Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

The question of identity is grounded in character.

Character is the repitition of habits.

Habits are actions.

These actions are behaviors we assume by watching others.

In assuming the behaviors of others, we repeat them, thus one behavior as projected is assumed by another.

These identities occur through the repition in memory, thus all habits are grounded in looping forms.

These looping forms are how we assume and filter reality. These forms we repeat can be called values where a value is something we are connected to. This connection is to a form, as all values are based upon memories and the configuration of memories.

This is identity, and this is why people intuitively feel like they are going in circles or are "empty"...this is just repition of images. To create a new identity is to create new loop, which occurs within or without the old loop of images.

Identity is thus grounded in a state of superposition of forms within the pscyhe. These forms as symbol reflect as language, thus "meaning" is superpostioning and observing a form in multiple states or positions relative to other forms.

The near death experience research reflects people experience being subject to a projection of there concept of God or the culture in which they exist. It is a loop of ones thoughts, emotions and actions amplified.

This reflects the 24 philosophers definitions of God as a circle with a center everywhere and circumference nowhere.

Thus the nature of death and life are grounding in looping, as well as morality itself.

This is judgement and it is self created through man's nature as an image.

The forms one are judged by are a "reaping what you sow" and "where your heart lies (what you repeat in a continuum, ie "connect" or "trust") is your treasure". Treasure being that which you repeat to observe a sense of timelessness or absence of connection.

Being is a projection of our values and is self judging and self correcting.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:00 am The question of identity is grounded in character.

Character is the repitition of habits.

Habits are actions.

These actions are behaviors we assume by watching others.

In assuming the behaviors of others, we repeat them, thus one behavior as projected is assumed by another.

These identities occur through the repition in memory, thus all habits are grounded in looping forms.

These looping forms are how we assume and filter reality. These forms we repeat can be called values where a value is something we are connected to. This connection is to a form, as all values are based upon memories and the configuration of memories.

This is identity, and this is why people intuitively feel like they are going in circles or are "empty"...this is just repition of images. To create a new identity is to create new loop, which occurs within or without the old loop of images.

Identity is thus grounded in a state of superposition of forms within the pscyhe. These forms as symbol reflect as language, thus "meaning" is superpostioning and observing a form in multiple states or positions relative to other forms.

The near death experience research reflects people experience being subject to a projection of there concept of God or the culture in which they exist. It is a loop of ones thoughts, emotions and actions amplified.

This reflects the 24 philosophers definitions of God as a circle with a center everywhere and circumference nowhere.

Thus the nature of death and life are grounding in looping, as well as morality itself.

This is judgement and it is self created through man's nature as an image.

The forms one are judged by are a "reaping what you sow" and "where your heart lies (what you repeat in a continuum, ie "connect" or "trust") is your treasure". Treasure being that which you repeat to observe a sense of timelessness or absence of connection.

Being is a projection of our values and is self judging and self correcting.
There is some degree of proper argument in the above.

However the premises are not sound.
  • Habits are actions.
    These actions are behaviors we assume by watching others.
Yes, habits are actions but they do not solely from watching others e.g. from nurture.

Human actions are driven by internal thoughts from elements of nature and nurture.
What is in our nature, i.e. DNA is passed on from evolution and near ancestors which are expressed as instincts and inherited attributes.

Since you missed out on the nature elements, the rest of your argument that follow should be thrown into the rubbish bin.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:00 am The question of identity is grounded in character.

Character is the repitition of habits.

Habits are actions.

These actions are behaviors we assume by watching others.

In assuming the behaviors of others, we repeat them, thus one behavior as projected is assumed by another.

These identities occur through the repition in memory, thus all habits are grounded in looping forms.

These looping forms are how we assume and filter reality. These forms we repeat can be called values where a value is something we are connected to. This connection is to a form, as all values are based upon memories and the configuration of memories.

This is identity, and this is why people intuitively feel like they are going in circles or are "empty"...this is just repition of images. To create a new identity is to create new loop, which occurs within or without the old loop of images.

Identity is thus grounded in a state of superposition of forms within the pscyhe. These forms as symbol reflect as language, thus "meaning" is superpostioning and observing a form in multiple states or positions relative to other forms.

The near death experience research reflects people experience being subject to a projection of there concept of God or the culture in which they exist. It is a loop of ones thoughts, emotions and actions amplified.

This reflects the 24 philosophers definitions of God as a circle with a center everywhere and circumference nowhere.

Thus the nature of death and life are grounding in looping, as well as morality itself.

This is judgement and it is self created through man's nature as an image.

The forms one are judged by are a "reaping what you sow" and "where your heart lies (what you repeat in a continuum, ie "connect" or "trust") is your treasure". Treasure being that which you repeat to observe a sense of timelessness or absence of connection.

Being is a projection of our values and is self judging and self correcting.
There is some degree of proper argument in the above.

However the premises are not sound.
  • Habits are actions.
    These actions are behaviors we assume by watching others.
Yes, habits are actions but they do not solely from watching others e.g. from nurture.

Human actions are driven by internal thoughts from elements of nature and nurture.
What is in our nature, i.e. DNA is passed on from evolution and near ancestors which are expressed as instincts and inherited attributes.

Since you missed out on the nature elements, the rest of your argument that follow should be thrown into the rubbish bin.
False, I never said it was limited alone to watching others. Second your argument is contradictory. You claim certain qualities are gained from nature as well, but we are nurtured into believing this in school, etc.


We assume it from our environment as well.

Thus "nature" is seld referencing cultural memories that manifest through the environment we assume.




Not really, "properness of argument" is a form of argument...thus subject to your transcendental illusion. You have no form to determine what is proper without it being subject to transcendental illusion.

I mean seriously...what is "proper" is just context within context. It is made up.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:51 am There is some degree of proper argument in the above.

However the premises are not sound.
  • Habits are actions.
    These actions are behaviors we assume by watching others.
Yes, habits are actions but they do not solely from watching others e.g. from nurture.

Human actions are driven by internal thoughts from elements of nature and nurture.
What is in our nature, i.e. DNA is passed on from evolution and near ancestors which are expressed as instincts and inherited attributes.

Since you missed out on the nature elements, the rest of your argument that follow should be thrown into the rubbish bin.
False, I never said it was limited alone to watching others. Second your argument is contradictory. You claim certain qualities are gained from nature as well, but we are nurtured into believing this in school, etc.

We assume it from our environment as well.

Thus "nature" is seld referencing cultural memories that manifest through the environment we assume.
Assume??
Assume is a verb that is an action of the individual's mind.

Generic instincts are not assumed, they pre-existed before the manifestation of the individual's mind.

Certain traits are inherent and are inherited from near ancestors.
For various tribes has different qualities, e.g. the majority are rough, crude, aggressive, violent, friendly, compassionate, etc. which are due to recent adaptations to their environment and circumstances and embedded in their genes.
Example the majority of Sherpa of Nepal are what they specifically are born to be, i.e. adaptable to the lack of oxygen in the high mountains and friendly due to lack of exposure to aggressive enemies.

Not really, "properness of argument" is a form of argument...thus subject to your transcendental illusion. You have no form to determine what is proper without it being subject to transcendental illusion.

I mean seriously...what is "proper" is just context within context. It is made up.
It is proper within the context of logical rules.
When the argument is 'proper' within context of logic, then we have a common reference and standard to verify the agreement as to agree or counter.
As in the above, your premises are sequential, thus I am able to follow the argument and counter appropriately.

In other cases, your premises are all over the place without head, body or tail. If there are such, they are not in order and organized.

Yes, it is context within context within context ... till whatever.
The contextual constant-context is the human conditions context.
Humans are part and parcel of reality, as such cannot be extricated from reality.

What is critical is whether the context be made objective, example as in the scientific context which is testable by all, verifiable and its tested results is consistent within the defined context.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:06 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:51 am There is some degree of proper argument in the above.

However the premises are not sound.
  • Habits are actions.
    These actions are behaviors we assume by watching others.
Yes, habits are actions but they do not solely from watching others e.g. from nurture.

Human actions are driven by internal thoughts from elements of nature and nurture.
What is in our nature, i.e. DNA is passed on from evolution and near ancestors which are expressed as instincts and inherited attributes.

Since you missed out on the nature elements, the rest of your argument that follow should be thrown into the rubbish bin.
False, I never said it was limited alone to watching others. Second your argument is contradictory. You claim certain qualities are gained from nature as well, but we are nurtured into believing this in school, etc.

We assume it from our environment as well.

Thus "nature" is seld referencing cultural memories that manifest through the environment we assume.
Assume??
Assume is a verb that is an action of the individual's mind.

Generic instincts are not assumed, they pre-existed before the manifestation of the individual's mind.

Certain traits are inherent and are inherited from near ancestors.
For various tribes has different qualities, e.g. the majority are rough, crude, aggressive, violent, friendly, compassionate, etc. which are due to recent adaptations to their environment and circumstances and embedded in their genes.
Example the majority of Sherpa of Nepal are what they specifically are born to be, i.e. adaptable to the lack of oxygen in the high mountains and friendly due to lack of exposure to aggressive enemies.

Not really, "properness of argument" is a form of argument...thus subject to your transcendental illusion. You have no form to determine what is proper without it being subject to transcendental illusion.

I mean seriously...what is "proper" is just context within context. It is made up.
It is proper within the context of logical rules.
When the argument is 'proper' within context of logic, then we have a common reference and standard to verify the agreement as to agree or counter.
As in the above, your premises are sequential, thus I am able to follow the argument and counter appropriately.

In other cases, your premises are all over the place without head, body or tail. If there are such, they are not in order and organized.

Yes, it is context within context within context ... till whatever.
The contextual constant-context is the human conditions context.
Humans are part and parcel of reality, as such cannot be extricated from reality.

What is critical is whether the context be made objective, example as in the scientific context which is testable by all, verifiable and its tested results is consistent within the defined context.
Objectivity is a context...as well. And science is not testable by all, very few people can collide particles into nothing.

Assume is the imprint of form onto something formless. It happens within the mind as well as empirical objects. Assumption is subjective and objective.

Instincts are the means in which an organism assumes reality. Some assume it with aggression, others run, others, etc. Genetics are the root for which which gives form in determining how an organism assumes reality. But Gene's can activate and deactivate, my cousin is a retired geneticist out of harvard...even he claims gene's do not determine everything.

You have to also remember that the field of genetics is a localized study of one phenomenon out of many. It is a language we developed, most of it dependent upon probabilities (math), and as such falls under nurture.

The nurture nature dichotomy is blurred in determining behavior when it is our nature to reason. Gene's can be activated and deactivated.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:41 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:06 pm

False, I never said it was limited alone to watching others. Second your argument is contradictory. You claim certain qualities are gained from nature as well, but we are nurtured into believing this in school, etc.

We assume it from our environment as well.

Thus "nature" is seld referencing cultural memories that manifest through the environment we assume.
Assume??
Assume is a verb that is an action of the individual's mind.

Generic instincts are not assumed, they pre-existed before the manifestation of the individual's mind.

Certain traits are inherent and are inherited from near ancestors.
For various tribes has different qualities, e.g. the majority are rough, crude, aggressive, violent, friendly, compassionate, etc. which are due to recent adaptations to their environment and circumstances and embedded in their genes.
Example the majority of Sherpa of Nepal are what they specifically are born to be, i.e. adaptable to the lack of oxygen in the high mountains and friendly due to lack of exposure to aggressive enemies.

Not really, "properness of argument" is a form of argument...thus subject to your transcendental illusion. You have no form to determine what is proper without it being subject to transcendental illusion.

I mean seriously...what is "proper" is just context within context. It is made up.
It is proper within the context of logical rules.
When the argument is 'proper' within context of logic, then we have a common reference and standard to verify the agreement as to agree or counter.
As in the above, your premises are sequential, thus I am able to follow the argument and counter appropriately.

In other cases, your premises are all over the place without head, body or tail. If there are such, they are not in order and organized.

Yes, it is context within context within context ... till whatever.
The contextual constant-context is the human conditions context.
Humans are part and parcel of reality, as such cannot be extricated from reality.

What is critical is whether the context be made objective, example as in the scientific context which is testable by all, verifiable and its tested results is consistent within the defined context.
Objectivity is a context...as well. And science is not testable by all, very few people can collide particles into nothing.
Yes, objectivity is a context.
I was referring to Science in general.
However specifically there is Theoretical Scientific theories, Speculated theories and theories justified by experiments empirically.
As such the objectivity of Science is subjected to the above context.
Assume is the imprint of form onto something formless. It happens within the mind as well as empirical objects. Assumption is subjective and objective.

