The Metaphysical Consciousness

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle, you simply can say that your disagreement about my claim (there is no science (mental or physical) without the linkage among the invariant (or constant) AND the variant (or non-constant)) is actually your axiom.

The problem is that you did not provide even a single evident which supports your axiom.

Your "higher consciousness" seems to have a problem with simple logic.

Your claim; your burden of proof.

Your assertion; your opportunity to support it.

Your novel invention; your responsibility to demonstrate its existence.

Given that you have not even begun to demonstrate that what you claim is an axiom is, in fact, an axiom (by the very definition of the term "axiom") it is not up to me (or anyone else) to demonstrate that what you claim is, is not. Rather, it is up to you to demonstrate that what you claim is, is.

Consider the Teapot...

 

[doronshadmi]

Your "higher consciousness" seems to have a problem with simple logic.

Your claim; your burden of proof.

Your assertion; your opportunity to support it.

Your novel invention; your responsibility to demonstrate its existence.

Given that you have not even begun to demonstrate that what you claim is an axiom is, in fact, an axiom (by the very definition of the term "axiom") it is not up to me (or anyone else) to demonstrate that what you claim is, is not. Rather, it is up to you to demonstrate that what you claim is, is.

Consider the Teapot...

Your previous post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171908&postcount=519) can be summarized by this part:

Ah. I see. The "higher consciousness" is not limited to linear response. I was not, in fact, addressing that post, but the one I actually quoted. Your army of persons of straw, girded about with non-sequitur, under that windmill, continues to grow.

In other words, from one hand you did not address http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515, but on the other hand you mark it as non-sequitur.

This is indeed a concrete example of your problem with simple logic.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Your previous post (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171908&postcount=519) can be summarized by this part:

In other words, from one hand you did not address http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515, but on the other hand you mark it as non-sequitur.

This is indeed a concrete example of your problem with simple logic.

Oh, dear. Let's review the bidding, to see what actually was said:

Here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10171686#post10171686
you said, in part:

<snip for focus>
The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.<snip for focus>

...to which I replied, here:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10171772#post10171772
saying,

I appreciate this trivial observation; I wonder if you realize that it is no more than a definition of an "equation"?

...in other words, I pointed out that your continued insinuation of some deep, mysterious interdependence between Archimedes' Principle and Pythagoras' Theorem amounts to no more than the trivial fact that each can be expressed as an equation.

The rest of that post pointed out your continued attempt to reverse, or misstate, the onus regarding your claims.

In
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10171802#post10171802
you said:

I wonder if you realize that I am not talking only on equations in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.

...as if my comment about your "discovery" that both Pythagoras' Theorem and Archimedes' Principle can be expresses as equations were the total, or even the greater part, of my post
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=10171772#post10171772
...ignoring completely that fact that my post was primarily directed at your attempt to prestidigitate the onus; pointing out (again) that it is not my responsibility (for instance) to "demonstrate" that my "clarity of consciousness has nothing to do with the linkage among the constant AND the non-constant", as you put it, but it is, instead, your responsibility to demonstrate that there is, in fact, a "linkage among[sic] the "constant AND the non-constant", as you put it; and that the "linkage among[sic] the "constant AND the non-constant" (as you put it) has, in fact, anything to do with my, or anyone else's understanding of observed physical phenomena.

Your claim, your burden.*

You have not, in fact, defined your "linkage among[sic] the "constant AND the non-constant", in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=515,
or anywhere else.

Put simply, it is clear form my post that the non-sequitur with which you have girded your army of straw, and to which I refer, is your pretense that my post could be summarized by my throwaway comment about "equations"; when, in fact, the majority of my response to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=515
dealt with your misstatement about who needed to demonstrate what.

I encourage you to consider the Teapot.

At best, it could be said that I might have more clearly said, "I was not, in fact, addressing that part of your post, but the part I actually quoted, in that comment". For that lack of clarity, I apologize.

How interesting that the "higher consciousness" is reduced to dealing in equivocation and misdirection.

*I would like to take a moment to point out that I do not make, and did not, and have not made, any claim to "clarity of consciousness". I used that term to contrast the woo! of TM^TM©® with my preferred apprach of interacting with reality through evidence-based inquiry. You have my permission to stop pretending that I intended the term seriously, or that I made any pretense of claiming any special "clarity of consciousness".

 

[bruto]

I think that for any person to make sense of what the universe presents, it is helpful to organize what one perceives. We classify and categorize what we see and what we do and what we mean, because we need to make some sense out of the otherwise unfathomable chaos which surrounds us.

