>>16455405 (/lb)
>Partially NLP
Anon having thoughts these days that for information in its most abstract, information as bulk raw data, regardless of content, there is a unified science to understanding it.
Bye bye Miss Universe.
https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2022/06/15/miss-universe-insists-not-all-people-who-menstruate-are-women/
The cult of language tyrants, everyone
I'm not here nor am I typing anything to make you personally understand it though.
Not everything.
What can't be all X, is the understanding of X.
Anon think physics laws good for physical unconscious objects, self-contradictory when applied to human thoughts and actions.
Proof: Physics adopts an axiom of temporally static causal concatenation of events. The logic of hypothesis testing of C occurring when A and B occur first, is a logic that is built on mathematical constants.
For human actions, Anon posits that there are no such constants and thus the method of physics cannot be used on the user of that logic for the logic necessarily does not apply to the researcher.
It logically cannot apply to the researcher using physics, according to the logic of physics itself as it turns out. The logic of physics REQUIRES and ASSUMES the researcher to themselves CHANGE OVER TIME, the logic of physics says that humans who use the method are learning NEW things, acquiringNEW information, and when researchers learn new things and think differently over time, we ACT differently, as it is our thoughts that determine what we do.
Since physics tells us no no, we CAN'T logically know in the present our own future knowledge, since physics logic says that we actually have to go out and interact with the world before we can uncover the constants of causality in nature, because we can't predict our own future discoveries before they occur, that only LATER ON will the researchers minds be updated, that the logic of physics is relying upon the fact that the researchers CHANGE OVER TIME, that constant causality that WOULD have prevented them from changing and WOULD have made the whole physics project impossible, isn't impossible because physics is happily accepting of the logic that there are no constants in human action, and thus physics which relies on constancy, does not apply as a rational science for human actions.
There is a science even more general than physics.
Get ready.
o7 this conversation is vitally important, along with logic of first days and logic of end days, as the logic here shapes everything we do in the present.
I once heard 'strange loop'.
I see this pan-physicalism from sources that fail to conduct the requisite self-reflection to be able to understand what is in fact happening.
"neurons fire in predictable patterns"
False. You don't even know your own mind patterns one year from now, because you HAVE NOT YET EXPERIENCED THE NEW INFORMATION that according to physics is logically UNPREDICTABLE as it requires a temporal process of LEARNING ACTIVITY.
That activity CHANGES THE MAKEUP of your mind in unpredictable ways, and thus your actions are ultimately and in the last resort unpredictable.
"just because it's complex it doesn't mean it's random"
Dialectic logic gibberish.
"the constant isn't the researcher"
But that's the subject of discussion. Researchers are more than neurons.
Your ad hominem just shows your arguments are too weak to rely on themselves.
>You are failing to grasp the scale of the system.
You never queried my assessment of understanding the scale, you lack the requisite information to be able to knowingly state such a thing.
>You are talking about unpredictability, but it's unpredictability stemming from predictable systems, don't you see the contradiction?
The contradiction is the one you just invoked there. You asserted without explanation that human actions are logically predictable, when I posted an explanation of how it's not, and why, by referring to the logic of the method of physics itself.
You need to do better if you're going to show that what you're reacting to is wrong.
Merely asserting is not enough. You have to use ratiocination.
>No, the researcher can't possibly know the future because the researcher is not aware of (and never will be) all the interacting system making up his experience.
This is just depending on the same false logic that in principle humans actions must be predictable.
The argument I am presenting is that it's not for lack of technical methods or lack of oversight of the quantity of information that exists that would 'get over the barrier' to facilitate predicting human thoughts and actions.
I am saying that the information you presume exists today, DOES NOT EXIST TODAY.
Before Einstein and Tesla made their discoveries, the information associated to those discoveries existed nowhere on planet Earth. They CREATED the new information objects by interacting with the world OVER TIME and testing what physics says can ONLY be educated guesses.
These prediction activities ALL logically depends on the subject matter behaving according to constant causal factors.
For human thought and action, I am arguing there are no such constants.
If you want to disagree, fine, but know that neither you nor anyone in history has ever 'discovered' A SINGLE constant, and you never will.
>This is why the researcher isn't the constant.
It is not an argument against what I wrote by merely negating that subject and replacing people with neurons as what 'is' supposedly the only phenomena that would be a constant.
You're just negating the unified individual, the unified consciousness, and declaring that even though you engaged an argument predicated entirely on HUMAN ACTIONS, your replies are not even interfacing with that subject as whether it is or is not predictable.
>The system is. The researcher is part of the system.
This is just an appeal to whatever reduces human beings to cogs in a wheel, as if the human beings are themselves but neurons in a 'higher' mind intelligence.
The researcher is part of a system yes, but the system you are referring to is a PRODUCT of individual thoughts implemented into actions.
The system of science doesn't just appear out of thin air, not saying you're directly saying that but your logic appears to just be a negation of the subject matter.
>>Dialectic logic gibberish.
>Poorly phrased. Look above for elaboration.
Poor response in reaction to a statement you don't like.
>>But that's the subject of discussion.
>No, the subject is a unified science.
No, the subject I introduced was human action, and that there is a unified science that has physics as one component, the component for phenomena that operates according to constants in causality.
>>Researchers are more than neurons.
>Yes, but his behaviour is the result of his neurons firing.
That's a poorly incomplete view of human development. Neurons are themselves dependent, and themselves impacted by NEW unpredictable information.
Ever heard of 'emergence'?
>Your ad hominem just shows your arguments are too weak to rely on themselves.
>Ad hominem? Where?
Here:
"Shit or get off the pot?"
That's ad hominem, attacking me personally by imagining a smear to discount what I wrote.
>You mean when I asked you to shit or get off the pot?
Yes.
>That's not an ad hominem
False, it's ad hominem. It's smearing and slandering the messenger and not the message.
EQUAL TIME
If there is one thing that the nwo is logically unable to reconcile and tolerate, it's the objective reality that human bodies are subject to the temporal process at all, instead of existing as eternal and 'outside of time'.
Since the 'opposites' narratives created of their own dialectic logic leads to physical matter, even other human beings, to be metaphysically viewed and to be treated as 'fetters', as 'in the way', just by physically existing 'outside' the nwo's own warped minds that create the division narrative of themselves divided first, and thus the world appears as a place of exile.
Their greatest fear is time passing with new information objects that prove their dialectic stories as knowing deception, i.e. it is awakened people.
https://truthsocial.com/users/realDonaldTrump/statuses/108487673512460517
It's not a coincidence that in movies and TV shows there is a repeat pattern of treating time as an enemy.
Anon guessing songs were written by the same snakes who have historically preyed on black musicians to push narratives to keep black population in the radical left plantation.
Probably offered a ton to agree to push Democrat narrative.
More ad hominem? You loser.
>FFS. Are you that thin skinned?
To identify a statement as ad hominem is independent from how thick or thin skinned a person is with respect to it.
I see you have completely given up.
Kek, win.
Now SEETHE, bitch.