# Thread: A theory of matter2

1. Perception is all.
WE interprete what we see. Its not enough to merely acknowledge that we perceive.
There is a wrong way to interprete and a right way: two and only two ways.
Identify with the living world, study how we percieve to arrive at what we perceive.
Identify with the way we oerceive. Wholistically in this case.
'Perception is all' implies we (one) can find the truth if we (one) choose(s) to perceive correctly.
In perception what happens is we try and match the set within our heads with the sets within the world.
(We find what were looking for -- then shout Eureka! What were looking for is order.)
There are two sets the sine of the inverse tangent of counting numbers and their reciprocals and the sine of an even number of angles stepped consequetively constantly: 9, 18,27....90.
These two sets cannot co-exist one destroys the other.

The underlined is not true. What we do is try and mold the world to be like the set we choose in our heads.

2.

3. Originally Posted by Joshua Stone
Perception is all.
WE interprete what we see. Its not enough to merely acknowledge that we perceive.
There is a wrong way to interprete and a right way: two and only two ways.
Identify with the living world, study how we percieve to arrive at what we perceive.
Identify with the way we oerceive. Wholistically in this case.
'Perception is all' implies we (one) can find the truth if we (one) choose(s) to perceive correctly.
In perception what happens is we try and match the set within our heads with the sets within the world.
(We find what were looking for -- then shout Eureka! What were looking for is order.)
There are two sets the sine of the inverse tangent of counting numbers and their reciprocals and the sine of an even number of angles stepped consequetively constantly: 9, 18,27....90.
These two sets cannot co-exist one destroys the other.

The underlined is not true. What we do is try and mold the world to be like the set we choose in our heads.
That is pretty much a word salad. It doesn't mean anything to me. First you entitle the thread A theory if matter2 but then say nothing about matter. Your thread doesn't even seem to have a subject. Plus its totally incoherant. Nest time constructing a coherent cogent argument.

4. Originally Posted by Joshua Stone
Perception is all.
WE interprete what we see. Its not enough to merely acknowledge that we perceive.
These are reasonable points. They may or may not be correct, but they have a ring of truth to them.

Originally Posted by Joshua Stone
There is a wrong way to interprete and a right way: two and only two ways.
You offer no justification for this statement. We see many examples in science and in life where there are more than two ways to interpret something, so your premise here is wrong from the outset.

Originally Posted by Joshua Stone
Identify with the living world, study how we percieve to arrive at what we perceive.
Identify with the way we oerceive. Wholistically in this case.
.
Even if I was to spell holistically correctly this makes no sense. Thereafter your post descends into the word salad noted by pmb. I think you were overly ambitious posting this in pseudoscience. Do you want to take another stab at injecting meaning into it?

5. Originally Posted by John Galt
I think you were overly ambitious posting this in pseudoscience.
My thoughts exactly.

6. Originally Posted by pmb
That is pretty much a word salad. It doesn't mean anything to me. First you entitle the thread A theory if matter2 but then say nothing about matter. Your thread doesn't even seem to have a subject. Plus its totally incoherant. Nest time constructing a coherent cogent argument.
I like word salad. It's like writing a book with vomit. It's simply original. The text did not prove a point, but it underlined a certain level of intelligence. This means he can think for at least 20 minuts straight without bleeding from the ears.

Truth = Perception = Balloney

Wrong or right = Interpretation = Sandwich

Combine the two, and youve got a balloney sandwich.

I think Joshua Stone tried to explain, he thinks that matter is created by the perception of out mind. That it is a perpetuation from our own existance and our way of defining the universe. This however is incorrect. The universe outdates us slightly, by a zillion years. Matter is not there because we see it. We see matter because it is there. Stop twisting it..

7. Baloney sandwich with a side order of word salad. Delicious cold, disgusting hot. As opposed to jazz. I was not too surprised to see that "word salad" is a symptom of various psychotic and delusional disorders.

Based on past experience, Mr Stone will be back to make at most one comment. Or possibly not at all. He doesn't seem too interested in dialogue, just sharing his salad.

8. I was going to explain how we choose a set. And why there are only two sets, ways of perceiving.

9. The matter is the sets of concentric rings we choose.

10. Its all abit much to explain really. So I grow tired of writing.

11. The reader will either understand or not, if I write a brief version they can work the rest out from there.

12. Meaningless, empty of any content.

To the trash with it.

13. Originally Posted by Joshua Stone
Its all abit much to explain really. So I grow tired of writing.
I will save you the trouble then.

 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement