of "stability" and "instability" is WRT the ability of a system to form, or support, or exhibit, Feshbach Rsonance. Did you read it? Nothing about, or illustrative of, the function of levers (or "higher consciousness").

This one:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10948-010-1109-x#page-1
...is an abstract, the paper for which is behind a paywall. The abstract does not mention, or refer to, "stability" or "instability". DId you, in fact, actually read the paper? What has it to say about the function of levers WRT "stability" and "instability"; or, for that matter, about "higher consciousness"?

This one:
http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar...mperature+superconductivity"&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
...is just list of web search results. Which of those have you actually read? Of the ones you have read, which have you understood? Which (if any) of the ones you have read, and have understood, apply the terms "stability" and "instability" to the function of any class, or type, of lever? (If any, why did you not simply link to those?)

 

[Slowvehicle]

I know what it means, the problem is that you don't know what it meas.

You're up, slugger. I encourage you to explain what you think it "meas".

I am especially interested in what it has to do with your incorrect, and uninformed, insistence on pretending that levers depend upon the interplay of "stability" and "instability".

Well, you have problems to understand that fixed means stable and movable means unstable.

No, as demonstrated (you may have missed the post with the actual definitions).

It seems that what you mean is that you, personally, intend to equivocate "fixed" and "stable"; and ""movable" and "unstable"; and, in that equivocation, ignore the actual use of the terms by those who understand their meanings,and who have no woo! to sell.

That would still be incorrect usage, but at least admitting to your equivocation would be refreshingly honest.

This is no more than hands waving reply.

Please try detailed reply about http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10154922&postcount=334 content.

You're a post late.

 

[Slowvehicle]

No, you don't, exactly because you ignore it again and again.

Repeating your error does not make it magically become true, or correct.

That must be one of the differences between reality and your "higher consciousness".

When do you intend to provide the evidence I have asked of you?

 

[Donn]

That you have a "Folder of Holding" on your desktop is simply the most endearing thing.

 

[Slowvehicle]

That you have a "Folder of Holding" on your desktop is simply the most endearing thing.

Ta ever so.

 

[tsig]

Dooood. (Takes hit, passes bong.) Yer jus not deeeeeeep enough to understand, maaaan.

Truuueee, when you feel the clouds of exhalation sweep you up to that glorious song in the sky and you hear the harmony of the spheres right thru your feet and achieve at-one-ment with the universe you will understand the wisdom of the ancients and say the ol' time words of praise:

Maan, tha's som gud ****.

 

[Donn]

Ain't nuthin like some good asterisk!

 

[tsig]

Ain't nuthin like some good asterisk!

Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

 

[doronshadmi]

You may have been misled by your shallow websearch-fu.

This one:
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Desktop/Folder%20of%20Holding/wallpaper/Svalbard%20trip%20walpaper/ijms-10-02084.pdf
...links to a .pdf wherein the only mention of "stability" and "instability" is WRT the ability of a system to form, or support, or exhibit, Feshbach Rsonance. Did you read it? Nothing about, or illustrative of, the function of levers (or "higher consciousness").

This one:
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10948-010-1109-x#page-1
...is an abstract, the paper for which is behind a paywall. The abstract does not mention, or refer to, "stability" or "instability". DId you, in fact, actually read the paper? What has it to say about the function of levers WRT "stability" and "instability"; or, for that matter, about "higher consciousness"?

This one:
http://scholar.google.co.il/scholar...mperature+superconductivity"&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
...is just list of web search results. Which of those have you actually read? Of the ones you have read, which have you understood? Which (if any) of the ones you have read, and have understood, apply the terms "stability" and "instability" to the function of any class, or type, of lever? (If any, why did you not simply link to those?)

You simply demonstrate your inability to get the big picture, and how Stability appears as the natural coordinator (High-temperature superconductivity) among unstable phenomena, which enables harmonious interactions between them.