Psyche Filters Patterns Through Loops

[Eodnhoj7]

All experience is grounded in the assumption of forms, where a form is imprinted within the emptiness of the psyche. This emptiness is the absence of form which expands across both the consciousness, along with the subconsciousness by default, and the vastness of being. Void is the common median between that which is sensed abstractly or that which is sensed empirically.

Each form is a loop and as a loop maintains an intrinsic emptiness of form contained within it. All forms manifests this nature as a loop through multiple degrees.

1. It is a loop in the respect one phenomenon manifests through repetition across time and space. This repetition is the cycling of a phenomenon. This repetition of the phenomenon, as a cycling, is the containment of an intrinsic void through the movement across a void. This movement is one phenomenon existing in multiple states as a continuum. For example the movement of a particle from position A to position B is the containment of void where each repeated particle, as a new position, contains void between them. Void is contained through the same phenomenon existing in multiple states.

2. It is also a loop as its given outline always resorts to a loop. This is considering the tracing of any one form always results in the end as the same place as the beginning. For example the tracing of the shape of a man results in a loop considering the beginning trace at the head results in the trace ending in the same position it began. The overall form of a man is that of a loop, however this applies to any empirical form.

3. Finally it is always a loop given its identity of A=A, logically, is a loop. The assertion has the same beginning as it does the end. The assertion, of A=A, is defined further through a series of assertions it contains as part of its definition such as B=B, C=C, etc., thus one loop contains many. Logical statements necessitate one assertion as existing through many, thus while one loop of A=A represents one degree of looping, the repetition of one assertion through many assertions is another degree of loop reflective of point 1.

As assumed, form is imprinted upon the psyche and is repeated. This constitutes the "I". The "I", as composed of patterns, is a series of repeated patterns with each pattern as a loop as well as the repetition being a process of looping itself. This form, as existing through a loop as a loop, is intrinsically empty thus acting as a filter for how we percieve further phenomena.

All phenomena, as loops, act as filters to how we assume further patterns. Our psyche assumes patterns based upon priorly assumed patterns. These prior patterns, as empty considering they are loops, assume further patterns base upon what aligns with one pattern and which does not. Alignment is the repetition of a single form across a myriad of forms thus necessitating an underlying common base. This common base, where one form exists in multiple states, in itself is a loop.

The emptiness of the phenomena allows for the pattern to assume further patterns. The traceable form acts as the barrier which accepts or rejects further patterns. For example, the pattern of "mammal" contains similar forms along a series of organisms that align across a continuum of said organisms. This similarities of forms is an alignment of forms across a series of phenomenon. The absence of similarities is an absence of alignment. What determines the alignment of forms is the similarities and differences that compose the forms as further sub forms. Forms align through further forms which compose it. Each form is a set of loops within loops.

This applies abstractly, as well, within the realm of logic. The circular nature of A=A contains within its definition a series of further assertions such as B=B, C=C, etc. with each assertion being a variation of the original assertion. Each assertion aligns to a further assertion based upon its similarities and differences.


All assumption is a process of experience, this experience is a process of imprinting.

Experience is the subjective nature to how we assume patterns where a series of patterns is imprinted within the "I" which is composed of a series of priorly existing patterns. The "I" is a series of loops which operating through a form of looping between the subject and object. A form is presented. It is assumed and further projected as another pattern and then reassumed. One loop is looped through many loops. Our ability to assume is what defines the self at any given moment. We are what we assume and the angle of assumption, as the angle of observation, necessitates subjectivity as being fundamentally bias.

[Harbal]

This form, as existing through a looping imprints itself on the pscyhe, but as a loop is intrinsically empty thus acting as a filter for how we percieve further phenomena. The emptiness of the phenomena allows for the pattern to assume further patterns. The traceable form acts as the barrier which accepts or rejects further patterns.

Are you aware, Eodnhoj7, that this means absolutely nothing? Did you do that on purpose?

[Eodnhoj7]

This form, as existing through a looping imprints itself on the pscyhe, but as a loop is intrinsically empty thus acting as a filter for how we percieve further phenomena. The emptiness of the phenomena allows for the pattern to assume further patterns. The traceable form acts as the barrier which accepts or rejects further patterns.

Are you aware, Eodnhoj7, that this means absolutely nothing? Did you do that on purpose?

Explain how it means nothing.

[Harbal]

This form, as existing through a looping imprints itself on the pscyhe, but as a loop is intrinsically empty thus acting as a filter for how we percieve further phenomena. The emptiness of the phenomena allows for the pattern to assume further patterns. The traceable form acts as the barrier which accepts or rejects further patterns.

Are you aware, Eodnhoj7, that this means absolutely nothing? Did you do that on purpose?

Explain how it means nothing.

I can't explain it, I just intuitively know.

[Eodnhoj7]

Are you aware, Eodnhoj7, that this means absolutely nothing? Did you do that on purpose?

Explain how it means nothing.

I can't explain it, I just intuitively know.

How do you know that you know for sure?

[Harbal]

Explain how it means nothing.

I can't explain it, I just intuitively know.

How do you know that you know for sure?

I don't know for sure. It's just a suspicion, really.

[commonsense]

I can't explain it, I just intuitively know.

How do you know that you know for sure?

I don't know for sure. It's just a suspicion, really.

If multiple people suspect the same thing, doesn’t that make it a fact?

[Eodnhoj7]

How do you know that you know for sure?

I don't know for sure. It's just a suspicion, really.

If multiple people suspect the same thing, doesn’t that make it a fact?

If multitude of people suspect the same thing then a multitude "suspect" the same thing. Proof requires argumentation as a definition of what a phenomenon is or is not. If a multitude prove the same thing, as in give definition, then it is fact. Fact requires definition, not suspicion. Suspicion is an absence of definition as an absence of evidence.

[Harbal]

How do you know that you know for sure?

I don't know for sure. It's just a suspicion, really.

If multiple people suspect the same thing, doesn’t that make it a fact?

Do you suspect the same thing?

[Eodnhoj7]

I don't know for sure. It's just a suspicion, really.

If multiple people suspect the same thing, doesn’t that make it a fact?

Do you suspect the same thing?

Why both of you are absent of proof is due to an absence of definition as to how and why you intuit your stance.

Intuition alone can be faulty when not merged with reason.

If what I say is nothing, fine, but given your position you must define as to why and how due to this being a philosophy forum.

A simple "I believe you are wrong because I feel so" is far from any rational discussion and promotes an inherent subjectivity in determining what is true and what is false.

This subjectivity, where multiple people feel the same thing yet are unable to give proof to it, is not far from being a bandwagon fallacy. Objectivity is multiple people observing the same thing through "
proof.

[Harbal]

Why both of you are absent of proof is due to an absence of definition as to how and why you intuit your stance.

Intuition alone can be faulty when not merged with reason.

If what I say is nothing, fine, but given your position you must define as to why and how due to this being a philosophy forum.

A simple "I believe you are wrong because I feel so" is far from any rational discussion and promotes an inherent subjectivity in determining what is true and what is false.

This subjectivity, where multiple people feel the same thing yet are unable to give proof to it, is not far from being a bandwagon fallacy. Objectivity is multiple people observing the same thing through "
proof.

I never put much faith in intuition. My intuition has a history of being quite faulty. The fact is, I read your initial post, did not understand any of it, and concluded that it must be your fault. My decision to blame you was predominantly influenced by my reluctance to accept that it was my fault. In other words, I was just obeying the laws of human nature.

[commonsense]

I don't know for sure. It's just a suspicion, really.

If multiple people suspect the same thing, doesn’t that make it a fact?

Do you suspect the same thing?

Yes, it’s obvious to me.

[commonsense]

If multiple people suspect the same thing, doesn’t that make it a fact?

Do you suspect the same thing?

Why both of you are absent of proof is due to an absence of definition as to how and why you intuit your stance.

Intuition alone can be faulty when not merged with reason.

If what I say is nothing, fine, but given your position you must define as to why and how due to this being a philosophy forum.

A simple "I believe you are wrong because I feel so" is far from any rational discussion and promotes an inherent subjectivity in determining what is true and what is false.

This subjectivity, where multiple people feel the same thing yet are unable to give proof to it, is not far from being a bandwagon fallacy. Objectivity is multiple people observing the same thing through "
proof.

Actually, fact only requires consensus, not definition or proof. Fact is reality. Reality is fact.

[Eodnhoj7]

Do you suspect the same thing?

Why both of you are absent of proof is due to an absence of definition as to how and why you intuit your stance.

Intuition alone can be faulty when not merged with reason.

If what I say is nothing, fine, but given your position you must define as to why and how due to this being a philosophy forum.

A simple "I believe you are wrong because I feel so" is far from any rational discussion and promotes an inherent subjectivity in determining what is true and what is false.

This subjectivity, where multiple people feel the same thing yet are unable to give proof to it, is not far from being a bandwagon fallacy. Objectivity is multiple people observing the same thing through "
proof.

Actually, fact only requires consensus, not definition or proof. Fact is reality. Reality is fact.

False as there are many consensus' which occur across different aspects of knowledge. There is a consensus that the earth is round and another that it is flat. If fact is consensus then we have multiple facts stating completely different things. If that is the case all existence, of any and everything, is a fact in which case my post does make sense under certain circumstances.

[commonsense]

This subjectivity, where multiple people feel the same thing yet are unable to give proof to it, is not far from being a bandwagon fallacy. Objectivity is multiple people observing the same thing through "
proof.

(With apologies, H.)

Objectivity is people with the same interpretation/suspicion/processed sensory input/synthesization of an observation of an object which is not otherwise objectively observeable except when spoken of in the same manner at the same space time.