Salvijus

There's nothing cheritable about giving a person a chance to explain themselves and being open minded about it. Everything other than that, like attempts to ridicule, belittle, silence, attack is desperate and comes from bias.

A good question to ask is, how do we know that what we percieve as a limitation in someone's behavior is not just our failure to see deeper intelligence behind those actions? This question becomes especially significant when we're talking about mystics and such I would say. The answer i believe is. You can't know. All you can do is keep growing and keep an open mind and your opinion about mystics and their hard to understand behavior will keep changing every day. In the meantime, the only thing worth being concerned with is if this being can help me reach the next stage of development or not.

Okay, then the same question can be applied anyways. Which axioms are more in alignment with our perception of reality. But "align with reality" is just as good. Maybe even better. It would make more sense to align the math with the Reality rather than our perception of reality. Because our perception of reality could be flawed. And why would we want to align our math with something that is not stable even.

The question becomes. Which axioms are more in alignment with Reality from phylosophical point of view ? The ones that Howard is proposing or the current ones. It's a debatable matter if you ask me. I definitely don't know the answer but I'm open minded about it.

Here's an interesting insight. If to perceive = to be conscious And to perceive = to experience Then Conciousness = experience.

I was thinking this aswell. You could make 1x1=2 and have a consistent math based on that aswell. I believe Howard's pointing more at a phylosophical problem rather than mathematical problem. Somehow according to him 1x1=1 does not exist in the universe and is somehow from phylosophical point of view incorrect way to look at the world. Not that I understand his thought process fully myself.

Apparently he sayed during the Joe's podcast that he understands the counter argument that 1 times 1 = 1. (Because it happened once) Despite of that he still insists on his position for some reason. How to understand his thinking process how he got there. Credit to him for thinking outside the box tho. Even if he's wrong. Most people just accept blindly what is being told to them in schools without ever questioning it. It shows intelligence and indipendant thinking. Those are nice qualities.

That's synonymous with becoming more perceptive to me. To see directly = to perceive directly = to be conscious directly

Yea his might be digging his grave with that one

Edit. I realized the flaw in my own thinking. My bad.

Hmm. After more contemplation I'm starting to think there's nothing wrong with the x^3=2x situation. My bad.

I was contemplating his x^3=2x supposed fallacy in math. I think i understand the point he's making. That simple example shows how math is inconsistent. Because the formula doesn't work with other numbers expect with √2. And for a formula to be true, it has to work with all numbers. And math that is not consistent is not math at all. Interesting example if you ask me.

Love would try to help the child and the aggressor both. That would be a wholesome thing to do. A wholesome action is that action that serves The Whole. Everyone and Everything. And in order to perform such an action one has become a servent of love's Will. (God's will) completly egoless.

Calling it a shift in perception is valid as well imo. First you perceive yourself to be a person. Then you perceive yourself to be The Absolute. That's not a small shift in perception.

Nobody sayed that's all he had to show for it.

I second this. I want to see how things will turn out aswell. True. And let's not say there is no substance to it before we actually did proper investigation would also be a healthy position imo.

✌️

I'm not interested in defending Howard. I'm interested in pointing out where people are lame.

A person only qualifies to say "It's all just empty talk" after he does proper investigation of his ideas and proofs and then comes to the conclusion. "Yea... There is nothing to it." But right now. Everyone is saying Howard is full of shit without zero genuine investigation into his theories. That is what's lame about it.

See I'm no expert. But during the Joe Rogan podcast he says normal drones can't spin around its axis while being still in the air. What Howard did has never been done before. If you were more honest. You would not be able to say, it's all just empty talk. You say that without any basis. The real honesty is. You don't know. And if you really want to find out if there is substance to his claims. You should investigate him. Not me.

Yes we need to chose to whom we give our attention and to whom we don't. There're only 3 options here: 1. You genuinely believe someone is not worth attention. And you just don't participate in it. 2. You adress the proposed theories and show the flaws in a friendly way. In a mood of exploration of science. Not as an ego battle. 3. Your ego is afraid that your reality is now questioned. You need an explanation to run away. So you label the person all kinds of names without even looking at their ideas genuinely and smear them with bad reputation. First two are okay. Third one is 99% of the people right now. Being lame.

Give him a chance and maybe he will do that. That's why I want to see a conversation between him and scientists.

Maybe the current method his using of drawing attention is going to work aswell.

In case I did a bad job explaining what's so special about his inventions. Here's a video of his drones. But seriously. Stop asking me all these scientific questions. I don't qualify to speak for Howard.

His inventions are based on a new model of understanding reality and physics. And if these inventions are actually legit. It proves that his new model of understanding reality is also legit.