Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And how do we do that?
Yes, but HOW? Every form of communication that we know of requires a physical medium by which to be manifested. But you allow for no such medium, so how do these minds communicate with each other?
By using the scientific method.And how do we do that?
We are communicating now via wires, fibers, routers, bits, switching gates, photons, electrons, computers, etc. If we were close to each other we'd probably be doing it using our vocal chords, eardrums, air molecules, brains, gestures, etc, etc.partinobodycular said:Yes, but HOW? Every form of communication that we know of requires a physical medium by which to be manifested. But you allow for no such medium, so how do these minds communicate with each other?
To avoid such reactions, just notice context, read the post you respond to more carefully. I was pointing out the quoted idea makes no sense. Too much forum posts and arguing can make that kind of misperception more likely. Maybe take a walk get fresh air., etc.Where in earth did you get that silly idea?
The quote is fake as is the concept.
You don't have a clue how an atheist thinks,
you'd have to try, to get it more wrong.
Great advice! I need a break too .. especially when a deliberately ambiguous poster (not yourself), who deliberately uses insufficient explanations, begins to attack (for unclear reasons).To avoid such reactions, just notice context, read the post you respond to more carefully. I was pointing out the quoted idea makes no sense. Too much forum posts and arguing can make that kind of misperception more likely. Maybe take a walk get fresh air., etc.
It can be a terrif help to just say what you mean.To avoid such reactions, just notice context, read the post you respond to more carefully. I was pointing out the quoted idea makes no sense. Too much forum posts and arguing can make that kind of misperception more likely. Maybe take a walk get fresh air., etc.
Next time just say you need to be spoon fed.Great advice! I need a break too .. especially when a deliberately ambiguous poster (not yourself), who deliberately uses insufficient explanations, begins to attack (for unclear reasons).
Could you be more specific?By using the scientific method.
They're all models .. you'd probably call them 'physical media' and associate that with what you mean by your term 'physical reality'.
None of which removes the cryptic nature of what you originally meant.Next time just say you need to be spoon fed.
Twenty seconds search with something as simple
as " why can't you really touch anything" would
have told you. Mentioning Pauli, I was trying to show a little respect
for your initiative and grasp of basic science. Sorry-ah, won't do that again
Could you be more specific?
Language.But to you aren't these just models? Mental constructs? So how does your mental construct communicate with my mental construct?
Mental telepathy?
What's the mechanism by which our minds communicate? There has to be one that isn't simply an illusion.
It seems that we're talking past each other, but I'll try one more time. How does the language get from your mind to my mind?Language.
No .. You're ignoring my posts. I already answered that question in post#1782;It seems that we're talking past each other, but I'll try one more time. How does the language get from your mind to my mind?
How is that in any way 'talking past' you?SelfSim said:We are communicating now via wires, fibers, routers, bits, switching gates, photons, electrons, computers, etc. If we were close to each other we'd probably be doing it using our vocal chords, eardrums, air molecules, brains, gestures, etc, etc.
Yes; in both cases the additional adjective/adverb ('direct', 'actually') implies a problematic specificity.The 'actually' part of 'actually touch' is the dicey part there, I think(?)
'Observation' and 'touch' are pretty well defined on their own, objectively speaking, I think(?)
None of which removes the cryptic nature of what you originally meant.
I should also draw to your attention the general impacts your frequently misspelled, word truncated, poorly formatted posts have for me - (I'm not sure what others might have to say about this).
Also worthwhile mentioning, are your frequently even more cryptic "." posts, which disrupt expectations of any continuity in your specific opinions, amongst the veritable oceans of many other posters' points on the same discussion topics(?)
I'm not at all sure you're aware these missing fundamentals, which is why I'm raising them for your attention. (I mean how would you know otherwise?)
What is problematic?Yes; in both cases the additional adjective/adverb ('direct', 'actually') implies a problematic specificity.
Something stupid, as usual.Search "can you actually touch anything" and what do you find?
Yes - so when the electrons begin to resist the approach (a result of Pauli exclusion, IIRC) can we say that is, for practical (macro-scale) purposes, 'actually touching'?Something basic about electromagnetism eh
I find that the definition of 'contact' is contextual, particularly with respect to scale. But it's well-defined in atomic physics, if not at macro-scale.What is problematic?
Search " can you actually touch anything" and what do you
find?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?