Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"dude died and flew away" frequent reference? you often say something about how the universe works.
It's a visual concept. You have to be there. The dude just disappeared into the sky. Then later another one just disappeared into the sun. You see this road here? at the end of this road, people just disappear into the sky...where have you hidden your eyes? Whatever you think it means, that's what it means to you. Not necessarily Arac means...
The universe is doing it? He flew right over my head. How odd? Uhgh!
Then I soaked it in...better leave it be...he went too deep for me.
It's a visual concept. You have to be there. The dude just disappeared into the sky. Then later another one just disappeared into the sun. You see this road here? at the end of this road, people just disappear into the sky...where have you hidden your eyes? Whatever you think it means, that's what it means to you. Not necessarily Arac means...
The universe is doing it? He flew right over my head. How odd? Uhgh!
Then I soaked it in...better leave it be...he went too deep for me.
Yeah, with you if possible.
yes!!!!!!!
I don't challenge many people here that don't know bbout (lmao as my son says) their beliefs, although not complete, they are at least reasonable and can be linked back to the standard model. And as long as the laws they are pushing for don't restrict people's right, past reasonable that is, i have little problem with them.
We have to be very watchful for anti-religious racism/socialism. Its as dangerous as any fascist theism. I will not restrict people rights to believe because I have a real problem with some believers. I address the people, not something that is not real. does that make sense?
claims that offer a mechanism, explanation, make predictions, and are repeatable are more valid than ones that don't.
its that simple.
My claim is that people are misrepresenting their connections to the system of life around them. People that do not understand that system misladel as "a god thing". those connections are real and the system of life around them is real. i can't cover up, shun, or not tell people that. There is just too much science behind it.
i feel that I am stuck in the between "my god only" and "I must deny everything because I hate religion".
What is my claim? I have not explored all of universe from the third rock/fish bowl.
actually I thought we were moving towards your claim and my claim. then you diverted off to open and closed system.
open and closed system is a third/fourth tier data set in discussing our beliefs at this point. And in fact, when we have to use open/closed to differentiate our claims we are at a point where I would claim...
"although slightly different, our claims are close enough to say both are 'sorta" valid." and move on.
Honestly, Mystic, this doesn't really compute to me. But, instead of me just writing this off as woo, maybe you can help me work through what you mean.
I'm a concrete thinker, examples help me, so lets try this one:
1) Automobiles have some number, usually 4, of tires as a component.
2) Tires are made primarily of rubber.
3) Therefore, Automobiles are made primarily of rubber.
So here is an example of the fallacy of composition. We both know that the conclusion is not true, at least if you examine the problem conventionally. That is, we take the view that an automobile is a distinct entity, a thing in its own right, composed of a number of component entities. These component entities have distinct properties and attributes, and as we have shown here, in a rough proof-by-contradiction, the argument that the whole inherits and shares all of the attributes of the component entities is false.
So, the next step, what perspective of oneness, what frame of mind, what approach, aside from changing the problem, do you use to make the above example true? Because I simply can't get from rubber tires to a rubber automobile logically, but I am willing to be shown how...
-NoCapo
The bold highlights your error. There are no separate things, period. Do you think of yourself as composed of separate distinct entities or are you just YOU? Do YOU pump blood, breathe air, eat, digest, evacuate, think, emote, etc., etc. or do separate distinct entities do all those things? Viewed as ONE living being (ONENESS), our reality is no different. Our REALITY is doing everything.
The bold highlights your error. There are no separate things, period. Do you think of yourself as composed of separate distinct entities or are you just YOU? Do YOU pump blood, breathe air, eat, digest, evacuate, think, emote, etc., etc. or do separate distinct entities do all those things? Viewed as ONE living being (ONENESS), our reality is no different. Our REALITY is doing everything.
Hold up a minute, you have barrelled on ahead without addressing the issue! I'm starting small and simple for a reason. I need to take this step by step to understand. Before we deal with the great unknowns of existence, let deal with automobiles.
To return to the point:
1) Automobiles have some number, usually 4, of tires as a component.
2) Tires are made primarily of rubber.
3) Therefore, Automobiles are made primarily of rubber.
Can you explain in the context of this example what perspective you would take that will make 3) true?
It seems that you are trying to argue that automobiles are atomic, they they are not reducible to a collection of subsystems, parts, materials, atoms, and ultimately subatomic particles, fields and lots of empty space. That seems, quite frankly, nonsensical on its face! Help me out here, Mystic...
Hold up a minute, you have barrelled on ahead without addressing the issue! I'm starting small and simple for a reason. I need to take this step by step to understand. Before we deal with the great unknowns of existence, let deal with automobiles.
To return to the point:
1) Automobiles have some number, usually 4, of tires as a component.
2) Tires are made primarily of rubber.
3) Therefore, Automobiles are made primarily of rubber.
Can you explain in the context of this example what perspective you would take that will make 3) true?
It seems that you are trying to argue that automobiles are atomic, they they are not reducible to a collection of subsystems, parts, materials, atoms, and ultimately subatomic particles, fields and lots of empty space. That seems, quite frankly, nonsensical on its face! Help me out here, Mystic...
-NoCapo
thats a wrong starting point NoCap. because the tires are rubber doesn't mean the car is rubber.
your whole premise is wrong.
The "parts" interact to form the whole. the carbon, hydrogen, ad other stuff, mixt in the right ratios, form the car.
thats a wrong starting point NoCap. because the tires are rubber doesn't mean the car is rubber.
your whole premise is wrong.
Is a car a car (a system that functions as it is designed to do) if it has no tires? I’d say no. So, the car isn’t “primarily “ rubber as Nocapo said, but rubber is an attribute of the car, isn’t it?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
