What human need to do?

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Euler080
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Euler080 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:03 pm
Euler080 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:28 pm
Death may have also the possibility of giving all the utilities to us, or may not. Who knows?
Death, no...death is strictly and absence and nothing more...and absences have their limits too. Life after death? Most possible.
What is the proof for saying death as strictly absence?
It is an absence of life? Yes/No?
I don't know the data/conformations coming after death. I can't say on whether it is absence of life or not.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Euler080 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:03 pm
Euler080 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:28 pm
What is the proof for saying death as strictly absence?
It is an absence of life? Yes/No?
I don't know the data/conformations coming after death. I can't say on whether it is absence of life or not.
Death leads into life within the natural world as we can see the particulate that composes all organism cycle to form further organisms. As to the nature of the soul/intellect, considering the concept of "infinity" stems from these, a similar process must logically occur in some degree or another. LIfe after death is inevitable, the question occurs as to the nature of what this Life was, is and maybe.

Death is a division of Life at minimum.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Euler080 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:28 pm
What would you do, if after death, you are there in certain conformation and are burnt all the time, or are subjected to any such unknown conformations?
"Burning" is a good way to view the unknown. Under such circumstances one must learn how to get past oneself.

Why not learn how to avoid such, before any such thing happens to us? Is not prevention better than cure?
Both are different degree of struggle. One may be weak willed but enjoy eating and drinking, get sick through poor diet and need a cure...in this respect their is a deficiency. In another respect one may be strong willed, eat well and not enjoy anything and still maintain a sickness of the spirit.
In the above context, why not find the optimal balance, if a man wants both the utilities of enjoying and being healthy?
Its appears to be the most logical of the options considering that all structures exist as an extension of a center point.

For attaining his particular set of balanced utilities, can he not prevent certain conformations, and avoid a cure?
Yes in many degrees, however reason acts as its own cure when dealing with ignorance within oneself or those around one.

And who knows whether one always gets a cure for attaining his/her utilities after not preventing it?
The application of reason, embodied within the observation of balance as you stated above, maintains itself as "a perpetual cure" considering we always observe some form of deficiency.

(To be clear, in my context, I seem to not know the utility; how can utilities be known, without knowing complete data? I am thinking on knowing data to know the utilities.)

Cure and prevention are the same things when seeking knowledge as a form of "mediation".
Euler080
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Euler080 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:11 pm
Euler080 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:32 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:03 pm

It is an absence of life? Yes/No?
I don't know the data/conformations coming after death. I can't say on whether it is absence of life or not.
Death leads into life within the natural world as we can see the particulate that composes all organism cycle to form further organisms.
I had not thought about this before. I thought on this, wrote on this and waited for weeks, may be an unstable move. Here is my OneNote link, where I am thinking on this: https://1drv.ms/o/s!AlyKW24mL0nqez3HciHOfZFc4r4

I thought on whether humans being formed by components and the decomposition of them after death, make the occurrence of absence, or not. I don't know on whether what we call as humans, is composed completely of atoms or particles we know or not. I don't know whether the now scientists know it or not. I don't know whether human is composed of other components which we don't know yet or not. Is there more data to say on absence as to occur after death?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Euler080 wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:09 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:11 pm
Euler080 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:32 pm

I don't know the data/conformations coming after death. I can't say on whether it is absence of life or not.
Death leads into life within the natural world as we can see the particulate that composes all organism cycle to form further organisms.
I had not thought about this before. I thought on this, wrote on this and waited for weeks, may be an unstable move. Here is my OneNote link, where I am thinking on this: https://1drv.ms/o/s!AlyKW24mL0nqez3HciHOfZFc4r4

I thought on whether humans being formed by components and the decomposition of them after death, make the occurrence of absence, or not. I don't know on whether what we call as humans, is composed completely of atoms or particles we know or not. I don't know whether the now scientists know it or not. I don't know whether human is composed of other components which we don't know yet or not. Is there more data to say on absence as to occur after death?
Using the above example you can observe that utility maintains itself through a form of circulation which gives it structure. This act of circulation, between forms and functions, manifests an inherent center to the form/function and allows it to exist as a thing in itself. This center point of form/function is what gives being its nature through a form of mediation. Utility, in these respects can be observed as mediation between extremes which are asymmetric in themselves.
Euler080
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Euler080 »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:54 pm
Euler080 wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:09 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 5:11 pm
Death leads into life within the natural world as we can see the particulate that composes all organism cycle to form further organisms.
I had not thought about this before. I thought on this, wrote on this and waited for weeks, may be an unstable move. Here is my OneNote link, where I am thinking on this: https://1drv.ms/o/s!AlyKW24mL0nqez3HciHOfZFc4r4

I thought on whether humans being formed by components and the decomposition of them after death, make the occurrence of absence, or not. I don't know on whether what we call as humans, is composed completely of atoms or particles we know or not. I don't know whether the now scientists know it or not. I don't know whether human is composed of other components which we don't know yet or not. Is there more data to say on absence as to occur after death?
Using the above example you can observe that utility maintains itself through a form of circulation which gives it structure. This act of circulation, between forms and functions, manifests an inherent center to the form/function and allows it to exist as a thing in itself. This center point of form/function is what gives being its nature through a form of mediation. Utility, in these respects can be observed as mediation between extremes which are asymmetric in themselves.
I am not able to know what your expression is expressing. Do I read any book or other source to know your expression in least time?

I have expressed below, the questions which might allow me know you, in least time.

Do you think absence as to be occurring after death? If yes, what is the proof? The proof, which you said, "as we can see the particulate that composes all organism cycle to form further organisms", seems to have assumption that we see all the particulate composing us, as to be forming other organisms. Do we now, know all the particles from which we are composed of? If we say now, we as to be formed by atoms, completely; is the complete atom composition now allowing to know on how we work completely? If it is not, would that be that, there be other particles composing us?

Are we completely formed of atoms? What is the scientific proof to say that we as to be formed by atoms completely, and not with any other particles? If we can't give proof for that, won't it be an assumption to say that, we see all the particulate after death, as to be forming another organism?

And even if we are composed of atoms completely, can we not be knowing certain data/conformation which may be not allowing absence after death?

If there are many possibilities, why not know most or all the data, and then do the action, of either, dying, or living, or any other known from the data? If not, are there other actions which allow us attain the utility, which would be known from complete data in least time than the action of increasing lifespan, and then doing actions for knowing most of the data?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Euler080 wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 4:42 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:54 pm
Euler080 wrote: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:09 pm

I had not thought about this before. I thought on this, wrote on this and waited for weeks, may be an unstable move. Here is my OneNote link, where I am thinking on this: https://1drv.ms/o/s!AlyKW24mL0nqez3HciHOfZFc4r4

I thought on whether humans being formed by components and the decomposition of them after death, make the occurrence of absence, or not. I don't know on whether what we call as humans, is composed completely of atoms or particles we know or not. I don't know whether the now scientists know it or not. I don't know whether human is composed of other components which we don't know yet or not. Is there more data to say on absence as to occur after death?
Using the above example you can observe that utility maintains itself through a form of circulation which gives it structure. This act of circulation, between forms and functions, manifests an inherent center to the form/function and allows it to exist as a thing in itself. This center point of form/function is what gives being its nature through a form of mediation. Utility, in these respects can be observed as mediation between extremes which are asymmetric in themselves.
I am not able to know what your expression is expressing. Do I read any book or other source to know your expression in least time?

I have expressed below, the questions which might allow me know you, in least time.

Do you think absence as to be occurring after death?
If we look upon the cyclical nature of existence we observe death to be a median point to life. Take for example a dead animal and a seed. The dead animal decomposes into compost which transfers nutrients into the ground. The seed, in the same ground, "dies" to itself and forms a plant for these very same nutrients. If we use that geometric example and apply it to the human condition as "man as the measurer", his bodily death can act in very much the same manner as the seed and "grow" into a fuller nature of consciousness. The cycles of birth and death and man observed a symmetry resulting in "consciousness as reason" to perpetually expand.

In a seperate respect, through the act of reproduction, man continually exerts himself across time and space by the perpetual manifestation of his genes. The prospect of having children is a very low degree of reincarnation.


If yes, what is the proof?
The inherently cyclical nature of reality that extends ad-finitum through the geometric nature of the circle. The circle, as composed of infinite points, is proof for infinity and "implies" life after death (assuming this geometric nature is constant and universal). Proof lies in the nature of space.

The proof, which you said, "as we can see the particulate that composes all organism cycle to form further organisms", seems to have assumption that we see all the particulate composing us, as to be forming other organisms. Do we now, know all the particles from which we are composed of?
Particles are formed through relations, and relations imply a form of separation (as what relates does so because it is
"incomplete" or a "part" of something). Considering that particulate, are individual units by their vary nature, we cannot know all particulate in one respect (due to their consistent changing) while in a seperate respect by observing universals we can know them all. So the answer to your question is yes and no in separate respects.


If we say now, we as to be formed by atoms, completely; is the complete atom composition now allowing to know on how we work completely? If it is not, would that be that, there be other particles composing us?
If we are completely formed of atoms, and I do not agree entirely with the point but will use it for argument sake, then the atoms which form us in turn form the thoughts about the atoms themselves. In these respects, reality manifests itself as self-aware through a continual act of self-reflection.

Are we completely formed of atoms? What is the scientific proof to say that we as to be formed by atoms completely, and not with any other particles?
I use the term particle as "part of" or "fractal" and in these respects atoms can be viewed as synonymous to it. A language problem appears here. In a seperate respect, a unifying median must exist for these particles to even exist. This unifying median would be equivalent to an Ethereal Space as a constant never changing dimension. In these respects we are composed of Ether and maintain an eternal element as an extension of it....theoretically.

If we can't give proof for that, won't it be an assumption to say that, we see all the particulate after death, as to be forming another organism?
In certain degrees we do, however considering we have an eternal element through the Ether, would would exist ad-infinitum. This is theoretical however and because the Ether cannot be "broken down and analyzed" (otherwise it is no longer Ether) the only scientific "proof" I believe we can have for it is strictly through metaphysics, mathematics and geometry.

And even if we are composed of atoms completely, can we not be knowing certain data/conformation which may be not allowing absence after death?
Death may allow us to transcend time, theoretically, and in doing so know all information.

If there are many possibilities, why not know most or all the data, and then do the action, of either, dying, or living, or any other known from the data?
If everything is composed of space, and space is composed of the "point", by studying the nature of the point we can understand many degrees of "data".

If not, are there other actions which allow us attain the utility, which would be known from complete data in least time than the action of increasing lifespan, and then doing actions for knowing most of the data?
In my opinion, the studying of the qualitative, not strictly quantitative only, nature of number and geometry may help.
Euler080
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Euler080 »

I have extracted the replies, as answers to these seem to automatically answer all the other replies, and allow knowing the needed data in least time. If you think, any important thought is missed, please say that to me.
I use the term particle as "part of" or "fractal" and in these respects atoms can be viewed as synonymous to it. A language problem appears here. In a seperate respect, a unifying median must exist for these particles to even exist. This unifying median would be equivalent to an Ethereal Space as a constant never changing dimension. In these respects we are composed of Ether and maintain an eternal element as an extension of it....theoretically.
Are you saying that we are composed of particles other than atoms- the ether or any other?
If we can't give proof for that, won't it be an assumption to say that, we see all the particulate after death, as to be forming another organism?
In certain degrees we do, however considering we have an eternal element through the Ether, would would exist ad-infinitum. This is theoretical however and because the Ether cannot be "broken down and analyzed" (otherwise it is no longer Ether) the only scientific "proof" I believe we can have for it is strictly through metaphysics, mathematics and geometry.
I agree with you that we don't have practical proof. If we don't have practical proof, on what would happen after death, how can we assume, as before thought, absence as to occur to us after death, and make all the decisions on what is to be made based on that, as what we know in theory seems to have been not always the same in practical reality (example: newton's theory of light seems to be not how light is in practical reality)? We may be having other conformations coming to us after death. If we don't know what happens after death, do we now, as said before, know more data on what happens after death, and then make actions of what to do? Or do you know any other action which would allow us make the optimal actions before getting into the unknown world after death?
And even if we are composed of atoms completely, can we not be knowing certain data/conformation which may be not allowing absence after death?
Death may allow us to transcend time, theoretically, and in doing so know all information.
How does death allow us transcend (go beyond?) time, and allow knowing all information, theoretically?

I couldn't convert the expression "transcend time" into practical visualisation.
If there are many possibilities, why not know most or all the data, and then do the action, of either, dying, or living, or any other known from the data?
If everything is composed of space, and space is composed of the "point", by studying the nature of the point we can understand many degrees of "data".
Are you agreeing that we need to know most of the data and then do the action? Yes, knowing the element seems to allow knowing all the data, and to know all the data in least time, we might need to know that element, whatever it is, whether point or any other in the practical world.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Euler080 wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 10:21 am I have extracted the replies, as answers to these seem to automatically answer all the other replies, and allow knowing the needed data in least time. If you think, any important thought is missed, please say that to me.

That is up for you to say, all self-evidence has a dual subjective and objective nature.
I use the term particle as "part of" or "fractal" and in these respects atoms can be viewed as synonymous to it. A language problem appears here. In a seperate respect, a unifying median must exist for these particles to even exist. This unifying median would be equivalent to an Ethereal Space as a constant never changing dimension. In these respects we are composed of Ether and maintain an eternal element as an extension of it....theoretically.
Are you saying that we are composed of particles other than atoms- the ether or any other?
The ether would be a binding median absent of particulate. In theory, and this is what "I" argue, the ether is a 1d point that reflects into itself. In doing so it reflects itself ad-infinitum through infinite points which mirror as 1 point. All realities exist as one simultaneous movement and they do not change or move. The 1d point "glues" reality together and we can observe this simple fact by observing everything we see as composed of "points".

As self-reflecting it is causal in nature and manifests itself through effects as approximate causes. This approximation is the limits of the structure as "randomness", and through this approximate nature we observe the relativistic space which composes our world...hence the particles as "movement through relation".

If we can't give proof for that, won't it be an assumption to say that, we see all the particulate after death, as to be forming another organism?
In certain degrees we do, however considering we have an eternal element through the Ether, would would exist ad-infinitum. This is theoretical however and because the Ether cannot be "broken down and analyzed" (otherwise it is no longer Ether) the only scientific "proof" I believe we can have for it is strictly through metaphysics, mathematics and geometry.
I agree with you that we don't have practical proof. If we don't have practical proof, on what would happen after death, how can we assume, as before thought, absence as to occur to us after death, and make all the decisions on what is to be made based on that, as what we know in theory seems to have been not always the same in practical reality (example: newton's theory of light seems to be not how light is in practical reality)?
We can observe some degree of "life after death" through the nature of geometry. Observing the nature of reality we can observe a cyclical nature inherent within it, what that is conducive in both form and function to the circle. Seasons, rituals/habits, emotions, physical atoms, stars, etc. manifest a continual alternation through rotation. With the circle being composed of infinite points, stemming from one center point, we may observe that "birth" and "death" are strictly medial points of cycles as the manifests "dual centers" whose polarity results in the tension we call our "lives".

