Clarifications

"Btw Tim, I think I’ll be keeping my categories and names. Others have already tried convincing me names and naming got in the way of knowing__I completely dis-agree__but I do wonder why people wish to go such a non-scientific route, especially when discussing science."


I'm not suggesting that naming and catagorizing have no purpose, and as I stated, this is a difficult area to express properly. All I'm saying is to take advantage of both aspects, the associations and such brought about by way of the scientific methodology and the amazement and wonder of a child brought about by allowing ones mind to be unfamiliar with aspects of those things which we have associated by way of science. It just stimulates my own mind to look deeper into aspects of nature by doing this. This is part of my interpretation of the logical processes possessed by children which look deeper into things as you suggested earlier, as I see it as a path to reestablish such child like connections. We potentially learn more in the first few years of our life than in all the rest. I'm just suggesting a reason for this, which you are welcome to dispute.



"Such mechanics would effect the Universe’s real state mechanics existence__Not one bit of a difference in function, than it now functions__and such independent systems’ functions, would pushe a lot of the bogus non-free-will functions__away, out of the needless considerations’ conflicts… And, all the evolutionary NS pre-suppositions mean nothing, because there’s no actual exact fundamental path proofs of such actions__though many believers do believe in evolution’s natural selection__I do not. I often asked different evolutionists to prove to me just what is being selected by exactly what__and they simply can’t, as there is no clear evidence of such natural selection science, different from natural chance actions__so as to science__I stay completely away from NS… I do not find any NS in QM, and further__I’ve never seen QM try to defend such thinking, except on TQ__which I never agreed with, as you know, if you followed my responses to Greg__Bio-Evolution, yes__but I was always a No, to NS…"


From my understanding of natural selection Lloyd, I don't see how one can deny it at the bio evolutionary scale (not speaking of QM here). If the same species of cow came in several colors and we prefered not to eat one certain color while eating the rest and we did nothing to try and breed the other colors for sustaining our preference, then as the population dwindled due to our dining habits, the untouched color cow might find opportunities to breed more often whereby it's color gene might thrive while the other colors died off. It's actuall a cornerstone to evolutionary aspects. Certain individuals within a species might have had random traits which benifited them over others within the species due to food supplies and such, whereby they ate, thrived and reproduced while others without such genetic traits died off, thus such a trait would become dominant through time. Anxiety attacks within humans is often attributed to the instinct to flee passed down from our ancestors, whereby due to ancient predators, survival favored those who treated every sound as potential doom and fled vs the more brave who often got eaten due to treating such sounds as harmless. The environment and ecosystem of a species can favor varying aspects of individuals within a species. Nothing bizarre or unscientific here in my views, only a dynamic of nature. Many animals fur could potentially cause them to go extinct due to our love of fancy clothing. This would be a natural selection which contributed to the extinction of an entire species and not just an individual trait within a species. As I stated, I'm only speaking on the bio level here and not QM.



"As to arguing or debating, I don’t see any difference, as this area is going to cause so much heated differences__I just don’t think there’s any way to avoid conflict__But, I think it’s important enough to be toughed out__No…?"


One is more civil than the other. You be the judge on which is which. Lol

"Tim please, if you want to speak that simply of free-will, you’ll have to talk psychologically, and never touch a scientific method, and I don’t for a minute think you wish to talk psychology instead of physics__but such statement would require the looseness of psychology, or other such softr social sciences, to handle such dialogue… Thought is much more complex than the picture you’ve just attempted to splash-paint…"


Sorry Lloyd, let me be more specific here. The language of the universe or method of operation is frequency based IMHO. Just as various frequencies of light are absorbed or emitted by atomic structures, and being as I see no occurence of field state or structure which isn't frequency based, then I would infer that such frequency mechanics are a critical aspect of understanding all interactions within the universe. This takes my thoughts to the Characteristica universalis conversations along with the binary aspects we discussed. I see such frequency mechanics as the underlying interface of the various states of FS whether structured or unstructured. The interface at which the brain and body are engulfed within the EM field with it's various frequency ranges is a point of convergence of various frequencies of structured and unstructured FS whereby I am exploring the concept and implications of these very dynamics concerning our current discussions as with the relationship of frequencies per interaction dynamics. Is that scientific enough for you, as I can only relate this as a concept, but I'm trying to consider the implications of other absorption emission aspects which are already understood per bio processes and mental processing.



"And what difference does it make how you’d rather see em, as pertains to anything being scientifically assessed/analyzed…?"


That's just a smartass comment from where I stand Lloyd. I work hard to not come off as arrogant or imply that I know more than anyone else, and I don't insist that what I see within my mind is how it must be. I'm only offering information as I see it here. If it benifits you then use it. If not, discard it and let's discuss other options.



"Well, you can believe that__I sure as hell ain’t gonna… I am of the opinion we start fresh every birth from a blank slate brain__and only the inference mechanics from birth on, builds our usable knowledge systems. Yes, we learn by the advantage of having access to the past’s thousands of years of stored historical library knowledge__but I accept absolutely zero innate knowledge being present, before live birth, and science has absolutely no gene-evidence to contradict this information__mainly because it’s bs, if you but thoroughly research your own inference mechanics necessities of total processings and its associated memory storage mechanics, etc… It ain’t no magic involved__just simple em-frequency mechanics paths you actually see happening, if you but look inside… It’s a most visible mechanics, late at night, just before going to sleep, and early in the morning, upon freshly awakening to a new day… The inference mechanics itself never changes__only its content changes, and free-will changes the stored content, and sometimes the actively entering actions, etc…"


You misinterpretted me here Lloyd. If we consider evolution to be relevant whereby humans with thinking brains evolved from lesser species which had not the ability to process which we do, then such a processing ability was brought about through time and has reached it's pinnacle with us. I'm not speaking of passed on knowledge as though knowing things at birth, but rather that we possess a genetic predisposition to a more evolved thought process.

That's enough answers for now Lloyd. I'd rather try to evaluate your position for a while rather than explaining mine. I'll go back through the last few posts to try to find your logic path as Im beginning to see some aspects of where our ideas part ways. I think we need to take this back to the fundamental levels so if you have any further explaination of your position, I'm all ears cause I'm gonna have to get into your total mechanics to be of any help here as debating from mine will not work. I must understand yours and debate from there if I find that I still disagree once we are relating to the same mental pool of information and are aligned in the connections which are further building connections within our logic.