Instincts are the means in which an organism assumes reality. Some assume it with aggression, others run, others, etc. Genetics are the root for which which gives form in determining how an organism assumes reality. But Gene's can activate and deactivate, my cousin is a retired geneticist out of harvard...even he claims gene's do not determine everything.

You have to also remember that the field of genetics is a localized study of one phenomenon out of many. It is a language we developed, most of it dependent upon probabilities (math), and as such falls under nurture.

The nurture nature dichotomy is blurred in determining behavior when it is our nature to reason. Gene's can be activated and deactivated.
You are using the term 'assume' out of the ordinary sense.
Try changing your premise without using 'assumed' but using nature and nurture accordingly, then see what conclusions you can arrive at.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 2:05 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 1:41 am
Assume??
Assume is a verb that is an action of the individual's mind.

Generic instincts are not assumed, they pre-existed before the manifestation of the individual's mind.

Certain traits are inherent and are inherited from near ancestors.
For various tribes has different qualities, e.g. the majority are rough, crude, aggressive, violent, friendly, compassionate, etc. which are due to recent adaptations to their environment and circumstances and embedded in their genes.
Example the majority of Sherpa of Nepal are what they specifically are born to be, i.e. adaptable to the lack of oxygen in the high mountains and friendly due to lack of exposure to aggressive enemies.



It is proper within the context of logical rules.
When the argument is 'proper' within context of logic, then we have a common reference and standard to verify the agreement as to agree or counter.
As in the above, your premises are sequential, thus I am able to follow the argument and counter appropriately.

In other cases, your premises are all over the place without head, body or tail. If there are such, they are not in order and organized.

Yes, it is context within context within context ... till whatever.
The contextual constant-context is the human conditions context.
Humans are part and parcel of reality, as such cannot be extricated from reality.

What is critical is whether the context be made objective, example as in the scientific context which is testable by all, verifiable and its tested results is consistent within the defined context.
Objectivity is a context...as well. And science is not testable by all, very few people can collide particles into nothing.
Yes, objectivity is a context.
I was referring to Science in general.
However specifically there is Theoretical Scientific theories, Speculated theories and theories justified by experiments empirically.
As such the objectivity of Science is subjected to the above context.

Actually it isn't subject to the above context as each experiment is determined from a subjective stance....it is actually pulled out of thin air.

There is no objective context for determining of x number of hypothesis and experiments which should be chosen...it is random.

Assume is the imprint of form onto something formless. It happens within the mind as well as empirical objects. Assumption is subjective and objective.

Instincts are the means in which an organism assumes reality. Some assume it with aggression, others run, others, etc. Genetics are the root for which which gives form in determining how an organism assumes reality. But Gene's can activate and deactivate, my cousin is a retired geneticist out of harvard...even he claims gene's do not determine everything.

You have to also remember that the field of genetics is a localized study of one phenomenon out of many. It is a language we developed, most of it dependent upon probabilities (math), and as such falls under nurture.

The nurture nature dichotomy is blurred in determining behavior when it is our nature to reason. Gene's can be activated and deactivated.
You are using the term 'assume' out of the ordinary sense.
Try changing your premise without using 'assumed' but using nature and nurture accordingly, then see what conclusions you can arrive at.

"To take on, be invested or endowed with." Merriam Webster. It is an act of imprinting that is both subjective and objective.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:51 am You are using the term 'assume' out of the ordinary sense.
Try changing your premise without using 'assumed' but using nature and nurture accordingly, then see what conclusions you can arrive at.

"To take on, be invested or endowed with." Merriam Webster. It is an act of imprinting that is both subjective and objective.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assume

Oxford Dictionary:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/assume
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Near Death Experiences and Personal Identities are Loops.

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:48 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 12:28 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Oct 17, 2019 3:51 am You are using the term 'assume' out of the ordinary sense.
Try changing your premise without using 'assumed' but using nature and nurture accordingly, then see what conclusions you can arrive at.

"To take on, be invested or endowed with." Merriam Webster. It is an act of imprinting that is both subjective and objective.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assume

Oxford Dictionary:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/assume
Google...I win...
Post Reply