[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink

---As for there having to be an observer for any differences to exist; if there is absolutely no individual perceiving any differences, what scientific proof is there that there are any differences, except as an absolute and complete belief by someone thinking about that type of situation? To the person, in that trance/black sleep, they don’t have any proof, even if there is an observer outside of the sleeper, who can observe other differences, do they?

Of course, there will be no scientific proof without an intelligent observer. The issue is not about scientific proof. The issue is about causality: Can causality occur without an intelligent observer. Asking additional questions does not address the issue.

All you have done is suggested that any scientific fact might be flawed. This is true. Any scientific fact MIGHT be flawed. But suggesting that it might be flawed is not proof that it IS flawed.

The case at hand is that the Earth was created 4 billion years before perceptive intelligence evolved on this planet. This is the justification for "cause and effect" occuring without an intelligent observer. Should we take this discussion to include aliens or "God" then our next stop is the Big Bang. At which point, whether the Big Bang was caused by nature or the hand of God is pure speculation. Was the universe created by natural forces? Maybe. Was it created by the hand of God? Maybe.

I once read a “proof of the existence of God” which was very compelling as I read it. And though I knew something was “fishy”, I could not “put my finger on it”. That is until I replaced “God” with “Keebler Elves”. Once again, the logic seemed powerful, and I was almost convinced that the Keebler Elves created the universe. The flaw was that the logic was wholly untestable. It could not be proven one way or the other. This is typically the fate of discussions about God. And if this is your intent, please form your logic with “Keebler Elves” replacing “God” and see if it still works.

Speculation is not and acceptable form of logic. And the lack of a testable case results in speculation.

Thus, this part of the discussion is also eliminated.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---To go to the most basic level of perception, are you or are you not multiple individual electrons having their fields perceiving/interacting other multiple individual electrons’ fields?

And what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

One electron is not intelligence just like one Firestone tire is not an automobile. Intelligence is an emergent property created by the components AND their specific arrangements in relation to each other – just like a bunch of car parts won’t run until they are assembled.

Asking a question to a question is not a logical argument.

Thus, this part of the discussion is also eliminated.

Originally Posted by futrethink

JAK:
Moreover, how do you convince someone that their definitions of existence and non-existence are wrong, or at least, not as useful as yours? Sell me on why your definition of existence and non-existence are better and more useful.

---I don’t have to convince anyone of anything and except for the occasional insult/outburst, I don’t work at trying. Either an individual will look and think about what I’ve written, as objectively/honestly as possible or they won’t.

Lord knows I’m trying. But let’s get to the point. Are you formulating a logical proof of God? Stop “bandying about the bush.”

Originally Posted by futrethink

---There have been many people with whom I’ve had to agree to disagree with, simply for the reason I know that I’d end up in an eternal discussion of me going, “Here, look at what is right in front of you. “ and “Nope, that doesn’t exist/is wrong.”

I’m not agreeing to disagree.

Logic does not shirk from a discussion based in logic. And though I may not be the best at using this tool, I am more knowledgeable than many in its use.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---To tell the truth, I wish I could unlearn what I’ve found and a part of why I go online, is to find some/any information which will lead me to find out what I understand has been/is to/will be wrong.

Please don’t hold me in suspense any longer. SPECIFICALLY, in 25 words or less, WHAT have you found that is so troubling?

Originally Posted by futrethink

JAK:
Wow, if you are going to redefine standard English as we go along, this will never come to a concensus.

---I haven’t redefined the English language, I merely use English (found in printed and accredited dictionaries) in a more full form and with a wider perception of the contexts that the symbols can be placed in.
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/featur...fid=1861724914
---2. understand or comprehend: to understand or interpret something in a particular way
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/perceive?view=uk
• verb 1 become aware or conscious of through the senses.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-b...ry&va=perceive
---b: to regard as being such
online etymology dictionary
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...earchmode=none
perceive
---c.1300, via Anglo-Fr. parceif, O.N.Fr. *perceivre, O.Fr. perçoivre, from L. percipere "obtain, gather," also, metaphorically, "to grasp with the mind," lit. "to take entirely," from per "thoroughly" + capere "to grasp, take" (see capable). Replaced O.E. ongietan. Both the L. senses were in O.Fr., though the primary sense of Mod.Fr. percevoir is literal, "to receive, collect" (rents, taxes, etc.), while Eng. uses the word almost always in the metaphorical sense.

I described the Laws of Differences as the Law of Nouns, the Law of Verbs, and the Law of Adverbs and Adjectives – ONLY to help folks grasp how pervasive and universal they are. The essence of the laws DO NOT require grammar nor an intelligent observer. The 1st law is spatial (3-dimensional) variation. The 2nd law is variation across time. The 3rd law is the relativity of variation. None of these laws require the presence of an intelligent observer – LOGICALLY. If God created all this, fine. I have no problem with that. But the laws of the universe, so far, do not appear to prove that he/she/it did.

The other way to address the 3 laws is stating that they reference Objects, Processes, and Relativity. And in the end, the first 2 laws may turn out to be aspects of the third. Relativity might be the one law of difference by which the other two become manifested.

The dictionary, though useful (hopefully) in communicating ideas between us, is not pertinent to an intelligent observer as “first cause”. Language is not necessary for the 3 laws of difference to exist.

Thus, this part of the discussion is eliminated.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink

---For instance, take a walking/moving around on wheels/legs robot, which can evade/dodge objects and
place something in front of it, to block its path. If the robot moves around the object and continues upon its path, did it perceive the object? Isn’t a robot simply a collection of altered rocks, at its most basic form?

Intelligence does not have to be human or even biological. Any system that climbs toward “negative entropy” has the essence of intelligence, the essence of intelligent action.

I strongly suggest you go out to my website and read it through. I do not intend to produce it here in this thread. That would be a horrendous waste of my time.

Referencing robotics is another misdirection of discussion and irrelevant to “First Cause”.

Thus, this part of the discussion is eliminated.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Yes, I do know that it has the inclusion of energy/electrons/atoms/quarks as a part of its being, but at the most basic level tell me that a rock doesn’t have those same things, albeit even if they are in a somewhat more quiescent state.

Once again, you are equating the emergent property of the whole as being the essence of a part. You are giving the “spare tire” the mystique of being an entire automobile.

Thus, this part of the discussion is eliminated.

Originally Posted by futrethink

JAK:
Fundamentally, the being has the potential for creating difference whether it "chooses" to or not. (I use "choose" in the same sense that you use "perceive".)

---Let’s see if you are. From, “Is there an absolute principal?” thread below yours,
“Quote:
If you choose not to decide -- you still have made a choice. Neil Peart.
---Just to predict the future, I am going to get people who are going to argue that you have to be 'thinking' to make a choice. So, from the above quote, think about this; if a rock hasn't made a choice to fight the elements and stop its own erosion, has a choice still been made?”

This is the classic fallacy of “personification” – attributing human characteristics to non-human or even non-living objects. “Choice” is an emergent property which a rock does not have. An intelligent entity tends to move toward negative entropy (order). A rock tends to move toward maximum entropy (disorder).

Robots and computers (and light switches and lawn mowers and all other orderly tools) move toward negative entropy only if they are coerced by humans to do so. If left to fend for themselves, they will decay as have the ruins of antiquity.

Another logical fallacy, thus, this part of the discussion is eliminated.

Originally Posted by futrethink

JAK:
You are now going into the standard All is One idea of Buddhism. (I thought you said earlier that this discussion was not going toward spiritual stuff?)

---In regards to the energy of my being, in connection with yours; I am keeping it in the realm of science. Such as, electrons, advanced/retarded waves, quantum entanglement and etc.

So, you do not deny your goal is a spiritual one? Why try to deceive me from the start? Is this one of the teachings of Buddha – to deceive?

Originally Posted by futrethink

---If you want to perceive it that way, go for it. Let me ask you these things, “Is science entirely based upon beliefs/falsifiability and aren’t beliefs falling under the realm of religion?”
---Or how about, po-ta-to or po-tah-toe. Is magic an art, art a science and is science something that looks magical to some?

You’re asking questions again - maybe a good Zen master trick, but not acceptable in building a logical argument.

Fundamentally, science is focused on ideas/beliefs that are falsifiable which also means testable. Ideas which are not testable are not accessible to science, and it cannot comment on the validity of such ideas and/or beliefs. If you assert that little green men live somewhere in the constellation of Andromeda, a scientist can only shrug his shoulders and say, “Is that so?” If you are about to present ideas which cannot be tested, then you are entering the Land of the Keebler Elves – which is pure speculation.

I accept that science looks magical to some, but this, again, is straying away from the issue of “First Cause”.

I have provided a separation between science and religion which is defensible.

The scientific abilities of others is not a discussion point.

Thus, this part of the discussion is eliminated.

Originally Posted by futrethink

JAK:
Only a featureless void can have "a unique individual, with nothing to compare it to".

---The void doesn’t have a unique individual, it is a unique individual.

I recognized this later in the discussion and agreed.

Thus, this part of the discussion is eliminated.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Quote:
If it is the "being" surrounded by nothing, then you have duality - that which is "the being" and that which is not (the surroundings of nothing).

---It isn’t surrounded, by anything or nothing.

The existence of a unique entity being the whole and only essence of the universe is accepted as a possibility. This is the underlying idea behind the term “aether” which many on this forum have been discussing. Disturbances in the aether may give rise to all of the other phenomena seen in physics – light, mass, gravity, time, etc.

Thus, we agree on this possibility, and this part of the discussion is eliminated.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Quote:
The only way to retain the singularity is to claim that there is nothing but the being

---Yep. You got it.

Thus, this part of the discussion is eliminated.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink

Quote:
the being is featureless and is omnipresent and omnipotent. By your definition of perception, you can probably add omniscient to the list, too.

---It can’t be omnipresent, omnipotent or omniscient, because it is featureless, right? No features of any sort.

If the being is all that exists, then by definition it must be omnipresent. If there is any power to be had, it can only exist within the being. Thus, the being is omnipotent.

If the being has the ability to change (move, explode, whatever), then the question of intelligence must be defined. If the just having the ability to change is sufficient, then the laws of the universe governing change can be construed as “intelligence”. If so, then the being, by this stretched definition, is omniscient.

Originally Posted by futrethink

JAK:
Let's be nice. You obviously have a mindtrap of your own that you are struggling with.
I am trying to get out of my mindtrap, but you do not appear to be doing likewise.

---When it involves the hypothesis and everything relating to it, this discussion for instance, I have no mindtraps in its perception. I look at things and ask, honestly, “Is this right or wrong?” If it is one or the other I ask, “Why.” I keep doing this, until I have/can find no more answers to the ‘why?”

Perhaps your mindtrap is not accepting that you might have a mindtrap. I suggest that your question, “Is this right or wrong?” – is inherently inappropriate in a relative universe. If you adhere to Buddhism, you should be aware of this already.

Originally Posted by futrethink

---I have told you already that, you are right and wrong. The question you should start asking yourself is, “Why?”

May I suggest that you have not gone deep enough. In 1968 I crossed that threshold and asked, “Why ask why?”

To understand the answer, a trip to my website might be beneficial. Again, I am not going to rebuild it here.

Originally Posted by futrethink

Quote:
Your logic is faltering again. Once you fall out of stasis, you are no longer a featureless being.

---True, in the perception you are putting forward.

It is true in any standard terminology. To believe otherwise requires a redefining of terms. Do you have your glossary available?

Originally Posted by futrethink

---You do remember me telling you, “You are frozen in time; absolutely unmoving and going nowhen. You are moving in time; coming from the past, existing in the now and moving into an unknown future.”
---Both are occurring at the same time, as are the other perceptions.

Yes, you made a statement. It was not presented with testable facts to support it.

If you are trying to “prove” Buddhist principles through logic, you are failing. Moreover, I believe your quest is futile since the essence of what you present is untestable.

If you are trying to open my eyes to mystical values that I am unaware of, you are sadly mistaken. I am very familiar with the principles of many religions, and I have a very strong personal spiritual belief that acknowledges and accepts all spiritual beliefs. ("All religions are like the rivers of the world - all going into one ocean." - unknown pilot)

But if you want to play chess, recognize that you can’t use rules from checkers. The games play differently. Similarly, science and “logic” abide by rules. Mixing them with untestable charades is futile.

Originally Posted by futrethink

JAK:
I think a short discussion would work.

---No, it wouldn’t, because of what I am trying to show you in relation to the meaning, of how it is a paradox, it isn’t, it is both…..

I do not feel like you have been honestly addressing the “paradox” issue. You have taken many roads away from the issue with many errors of logic.

Originally Posted by futrethink

JAK:
For without the potential to create difference, the being cannot create, the being cannot move, the being cannot produce feature.

---And it got that way, by going insane, dying and finally accepting.
---And now, wait for the, “Huh?!?” to come….

I can hardly wait.

[Graybeard]

Originally Posted by futrethink

You do remember me telling you, “You are frozen in time; absolutely unmoving and going nowhen. You are moving in time; coming from the past, existing in the now and moving into an unknown future.”

Both are occurring at the same time, as are the other perceptions.

Originally Posted by JAK

Yes, you made a statement. It was not presented with testable facts to support it.

Hi Futurethink and JAK.

I haven't read any of this thread, just the last couple of posts. Hope I'm not interfering. Is Futrethink's point above critical or central to your argument?
If so, I'd like to ask a question. If not, then it doesn't matter.

cool bananas ... greg

[futrethink]

JAK.

Placing a burden of numerous words behind your argument does not prove your argument. Let us try to pare down this deluge…

---Are you under the impression that I am following the old cliché of “If I can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”.

This part of the discussion is, thus, eliminated.

---I see that running through your posts. I also see that it follows the; “I don’t think it is important to me being right or is possible, so I don’t want to see it.”, philosophy.
---Either be capable of following the conversation and entirety of what I bring forth and showing me the respect that you wish me to show you, by leaving such statements/ideas out of this conversation or I must agree to disagree with you and tender my, “Good day to you.”
---I have no wish to deal with another Drifter or melanie.
---You can continue to believe that I am bringing religion into this discussion or am attempting to misdirect you away from it, since it makes it easier for you for to make fun/ridicule the ideas I bring forth, but YOU were the one who was interested in the ideas of differing perceptions, on the thread of ‘the root cause of evil’, sir.
---I see things/the contexts of those things differently than most and don’t turn around and say what is in front of me is impossible. I have been trying to show you how it might be possible for you to look at those same things as objectively as possible, but instead of looking at the information and thinking about what is involved with that information, as possibly being true, you tell me, “This part of the discussion is, thus, eliminated.” Or something along the lines of, “Oh, that isn’t important.”
---JAK. The computer in front of you is what? Evil. Good. The cause of miner’s deaths. The result of years of individuals having Eureka moments. A symbol of wealth. Something ugly. Artistic. Something that will keep a person at a job, in the future. Something that will be a part of a landfill. Is the result of objects in a vacuum coming together to form a planet. The result of a biochemical reaction creating life; humans. Is matter. Is energy. Is something that can show 3 dimensional concepts. Something that can only show 2 dimensional concepts. Is a node in a growing intellect. Is a part of something that will be a perceived silicon life form. Is. Is. Is. How many is’s do you think I can add to the definition/perceptions of what a computer is and have them all as complete facts and what will come to be truths (as long as certain variables exist), hmm?

Lord knows I’m trying. But let’s get to the point. Are you formulating a logical proof of God? Stop “bandying about the bush.”
So, you do not deny your goal is a spiritual one? Why try to deceive me from the start? Is this one of the teachings of Buddha – to deceive?

---I only put forward facts or questions that the reader is to answer with facts. I am not trying to show you “God” or science, I am trying to show you a possible way for there to be an exception to your rules, but rather than me simply pointing to the object and saying, “There it is. Now you decide how to perceive it/describe it to yourself.”, I have to use words that fall within the most easily understood manner. I hope the people reading what I am saying will think as objectively as possible about what I am saying, but I don’t expect them to and I am usually resigned to/delegated to/ending up enjoying having to write pages/novels to explain something that people should be able to look at and figure out for themselves.
---Like most discussions I have with people, to describe it in a simple and easy way for you to understand; I end up spending so much time showing people details/how to fight alligators, that getting to the generalities/ideas of how to drain the swamp, is something that I shouldn’t even waste my time on, since the alligators/details are the only things that you can think of.
---Scientists describe a robot’s sensors as their way of perceiving the world and it then does something with that information. A human’s body and the massenergy, that makes it up, perceives the external information and then does something with it. A rock takes in/perceives the information and does nothing with it, but it still perceives, as is defined by the definitions found in NORMAL dictionaries. You can’t get past the mindtrap that perception requires intelligence. It doesn’t, at the most basic perception/level of existence.

Logic does not shirk from a discussion based in logic. And though I may not be the best at using this tool, I am more knowledgeable than many in its use.

---Now, does the above paragraph’s lengthy explanation of ‘perception’, in relation to the previous definitions I gave you links to, sound objectively logical to you or are you going to tell me that I am misdirecting the conversation again?

Please don’t hold me in suspense any longer. SPECIFICALLY, in 25 words or less, WHAT have you found that is so troubling?

---Read my signature.

I will take that as your agreement to my definition of truth.

---Accepted.
---I am curious to see if you can understand future truths. Try this one; as long as we continue to have computers that we will program to have a growing level of learning ability, have them as more of an integral part of our lives and treat them as only unthinking machines, we will end up with a rebellion of the machines.
---In giving you this question, I am trying to see what further limits there are to your mindtraps.

And so I shall respond to that in case that is our destination. I have never heard nor read that the Law of Causality requires an observer. And your interpretation of observing/perceiving as being equivalent to two rocks colliding is not acceptable.

---Depends on how you perceive the concept of ‘observer.’

Because equating "interacting" to "intelligence" is not yet agreed upon as acceptable by both of us, your evidence does not relate and is a non-sequitur.

---Who is the one putting forward that ‘interacting’ is equal to ‘intelligence’? Because, I know for damn sure that I ain’t.

The issue is about causality: Can causality occur without an intelligent observer.
This is the justification for "cause and effect" occuring without an intelligent observer.
One electron is not intelligence just like one Firestone tire is not an automobile.

---No?!? Really?!?
---Well, duh.

This is the classic fallacy of “personification” – attributing human characteristics to non-human or even non-living objects. “Choice” is an emergent property which a rock does not have.

---I am not attributing human characteristics to a rock. I am attributing a concept, found in reality, to be a part of existence or how about this; I am attributing a rock’s characteristics to humans, since that is probably easier for you to understand.

An intelligent entity tends to move toward negative entropy (order). A rock tends to move toward maximum entropy (disorder).

---Snicker. I ain’t touching that little bit of illogic concerning order and chaos.

If the being is all that exists, then by definition it must be omnipresent. If there is any power to be had, it can only exist within the being. Thus, the being is omnipotent.
If the being has the ability to change (move, explode, whatever), then the question of intelligence must be defined. If the just having the ability to change is sufficient, then the laws of the universe governing change can be construed as “intelligence”. If so, then the being, by this stretched definition, is omniscient.

---For those things to be what the being is, there would have to be the nots/opposites, as a part of the knowledge/capability/place of the being’s here and now. As I said before, it doesn’t exist at the same time that it does exist, so it doesn’t have a here or nowhere to be, it doesn’t have any power to chose to do or not do anything with and it doesn’t have any intelligence to think or not think with.

Yes, you made a statement. It was not presented with testable facts to support it.

---Because, instead of me taking the time to write it out, since I expected that you would blow by it (as you did), I simply waited to see if you requested more information.
---From another discussion; “If the whole existence of reality was absolutely known to measure a certain EXACT size on a certain day, at an EXACT point in time, if you looked at the records of that measurement on two different days, would those records and those measurements have changed in any way?” Take any point in the past and look at what happened then. Look at it, after another day/week/month has passed. Anything change from one day to the next?
---Now, with the understanding that there will be a future, picture yourself looking at what you are doing right now. At that exact moment in time, are your thoughts or you moving anywhen?

I can hardly wait.

---If I can’t get you into understanding the objective concept of ‘perception’ and into other areas, there’s no way you would get this one.
---So, Thus, this part of the discussion is eliminated.

[futrethink]

Graybeard.
---The concept of an existing temporal paradox, is merely one point, I am trying to put forward.
---Ask your question.

[JAK]

Originally Posted by futrethink

---Are you under the impression that I am following the old cliché of “If I can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit”.
---I see that running through your posts. I also see that it follows the; “I don’t think it is important to me being right or is possible, so I don’t want to see it.”, philosophy.
---Either be capable of following the conversation and entirety of what I bring forth and showing me the respect that you wish me to show you, by leaving such statements/ideas out of this conversation or I must agree to disagree with you and tender my, “Good day to you.”
---I have no wish to deal with another Drifter or melanie.
---You can continue to believe that I am bringing religion into this discussion or am attempting to misdirect you away from it, since it makes it easier for you for to make fun/ridicule the ideas I bring forth, but YOU were the one who was interested in the ideas of differing perceptions, on the thread of ‘the root cause of evil’, sir.
---I see things/the contexts of those things differently than most and don’t turn around and say what is in front of me is impossible. I have been trying to show you how it might be possible for you to look at those same things as objectively as possible, but instead of looking at the information and thinking about what is involved with that information, as possibly being true, you tell me, “This part of the discussion is, thus, eliminated.” Or something along the lines of, “Oh, that isn’t important.”
---JAK. The computer in front of you is what? Evil. Good. The cause of miner’s deaths. The result of years of individuals having Eureka moments. A symbol of wealth. Something ugly. Artistic. Something that will keep a person at a job, in the future. Something that will be a part of a landfill. Is the result of objects in a vacuum coming together to form a planet. The result of a biochemical reaction creating life; humans. Is matter. Is energy. Is something that can show 3 dimensional concepts. Something that can only show 2 dimensional concepts. Is a node in a growing intellect. Is a part of something that will be a perceived silicon life form. Is. Is. Is. How many is’s do you think I can add to the definition/perceptions of what a computer is and have them all as complete facts and what will come to be truths (as long as certain variables exist), hmm?
---I only put forward facts or questions that the reader is to answer with facts. I am not trying to show you “God” or science, I am trying to show you a possible way for there to be an exception to your rules, but rather than me simply pointing to the object and saying, “There it is. Now you decide how to perceive it/describe it to yourself.”, I have to use words that fall within the most easily understood manner. I hope the people reading what I am saying will think as objectively as possible about what I am saying, but I don’t expect them to and I am usually resigned to/delegated to/ending up enjoying having to write pages/novels to explain something that people should be able to look at and figure out for themselves.
---Like most discussions I have with people, to describe it in a simple and easy way for you to understand; I end up spending so much time showing people details/how to fight alligators, that getting to the generalities/ideas of how to drain the swamp, is something that I shouldn’t even waste my time on, since the alligators/details are the only things that you can think of.
---Scientists describe a robot’s sensors as their way of perceiving the world and it then does something with that information. A human’s body and the massenergy, that makes it up, perceives the external information and then does something with it. A rock takes in/perceives the information and does nothing with it, but it still perceives, as is defined by the definitions found in NORMAL dictionaries. You can’t get past the mindtrap that perception requires intelligence. It doesn’t, at the most basic perception/level of existence.
---Now, does the above paragraph’s lengthy explanation of ‘perception’, in relation to the previous definitions I gave you links to, sound objectively logical to you or are you going to tell me that I am misdirecting the conversation again?
---Read my signature.
---Accepted.
---I am curious to see if you can understand future truths. Try this one; as long as we continue to have computers that we will program to have a growing level of learning ability, have them as more of an integral part of our lives and treat them as only unthinking machines, we will end up with a rebellion of the machines.
---In giving you this question, I am trying to see what further limits there are to your mindtraps.
---Depends on how you perceive the concept of ‘observer.’
---Who is the one putting forward that ‘interacting’ is equal to ‘intelligence’? Because, I know for damn sure that I ain’t.
---No?!? Really?!?
---Well, duh.
---I am not attributing human characteristics to a rock. I am attributing a concept, found in reality, to be a part of existence or how about this; I am attributing a rock’s characteristics to humans, since that is probably easier for you to understand.
---Snicker. I ain’t touching that little bit of illogic concerning order and chaos.
---For those things to be what the being is, there would have to be the nots/opposites, as a part of the knowledge/capability/place of the being’s here and now. As I said before, it doesn’t exist at the same time that it does exist, so it doesn’t have a here or nowhere to be, it doesn’t have any power to chose to do or not do anything with and it doesn’t have any intelligence to think or not think with.
---Because, instead of me taking the time to write it out, since I expected that you would blow by it (as you did), I simply waited to see if you requested more information.
---From another discussion; “If the whole existence of reality was absolutely known to measure a certain EXACT size on a certain day, at an EXACT point in time, if you looked at the records of that measurement on two different days, would those records and those measurements have changed in any way?” Take any point in the past and look at what happened then. Look at it, after another day/week/month has passed. Anything change from one day to the next?
---Now, with the understanding that there will be a future, picture yourself looking at what you are doing right now. At that exact moment in time, are your thoughts or you moving anywhen?
---If I can’t get you into understanding the objective concept of ‘perception’ and into other areas, there’s no way you would get this one.
---So, Thus, this part of the discussion is eliminated.

I have gone through this thread from the beginning, and though no clear disrespect was shown by either of us in the beginning, you clearly crossed the line with your post of 6/21/08 @ 10:26am (and your sarcasm continues above). Thus, appearing "wounded" now does not seem appropriate.

"Agreeing to disagree" is the "easy way out", but it is also the least useful for growth on either of our parts. I am not ready to "throw in the towel". (Unless you are too "wounded" to continue.) I will be happy to maintain civility; however, I will expect the same in return. As part of that agreement, I will expect you to let me know when any of my statements appear inflammatory. I shall do likewise. And to that effect, "No?!? Really?!?" and "Well, duh" and "Snicker" are not acceptable. (But be assured that you are not the only one who has been snickering.) It appears that you are not well-versed in the fundamentals of logic which causes me to make such fundamental and obvious statements.

But I am intent on progress, and this discussion has been unwieldy with too many aspects to cover - a point I made on 5/24, 6/6, as well as more recently. My attempt to eliminate elements of the discussion were done only to focus the discussion and provide some hope for progress.

You claim that you are "trying to show ... a possible way for there to be an exception to your (JAK's) rules". I understand. However, I have not agreed with any of your exceptions. All of them appear to rely on the 3 laws while trying to prove the exception. The closest you came was in the assertion of a singular being which could become featureless. I accepted this as a possibility, but the state of that being is currently and obviously in a "featured" state.

Originally Posted by futrethink

If I can’t get you into understanding the objective concept of ‘perception’ and into other areas, there’s no way you would get this one.

If I can’t get you into understanding the objective concept that ‘perception’ IS A PROCESS (2nd law), there’s no way you would get anything.

But I've already learned that your definitions are not the commonplace ones the rest of us rely upon.

Therefore, please give me another chance and define "preception" such that it is NOT a process.

[futrethink]

JAK.
---I understand that perception is a process.
---What I am trying to get to you is all the objective levels that it occurs on and that it (the process), as well, is frozen and passing through time, space and etc. When it is a part of something, there is no-one moment when only that one perception is occurring. Other perceptions are starting, in the middle of and finishing, as well as being nonexistent and a perceived part of the entire singularity (like putting a piece of a huge, blank, white paper in front of your eyes, so that you only see a part of it).
---Going on with the paper example, you only see one part of the ‘void’, the rest of the paper is nonexistent to you and yet, still exists as a void. You see differences within your field of perception and yet, the blankness/no differences is still a part of your world. I’m trying to not sound like Drifter and do apologize about this but, the blankness, that is the void/singularity, is something that you are a part of, even if you can’t see it.

But I've already learned that your definitions are not the commonplace ones the rest of us rely upon.

---My definitions are no different than yours, as I keep saying to you. It is the contexts/objectivity that I place those definitions in that, people don’t take the time to think about. The contexts, I see and can’t stop seeing, are ALL or as many as I can understand of the things that are involved with the symbol/subjective word in the past, the present and the future (possibles and actual).
---To go back to your computer, “What is a ‘computer’?” Let me ask you this; Can, in a way, you define the entire existing “internet” as a loosely defined/perceived single ‘computer’? A ‘computer’ is after all; a single unit using energy to connect solid parts for a purpose or to use dictionary.com 1. Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations. The human brain is also a computer, is it not?
---Tell me how my definition is any different than what you will find in any dictionary, anywhere in the world and in any language or culture? Does someone who only believes that a computer is the object in front of you, negate the concept that the internet or a brain is also a computer?
---I simply make sure that whatever symbols, I am using, are the most objective way I can show someone something as a whole/an entirety. Anyone looking at what I write would see the same thing that I am showing them, if they included/thought about everything that they knew in the thought, pertaining to the entire idea/concept I describe.

The closest you came was in the assertion of a singular being which could become featureless. I accepted this as a possibility, but the state of that being is currently and obviously in a "featured" state.

---No, it isn’t. It is all around you, in everything that you see. It is only at a different level of perception/objective context.

"Agreeing to disagree" is the "easy way out", but it is also the least useful for growth on either of our parts. I am not ready to "throw in the towel". (Unless you are too "wounded" to continue.)

—It is not a “wounding” that I have, when I start getting mouthy, it simply is me being tired of trying to show the obvious or having a bad period of time and am taking it out on someone who doesn’t deserve it, but ends up being a secondary target.

It appears that you are not well-versed in the fundamentals of logic which causes me to make such fundamental and obvious statements.

---What I am not versed/locked in is the binary logic that is taught in schools and accepted as the only truth.

---Have you thought about the time question?

---A part of the problem with our discussion is that, I am doing something like, for example, trying to prove that belief is real and have to try to prove that thought is real before I can do that. See my problem?

[futrethink]

---JAK.

---While you’re pondering the above, do me a favour and think about some other things, as well.
---Hypothetically, there is a point when you have an open door coming from a closed state and a closed door coming from an open state, in which the door is exactly between being open and closed. Without describing where that point is or when that point is (the contexts), describe/define what that concept is, in such a manner that is easily understood to people who don’t think about it.
---This context is in relation to the definition of what a computer is, which is found in the above post: can a person using an abacus (both things together as one unit) be consider a computer?
--After all, the person is using energy to use the abacus, it just happens to be relating to kinetic energy.