2017-10-09 Monday 9 PM OTC JOEYARNOLDVN
Class Near Me
.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/VietnamIsAwesome/permalink/941303452693468/?comment_id=942566822567131¬if_id=1507385070357515¬if_t=group_comment_follow
.
Patrick Ramolla I
may or may not have redefined words, I'm definitely guilty on
explaining, what I meant, when I said a word in order, so we can
understand each other better.
However - let's just call it 'the evolution of words' and call it a day...or wait I've got something better, how about 'linguistic evolution'
π€
π
✌πΌ️
RemoveHowever - let's just call it 'the evolution of words' and call it a day...or wait I've got something better, how about 'linguistic evolution'
π€π✌πΌ️
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla.
you are redefining. You are trying to play with the words by saying A =
B if A = C and B = C..... that would be one example..... that might not
be the exact formula that you might be implying or whatever...... and
you know what I mean by life.... you
already know bout you are adding words for the sake of something........
but death and life are normally a biological thing.... that is the
normal meaning.... and can somebody make choices and move their body
around as they are living and not make choices and not move his or her
body at the same time?
Manage
Patrick Ramolla Joey Arnold , define 'I'.
Are you referring to your consciousness or the microorganism and elements that make up your physiology?
I need some more information, if you don't mind....
Also, where do you draw the line where 'you' start and where biochemistry, physics and quantum mechanics come in?
Is matter or are elements dead or alive?
And if you consider the material you're made of as dead matter, are you partially dead by definition?
And if you're made out of 'dead' partials, aren't you by default dead and alive at the same time?
RemoveAre you referring to your consciousness or the microorganism and elements that make up your physiology?
I need some more information, if you don't mind....
Also, where do you draw the line where 'you' start and where biochemistry, physics and quantum mechanics come in?
Is matter or are elements dead or alive?
And if you consider the material you're made of as dead matter, are you partially dead by definition?
And if you're made out of 'dead' partials, aren't you by default dead and alive at the same time?
Patrick Ramolla Joey Arnold no, you're wrong, the question is 'Can I be dead and alive at the same time?'
Remove
Patrick Ramolla Joey Arnold - however, I don't think it's just as 'black and white' as, it appears to me, you're proposing.
I actually want to look further into where A and C merge together or even are interconnected, maybe even codependent...so I'm asking the question, can and where do we draw the line?
RemoveI actually want to look further into where A and C merge together or even are interconnected, maybe even codependent...so I'm asking the question, can and where do we draw the line?
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla,
we are not talking about that. we are not on the same page. You always
talk about perspective of what one might perceive and see and understand
from their perspective but I am not asking you about what I think or
about what I think. I am not talking
about subjectivity, relativity, perception, perspective. My questions
are not about those things. But you always go back to those things.
Regardless of whether you know or not know that youare doing that, you
are in fact doing those things regardless of your perception of it. You
can feel what you want. You can see and think and believe what you want.
But I am not asking about that. But that is the only thing that is out
there according to you it seems.
Manage
Patrick Ramolla So what are you talking about - you want a binary answer?
Ok, if you're dead you're dead and if you're alive you're alive, easy!
But you're asking it wrong!
We don't know with certainty whether or not there are other possibilities.
Only because you don't see it or hear it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist...
'Am I dead or alive?' is a question I can answer in a binary.
It's either yes or no.
'Can I be dead or alive at the same time?'
'Yea, sure why not.'
'Maybe!'
'Who the fuck knows.'
Different dynamic...
RemoveOk, if you're dead you're dead and if you're alive you're alive, easy!
But you're asking it wrong!
We don't know with certainty whether or not there are other possibilities.
Only because you don't see it or hear it, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist...
'Am I dead or alive?' is a question I can answer in a binary.
It's either yes or no.
'Can I be dead or alive at the same time?'
'Yea, sure why not.'
'Maybe!'
'Who the fuck knows.'
Different dynamic...
Patrick Ramolla 'Does the bear shit in the woods'
Yes - if he does!
No - if he doesn't!
'Can the bear shit in the woods'
Sure, but who knows if he does...
πππ
RemoveYes - if he does!
No - if he doesn't!
'Can the bear shit in the woods'
Sure, but who knows if he does...
πππ
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla
You are insulting m question. That makes you a bad person. You are like
HILARY CLINTON. You love to just insult and a random words. Can a cat
be dead and not dead? Can the bear go and not go?
Manage
Patrick Ramolla Joey Arnold I am Hilary Clinton Joey, we all are!
We're looking for you, Joey!
We found you, Joey....
RemoveWe're looking for you, Joey!
We found you, Joey....
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla no what? What are you saying no to. I did not ask you to look at the 1800s.
Manage
Write a reply...
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla,
do not tell me what my question is or is not. My question is my
question. You are rejecting my question by telling me that my question
cannot be what I say it is. On one hand my question is my question. On
the other hand, however, regardless, I
can always ask a second question or a new question. Regardless of
whether you think there are two questions or just one question, the
second question is the question I am asking. I am either asking the same
question in a more specific clarification or I am asking a new and
different question. Can everybody live and breath and think and choose
and decide to move their physical bodies and move their bodies and also
not live and not breath and not think and not decide and not choose and
not think about moving their physical bodies and not move their bodies
at the same time?
Manage
Patrick Ramolla Exactly, and to answer a question - sometimes it requires more details.
Sometimes more questions have to be asked...
So I asked you a few follow up questions...
Instead of answering them - you had a full blow.
How about going step by step?
Idk - I feel like, sometimes, if you disagree with something or if it doesn't fit in your narrative, you go off the rails...
How about playing around with some ideas and have some fun, thinking outside of the box, discover new things?
Sometimes you come across as a angry little 3 year old that chucks a tantrum when someone says something you don't like/understand.
It's not really fun and none ever said debates can't be fun...
How about being a little playful every now and then?
I think my follow up questions are absolutely legitimate and more important indicating that I don't know the answers.
Believing to know everything, in my opinion is actually really dumb.
I don't know whether you can be dead and alive at the same time.
In fact, I never claimed to know.
But at the same time, I like to stay open minded.
I don't want to stop to evolve my ideas only because Joey says so.
Scientific facts are only factual based on evidence, right?
However, how many times in human history have scientific facts, or what was believed to be factual, been disproved by new observations and evidence?
The more technology evolves the more insight we might get, more accurate measurement can be taken and some facts will be debunked and some will remain.
So if you want to have a discussion, be open for it.
It's a two way street and not a 'Joey-knows-all-appaloosa'.
People will have other perceptions of reality and it's a good thing because sometimes you're sitting in a corner, where you can't see everything and that's why we share our subjective views and compare them, to figured out, what's close to be actual true.
To finish up - I'll stick to my initial statement - that there is a fundamental truth but it might not be what the general scientific community (or Joey) currently think it is, based on personal experience, perception, observation...so for now I stay critical✌πΌ️
RemoveSometimes more questions have to be asked...
So I asked you a few follow up questions...
Instead of answering them - you had a full blow.
How about going step by step?
Idk - I feel like, sometimes, if you disagree with something or if it doesn't fit in your narrative, you go off the rails...
How about playing around with some ideas and have some fun, thinking outside of the box, discover new things?
Sometimes you come across as a angry little 3 year old that chucks a tantrum when someone says something you don't like/understand.
It's not really fun and none ever said debates can't be fun...
How about being a little playful every now and then?
I think my follow up questions are absolutely legitimate and more important indicating that I don't know the answers.
Believing to know everything, in my opinion is actually really dumb.
I don't know whether you can be dead and alive at the same time.
In fact, I never claimed to know.
But at the same time, I like to stay open minded.
I don't want to stop to evolve my ideas only because Joey says so.
Scientific facts are only factual based on evidence, right?
However, how many times in human history have scientific facts, or what was believed to be factual, been disproved by new observations and evidence?
The more technology evolves the more insight we might get, more accurate measurement can be taken and some facts will be debunked and some will remain.
