|Moderated by:||Page: 1 2||
|Connecting|| Rate Topic
|Posted: Tue Jun 18th, 2013 02:41 pm||
If you say so, that makes it true?
Perception is always secondary to existense if existense takes place.
If you say my words are equal to someone else, and since someone else refuted someone else, then by your reasoning my words are equal to what you call 'matter exists' axiom?
If I say that perception exists I am not parroting the words of someone else, in my own words, if you can't understand that, then you can't, and if I can't understand you, then I can't, and therefore communication does not exist.
When I type words such as perception exists I mean something specific, not something subject to interpretation by you or anyone else.
Perception is always secondary to existense if existense takes place.
To me the above words mean something that I do not understand, since there are in those words many possible meanings that go way beyond the mere understanding that perception exists. In those words are meanings that I perceive to be evidence of things other than perception existing, but as far as I know there is only perception with which to measure the existence of anything other than perception.
So I can ask for additional reports which I may, or may not, perceive, whereby anything other than perception does, in fact, exist, and how will I know of this existence of a report, if I do not perceive it?
I can ask. Can I know the answer without perceiving it?
Existense is the cause of perception, not the other way around.
There is English symbols arranged in such a way as to report a claim made by someone else, and I happen not to agree with that claim. It is a claim made by someone else, and I happen not to be capable, at the moment, of agreeing with that claim. That report depends upon my power to perceive it, but I am not claiming that my power of perception proves that that report exists - at all.
If I am not claiming that my power of perception proves that that report exists, then my power of perception is not going to prove that someone other than me wrote that report, as if there were a belief I had that works instead of perception for me to then use this belief to prove that the report exists, or that another person exists, when in my power of perception all I have is my power of perception to use in the effort to know anything, at this time, in this place.
Yet perception doesn't account for everything.
More words written and perceptible by me, and where can I know the existence of anything other than my perception if, in fact, there is anything other than my power to perceive?
I can ask, and ask, and ask, and some day I may actually find this belief that other people may, or may not, have, or whatever it is, that I do not have, whereby perception is not needed to know, to prove, that anything other than perception exists.
Things that I can account for, prove, with the most complete proof possible, never failing, so far, is that perception exists, and I use perception to prove perception exists. If something else exists, other than perception, call it belief, call it a new word invented by me, or someone else, and when I know this other thing, other than perception, call it belief, or call it Fried Chicken, or call it anything other than perception, or call it perception II, whatever, then I can know that thing too, that belief, or whatever.
Meanwhile all I have is perception as my own known fact, proven to be a fact every time I attempt to prove it, and every time I attempt to disprove it.
If you can prove that there is another way to prove something, to do so without perception, then a word can be used to label that method of proving that there is another way to prove something other that perception.
If not, then not, and how will I ever know if I am wrong, if not by use of perception?
I can trust that you will help me know, but so far I can not trust that you can help me know without my use of perception.
There is no duality perception/not-perception as there is with matter/space.
Now the reports I perceive are moving back toward the end of the scale of having nothing to do with my measures of perception. Those words report something that makes no sense to me, has nothing to do with me, as if those words are these words: akovo amocodeoe cojfoafmoe coooafofheochd.
I could spend weeks trying to make sense of those words, but I would have to be making things up along the way, or asking for answers to what appears to be a never ending series of questions.
I can try to ask one question and see what happens.
Who said anything about a perception/not-perception duality?
Perception and existense of perception will always be secondary to the existense of matter.
Here is where, again, my perception of what I can know is such that I can ask for the process by which someone can know something without perception, and once I can know that process too, then I can ask for an agreeable name for it, or a symbol, a symbol that just points to it, since it does not require perception, so pointing to it merely acknowledges that perception is not required for it to exist, it merely exists, this process by which proof of existence, of anything, does not require perception.
Always is a long time, so the word choice of always, to me, is unprovable to me, at this time.
Even if perception doesn't exist - it says nothing about matter.
I don't know if perception is it, and if perception can say anything, but what I do know is that I understand that perception exists, if perception says anything, how would I know?
If perception says anything about matter, how would I know?
If there is anything that could be called matter, how do I know that there is anything other than perception, such as matter?
If the report you offer to me, as fact, or written as if your report to me is fact, or perceived by me as if you are making an absolute claim of absolute fact, is fact, if it is fact, as you appear to claim, then what is the process by which I no longer need to trust you, or believe you, when you make such reports of facts to me?
Yet if matter doesn't exist - there can be no talk of perception.
Your reports of facts to me, are yours, your perceptions, not mine, so what may explain the differences? Is it that language is not a good tool to be used to convey accurate meaning?
There can be no talk of perception without perception of talk, as to what is, or is not, matter, to me, there can be no measure of matter, without perception of the measure of matter, unless there is a process by which measuring matter can be done without perception, and so that can be known by me, some day, but not now. Now, as far as I know, the process by which matter is measured involves the use of perception, but I can ask for another process, and some day I may find it, and it might be a process that is called belief, and perceived as belief, but having no need for words, or perceptions.
They are directly connected by perception existense being nothing more than a direct logical consequence of matter existense.