The mistake, I think, is in presuming that the categories are inherent in the being we see, and not a convenience in our sorting of what we see.

Having abandoned the study of philosophy some many decades ago, I hate to sound like a newly minted nominalist now, but the fact that we can classify things does not, at least automatically, mean that this is the way things are. We find many useful ways to sort things. How useful they are, and what they are useful for, will depend greatly on what we intend to do.

The mistake is to presume that the way we have chosen to organize our perception of things must be causal.

 

[doronshadmi]

You have not, in fact, defined your "linkage among[sic] the "constant AND the non-constant", in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=515,
or anywhere else.

You can't make up your mind, isn't it?

Let's look at the relevant part in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171772&postcount=517:

Now let's correct the metaphor as follows:

The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

I appreciate this trivial observation; I wonder if you realize that it is no more than a definition of an "equation"?

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.

From one hand it is trivial for you to understand that an equation as both aspects, the constant aspect which saves the equality of both sides AND the non-constant aspect that is the ability to change the values in both sides.

On the other hand you are talking about some "mysterious interdependence between Archimedes' Principle and Pythagoras' Theorem amounts to no more than the trivial fact that each can be expressed as an equation."

When you make up your mind about your contradictory "trivial AND mysterious" point of view, maybe, just maybe, you will be able to comprehend the simplicity of the profound linkage among the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant), whether it is expressed as an equation, or not.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You can't make up your mind, isn't it?

Let's look at the relevant part in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171772&postcount=517:

From one hand it is trivial for you to understand that an equation as both aspects, the constant aspect which saves the equality of both sides AND the non-constant aspect that is the ability to change the values in both sides.

On the other hand you are talking about some "mysterious interdependence between Archimedes' Principle and Pythagoras' Theorem amounts to no more than the trivial fact that each can be expressed as an equation."

When you make up your mind about your contradictory "trivial AND mysterious" point of view, maybe, just maybe, you will be able to comprehend the simplicity of the profound linkage among the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant), whether it is expressed as an equation, or not.

...and the equivocation continues. I'm sorry it irritates you so to be caught at it.

It is, in fact, you (not I) who pretends that the inherently trivial fact that both Archimedes' Principle and Pythagoras' Theorem can be expressed as equations somehow represents some mysterious connection between them as mystical expressions of the "profound linkage among [sic] the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant)".

You have yet to support any of your claims about a "profound linkage among [sic] the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant)"; for that matter, you have yet to define what you mean by "the invariant (the constant)" and "the invariant (the non-constant)".

Be so kind as to provide a source that supports your claims. It would be preferable if, this time, your link to your "source" did not lead to an empty browser search.

 

[doronshadmi]

The mistake is to presume that the way we have chosen to organize our perception of things must be causal.

What you call mistake, is based on the notion that there is fundamental dichotomy between the observed, the observer and the tool of observation (and for what I wrote just now, you may say that observer/observer/tool of observation is no more than some example (out of many other examples) of how we have chosen to organize our perception), or that real reality is actually chaos (and in that case you also put some title about reality).

So according to your notion, no matter what we do, we are always do it wrongly w.r.t real reality.

I also wonder if the term "real reality" is not another mistake.

In other words, such philosophy is a dead end street.

 

[bruto]

What you call mistake, is based on the notion that there is fundamental dichotomy between the observed, the observer and the tool of observation (and for what I wrote just now, you may say that observer/observer/tool of observation is no more than some example (out of many other examples) of how we have chosen to organize our perception), or that real reality is actually chaos (and in that case you also put some title about reality).

So according to your notion, no matter what we do, we are always do it wrongly w.r.t real reality.

I also wonder if the term "real reality" is not another mistake.

In other words, such philosophy is a dead end street.

Not too surprisingly, you miss my point, I think. We apply categories, stable/unstable, animal/vegetable/mineral, alive/dead, and on and on, and these categories help us to understand how things differ and do not differ. They do not necessarily tell us why things happen, nor are they the only way the same material can be categorized.

Reality is complicated, and the mass of things and events that we observe has different meanings depending on what we mean to do. Saying your understanding is incomplete is not saying it is wrong.

If you're selling brassieres, you might divide people into men and women.

If you're selling flashlights, you might divide them into people who go out at night and people who don't.

If you're selling life insurance, you might divide them into people who have cancer and those who don't.

All those categories, and countless millions more, are right, all useful, all interlapping, and none definitive.

And you cannot have a dichotomy with three elements.

 

[doronshadmi]

...and the equivocation continues. I'm sorry it irritates you so to be caught at it.

It is, in fact, you (not I) who pretends that the inherently trivial fact that both Archimedes' Principle and Pythagoras' Theorem can be expressed as equations somehow represents some mysterious connection between them as mystical expressions of the "profound linkage among [sic] the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant)".

You have yet to support any of your claims about a "profound linkage among [sic] the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant)"; for that matter, you have yet to define what you mean by "the invariant (the constant)" and "the invariant (the non-constant)".

Be so kind as to provide a source that supports your claims. It would be preferable if, this time, your link to your "source" did not lead to an empty browser search.

Slowvehicle, profound linkage has nothing do with being mysterious connection.

On the contrary, nothing is mysterious about the linkage among the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant), whether it is expressed as an equation, or not.

for that matter, you have yet to define what you mean by "the invariant (the constant)" and "the invariant (the non-constant)".

Since when self evident truth (an axiom) has to be defined?

The use of the word the simply means (in case of equations) that no matter what equation is chosen, it has both invariant AND variant accepts, exactly as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle, profound linkage has nothing do with being mysterious connection.

And yet, you continue to pretend that, somehow, Pythagoras' Theroem, and Archimedes' Principle, have some relationship beyond being expressed as equations; and that that relationship somehow illustrates something about "higher consciousness"...

Which was what this thread is about, right?

Pythagoras'Theorem does not apply to levers. The fulcrum ins a place, not a number.

Archimedes' Principle does not apply to triangles.

A triangle with a zero-length side is a line, not a triangle.

None of which expresses anything about a "profound linkage among [sic] the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant)"; nor for that matter, expresses or illustrates what the "invariant" OR the "variant" are to be taken to be.

On the contrary, nothing is mysterious about the linkage among the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant), whether it is expressed as an equation, or not.

Still no definitions of, or support for, your assertion.

Since when self evident truth (an axiom) has to be defined?

Since when is the "profound linkage among [sic] the invariant (the constant) AND the variant (the non-constant)", "self-evident", or "axiomatic"? Who, other than you, has claimed so?

The use of the word the simply means (in case of equations) that no matter what equation is chosen it has both invariant AND variant accepts, exactly as very simply addressed in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.

And you continue to assert an identity you have not supported. Your assertions do not become axioms through repetition.

I eagerly await your non-idiopathic sources.

 

[doronshadmi]

Not too surprisingly, you miss my point, I think. We apply categories, stable/unstable, animal/vegetable/mineral, alive/dead, and on and on, and these categories help us to understand how things differ and do not differ. They do not necessarily tell us why things happen, nor are they the only way the same material can be categorized.

Reality is complicated, and the mass of things and events that we observe has different meanings depending on what we mean to do. Saying your understanding is incomplete is not saying it is wrong.

If you're selling brassieres, you might divide people into men and women.

If you're selling flashlights, you might divide them into people who go out at night and people who don't.

If you're selling life insurance, you might divide them into people who have cancer and those who don't.

All those categories, and countless millions more, are right, all useful, all interlapping, and none definitive.

And you cannot have a dichotomy with three elements.

As for dichotomy, it is indeed a spacial case of polychotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polychotomy), so the right concept is polychotomy.

Reality is complicated

I disagree with you, reality is both simple AND complex.

I clearly distinguish between the good pair (simple,complex) and the bad pair (trivial,complicated).

 

[doronshadmi]

And you continue to assert an identity you have not supported.

I disagree with you, it is fully supported in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.

The point is that you reject it without any given detailed reason.

Again, you did not addressed in details anything of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.

 

[realpaladin]

Ah, I see a completely new audience for the Doron shuffle!

This post just to notify Doron I will be reading this thread now to see whether he now can argue his point.

 

[Slowvehicle]

I disagree with you, it is fully supported in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.

The point is that you reject it without any given detailed reason.

Again, you did not addressed in details anything of what is written in http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515.

Parroting your own unsupported assertions does not make them become self-evident.

Repeating your unsupported assertions does not magically make them become axioms.

I eagerly await your non-idiopathic support for your assertions.

 

[realpaladin]

Parroting your own unsupported assertions does not make them become self-evident.

Repeating your unsupported assertions does not magically make them become axioms.

I eagerly await your non-idiopathic support for your assertions.

The Matrix is being reloaded...

 

[tsig]

Ah, I see a completely new audience for the Doron shuffle!

This post just to notify Doron I will be reading this thread now to see whether he now can argue his point.

He doesn't seem able to state his point let alone argue it.

 

[doronshadmi]

Parroting your own unsupported assertions does not make them become self-evident.

Repeating your unsupported assertions does not magically make them become axioms.

I eagerly await your non-idiopathic support for your assertions.

Take some part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515, for example, and read all of it before you reply:

The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.

Now, after reading all of it, please reply in details and show exactly what is wrong with it.

If this time your reply is going to based again only on "unsupported assertions" it will be clear that you simply can't address your point about this part.

Now, the stage is yours, please air your detailed view about this part.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Take some part of http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10171686&postcount=515, for example, and read all of it before you reply:

Now, after reading all of it, please reply in details and show exactly what is wrong with it.

If this time your reply is going to based again only on "unsupported assertions" it will be clear that you simply can't address your point about this part.

Now, the stage is yours, please air your detailed view about this part.

Keep a civil hand on your keyboard, son.

"Exactly what is wrong" with that (and most if not all of your other autochthonous expostulations) is that it is nonsense, poorly cobbled together out of bits of things you do not understand, stated in idiosyncratic ways that do not resemble the ways words are actually used, and consisting of nothing other than things you say over and over without being able to say why.

At first blush, your claims seem barneywaffle; as you repeat them, it becomes clear that, at their best, your arguments aspire to rise to the quality of barneywaffle. In their best light.

You use vocabulary incorrectly; you attempt to apply physics incorrectly; you pretend that your misunderstandings and demonstrable errors represent deepity rather than admitting you are lost, and faking it.

After all that, you are unable to provide the least scruple of evidence that there is, anywhere in the cosmos, any agreement with your ideoglossal baseless inventions.

As an example, your claim that the fulcrum is a "constant", or a "number" is not clever, or deepatious, or cromulent; it does not conform with reality under any scheme apprehensible to anyone who understands the actual function of real levers; and it does nothing to advance any explanation about the "higher consciousness" or why TM^TM©® should be given shrift as anything other than a parlour game (or any shrift at all, other than short).

Any time you think you might be able to support your SWAGs with anything other than the detrital thrashings of your own perfervid imagination, feel free so to do.

 

[Donn]

doronshadmi,

I'm fairly sure I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
I don't have a problem with you ascribing words like "constant" to certain states of mind like "calm". This is really the only way to work: discover some situation in the world and name it.

The problem I, and others here, have is that you put an equals sign between the word you have specially defined, and another use of the same word, in another domain:

CONSTANT_{doron TM} = CONSTANT_{Math/Astronomy/Physics}

You also throw a lot of chaff into the air in the process; just look at the pages of confusion caused by your Pythagoras mistake.

CONSTANT_{doron TM} ChAfF! TrianGLes BELL QUANTUM linK LiNK = !!1DisTRACTION LevERS FORMULAS!! CONSTANT_{Math/Astronomy/Physics}

There is no need to "science-up" your domain. You can, of course, start making a science of it, but you cannot borrow other sciences and expect respect.

The simple matter is that you need to find effective ways to describe the constant "calm" you speak of. This demands clarity and that requires the removal of noise and chaff.

 

[doronshadmi]

Keep a civil hand on your keyboard, son.

"Exactly what is wrong" with that (and most if not all of your other autochthonous expostulations) is that it is nonsense, poorly cobbled together out of bits of things you do not understand, stated in idiosyncratic ways that do not resemble the ways words are actually used, and consisting of nothing other than things you say over and over without being able to say why.

At first blush, your claims seem barneywaffle; as you repeat them, it becomes clear that, at their best, your arguments aspire to rise to the quality of barneywaffle. In their best light.

You use vocabulary incorrectly; you attempt to apply physics incorrectly; you pretend that your misunderstandings and demonstrable errors represent deepity rather than admitting you are lost, and faking it.

After all that, you are unable to provide the least scruple of evidence that there is, anywhere in the cosmos, any agreement with your ideoglossal baseless inventions.

As an example, your claim that the fulcrum is a "constant", or a "number" is not clever, or deepatious, or cromulent; it does not conform with reality under any scheme apprehensible to anyone who understands the actual function of real levers; and it does nothing to advance any explanation about the "higher consciousness" or why TM^TM©® should be given shrift as anything other than a parlour game (or any shrift at all, other than short).

Any time you think you might be able to support your SWAGs with anything other than the detrital thrashings of your own perfervid imagination, feel free so to do.

Slowvehicle, now it is clear that you can't address your claims in details according to the following content:

The Law Of Lever and The Pythagorean Theorem are based on formulas that use equality in order to get some useful results.

So the constant aspect here is the equality where the non-constant aspect is the ability to change the values in both sides of the formula without changing the equality.

Your reply above is no more than wild hands waving, that did not address anything about this content.