We can observe different degrees of the universe by looking deeper within the quantitative and qualitative degree of gradeschool arithmetic and geometry. Everything we need to learn is taught to us when we were children. It is our decision as to how far we delve into these simple lessons which constitute our everyday lives.



We may be having other conformations coming to us after death.
Yes, that is the most probable and logical answer I can see so far.

If we don't know what happens after death, do we now, as said before, know more data on what happens after death, and then make actions of what to do?
Considering everything we understand of reality results from a mirroring process that results in symmetry as structure, we may observe rationally what happens to us after death reflects who we are in this life and certain constants we see. One constant we see is the continual growth of nature from death, or "being" from "nothingness". It is most possible that after death we may observe life grow in a fuller totality than what we observe here as it will not be limited by "death as nothingness".

However, considering man is the measurer of all things, we have some degree of responsibility for our actions as geometrically speaking everything circulates.


Or do you know any other action which would allow us make the optimal actions before getting into the unknown world after death?

A process of self-reflection where we structure our actions and throughts through a continual act of observing symmetry. Reflecting upon infinite order, as observed in the Greek concept of the logos, is another option. As for me, I am still working this out myself.
And even if we are composed of atoms completely, can we not be knowing certain data/conformation which may be not allowing absence after death?
Death may allow us to transcend time, theoretically, and in doing so know all information.
How does death allow us transcend (go beyond?) time, and allow knowing all information, theoretically?

What may happen after death, and this I do not fully know, is the integration into infinity in which things exist in their totality and lack any deficiency. Time is divisive in nature as it manifests continual limits through continual movement. To observe everything in its totality would be to see everything absent of time.

This is assuming we live lives in accordance with moral order and virtue, as the perspective we form through these habits form our very essence, in theory, as a form of circulatory symmetry. We intellectually, along with physically and spiritually, reap what we sow as everything circulates.


I couldn't convert the expression "transcend time" into practical visualisation.
I do not believe any of us could in its fullness. However if you are to look at a point, you can look at a degree of eternity in itself as "infinite center"
If there are many possibilities, why not know most or all the data, and then do the action, of either, dying, or living, or any other known from the data?
If everything is composed of space, and space is composed of the "point", by studying the nature of the point we can understand many degrees of "data".
Are you agreeing that we need to know most of the data and then do the action?
We must reflect on what we do, and in doing so observe order and balance. Everything we understand of reality is through the process of measurement, with measurement as consciousness, being the appliction of ratios that observe balance or imbalance.

Yes, knowing the element seems to allow knowing all the data, and to know all the data in least time, we might need to know that element, whatever it is, whether point or any other in the practical world.
Euler080
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Euler080 »

On the data for which this post was made:
We may be having other conformations coming to us after death.
Yes, that is the most probable and logical answer I can see so far.
What may happen after death, and this I do not fully know...
Are you agreeing that we need to know most of the data and then do the action?
We must reflect on what we do, and in doing so observe order and balance. Everything we understand of reality is through the process of measurement, with measurement as consciousness, being the appliction of ratios that observe balance or imbalance.
Then, you seem to be agreeing on we not knowing on what conformations would come to us after death. And seem to be saying on we as to know data and then do actions. I am now going to increase the lifespan and know the conformations coming after death, to know on what action is to be made, before getting into the death conformation. Do you agree on this is what is to be made:
(a) for eliminating all the unknown conformations similar to pain, or any other not known conformations, coming after death, and/or
(b) for having certain conformations which allows to attain the conformation known from complete data?

As this is what I might do, I need to know whether there is any other action which you are seeing, to attain the utility conformation (conformation with no pain conformation or any other similar not known conformations, or any other not known) in least time, than the action of increasing the lifespan and knowing on what is to be made.

On analogies in your thoughts:
We can observe some degree of "life after death" through the nature of geometry. Observing the nature of reality we can observe a cyclical nature inherent within it, what that is conducive in both form and function to the circle. Seasons, rituals/habits, emotions, physical atoms, stars, etc. manifest a continual alternation through rotation. With the circle being composed of infinite points, stemming from one center point, we may observe that "birth" and "death" are strictly medial points of cycles as the manifests "dual centers" whose polarity results in the tension we call our "lives".
Can we prove on there to be some degree of "life after death" through the nature of geometry?

Analogies might allow seeing on whether conformations in certain conformation exists in other conformation or not, but do the analogies prove the existence of the conformations which existed in other, as to be existing in the other compared one? Are you are not now saying on existence of circularity in other contexts, seasons. etc, as to be making life to occur after death?
If we don't know what happens after death, do we now, as said before, know more data on what happens after death, and then make actions of what to do?
Considering everything we understand of reality results from a mirroring process that results in symmetry as structure, we may observe rationally what happens to us after death reflects who we are in this life and certain constants we see. One constant we see is the continual growth of nature from death, or "being" from "nothingness". It is most possible that after death we may observe life grow in a fuller totality than what we observe here as it will not be limited by "death as nothingness".
Again, do you think analogies allow us having proof "life grow in fuller totality" (after death)? Do you think we need to take decisions based on these analogies than knowing on what would happen practically?
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Euler080 wrote: Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:28 pm
What would you do, if after death, you are there in certain conformation and are burnt all the time, or are subjected to any such unknown conformations?
"Burning" is a good way to view the unknown. Under such circumstances one must learn how to get past oneself.

Why not learn how to avoid such, before any such thing happens to us? Is not prevention better than cure?
Both are different degree of struggle. One may be weak willed but enjoy eating and drinking, get sick through poor diet and need a cure...in this respect their is a deficiency. In another respect one may be strong willed, eat well and not enjoy anything and still maintain a sickness of the spirit.
In the above context, why not find the optimal balance, if a man wants both the utilities of enjoying and being healthy? For attaining his particular set of balanced utilities, can he not prevent certain conformations, and avoid a cure? And who knows whether one always gets a cure for attaining his/her utilities after not preventing it?

(To be clear, in my context, I seem to not know the utility; how can utilities be known, without knowing complete data? I am thinking on knowing data to know the utilities.)

Cure and prevention are the same things when seeking knowledge as a form of "mediation".
Knowledge is percieved, and in these respects knowledge is justified belief. If one where to know the complete data, would it not be an act of will or belief?
Euler080
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 3:02 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Euler080 »

Knowledge is percieved, and in these respects knowledge is justified belief. If one where to know the complete data, would it not be an act of will or belief?
Knowledge = known data?
Perceived (perception) = conformation not existing as sensed/known to us?
Justify = to prove?
Belief = an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof? (from google)

We may know/sense a conformation as it not is; we seem to be not able to see certain wavelength of light, then we seem to be not able to know/sense all the radiations which the object is emitting, through eyes. We may have a detector to sense other radiations, to know what exists there.

But, what if we don't know that conformation/object as being emitting other radiations too, and we from eyes know/sense it as to be emitting only certain of them. It seems that we to not say anything as to be existing as sensed, it seems that, we have to say it as, "seems to be existing as sensed/known". Then, we might have thought object might to have existed in the way of emitting certain radiations only. Then, we may build many inventions or discoveries based on the object might as to be emitting certain radiations as seen by our eyes. Later, doing that, we may see that, by accident, like Becquirel (?), object as to be emitting certain other radiations too, by other indirect ways.

Yes, we may be (certain conformations may exist as sensed/known?) not knowing data/conformations as they are (perceived), but as we go on checking whether other conformations are existing as thought, for the attainment of a particular utility, we may come to know on the previously sensed conformation as to be not as known. If we see all the conformations as to be there as known, they will be allowing us to attain the utility as thought, or if they might be allowing us known the unknown data/conformation?

Certain knowledge/conformation/data seems to be perceived (not known/sensed as it exists), and the conformations known/sensed may always be known/sensed as "may be existing as sensed/known" till knowing complete data. Here we seem to be accepting conformation/data sensed/known (perceived) as "may be existing as known/sensed/perceived" till knowing complete data, and it seems that we are not asserting (accepting) something is existing, there seems to be nothing for which proof has to be given, i.e. nothing seems to exist to call as belief, as we are not asserting anything as to be as known.

If all the conformations exist as known, they seem to allow attaining utility, or seem to allow knowing unknown data. It seems that every knowledge/data/conformation might not be perception. In your words, it seems that, knowledge/data/conformation might be perceived, and seems not "knowledge is perceived".

If one where to know complete data, it seems to be not act of belief, as nothing seems to be believed as to be what is sensed/known.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

Euler080 wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:19 am
Knowledge is percieved, and in these respects knowledge is justified belief. If one where to know the complete data, would it not be an act of will or belief?
Knowledge = known data?
Perceived (perception) = conformation not existing as sensed/known to us?
Justify = to prove?
Belief = an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof? (from google)

We may know/sense a conformation as it not is; we seem to be not able to see certain wavelength of light, then we seem to be not able to know/sense all the radiations which the object is emitting, through eyes. We may have a detector to sense other radiations, to know what exists there.

But, what if we don't know that conformation/object as being emitting other radiations too, and we from eyes know/sense it as to be emitting only certain of them. It seems that we to not say anything as to be existing as sensed, it seems that, we have to say it as, "seems to be existing as sensed/known". Then, we might have thought object might to have existed in the way of emitting certain radiations only. Then, we may build many inventions or discoveries based on the object might as to be emitting certain radiations as seen by our eyes. Later, doing that, we may see that, by accident, like Becquirel (?), object as to be emitting certain other radiations too, by other indirect ways.

Yes, we may be (certain conformations may exist as sensed/known?) not knowing data/conformations as they are (perceived), but as we go on checking whether other conformations are existing as thought, for the attainment of a particular utility, we may come to know on the previously sensed conformation as to be not as known. If we see all the conformations as to be there as known, they will be allowing us to attain the utility as thought, or if they might be allowing us known the unknown data/conformation?

Certain knowledge/conformation/data seems to be perceived (not known/sensed as it exists), and the conformations known/sensed may always be known/sensed as "may be existing as sensed/known" till knowing complete data. Here we seem to be accepting conformation/data sensed/known (perceived) as "may be existing as known/sensed/perceived" till knowing complete data, and it seems that we are not asserting (accepting) something is existing, there seems to be nothing for which proof has to be given, i.e. nothing seems to exist to call as belief, as we are not asserting anything as to be as known.

If all the conformations exist as known, they seem to allow attaining utility, or seem to allow knowing unknown data. It seems that every knowledge/data/conformation might not be perception. In your words, it seems that, knowledge/data/conformation might be perceived, and seems not "knowledge is perceived".

If one where to know complete data, it seems to be not act of belief, as nothing seems to be believed as to be what is sensed/known.





Knowledge = known data?
Perceived (perception) = conformation not existing as sensed/known to us?
Justify = to prove?
Belief = an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof? (from google)

My definitions:
Knowledge = That information which is both "known" and we have been programmed to believe is what is. Much os sports science might be false but I still rank it as knowledge.
Perceived = That which is of perception may or may not be actual, and it may be actual to a varying degree.
Justify = To make acceptable to oneself (to self justify), or to another/others, but not necessarily to prove anything.
Belief = To believe/to follow. This can still be possible without accepting the existence. Truth is perceptual as well, so fine, and for a belief to exist it would have to be experienced, on the experienced level, as true for you.

Sure, you can know unknown data, many know that there is God, but it is not proven that there is God.
Celebritydiscodave2
Posts: 200
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 6:52 pm

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Celebritydiscodave2 »

QUOTE from above
"Certain knowledge/conformation/data seems to be perceived (not known/sensed as it exists), and the conformations known/sensed may always be known/sensed as "may be existing as sensed/known" till knowing complete data. Here we seem to be accepting conformation/data sensed/known (perceived) as "may be existing as known/sensed/perceived" till knowing complete data, and it seems that we are not asserting (accepting) something is existing, there seems to be nothing for which proof has to be given, i.e. nothing seems to exist to call as belief, as we are not asserting anything as to be as known".

Sure, we deploy judgement, but where does your thinking come from that there is no interest in evidence to plug gaps? Are we talking about false information, but false information which fills the gap for that unobtainable accurate information? I go with this, at least in a social context, and it is at work all around us all of the time. We are seldom made aware of it only because it is seldom communicated. It is at the root of why so many mistakes are made about people.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: What human need to do?

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Euler080 wrote: Sun Dec 17, 2017 4:19 am
Knowledge is percieved, and in these respects knowledge is justified belief. If one where to know the complete data, would it not be an act of will or belief?
Knowledge = known data?
Perceived (perception) = conformation not existing as sensed/known to us?
Justify = to prove?
Belief = an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof? (from google)

We may know/sense a conformation as it not is; we seem to be not able to see certain wavelength of light, then we seem to be not able to know/sense all the radiations which the object is emitting, through eyes. We may have a detector to sense other radiations, to know what exists there.

But, what if we don't know that conformation/object as being emitting other radiations too, and we from eyes know/sense it as to be emitting only certain of them. It seems that we to not say anything as to be existing as sensed, it seems that, we have to say it as, "seems to be existing as sensed/known". Then, we might have thought object might to have existed in the way of emitting certain radiations only. Then, we may build many inventions or discoveries based on the object might as to be emitting certain radiations as seen by our eyes. Later, doing that, we may see that, by accident, like Becquirel (?), object as to be emitting certain other radiations too, by other indirect ways.

Using the example of radiation, if we observe radiation from logic and build tools to observe it, and prove other orms of radiation exist, is logic strictly an observation of a universal mirror effect where points extend from other points?

Yes, we may be (certain conformations may exist as sensed/known?) not knowing data/conformations as they are (perceived), but as we go on checking whether other conformations are existing as thought, for the attainment of a particular utility, we may come to know on the previously sensed conformation as to be not as known. If we see all the conformations as to be there as known, they will be allowing us to attain the utility as thought, or if they might be allowing us known the unknown data/conformation?

What is utility but thought as the senses are percieved to be faulty? What percieves the senses to be faulty if not reason itself? We observe that the senses are not always proportional in their observations, and in turn we reason through measurement that the senses alone are not justifiable? In a seperate respect we understand that pure logic does not always reflect what we observe, as the senses when observed as proportional do not reflect our reasoning. What is evidence but a duality of physical and abstract observation that maintains a symmetry between the other?

Certain knowledge/conformation/data seems to be perceived (not known/sensed as it exists), and the conformations known/sensed may always be known/sensed as "may be existing as sensed/known" till knowing complete data. Here we seem to be accepting conformation/data sensed/known (perceived) as "may be existing as known/sensed/perceived" till knowing complete data, and it seems that we are not asserting (accepting) something is existing, there seems to be nothing for which proof has to be given, i.e. nothing seems to exist to call as belief, as we are not asserting anything as to be as known.

Would complete data give the information we seek unless we believe it? If we disbelieve the data is it still data? What is data but an observation of dimensions manifested through belief.

If all the conformations exist as known, they seem to allow attaining utility, or seem to allow knowing unknown data. It seems that every knowledge/data/conformation might not be perception. In your words, it seems that, knowledge/data/conformation might be perceived, and seems not "knowledge is perceived".

Observing the limits of knowledge is still knowledge itself. The unknown is strictly a boundary, and all boundaries reflect structure.

If one where to know complete data, it seems to be not act of belief, as nothing seems to be believed as to be what is sensed/known.

Do the senses require belief? Does belief affect the senses? What seperates what is willed from what is sensed?
Post Reply