Numerology is pseudoscience dear. That won't help explain anything. If you look at the link, the formula used helps give out a rational understanding as to why one plus one is two. And secondly, 1+1=2 is pretty much the simplest form, next to zero, to understand addition or any calculations. It gets more complicated with different symbols and more complex numbers. Once you get to imaginary numbers, it would require complex thinking. Again, consult your nearby mathematician.
The brain pretty much operates like a computer. Different functions, but all connected to a central network. However, our reactions differ from person to person and that part can only be explained by a case by case basis.
you're not being objective you're over simplifying. I will be honest, this dialogue makes we question my own belief in God or life after death because I'm willing to explore the basis of my beliefs and my thoughts. Like does my idea of conscious beyond death mark my own inability to truly deal with mortality. Do I simply believe because I want to survive I want to live forever and the thought of nothingness is unbareable. I can be honest with those thoughts but I also examine the biological functions of organisms and what I find unique about humans is the need for self expression and there are those amongst who need it because they break down mentally with out it. Biological systems only have on desire one function, to survive and perpetuate themselves into the next generation. There is no biological or evolutionary advantage or need for artistic expression. You simply humans way too often and rely to heavily on current data to be the end all be all of our why existence. You dismiss things without thought because to you without evidence a thought is meaningless even though I've given you examples of when there was no data to prove to certain things of the past yet they existed. Also I think there's something to be said about incredible minds that believe in God. Isaac Newton the smartest man to ever live believed in Gos and didn't just dismiss it as superstitious fallacy. There's something to be said for that.
The problem is that you're not willing to put aside spirituality. You're simply coloring your thoughts with the very thing you're claiming you're trying to explore. This is when you're being illogical. If you want to understand much of life, then one component is to put aside or erase for a little while that particular part of you that reads too deep into spirituality. Sorry to make that knock on you, but all those times I see you telling DB that she's not being logical in some of her statements, I can say that about you under these regards. The simple fact that you can't leave away spirituality tells me that you're not willing to make that leap of thinking and question it without the auspices of dualism. Also, I don't simplify any of my information. I simply use logical understanding, not based too much on data, but a clear understanding of the human mind. I don't center myself on simple data on paper as much as you claim I do. I use to think in a spiritual way, but I've grown up because I equate that sort of attitude similar to a child's imagination. We ponder and we question and sometimes the answers are before our eyes, yet we ignore that much. Do we really want to pursue the answers we're looking for or are we still willing to cloud ourselves in broken logic?
The link is saying why 1=2. That's not really what I was asking. I don't know any mathematicians. How can something be pseudo if its science?
Hahaha, ummm, it DID answer the question. I'll simplify it for you with the best of my abilities... The algorithmic equation used expresses how 1 can reach 2. It simply means that two ones can make two. Here's another EXAMPLE. Also pseudo means "false". So when people use that word in conjunction with something like pseudoscience or pseudopod, it refers to "false explanation" or "false feet" for pseudopod.
It's not so much spirituality as much as it is consciousness. You have a small understanding of how the mind works in relation to you and the way you percieve things as we all do. You don't KNOW anything yet. I do put aside my dualistic comprehensions to see your pov. I said that. I try to look at us biological mechanisms trying to survive and it seems like more than that to me.
It's not just mere biology. The entire scientific understanding of the human mind can be understood in varied fields of neuroscience, psychology, and sociology. There's not much more to be said or expressed. This is what's intuitive and common sense. Anything beyond that is merely fluff talk.
What's the stuff about fallacy in there? And I don't do well in math except for addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. I only completed 9th grade, heh, plus just a simple case of use it or lose it and I only use those basics. So say that's how two ones make two, but what I was trying to ask is why rather than how or what. Yeah, I had to look up pseudoscience after the first time you said it so I know what pseudo means, I'm just a nitpicky pain in the ass. If a form of science can be pseudo then could other forms of science be pseudo as well and just lacking someone to say so and why? Tomorrow, could our science of today end up like the Astrology of yesterday? (Fig of speech). Also, if there's things science can't explain could there be errors in things it has explained? Plus, science needs a human element to figure it out in order to communicate it to other humans, and because humans are flawed in many ways including interpretation, explanation, and comprehension, wouldn't that mean science is too? Science can only be as evolved as we are. Would it be fair to say an Athiest's religion is science?
Hahaha, well let me go bit by bit. The person on the site did an example of proving how 1=2 but is playing a guessing game for the reader to point out there's an incorrect assumption in one of the steps. But I forgot to mention that you should read the section which speaks on Complex Numbers. That contributes to the numeric theorem. And secondly, your sort of missing the point with the definition of pseudoscience. Basically, when you're utilizing scientific understanding, you have to go by the scientific method for any theory of idea to be proven. Pseudoscience won't make it past the fourth step, which is to provide an analysis through research and data. This is something that would be anything like astrology to be of a failed logic. Also, there have been scientific research which have been regarded as wrong notably due to botched research and data or technology have improved over the course of time to where that theory have been corrected. In any case, the scientific method is a reasonable outlook on the matters at hand when explaining HOW things work based on data collection and the like.
This is a recent email from a female acquaintance. We were talking about music and how Miami sucks for dating...etc, then my religious preference came up.
You did a lot better than me. My response wouldn't be all that pleasant if she sent that to me. Then again, living in the bible belt, surrounded by yuppies and holy rollers, I think snapping to where I'll push an iron gauntlet down their throats would be the best course of action. But if it works for her, then more power to her. But based on this particular statement, ...then she's really being a slave. There's no way around it.
BBW, your avi is scary, It reminds me of when I colored in my eyeballs on these pics to try to look scary, LoL:
I was thinking next time I'll have my eyes pitch black and my retina red. But with simply using paint, I couldn't really create an authentic image that makes me look devilish.
You're welcome. I love to play with picturesss. I can't figure out Photoshop for the life of me though, which I think is what most people use to do that kind of stuff. In my first pic I was going for insane clown. In the second one, I was going for undead zombie Britty, ahahaha!
It requires a lot of patience and skill to make photoshop work at its finest. I don't really have the patience to do anything with it, but I'll attempt it one day.