So if you want to have a discussion, be open for it.
It's a two way street and not a 'Joey-knows-all-appaloosa'.
People will have other perceptions of reality and it's a good thing because sometimes you're sitting in a corner, where you can't see everything and that's why we share our subjective views and compare them, to figured out, what's close to be actual true.
To finish up - I'll stick to my initial statement - that there is a fundamental truth but it might not be what the general scientific community (or Joey) currently think it is, based on personal experience, perception, observation...so for now I stay critical
✌πΌ️
Patrick Ramolla Exactly, and to answer a question - sometimes it requires more details.
Sometimes more questions have to be asked...
So I asked you a few follow up questions...
Instead of answering them - you had a full blow.
How about going step by step?
I did tell you what your question is, as you seem to have forgotten it OR didn't like my response.
Idk - I feel like, sometimes, if you disagree with something or if it doesn't fit in your narrative, you go off the rails...
How about playing around with some ideas and have some fun, thinking outside of the box, discover new things?
Sometimes you come across as a angry little 3 year old that chucks a tantrum when someone says something you don't like/understand.
It's not really fun and none ever said debates can't be fun...
How about being a little playful every now and then?
I think my follow up questions are absolutely legitimate and more important indicating that I don't know the answers.
Believing to know everything, in my opinion is actually really dumb.
I don't know whether you can be dead and alive at the same time.
In fact, I never claimed to know.
But at the same time, I like to stay open minded.
I don't want to stop to evolve my ideas only because Joey says so.
Scientific facts are only factual based on evidence, right?
However, how many times in human history have scientific facts, or what was believed to be factual, been disproved by new observations and evidence?
The more technology evolves the more insight we might get, more accurate measurement can be taken and some facts will be debunked and some will remain.
So if you want to have a discussion, be open for it.
It's a two way street and not a 'Joey-knows-it-all-dead end'.
People will have other perceptions of reality and it's a good thing because sometimes you're sitting in a corner, where you can't see everything and that's why we share our subjective views and compare them, to figured out, what's close to be actual true.
To finish up - I'll stick to my initial statement - that there is a fundamental truth but it might not be what the general scientific community (or Joey) currently think it is, based on personal experience, perception, observation...so for now I stay critical✌πΌ️
RemoveSometimes more questions have to be asked...
So I asked you a few follow up questions...
Instead of answering them - you had a full blow.
How about going step by step?
I did tell you what your question is, as you seem to have forgotten it OR didn't like my response.
Idk - I feel like, sometimes, if you disagree with something or if it doesn't fit in your narrative, you go off the rails...
How about playing around with some ideas and have some fun, thinking outside of the box, discover new things?
Sometimes you come across as a angry little 3 year old that chucks a tantrum when someone says something you don't like/understand.
It's not really fun and none ever said debates can't be fun...
How about being a little playful every now and then?
I think my follow up questions are absolutely legitimate and more important indicating that I don't know the answers.
Believing to know everything, in my opinion is actually really dumb.
I don't know whether you can be dead and alive at the same time.
In fact, I never claimed to know.
But at the same time, I like to stay open minded.
I don't want to stop to evolve my ideas only because Joey says so.
Scientific facts are only factual based on evidence, right?
However, how many times in human history have scientific facts, or what was believed to be factual, been disproved by new observations and evidence?
The more technology evolves the more insight we might get, more accurate measurement can be taken and some facts will be debunked and some will remain.
So if you want to have a discussion, be open for it.
It's a two way street and not a 'Joey-knows-it-all-dead end'.
People will have other perceptions of reality and it's a good thing because sometimes you're sitting in a corner, where you can't see everything and that's why we share our subjective views and compare them, to figured out, what's close to be actual true.
To finish up - I'll stick to my initial statement - that there is a fundamental truth but it might not be what the general scientific community (or Joey) currently think it is, based on personal experience, perception, observation...so for now I stay critical
✌πΌ️
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla,
I support what I do. I do what I do for many reasons. I am not closed
minded. I am not bad or too bad. I am not angry or too angry. You can
continue to accuse me of being that. You might say I am too angry, bad,
closed minded, and more...See More
Manage
Patrick Ramolla Joey Arnold Ok, how about you eat your oatmeal and I eat mine... ✌πΌ️
Remove✌πΌ️
Write a reply...
PhαΊ‘m Huy Humans are the greatest mistake made by nature. The world would be better without us. We could not make the world better...
Remove
Write a reply...
Joey Arnold Patrick
Ramolla, my question was simple and my question was what it needed to
be and I will always criticize when people get away from the core of the
question and I will confront and criticize and analyze and break apart
responses to my questions. Whether or
not you're right and justified for how much or how little you respond is
not my job completely. You can have reasons for being more specific in
the questions and answers. You have the freedom to do that and I have
the freedom to not like it. You know I can be wrong to not like your
response. But I don't like it because it seems to be a distraction from
the root of the question. Whether or not you are being distracting or
not is not relevant because what you were doing was too distracting and
too counterproductive from the spirit and the core of my question
regardless of whether you know it or not. What you may or may not know
does not change truth and reality regardless of whether you believe in
one reality or not. You talk so much about our attempts at trying to see
the truth and what you say is correct and true. We cannot really see
enough but that does not mean we cannot understand basic core
principles. Your question about science is a misleading question.
Whether you know it or not, what you are asking and implying might be
too much like pseudo science. What is true does not ever stop being
true. If something that is true stops being true, then that means it was
never true in the first place. When I say the word "TRUE," I am not
talking about a temporary thing. You can say it is true the at was alive
and then later say the cat is now dead. You could say that what was
true about the cat changed from one truth of being alive to another
truth of being dead. But I am not talking about that. Science is a
natural philosophy and religion is supernatural philosophy. Science is
built upon philosophy, study, observation, in real time. You can say
science changes as we learn more but that does not change eternal
principles that never changes. Programs, products, places, phases,
people, and all the parts change, evolve, devolve, come, go, and many
things, perhaps, or not, but the principles do not.Those are the seven
Ps but the most important one at the root is PRINCIPLE.... can you be
alive and move around and be not alive and not move around at the same
time? You are not answering my question and you go on rabbit trails
either accidentally or purposely and you know my question and what it
means even if you say you do not which means you are lying too much and
that is bad and the meaning to life is love and the meaning to love is
life and love is grace & justice, & the meaning of life, of
love, is seen & experienced, shared, through, with, for, from, by,
fundamentally, summation, and that is something we cannot fully
experience, understand, prematurely, before getting to summation of
eternal life and life never ends and cannot end and will not end and we
cannot imagine end to life.
Manage
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla
ignored my questions, insulted my questions, made lies, but then tried
very hard to justify the lies through terminology bait and switch
methods.
Manage
Write a reply...
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla said no thanks. I did not ask about Soros. I did not ask a question about Rothschild.
Manage
Thomas Levine Thin air, sun and water, and throw in some dirt with a few minerals. Your basic chemistry set.
Remove
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla
described dualism reality, it seems, as in different states of reality
but on the same plane / space / area / dimension / universe as opposed
to parallel universes. Infinite amounts of parallel universes makes more
sense than infinite amounts of realities at the same time in the same
reality / dimension / universe / space / place / location / area /
timeline and that is why I ask about the ability to be dead and alive in
the same reality. Perception varies. Reality is what reality is. Pat
seems to be promoting one timeline space time continuum with variations
of opposing and paradoxical realities and/or perceptions of realities. I
was trying to ask Pat about how different realities (not perspective
perception) can coexist in the same reality. Now that seems to be what
the S Cat thing is about. One reality per parallel universe makes sense
to me. I can be alive on this timeline and dead on a different timeline.
But how could I be dead and alive on the same timeline at the same
time? We are not talking about perception but reality. Because I could
look dead (perception) and not be dead (reality). I love Back to the Future Trilogy. A great show related to this is Rick And Morty Show and Fringe and Star Trek: The Next Generation and The Butterfly Effect and The Time Traveler's Wife.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment