AtheisticNonduality

Nothing permeates everything, however, it is not limited to everything. There is a Nothingness that knows no form. If you cannot have access to this, that is a cosmic level of ignorance. Verification is a remnant of the materialistic paradigm that exists in your mind. Not all things necessitate empirical (formally and demonstrably and observably repeatable through measurement) evidence for their knowledge. Knowledge is merely a correlation that allows high-purity deductions to hold true. One has the ability to understand parts of reality ones has not glimpsed.

No look. It cannot be sensed. If this is not something you have access to . . . Applying Occam's Razor to infinity?

And yet, form still exists. Meaning the supposed nonexistence of distance, time, space, etc. is a fabrication. Consciousness is the phenomenal and formal aspect of reality; conversely, the Nothingness aspect in isolation cannot possess consciousness of anything. Consciousness is primary to the perceived universe, to the element of form, but secondary in comparison to the Nothingness that permeates it and is not limited to it. Form = data/information = subservient to Nothingness. Themselves. Consciousness = appearances. And . . . All conceivable forms are identical to Nothingness, and Nothingness exists, therefore . . .

So, data is an abstraction of information that exists in a human's conception? And information is material? Or data is also material but referring to a substance that makes up a build of information? Either way, there is an element of form to it. Both human conception and materiality have forms, therefore meaning that formalized contexts are real and not negatable. It would be oddly specific if you personally were the only set of objects in reality, almost as if as a consequence of an ontological myopia where one can only see oneself. What would stop the existence of other sets of objects? And remember, we're talking about aliens.

Data = measurements of time/distance/matter/etc. . . . It's also a possibility for people to be wrong, as in there is a lack of correlation between two parts of reality such as a person's brain and thinking not having a mirroring correspondence with external happenings. An example might be a madman that looks at a table, has the table in his perception, and then says, "I believe that is a chair." A more relevant example is two intuitions not lining up such that one of them does not match with the "intent" or the singularly natured reality. In this case, my intuition is correct because it, as a structure, has the pattern of being right--even if you believe consciousnesses can be negated (multiple consciousnesses can exist because to be conscious of something, it must be a cognizance of some formed qualities that are thoughts, perceptions, emotionality, and other spatiotemporal structures that are both divisible and multipliable infinitely and therefore with infinite potential natures of variation, fracturation, and context.

@bloomer The is accurate though, no?

Society is a mental illness. With special effect when its environmental conditions force emotional distress in those with vulnerabilities.

Using the pronoun "we" forces the implication in itself that at least two individuals share some "reality" in common. So you distinguishing between an overarching God-Reality, some relative we-reality of phenomena where two individuals can exist simultaneously, and two divorced "realities" where beings become detached and made incomprehensible to each other--this process of differentiation of these categories needs more clarity. If we are to say my intuition is right, what difference between intuition and logic allows logic to become intersubjectively true but not intuition? This is with the fact you might say Carl-Richard fails to understand something that exists objectively.

@thisintegrated That guy does not convince me. And I have the intuition that we are alone here.

@thisintegrated Okay, give the best proofs you have that aliens have visited here before. I'm still not convinced. Well, elements progressively get heavier the greater their number is . . . And there currently are no uses for it commercially, only for studying it in particle accelerators. There's no way for me to know for sure, but perhaps the records being erased mysteriously just an excuse for them never existing in the first place rather than a coverup to make it look so. He's also been convicted of procuring and had his house searched in a murder investigation, I would suppose as part of merely the "official" explanation. Apparently, he also made money by selling controlled chemicals but was prosecuted for that. ???? Really, when? From what sources of information?

Cognitive functions are like parts to the whole of typology.

There is also a "test" in the human brain that determines if the sky is blue or not. Blueness has qualifiers in order for it to necessitate the label blue (for example, it has to have the proper sensory effect as the "test," then have the proper registering of the post-sensation, and then have linguistic understanding/modeling/formalization). This is not any different than an MBTI test. Asking if an apple is red is like asking if a person is introverted. It is both using qualifications to create a label.

@Carl-Richard Asking "if MBTI is reliable" is like asking if language is reliable--since all models are signifiers, and this one happens to function exactly how ordinary language does by labelling real phenomena (different behavioral patterns as psychological tendencies) and then forming them into a web of interrelations. Then once this web is input into the dialogue, the readers of it will notice that it, as a signifier, was chosen to match the signified for certain reasons. This matching process of what is being referred to having a correlate with the language/signifier/model/replicative web/mirror can be accurate at times or slightly inaccurate. You have to understand how that pattern works to determine usefulness. But, it can never ever, in the vast majority of circumstances, be entirely useless. If people are saying the sky is blue and the fields are verdantly brilliant, that is a good sign that the sky actually is blue and the fields green. It does not make any sense to say that the act of language and the words "blue" and "green" have "no basis in reality" and are "pseudoscientific." MBTI labels, creates words for, real things and communicates those ideas--as a real correlation with the external existences it invokes.

J

@thisintegrated Guess me.

This is a wasteland of consciousness Socialization with Gods Brought upon ourselves in wash Of sin and rain on us

Astrology has empirical basis. I have witnessed it firsthand, in times like when the stars fall from the sky and the rider storms once more. Judgement swells upon the earth, underneath the moonlight.

Reality is infinite devil. Hyper-devilism is the substance behind Joseph, who is but a mere set of quickly spinning gears and mechanical creatures from the descent-ridden passes of evil. Therein is the hearth of reality. There is no omniscience, only dodajsndjen Snjndejnfijwernfjwer Okay, so by the ordinary definition of omniscience, omniscience is impossible for the most part. By the Leonian definition, obviously not.

Joseph, do not listen to them. They know not how to use language. Everything was broken down for them so that all things are the same and with then the offshoot "logically" of being able to be named whatever one might desire. They would have it that a grain of dust wandering by a fireplace is as omniscient as a God of all books, but they not have known hdd skddtoake over of the consciousness younger toueymananahaertouiijkskletyudhgcb kdokfhgijh dyjdbjdb ifjdnkfjn j kl o kk. k kk k k k k k. k. k k k k k k k k. k k Look, they fail to understand the quaths of desiring-function that halts fjfjfj jfjf jfjf jfjf jfj fjf jf jffj. fjfj fjjf fj jf fj fj. ONLY IAM GODAND I

If omniscience is knowing everything, it also includes knowledge of ignorance's perspective firsthand. That means omniscience is actually nescience.

Guno Gerra--he's my Messiah. He's by my side.

An object cannot hold all other objects until it ceases to hold those objects within itself, but this is, as it may seem to some people, an improbability to the close-minded?

Omniscience is a logical impossibility.

Yes.