TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am
Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
You are TRYING TO GET so far off track, as you PURPOSELY can, from what I am actually writing, saying, and meaning, so that that BELIEF that you are so dearly trying to to hang on to will still make some sort of sense, to you.
You need stop accusing me of "purposefully getting off the track" when i am trying to explain to you how and why you are wrong. I need to find a way to EXPLAIN it to you in a way you can RELATE to the issue at hand.
Firstly, write down WHAT IS wrong.
Secondly. write down HOW "it" IS wrong. Then,
Thirdly, write down WHY "it" IS wrong.
But do remember I have NOT argued for any thing. Only you and veritas aequitas HAVE.
I am saving, what I want do do, for later on went I want to explain to the readers and observers here what has been actually taking place and is actually happening here between, you, veritas aequitas, and I.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amAge wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
You wrote;
That would be a false analogy.
Anyone can conceptualize the notion of a 'horseless carriage' in the 17th century because they would be starting with something they already had (carriages) and then they take away the horse.
I have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. Neither word is something that you can just point to with your finger.
I explained MY BAD. AND, used 'motor vehicle' INSTEAD so now it is NOT a false analogy. Now, you say that you have nothing to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'. My point IS the people before the 17th century also had nothing to speak of in relation to a diesel powered computerized motor vehicle.
No matter how far you move the goalpost (motorized vehicle, flying airplane, rocket ship). People do have something to relate to - EXPERIENCE.
As I already pointed out (and you dismissed): I could explain the CONCEPT to people by saying "It will take 1 hour instead of 10 hours to get from A to B". I don't have to tell them HOW that will work (diesel powered computer vehicle, airplane OR rocket ship). Those are specifics.
I have explained to them in ways that:
1. They can relate to
2. They understand HOW that thing will make their life better ( reduce travel time! )
Every thing you try to bring into the equation is some thing that has already been conceptualized to those people beforehand. You HAVE TO do this in order to support your own BELIEF. You are ignoring, dismissing, or completely incapable of seeing what I am saying. That is;
Human beings, just like YOU, have a tendency to completely disregard absolutely any idea IF it is beyond their realm of senses/sensing.
For example; If YOU, the one that calls itself "timeseeker", lived in a time when you BELIEVED some thing is an impossibility, (for example a motorized vehicle if you lived in the year 1018), then you would BELIEVE that it is possible. Thus, you would not and COULD not even know were to begin to conceptualize it, which is EXACTLY what you are doing in this year you call 2018. That is; you BELIEVE so strongly that it is impossible for some thing to exist SO you can NOT even begin to conceptualize it. The BELIEF is just way to strong for you to overcome it and then even begin to imagine. The BELIEF overrides the reality.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amAge wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
My point was, and still IS, just because some thing can NOT yet be imagined BY SOME PEOPLE to come into existence, that is; into being empirical, then that does NOT mean IN and OF ITSELF that that thing is JUST an ideal.
It does.
"Horseless carriage" relates to experience as "10 times faster travel from A to B"
"absoute perfection" = ???
You keep dismissing the 'motorized' part, for the obvious effect that it has on YOU.
Tell us ALL here now HOW you would conceptualize a motor if you lived 10,000 years ago or 1,000 years ago?
Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
Just because some thing, at that moment, is an ideal does NOT make it then an impossibility in the empirical. Which is exactly what the argument was saying; that i was saying was WRONG. That argument was WRONG for the very reason I have been GIVING.
Age wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
Tell me; HOW do I explain a, relatively, NEW IDEA to a group of people? That is; a NEW IDEA that CAN (and WILL?) come into existence like;
Relate it to experience and human needs.[/quote]
HOW many needs are there? And,
WHAT are they?
How do I explain to a group of people 1,500 years ago from what you call 2018 that motorized vehicles are very simple and easy things to operate and will come into existence, especially when they have had NO experience of them and that there is NO actual real need for them?
How do I explain to you , or any group of people in what you call 2018, that time traveling machines are very simple and easy things to operate and will come into existence, especially when you, and (most of) them, have had NO experience of them and there there is NO actual real need for them?
How do I do it now?
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amAge wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
You are the same as one of these people. You are NOT yet able to imagine some thing, so to you you BELIEVE it is an impossibility.
Ad hominem.I am nothing like that.
Do you think I am attacking you? If so:
WHERE?
HOW? And,
WHY?
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am I told you what "impossible" means to me - it violates the laws of physics.
If I recall correctly you actually have NOT told me that before.
But it does NOT matter anyway. Because I have stated that it is THAT BELIEF that stops you from IMAGINING. NOT that it matters what BELIEF it is, BELIEFS are the very things themselves that stops IMAGINATION. And, it is IMAGINATION how human beings are actually able to CONSTRUCT things.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amSo what you need to tell me is how you intend to do all of the following without violating the laws of physics:
1. Manufacture electricity to meet global demand without pollution
2. Sustain industry to feed, clothe, house, educate, transport and employ all people on Earth without pollution
3. Ensure that human needs are met at some minimum standard SO THAT wars do not occur.
VERY EASILY, and also way off topic. Also, your PERCEPTION of those things is completely missing the mark. But anyway:
1. With constant base load, pollution-free energy.
2. Take GREED out of society so people like your self do NOT have the continued distorted view that LIFE exists for you, human beings, and you alone.
3. The actual real and true human beings NEEDS are BETTER met without the LOVE OF MONEY. Once you ALL KNOW how to live together in peace and harmony, then OBVIOUSLY wars are a thing of the PAST.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amAge wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
You are the type of person WHO unless you physically observe and feel [experience] some thing you are, on most accounts, incapable of just even imagining it (ETC...)
Ad hominem. I am nothing like that. I am the type of person who can actualise his ideas.
"his" ideas being the operative word here.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amOr recognise what prevents him from actualising his ideas. I build things.
I do NOT care if you built every thing.
By the way does recognizing that WHAT prevents YOU from actualizing your ideas, help you or hinder bringing your ideas into fruition.
Just maybe there REALLY is NO THING that prevents an idea from actualizing other than a BAD idea, in the beginning? Just food for thought.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amTell me how you would bring your idea into being.
By continually learning how to communicate better. One way of doing that is by asking for clarification of how I can be better understood, especially by those who are clearly not able to nor want to understand. That is; ones like your self.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amAge wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
WHY do you say the Universe is a box? Where and when did you start conceptualizing the Universe as a box? To state; 'the Universe IS a box' is a pretty big thing to do. Do you have any evidence for this?
I don't need evidence for my concepts.
So, you do NOT need evidence for "your" CONCEPTS. But you can NOT even begin to make up a concept of 'absolute perfection', is that RIGHT?
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am The universe is a box for exactly the same reason why you say "you are pointing IN the Universe". We are inside the universe.
HOW, in hell, do you relate to being INSIDE the Universe and that some HOW provides to you the reason the Universe, IS A "BOX", of all things. Of ALL the words that you could pick from, in the Universe, to describe the Universe your self, you conceptualize the Universe as a "BOX". So be it. You are free to choose WHATEVER you like.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am But also the CONCEPT of "the universe" is inside OUR heads.
OF COURSE the CONCEPT is inside the human head/body. Where is did you conceptualize IT could be?
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am Inside our heads the CONCEPT of "The Universe" is the category for "everything that exists".
REALLY? I am glad you cleared that up. Just NOT sure WHO you were clearing it up for.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amAge wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
Although the Universe IS NOT a box but that is the only conceptualization you have for It, the aspect of the Universe that is the 'absolute perfection' is the WHOLE of IT as One.
You are violating the law of identity.
Is there a 'law of identity'?
WHERE is this law?
WHAT is this law?
WHO made up and decided this law?
I thought the whole bases for the way you 'rational logical reason' was that the definition of words, or the IDENTITY of things, was relative and NOT objective?
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amThe universe is "the whole lot of it". The one. The Universe is Everything.
YES, I KNOW. That is WHAT I have been saying, as evidenced above and in other threads here in this forum.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amTo say that the universe is "absolute perfection" is to describe an ADDITIONAL aspect of the thing which is not conveyed in its original description.
Example: I am TimeSeeker - I am human. At this point you assert that I have a head, eyes etc.
I VERY, VERY strongly do NOT assert that 'you' or 'I' have a head, eyes, etc. To do so would be to do the absurd.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amMy eyes are blue <----- new information that was not contained in the description of "human".
But who is the 'My', in the ill-gained BELIEF and thus ill-gotten and arrived, statement "My eyes are blue? (By the way I in NO way expect you to even think about this question correctly let alone be able to answer it in any way at all for now.) I am just pointing out to the observers NOW how far behind in thinking and KNOWING the human beings actually were back in the year when this was written, which some of them called 2018.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amWhen you say "absolute perfection" what NEW INFORMATION about The Universe are you giving me?
WHAT NEW INFORMATION could I give you?
Did you forget? You BELIEVE that 'absolute perfection' is an IMPOSSIBILITY. Therefore, by definition there is NO NEW any thing that could show you otherwise. YOU are literally NOT at all OPEN to any thing new.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amWhat property OF the universe you describing that is not already included in the definition of "The Universe" which means "everything".
I am NOT giving you any other property other than what I have been giving you all along, that is; the property OF Itself.
But you BELIEVE that that is NOT possible. RIGHT?
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amAge wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
If they have a meaning to you, THEN you have some where to start. Which contradicts what you previously stated. That is; that you have NOTHING to start with when you speak of 'absolute perfection'.
It's not a contradiction. You are just jumping to conclusions. I use the word "absolute" in certain contexts. I use the word "perfection" to describe my desires/feelings.
So, you actually do have SOME WHERE to start, which you previously said you did not. Therefore, a contradiction in terms? (I will let the observers decide that).
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am I don't use the two together.
YES I am well aware you do NOT use those words together. I am pretty sure most observers are well aware of that also, by NOW. You keep reminding us what your BELIEF IS. That is; there is NO 'absolute perfection'. So, you are completely incapable of even being able to use those two words together.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am And I definitely don't know how to use them in relation to the universe.
That is perfectly fine.
We already KNOW that because of that BELIEF of yours that you definitely DO NOT KNOW HOW to use them in relation to the Universe. It would be very contradictory to WANT to maintain that BELIEF as well as be even able to see them, let alone use them, in relation to the Universe. You are NOT able to even SEE how they could relate to the Universe. We get it!
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amAge wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
ALL you are doing here is TRYING your very hardest to find and grasp onto absolutely anything that could SUPPORT your already ill-gained and strongly held BELIEFS.
Because of the way the way the Mind and the brain work you just do NOT want to even begin to start because if you did then that would be going against your OWN little self. You might find that what you BELIEVE is true now actually is not.
I think you are projecting your feelings onto me.
They were words projected onto the screen, in FRONT of, as thinking/knowing THOUGHTS. Thoughts and feelings are different.
What you ALLOW to get 'projected' onto you is another thing
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 amAge wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 3:53 am
I do NOT care what you want to BELIEVE, and do actually BELIEVE. But if you, like other human beings, are going to keep insisting some things are absolutely true, right, and correct, of which they are obviously clearly NOT, then I will keep pointing WHERE they are WRONG, and WHY they are.
That is; they are WRONG because of YOUR subjectivity views, based on your OWN personal ASSUMPTIONS and BELIEFS.
See. I have a much easier way for you to say the above paragraph to people you meet.
BUT I do NOT want to say it to people I meet. I ONLY WANT to say it to people who BELIEVE that they are RIGHT, when clearly they are NOT.
TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Wed Oct 24, 2018 5:21 am And in a way that they WILL understand you.
You can just utter this phrase and they will understand you INTANTLY. Ready? Here it is.
"You are wrong and I am right. You
MUST listen to me!"
But is that not what you and veritas aequitas are just expressing and saying?
Remember, I am NOT arguing either for nor against some thing. You two are the ones TRYING TO.
I am saying you and veritas aequitas is WRONG because you are basing your WHOLE attempt at arguments on your own BELIEFS, without any evidence for them.
Whereas,
You and that self-labelled veritas aequitas are just saying that I am WRONG because you two are RIGHT. Again because of the BELIEFS that you both HAVE and SHARE.