ScienceWatch:
Your hope to help the world is already in your pen. Write a book from your experiences that can provide an answer to your chosen niche markets needs. I know the well deserved millions in dollars will flow like a mighty river to you.

You're right...


I know i have a passion for disseminating knowledge, but after sitting down 5-6 hours reading from time to time, i become exhausted and too lazy to write...I really need to start writing, or communicate my ideas so they can be written. It's hi-time to open up the box and dispense what's within..thanks for telling me this...I think i should make a milestone on how i want to get this done, one book per month will be great....Chasing knowledge is too hectic...Ive practically stopped reading...I;m fkcen tired thesedays holding too much in...But seeing the world roll in ignorance is a sight i can't continue to bear


Anyway, i'm glad to declare we need to be on the lookout for cures to Autism, Aids, Alzheimer, Diverse forms of cancer....New form of energy to replace crude oil..All these will be released in the next seven years


Tell folks with AIDS, it's too late to give up...I have an eye on the scientific community and much progress is been made...Too tired to share here

supersystemsnig:



Wow...True...I have over 20 books in my mind, i've been stacking up... Will sure appreciate bringing them to life...Can we make it a next year's project ?

With those books you are well on your way Supersystemsnig. But remember the secret to real success will be in your approach to publishing, the methods you will use. The strategy used is crucial.

Then the most important focus will be using superior internet marketing strategies. You should also use the best Auto tools so you can earn Millions of dollars and pounds while you travel and sleep. If you do it wrong, you will loose millions that should be in your account.

Oh, let me add something, I only trust science with my computer and Internet but not my food, health, family and my beliefs.

ScienceWatch:
With those books you are well on your way Supersystemsnig. But remember the secret to real success will be in your approach to publishing, the methods you will use. The strategy used is crucial.

Then the most important focus will be using superior internet marketing strategies. You should also use the best Auto tools so you can earn Millions of dollars and pounds while you travel and sleep. If you do it wrong, you will loose millions that should be in your account.

Oh, let me add something, I only trust science with my computer and Internet but not my food, health, family and my beliefs.

I won't do it without contacting you...Rest assured...I'll sink in think and when i start the rough sketches for the first book, i'll let you be in the know...


Lol @ I only trust science with my computer and Internet but not my food, health, family and my beliefs

supersystemsnig:



Wow...True...I have over 20 books in my mind, i've been stacking up... Will sure appreciate bringing them to life...Can we make it a next year's project ?

Mmmm ! 20 books released at five books per year should make you a self made millionaire in one year.
Go for it Sir. Next year is better than never.

ScienceWatch:
Mmmm ! 20 books released at five books per year should make you a self made millionaire in one year.
Go for it Sir. Next year is better than never.

Lol @ I've passed that threshold years ago o..Cant remember...Im more concerned about the distribution of knowledge...

supersystemsnig:



You're right...


I know i have a passion for disseminating knowledge, but after sitting down 5-6 hours reading from time to time, i become exhausted and too lazy to write...I really need to start writing, or communicate my ideas so they can be written. It's hi-time to open up the box and dispense what's within..thanks for telling me this...I think i should make a milestone on how i want to get this done, one book per month will be great....Chasing knowledge is too hectic...Ive practically stopped reading...I;m fkcen tired thesedays holding too much in...But seeing the world roll in ignorance is a sight i can't continue to bear


Anyway, i'm glad to declare we need to be on the lookout for cures to Autism, Aids, Alzheimer, Diverse forms of cancer....New form of energy to replace crude oil..All these will be released in the next seven years


Tell folks with AIDS, it's too late to give up...I have an eye on the scientific community and much progress is been made...Too tired to share here

It is clear to you that the world is hungry for knowledge that can help them fulfill their deepest needs. be it in books titled - How to prevent cancer, How to eat your cancer away, How to treat your Autistic child at home, What is Autism, How to recognise the symptoms of Autism, How did Aids reach our planet, How is Aides transferred, How to not give others Aids, Will you be the next Alsheimer sufferer and so and so on........

If you don't mind me adding another suggestion here; Serialize each book in each catergory. You may not need the money when it flows in like a mighty river but it can be very useful when you have to pay to out source most of the work, from writing to marketing to copywriters to graphic designers etc so you are free as the boss to create.

Then if you have too much excess money you will be tempted to empower other in creative ways.

supersystemsnig:



Lol @ I've passed that threshold years ago o..Cant remember...Im more concerned about the distribution of knowledge...

Most of us don't realize the power in what you just said, "I'm more concerned about the distribution of knowledge."

That is when money is drawn to you like an electric magnet. Yes we must not focus on the money, we must focus on producing quality to serve others needs than the money will flow.

ScienceWatch:
Most of us don't realize the power in what you just said, "I'm more concerned about the distribution of knowledge."

That is when money is drawn to you like an electric magnet. Yes we must not focus on the money, we must focus on producing quality to serve others needs than the money will flow.

You know what we need to discuss privately, i changed my mind...How about 4 books simultaneously, i have a writing team, they'll work with you, i'll equip them with the knowledge, you draw up other aspects and we set the ball rolling..we start by January 20

supersystemsnig:




You know what we need to discuss privately, i changed my mind...How about 4 books simultaneously, i have a writing team, they'll work with you, i'll equip them with the knowledge, you draw up other aspects and we set the ball rolling..we start by January 20

Mmmm you are smart ! You are applying the Mastermind principles.
No Problem.

ScienceWatch:
Mmmm you are smart ! You are applying the Mastermind principles.
No Problem.

Knowledge is infinite, perhaps its time to tap into the flow

vaxx:
I am walking on two premises, if you are really following me..one on the contegency and the other on probability....

Natural philosophy is the most accepted means of thruth...therefore we can't have a discussion without it. Though I agree it has limitations...


philosophy is the eye glass of natural philosophy... An intelligent natural philosopher must work under the perspective of mainstream philosophy... Meaning scientists need to work with a particular attitude towards or way of regarding something by using sophia(wisdom)

So , lets treat your alternative one by one according to how you list them. Using both natural philosophy and mainstream philosophy...


..1 it can't be a lizard... A lizard isn't intelligent enough to create a universe like ours..

A lizard can not create a being more intelligent than it(human)

2...multi intelligent being can't be possible, it will lead to confusion and disagreement.... One may wish to create a universe where there will be no darkness and another may wish to have a universe with multiple of brightness... This will lead to serious chaos and anarchy....


3 the creator can't transform himself to a physical universe.. Why?

he will be subjected to the same universe theory he created and that will render the transformation useless.. he is external

4 the creator can not die.. Why?


He is not a contingent being.... He is a Necessary things and a neccasry thing cannot either come to be, nor cease to be. Only contingent things, like us, do that...


Your alternative will not be possible..




So should i post you my hypothesis base on the law of probability





1

You're desperately looking for ways to make your own assumption the ONLY possible answer. Lol.

A lizard-LOOKING ALIEN is different from a lizard on Earth, so your point is absurd.

Many intelligent beings can come together to create a Universe, the same way many intelligent humans have collaborated in the execution of numerous monumental projects. Another void point.

The creator CAN transform into a universe, if that's what he decides to do. You're not one to call it IMPOSSIBLE. That's absurd. At least, that's more credible than a creator who remained conscious after the creation process, since it would explain his LACK OF INTERVENTION.

And you're making a baseless claim again. A creator can die. An intelligent being can die. Humans are intelligent creators too, and they die as well. The universal creator isn't necessarily immortal or omnipotent. The ONLY reason why it was conjured up in the first place is to explain the creation of the universe. Conjuring up such a being is assumptive and speculative enough. Trying to assert his qualities with absolute certainty would be going OVERBOARD with the assumptions and speculations.

supersystemsnig:




Viola @ if the physical universe is material, whatever predates it must have been immaterial. Isn't that what makes the distinction possible in the first place?...Which means all that exists was made, the aftermath of a stream of reactions that was initiated at some point. Scientific wisdom implies a nuclear fission, a blast which led to a chain reaction, the cooling of led to everything we see, and the continuous radioactive half life leads to the existence of minerals and precious stone seven till today, just like how a granite is formed...




