2017-10-10 Tuesday 1:12 PM MDNH HCM VN:
JOEYARNOLDVN
.
Do you believe in dualistic reality? I do not. The following is my conversation with Pat about that.
.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/VietnamIsAwesome/permalink/941303452693468/?comment_id=942775245879622¬if_id=1507581535716631¬if_t=group_comment_follow
.
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 now. 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
✌🏼️
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
✌🏼️
· Reply · Yesterday at 2:40am · Edited
Remove
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✌🏼️
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
✌🏼️
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... ✌🏼️
Remove✌🏼️
Write a reply...
Joey Arnold then, please, end your life, you big mistake
· Reply · Yesterday at 9:44am · Edited
Manage
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.
· Reply · Yesterday at 9:38am · Edited
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.
Manage
Patrick Ramolla S Cat is basically just about uncertainty!
Which make sense considering the findings in observations, such as the double slit experiment.
However - you asked the question if you can be dead or not dead at the same time.
The answer is Yes and No and Yes and all the valid questions I've been asking in response to your question.
Yes, because at this very moment, to me, you could be either dead or alive.
I have no certainty.
Yes and No as this can only be answered by yourself, if you're able to, or a person who could confirm your vital signs but certainly not by me.
The idea of Infinite universes, will, if looked at closely, explain automatically parallel universes, parallel timelines etc.
However, I'm not promoting parallel timelines, in the conventional way, as to me time is relative to state/position.
I'm not saying what you're saying I'm saying.
I'm also not wrong only because my answers was not the answer you've been expecting.
I'm actually a bit tired, at the moment, having this forth and back conversation, with you, on here and don't feel the urge to explain my hypothesis to you via fb, maybe another time✌🏼️
Big shout out to the creators of the shows/movies you've mentioned!
RemoveWhich make sense considering the findings in observations, such as the double slit experiment.
However - you asked the question if you can be dead or not dead at the same time.
The answer is Yes and No and Yes and all the valid questions I've been asking in response to your question.
Yes, because at this very moment, to me, you could be either dead or alive.
I have no certainty.
Yes and No as this can only be answered by yourself, if you're able to, or a person who could confirm your vital signs but certainly not by me.
The idea of Infinite universes, will, if looked at closely, explain automatically parallel universes, parallel timelines etc.
However, I'm not promoting parallel timelines, in the conventional way, as to me time is relative to state/position.
I'm not saying what you're saying I'm saying.
I'm also not wrong only because my answers was not the answer you've been expecting.
I'm actually a bit tired, at the moment, having this forth and back conversation, with you, on here and don't feel the urge to explain my hypothesis to you via fb, maybe another time
✌🏼️Big shout out to the creators of the shows/movies you've mentioned!
Write a reply...
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla
continues to repeat himself about perception. Like Pat said, this back
and forth conversation has 2 reoccurring ideas, reality &
perception. Repetitively, I try to ask Pat about simultaneous dualistic
realities. In other words, I try again
and again to ask hypothetical, theoretical, questions. Pat continues to
say he cannot answer hypothetical questions. For example, as already
mentioned in this thread, I might be dead (reality) and you might not
know I am dead (perception). But my question is not about the scientific
process of discovering if I am dead or not. I ask Pat about reality.
Now, Pat continues to redefine the term "REALITY" to describe 2 things,
real reality and perceived reality. But when I say reality, I am only
talking about the first one, real reality.
.
Pat is using a LEFT tactic of changing terms, as in terminologies, definitions, meanings, in baiting with one meaning and then in switching to other meanings even with the word "REALITY" as Pat continues to focus on perception. Pat continues to lie in saying that he is not talking about perception. I said this many times. I said he is talking about perception. Then he comments and says he is not talking about perception and then goes on to describe perception to say he is talking about perception. Then I say he is talking about perception and then he rejects it again and then he repeats himself but in different words to describe perception and then I comment back and say that I want to talk about reality.
.
Ironically, it seems we both agree that we can try to compare what we learn with each other as we are often too subjective and not objective enough, normally. The concept of perception is of subjectivity and Pat talks about that, perception, subjectivity, relativity, perspective, as we are normally born too subjective and not objective enough or not objective at all. Pat wants to focus on the practicality of going after truth, reality, objectivity, from where we are from our too subjective perspective. I agree with Pat that truth & reality is hard to find. But my questions are not about what he is taking about. We might not be on the same page. Pat might have said there might be only one real reality that we cannot see. Therefore, in that case, you cannot be dead and alive in the same real actual objective reality, then, or can you? Some would say you can only have one real state per reality. There were 3 main things Pat sad, real reality is tough to see, perspective varies, and objective reality can be like the Mandella Effect and/or etc etc etc....... The first 2 things Pat might be saying I can understand and I can agree with. But the third thing is the thing I am trying to focus on. Can objective reality be dualistic in simple ways apart from some exceptions?
Manage.
Pat is using a LEFT tactic of changing terms, as in terminologies, definitions, meanings, in baiting with one meaning and then in switching to other meanings even with the word "REALITY" as Pat continues to focus on perception. Pat continues to lie in saying that he is not talking about perception. I said this many times. I said he is talking about perception. Then he comments and says he is not talking about perception and then goes on to describe perception to say he is talking about perception. Then I say he is talking about perception and then he rejects it again and then he repeats himself but in different words to describe perception and then I comment back and say that I want to talk about reality.
.
Ironically, it seems we both agree that we can try to compare what we learn with each other as we are often too subjective and not objective enough, normally. The concept of perception is of subjectivity and Pat talks about that, perception, subjectivity, relativity, perspective, as we are normally born too subjective and not objective enough or not objective at all. Pat wants to focus on the practicality of going after truth, reality, objectivity, from where we are from our too subjective perspective. I agree with Pat that truth & reality is hard to find. But my questions are not about what he is taking about. We might not be on the same page. Pat might have said there might be only one real reality that we cannot see. Therefore, in that case, you cannot be dead and alive in the same real actual objective reality, then, or can you? Some would say you can only have one real state per reality. There were 3 main things Pat sad, real reality is tough to see, perspective varies, and objective reality can be like the Mandella Effect and/or etc etc etc....... The first 2 things Pat might be saying I can understand and I can agree with. But the third thing is the thing I am trying to focus on. Can objective reality be dualistic in simple ways apart from some exceptions?
Patrick Ramolla Trung N Huynh his brain needs some rest...unrelated to the time..
Remove
Trung N Huynh No. Nothing should be prohibited if they don’t cause major harm.
Remove
Joey Arnold Patrick Ramolla
is ignoring my hypothetical question and will only address things
through convenience, practicality, through subjective perspective,
perception reality, as opposed to ultimate eternal universal truth
objective invisible super mega awesome perfect forever real real real
real very real never ending so real realistic reality reality reality
reality reality which we cannot really see nor hear nor feel nor
understand well enough right now but in which is real even if we cannot
see it and stuff. I want to talk about what we cannot talk about..... my
question was about if I could be dead and alive, actually, in reality,
but Pat just wants to ponder the perception of that as in the approach
towards that.... and it is true that it is hard to know if I am dead or
not.... it is hard for you to know if I am dead or not.... but the
question is not about knowing if somebody is dead or not.... the
question is about the ability to be dead and alive and not dead or
alive..... it is not a question of "AM I DEAD OR ALIVE" but a question
of dualistic reality as described from the S CAT THING...... the S CAT
THING is something that does not make sense...... Trung N Huynh, can you be dead and alive?
Manage
Write a reply...
Joey Arnold Duck Duck Go over Google: try it:
Go to Duck Duck Go Dot Com:
DuckDuckGo.com
Go to Duck Duck Go Dot Com:
DuckDuckGo.com
DuckDuckGo is the search engine that doesn't track you. We protect your search history from…
duckduckgo.com
· Reply · Remove Preview · 13 hrs
Manage
Write a reply...
Joey Arnold Can there be alternative realities in the same timeline?
.
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment