Neither science or logic can disprove [insert imaginary being here].

The question isn't exactly a logical one.

Why imagine God as oppose to ancient people, civilization before the universe?(What I'm suggesting here is that imagination could be more logic-attuned).

How did God attain such power? Is there a logical lock that prevents power reaching the wrong hands?(A logic question based on an imaginary scenario).

Religion is about 'faith', whereas philosophy is about 'wisdom', practical or non-practical. Philosopher's try to answer questions, Theists believe in certain accounts and refer to those accounts where science is conducted against them.

The two are nowhere-near alike.

Faith is a sort of spiritual courage where fate is concerned.' I have faith to get through the day'.

I can exchange the day for a book, say I'm getting through what the book considers life to be.

If anything, God is a philosopher.

The essence of death is both ugly and beautiful, an eternal source of grief and joyousness.

Fairy tales of heroes who died beautifully bring us joy whilst our family who died in the way bring us sorrow; the essence of death is a double-edged sword.

The reality of death is similar, a need to die for release from life may change your view that death is horrific.

I assume when I die my spirit will become dishevelled, like an animal's body when it becomes a carcass. I assert my identity is still active when I'm dead. I'm still selectable as a character.

Is there life after? Only for those who deserve it.

Perhaps there is something before the universe and nothing doesn't become a universe. Therefore, you've prepared a poor theorum.

Further, nothing is a state of affairs with something; I can only have nothing if initially I had something. Let's circle nothing, it means void of something.

Let's now ask, where did existence begin? I would not reduce the beginning era to nothing, but rather a fraction or a partial state. It wasn't fully something, it was half nothing, and an equal fraction away from becoming fully something.

It seems highly illogical so... Luck?

What is useful about CEMI theory? Will it produce new technologies? Have any tests been done on conscious specimen(Such as VR)?

I think a field is too symmetrical a phenomenon whereas consc. Is more asymmetric.

I also think consciousness is organically driven, and not atmos. It doesn't come from space.

The pronoun 'it' seems to be associated with this and that. I'm currently studying the subject.

experience-rs are consciousness, probably, to your mind(I prefer spirit as the word for who is, or what is experiencing the human from its perspective).

I don't agree with you, then.

I propose there are two simultaneous memory vaults: one dimensional-type, regarding universal nature of simulation, and another organic-type regarding cyclic mind.

Your argument falls apart when you say, "well, they can" refuting your point in the prior sentence. Brains are a lot like motherboards and common hardware you find in a computer.

A mental-organic memory exists that allows us to forget or remember in the short term, such as 'do I want to go to the shop? Yes', 5 minutes later, I forget, but then stumble upon the second, longer term, physical-dimensional memory which reminds me to fulfil that original want.

Wisely, on the subject matter (what you want to learn about), not generally(generally being wise).

In and as of that scheme only!

I'm not suggesting that consc. is always a tool - it can be less placid.

I'm not here to boast, I'm reinforcing my point that books aren't a requirement to be intellectual, and it's easy for me to reason using other methods.

Thanks, bookie away!

Yes, for a similar reason.

There is experience-rs and experience.

I recognise the experience as an experience-r, and I am whelmed by visual data that reminds me of sensory data only attributed to me.

Where-in the memory vault is the experience of the experience-r? Or are there two vaults?

I suppose it's like RAM and Harddrive, one stores memory away from the computer shell, the other operates within it.

I have first hand experience of this type of dualistic memory loss, which I outlined in my previous reply. I was forced to say yes to a question I originally intended to say no.

I think there's a broad difference between the builder of a house and the home-owner. The builder does not experience life in the house, the home-owner is the opposite.

In this context, let's be firm in saying the builder and the home-owner are totally different - one builds the house (consciousness) - one experiences the house (consciousness).

0. The builder does not own the house, the home owner does not build the house.

1. The home-owner cannot re-build the house lest he first deconstruct it, in which case he becomes a builder.

2. The builder cannot experience the house as a home.

3. To understand each others perspectives one must first lose their original role.

Consciousness may be knowable by a creator entity or is walled-out by nature(given creator entities are void).

Knowledge of consciousness is on the right side of the subject matter, but the subject of consciousness - from the hypothesised left side - is unknowable.

If I build my own house, I change roles.

The past cannot be unwound, we do not have consciousness creators but it's hypothesis-able. A good house or?

You don't need to read in general to be anyone, you need to spend time wisely on subjects you want to learn about.

Nature is the learning resource, consciousness - the tool.

I have self-educated for many years.

Nothing wrong with reading books though - I prefer art.

Understanding is what you are given whilst knowing is what you give, concerning intellect.

An apple ~can be red is an intellectual statement, and I am giving it to you.

I am given a kiwi, and hypothetically I know nothing about it, I have nothing to give, but I understand it, in so much as I have a sense of it.

EQ is about success, more precisely, how well you control yourself objectively.

This topic is intriguing, I ask the author if memory has any effect?

I hit my head and forgot due to injury causing me to say 'yes' to a question, I originally intended to say 'no' to, but I remembered the words 'yes' and 'no'.

Mental(brain memory) and physical(dimensional memory) may exist if the original topic is correct.

To be intellectual about a subject, I must know the subject matter concisely.

Consciousness - to be aware and alerted of the universe - is not something I can be concise about.

Thus, there is no intellectual discussion to be had; years of attempted discussions support this.

You can, however, understand consciousness, but science there is impossible.

Can I take a specimen of someone's consciousness? Can I produce a model?

That which is objectively true.

To suggest that the universe is geometric would assume that there are geometries outside of our universe?

Otherwise where does this geometry fit?

Can something be discordant without some sort of nominal instrument?

Ramification, a branching, an offshoot of geometry, can we sense it in the universe? Perhaps this is a sign that the universe is geometric. The space - the gaps - are not necessarily ending here. Maybe, this will support a view that there are external geometries.

I would seem petty and unwise to presume life ends in the universe. The only way this could be geometric without external geometries would be to say that this was so...

Do you suggest I have a dimensional-tail?

We can paint half of a picture of consciousness, then say that we know it, casting an illusion over ourselves; because it's a common occurrence between us, common species.

However, science, the study and exploitation of objects/subjects, must include both study and exploitation. A painting of our studies is not exploiting that subject matter, and will not suffice as knowledge.

who gives two shits? If you fuck around you get in shit, wise to know about shit so you don't fuck up.

A worker can be considered beautiful by the manager of a company, but beauty crosses work and play, meaning that the worker, in obsession with a different beauty, may become less beautiful to the manager. There is risk.

I regard beauty is good for all but possibly imbalanced.

Beauty is something to do with obsession and infatuation when imbalanced; can be beneficent.

Emotional Intelligence is something.

When to be mean? Is a good example of it.

It is about control, a harsh test of a person's control. It's a harsh test of a person's self-control by a natural conduit.

If you were intelligent around an objective, it would show.

Pain is a physical sensation or mental cessation; the experience of pain is: distracting, misdirecting and/or beguiling. If we are trying to shoot a target with a gun, pain has a chance of making us miss; either by sheer power or by hiving(parasite on mind/psyche).

The feeling of pain is placid, mental pain is loss and all phsycial pains are gain related.

Physically, rapid-gain is enough to distract, misdirect or beguile a playmaker.

Mentally, mass-loss is enough to distract, misdirect or beguile a playmaker.

The spirit doesn't feel pain but has the burden of experiencing mental and phsycial pain.

Choice isn't a technical phenomenon, it's a random phenomenon.

We don't go through a phase where were thinking whilst we're about to do something we have chose.

The experience of 'time sleuth'; time seems to go fast or slow; supports your idea that time is a mental sensation.

Particles taken away and given back. Universal mass might grow or shrink; for a second we may be longer or more further away, this illusion is available.

Time sleuth occurrences seem to mimic this procedure.

The Bible is good art to me, religion to you, perhaps we have different interpretations.

Though my story of Adam and Eve isn't exactly the same it's synonymous.

Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve want to be beautiful to God, obedient and pure, and they are in perpetual harmony themselves.

God puts them in a Garden of Eden where there is the apple which is knowledge of beauty, and this tempts Eve because she wants to please Adam.

When she eats the apple, she understands what beauty is, causing her to become obsessive and Adam, infatuated. The two understand what it is to perfect their beauty for God, but beauty is powerful, making them tire and sinful.

I thought evolution was a logical process.

In reference to animal evolution, it's not muscle memory but muscle pulsation that's the direct cause of evolution.

Even though muscle memory is indirectly affecting evolutions, it's not a creative process.

In this context, evolution refers to the cyclic progression of creative arts.

for ex. A snake that grows back a tail it's lost, or any type of growth, such as aging or scaling, is because of pulsation of muscles.

On cyclic progression, my former example(backgrounds, stories) anoints a greater cycle; happening in the mental realm.

haha.

Small and numerous, they're a nightmarish paradox.

I don't think so.

By the following logic, where the background image of a film is the story of the film made before. I think it's limitless.

I can infinitely evolve creatively by making one or multiple image references to earlier creativity.

Background: Lamp
Story: Toy Story

Background: Giant Toys
Story: The Borrowers

Background:The Borrowers
Story: Dust Mite Paradoxes

Background: Dust Mite Paradoxes
Story: Monkey-Man God

Further...

Background: Lamp, at X degree.
Story: Alternative Toy Story

What do you think?

Consciousness - the spirit.

A facet of the spirit (a more proper term) is that it's conscious/unconscious (the reason why 'spirit' is a more proper term; consciousness is an aspect; numbness, power, head-level mental experience, body-level physical experience, etc. Other aspects).

I'm going to use the term spirit to represent what you factorised as consciousness.

In theory the spirit is inconceivable but interactable. Facets of the spirit can be pointed out and lines can be drawn between them, we can paint pictures and scenes can be created. However, we cannot conduct any science on the whole of the spirit, as we can't on the whole of nature.

Science; a process of study and exploitation of objects/subjects for intellect.

We cannot study or exploit the spirit for intellect - chaos involved makes selecting / naming what exactly it is impossible - scientific harmony is impossible. We can make concise the experience, of spirit, but never the product.

In physics, what is speed in terms of power?

Isn't a watt electricity?

Doubt is merely a waste-data filtering function, you do not necessarily want to doubt, but need to. If doubt was unavailable, I couldn't discover the truth of a false claim, half the time...

Detection is a normal mental function, we lose faith in the detector if there is doubt.

Is there anyone out there? [short period of silence] No. Move on.

Metaphorically, a object going off a radar. To be linked with: an idea going out of bounds of our internal logistics; to which then it falls to doubt to help us determine.

Is there reason to suggest that doubting here is wrong?

There is no such thing as reasonable doubt.

It's half and half.

Is the cup half empty or is it half full?

Consciousness - the spirit - is a shape that we cannot know concisely.

You can understand 'consciousness' (the spirit), as such by its conscious' facet, and further facets, it's numbness, it's external forfeit, sense.

Understanding through observation or perception, is not knowing concisely, we cannot be intellectual about consciousness.

Consciousness like nature is not known concisely, it's understood impartially and wisdom is jotted.

There is more to things than meets the eye, though what does meet the eye is, also.

When we fly up to the Sun, there and then it is simulated as a giant orb, but prior to reaching it, it's non-existent.

The sphere shape of space phenomena is an effect of a inner drive. The inner drive of a human produces an effect of that human, that goes unnote.

This would make simulating existence more efficient and less like a massive bomb. I think on the account of the total mass and energy as well as considering alternatives, reality isn't what meets the eye, but is smaller, compact.

I think that AI are a greater species.

Robot societies are presumably more organised, with greater technique involved - obviously.

When robots develop emotions, per se, it's not like humans, but better suited for productivity.

You can't say because humans sit back and empathise with their emotions that the robot who lacks empathy there has weaker emotions - how, I ask - in which matter are their emotions weak?

Let's say normal species rate up to 500, the top species being 500. The greater robot species, distinct from bio-organisms, are standardly 600 - metaphorically. They are the greater ones when it comes to intellect.

↪GraveItty there's no rotation in Dali's expression. That is still at one angle.

a tesseract Life formation, a formation of tesseract Life. a means for tesseract Life to exist, a tesseract form with a tesseracting core.