The Unity Paradox

[Eodnhoj7]

This response explains WHY you are so LOST and CONFUSED here.



But you can NOT inform 'us' of what 'reality' really is, so what you wrote her is all moot.


Who or what is the 'we' that can perceive thoughts? And, how exactly do 'we' perceive thoughts?

Also, 'we' can perceive of pink elephants that can fly by flapping their ears, so these are real, as evidenced by the fact we can perceive them, and by your very own "logic" here, right?


To you is there ANY thing that how it works is NOT determined by the so-called 'reality' which formed it?

ALSO, HOW the Mind and the brain ACTUALLY WORK is VERY DIFFERENT to what you just said and claimed here.



Matter IS matter, and what the word 'contradictory' refers to IS NOT matter. Therefore matter is NOT contradictory.

Or, if we wanted to follow 'your' so-called "logic" here "eodnhoj7", we could also say and claim:
If everything is matter and this matter results in NON contradictory thoughts,then matter is NOT contradictory. But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, to follow this kind of "logic" would be ABSOLUTELY ABSURD and RIDICULOUS.

1. So "reality is" is false? Reality is not?

2. Reality is everything.

3. We perceive thoughts by making the distinction of thought.

4. How a thing works is reality thus inseparable from reality.

5. Your statement of matter resulting in non-contradictory thoughts and my statement that matter results in contradictory thoughts are both contradictory and the result of matter.

Is there some sort of message that you are trying to convey here?

If yes, then will you explain what it is EXACTLY?

Who said the message results in an "it"?

[Age]

1. So "reality is" is false? Reality is not?

2. Reality is everything.

3. We perceive thoughts by making the distinction of thought.

4. How a thing works is reality thus inseparable from reality.

5. Your statement of matter resulting in non-contradictory thoughts and my statement that matter results in contradictory thoughts are both contradictory and the result of matter.

Is there some sort of message that you are trying to convey here?

If yes, then will you explain what it is EXACTLY?

Who said the message results in an "it"?

NOT 'I'.

[CHNOPS]

1. The separation of parts necessitates all parts as connected through the quality of separation.

2. If connection is not a thing then a falsity occurs as saying "connection" is to make a distinction, this distinction is a thing.

1- You are creating an abstract though when you say "connected through the quality of separation". What does really mean?

Is like saying "The 3 pixels are connected through the concept of being a pixel" ¿?

That is an abstraction in your mind. What is what really really exists? just the 3 pixels.... there is no "connection" neither "unity".


2- "connection" is an abstraction. Remember, there are just 3 pixels. Where is that "connection"? is not another pixel so what is?

Answer this question please:

Do you believe in Platonic idealism? do you believe that the "ideas" exists? do you believe the "four" exists?

When I see four apples, I see four apples, I dont see a "four" beyond that apples. And I dont believe this "four" exists in any case.

Do you?

1. The fact that an abstraction can be "created" necessitates it as real as only that which can be created is real.

2. All numbers are connected to forms and this universal form is the loop. All things are loops given not only does tracing there form out result in a loop but the ability of generalizing things through numbers necessitates repetition of said things. The fact that you can connect "4" to "apples" necessitates "4" is a loop.

Are you a classic religion person?

That loop you talk about, is a loop in your mind, not in reality

That loop is what you need to stop in order to understand all.


What is the origin of that loop? what came first? the "3" or the Blue-Green-Red pixels?

I say that B-G-R came first. And then the comparisons, the descriptions, using another pixeles like Violet, Brown, appears... but that comparisons are another pixels too...

"4" doesnt exists.

[Eodnhoj7]

1- You are creating an abstract though when you say "connected through the quality of separation". What does really mean?

Is like saying "The 3 pixels are connected through the concept of being a pixel" ¿?

That is an abstraction in your mind. What is what really really exists? just the 3 pixels.... there is no "connection" neither "unity".


2- "connection" is an abstraction. Remember, there are just 3 pixels. Where is that "connection"? is not another pixel so what is?

Answer this question please:

Do you believe in Platonic idealism? do you believe that the "ideas" exists? do you believe the "four" exists?

When I see four apples, I see four apples, I dont see a "four" beyond that apples. And I dont believe this "four" exists in any case.

Do you?

1. The fact that an abstraction can be "created" necessitates it as real as only that which can be created is real.

2. All numbers are connected to forms and this universal form is the loop. All things are loops given not only does tracing there form out result in a loop but the ability of generalizing things through numbers necessitates repetition of said things. The fact that you can connect "4" to "apples" necessitates "4" is a loop.

Are you a classic religion person?

That loop you talk about, is a loop in your mind, not in reality

That loop is what you need to stop in order to understand all.


What is the origin of that loop? what came first? the "3" or the Blue-Green-Red pixels?

I say that B-G-R came first. And then the comparisons, the descriptions, using another pixeles like Violet, Brown, appears... but that comparisons are another pixels too...

"4" doesnt exists.

1. The mind is inseparable from reality as the mind is strictly interactions and all things interact (this allows for them to be 'things').

2. If all is reducible to blue/green/red then reality is reduced to compared elements and as such the example of blue/green/red does not work considering the totality cannot be compared for if it where compared it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. There is nothing beyond the totality.

[CHNOPS]

1. The fact that an abstraction can be "created" necessitates it as real as only that which can be created is real.

2. All numbers are connected to forms and this universal form is the loop. All things are loops given not only does tracing there form out result in a loop but the ability of generalizing things through numbers necessitates repetition of said things. The fact that you can connect "4" to "apples" necessitates "4" is a loop.

Are you a classic religion person?

That loop you talk about, is a loop in your mind, not in reality

That loop is what you need to stop in order to understand all.


What is the origin of that loop? what came first? the "3" or the Blue-Green-Red pixels?

I say that B-G-R came first. And then the comparisons, the descriptions, using another pixeles like Violet, Brown, appears... but that comparisons are another pixels too...

"4" doesnt exists.

1. The mind is inseparable from reality as the mind is strictly interactions and all things interact (this allows for them to be 'things').

2. If all is reducible to blue/green/red then reality is reduced to compared elements and as such the example of blue/green/red does not work considering the totality cannot be compared for if it where compared it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. There is nothing beyond the totality.

1- If "mind" means thoughts here, then is part of reality, but is not creating it. There will be 4 apples even if you dont have a thought about it, even if you dont think the "4".

Or do you believe the mind has an importan role in what reality is?


2- But you dont compare (B-G-R) with other "thing". You compare B with G and R, G with B and R, and R with B and G.
There is nothing beyond these B-G-R to compare with. The comparing is always inside the universe, within things.

[Advocate]

Basic mereology - the distinction of one thing from another regardless of parts or combinations, is according to purpose, ie anticipated interaction/intended use.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you a classic religion person?

That loop you talk about, is a loop in your mind, not in reality

That loop is what you need to stop in order to understand all.


What is the origin of that loop? what came first? the "3" or the Blue-Green-Red pixels?

I say that B-G-R came first. And then the comparisons, the descriptions, using another pixeles like Violet, Brown, appears... but that comparisons are another pixels too...

"4" doesnt exists.

1. The mind is inseparable from reality as the mind is strictly interactions and all things interact (this allows for them to be 'things').

2. If all is reducible to blue/green/red then reality is reduced to compared elements and as such the example of blue/green/red does not work considering the totality cannot be compared for if it where compared it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. There is nothing beyond the totality.

1- If "mind" means thoughts here, then is part of reality, but is not creating it. There will be 4 apples even if you dont have a thought about it, even if you dont think the "4".

Or do you believe the mind has an importan role in what reality is?


2- But you dont compare (B-G-R) with other "thing". You compare B with G and R, G with B and R, and R with B and G.
There is nothing beyond these B-G-R to compare with. The comparing is always inside the universe, within things.

1. Thoughts influence reality and reality influences thoughts, both equivocate under these terms.

2. Yet the universe, ie the totality, is without compare thus any internal comparisons are self-referencing.

[Eodnhoj7]

Basic mereology - the distinction of one thing from another regardless of parts or combinations, is according to purpose, ie anticipated interaction/intended use.

Purpose is distinction.

[CHNOPS]

1. The mind is inseparable from reality as the mind is strictly interactions and all things interact (this allows for them to be 'things').

2. If all is reducible to blue/green/red then reality is reduced to compared elements and as such the example of blue/green/red does not work considering the totality cannot be compared for if it where compared it would not be the totality as something would be beyond it. There is nothing beyond the totality.

1- If "mind" means thoughts here, then is part of reality, but is not creating it. There will be 4 apples even if you dont have a thought about it, even if you dont think the "4".

Or do you believe the mind has an importan role in what reality is?


2- But you dont compare (B-G-R) with other "thing". You compare B with G and R, G with B and R, and R with B and G.
There is nothing beyond these B-G-R to compare with. The comparing is always inside the universe, within things.

1. Thoughts influence reality and reality influences thoughts, both equivocate under these terms.

2. Yet the universe, ie the totality, is without compare thus any internal comparisons are self-referencing.

1- ¿? Thoughts influence reality in the same way whatever object or form of matter influence other object or form of matter. Mind is not special.


2- What do you mean by "self-referencing" ? There is no thing that can self referencing. Comparing always require 2 minimum things.

"B is not G".

I can't say what B is if I only have B.


The universe seeing as a whole existence, has no reference. It's not "there" neither "here".


Close your eyes and imagining one single pixel, a Blue pixel.


Where it is? You cannot say that. But this is not a limit of languaje or reasoning. Is just that there is no "where" to the Blue pixel.

Now, if you add a Green pixel, you can say "B is next to G".


You understand this. So, what are you really thinking?

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=605999 time=1666644668 user_id=14533]
[quote=Advocate post_id=605623 time=1666408754 user_id=15238]
Basic mereology - the distinction of one thing from another regardless of parts or combinations, is according to purpose, ie anticipated interaction/intended use.
[/quote]

Purpose is distinction.
[/quote]

..and vice versa.

[Eodnhoj7]

Basic mereology - the distinction of one thing from another regardless of parts or combinations, is according to purpose, ie anticipated interaction/intended use.

Purpose is distinction.

..and vice versa.

No disagreement.

[Eodnhoj7]

1- If "mind" means thoughts here, then is part of reality, but is not creating it. There will be 4 apples even if you dont have a thought about it, even if you dont think the "4".

Or do you believe the mind has an importan role in what reality is?


2- But you dont compare (B-G-R) with other "thing". You compare B with G and R, G with B and R, and R with B and G.
There is nothing beyond these B-G-R to compare with. The comparing is always inside the universe, within things.

1. Thoughts influence reality and reality influences thoughts, both equivocate under these terms.

2. Yet the universe, ie the totality, is without compare thus any internal comparisons are self-referencing.

1- ¿? Thoughts influence reality in the same way whatever object or form of matter influence other object or form of matter. Mind is not special.


2- What do you mean by "self-referencing" ? There is no thing that can self referencing. Comparing always require 2 minimum things.

"B is not G".

I can't say what B is if I only have B.


The universe seeing as a whole existence, has no reference. It's not "there" neither "here".


Close your eyes and imagining one single pixel, a Blue pixel.


Where it is? You cannot say that. But this is not a limit of languaje or reasoning. Is just that there is no "where" to the Blue pixel.

Now, if you add a Green pixel, you can say "B is next to G".


You understand this. So, what are you really thinking?

1. The mind is a reality.

2. The foundation of reality, thus the mind, is interaction. Considering both mind and reality equivocate under this quality called 'interaction' the mind and reality equivocate.

3. Self referencing is repeatability.

4. The universe cannot be measured, as it is without limits considering only it exists, and as such no formula or metaphor can be used to describe it.