"We" are not "Human", for "We" are "Subatomic Particles".

[HappyHouseSpider]

Consensus: This is a discussion that I will be making to prove everything I have spent my life analyzing and piecing together since I was 10, for what lies above our human experiences - that human experience is nothing without subatomic particles; and that all that we "are", is sound based on vibrations in various forms; colors based on those sound waves from red ~ purple, in a range I will explain later into this discussion; matter and atoms that cause us to animate via its projections (e.g amoeba, water, bacteria, fungi, plant into oxygen; fish, animal and Man); information that is stored throughout this matter, which projects itself in a myriad of forms that are based on one system called self-similarity - this is to say that life is only complex when you are fooled by all the masks it can wear; take off just one mask, and everything will be revealed.

Rules: There is no such thing as BOP, Source, Resolution, Tautology or Answer in a debate that involves a more philosophical approach, rather than a political approach, (by using these terms, or their synonymous forms, you have thus forfeited this discussion), as this debate still can go ways in, but will not do well in answering itself. It deals with something that is on a grand level, which can only be figured out so much before you start realizing that you have to look for more pieces before you continue on locating the correlations between the universal paradigms (e.g bees behaving like electrons), therefore it would be best to discuss this on a powerful level of analysis, instead of a petty level of answer-ability.

Argument 1: When a crowd of people are invoked with fear, causing them to break apart from the crowd to seek safety, they break away exactly like gas molecules. Evidence that humans are based on subatomic particles found on a micro level, which animate the macro level.

Argument 2: Happiness is not special or sacred to the human experience; it can be obtained by simply biting into a piece of chocolate. The reason why it feels special and sacred, is because we, as human beings, are not only consuming these chemicals; we are experiencing ourselves through these chemicals. To say that, the human experience is not "of" life - it's "in" life. To say that, the human experience is nothing on the macro level, without the activity of the micro level, as the top of a skyscraper is nothing without the bottom thereof.

Argument 3: The neurons in our brain store energy within the same design as matter that's observed throughout the Universe. Simply research "neurons and space matter".

Argument 4: Our emotions react similarly to how a volcano, a sea or a storm reacts. The calmness and the chaos interchange according to the circumstances. This is to say that human emotion is based on Newton's Laws of Physics. It's also based on relativity, focus and allocation. This is to say, the human eye is a baffling similarity to that of a camera - this is to allude to the idea that man is able to create inventions based entirely on experiencing the grand design alone and recreating it through this conscious threshold which does not acknowledge itself recreating the Universe's functions, (e.g computers, vehicles, machines).

Argument 5: The Universe portrays a subtle evolutionary pattern which can be observed by analyzing how life got from Point A, to Point X. First there was matter; this matter then became bacteria; the bacteria then became form, like water; then this water created fungi; then fungi created plant; then plant created oxygen for fish, animal and Man. There is also the scientific fact that there are four stages to the human heart's chamber development: 1, resemblance of a fish heart 2, resemblance of a frog heart 3, resemblance of a turtle heart 4, the human heart. This is evidence that our human heart is based on the evolution of sea creatures.

Argument 6: Further evidence that our emotions are based entirely on proton, electron and neutron behavior, is that electrons can be "irritated" - when they do, they behave like humans do when they become "irritated".

Argument 7: The human consciousness has always been one of the greatest mysteries in life to those that take life literally, even though ideas, experiences and the imagination are anything but literal. However, it's not complex any longer when you understand the Universe's ways in how it created self-similarity by design. Consciousness flows, reflects and can be distorted and cleared like water. I can prove that this is plausible, by demonstrating how our dreams; which create other realities, experiences and profound ideas; which came to geniuses like Tesla and Einstein; are consisted of chemicals that contain 99% water, called serotonin; which is converted into melatonin. I also can further prove this, by demonstrating that every drop of water on this planet is older than the planet itself - this is to say that life came from water, thrives off of water and cannot be anything without water. One more thing to consider: water is the most flexible element in the entire Universe. You can see what happens to the planets when they do not have enough water, as the planets are in order from solid/hot to gas/cold, thus there's many ways to understand how the Universe behaves by simply using the planets as guidelines.

Argument 8: Speaking of planets, the planets are in a pattern that will blow your mind - alone, they look like they are just floating in space, orbiting the sun silently; however when observed by someone with a keen eye, they can see that the planets are based on a ripple effect, as the planets near the sun are closest to each other, while the planets farthest from the sun tend to have great distances between each planet. Like this: O-O--O---O------O------------------O---------------------------------------O------------------------and so on.

Argument 9: The colors emitted by the Universe are more than colors, they are the personality of the Universe. Humans would not have personality, if the Universe did not have personality itself. The ranges of these colors can be scientifically cross-referenced to different waves of sound, from radio waves to gamma waves which are based on five wave patterns in order from active to sub-active: Gamma, Beta, Alpha, Theta and Delta. The colors, of which these colors are emitted as, are actually based on characteristics or stages of the Universe like this: red (survival), orange (taking a stand), yellow (balance), green (love), light blue (communication), dark blue (intuition) and purple (the bond between man and the Universe). One end of the human spectrum is anger - the other end is ascension.

Argument 10: The colors I spoke of earlier are produced within the core of both, the human body and the planet body. The human eye cannot see them, so you have to use infrared vision in order to do so. Have you noticed how colors do not paint the whole Universe? It's because colors are formed individually per each object of the Universe - the apple is not red because it contains red hues; it's red because it contains every other hue, except red, so the apple absorbs the red hue.

Argument 11: The photo receptors in our eyes were formed before stars, billions of years ago, to capture our experiences today.

Argument 12: The male genitalia behaves much like how a volcano behaves - the female genitalia behaves much like how the soil behaves. The human body and the planet body spreads its seeds in a way that's magnificently similar.

Argument 13: The human's genitalia and their facial organs are interconnected, hence why the nose and the eyes are able to do what they do because of erectile tissue, which is what allows our sensual organs to do what they do. When you cry, when you think about it at least, it does feel like an orgasm. The nipples do not contain erectile tissue, however.

Argument 14: The entire human body's design has many things to consider: 1) It contains the shape of a turtle when on all fours; the shape of a clam when bending down while standing up, closing the space between the stomach and the legs. 2) The eyes and nails are based on properties that originated from the sea, which can be observed by analyzing the pearl of a clam - the pearl turns yellow, when it falls to a disease - so do the eyes and nails. 3) The lungs have a root-like design. 4) The finger nails and the base of the finger are shaped like young mushrooms - you have to simply find the right mushroom family to see the similarity, as not all mushrooms will fit this analysis. 5) The man's genitalia has the shape of a heart on the back-end of its base, and shares the design of the brain and the brain's stem. 6) The woman's genitalia has the shape of a galaxy which is creating new life; however you have to have a very keen eye to figure this one out, as the design is within the spiral form, not the entire spiral form. It would just be easier to simply go back to the volcano and soil analogy instead. If you really want to test your brain capacity, then I'll give you a tandem to work with: the human genitalia on a cosmic level, is the star which explodes - the female genitalia on a cosmic level, is the black hole which creates.

Argument 15: The clouds in the sky are very similar to how ideas form inside our head. Ideas and clouds are both electrically modified. Both can become cloudy, rainy and stormy. Sometimes there are many ideas in our head - very few - or none, just like clouds in the sky. Ideas, like clouds, are full of so many possibilities, that they are based entirely on perception.

Argument 16: The human mind contains a consciousness (projected) and a subconscious (projector). The surface of the sea is like the consciousness; below the surface is like the subconscious; light, normal and easy to relate to for the consciousness; dark, heavy, too creepy to relate to for most with the subconscious.

Argument 17: The jellyfish can conduct electricity through its tools, just like a human can conduct electricity by shuffling their feet. This is evidence that not only are there more sea creatures influencing human design; the jelly fish is representing the shape of having legs and hands, with a dome as a head.

Argument 18: Life is always changing, with no name or identity. So is Man, as much as they like to convince themselves otherwise to compensate for their fear towards the truth behind all existence. As much as it's always changing, there are cycles within these changes that do not change, the same goes for human experiences.

Argument 19: The human eye contains the center of a black hole and emits lights that are not visible to the human eye, which blind people that incorporate sonar vision use to capture objects around them without sight, because we still can see without our eyes - it's just without a picture.

 

[Sparklepower]

I'm not sure I understand the point this post is trying to make. Yes, we are made up of matter, which is made up of molecules, atoms, and smaller and smaller particles. This is true. That doesn't make us 'not human,' though. We use the word 'human' to refer to the advanced system of matter that is a person.

To say that we are made of subatomic particles, and therefore not human, is rejecting the very purpose of having a language, because that means we can't differentiate between objects because they're all made of matter.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

I'm not sure I understand the point this post is trying to make. Yes, we are made up of matter, which is made up of molecules, atoms, and smaller and smaller particles. This is true. That doesn't make us 'not human,' though. We use the word 'human' to refer to the advanced system of matter that is a person.

To say that we are made of subatomic particles, and therefore not human, is rejecting the very purpose of having a language, because that means we can't differentiate between objects because they're all made of matter.

That's the basic scientific idea, yes. My ideology is breaking down the human experience to the point there no longer is a human experience, but what appears to be a human experience that is based on the self-similarity design behind the subatomic particles, hence why bees behave like electrons (this is to say that there is evidence that the Universe is creating life through its subatomic particles; not in the sense that Science makes of it; but in the sense that the subatomic particles really are what makes us "human"). I am beyond the basic idea of we are made up of atoms - I am somewhere at the point of questioning whether or not there really is a "person", or that the "human" really is the conglomeration of sound waves, vibrations, colors, energy and forces that represent this "experience" via subatomic level, after creating a grand level on top of that subatomic level, hence why the "human" would not exist without the Universe and the subatomic particles. So I ask, what is so special about "human"; so individualized about "human", when the entire concept of "human" is the result of being - the result of becoming, rather than "just being"?

 

[Sucumbio]

It's just a word, of course and meant only to identify our distinction from other life forms. We make it more, synonymous with compassion for instance. Bees and electrons... more on this when I get in from work

 

[Sehnsucht]

To ensure that I understand, OP, I will attempt to encapsulate your thesis in my own words:

There exists a set of fundamental principles, or norms, that govern the manifestation and evolution of all phenomena -- and these norms recur at all scales of reality (the micro, the macro, the cosmic). In such a paradigm, it can be observed, for instance, that bees behave in the manner of electrons, and electrons behave in the manner of bees -- for they are both governed by the same fundamental norms of phenomenological expression. And so it goes for all things.

Is this an accurate distillation?

If so, then a few points:

-I'm not sure I'm confident or knowledgeable enough in matters of science (physics, biology, chemistry, and other fields relevant to your thesis) to discern any inaccuracies or outright errors in your deliberations, so far as the hard facts are concerned. Though I'm not entirely ignorant on matters of science, either. I will need to parse your text more closely to see if I find any quibbles, though I intend to do so for general questions and concerns anyway (it's late, so I'll have to do so at a later time).

-I must also inquire as to the pragmatic value of your thesis. Discerning patterns of commonality across otherwise disparate phenomena is all well and good. But what are the practical applications of this knowledge? Can we use this knowledge of "self-similar" norms to better ourselves, to improve our lives and/or our society? Are there scientific possibilities that lie waiting in self-similarity for us to tap into? Does self-similarity have philosophical value in the way it recontextualizes the human experience, thus allowing us to make more informed decisions on matters of living?

If your thesis has no practical applications (scientific, societal, philosophical, personal), then it just becomes some neat feature about the universe, much as leaves of a tree happen to be green.

-Lastly, in what way is your thesis on self-similarity valid, and not just an elaborate exercise in apophenia (i.e. pattern-seeking)? Do you contend to have made factual inferences into the global nature of reality (via the self-similarity principle), or are you simply looking for patterns and associations, and building a framework around such perceived patterns?

I'll leave you with these discussion points, for now. In the near future, I'll do a more thorough response to your thesis proper, addressing the specific points and assertions therein. 8D

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

Is this an accurate distillation?

Yes.

If so, then a few points:

A-I'm not sure I'm confident or knowledgeable enough in matters of science (physics, biology, chemistry, and other fields relevant to your thesis) to discern any inaccuracies or outright errors in your deliberations, so far as the hard facts are concerned. Though I'm not entirely ignorant on matters of science, either. I will need to parse your text more closely to see if I find any quibbles, though I intend to do so for general questions and concerns anyway (it's late, so I'll have to do so at a later time).

B-I must also inquire as to the pragmatic value of your thesis. Discerning patterns of commonality across otherwise disparate phenomena is all well and good. But what are the practical applications of this knowledge? Can we use this knowledge of "self-similar" norms to better ourselves, to improve our lives and/or our society? Are there scientific possibilities that lie waiting in self-similarity for us to tap into? Does self-similarity have philosophical value in the way it recontextualizes the human experience, thus allowing us to make more informed decisions on matters of living?

If your thesis has no practical applications (scientific, societal, philosophical, personal), then it just becomes some neat feature about the universe, much as leaves of a tree happen to be green.

C-Lastly, in what way is your thesis on self-similarity valid, and not just an elaborate exercise in apophenia (i.e. pattern-seeking)? Do you contend to have made factual inferences into the global nature of reality (via the self-similarity principle), or are you simply looking for patterns and associations, and building a framework around such perceived patterns?

I'll leave you with these discussion points, for now. In the near future, I'll do a more thorough response to your thesis proper, addressing the specific points and assertions therein. 8D

A-The ideology I work with is aiming to go where science; philosophy; psychology; epistemology and ontology have never gone. In order to properly argue a philosophical discussion based on the production of genius and innovation, is to question within a question; within a possibility of an answer. There can be no sincere argument, as nothing in this world covers the knowledge and information I dug up over the years of my own undying curiosity. Therefore all you need is a powerful analytic brain.

B- This knowledge I have is not going to fulfill us physically - it will fulfill us metaphysically. I aim for these profound conclusions because if they are correct, they can give the people of this world a cosmic lens to look through to better appreciate what they do; what sex is truly; what we are truly made of and why we are "human"; how we became "human" beyond the Big Bang. What I do is cosmically reverse-engineer the Universe by taking the fractal behavior of humanity and applying it to a non-fractal phenomenon that can be observed within the Universe, which in turn allows me to say: "We are architects - this world is our archive." So yes, with this knowledge, if I can bring this to a peer-reviewed level, I am most certainly positive that the geniuses of this world will see the genius I have created through sheer diligence and passion for what I do with my brain.

C- Self-similarity is a scientific conclusion based on a peer-reviewed consensus. I expanded upon this as to add so much more knowledge and information to this system, that I would profoundly suggest for people to start taking my theories more seriously, rather than calling me crazy in a world full of people that believe in conspiracy theories, ghosts, demons and gods. I did not masturbate to pictures on the internet to just say "wow, the vagina really reminds me of the soil and the black hole, while the penis reminds me of how stars explode and volcanoes erupt"; no, I did a lot of thinking and process elimination to get to this conclusion, as I had to first figure out the similarities on a micro, macro and cosmic level - then, I had to research the relationship between stars and black holes; then I had to research volcanoes and soil; then I still did not make the connection, until one day I was writing about something more profound than cosmic sex: "The Human Eye: The Miniature Black Hole". Then finally, I realized that the star and the black hole were similar to the volcano/soil and the penis/vagina. So thus this is to say that if the brain is making these connections at hyper-speed, it's because I'm working on a genius frequency; I am working on Gamma waves, rather than Theta like most of the society. My mind is just expanding and evolving every second as I type this, just waiting to break down the next big thing in a way that suggests that my brain is the Universe, as I am making connections before I do the research - the research is to make sure I am making the connections properly. I can wake up from a day of sleep and think of how chemicals allow us to dream, which may contain water - I get up to research it and the chemicals contain 99% water as I suspected. To be able to figure things out on this level... There are no words to describe what my brain is capable of.

 

[Sehnsucht]

A-The ideology I work with is aiming to go where science; philosophy; psychology; epistemology and ontology have never gone. In order to properly argue a philosophical discussion based on the production of genius and innovation, is to question within a question; within a possibility of an answer. There can be no sincere argument, as nothing in this world covers the knowledge and information I dug up over the years of my own undying curiosity. Therefore all you need is a powerful analytic brain.

-Science is the methodical examination of our perceived shared reality; philosophy is the inquiry into questions that can't (yet) be examined empirically; psychology is the study of the human mind; epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge; ontology is the branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature of "being".

Are you saying that your self-similarity model covers (or aims to cover) ground not already being covered in those five disciplines of human inquiry? If so, how would you describe this "undiscovered country"? What would be the name and/or category of understanding to which the self-similarity model can be assigned (if it can't strictly fit into any of those five aforementioned categories)?

-It seems you are framing the conditions of discourse concerning your thesis. If I understand, you're saying that, because your thesis concerns things not touched on by the "Big Five Categories of Understanding", that one cannot use or invoke them in discourse (as it would be both futile and inaccurate to do so). Thus, the only recourse is pure analytics -- analysis of the thesis and its parts, and in the associations that comprise it.

Is that correct? If so, it is unlike any discourse I've ever participated in (though admittedly, I've partaken in very few Internet debates and discourses).

I don't think such a proposed exchange can be at all classified as a "debate", as your conditions of discourse remove arguments, sources, and other things usually employed to support a position, or underline faults in another. Are we then to bandy back and forth, toying with ideas of self-similarity just to see where it leads us? Can there be any debate, wherein you attempt to defend your thesis from my scrutiny (or the scrutiny of any others)?

I could attempt to adhere to such conditions, but they'd need to be laid out.

B- This knowledge I have is not going to fulfill us physically - it will fulfill us metaphysically. I aim for these profound conclusions because if they are correct, they can give the people of this world a cosmic lens to look through to better appreciate what they do; what sex is truly; what we are truly made of and why we are "human"; how we became "human" beyond the Big Bang. What I do is cosmically reverse-engineer the Universe by taking the fractal behavior of humanity and applying it to a non-fractal phenomenon that can be observed within the Universe, which in turn allows me to say: "We are architects - this world is our archive." So yes, with this knowledge, if I can bring this to a peer-reviewed level, I am most certainly positive that the geniuses of this world will see the genius I have created through sheer diligence and passion for what I do with my brain.

I see.

Such a recontextualization would have notable philosophical import, as it would inform our understanding, and thereby the manner in which we go about living, making decisions, and so on.

If you intend to eventually broach your thesis to the level of peer-review and academia (as your wording suggests), then I suspect that, in its current form, it would only be suitable for philosophy, and not science -- and this, because the latter is empirical in its methodology. You say that your thesis is borne purely of hard analysis of existence, but science demands hypotheses and experiments, evidence and proofs.

You'll eventually want to formalize your thesis in terms of scientific methodology, if you want to publish or present it in the field of academia. They'd likely say that, because you're making claims about physical phenomena, you'd need supporting evidence beyond strict analysis. Because anyone can make claims about reality through analysis; in science, one must support their claims through corroborating evidence.

Not saying your thesis is false because it is strictly an analytic framework -- but it would be more persuasive (or compelling, at least) if there was more than just pattern-recognition at play.

C- Self-similarity is a scientific conclusion based on a peer-reviewed consensus.

If self-similarity is a scientific conclusion that has been peer-reviewed, I'd appreciate any sources you could provide to confirm as much.

I expanded upon this as to add so much more knowledge and information to this system, that I would profoundly suggest for people to start taking my theories more seriously, rather than calling me crazy in a world full of people that believe in conspiracy theories, ghosts, demons and gods.

Scientifically speaking, your thesis is only a hypothesis until you can demonstrate corroborating empirical evidence to others (i.e peer-review). While your model was not derived through strict empirical methodology, it would be best to use accurate scientific terminology nonetheless.

In any case, if you've had trouble in the past in reaching through to others, the issue may lie in presentation. I recall when I first read your opening post that I thought there surely are ways it could have been structured with greater clarity (as it is otherwise a large compilation of observations about phenomenological commonality) [1]. When you're bombarding your audience with associative imagery and not much else (e.g. "observe the phallic volcano and the yonic singularity!"), it is easier for your point to be lost on them, or for them to question how this information is relevant to their experience, or how you've come about such conclusions, etc.

And the parallel to conspiracy theories is not unfounded, alas. The conspiracy theorist draws associations between data points, whether they be related or unrelated; they find an initial idea that they suspect might be truth, and investigate further, compiling added data into a framework or model which is then presented to others. But all they have to show for the veracity of their model are the associations that make it up. This connects to that, they say, only for their audience to inquire as to how they came about their conclusions, or why they should care.

Your thesis, to my observation and understanding, was undertaken via a similar approach. What, then, differentiates the model of self-similarity from 9/11 Truther models, for instance? Is the subject matter? Is it that the associations in your model are by virtue stronger than those find in conspiracy theory? Is it that, by virtue of your cognitive faculties, you don't succumb to the errors in thinking that lead conspiracy theorists (and related speculators) into forming incorrect models about reality?

It can be harder to investigate (and corroborate) your claims because they are so encompassing and broad. Since you make claims about objective reality, then the more you can show how such claims can be verified outside of strict analysis [2], the more compelling your thesis will become.

[1] If I am misrepresenting your opening post, apologies; I'd need to read it over a few times again to ensure I grasped it in its entirety.

[2] Would it be the case that self-similarity could, in principle, be verified empirically? Which is to say, we could develop methods, experiments, and/or technology to detect, measure. and/or observe self-similarity in action?

I did not masturbate to pictures on the internet to just say "wow, the vagina really reminds me of the soil and the black hole, while the penis reminds me of how stars explode and volcanoes erupt";

I hope you're not condemning those who engage in such practices.

no, I did a lot of thinking and process elimination to get to this conclusion, as I had to first figure out the similarities on a micro, macro and cosmic level - then, I had to research the relationship between stars and black holes; then I had to research volcanoes and soil; then I still did not make the connection, until one day I was writing about something more profound than cosmic sex: "The Human Eye: The Miniature Black Hole". Then finally, I realized that the star and the black hole were similar to the volcano/soil and the penis/vagina. So thus this is to say that if the brain is making these connections at hyper-speed, it's because I'm working on a genius frequency; I am working on Gamma waves, rather than Theta like most of the society. My mind is just expanding and evolving every second as I type this, just waiting to break down the next big thing in a way that suggests that my brain is the Universe, as I am making connections before I do the research - the research is to make sure I am making the connections properly. I can wake up from a day of sleep and think of how chemicals allow us to dream, which may contain water - I get up to research it and the chemicals contain 99% water as I suspected. To be able to figure things out on this level... There are no words to describe what my brain is capable of.

So, your genius is the thing that supports your analysis. Which is to say, that your thesis is more reliable because your genius allows you to make correct deductions about reality with greater probability and/or accuracy. Your genius makes you a trustworthy authority on this matter of self-similarity, so it's reasonable to take your word for its veracity.

Is genius thus defined as those whose brains "operate" on Gamma Waves? Have you externally confirmed that your cerebral operating system runs on Gamma Waves? If I'm to take this notion as an assurance for the validity of your thesis, it would be best to support this notion by demonstrating your Gamma propensity (since so far, it's the lynchpin of your thesis, the only thing that could be considered as compelling support).

Also, I'm vaguely aware of the topic of brainwave levels, though not all too much. Perhaps I should look into it further -- unless you'd be so kind as to provide a primer (or links/sources to such scientifically-accurate primers).

Thanks for your response, HHS. Again, I'll go back to your opening post and address the specific associations you display in the near future. 8D

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

-Science is the methodical examination of our perceived shared reality; philosophy is the inquiry into questions that can't (yet) be examined empirically; psychology is the study of the human mind; epistemology is the branch of philosophy concerned with knowledge; ontology is the branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature of "being".

Yes.

Are you saying that your self-similarity model covers (or aims to cover) ground not already being covered in those five disciplines of human inquiry? If so, how would you describe this "undiscovered country"? What would be the name and/or category of understanding to which the self-similarity model can be assigned (if it can't strictly fit into any of those five aforementioned categories)?

The self-similarity was not my idea, however I did expand upon it with intelligible models of my own, yes.

I call it a juxtaposition between holism and nihilism. I also call it Black Hole Logic. The study in itself is truly too profound to suggest that it is a practice, rather than a principle - this knowledge will not do anything for us physically, but allow us to shape ourselves metaphysically. Considering that wisdom is like water, that it is everywhere, I suspect that shaping our metaphysical body is far more important than shaping our physical bodies and its mundane experiences; this is ignoring the fact that the Universe previously existed in metaphysical form before it transcended into its physical form.

-It seems you are framing the conditions of discourse concerning your thesis. If I understand, you're saying that, because your thesis concerns things not touched on by the "Big Five Categories of Understanding", that one cannot use or invoke them in discourse (as it would be both futile and inaccurate to do so). Thus, the only recourse is pure analytics -- analysis of the thesis and its parts, and in the associations that comprise it.

Is that correct? If so, it is unlike any discourse I've ever participated in (though admittedly, I've partaken in very few Internet debates and discourses).

Yes. You cannot work with genius - you can only make genius. Understand?

I don't think such a proposed exchange can be at all classified as a "debate", as your conditions of discourse remove arguments, sources, and other things usually employed to support a position, or underline faults in another. Are we then to bandy back and forth, toying with ideas of self-similarity just to see where it leads us? Can there be any debate, wherein you attempt to defend your thesis from my scrutiny (or the scrutiny of any others)?

I could attempt to adhere to such conditions, but they'd need to be laid out.

Answers and questions alike both fulfill opposition; answers require there to be a claim - questions require there to be a consensus.

For an example, let's say I said the human eyes were genitalia because the facial organs and the sensual organs are interconnected. You couldn't answer the consensus, but you could question the consensus - acknowledging that the consensus is philosophical, not political or practical, by asking the question: "That couldn't be it, since the eyes are not used for sexual activities. The eyes may climax into tears and be interconnected, but that just wouldn't make any sense." Then I wouldn't be able to further question such a powerful question. Do try to remind yourself that all wisdom comes from questioning the world, not answering the world.

Such a recontextualization would have notable philosophical import, as it would inform our understanding, and thereby the manner in which we go about living, making decisions, and so on.

It would give us the answers we started wars over since the dawn of Mankind.

If you intend to eventually broach your thesis to the level of peer-review and academia (as your wording suggests), then I suspect that, in its current form, it would only be suitable for philosophy, and not science -- and this, because the latter is empirical in its methodology. You say that your thesis is borne purely of hard analysis of existence, but science demands hypotheses and experiments, evidence and proofs.

You'll eventually want to formalize your thesis in terms of scientific methodology, if you want to publish or present it in the field of academia. They'd likely say that, because you're making claims about physical phenomena, you'd need supporting evidence beyond strict analysis. Because anyone can make claims about reality through analysis; in science, one must support their claims through corroborating evidence.

I do not have the tools, but I insist that a well-minded scientist ready to bare this knowledge of mine to take my analysis and put it to a test.

How often do you see people making connections on their own? As I said before, I make connections on my own, then research if I was correct. My brain is connected to the Universe in some way where in I can "feel" the subatomic world in everything and see right through objects and labels by "feeling" what's inside the physical construct. How often do you see someone saying there's a comparison between the way the humans, the planet and the Universe have sex? That the asteroid belt and the kidney stones have too many comparisons? That the human body is on the same frequency as the planet Earth? That the electromagnetic colors represent our behavior spectrum from red (survival), orange (taking a stand), yellow (taking control), green (love), light blue (communication), dark blue (intuition) and purple (forming a bond between ourselves and the Universe). That the human behaves like the eye of the tornado, in that they seem calm, but outside of that is this subatomic whirlwind of cosmic proporrtions animating our existence. That the human eyes are black holes, along with all the evidence I have to back up the comparisons, no matter how silly it sounds to the literal-minded.

Not saying your thesis is false because it is strictly an analytic framework -- but it would be more persuasive (or compelling, at least) if there was more than just pattern-recognition at play.

Here's how you know when a pattern is more than a pattern: when the puzzles fall into place before you and connections that are made form one truth, not separate truths.

If self-similarity is a scientific conclusion that has been peer-reviewed, I'd appreciate any sources you could provide to confirm as much.

There's plenty of studies that can be found by using the search engine. These studies demonstrate scientific structure - the self-similarity also can be connected to the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio.

Scientifically speaking, your thesis is only a hypothesis until you can demonstrate corroborating empirical evidence to others (i.e peer-review). While your model was not derived through strict empirical methodology, it would be best to use accurate scientific terminology nonetheless.

In any case, if you've had trouble in the past in reaching through to others, the issue may lie in presentation. I recall when I first read your opening post that I thought there surely are ways it could have been structured with greater clarity (as it is otherwise a large compilation of observations about phenomenological commonality) [1]. When you're bombarding your audience with associative imagery and not much else (e.g. "observe the phallic volcano and the yonic singularity!"), it is easier for your point to be lost on them, or for them to question how this information is relevant to their experience, or how you've come about such conclusions, etc.

It's not like these connections stop at a dead end, or cannot connect to other things - these connections connect to everything. I'm not dealing with one subject - I am dealing with the whole Universe by understanding the self-similarity design and how to cross-reference its behaviors to that of Man's behavior, while acknowledging that the human experience is merely the Universe experiencing itself. This was never me, really. This is my brain I took care of always pulsing and reacting to these grand conclusions on its own. I know exactly when my brain picked up on something because of the way it always pulses - it feels like I've created a cosmic beast inside my head every day. I am honestly tired of all the "peer-reviewed" prerequisites, when all these other geniuses knew what they were talking about before having to prove it to others that do not know what it is like to see things others do not, not because you're special, but because you are insanely passionate and receptive - it doesn't help that the most silliest of things were "peer-reviewed", as to say that it's lost its credibility over the years; to say that it is no more perfect than my consensus, so why should I have to get physical / tangible evidence for something that is so grand that the only way to understand any of it, is to remember life before its physical state?

And the parallel to conspiracy theories is not unfounded, alas. The conspiracy theorist draws associations between data points, whether they be related or unrelated; they find an initial idea that they suspect might be truth, and investigate further, compiling added data into a framework or model which is then presented to others. But all they have to show for the veracity of their model are the associations that make it up. This connects to that, they say, only for their audience to inquire as to how they came about their conclusions, or why they should care.

Yes, they make connections that aren't there and that's easily proven by simply asking them how they know so much about a supposedly hidden operation that works on a high-tech level. It's like asking alien-apologists "why do aliens always crash in their stories"?

When you ask me about the connections I make, I am on a completely different level of responses than those that use fear-mongering as a foundation for their ideals.

So, your genius is the thing that supports your analysis. Which is to say, that your thesis is more reliable because your genius allows you to make correct deductions about reality with greater probability and/or accuracy. Your genius makes you a trustworthy authority on this matter of self-similarity, so it's reasonable to take your word for its veracity.

Is genius thus defined as those whose brains "operate" on Gamma Waves? Have you externally confirmed that your cerebral operating system runs on Gamma Waves? If I'm to take this notion as an assurance for the validity of your thesis, it would be best to support this notion by demonstrating your Gamma propensity (since so far, it's the lynchpin of your thesis, the only thing that could be considered as compelling support).

Also, I'm vaguely aware of the topic of brainwave levels, though not all too much. Perhaps I should look into it further -- unless you'd be so kind as to provide a primer (or links/sources to such scientifically-accurate primers).

Thanks for your response, HHS. Again, I'll go back to your opening post and address the specific associations you display in the near future. 8D

Yes. I would not be here right now, if I did not wake up one random afternoon, have the wildest of thoughts flood my head about consciousness and water, just to find out that I was more than right; I expanded on questions that have never been answered in the history of Mankind. I don't know how many times someone tells me "nobody knows what consciousness is" - I do. I know exactly what it is. These ideas come to me - I always felt that the human body was always a receiver of some sort, but when you leave it to collect dust and clutter its receptors, it will not pick up ideas like a receiver that was taken care of by its beholder, like myself - if not to say I took care of it better than anyone that has ever existed, some of it being luck based on some experiences managing to evolve me at lightning speed.

I would like to test these waves, yes. I know my mind evolves at speeds more than the average mind does. I can pick up on information faster than anyone. I can feel it evolving as it feels like it's stretching itself every day. Every time I wake up, I see more, then I see more after that day, then much more after that day, to the point my mind is ascending itself to shape itself around the Universe, as that was my principle since the beginning.

You can use the research engine here too, as I do not support sources. I use consensuses, analysis and questions only, for this Universe is of relativity, not realism.

 

[Sehnsucht]

Apologies for the late response. As you can already see, it's a bit of a long one. >_>

The self-similarity was not my idea, however I did expand upon it with intelligible models of my own, yes.

I call it a juxtaposition between holism and nihilism. I also call it Black Hole Logic. The study in itself is truly too profound to suggest that it is a practice, rather than a principle - this knowledge will not do anything for us physically, but allow us to shape ourselves metaphysically. Considering that wisdom is like water, that it is everywhere, I suspect that shaping our metaphysical body is far more important than shaping our physical bodies and its mundane experiences; this is ignoring the fact that the Universe previously existed in metaphysical form before it transcended into its physical form.

What is the "metaphysical" body? How might one "shape" it?

What is the distinction between "physical" and "metaphysical", in this model of self-similarity?

Yes. You cannot work with genius - you can only make genius. Understand?

Genius is not a property, but a process. One who engages in this process can be characterized as a "genius", or doing "genius".

What is the process of genius, then? Is it simply to engage in a cognitive mode in which making correct deductions and associations by power of reflection alone increases in probability and/or capacity?

Answers and questions alike both fulfill opposition; answers require there to be a claim - questions require there to be a consensus.

For an example, let's say I said the human eyes were genitalia because the facial organs and the sensual organs are interconnected. You couldn't answer the consensus, but you could question the consensus - acknowledging that the consensus is philosophical, not political or practical, by asking the question: "That couldn't be it, since the eyes are not used for sexual activities. The eyes may climax into tears and be interconnected, but that just wouldn't make any sense." Then I wouldn't be able to further question such a powerful question. Do try to remind yourself that all wisdom comes from questioning the world, not answering the world.

So instead of what might classically be described as "debate" -- point and counterpoint, argument and counterargument -- you'd prefer instead to engage in question and counter-question?

As for the example at hand, the issue concerns definitions, and specification of the associations being invoked. "Genitalia" is the term usually used to refer to sexual organs (i.e. the mechanism for reproduction). Human eyes don't satisfy that definition, so you can't say they're genitalia.

Unless you use (or devise) a different definition for genitalia, of which eyes could also belong to (whether that definition concern biology, philosophy, geometry, or whatever else). You could also draw similarities of description and function between genitals and eyes to illustrate that eyes are like genitalia. If you present the proposition "the eyes are genitalia" as a bald assertion, without also supplying definitions and context of association, then you'll likely get many an eyebrow raise.

Unless your actual intent is precisely to have your audience question your assertion and its context, so that they might arrive to their own conclusions and understanding. But then, how to you ensure that they come to the correct conclusions and understanding? Must you simply trust in their faculties, that they might eventually reach the correct view with diligent reflection and analysis?

It would give us the answers we started wars over since the dawn of Mankind.

What are the questions, or problems of understanding, over which such wars have been waged? Are there any wars or conflicts in particular that come to mind (and how knowledge of self-similarity may have prevented them, or barring that, minimized their violence)?

I do not have the tools, but I insist that a well-minded scientist ready to bare this knowledge of mine to take my analysis and put it to a test.

How often do you see people making connections on their own? As I said before, I make connections on my own, then research if I was correct. My brain is connected to the Universe in some way where in I can "feel" the subatomic world in everything and see right through objects and labels by "feeling" what's inside the physical construct.

I have to say that either lack this capacity, or am unaware of it within me. So I suppose, going forward, there will be a divide of experience in this discourse.

It's also why your thesis makes for a harder sell -- it's the product of "genius", which is not the experience of the majority (certainly not my own). Though as I hope you'll have seen thus far, I'm engaging your ideas directly, without neither acceptance or dismissal.

How often do you see someone saying there's a comparison between the way the humans, the planet and the Universe have sex? That the asteroid belt and the kidney stones have too many comparisons? That the human body is on the same frequency as the planet Earth? That the electromagnetic colors represent our behavior spectrum from red (survival), orange (taking a stand), yellow (taking control), green (love), light blue (communication), dark blue (intuition) and purple (forming a bond between ourselves and the Universe). That the human behaves like the eye of the tornado, in that they seem calm, but outside of that is this subatomic whirlwind of cosmic proporrtions animating our existence. That the human eyes are black holes, along with all the evidence I have to back up the comparisons, no matter how silly it sounds to the literal-minded.

This is the first time I have encountered this idea of self-similarity -- not specifically the idea that there are unifying norms that govern things at different scales (which isn't a novel idea by any means), but your particular model with its particular constituents.

Which reminds that I still need to go over the particular examples that you list in your opening post, as I have yet to react and address them directly.

Is self-similarity as you present it a novel idea, or have others arrived at similar conclusions (or the same), in part or in full?

Also, what qualifies someone as being "literal-minded"?

Here's how you know when a pattern is more than a pattern: when the puzzles fall into place before you and connections that are made form one truth, not separate truths.

First (and less relevantly), I must note the peculiarity of the phrasing "a pattern being more than a pattern". If a pattern is an association of discrete quantities of information, then what is "more" than an association of discrete quantities of information? Just a semantic bit that I found amusing (unless there's more to it, in which case expound as you please).

In any case, what classifies as a legitimate pattern is one wherein all signs universally point toward a singular, unified truth. Is this correct?

There's plenty of studies that can be found by using the search engine. These studies demonstrate scientific structure - the self-similarity also can be connected to the Fibonacci Sequence and the Golden Ratio.

I am aware of these geometric throughlines that recur in nature. Though unlike self-similarity, these two throughlines have definitively been empirically observed, and shown to recur (i.e. anyone can hold a nautilus shell and a sunflower and measure the Fibonacci Sequence via their own senses). You've said that self-similarity is not (or has not yet been) empirically observed (if it was, I imagine you'd have provided empirical correlation in your opening post, beyond strict association in imageries and phenomena).

In any case, I was asking my original question (i.e. asking to provide sources) because you specifically wrote this:

C- Self-similarity is a scientific conclusion based on a peer-reviewed consensus.

You qualify self-similarity as being a "scientific conclusion". I thus assumed you were referring to an existing source or consensus or paper or theory or hypothesis (or some or all of the above), which I might feasibly also be able to verify on my own. And you say that it's based on a "peer-reviewed consensus", which reads as saying that you checked with multiple sources (papers, sources, articles, etc.) to cross-reference the accuracy of your analyses.

If you say self-similarity is a scientific conclusion, you're by extension saying it's an empirical conclusion, or has been arrived at empirically. If that's not the case, then you should refrain from describing your model as being a "scientific conclusion" -- because "science" has a particular definition and set of methodological implications.

Though I am aware that you go on to say that you only use this scientific "foundation" as a launchpad to hard analysis of phenomenological interrelation. It remains that if you're invoking some kind of scientific data to supplement your musings, then you must have seen this data somewhere (so hence my interest in the matter).

I am honestly tired of all the "peer-reviewed" prerequisites, when all these other geniuses knew what they were talking about before having to prove it to others that do not know what it is like to see things others do not, not because you're special, but because you are insanely passionate and receptive - it doesn't help that the most silliest of things were "peer-reviewed", as to say that it's lost its credibility over the years; to say that it is no more perfect than my consensus, so why should I have to get physical / tangible evidence for something that is so grand that the only way to understand any of it, is to remember life before its physical state?

While you're probably aware of the reason there is such a thing as peer reviewal, I'll offer a brief overview, just to put this all into context.

[collapse=A Brief Encapsulation of Peer-Review, In This Layman's Understanding]
Peer review is a central tenet to the empirical approach. You observe some phenomenon, form a hypothesis concerning its workings, gather evidence, devise and perform experiments, and so on. Then you share your research and findings to others, so that they might replicate your experiment, or retrace the steps you had taken. This is to minimize the probability of human error -- that somewhere along the way, you've made a mistake in your methodology, or the conclusions you've drawn, or whatever, which would throw doubt into the truth of whatever thing you're trying to illustrate.

When making a video game, you have many people test it to find bugs or faults, and use their input to iron the kinks out of the final product; the more people test your game, the greater the likelihood that they'll find flaws (if there are any). If/when enough bugs have been found, they can be corrected so that the final product reaches the adequate standard of quality.

Likewise, because the scientific approach is skeptical, working from the ground up, it's not enough to just say "here's what I found, take my word for it". It's the equivalent of trying to sell an incomplete video game. You might buy a game without knowing it's incomplete, only to later find that it's riddled with bugs. In the same way, you might accept a given claim or proposition as being true, only to later find that it's riddled with errors/flaws/inconsistencies, and/or doesn't seem to align with experience and observation, etc.

If, in the context of science, you make a claim about our reality, then it can conceivably be tested to verify that the claim is indeed correct, or probably correct. If it can't be examined via empirical methods (e.g. the claim is untestable, unfalsifiable, etc.), then it ceases to be in the purview of science (if it ever was, or was claimed to be).

One aspect of peer-reviewal is to weed out errors in the thinking of the one who proposed the topic. If you walk up to me, tell me that you are a genius, then leave, what reason would I have to believe you? Naturally, you'd want to prove that you're a genius (in this case, through demonstrating the output of your cognitive findings). Otherwise, I have as much reason to think that you're a genius than to think you're a charlatan. And you'd also have to demonstrated how your findings are at all relevant to our common reality or experience (because all things known by science are relevant to our common reality or experience in some way).

Lastly, the reason peer-reviewed models and theories may eventually be revised, modified, or even outright discarded is because everything in science is provisional -- which is to say, it's held to be probably true until and unless some new information comes to light to contradict or invalidate the model or theory. As a practice, science aims to be self-correcting, so that information found to be flawed, or rendered less probable in light of new findings will be revised or discarded.
[/collapse]

The thing here is that you're making a claim that there is such a thing as a "self-similar set of norms that govern (meta)physical phenomena at all scales". Is this a scientific, empirical claim? If you intend to propose as much, then you'll need to do as one who does science -- support your assertions with data, evidence, proof, etc.

However, you've said that your model isn't a scientific one, strictly speaking; it concerns science and philosophy, but lies outside the purview of either. So self-similarity can't (presumably) be verified empirically, nor demonstrated using the rigours of philosophy (e.g. rhetoric, logic, argument, etc.).

If so, how might you prove this claim to others, who have no reason to believe you at your word (i.e. they're skeptical)? That is, to show that your claim has factual existence and relevance, and that you have not simply imposed it upon reality with your mind, or that you're actually insane, or etc.?

Assurances beyond your own mind is one good way to satisfy this "litmus of skepticism". You may be absolutely correct in everything you've said thus far, and all who deny this would then categorically be in the wrong. But if you can't convince them of what is indeed the truth (i.e. you can't sell your case), then your audience can't really be faulted for rejecting your claims, dismissing them as "silly", or what have you.

This brings up an important line of discussion that I don't think has yet been raised:

You say that this model of which you have conceived has existential and cosmic (and metaphysical?) implications. How do you intend to make these implications known to a wider audience? Do you intend to finalize and perfect your framework, then format it in an intelligible way for mass consumption? Will you seek to have this model be reviewed/analyzed/etc. by scientists? Philosophers? Sociologists? The public? Or is your aim just to shoot the **** with those who hang out in the Debate Hall section of Smashboards?

I would imagine that your ultimate aim is indeed to disseminate this information in such a way that more and more people understand both what you're saying, and the import of what you're saying. I'm interested to know how you intend to achieve this goal, especially if you've had trouble in the past trying to get the veracity of your ideas across (a scenario which I recall you've mentioned to have underwent in the past).

As a last point, you note your distaste at how the output of geniuses -- those who "think", or arrive at conclusions "differently" than the norm -- are often dismissed out of hand, because they lack "tangible" (i.e. verifiable) evidence to support their notions. What are examples of geniuses past and present whose output (and their own person) have been subjected to such scenarios (in your view)?

Yes, they make connections that aren't there and that's easily proven by simply asking them how they know so much about a supposedly hidden operation that works on a high-tech level. It's like asking alien-apologists "why do aliens always crash in their stories"?

When you ask me about the connections I make, I am on a completely different level of responses than those that use fear-mongering as a foundation for their ideals.

Fair enough. I guess what you're saying is that the more the conspiracy theorist attempts to reconcile their framework with further associations, the more tenuous their framework will become, because their initial assertions were fundamentally flawed. On the other hand, your framework gets less tenuous the more associations you draw, because your initial view was rooted in objective truth from the onset.

Does this make you a truth-mongerer, then?

Yes. I would not be here right now, if I did not wake up one random afternoon, have the wildest of thoughts flood my head about consciousness and water, just to find out that I was more than right; I expanded on questions that have never been answered in the history of Mankind. I don't know how many times someone tells me "nobody knows what consciousness is" - I do. I know exactly what it is.

I'd be interested in knowing what consciousness (or the phenomenon of consciousness) is defined as in the parameters of your self-similarity model. In other words, how does self-similarity account for the thing called "consciousness"?

Unless you address this in your opening post, which I need to reread. So if it is addressed there, disregard this point entirely.

These ideas come to me - I always felt that the human body was always a receiver of some sort, but when you leave it to collect dust and clutter its receptors, it will not pick up ideas like a receiver that was taken care of by its beholder, like myself - if not to say I took care of it better than anyone that has ever existed, some of it being luck based on some experiences managing to evolve me at lightning speed.

I would like to test these waves, yes. I know my mind evolves at speeds more than the average mind does. I can pick up on information faster than anyone. I can feel it evolving as it feels like it's stretching itself every day. Every time I wake up, I see more, then I see more after that day, then much more after that day, to the point my mind is ascending itself to shape itself around the Universe, as that was my principle since the beginning.

-If the body is a receiver, what does it receive? And how does one perform maintenance on this "receiver"? Active development of rational and intuitive capacities? Completing Sudoku puzzles on a daily basis? Eliminating red meats from your diet?

-What does it mean for a mind (and/or brain) to "evolve"? To become faster, more complex, more efficient? And what causes this evolution, or regulates the speeds of this evolution from person to person (i.e. why does your mind evolve "faster" than in average minds (and also, what is an "average" mind)?

-Also, what is the endpoint of your cognitive evolution? What do you expect for you to eventually "become", as a conscious observer?

You can use the research engine here too, as I do not support sources. I use consensuses, analysis and questions only, for this Universe is of relativity, not realism.

You don't support sources, but you refer to them to retroactively ensure that you're on the "right track" in your analyses? Or do you define "consensus" as being an averaged plurality of sources? I think you should clearly delineate the distinction between a "source" and a "consensus", how you view both, and how either are relevant to your model (and to what degrees).

Also, how do you define "realism", here? And "relativity", for that matter?

...

...Well, that's all for now. The thing that recurs most often in this response is asking for clarifications on the definitions for your terms. I find definitions to be of utmost importance in exchanges such as these (because mutual intelligibility is an evident requisite of productive discourse). So if you're wondering why I keep harping on definitions, that's why.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

What is the "metaphysical" body? How might one "shape" it?

Here's a few reference points to consider: A) The Sky; The Realm of Ideology, B) The Clouds; The Ideas. The "metaphysical" body is the character of information association, in that our ability to project and reflect is entirely the sole foundation of what lies hidden beneath our physical body and literal brain. The Universe's beginning stages were entirely metaphysical, then over a course of time, the Universe transcended into a physical state in which we live in and live through as we call it the planet Earth and the human body. The genius inside me insists that the human experience is directly mirrored from the Universe's experience, which is to provide the possibility of which the physical is the beginning stage of humanity, while the metaphysical stage is the transcendence of a human experience.

What is the distinction between "physical" and "metaphysical", in this model of self-similarity?

A) Construct; Character. B) Realism; Idealism. C) Tangibility; Intangibility.

What is the process of genius, then? Is it simply to engage in a cognitive mode in which making correct deductions and associations by power of reflection alone increases in probability and/or capacity?

It's not simply to engage - it's the need to engage, to get to the bottom of the fundamentals of everything.

So instead of what might classically be described as "debate" -- point and counterpoint, argument and counterargument -- you'd prefer instead to engage in question and counter-question?

Unless your actual intent is precisely to have your audience question your assertion and its context, so that they might arrive to their own conclusions and understanding. But then, how to you ensure that they come to the correct conclusions and understanding? Must you simply trust in their faculties, that they might eventually reach the correct view with diligent reflection and analysis?

Yes, I was explaining how I wasn't making just any connection for the sake of similarities by using the genitalia and eye example. As for the latter of your inquiry... it's not difficult - once you come to the conclusions yourself, you will know exactly how to guide someone to that same conclusion unless they are deliberately stubborn. You will often at times discover that you learn more ways to get to that conclusion by trying to get someone else to lead themselves to it.

What are the questions, or problems of understanding, over which such wars have been waged? Are there any wars or conflicts in particular that come to mind (and how knowledge of self-similarity may have prevented them, or barring that, minimized their violence)?

All wars start from metaphysical wars inside of ourselves which cause chemical imbalance because stress physiologically affects us. We have a brain that is built to battle our woes, but consciously we are too lazy and ungrateful to help the brain make its rounds.

Is self-similarity as you present it a novel idea, or have others arrived at similar conclusions (or the same), in part or in full?

As far as I have thought and challenged myself through every field on the internet, I can say that it's most certainly a novel idea, if not beyond a mere novel. By proving this, I will be changing the face of all humanity. People will not have to wear masks. Sex would not have to be taken for granted. Psychopathy will be long deserted for personality once more. The entire planet would cease its hatred and confusion for harsh coherence. It's harsh because in order to achieve this level of though, one must let go of their fake nature to pursue their true nature (not the other fake nature that people assume to be their final form).

Also, what qualifies someone as being "literal-minded"?

As I once said, "A book-shaped brain cannot expand, for all life began with a circle." They are the types that have no understanding beyond the physical illusion.

First (and less relevantly), I must note the peculiarity of the phrasing "a pattern being more than a pattern". If a pattern is an association of discrete quantities of information, then what is "more" than an association of discrete quantities of information?

If I said a human was more than a human, it would mean they are no longer human by taking what is apparent and applying to what is actual (I'm using multi-perception). The same applies to saying what seems like a pattern is more than that in the eyes of an experienced observer.

In any case, what classifies as a legitimate pattern is one wherein all signs universally point toward a singular, unified truth. Is this correct?

Yes.

I am aware of these geometric throughlines that recur in nature. Though unlike self-similarity, these two throughlines have definitively been empirically observed, and shown to recur (i.e. anyone can hold a nautilus shell and a sunflower and measure the Fibonacci Sequence via their own senses). You've said that self-similarity is not (or has not yet been) empirically observed (if it was, I imagine you'd have provided empirical correlation in your opening post, beyond strict association in imageries and phenomena).

What makes my thoughts so rare and grand, is that I'm taking an already existent consensus of which I take up to a level beyond it which now amplifies what was originally the Universe's design and the planet design, to the human design, the planet design and the Universe's design. Nobody on this planet is making the sheer connections in human behavior and the Universe's behavior on the level that I am. I'm legitimately creating the blueprints to the human mind and the Universe with my thoughts alone. To say that I can access every aspect of the Universe because I simply know the purpose of it all after realizing all the connections.

If you say self-similarity is a scientific conclusion, you're by extension saying it's an empirical conclusion, or has been arrived at empirically. If that's not the case, then you should refrain from describing your model as being a "scientific conclusion" -- because "science" has a particular definition and set of methodological implications.

The self-similarity principle is scientifically founded - what I expanded on is what lies in the dark still.

The thing here is that you're making a claim that there is such a thing as a "self-similar set of norms that govern (meta)physical phenomena at all scales". Is this a scientific, empirical claim? If you intend to propose as much, then you'll need to do as one who does science -- support your assertions with data, evidence, proof, etc.

No, this is my consensus. It's standing on top of the 'self-similarity relation' principle's foundation. This is why questions and counter-questions are very important. I cannot support data, evidence, proof when the information I work with is beyond modern day science, philosophy and psychology. We're talking about an ideology that deserves to be taken care of diligently, as it's truly potent in summing up the entire life as we know it.

So self-similarity can't (presumably) be verified empirically, nor demonstrated using the rigours of philosophy (e.g. rhetoric, logic, argument, etc.).

Self-similarity design is just a foundation for my tacked on reasoning above its current form.

If so, how might you prove this claim to others, who have no reason to believe you at your word (i.e. they're skeptical)? That is, to show that your claim has factual existence and relevance, and that you have not simply imposed it upon reality with your mind, or that you're actually insane, or etc.?

It's simple. Never try to get someone to believe in what you say, when they lost belief in themselves or in the rest of the world. Most people lost hope and live their lives like a black hole, so it's intuitive to recognize the situation one is in before executing something as vast as this. This is not something I can prove, as it's directly the heart of my genius - it requires you to be open to it and see it for yourself. In a way, the original message behind all "gods" that say you cannot see it unless you accept it in your heart was referring to the Universe before zealots ruined the grand message behind all texts that poetically refer to the Universe (you cannot express the undefined without using parables) with their delusional hatred-filled interpretation of what was clearly an allegorical understanding of the Universe.

Assurances beyond your own mind is one good way to satisfy this "litmus of skepticism". You may be absolutely correct in everything you've said thus far, and all who deny this would then categorically be in the wrong. But if you can't convince them of what is indeed the truth (i.e. you can't sell your case), then your audience can't really be faulted for rejecting your claims, dismissing them as "silly", or what have you.

I do not dismiss people's ideas - as a self-created genius, I have explanations for everyone's case. To dismiss someone's idea, is to say you have no consensus of your own. I do not dismiss - I further describe their ideological iterations. You can tell a lot of someone's character when it can interact with anything or if it can interact with only some things. Dismissing is a sign of ignorance - demonstrating ignorance makes them the fool, not me.

Or is your aim just to shoot the **** with those who hang out in the Debate Hall section of Smashboards?

It's extremely important to note how patient I am with these vast thoughts and how others want an answer right now ASAP who does not care about the details and the inevitable learning curve. It's not that difficult to see my potential by the way I behave differently from those who are constantly reassuring themselves by making all the noise they can to hide the fact they cannot make any sense of their own.

I'm interested to know how you intend to achieve this goal, especially if you've had trouble in the past trying to get the veracity of your ideas across (a scenario which I recall you've mentioned to have underwent in the past).

It's not me. It's the distance between my thought path and people's interests. What I do costed me years of pain and misery, self-discipline and fighting wars against my own subconscious at a very young age. Others are basically chickens without heads doing whatever their nerves want them to do. So you have to again take into consideration that communication is not always the issue - it's the infliction between intelligence and ignorance, especially when I say that I am beyond intelligence; I am unable to flaunt my genius, but others can flaunt their ignorance. "Intelligence is pain", is not allowed, but "Ignorance is bliss", is? I want to live in a world where the intelligent is in paradise, and the ignorant suffer in pain.

As a last point, you note your distaste at how the output of geniuses -- those who "think", or arrive at conclusions "differently" than the norm -- are often dismissed out of hand, because they lack "tangible" (i.e. verifiable) evidence to support their notions. What are examples of geniuses past and present whose output (and their own person) have been subjected to such scenarios (in your view)?

Here's a triangle example: Einstein did not not understand the importance of philosophy; Tesla did not understand the importance of dreams; Junga did not understand the importance of the Universe.

I understand all of them and then beyond that. So yes, I am free to say I have managed to reach a higher level than they did as I did not limit myself to anything. I can adapt to every single aspect in life.

I'd be interested in knowing what consciousness (or the phenomenon of consciousness) is defined as in the parameters of your self-similarity model. In other words, how does self-similarity account for the thing called "consciousness"?

Life is made out of water. Water serves and returns. Water is the only element that can achieve different forms and reflect. Things that reflect today are based on the water element. The mirror only reflects because of the materials which make it came from water. The amoeba thrives off of water. The amoeba produces chemicals that animate humanity from more than a flesh-based machine. The dreams we have at night are created by chemicals that consist of 99% water, so it's not far from what I say, when I connect consciousness to water and the reflective properties, the chemical properties, the distortion properties, the flow properties and everything else which surely should convince anyone with a powerful brain to see for themselves that I am right about consciousness and every other idea of consciousness is blown out of the water by it.

-If the body is a receiver, what does it receive? And how does one perform maintenance on this "receiver"? Active development of rational and intuitive capacities? Completing Sudoku puzzles on a daily basis? Eliminating red meats from your diet?

Information.

Diligent responsible behavior and attentive strength.

Think - think no matter what. See that thing beside you that you never notice? Analyze it. See that book on the desk near you? Read the title. Look all around you and inside you - consider everything analytically and then understand that this analysis will always lead you to the ultimatum in some way.

-What does it mean for a mind (and/or brain) to "evolve"? To become faster, more complex, more efficient? And what causes this evolution, or regulates the speeds of this evolution from person to person (i.e. why does your mind evolve "faster" than in average minds (and also, what is an "average" mind)?

When you experience yourself "alive" - you truly know when that occurs. You will stop feeding. Your mind and body will be full of energy that makes people wonder if you're even human. The world around you is now weighing upon your shoulders, while you stand taller than the heavens. The entire micro, macro and cosmic scales are no longer distant from each other - everything around you seems much smaller and you'll find yourself no longer being frustrated and breaking a sweat over the most complex things in life. You will read people's movement and actions like a book; you will break down information in milliseconds; you will have access to a cross-referential, cosmic reverse-engineering system. You are no longer living in your bubble, but in actual "reality", where in all things that seem physical and literal were merely part of the distraction of the human brain. Everything that seem solid, is just atoms creating an illusion, but that's not to call it a matrix, because that would mean that our brain is the computer projecting it all, however it's not - this Universe existed prior to human existence and planned human existence based on the evidence behind how the entire evolution chain is required to sustain human life and photo receptors forming before stars billions of years ago to capture our experiences today.

See with your brain, not your eyes.

-Also, what is the endpoint of your cognitive evolution? What do you expect for you to eventually "become", as a conscious observer?

Here's an excerpt of my literature: "The brain contains distractions and desires every second, because pain triggers the need to satisfy ourselves - you have to deny the drive, so the animal feels powerless, when the animal feels powerless, it rethinks itself into a human; then when emotion and love is still not enough to handle this reality we're in along with our inner animal misbehaving at times, the human rethinks itself into oblivion, which causes insanity; insanity realizes that it's destroying itself, along with other things, in spite of it existing solely because of the things which it destroys, so insanity learns to accept self-humility; finally, self-humility causes us to take all the knowledge and experience we have and keep it locked away inside our quiet and calm mind that no longer is about destruction, but a new beginning of tranquility and passive integrity, yet self-humility realizes that the Universe is violent on top of its silence, therefore self-humility is half-right and half-wrong, so it leads to the final stage: being nobody; the nobody is something you never want to toy with, because it's designed to have all the knowledge and information, while at the same time having no way for anyone to bring it down - it will bring itself down if it fails to balance the inner animal, the inner human, the inner insanity and the inner humility - which allows it to become the ultimate mirror, just like the Universe; this is to say that being "nobody" is the secret to being everything and nothing through an interplay of holism and nihilism. "

You don't support sources, but you refer to them to retroactively ensure that you're on the "right track" in your analyses? Or do you define "consensus" as being an averaged plurality of sources? I think you should clearly delineate the distinction between a "source" and a "consensus", how you view both, and how either are relevant to your model (and to what degrees).

Sources are information that cannot be taken with more than a grain of salt.

Consensus is a system of information generally agreed upon, that should not be taken with more than a grain of salt.

Also, how do you define "realism", here? And "relativity", for that matter?

Realism is when you limit your imagination to an imaginary physicality that you assume to be real physicality.

Relativity is space. To be nothing, and everything at the same time.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

There's so many factual elements missing or blatantly wrong that I don't even want to touch the premises that stem from them.

 

[HappyHouseSpider]

There's so many factual elements missing or blatantly wrong that I don't even want to touch the premises that stem from them.

It's very easy for someone to make a claim (imaginary matter), then completely miss the point of making the claim (to replace that imaginary matter with genuine matter); it's the same feeling as, say, building up all these thoughts and emotions for someone you're about to have a big talk with, so on your way there your head feels big, your heart feels big, your nerves are wild and you have it all there, but frankly when you finally reach your destination, it all goes *poof*, why? The human brain is biologically designed to bluff, hence the behavior of a bear or the puffer fish.

You have supplied us with imaginary matter. Where is the genuine matter?

 

[FirestormNeos]

subatomic particles that make up atoms, which elements are made of, which molecules are made out of, which make up the cells in us, which build up into our body parts, which make up us.

I dunno 'bout the rest of you, but this thread name is kind of a "no duh" moment.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Mysticism is not philosophy... this is just another pointless display of misguided ideological vanity. Stop trying to preach these nonsensical Eastern-inspired platitudes @ HappyHouseSpider , you're not doing anyone a favor (including yourself).

 

[Locuan]

I read through your post. You claim to have this "representation" of the universe and that there are proofs for this. You use big words to try to back up these claims. However, through a lot of your observations, you do not provide proof. In essence, all of what you say is just your opinion and a misguided representation of nature.

Argument 6: Further evidence that our emotions are based entirely on proton, electron and neutron behavior, is that electrons can be "irritated" - when they do, they behave like humans do when they become "irritated".

What? What do you mean by irritated? Are you are trying to reference the excitation of electrons? Additionally, what do you mean that they behave like humans?

When electrons absorbs energy, lets say from a photon, its goes from a ground state to an excited state. For example, in the photoelectric effect if an electron within a material absorbs the energy of one photon and acquires more energy than the binding energy that keeps it stuck to the material, the electron will be ejected. Another example, an electron in an LED will encounter a hole at some point, if it's on of course. This makes it go into a lower energy state ejecting excess energy as photon in the process. This effects are easily measured.

Are you trying to relate the above with human behavior? The two things are very different! Plus like in algebra, it seems like you want to mix apples and oranges. You will soon find out, they do not add up.

I can prove that this is plausible, by demonstrating how our dreams; which create other realities, experiences and profound ideas; which came to geniuses like Tesla and Einstein; are consisted of chemicals that contain 99% water, called serotonin; which is converted into melatonin.

Are you trying to prove that consciousness is just made up of chemicals? Consciousness is something that is still heavily debated. In fact, if you do a simple search on arxiv you will see a lot of published papers that talk about consciousness. In fact, in this paper the author postulates that consciousness could be interpreted as a state of matter. In a sense different than what you postulate (since you claim its made off chemicals) but similar because it breaks down into proving that it is related to matter. However, it is just his hypothesis! The author states:

I examine the hypothesis that consciousness can be understood as a state of matter, “perceptronium”, with distinctive information processing abilities.

Additionally,

My hope is that we will ultimately be able to understand perceptronium as yet another state of matter.

In other words, there is still not a full consensus throughout the academic world on what consciousness is. Claiming that you do know what it is are big words!

Argument 8: Speaking of planets, the planets are in a pattern that will blow your mind - alone, they look like they are just floating in space, orbiting the sun silently; however when observed by someone with a keen eye, they can see that the planets are based on a ripple effect, as the planets near the sun are closest to each other, while the planets farthest from the sun tend to have great distances between each planet. Like this: O-O--O---O------O------------------O---------------------------------------O------------------------and so on.

Planetary formation, again, is a topic that is highly debated. The current most accepted model is the nebular hypothesis. Now, there is a lot of ground to cover, but basically, you only put our solar system in your example. You don't even consider others which may have wildly different positions. Your argument is flawed. Just because our system seems to simulate a ripple does not mean that others will share the same characteristic. Using your format, their orbits could simply be O--O-O---O--O-O.

A ripple effect is a situation where, like the ever expanding ripples across water when an object is dropped into it, an effect from an initial state can be followed outwards incrementally.

I do not see that happening in my example. Much less in the crazy amounts of possible planetary positions in solar systems discovered by the Kepler telescope. Those are some of the few systems that Kepler has observed! And yes these are not drawn to scale, but you get the idea. Systems can vary greatly! These positions depend a lot on the mass of the objects in the system!

In essence I could keep arguing your points all day long. The most important lesson I will give you is, if you want to go about the world discovering it through your perceptions you must find if these perceptions of yours are correct. Educate yourself, read. And when I say that I do not mean funky articles from conspiracy places or bad reputation websites that correlate to yours (I am not saying that you do this I am just trying to make a point). You will find in many cases that you are wrong, in some you will find that you are correct. Basically, things are not always what they seem. The universe is a great big place and things are complex. Additionally, do not claim you have proof without providing links. Or if you are trying to prove something due to your observations, do not claim proof without following some sort of scientific method that is able to be reproduced by others.

 

[Nixon Corral]

There's so much made up nonsense in your first post, I can't even hope to begin addressing all of it. Even if I wanted to, I don't know what I'd say because I'm not sure what you're trying to prove! You don't seem to be supporting any central thesis or idea.

Your post reads like the ramblings of an incredibly cocksure person on an acid trip. Apologies if I can't say anything nice, but locuan128 did a pretty good rebuttal, so just read through that.

 

[Warlock*G]

I read the title, and one question came to my mind:

Why would "subatomic particles" and "human" be mutually exclusive categories?

 

[_Magus_]

How did you percieve any of this? Mere matter cannot perceive anything. It merely exists. You were able to perceive this, therefore you are. And if you're wrong about your perception, you still must exist in order to be deceived. So at the very least you exist. Furthermore, to perceive that deception, you must be more than mere matter.