ALine

I don't know, I just wanted to know I guess.

why has hide and go seek been around for so long?

oh, sorry looking back at it I miss phrased that. What I ment to say was are you supposed to feel something when you see a word. Like a happy feeling of knowing that something is there?

like a "knowing" feeling if that makes any sense

do words have feelings attached to them?

wait what are you talking about the box variable or the non-box variable? Like the thing inside the box variable?

is time, from the field of physics, a nonlinear depth of memory, from the field of psychology?

title

do we take notes to just take notes or do we take notes to use those notes to better help clarify our understanding of the literal world around us?

24 minutes ago, Sensei said:

If you would open Wikipedia page about any element, you would learn something new almost every new paragraph..

One day, read one element Wikipedia page. It'll take you nearly 4 months to read them all (118 elements).

Start from Hydrogen. It has one of the longest descriptions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen

Then you can do the same with chemical compounds. Here you have list of the most widely known compounds (over 2000) and links to their detailful descriptions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_chemical_formulas

 

 

4

oh my god thank you. Now that I actually think about it I do not know any of this and have only been memorizing things for sooooooo long.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/feels-good I wanna spread the knowledge everywhere.

pure knowledge is pure ecstasy, metaphorically...ahhhh

so would variables themselves be dimensions such as if I am defining a car then can I define that as being a "car" dimension? And then can I use that car dimension as being part of a graph?

Man, I went to sleep today and was like, "Oh my god, it feels amazing that I know that I feel amazing and I know that I know that I feel amazing" However there is this weird smell in the air for some reason. I cannot explain it. Like roses or something.

Kind of like the ocean actually

like a weird mixture in between both roses and the ocean.

never mind that, I am going to go learn more about some neural networks real quick. I will be riiiight back.

oh my god, I just learned about the beauty of science and the pursuit of knowledge!

It feels sooooo good

This is affecting my entire thought process, I cannot type this out fast enough.

I have so many questions now! but it's hard because my ignorance keeps trying to pop its way back up!

do neural networks make sensory more and more abstract and then gives a defined output from that abstraction?

now question, is there a scale in which observation changes? Like from little observation to a lot of observation? Like a zooming in or focusing.

what if the human memory is the observation of previous sensory inputs?

can I get a picture of both the top and side views of the marine compass you want to be using along with a top and side view of the plastic disk thing?

Ok sorry about that. I need to learn how to speak more clearly and right now I do not feel as if I am doing so. Is it possible to remove this thread?

What I formulate this arguement it is not on the grounds of stating an absolute, whereas for the purpose of questioning and developing new ideas. This is only a hypothetical, used simply as a means of connecting definitions and ideas which are connected to the definitions and ideas of knowledge and imagination.

Imagimation definition 

the faculty or action of forming new ideas, or images or concepts of external objects not present to the senses

Knowledge definition (#2.)

awareness or familiarity gained by experience of a fact or situation

It appears as if, from my current understanding, that imagination can be related to " the mind" perspective from philosophy while knowledge can be related to "the body" perspective from philosophy. 

What if the ideas formed from the imagination are used to add to knowledge while also at the same time the "body" is obtaining knowledge from its sensory inputs?

While all at the same time the knowledge is used by the imagination to formulate new ideas.

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

In fact I suggest our world model is constructed by filtering sensory input through our past experience and our own rational thought.
It is not a faithful reproduction of our sensory input alone.

But what else do we have if not our sensory input? If for this specific instance we define sensory input as being the observations of external systems interacting with....ourselves. Ok before we continue, I have a very bad habit of using words in the wrong places so you will have to please excuse me of this. What do you define as being "rational thought" and "sensory input"? Are you defining rational thought as being the use of previously obtained knowledge for the purpose of preventing miss interpretation between you and a person you are speaking with? Or are you defining it as just being that rational thought. Also are laking more of a literal of figurative look at sensory input in regards to making a generalizing relationship between it and philosophy? 

5 hours ago, studiot said:

Well ignoring your picture what about commenting on the rest of my post?

This did, after all, address your topic.

Oh yes, sorry about that.

On 11/4/2018 at 1:18 PM, studiot said:

Sorry I am no wiser for that explanation.

 

It is however interesting that you have started this thread since I was thinking about starting a related one, spurred on by our Taiwanese member.

 

I often say that English is better than Mathematics as there is nothing you can say in Matheamtics that you can't say in English, but it is not true the other way round.

In particular, English has the concept of concrete and abstract nouns, which bears some resemblence to your real and imaginary.

I did not think about that. When I began this topic thread, it was for thinking about languages from the perspective of an observing "a self" vs.( i am using vs. as a symbol for comparison) other selfs who also formulates languages which I am defining for this specific case as being "a selfs environment" and how those perspectives gave rise to a "precieved reality." That precieved reality being either seen as being imaginary to some while being real to others. However I have not considered the english language as being both abstract and defined. So would that mean that our precieved realities are a combination of both real observations and imaginary observations?

I am defining real in this specific instance as being self observed and imaginary as being environmentally observed and then that environment informs a self being an observing person. 

8 minutes ago, DrP said:

It clearly DOES in terms of our language and how we define things.  What it DOESN'T do is actually ALTER reality in any way what so ever. You can imagine what you want, define it how you like....  it won't change the 'real' thing....  unless that real thing is a cartoon character of your own imagination or something....  but that is clearly not what you are talking about

Yes I was refering to simply the development of language and not actually changing a "physical thing." That would be nieve to believe in such a case. Unless you consider moving your arms or the act of writing or building a car or drawing a picture to be a method of altering reality by using your imagination to develop a new language to add to your knowledge which can be used to add to your imagination to physically alter your surrounding reality which loops again and a result of such a looping could be used to make say technology things to physically alter our surroundings in order make ourselves more accustomed to our surrounding reality.

On 11/6/2018 at 9:49 AM, Itoero said:

Imo when you observe (or measure) reality, then your imagination leads to understanding of  the reality

Yes but what if that understanding of reality leads to the defining of reality?

On 11/12/2018 at 7:43 PM, Reg Prescott said:

This all sounds confused to me, ALine. Is it your position, then, that prior to the discovery of the planet Uranus, say, it did not exis

My position is that this arguement is pointless for the fact that by defining a God like entity you are defining an absoluye observer which is why they define him as being, "everywhere at ome time." If you accept this model then the arguement ends there. If something is observing everything then that would mean that everything is always known as has always been there due to him having observed it. So no amount of reasoning can go against an arguement such as this due to a God being all observing so everything would always exist even if no one is around to observe it. If you deny this model then there is no absolute observer which means that everything become uncertain if you are no longer observing it. If you accept the model set by religion then there is always an observer and everything is known due to that observer being in every dimension including time. If you deny the model set by religion then there are only observers when those observers "exist." These observers being humans. If we do not observe it then it does not exist. Therefore it up to the individual who wishes to choose between either of these models to decide which they prefer. So it all comes down to a matter of choice between ideas. Your choice is for you to decide and not for others to decide for you. Thats it. These seperate ideas do not mix because they are seperate in nature. One is neither correct nor in correct, they simply are.

On top of this the arguement which is used are themselves meaningless, where logic is a construct used to understand what we understand. Any and all concepts which we create and assume not to create may simply be a resultant of observation and the comparison between previous observations with current observations. Even if you say you do not argue against the concept of a God, the mear mentioning of him, any and every attempt to communicate with him is therefore invalid due to the use of an observed concepts of him existing. Going back to my initial arguement, an individual cannot define something as being an absolute, even something as being analogous to being an absolutes absolute because for something to be considered "real", in any case, it must be observed. Now if you are describing a feeling as being a God then there is no problem in this. However making a blanketing statement, in general, such as "something is real for everything and exists in all things" is a BIG problem. You, at this point in general, are defining an absolute truth without observation. This goes against what truth IS and its designed objective in general. Redefining it for a specific instanc3 does not change its agreed upon definition. Changing it only adds confusion. And even if you do not change it, in general, using the statements of other who have changed it, no matter how influential, does not change the agreed upon definition unless everyone agrees to it.

It would allow for a user to create a new node from a specific programming file type, such as python, and then it would allow for the user to connect the inputs and outputs from these developed programming nodes visually.

If you treat everything as a unit or variable then you must define observable absolutes in order to work with those newly developed variable. Such as observing a car. If it is your first time seeing it then you must define it as type of unit in reference to dimensional analysis like how voltage is a unit which describes an observed phenomenon. However these defined units are not in anyway absolute. They are simply describers. Saying that they are absolute would present a paradox where, "which came first; the definition or the observed thing being defined. One would, I would bet, argue for the second. However in making the statement, " this thing exists because of it being able to be observed and some how "knowing" that it will always be there even without observation is a error in reasoning due to very fundamental levels of defining existance. Like if a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound. Well one would answer "yes" however if I had never told you that the tree fell would it make a sound then. One would again argue yes on the grounds of someone knowing that the tree had fallen. Well what if no one had ever existed to define what a tree was or even what a sound was. Would the tree have made a sound. My arguement would be that at that point then no. Because the things defining the things that they observe are no longer present. Existance is dependent upon observation. If you are not observing it then you cannot define it and therefore it does not exist. Even if you argue that it still does exist then I would formulate a rebutle asking you to, " show me something that does not exist using something that does not exist " or simply "show me nothing using nothing and tell me how you made that nothing something using that nothings nothingness.