Wrong at A nuclear catastrophe can only destroy the earth at worst. I don't see what brings the universe itself into it. There's no connection. Anyways, the earth wouldn't be destroyed in the sense that it would be reduced to NOTHING - nonexistence. It could only be broken down into tiny fragments that made it up in the first place - which aren't nothing, but SOMETHING. So, there's no point in this.


[b]
I made clear and objective declaration which you agreed a day back that with a release of the nuclear war heads upon the earth, the life supporting system and the delicate supporting systems to keep life in shape would be damaged, which means an end to this current existence, Now, mathematically, we say let's balance the equation, i extrapolated the sequence and simply stated that if there was an end, then balancing the scales implies a starting point existed at some point, viz-a-viz if there's a starting point and end, then there's an independent being overseeing both ends with an expected outcome in mind, whether you belief it or not, it stretches beyond your mind...It's left for you to find this out and understand that all of these processes could never have been uncoordinated...even the smallest lab experiments if unattended would lead into chaos, for chaos to be kept at bay, requires an independent sovereign almighty that holds the card close to his chest...it's let to you to be a free-minded person, do some extra research or dodge this bullet.....
[/b]

Lol. The things we're talking about are TOTALLY UNRELATED.

I said the universe couldn't have come from NOTHINGNESS since nothingness is impossible. And you said if the universe didn't come from nothing, why then do I feel so concerned about a nuclear amargeddon? But, how exactly are these things related? There's no connection at all. You're talking about a beginning and an end, I'm taking about existence/something and nonexistence/nothing. Note that, according to my argument, the physical universe having a beginning means AN ALREADY PREXISTING FORM OF EXISTENCE [not necessarily matter] was transformed into physical existence, and the end of the physical universe would only imply a REVERSAL of the transformation, not that the universe would become NOTHING and go out of existence! I maintain that that cannever happen.

Besides, a nuclear catastrophe can only bring about the end of the EARTH. It wouldn't have the slightest dent on the universe itself.

bloodofthelamb:
BRO, IS HUMANS ALSO A PRODUCT OF BIG BANG? SINCE, ACCORDING TO YOU EVERYTHING BEGAN WITH A BIG BANG.

EVERYTHING in the physical universe IS a product of the Big Bang. Humans aren't excluded.

ZandhaZaraZ:
EVERYTHING in the physical universe IS a product of the Big Bang. Humans aren't excluded.

I AM EXCLUDED... I AM NOT A PRODUCT OF BIG BANG THEOREM...I AM A PRODUCT OF CHRIST JESUS THE SON OF GOD. SHALOM!

bloodofthelamb:
I AM EXCLUDED... I AM NOT A PRODUCT OF BIG BANG THEOREM...I AM A PRODUCT OF CHRIST JESUS THE SON OF GOD. SHALOM!

Who cares.

ZandhaZaraZ:
Who cares.

HEAVEN CARES

ZandhaZaraZ:
You're desperately looking for ways to make your own assumption the ONLY possible answer. Lol.

A lizard-LOOKING ALIEN is different from a lizard on Earth, so your point is absurd.

Many intelligent beings can come together to create a Universe, the same way many intelligent humans have collaborated in the execution of numerous monumental projects. Another void point.

The creator CAN transform into a universe, if that's what he decides to do. You're not one to call it IMPOSSIBLE. That's absurd. At least, that's more credible than a creator who remained conscious after the creation process, since it would explain his LACK OF INTERVENTION.

And you're making a baseless claim again. A creator can die. An intelligent being can die. Humans are intelligent creators too, and they die as well. The universal creator isn't necessarily immortal or omnipotent. The ONLY reason why it was conjured up in the first place is to explain the creation of the universe. Conjuring up such a being is assumptive and speculative enough. Trying to assert his qualities with absolute certainty would be going OVERBOARD with the assumptions and speculations.

No, sir. I am looking despirately to seek for truth that will counter my claim .and therefore see my belive as absurd.but unfortunately no one has been able to do so.

A lizard looking alien can't be different from lizard earth. You call it lizard because it has every component of a lizard on earth... Therfore common sense will suggest they share the same characteristics... So my logic is valid imstead of absurd..


Muti inteligent being will be impossibles, here you attack your own argument. When yiu said alien lizard is diffrent from earth lizard though tjem look the same., going by your logic here it will be impossibel...an inteligent being is more diffrent from human on earth...

Futhermore, every prototype of a component is usually implement by single iindividual not majority..



And I am making a sensible claim, becuse, you have not rebuke the logic.human are intelligent creator but not as much as the most intelligent who has the prototype..
Air craft was built in a resemblance of a bird, the first car model has an animal model.there was an original work before the samples were copied by the lesser intelligent human.


Your last assumption is basically subjective just like mine. absence of evidence is not the same things as evidence of absence ...both are very different.


As far as your assumptions remain, it has not defeat my logic. And that make it sensible to me.unless you can proof otherwise.

vaxx:
No, sir. I am looking despirately to seek for truth that will counter my claim .and therefore see my belive as absurd.but unfortunately no one has been able to do so.

A lizard looking alien can't be different from lizard earth. You call it lizard because it has every component of a lizard on earth... Therfore common sense will suggest they share the same characteristics... So my logic is valid imstead of absurd..


Muti inteligent being will be impossibles, here you attack your own argument. When yiu said alien lizard is diffrent from earth lizard though tjem look the same., going by your logic here it will be impossibel...an inteligent being is more diffrent from human on earth...

Futhermore, every prototype of a component is usually implement by single iindividual not majority..



And I am making a sensible claim, becuse, you have not rebuke the logic.human are intelligent creator but not as much as the most intelligent who has the prototype..
Air craft was built in a resemblance of a bird, the first car model has an animal model.there was an original work before the samples were copied by the lesser intelligent human.


Your last assumption is basically subjective JUST LIKE MINE. absence of evidence is not the same things as evidence of absence ...both are very different.


As far as your assumptions remain, it has not defeat my logic. And that make it sensible to me.unless you can proof otherwise.

You so cherish your own pet theories that nothing else can "make sense" to you.

FOR THE LAST TIME, lizard-looking alien does not mean it is a lizard. You stated yourself that an airplane LOOKS like a bird - does that make it a bird? Or since some other primates LOOK like humans, they must be humans too? I maintain that your argument is absurd and makes no iota of sense. But since you seem not to get the point, let me save you the trouble by simply refering to an INTELLIGENT ALIEN. That should make things easier, I believe.

I do not understand what you mean by the emboldened in maroon - you might do well to clarify.

Your point about prototypes is void. I already pointed out that numerous remarkable things have been CREATED by teams of collaborating humans. No one cares who among them was the first to come up with the idea. It's the process of creation that matters.

My last assumption was basically subjective, just like yours. JUST LIKE YOURS! That's the entire fúcking point! An ALTERNATIVE. You asked for an alternative to your assumptions. That's just you admitting that I'VE PROVIDED IT.

My assumptions have served their purpose. They make just as much sense as yours.

vaxx:
no other method of self truth seeking apart from subjective experience... Yours may be more reasonable, that those not make mine unsound. the purpose of philosophy is to seek for wisdom. When yours evidence of truth seeking outweighed mine, then mine became illogical.


Try to understand the debate pls..

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality. Wiki


Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:

Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1]
Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[2]
Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.[3]
These various definitions of subjectivity are sometimes joined together in philosophy. The term is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, personal or cultural understanding, and beliefs specific to a person. It is often used in contrast to the term objectivity,[1] which is described as a view of truth or reality which is free of any individual's influence. Wiki

Stop being stuck in water! We used it to illustrate how much research is necessary. You said water was hydrogen and oxygen. I posted what I considered to be evidence that there is a lot more to water than its constituent molecules and that the evidence came about through further extensive research.

vaxx:
if you are saying it isn't molecules ,then what are you saying...you keep getting me more confusing.... Why don't you follow the bone of argument which says the water chemical is h20...and no any proof beyond that ....have you gotten yours?


Bro no one is accusing you wrongly here....when your sense, experience and perceiveness fails, then there is a challenged upstair.if your believe says there is no God. So be it. But if your subjectivity believe is compare to mine and they both weigh and yours happen to be more effective. As a stable mind, I have no options than to accept yours.if not am only lying to myself. In this part of the continent I lived, women put their wedding ring in the right hands why in Nigeria put theirs on their left ..so will you say it is wrong why yours is right?


I beg you again never argued for objective review it is faulty.science is even aware.theories change everyday.


I shall visit the links and add my view bro...make I go do something bro.later things.

vaxx:
am not getting you really, pls type with you mind and not your emotions...

Are you accusing me of being subjective by any chance?

vaxx:

I perceive and sense emotional imbalance in your writing...what is going on?..

Are you being subjective by any chance?

ZandhaZaraZ:


You so cherish your own pet theories that nothing else can "make sense" to you.

FOR THE LAST TIME, lizard-looking alien does not mean it is a lizard. You stated yourself that an airplane LOOKS like a bird - does that make it a bird? Or since some primates LOOK like humans, they must be humans too? I maintain that your argument is absurd and makes no iota of sense. But since you seem not to get the point, let me save you the trouble by simply refering to an INTELLIGENT ALIEN. That should make things easier, I believe.

I do not understand what you mean by the emboldened in maroon - you might do well to clarify.

Your point about prototypes is void. I already pointed out that numerous remarkable things have been CREATED by teams of collaborating humans. No one cares who among them was the first to come up with the idea. It's the process of creation that matters.

My last assumption was basically subjective, just like yours. JUST LIKE YOURS! That's the entire fúcking point! An ALTERNATIVE. You asked for an alternative to your assumptions. That's just you admitting that I'VE PROVIDED IT.

My assumptions have served their purpose. They make just as much sense as yours.

no Sir again, the thread is about pphilosophical dialogue meaning where you accept or be in line with the best statement by using(wisdom).

And fpr the last time alien lizard should share the similar characteristics with earth lizard..my common sense says so....an aeroplane was made in a resemblance of a bird....they both fly, dive, walk and perform better in the sky longer than the land....


Pls do not save my argument as absurd according to your speculation, bring falt in it and let me realised you are making more sense.they are way to do so .just the way I refute your alternative and am still doing it now.


I mean your understanding of the cause of the process is subjective just like mine. We are both entitled to our own opinion. But for me to acknowledged your opinion as more superb ,them you must have rebuke my own opinion which you have not done.



The issue you have here has been identify by you yourself. You do not care who among them is the take first step to create the prototype.... How will you care about the first causer, about the spark of he process..

You admit it . it is the process that matter not what spark the process


As for me I care about the first individual that start the prototype,i care about the first causer, and I also care about the process that spark the process.

You provide an assumption/opinion that can't be possible with my common sense...



Yes, your assumptions had /has serve its purpose but not to me but you. my common sense says your assumption can't be possible which I had provided..

budaatum:

Are you accusing me of being subjective by any chance?


Are you being subjective by any chance?

yes i am. That is the only method to share experience.

budaatum:
Stop being stuck in water! We used it to illustrate how much research is necessary. You said water was hydrogen and oxygen. I posted what I considered to be evidence that there is a lot more to water than its constituent molecules and that the evidence came about through further extensive research.

my argument remain, thus... The chemical formulation of water is H20 and nothing remain bro...or do you have your subjective theory

ZandhaZaraZ:
You're desperately looking for ways to make your own assumption the ONLY possible answer. Lol. .

ZandhaZaraZ:

You so cherish your own pet theories that nothing else can "make sense" to you.

vaxx:
No, sir. I am looking despirately to seek for truth that will counter my claim .and therefore see my belive as absurd.but unfortunately no one has been able to do so.

No one can show you your beliefs are absurd vaxx. The more evidence presented to you, the more your subjective view would blind you to your very own absurdity.

vaxx:
no Sir again, the thread is about pphilosophical dialogue meaning where you accept or be in line with the best statement by using(wisdom).

And fpr the last time alien lizard should share the similar characteristics with earth lizard..my common sense says so....an aeroplane was made in a resemblance of a bird....they both fly, dive, walk and perform better in the sky longer than the land....


Pls do not save my argument as absurd according to your speculation, bring falt in it and let me realised you are making more sense.they are way to do so .just the way I refute your alternative and am still doing it now.


I mean your understanding of the cause of the process is subjective just like mine. We are both entitled to our own opinion. But for me to acknowledged your opinion as more superb ,them you must have rebuke my own opinion which you have not done.



The issue you have here has been identify by you yourself. You do not care who among them is the take first step to create the prototype.... How will you care about the first causer, about the spark of he process..

You admit it . it is the process that matter not what spark the process


As for me I care about the first individual that start the prototype,i care about the first causer, and I also care about the process that spark the process.

You provide an assumption/opinion that can't be possible with my common sense...



Yes, your assumptions had /has serve its purpose but not to me but you. my common sense says your assumption can't be possible which I had provided..

Damn, nigga! Aishhh. JESUS IS LORD! I'm TIRED, bruh.

budaatum:






No one can show you your beliefs are absurd vaxx. The more evidence presented to you, the more your subjective view would blind you to your very own absurdity.

As in, ehn. I just had to give it up. It's an excercise in futility.

budaatum:

Objectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to reality and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Generally, objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. A proposition is generally considered objectively true (to have objective truth) when its truth conditions are met without biases caused by feelings, ideas, opinions, etc., of a sentient subject. A second, broader meaning of the term refers to the ability in any context to judge fairly, without partiality or external influence. This second meaning of objectivity is sometimes used synonymously with neutrality. Wiki


Subjectivity is a central philosophical concept, related to consciousness, agency, personhood, reality, and truth, which has been variously defined by sources. Three common definitions include that subjectivity is the quality or condition of:

Something being a subject, narrowly meaning an individual who possesses conscious experiences, such as perspectives, feelings, beliefs, and desires.[1]
Something being a subject, broadly meaning an entity that has agency, meaning that it acts upon or wields power over some other entity (an object).[2]
Some information, idea, situation, or physical thing considered true only from the perspective of a subject or subjects.[3]
These various definitions of subjectivity are sometimes joined together in philosophy. The term is most commonly used as an explanation for that which influences, informs, and biases people's judgments about truth or reality; it is the collection of the perceptions, experiences, expectations, personal or cultural understanding, and beliefs specific to a person. It is often used in contrast to the term objectivity,[1] which is described as a view of truth or reality which is free of any individual's influence. Wiki

I have deal with this in a numerous times ,read my op with clear and stable mind...

In philosophy, the classical argument for central objective is a prior knowledge. the knowledge of math. Mathematical proofs can be made without reference to experience. Which is still subjective,

The "hardness" or objectivity of a science is also related to its degree of quantification relative to math. And math is derived from logic. So in that sense logic is even more subjective and objective than math.hope you get the cruss

In practical use and most in science however, logic and math are not the only truth seeking factor, truth seeking factor can be obtain through self knowledge... Which is your sense , percivness and experience....


Your experience is largely related to emperical approach, a method suitable In science methodology.

ZandhaZaraZ:
Damn, nigga! Aishhh. JESUS IS LORD! I'm TIRED, bruh.

thank you.. Will meet again

budaatum:






No one can show you your beliefs are absurd vaxx. The more evidence presented to you, the more your subjective view would blind you to your very own absurdity.

just like the way I consider your subjectivity to be absurd... You get the cruss.


Anyway thanks for your contribution.. It end up that way when there is no proof beyond logical fact..


You can't force me to agree with your subjective veiw when it fails to agree with my self knowledge (common sense)

ZandhaZaraZ:
As in, ehn. I just had to give it up. It's an excercise in futility.

thanks ...just end up with this saying. An absence of evidence is not the same thing as absense of evidence..


Whatever. Your argument here is subjective to you as mine.

vaxx:
thank you.. Will meet agaim

You're welcome.