One-way-street time vs circular time

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Atla
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:04 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:35 pm
No you haven't mentioned anything, except to throw a few principles of physics around. You don't want a conversation, you want to prove how "smart" you think you are...so I will put it to the test.
Ok so you are denying physics. And you put me to the test by reifying your abstractions, which is one of the most basic philosophical errors.
You claim we cannot have any absolute certain at all considering all means of understanding, through human awareness, are merely just approximations. I am strictly pointing out that your statement of "we cannot have certainty" is not only a statement of certainty but depending on the words which form it having conceptual certainty.
There is no certainty, including this statement, you don't even understand the basics.
You equate abstract thinking within the human condition to an IQ number, it is not a statement of implication you made. Either you don't know what you are talking about, you are lying, or most likely the case is you are just angry because your world-view is threatened.
And I did not say that it is "measured" in it, geez. It tends to correlate. There are even entire languages that lack the abstract, and those people tend to have on average like 80-90 IQ and usually don't even understand the abstract. Again you failed.

Don't project buddy, you said absolutely nothing so far that would threaten my worldview.
You build computers for a living, you literally do. You cannot claim I put everything in a box, when all you claim is that my reasoning is either circular or irrational.
I don't even work in IT geez
I am not denying empirical knowledge at all, it has its place. But even you point out the laws of physics may change, who is the real one denying it?
That too is part of physics, geez
And physics works right now and you deny it
A technique, as a function of perception, causes the empirical world we understand to change.
Then you should visualize some hot women for yourself and they'll appear
But you without a shadow of a doubt claimed I was alone in this perception.
Well I've never seen it taken to such an extreme before, that's true
No you are the hypocrite who is generalizing:
I won't read that, just point out that Tibetan Buddhism is just one branch of Buddhism
Oh...so you are not even an expert in your computer field? You never even worked on a computer in your course of study? If you didn't then you did not study it at all, but if you did then my point still stands.
When did I claim to be an expert? Again you are lying
How can you study computers for years without never working on one, do you understand what you are saying? What a fail
What point of you stands? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?
But don't avoid the question, what is a cognitive process?
Have you never met a human before? Because if so then your question would make some sense
The question is meant for you, I already have an argument, you should have seen it by now. What is a cognitive process to you?
Look I'm pretty sure you don't really believe in neuroscience or psychology either, so..
How are these objects floating in air, using the prior computer example, they form reality?
Same thing basically, I just like my expression of it better
If it is not perfectly worked out yet, then how can you argue it as the premise for all truth? All the "laws" you claim the universe works by, you also claim can change, hence by default your argument is strictly in a state of perpetual change.
That's obvious to everyone in philosophy, except you
Only you have Absolute Certainty
How can I when the conversation is through a computer screen? I am pulling everything you know out of you, whether you like it or not...you have no choice but to respond...you are here because I tell you to respond...it is that simple. And why am I forcing you to do this? to observe my premise from every conceivable angle.

You don't get it, I am just playing your ego....
Nah, you are just losing it, I've pretty much demolished your worldview at this point.
The way you wildly make up stuff I never said, or make up stuff that makes zero sense, also shows it. :)

Atla
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:51 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:35 pm
...
If your extreme mind-over-matter approach/belief/religion mostly comes from Tibetan Buddhism, thene here is a wisdom from the Dalai Lama:

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1737
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:28 pm

Atla wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:04 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:35 pm
No you haven't mentioned anything, except to throw a few principles of physics around. You don't want a conversation, you want to prove how "smart" you think you are...so I will put it to the test.
Ok so you are denying physics. And you put me to the test by reifying your abstractions, which is one of the most basic philosophical errors.

Physics is a science of approximate movement that observes approximate movements through the relations of particulate (or parts of a whole). It is a science premised on empiricism, it is not wrong or right, strictly just empiricism...however empiricism has its limits.

One being limiting everything to only physical laws when the evidence points other wise (no explanation or definition for consciousness, abstract quantities as number, qualities such as space, morality/ethics, etc.)

You claim we cannot have any absolute certain at all considering all means of understanding, through human awareness, are merely just approximations. I am strictly pointing out that your statement of "we cannot have certainty" is not only a statement of certainty but depending on the words which form it having conceptual certainty.
There is no certainty, including this statement, you don't even understand the basics.

The basics, according to you're logic, are not certain either because there is no certainty.
You equate abstract thinking within the human condition to an IQ number, it is not a statement of implication you made. Either you don't know what you are talking about, you are lying, or most likely the case is you are just angry because your world-view is threatened.
And I did not say that it is "measured" in it, geez. It tends to correlate. There are even entire languages that lack the abstract, and those people tend to have on average like 80-90 IQ and usually don't even understand the abstract. Again you failed.

And the civilizations that take the abstract nature of reality into account usually over-power these nations.

Don't project buddy, you said absolutely nothing so far that would threaten my worldview.

You are completely threatened, when you had to delve for a post or two into only ad-hominums...you are cracking up.
You build computers for a living, you literally do. You cannot claim I put everything in a box, when all you claim is that my reasoning is either circular or irrational.
I don't even work in IT geez

So you claimed to be trained in programming but never built a computer?
I am not denying empirical knowledge at all, it has its place. But even you point out the laws of physics may change, who is the real one denying it?
That too is part of physics, geez
And physics works right now and you deny it

Actually the majority of physics is based upon theoretical mathematics, according to you that does not work. Second physics has not given a definition or answer to problems in consciousness, morality, explanations for the abstract realities they use (maths/geometry/etc.), or even the nature of what constitutes "truth"....it lacks the logical premises to do so. What physics does is explains change in the relation of particles...that is it.
A technique, as a function of perception, causes the empirical world we understand to change.
Then you should visualize some hot women for yourself and they'll appear

Really...that explains the girl you "have" for now, until that changes too. But seriously, this is a topic about time and your sole motivation is sex, you are really in the not just the wrong thread but the wrong forum.
But you without a shadow of a doubt claimed I was alone in this perception.
Well I've never seen it taken to such an extreme before, that's true

I doubt you have seen or read much then, considering extreme is often times a relative term...you never even heard of visualization exercises in sports, or the important emphasis placed on them? Is this a joke?
No you are the hypocrite who is generalizing:
I won't read that, just point out that Tibetan Buddhism is just one branch of Buddhism

Well to summarize the point, they have a process of debating within Buddhism as a methodology to process truth.
Oh...so you are not even an expert in your computer field? You never even worked on a computer in your course of study? If you didn't then you did not study it at all, but if you did then my point still stands.
When did I claim to be an expert? Again you are lying
How can you study computers for years without never working on one, do you understand what you are saying? What a fail
What point of you stands? Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

Good, then you build/built computers...the point still stands.
But don't avoid the question, what is a cognitive process?
Have you never met a human before? Because if so then your question would make some sense

You made a claim about cognitive processes, fine, just explain what they are...I know...do you?
The question is meant for you, I already have an argument, you should have seen it by now. What is a cognitive process to you?
Look I'm pretty sure you don't really believe in neuroscience or psychology either, so..

I never made any arguments against any of these sciences other than they have their place...you are not one of those people that follows scientists around like they are priests and listen to everything they say like a sheep...are you?
How are these objects floating in air, using the prior computer example, they form reality?
Same thing basically, I just like my expression of it better

So the basic format of this argument is what "you like" and "don't like"...is that what determines truth? Likes and dislikes?
If it is not perfectly worked out yet, then how can you argue it as the premise for all truth? All the "laws" you claim the universe works by, you also claim can change, hence by default your argument is strictly in a state of perpetual change.
That's obvious to everyone in philosophy, except you
Only you have Absolute Certainty

That there are constants? No, I am not alone.
How can I when the conversation is through a computer screen? I am pulling everything you know out of you, whether you like it or not...you have no choice but to respond...you are here because I tell you to respond...it is that simple. And why am I forcing you to do this? to observe my premise from every conceivable angle.

You don't get it, I am just playing your ego....
Nah, you are just losing it, I've pretty much demolished your worldview at this point.
The way you wildly make up stuff I never said, or make up stuff that makes zero sense, also shows it. :)
You yourself admit to be poor in the maths, and by extension it may be implied logic, most of the conversation went over your head like a child.

Look at it this way:

We "need" descriptions in order to understand the nature of reality, and we need understanding so as to be able to integrate and work with it. These descriptions come in the form of abstractions, whether it be math/logic/geometry/language/etc., hence what we understand of reality is dependent upon abstractions to some degree in order to hold both ourselves and the surrounding reality together.

If we are so dependent on these abstractions, how can we say they are irrelevant?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1737
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:29 pm

Atla wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:51 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:35 pm
...
If your extreme mind-over-matter approach/belief/religion mostly comes from Tibetan Buddhism, thene here is a wisdom from the Dalai Lama:

“If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.”
Hence Buddhism is still around....

This is not strictly limited to Buddhism, but a variety of ancient and new religions, psychology, etc.

Atla
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:45 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:29 pm
...
- As I said, you reify abstractions, which is one of the most basic fallacies.
- And there is zero proof that mathematical objects form reality. There is all the proof to the contrary.
- There is zero proof for mind over matter. There is zero proof for mind-matter dualism in the first place. We may be able to do some minor things using observation, whatever that is, but the effects have proven to be negligable at best.
- And it is proven that the world isn't an extension of our thoughts.
- And yes, the scientific process is the best way to probe the world.

Hence your religion is refuted like 5 times over. Deal with it.

And if you think that Tibetan Buddhism impresses me, well no. First, I only like Mahayana Buddhism but still see it as having many flaws. Second, if it's about having an Eastern view, well I'm an Advaitan myself.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1737
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:12 pm

Atla wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 6:45 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 5:29 pm
...
- As I said, you reify abstractions, which is one of the most basic fallacies.
List the fallacy and explain the relation.

- And there is zero proof that mathematical objects form reality. There is all the proof to the contrary.
Good give the proof and define what the nature of proof is as something outside the mind...for if it exists in the mind, according to your premises, it is not proof.

- There is zero proof for mind over matter. There is zero proof for mind-matter dualism in the first place. We may be able to do some minor things using observation, whatever that is, but the effects have proven to be negligable at best.
Good, then explain how the observation of geometry forms and their relation to physical elements allows us to synthesize tools.

- And it is proven that the world isn't an extension of our thoughts.
But proof is not a manner of interpretation? Tell me, this "proof" you place on such as high pedestal...what is it? Let's argue that point in the next post..."What is proof?"

- And yes, the scientific process is the best way to probe the world.
Then, according to your logic, it should get rid of the mathematics and geometry it depends upon as these abstractions only short change it. Also it should get rid of the

Hence your religion is refuted like 5 times over. Deal with it.

I never pushed a religion but merely observed multiple religions and philosophies do not argue against what I am saying, neither do many of the sciences contradict what I argue. You never even made an argument against any religion at all, other than "modern science" does it better, without even explaining why...and I am not even pushing any religion to begin with...

And if you think that Tibetan Buddhism impresses me, well no. First, I only like Mahayana Buddhism but still see it as having many flaws. Second, if it's about having an Eastern view, well I'm an Advaitan myself.
I am not even a buddhist, you claimed my argument was strictly buddhistic (which it is not as observed several posts ago) and that buddhists don't debate or argue (which I observed as untrue several posts ago), you claim I am pushing buddhism, but I am not even arguing for or against it.


Go crack up somewhere else...this conversation is literally becoming a joke and you just can't help me dragging you through it against your will...you have "better" things to do than waste your time here...dumb savage...Plato was right in observing some men should be slaves....many have earned the right.

Go eat, f'ck the girl you have for now, and let other's do the thinking for you.

Atla
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:11 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:12 pm
...
I thought about your premise one more time:

- You reify abstractions, which is one of the most basic fallacies.
- And there is zero proof that mathematical objects form reality. There is all the proof to the contrary.
- There is zero proof for mind over matter. There is zero proof for mind-matter dualism in the first place. We may be able to do some minor things using QM observation, whatever that is, but the effects have proven to be negligable at best.
- And it is proven that the world isn't an extension of our thoughts.
- And yes, the scientific process is the best way to probe the world.
- Synthesizing medians based on extremes is a technique that gives wrong results most of the time. It's accuracy is entirely situation-dependent. And some medians are pseudo-medians, some extremes are pseudo-extremes in the first place.
- Self-observing consciousness or God or whatever is a redundant, circular, dualistic misunderstanding.
- Belief in absolute certainty has pretty much been shown to be wrong in more ways than one.

Hence your mathematical-mental-fantasy religion is refuted like 8 times over. You don't address reality at all, perhaps you should leave the thinking to others.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1737
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:55 pm

Atla wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 1:11 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Mar 03, 2018 7:12 pm
...
I thought about your premise one more time:

- You reify abstractions, which is one of the most basic fallacies.
Give proof to the fallacy

- And there is zero proof that mathematical objects form reality. There is all the proof to the contrary.
Then engineering, or the act of creation through measurement, would be impossible according to that logic.


- There is zero proof for mind over matter. There is zero proof for mind-matter dualism in the first place. We may be able to do some minor things using QM observation, whatever that is, but the effects have proven to be negligable at best.
The basic question of quantum mechanics is not limit to strictly the nature of matter but rather proof and measurement. Again list your proofs...


- And it is proven that the world isn't an extension of our thoughts.
Give evidence and argument.

- And yes, the scientific process is the best way to probe the world.
Give evidence and argument.

- Synthesizing medians based on extremes is a technique that gives wrong results most of the time. It's accuracy is entirely situation-dependent. And some medians are pseudo-medians, some extremes are pseudo-extremes in the first place.
A median is a median, considering all medians lead to further medians regardless of there relative depth of greatness or smallness.


- Self-observing consciousness or God or whatever is a redundant, circular, dualistic misunderstanding.
And linear reasoning is not circular considering it begins and ends with the axiom, or even a 0d point?


- Belief in absolute certainty has pretty much been shown to be wrong in more ways than one.
Are you absolutely certain about this?


Hence your mathematical-mental-fantasy religion is refuted like 8 times over. You don't address reality at all, perhaps you should leave the thinking to others.
But thinking requires form and function as argument through inductive, deductive, and abductive evidence...at minimum. You make statements without arguing or giving proof, yet demand proof...it is completely and fully hypocritical.

Atla
Posts: 560
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Atla » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:21 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:55 pm
You make statements without arguing or giving proof, yet demand proof...it is completely and fully hypocritical.
What's the point, most of these are well-known, but you already have your beliefs and they have nothing to do with the real world. I already went into more detail about several items on the list, in this conversation, and you understood nothing of it.
It's like you were asking me to prove that the sky is blue, because you know for a fact that it's red.
But on some level I think you know this, so you are completely and fully hypocritical.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 1737
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: One-way-street time vs circular time

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:24 pm

Atla wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:21 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Mon Mar 05, 2018 5:55 pm
But thinking requires form and function as argument through inductive, deductive, and abductive evidence...at minimum. You make statements without arguing or giving proof, yet demand proof...it is completely and fully hypocritical.
What's the point, most of these are well-known, but you already have your beliefs and they have nothing to do with the real world.
What I have is arguments, you have statements...who is the one committed more to a blind dogmatic belief?

I already went into more detail about several items on the list, in this conversation, and you understood nothing of it.
No you say "X is untrue" but gave not reason why...no argument or sources of argument.

It's like you were asking me to prove that the sky is blue, because you know for a fact that it's red.
Asking you to prove something does not equate me at all saying that it is red. If the sky is blue, and proof is required, then you must ask what is the nature of this proof required?

But on level I think you know this, so you are completely and fully hypocritical.
Tell me what is this proof you demand, and for what exactly? Answer that question, considering all proof is inherently subjective in some degree or another.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests