Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

To Know Is to Divide

s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/30/2017 12:45:31 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
Detachment is no more an effort of consciousness than attachment is. Being attached to things is not an act of volition; we do not seek to control other things and situations because they present themselves in our lives; we seek to control them because we can't do otherwise. In other words, one man may be perfectly content with a circumstance which may drive another man mad; one man may find peace with a person who may irritate or annoy others. Being at peace with circumstances and other people is not a decision we make; either we are compatible or we're not.

The mistake I think we make is conflating psychological attachment with emotional attachment. Even though I believe emotional attachment may be beneficial (For instance, falling in love may not be merely a pleasurable experience but, also, a beneficial one.), I do not believe psychological attachment is healthy. For me, attachment, in this sense, is mental entanglement.

The distinction is drawn between the capacity for empathy, the ability to share in the affective states of others, which is essential to collectivization, and a conflation of one's mental constitution with that of another's. Though the heart is the mechanism which brings us together as a collective, the mind is the very thing which separates us; to know is to divide; it is to judge; it is the quantitative process which creates a plurality of the world. However, to feel is to connect one sentient being to another.

As the individual attributes to himself objective value, he consequently creates a set of values which are related to each other by comparison, a set which is comprised of greater and lesser values in relation to the self. This evaluation of the self is the ego; the more he esteems himself, the greater is his ego.

The problem with being egocentric is it inhibits a man's capacity to feel; instead of being sensitive to the circumstances of others, he judges everyone and everything in relation to himself; the value of things even though relative to the self are values which are objectified by the individual's ego. It is the failure to be sensitive to the circumstances of others which blinds the individual to the external world, and it is his own bias which creates divisiveness and contention.
ebuc
Posts: 2,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/31/2017 1:38:10 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Divide and conquer vs unify and conquer.

Divide and conquer --- bifurcation? ---

Unify and conquer ---- cohere? -----

Teh biological cell divides to become agreater unified whole.

Universe subdivides itself into two primary parts --- fermions and bosons --- and then many subdivisional parts of those two primary sets.,

Entropy divides

Syntropy cohere's

Only in deep sleep and death does the I -verse become quasi and perhaps completely detached/unattached from the occupied space Universe.

Conscious judgement may be be andact of quantification ergo subdividing the greater whole into two parts,

...1} the discrete individualised quanta --- me ball --- as being separate from,

...2} the environmental, greater whole.

Gravity ( ) unifys all { finite } into coherent whole { integral finite }.

To know --- >to understand< --- may subdivide, in order to conquer -- (>to comprehend <) -- a greater whole.

>< = focused subdivision as quanta --divergent entropy ---

( >< )( >< ) = unification as of the whole --- convergent syntropy ---
Space( 31 ){ Gravity and Dark Energy } Time ^ 66 v{ frequency ^v^v }
Mind{ 12 }, Biological { 8 }, Spin { < 6 > }, IS { 2 }
s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2018 4:13:55 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 12/31/2017 1:38:10 PM, ebuc wrote:
Divide and conquer vs unify and conquer.

I agree, but I do not believe we are able to divide or unify each other; either we identify with each other or we don't. Therefore, I do not believe we are conquering anyone. Of course, we may by compulsion divide or unify each other physically; but, we cannot by physical force divide or unify each other's hearts.


Divide and conquer --- bifurcation? ---

Unify and conquer ---- cohere? -----


Teh biological cell divides to become agreater unified whole.

Universe subdivides itself into two primary parts --- fermions and bosons --- and then many subdivisional parts of those two primary sets.,

Entropy divides

Syntropy cohere's

Only in deep sleep and death does the I -verse become quasi and perhaps completely detached/unattached from the occupied space Universe.

Conscious judgement may be be andact of quantification ergo subdividing the greater whole into two parts,

The first question I have is: Why does consciousness quantify? If consciousness perceived itself as being one with the world, why is it the observer and the world its observation? If a single value existed alone, could it perceive itself as two?

I think the contradiction is we are one yet we are many. I think the contradiction is we are the observer yet we are the observation.


...1} the discrete individualised quanta --- me ball --- as being separate from,

...2} the environmental, greater whole.

Gravity ( ) unifys all { finite } into coherent whole { integral finite }.

To know --- >to understand< --- may subdivide, in order to conquer -- (>to comprehend <) -- a greater whole.

I do not believe knowledge necessitates understanding or comprehension. I believe we can know something without understanding it or without comprehending it. For me, understanding or comprehending something means to internalize it, to relate to it, to identify with it. To know something without understanding it or without comprehending it means to externalize it, to see it as something foreign to one's self.


>< = focused subdivision as quanta --divergent entropy ---

( >< )( >< ) = unification as of the whole --- convergent syntropy ---
ebuc
Posts: 2,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/1/2018 4:40:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/1/2018 4:13:55 AM, s-anthony wrote:
I agree, but I do not believe we are able to divide or unify each other;either we identify with each other or we don't. :

Well google it and you get political propganda used to divide the people{s}.

Divide and conquer more commonly was military strategy. Humans idnetify with each other because their humans, but in war genosiced etc. humans will shut off their empathy centers in the brain, and then then do not feel humanity humaness and allow themselve to commit barborus acts.

Therefore, I do not believe we are conquering anyone. Of course, we may by compulsion divide or unify each other physically; but, we cannot by physical force divide or unify each other's hearts.:

If heart is connected to empahty centerss of brain, then yes that part can be shut off. I saw the documentary on that and they used the croatian-Bosnian wars in 90's as example of people shutting of their empathy centers.

The first question I have is: Why does consciousness quantify? If consciousness perceived itself as being one with the world, why is it the observer and the world its observation? If a single value existed alone, could it perceive itself as two? :

I'm not say that it does, on that it may do so at graviational or EMRadiation{ photonic } scales of existence. There is no evidence of either other than small electric field humans emit and it only extends a short distance from body as infra-heat and maybe some other frequencies.

I think the contradiction is we are one yet we are many. I think the contradiction is we are the observer yet we are the observation.:

I -verse is the ego -verse and allows us to metaphysically step outside of ourselves and any concept a finite Universe, and look back in upon ourselves or Universe as if are a God, looking back in on its creation.

I dont believe there can be two occupied versions of ourself as observer and also the observed, only via concept can we have both associated as the one person.

background O_____line of relationship______O background

O = observer_________________________________O = observed

I do not believe knowledge necessitates understanding or comprehension.:

Fuller would have has believe comprehension does not occur untill we have no less the 6 lines-of-realtionship i.e. those 6 lines-of-relationship defined the minimal volumetric 3D polyhedron.

If quanta have shape ergo spatial and if we can equate a volumetric space with a quanta, then the minimal 3D space or quanta can be no less than those 6 lines-of-relationship.

I believe we can know something without understanding it or without comprehending it.:

Agreed knowing is just input. Ex A linear input of information to our eye

Understanding is likened to a 2D area ergo non less then three lines of relationship.

Comprehension the 3D volumetric polyhedron as quanta, at minimum.

For me, understanding or comprehending something means to internalize it, to relate to it, to identify with it. To know something without understanding it or without comprehending it means to externalize it, to see it as something foreign to one's self.:

The more inter-relationships we can connect the more comprehensive set we build.
Space( 31 ){ Gravity and Dark Energy } Time ^ 66 v{ frequency ^v^v }
Mind{ 12 }, Biological { 8 }, Spin { < 6 > }, IS { 2 }
s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2018 4:33:19 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/1/2018 4:40:39 PM, ebuc wrote:
At 1/1/2018 4:13:55 AM, s-anthony wrote:
I agree, but I do not believe we are able to divide or unify each other;either we identify with each other or we don't. :

Well google it and you get political propganda used to divide the people{s}.

Of course, political propaganda meant to divide people is as old as mankind, itself. My point is not we do not have the perception of being able to manipulate others; my point is we are not able to control anyone, but ourselves. I believe the mistaken notion is by getting people to conform we have somehow convinced them of our rightness. I do not believe we can convince anybody of anything; either people are able to internalize those things which we are espousing or they're not. We cannot force anybody to identify with anything.


Divide and conquer more commonly was military strategy. Humans idnetify with each other because their humans...,

I believe all humans identify with each other to some degree, but I do not believe we necessarily identify with each other. For me, identity is not a matter of reality, but a matter of perception; if a person imagines he is different in ways in which he is the same, all that matters are those things which he perceives to be the truth.

...but in war genosiced etc. humans will shut off their empathy centers in the brain, and then then do not feel humanity humaness and allow themselve to commit barborus acts.

People may suppress their sense of empathy and even hate their enemies for forcing them to do so. However, I do not believe their sense of empathy is shut off; I believe it's alive and very active. I believe repressed empathy manifests as hate. If we did not feel anything for the people we hate, we would not hate them; we would be apathetic toward them. We hate people because we are forced to suppress our feelings for them because we do not trust them; we fear them.


Therefore, I do not believe we are conquering anyone. Of course, we may by compulsion divide or unify each other physically; but, we cannot by physical force divide or unify each other's hearts.:

If heart is connected to empahty centerss of brain, then yes that part can be shut off. I saw the documentary on that and they used the croatian-Bosnian wars in 90's as example of people shutting of their empathy centers.

The first question I have is: Why does consciousness quantify? If consciousness perceived itself as being one with the world, why is it the observer and the world its observation? If a single value existed alone, could it perceive itself as two? :

I'm not say that it does, on that it may do so at graviational or EMRadiation{ photonic } scales of existence. There is no evidence of either other than small electric field humans emit and it only extends a short distance from body as infra-heat and maybe some other frequencies.

I think the contradiction is we are one yet we are many. I think the contradiction is we are the observer yet we are the observation.:

I -verse is the ego -verse and allows us to metaphysically step outside of ourselves and any concept a finite Universe, and look back in upon ourselves or Universe as if are a God, looking back in on its creation.

I do not believe it's the ego which allows transcendence; I believe the ego defines us; I believe it limits us and creates our perception of being finite. I believe the soul transcends the individual; I believe the soul is undefined; I believe it's unrestricted in space and time.


I dont believe there can be two occupied versions of ourself as observer and also the observed, only via concept can we have both associated as the one person.

I believe it's the ego which is being observed. If something is perceived as finite, something else must transcend its limits in order to perceive it.


background O_____line of relationship______O background

O = observer_________________________________O = observed

I do not believe knowledge necessitates understanding or comprehension.:

Fuller would have has believe comprehension does not occur untill we have no less the 6 lines-of-realtionship i.e. those 6 lines-of-relationship defined the minimal volumetric 3D polyhedron.

If quanta have shape ergo spatial and if we can equate a volumetric space with a quanta, then the minimal 3D space or quanta can be no less than those 6 lines-of-relationship.

I believe we can know something without understanding it or without comprehending it.:

Agreed knowing is just input. Ex A linear input of information to our eye

Understanding is likened to a 2D area ergo non less then three lines of relationship.

Comprehension the 3D volumetric polyhedron as quanta, at minimum.

For me, understanding or comprehending something means to internalize it, to relate to it, to identify with it. To know something without understanding it or without comprehending it means to externalize it, to see it as something foreign to one's self.:

The more inter-relationships we can connect the more comprehensive set we build.
ebuc
Posts: 2,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/2/2018 4:18:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/2/2018 4:33:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:

my point is we are not able to control anyone, but ourselves.:

People have allowed themselves to be controled. That is what government is a controling/regulating that a humans create. The outlaws finally got pot legal in CA yesterday, ergo teh control is obviously wrong sometimes and the outlaw rebels will find ways around being control in specific ways.

I believe the mistaken notion is by getting people to conform we have somehow convinced them of our rightness. I do not believe we can convince anybody of anything; either people are able to internalize those things which we are espousing or they're not. We cannot force anybody to identify with anything.:

Yes people can be convinced of this or that is right, true, correct, the best option, etc.

I believe all humans identify with each other to some degree, but I do not believe we necessarily identify with each other. For me, identity is not a matter of reality, but a matter of perception; if a person imagines he is different in ways in which he is the same, all that matters are those things which he perceives to be the truth.:

Many people believe pot is legal in CA now. YAY!!!!

People may suppress their sense of empathy and even hate their enemies for forcing them to do so. However, I do not believe their sense of empathy is shut off; I believe it's alive and very active. I believe repressed empathy manifests as hate. If we did not feel anything for the people we hate, we would not hate them; we would be apathetic toward them. We hate people because we are forced to suppress our feelings for them because we do not trust them; we fear them.:

You would have to have seen the documentary, that used Bosnian-Croatian war as their main example of humans who lived next to each other for years, where sudden finding themselves put in a position to have empathy for the neighbors or not.

That part of the brain the allows us to feel what others feel ex yawning, pain, contact high what the others is feeling.

I do not believe it's the ego which allows transcendence; I believe the ego defines us; I believe it limits us and creates our perception of being finite. I believe the soul transcends the individual; I believe the soul is undefined; I believe it's unrestricted in space and time.:

Ego /I verse is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Other animals have much less access to ego/ I -verse metaphyscial-1 mind/intellect/concepts.

I believe it's the ego which is being observed. If something is perceived as finite, something else must transcend its limits in order to perceive it. :

Yes of course we observe/recognize and indentify and identify with ego / I -verse because all of us experience those aspects of self vs other awareness that is beyond other animals sense of self.

Yes we can transcend our ego and we can transcend our given birth names by changing our names ergo we have new identity. Then we can make all kinds of drastic changes so no one can identify us as if were in police reloaction program.

Remmeber the news this pass year or so, of white woman who kept claiming and indentifying as being black?

The more inter-relationships we can connect the more comprehensive integral set we build. AI looks to build more inter-relationships so it can be more complex like a human is more complex.
Space( 31 ){ Gravity and Dark Energy } Time ^ 66 v{ frequency ^v^v }
Mind{ 12 }, Biological { 8 }, Spin { < 6 > }, IS { 2 }
s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 5:05:16 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/2/2018 4:18:54 PM, ebuc wrote:
At 1/2/2018 4:33:19 AM, s-anthony wrote:

my point is we are not able to control anyone, but ourselves.:

People have allowed themselves to be controled. That is what government is a controling/regulating that a humans create. The outlaws finally got pot legal in CA yesterday, ergo teh control is obviously wrong sometimes and the outlaw rebels will find ways around being control in specific ways.

I do not believe we allow ourselves to be controlled. I believe we conform to the wishes of our collectives for the sake of expediency.

If others control us, they are able to override our will; and, if they're able to override our will, we are not free moral agents and we are not responsible for our actions. If we are not responsible for our actions, the concepts of reward and punishment are ludicrous.


I believe the mistaken notion is by getting people to conform we have somehow convinced them of our rightness. I do not believe we can convince anybody of anything; either people are able to internalize those things which we are espousing or they're not. We cannot force anybody to identify with anything.:

Yes people can be convinced of this or that is right, true, correct, the best option, etc.

In saying we are not convinced by others, I am not saying we have no conviction; we may in fact be convinced of something someone else in saying, but I do not believe the convincing is an external force; I do not believe others are forcing us to resonate with them; either we do or we don't.

Again, if others have control over our minds, then, we are not responsible for our thoughts and beliefs; and, if we are not able to control our minds, we are not able to control ourselves; and, if we are not able to control ourselves, then, the idea of personal accountability and personal responsibility makes no sense. We would need to treat everyone including ourselves as children with no personal rights or responsibilities.

Would there be any who are free agents with control over their own minds?

If so, how would we determine who they are, being we are not in control of our own mental faculties?


I believe all humans identify with each other to some degree, but I do not believe we necessarily identify with each other. For me, identity is not a matter of reality, but a matter of perception; if a person imagines he is different in ways in which he is the same, all that matters are those things which he perceives to be the truth.:

Many people believe pot is legal in CA now. YAY!!!!

People may suppress their sense of empathy and even hate their enemies for forcing them to do so. However, I do not believe their sense of empathy is shut off; I believe it's alive and very active. I believe repressed empathy manifests as hate. If we did not feel anything for the people we hate, we would not hate them; we would be apathetic toward them. We hate people because we are forced to suppress our feelings for them because we do not trust them; we fear them.:

You would have to have seen the documentary, that used Bosnian-Croatian war as their main example of humans who lived next to each other for years, where sudden finding themselves put in a position to have empathy for the neighbors or not.

I believe the capacity to empathize was nothing new. I believe the mechanism was always active.

However, I believe it was repressed because of misinformation. I believe once the Bosnians and Croatians became familiar with each other and the misconceptions were dispelled they realized the other was not as base as each assumed.


That part of the brain the allows us to feel what others feel ex yawning, pain, contact high what the others is feeling.

I do not believe it's the ego which allows transcendence; I believe the ego defines us; I believe it limits us and creates our perception of being finite. I believe the soul transcends the individual; I believe the soul is undefined; I believe it's unrestricted in space and time.:

Ego /I verse is metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.

Other animals have much less access to ego/ I -verse metaphyscial-1 mind/intellect/concepts.

I believe it's the ego which is being observed. If something is perceived as finite, something else must transcend its limits in order to perceive it. :

Yes of course we observe/recognize and indentify and identify with ego / I -verse because all of us experience those aspects of self vs other awareness that is beyond other animals sense of self.

Yes we can transcend our ego and we can transcend our given birth names by changing our names ergo we have new identity. Then we can make all kinds of drastic changes so no one can identify us as if were in police reloaction program.

Remmeber the news this pass year or so, of white woman who kept claiming and indentifying as being black?

The more inter-relationships we can connect the more comprehensive integral set we build. AI looks to build more inter-relationships so it can be more complex like a human is more complex.
ebuc
Posts: 2,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/3/2018 5:22:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/3/2018 5:05:16 PM, s-anthony wrote:
I do not believe we allow ourselves to be controlled. I believe we conform to the wishes of our collectives for the sake of expediency.:

Conform be controlled or pay the fine, go to jail et

If others control us, they are able to override our will; and, if they're able to override our will, we are not free moral agents and we are not responsible for our actions. If we are not responsible for our actions, the concepts of reward and punishment are ludicrous.:

Torture will override any so called will. Keep people awake long enough and they will tell you anything you want them to tell you, attempt to do anything you ask.

You see it all the times in the movies, you threatened their family to control you.

In saying we are not convinced by others, I am not saying we have no conviction; we may in fact be convinced of something someone else in saying, but I do not believe the convincing is an external force; I do not believe others are forcing us to resonate with them; either we do or we don't. :

If there is no external input then the individual can not get the critical info to allow them to consider optional ways of behaving, thinking etc.

Again, if others have control over our minds, then, we are not responsible for our thoughts and beliefs; and, if we are not able to control our minds, we are not able to control ourselves; and, if we are not able to control ourselves, then, the idea of personal accountability and personal responsibility makes no sense. We would need to treat everyone including ourselves as children with no personal rights or responsibilities.:

True, in that sleep deprivation will make it almost impossible to do anything without external forces forcing you to stay awake and ahere to their directions

Would there be any who are free agents with control over their own minds? :

There are no free agents because gravity ( ) if not also dark energy )( cohere all aspects of occupied space Universe ergo metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts are a derivative of occupied space and those causal deterministic relationships.

If so, how would we determine who they are, being we are not in control of our own mental faculties?:

We are to some degree and that degree is resultant of gravity if not also dark energy.

I believe the capacity to empathize was nothing new. I believe the mechanism was always active. :

Not suggesting empathy is a new fangled biological thing. Not sure why make that comment.

However, I believe it was repressed because of misinformation. I believe once the Bosnians and Croatians became familiar with each other and the misconceptions were dispelled they realized the other was not as base as each assumed. :

They were local household neighbors for years but of two differrent cultures and religions. They shared schools etc.

That part of the brain the allows us to feel what others feel ex yawning, pain, contact high what the others is feeling.

The more inter-relationships we can connect the more comprehensive integral set we build. AI looks to build more and more complex set ointer-relationships so it can be more complex like a human is more complex.
Space( 31 ){ Gravity and Dark Energy } Time ^ 66 v{ frequency ^v^v }
Mind{ 12 }, Biological { 8 }, Spin { < 6 > }, IS { 2 }
s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2018 3:15:26 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
018 5:05:16 PM, s-:anthony wrote:
At 1/3/2 I do not believe we allow ourselves to be controlled. I believe we conform to the wishes of our collectives for the sake of expediency.:

Conform be controlled or pay the fine, go to jail et

Conformity is an act of volition; the individual does not have to conform. Just because the individual is given undesirable options does not mean he hasn't freewill. He can choose not to pay the fine, and he can choose not to go to jail; he can choose death over surrender. The mistaken notion, I believe, is the the implication undesirable choices are no choices, at all.

Torture will override any so called will. Keep people awake long enough and they will tell you anything you want them to tell you, attempt to do anything you ask.

Torture does not guarantee a confession, and torture does not guarantee an honest confession. One of the reasons the international community has declared it unacceptable is because information obtained by use of torture is not very reliable.

If there is no external input then the individual can not get the critical info to allow them to consider optional ways of behaving, thinking etc.

I agree, but whether or not the individual accepts external input is the decision he has to make; no one can make it for him.
ebuc
Posts: 2,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2018 3:33:50 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/5/2018 3:15:26 AM, s-anthony wrote:
Conformity is an act of volition; the individual does not have to conform.
I agree, but whether or not the individual accepts external input is the decision he has to make; no one can make it for him.:

Human is being bombarded by information all the time. We choose to ignore the macro-micro irrelevant to find the relevant.

Torture destroys our ability to make rational distinctions of what is irrelevant or relevant ergo our will is has less and less options to find a pathway to sleep, till eventually there is only one pathway, to give away all self-will and do others will.

Yes that is choice we all make, some sooner rather than later.

Abbie Hoffman ---yuppie-- took the long road beaten path to before conforming.

Roy Morre of recent U.S. Alabama senate race fame, refused to give in to the will of the peoples election. The new guy has been sworn in I bet Roy Moore is still trying to weasle his way in. Sad lack of moral integrity with his type.
Space( 31 ){ Gravity and Dark Energy } Time ^ 66 v{ frequency ^v^v }
Mind{ 12 }, Biological { 8 }, Spin { < 6 > }, IS { 2 }
s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2018 9:22:20 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
Human is being bombarded by information all the time. We choose to ignore the macro-micro irrelevant to find the relevant.

I agree. We are continuously bombarded with stimuli. To some of it, we give our attention; and, to some of it, we don't. Those things of which we are aware are those things to which we can intentionally respond. Those things of which we are not aware have the ability to control us. By saying we have control of ourselves, I mean to say we have control over the parts of ourselves of which we are conscious.

Torture destroys our ability to make rational distinctions of what is irrelevant or relevant

Even confused, we make decisions; no one can make decisions for us.

ergo our will is has less and less options to find a pathway to sleep, till eventually there is only one pathway, to give away all self-will and do others will.

I think you're missing the point. You can't give away that which you don't have. If we consent to doing something, whether by coercion or not, it is we who give our consent; no one can do it for us.
ebuc
Posts: 2,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2018 9:36:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/5/2018 9:22:20 PM, s-anthony wrote:
Even confused, we make decisions; no one can make decisions for us.:

You can be put in asylum, jail etc or all kinds of controls can be applied to individual against there will.

The can choose not to eat, and then they can be put unconscious and then IV's can be adminstered for nutriton.

When unconscious sleeping smoke kills some amount of humans every year, more before there were smoke alarms.

I think you're missing the point. You can't give away that which you don't have. If we consent to doing something, whether by coercion or not, it is we who give our consent; no one can do it for us.:

An it can occur without our consent.
Space( 31 ){ Gravity and Dark Energy } Time ^ 66 v{ frequency ^v^v }
Mind{ 12 }, Biological { 8 }, Spin { < 6 > }, IS { 2 }
s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2018 12:31:06 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
You can be put in asylum, jail etc or all kinds of controls can be applied to individual against there will.

I agree. I never said our bodies cannot be manhandled; I said our will can't. No one can determine any other's will.


The can choose not to eat, and then they can be put unconscious and then IV's can be adminstered for nutriton.

Forced feeding is not the intention of the patient. By doing so, the clinicians are not changing the patient's will; they are going against it.


When unconscious sleeping smoke kills some amount of humans every year, more before there were smoke alarms.

I think you're missing the point. You can't give away that which you don't have. If we consent to doing something, whether by coercion or not, it is we who give our consent; no one can do it for us.:

An it can occur without our consent.

I agree. Anything can happen without our consent.
ebuc
Posts: 2,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2018 2:25:34 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/6/2018 1:01:17 AM, Waterborne wrote:
What is your definition of psychological attachment?:

...' Why Attachment Theory Is All Sizzle and No Steak '....

..."Briefly, for those unfamiliar, attachment theory was developed by psychoanalyst/ethologist John Bowlby who was influenced by the work of Conrad Lorenz' research on baby geese in which they became attached to the first thing they saw rather than the mother goose herself.

....From there, subsequent researchers such as Mary Ainsworth observed the behavior of small infants in relation to their caretakers. Ainsworth in particular developed what is called the "strange situation." In this experiment, caregivers would bring in 1 yr old infants into a room full of toys, then leave and a stranger would enter, and finally the stranger would leave again and the caregiver would return. Based on the reactions of the infants, Ainsworth developed three main categories of attachment: secure, anxious/ambivalent, and avoidant, and later on a fourth, disorganized.......

......A recent article in the Psychological Bulletin found that attachment "transmission" from caregiver to child is confounded by genetic variables of heritability. In other words, attachment style is heritable just like IQ, personality, and a whole host of other things, such as political leanings and spirituality. (Yes, political leanings and spirituality, I'm not kidding, click on the links.)

https://www.psychologytoday.com...
Space( 31 ){ Gravity and Dark Energy } Time ^ 66 v{ frequency ^v^v }
Mind{ 12 }, Biological { 8 }, Spin { < 6 > }, IS { 2 }
s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2018 4:35:59 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
What is your definition of psychological attachment?

For me, psychological attachment is the inability to discern one's will from the will of others.
PureX
Posts: 4,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2018 4:10:56 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
"To Know Is to Divide"

Indeed.

This is how the human brain functions: by comparing an contrasting information sets.

Unfortunately, the result is that we can never experience reality as a singular whole. Which is what it actually is. And so we are forever trapped in a world of inter-related this's and that's.
ebuc
Posts: 2,514
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/8/2018 4:30:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/8/2018 4:10:56 PM, PureX wrote:
"To Know Is to Divide":

Fuller states that comprehension begins with no less than 6 lines of relationship as the 3D volumetric tetrahedron.

Ergo, to know in a comprehensive way, requires knowing a whole set, that encloses volumetric space.

Tetrahedron has 12 surface{ 2D } viewpoints{ V } that total 720 degrees ergo two 360 degree circles OO.

"Unity is plural and at a minimum two"...R B Fuller

To know, involves knowing;

the observer,

the observed,

the line-of-relationship{ 6 },

the background against which we observed is differrentiated from.
Space( 31 ){ Gravity and Dark Energy } Time ^ 66 v{ frequency ^v^v }
Mind{ 12 }, Biological { 8 }, Spin { < 6 > }, IS { 2 }
s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2018 1:15:17 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/8/2018 4:10:56 PM, PureX wrote:
"To Know Is to Divide"

Indeed.

This is how the human brain functions: by comparing an contrasting information sets.

Unfortunately, the result is that we can never experience reality as a singular whole. Which is what it actually is. And so we are forever trapped in a world of inter-related this's and that's.

I do not believe this is unfortunate; without division, there are no separate identities; and, without separate identities, there is no we.
PureX
Posts: 4,031
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2018 3:34:54 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2018 1:15:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/8/2018 4:10:56 PM, PureX wrote:
"To Know Is to Divide"

Indeed.

This is how the human brain functions: by comparing an contrasting information sets.

Unfortunately, the result is that we can never experience reality as a singular whole. Which is what it actually is. And so we are forever trapped in a world of inter-related this's and that's.

I do not believe this is unfortunate; without division, there are no separate identities; and, without separate identities, there is no we.

Identity comes through choice. Much of that choice is the result of our ignorance, but if our ignorance itself was not a choice, and it wasn't, AND we are unaware of how our choices are defining us, then perhaps this "gift" isn't what it could be.
s-anthony
Posts: 3,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2018 4:55:49 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 1/12/2018 3:34:54 PM, PureX wrote:
At 1/12/2018 1:15:17 PM, s-anthony wrote:
At 1/8/2018 4:10:56 PM, PureX wrote:
"To Know Is to Divide"

Indeed.

This is how the human brain functions: by comparing an contrasting information sets.

Unfortunately, the result is that we can never experience reality as a singular whole. Which is what it actually is. And so we are forever trapped in a world of inter-related this's and that's.

I do not believe this is unfortunate; without division, there are no separate identities; and, without separate identities, there is no we.

Identity comes through choice. Much of that choice is the result of our ignorance, but if our ignorance itself was not a choice, and it wasn't, AND we are unaware of how our choices are defining us, then perhaps this "gift" isn't what it could be.

Choice requires plurality which requires division.

Choice also requires intention; if we were ignorant of our choices, it would not be us who are doing the choosing; a computer cannot choose; it can only do those things which it's programed to do.