The Paradox of Observation

[Dontaskme]

ONCE AGAIN, what is the 'you' word here even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

A thought.

[Age]

ONCE AGAIN, what is the 'you' word here even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

A thought.

Okay.

And, I agree that 'thought', in a way, ''splits reality up'' into distinctions and dualities. As in 'thought' does NOT ACTUALLY do 'this', BUT, for the brain to be ABLE TO make sense of the Universe that 'it' has found 'itself' WITHIN, the One 'Thing', or 'Reality' if one likes, HAS TO be CONCEPTUALLY 'split up' into distinctions, distinct 'things', and/or duality. This WAS the ONLY WAY the human brain could COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, and MAKE SENSE OF ALL-THERE-IS.

[Dontaskme]

ONCE AGAIN, what is the 'you' word here even REFERRING TO, EXACTLY?

A thought.

Okay.

And, I agree that 'thought', in a way, ''splits reality up'' into distinctions and dualities. As in 'thought' does NOT ACTUALLY do 'this', BUT, for the brain to be ABLE TO make sense of the Universe that 'it' has found 'itself' WITHIN, the One 'Thing', or 'Reality' if one likes, HAS TO be CONCEPTUALLY 'split up' into distinctions, distinct 'things', and/or duality. This WAS the ONLY WAY the human brain could COMPREHEND, UNDERSTAND, and MAKE SENSE OF ALL-THERE-IS.

aye!

[popeye1945]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

[Iwannaplato]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

Yes, oddly he focuses on the thing we are trying to make sense of. Yes, when we observe (interesting choice of verb) the thing, we may find more things we want to make sense of. But in process we have made more sense of the object. It's we who make sense of things, not objects.

And ironically, he observed something and wrote about it in his OP. He observed the process of observing things and made sense of the fact that in the process we find more things to wonder about. And then he passed on this making sense to us.

But draws from this the conclusion (it seems) that there's no point in the process.

[popeye1945]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

Yes, oddly he focuses on the thing we are trying to make sense of. Yes, when we observe (interesting choice of verb) the thing, we may find more things we want to make sense of. But in process we have made more sense of the object. It's we who make sense of things, not objects.

And ironically, he observed something and wrote about it in his OP. He observed the process of observing things and made sense of the fact that in the process we find more things to wonder about. And then he passed on this making sense to us.

But draws from this the conclusion (it seems) that there's no point in the process.

Iwannaplato,

I think you've nailed it! EXCELLENT!

[Eodnhoj7]

What EXACTLY made you SAY and CLAIM 'this'? Or, do 'you' just like COPYING 'me'?

AND, what part/s of YOUR thread do you think or BELIEVE I am MISSING or MISUNDERSTANDING here?

Now, we AGAIN WAIT for YOUR ANSWER/S.



In relation to which sentence, EXACTLY?

But I usually use the word 'thing' to mean an object, or subject, which I did not wish to give a specific name or names to.

What did you think I meant by 'thing'?

What do you mean by 'thing'?


Did I say, 'need delivered'?

AND, BECAUSE the Universe and Life 'just IS', 'you', human beings, WILL BE DELIVERED. To WHERE I have been POINTING OUT TO and SHOWING THE WAY TO here also, I will add.

1. The first post.

Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE is true, the 'this' MUST BE TRUE, correct?

2. Does it matter?

'It' MIGHT.

3. If the universe "just is" delivery or no delivery just are and both can be accepted.

If you say so.

Is it REALLY that HARD and/or TO COMPLEX for you to just ANSWER the QUESTIONS posed and ASKED here?

The questions have been answered, is it really hard for you to comprehend them?

[Eodnhoj7]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

If I see a forest and focus deeply what it is composed of I observe a tree. If I see a tree and focus deeply on it I see the leaves and branches so on an so forth. In focusing deeply I miss the surroundings through which these things occur. With the increase in complexity comes an inability to see other things as the more that is known the more questions that are raised.

[Iwannaplato]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

If I see a forest and focus deeply what it is composed of I observe a tree. If I see a tree and focus deeply on it I see the leaves and branches so on an so forth. In focusing deeply I miss the surroundings through which these things occur. With the increase in complexity comes an inability to see other things as the more that is known the more questions that are raised.

Well, at least here you have merely a glass half empty philosophy. Sometimes it seems like you think the glass is completely empty while trying to fill ours.

[Age]

1. The first post.

Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE is true, the 'this' MUST BE TRUE, correct?

2. Does it matter?

'It' MIGHT.

3. If the universe "just is" delivery or no delivery just are and both can be accepted.

If you say so.

Is it REALLY that HARD and/or TO COMPLEX for you to just ANSWER the QUESTIONS posed and ASKED here?

The questions have been answered, is it really hard for you to comprehend them?

Here is ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES that by just responding with letters to A QUESTION is ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED.

ONCE AGAIN, 'responding' is NOT necessarily ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION. As you have PROVED True in other posts and above here.

[Age]

The more something is observed the more complex it becomes. The more complex it becomes the less sense it makes because not all of it can be sensed. The deeper something is sensed the less it is sensed.

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

If I see a forest and focus deeply what it is composed of I observe a tree. If I see a tree and focus deeply on it I see the leaves and branches so on an so forth. In focusing deeply I miss the surroundings through which these things occur. With the increase in complexity comes an inability to see other things as the more that is known the more questions that are raised.

WHY do you PRESUME that just LOOKING or FOCUSING 'deeply' INCREASES 'complexity', or that by doing so there is some so-called 'increase in complexity'?

If one can NOT see 'the forest for the trees, NOR see 'the trees for the forest', then that one is just NOT LOOKING Properly AND Correctly.

By the way, there IS absolutely NO so-called 'complexity' found when LOOKING AT the WHOLE nor DEEPLY WITHIN EVERY single 'Thing'.

[Eodnhoj7]

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

If I see a forest and focus deeply what it is composed of I observe a tree. If I see a tree and focus deeply on it I see the leaves and branches so on an so forth. In focusing deeply I miss the surroundings through which these things occur. With the increase in complexity comes an inability to see other things as the more that is known the more questions that are raised.

Well, at least here you have merely a glass half empty philosophy. Sometimes it seems like you think the glass is completely empty while trying to fill ours.

Infinite emptiness and infinite fullness are the same thing. Emptiness is not a negative thing as there is no negatives in a void.

[Eodnhoj7]

Okay. If this is what you BELIEVE is true, the 'this' MUST BE TRUE, correct?


'It' MIGHT.



If you say so.

Is it REALLY that HARD and/or TO COMPLEX for you to just ANSWER the QUESTIONS posed and ASKED here?

The questions have been answered, is it really hard for you to comprehend them?

Here is ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES that by just responding with letters to A QUESTION is ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED.

ONCE AGAIN, 'responding' is NOT necessarily ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION. As you have PROVED True in other posts and above here.

And what do you mean by "proof"?

[Eodnhoj7]

The fact that the mystery deepens through empirical inquiry by the senses and understanding, does not negate their importance. Although much becomes known, there is yet wonder to feed a hungry mind. The above simply does not make sense.

If I see a forest and focus deeply what it is composed of I observe a tree. If I see a tree and focus deeply on it I see the leaves and branches so on an so forth. In focusing deeply I miss the surroundings through which these things occur. With the increase in complexity comes an inability to see other things as the more that is known the more questions that are raised.

WHY do you PRESUME that just LOOKING or FOCUSING 'deeply' INCREASES 'complexity', or that by doing so there is some so-called 'increase in complexity'?

If one can NOT see 'the forest for the trees, NOR see 'the trees for the forest', then that one is just NOT LOOKING Properly AND Correctly.

By the way, there IS absolutely NO so-called 'complexity' found when LOOKING AT the WHOLE nor DEEPLY WITHIN EVERY single 'Thing'.

In focusing on the forest and the trees one loses focus on the mountains.

[Age]

The questions have been answered, is it really hard for you to comprehend them?

Here is ANOTHER one who thinks or BELIEVES that by just responding with letters to A QUESTION is ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION posed, and ASKED.

ONCE AGAIN, 'responding' is NOT necessarily ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION. As you have PROVED True in other posts and above here.

And what do you mean by "proof"?

I SAID 'PROVED' above here. And, what I MEAN by 'PROVED' in the context that I wrote 'PROVED' above here is that 'you', "eodhnoj7", have SHOWN, without any doubt at all, to the 'readers' here that 'you' ARE 'responding' but NOT actually ANSWERING the ACTUAL QUESTION/S being posed and ASKED TO 'you'.