In those words there is a message, and to me the concept of logic, which is a perception of something, inspires a question, and the answer will be either accurate, or the answer will be inaccurate: what is this something called logic? To me, which is my perception, my measure, of the word logic, there is a process in view, and the process in view, called logic, is binary, or the employment of arrangements of 2 symbols into various arrangements that intend to record perceptions, or measures, of things.
Failing to know what the reporter means by the word "logical" could contribute to failure of the reader of the report, that being me, to perceive the intended message intact.
|Posted: Tue Jun 18th, 2013 05:34 pm||
|>>> If you say so, that makes it true?
I provided a metaphor and logic. Rest is up to you/your perception/whatever to follow or not. Many mommy-birds even chew food for their offsprings. But they do not swallow it for them, do they?
>>> If you say my words are equal to someone else, and since someone else refuted someone else, then by your reasoning my words are equal to what you call 'matter exists' axiom?
I provided a metaphor and logic. Rest is up to you/your perception/whatever to follow or not.
>>> When I type words such as perception exists I mean something specific, not something subject to interpretation by you or anyone else.
If it means something you are unable to convey or other person is unable to interpret - it is already questionable. I've explained in detail how I see your words about it and n even more detail about how it connects to my axiom. I haven't seen you addressing this connection even once. At least not the logic of it. And therefore I've yet to see how this 'perception exists' notion is different from how I speak about it in relation to my axiom.
>>> So I can ask for additional reports which I may, or may not, perceive, whereby anything other than perception does, in fact, exist, and how will I know of this existence of a report, if I do not perceive it?
I can ask. Can I know the answer without perceiving it?
Why asking whether you can ask if you're asking anyway? Thing is - perception itself doesn't exist without matter. If you managed to dig a trench around the consequence - that doesn't mean there is no connection to the actual cause of it. Just as in my example: in the first case logic is justified - consequence is seen as cause. Yet when you follow through on it - true cause is revealed (at least relatively). And there is that.
>>> Who said anything about a perception/not-perception duality?
I've said (as if you didn't see me doing it). Now obviously duality has to do with logic. Duality is an approach in which whole is described by distinguishing two aspects of the subject, which when intertwined describe the whole subject. Conception of perception lacks this duality - meaning there is no clear distinction between perception and everything else, more so having to do with the nature of everything else rather than perception on its own. I have to say - I really didn't expect that I would have to explain 'if - then' connections on this level quite so often.
>>> Always is a long time, so the word choice of always, to me, is unprovable to me, at this time.
We spoke a bit about the conception of time before I think. There I stated that time as people perceive it doesn't exist. Now maybe we didn't have this conversation but I'm pretty sure we did. Anyway, use of always is justified considering not only time, but the purpose of the statement itself. Perception and conception of perception are material let's say 'events'. They are included in overall understanding of matter. And being a consequence of that aspect of everything I see no logical for a flip here. But that is me. Maybe I know too much. Maybe I'm just fooling myself. As they say - 'time will tell'. I'd rather not to do death experiment just to be sure as quickly as possible.
>>> If perception says anything about matter, how would I know?
This is easy - simple misunderstanding on your part (or misconveying on mine). I meant: "If perception doesn't exist - then the fact that it doesn't exist says nothing about matter". Meaning that if perception doesn't exist - there is no logical indication what is the state of the matter at this point.
However, if matter doesn't exist - perception cannot exist.
Simple and easy cause-effect connection features.
>>> Failing to know what the reporter means by the word "logical" could contribute to failure of the reader of the report, that being me, to perceive the intended message intact.
The reporter feels awkward having to explain 'logical'. But oh, well... What is logic? Natural law of balancing describes the way matter and space interact. Regardless of where it all leads - everything happening at this level is logical. Universally logical if you prefer. That doesn't suggest that there aren't things that happen and are not logical. At the stage where matter is in some sort of disarray (after six-ray restructurization for instance) and there is no organism of being able to perceive - perception effectively doesn't exist. Everything is utterly logical at that point and at that level of interaction. At certain point logic starts being perceived and may suffer from conditions of those perceiving is. That of course is only bound by perception of these beings. When I say 'direct logical consequence' - I mean universal logic - logic of natural laws of the universe. Yet as always - whatever I say - I leave room for doubt. I could leave out the word logical. For this particular sentence it only served as adverb to increase noun 'consequence'. Must be a result of me being Russian. I expect too much out of you. Or think too much of myself.
|Posted: Tue Jun 18th, 2013 09:10 pm||
|Facts can be graded on a scale, in my opinion.
I grade the one I know to be a true fact highest on the scale because it is self-evident.
As to the concept of the baby bird gaining nourishment, that could be demonstrated as a fact, or it could fail to do so, in any case, to any measure, on any scale.
As far as I know, being the baby bird here, I keep chewing on vapor, if the nourishment is supposed to be a fact that is more obvious than the one I know to be true.
|Posted: Wed Jun 19th, 2013 10:39 am||
|Well, I've put enough effort I think, so I'm not going to put so much more to prove that you're simply wrong.
Maybe we'll get back to this once either you realize actual truth of the matter or I'll succeed in finding a dent in my axiom. Until then - I see no point - there is not enough common ground and I think that I've put more effort to reach consensus than you have. I may be wrong, as per ususal, but that does not seem to be the case in this regard.
|Current time is 10:37 pm||Page: 1 2|
|Power Independence > Fight Night > Math > Connecting||Top|