The control of one subatomic particle

Dear colleagues here, thanks for your participation.

But you are again not working first to come to concurrence on pre-requisites, that is why you are into name-dropping and display of pseudo learning.

All that is satisfying and all right with you owing to your also being shallow minds.

So, I will just remind you that at the end of my last post here is the following request: to all genuine thinkers, not name-droppers shallow minds:

Quote:

• Post: # 6,467,079 • Susmariosep • Tue 18 Jul, 2017 02:18 pm

[...]

Back to square one.

Here is again my proposal of the concept of existence:

Quote:

"Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc." (25 words)

And when you present your concept of what is existence, do not neglect to accompany your definition with examples, otherwise you really do not know what you are talking about - which is equivalent to talking nonsense.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Do you have an authoritarian complex? Are you selling that to yourself? File a complain!

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

From Alb: "@Susmariosep: Do you have an authoritarian complex? Are you selling that to yourself? File a complain!"

Dear Alb, last thing here we were talking about is on my concept of what is existence, then my request to you to present your concept of existence, accompanying it with some examples.

Quote:

Here is again my proposal of the concept of existence:

"Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc." (25 words)

And when you present your concept of what is existence, do not neglect to accompany your definition with examples, otherwise you really do not know what you are talking about - which is equivalent to talking nonsense.

So, no more evasiveness, get busy, think on what to you is existence, and present it here next time you write to contribute to our exchange, and don't neglect to give examples.

0 Replies

Bravo - Max brings a bit of sense back to this thread !

If anybody wants a good example of what Wittgenstein meant by 'language on holiday' (out of appropriate context) they need only examine this thread.

And if anybody doesn't understand the function of magic religious chanting in sustaining the faith of believers they need only examine Sus's repetitive posts.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Max, and you know it, is squary...don't politicize the thread on monkey count. His argument on the limited use of the wording spacetime was demolished in the eyes of anyone half awake. Any reputable Physicist would emmidiatly shy away from his comments.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Keep your hair on !...I'm not talking about specifics. I'm talking about the general issue of 'language on holiday' and that can include the metalanguage of mathematics. Much of our 'understanding' rests on analogy..relating the unknown to the known...but that sometimes wrongly assumes the detail of complete isomorphism. That is where dispute can set in.

0 Replies

Dear readers here, do you notice that my co-responding posters here are all the time into evasiveness, owing to their poverty of thinking capability.

I have been requesting them to do the following endeavor, read below:

"So, no more evasiveness, get busy, think on what to you is existence, and present it here next time you write to contribute to our exchange, and don't neglect to give examples."

To my insight, they are always and I say it again, into evasiveness to the instant issue at hand, because they don't or can't do any relevant thinking on what is existence.

So, as usual they go into name-dropping which is what shallow folks do who do not dare or cannot undertake with their brain any really genuine work of thinking, with grounding themselves on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

To date I have not come across their description or concept of what is existence that makes sense.

Here is again my description or concept of what is existence:

Quote:

"Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc." (25 words)

And when you present your concept of what is existence, do not neglect to accompany your definition with examples, otherwise you really do not know what you are talking about - which is equivalent to talking nonsense.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back to await with bated breath for my co-responding posters here, to tell us if they be capable and daring, what is their concept of existence, and give examples of existence.

And Oh no! They will continue with their name-dropping, and feel Oh so smug, with their pretentious but vacuous learning.

But they are to their innermost core, essentially cowards, who suffer extreme fear to use their own brain to think for themselves.

That is an ad hominem of the humanitarian kind, to motivate them from shame to undertake genuinely manly work with their brain.

1 Reply

Dear readers here, how do we do really genuine thinking on an issue, like what is existence?

No. 1: Gather all our experiences of existence, understanding the word existence as we have come to know its meaning from reading with understanding all kinds of writings normal literate humans do [with reading] everyday...

Like in the news media, in the entertainment media, in the educational media, in the science media, and also in the religion media, in the commerce media, in the politics media, in the law media, and all other media we read in.

There, that is how we know the meaning of a word like existence, but only broadly.

No. 2: From our broadly understanding of the word existence, we examine this broad understanding of existence, and come to what I call a precise, concise, clear, and simple concept of what in substance is the concept of existence, we know about, in regard to all kinds of things we know to have a 'piece' of reality, in particular things that do have objective reality outside our mind in the universe.

More steps for you, Oh dear readers, to draw from your own personal experiences of existence, to add to the steps I set up just now, namely, Nos. 1 and 2.

Okay, dear my co-responding posters here, get busy, and do some genuine thinking, on what is your concept of existence.

My purpose here is so that we can all work together to concur on the concept of existence: for we are all the time and everywhere into existence as we engage in converstion among ourselves, starting with the fact that we live and move and have our being in existence - and we breathe and eat and **** existence also.

Think about that!

It is about time, Oh ye my co-responding posters here, if you do engage your brain with thinking on your experiences, to investigate for yourselves, what is existence.

And present your very own self-thought out concept of existence, plus don't neglect to accompany your concept with at least four examples of existence.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

You are a very entertaining cartoon mate. keep it up I want to read more!
God wasn't forgiving with you when it comes to IQ...how unfair. On the upper side you are funny! Let me just go get some pop corn while we all wait for you next piece of art...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Dear Alb, you go to the street corner and act the clown with a tin can, at least you will obtain some money, instead of wasting the bandwidth shouldered by the good folks founders, owners, and operators of a2k.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Wake up!

Your de facto inability to debate together with your simplisting chanting of your one-liners merely implies that your 'faith' is so shaky that it needs constant self - reinforcement. Some might term it 'mental masturbation' !

We've had other soapbox Holy Joe's here over the years and they have only lasted as long as they could hold an audience. Your time is running out. The 'Don't Feed the Troll' placards will shortly be obliterating your soapbox.

Okay...now its your turn with your adolescent ripostes directed towards your fictitious 'dear readers' ... but remember...the clock is ticking !

2 Replies

@fresco,

Dear readers here, see my previous post just a few minutes released in the thread on Where are you God?

Quote:

• Post: # 6,467,727 • Susmariosep • Wed 19 Jul, 2017 03:37 pm

@fresco,
Dear Fresco, you seem to be addicted to name-dropping, and you get your ideas without any filtering from your own brain, if you have one.

Think about this text below, from yours truly, and don't react again with name-dropping, you will not impress anyone with your vicarious claim to share in the limelight of other thinkers, not at all; but you expose yourself to be a non-self-thinking, ergo non-self-adequate homo sapiens.

1. The default status of things in the totality of reality is existence.

2. Existence is ultimately of two kinds:

2(a). Existence from another entity
2(b). Existence from oneself

When you think on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence, give your comments on No. 1 and up to No. 2(b).

Yes, and also of course factor in your input of infinite regress, where does it figure if at all in from No. 1 all the way to No. 2(b)?

I have this insight of you, you are one very self-confused thinker, because you never acquire and never thus practice any kind of critical thinking at all, from lack of grounding your thinking on truths, facts, logic, and the best thoughts of mankind from since the dawn of man's conscious intelligence.

Your writing consists of name-dropping and technical-terms-dropping, in vain vacuous quest to impress ordinary folks - which you'd better make a poll of, on how they regard your name-dropping gimmick and technical-terms-dropping gimmick.

And to date you still have not produced a decent definition from your brain on what is your concept of existence.

And when you do, present also four examples of existence on your concept of existence.

Here is again my concept of what is existence:
Quote:
"Existence is anything at all we know to be real from our conscious experience and reason, for example: the nose, the sun, babies, roses, etc." (25 words)

[Etc.]

0 Replies

Dear readers here, do you remember how one Tomtombinks says that today evolution and un-intelligent design rule the thinking world, and no one takes seriously that just because a thing has a function, it does not follow at all that there is a designer.

He complains regularly that I don't reply to his posts, which is a falsehood, perhaps he never reads my posts but talks blindly in my direction without reading me, at all.

So I replied to his post about current inane fashion of small picture thinking on evolution and non-intelligent design, thereby no one takes seriously that just because a thing has a function, it doe not imply at all that it has a designer, I reply to him thus:

Produce a thing with a function and show how it is without a designer.

You know what?

To date he has been in hiding.

See when he is coming back.

1 Reply

@fresco,

You know what Fresco you are right lets keep our own ongoing "debate" somewhere else.
This scout boy is nuts and craving for attention. Don't feed the troll indeed.
Mea culpa!

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Susmario,
I'm still waiting for your unique knowledge that doesn't stem from other sources. So far you haven't produced it. I'm also waiting for why your definitions of words are superior to other's definitions. But OK, an example of a thing that has a function but no designer is the nose on your face. Look at it closely. It has openings to let in the air, sinus cavities and mucous membranes to warm and humidify the air, hairs to trap dust and sensory surfaces to detect odors. Yet it had no designer.

1 Reply

@TomTomBinks,

Dear Tom, I am waiting for your presentation of something with a function but without a designer.

1 Reply

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/xq90/924/hgKho1.png

1 Reply

@fresco,

Dear Fresco, do you notice that Tomtomlinks has presented the nose as something with a function but without a designer.

He says:

Quote:

But OK, an example of a thing that has a function but no designer is the nose on your face. (1) Look at it closely. It has openings to let in the air, sinus cavities and mucous membranes to warm and humidify the air, hairs to trap dust and sensory surfaces to detect odors. (2) Yet it had no designer.

Let us, dear Fresco, you and me and everyone atheists and theists and whatever else human 'ists' work together, to do commentaries on statements (1) and (2) from Tomtomlinks.

On statement (1): Look at it [nose] closely. It has openings to let in the air, sinus cavities and mucous membranes to warm and humidify the air, hairs to trap dust and sensory surfaces to detect odors.

Tom enumerates some steps or actions of the nose, but woeful is his intelligence, for he does not know really know what is a function, namely, a function is destined to achieve a purpose.

Okay, Tom, when you return, tell mankind what is the function of the nose.

On statement (2): Yet it had no designer.

Dear everyone, let us ask Tom, How did you come to the idea that the nose has no designer, please explain; otherwise we will dismiss that statement from you as coming from a poster with a woeful intelligence, for you can't explain how ever you came to your idea.

Okay, dear readers here, let us all sit back to await with bated breath for Tom to show us his intelligence is not woeful, by explaining how ever he came to the idea that the nose has no designer.

Annex

Quote:

From Tomtombinks:

@Susmariosep,
Susmario,
I'm still waiting for your unique knowledge that doesn't stem from other sources. So far you haven't produced it. I'm also waiting for why your definitions of words are superior to other's definitions. But OK, an example of a thing that has a function but no designer is the nose on your face. Look at it closely. It has openings to let in the air, sinus cavities and mucous membranes to warm and humidify the air, hairs to trap dust and sensory surfaces to detect odors. Yet it had no designer.

0 Replies

tick tick tick tick tick....!

1 Reply

The control of one subatomic particle

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know