Life-Form is not the same as lifeform; in the context I used it, it means a formation for tesseract-life(if you read the second part of the statement properly, you'd notice I outline that).

A tesseract, as stated in the original post, cannot be sensed from all angles.

From the angle we can sense, we sense mere fractions of a few sides.

Therefore, how am I supposed to answer your question?

this must be a joke.

If all you took from my thesis was a thing for houses and a statement, outcast from the rest, you're more likely the shrooms' culprit.

I don't appear to be on shrooms' do I?

I was expecting a serious response.

It seems a bit petty: your suffering here.

You've avoided discussion and stated that.

I'm a little intrigued as to what part of the thesis is druggy-apt, can you point out a sentence?

Perhaps it's just your own mental/physical deficiency, to which I suggest going to a doctor or meditation.

I'll treat you with care none-the-less...

yes I agree it's a scale of alertness and awareness.

To understand means to, get, mentally/spiritually.

To know means to, have, mentally/spiritually.

Though you may understand something, you may lose it when further complexities concerning it's concept arise.

You understand shape, but at the mention of adv. Shape you seem to lose what you got.

When you understand fully a concept, you can know about it - you can secure what you get from it.

Knowing is halving, it's as simple as looking at this word - example - and being able to half all aspects of it(it's symbol, its meaning, it's reality, etc.). Halving in mind is not directly about the fraction(though it is), but more the process.

I look up at the sky, I am able to say I know what it is, because I can quickly decompose it - half.

A good prey can be more proficient than a predator...

(Essentially I've just stumbled on this... Sorry for a low quality post).

What's more proficient(?), the star killer or the time runner?

Yes. Agreed.

I've had a rattle about and some think that there is no spirit, others, if there was a spirit, it wouldn't be physical.

I think that the spirit is both physical and mental, for, as well as it's essence; which from my observations of essences, are physical-form, like smoke, and incense; is it's logical identity, always unique across all spirits.

There is how a spirit is a unique identity, the experience-r, and how the spirit is experienced - the experience of self. These are the two mental aspects of spirit. Physically, an association with energy is made, we push/pull/weigh/accelerate/etc from our spirit, and there is also an association with matter; we are conscious, we are inspire-able.

you cannot. You can at most prepare yourself for it's occurrence.

yeah I agree with your point.

To me serotonin' is the reward neuro-chemical and dopamine is the worker-neurotransmitter who's reward is much like blood dope if to be considered reward.

Dopamine works to create refreshment, calibration, etc. To appease the side effect of calibration as a reward is criminal-ish, no(petty)?

I don't think emotions are feelings, but rather are felt.

She only learns what it is to apply what she knows, like she was part of a training program.

In essence, she knows nothing about the experience of red but is alerted to its nature. What/where/how/when/why red, are all answered.

Mary is an expert fisherman per se, she is well prepared to catch red, but has never caught red before.

What does it say about physicalism? It's more spiritual than first thought.

Mary is on edge, her heart pumping, her breath upstream with the line. Suddenly a pull. Mary tugs and then pulls up the rod...

Perhaps evil is the wrong word, maybe young and restless. Similar to prey; so gather in packs, socialize, stay away from predators and enjoy the life cliche.

When made simple it seems worse than it is. Perhaps you have the upper hand over-complexifying things.

Like prey in the bush, waiting for the predator to pass by; no trolls under bridges, please.

I have went through the effort of diagnosing you.

It is not logic that is evil in your mind. By the jist of your most recent post, it is the logic behind reality, that you imply is evil(co and co thinking about reality).

You have used and subserved with logic in all of your posts without a problem.

Hopefully this answers your question, sorry to hear that.

Hearts may be codal(species of code; may or not apply to dictionary; made up word) in nature.

They may be alert to simulations and contain enough personal biology to exist as individual life-forms. I don't know.

The brain is a more advanced understanding of vision, that being through the eyes, then washed on the brain.

Man may not know about his brain, until told - or other - yet his eyes may be noted in his reflection or in others.

Similar logic applies to man's experience of vision, a link to brain visual cortex is not simple to him until he has learned.

What's the problem?

Logic is fertile, if there's anything mind needs to be productive, it's the logic behind the reality. Logic can be handled evilly but is not inherently evil.

There is logic in evil, which makes evil resolute. The premise that logic is evil cannot be true for if it were, evil would have no logic.

Nothing could be greater than evil if logic were evil, nothing could be produced, a mind wouldn't be able to understand.

It could be and I think, probably is, so. It's a life crime to create so much randomness.

Why create billions of planets to facilitate a mediocre quality life?

Especially when the possibilities are predictable. You'd only need a few hundred planets to discover everything. What appears to have been done sloppily, could've been done carefully.

A mind alone can fathom everything, why over populate minds into existence?

It's not numbers that are the problem(more to the point, anywhere), its size.

I can think of many more harmonious formats of existence. We need not create a massive explosion to create an enjoyable life.

Is this hell, therefore? No.

Is this a simulation, are stars twisted special effects of a illusionary planet? Probably. Can other planets be simulated? Can the simulation fathom all possible simulations in the universe? Yes.

Security and power, an imbalanced scale.

'Seventh' serenade, non-singular set, arranged. The concise view of knowledge from the perfect angle.

Concept is, metaphorically, an unopened sticker pack and a new sticker book - precisely their meaning in that state - I e. You collect stickers and stick them in the book (that's the concept of Football Sticker Book and Packs). Upon sticking a sticker in the book, it is no longer a concept. You may also refer to Concept Art, which is a type of pre-art to any media used as a foundry on which the actual product is built upon.

Understanding is the process by which we get, not have, a subject.

We may get something and then lose it or get it and then have it; understanding, to the point of acknowledgement.

Mind is something that begets our understanding for, either our circumstance or it's nature is strange to us.

Perhaps the problem is our dimensions; we may need a stillness near impossible to obtain in this life.

The nature of mind can be registered, but the absolution of such a nature is a matter we, unless by a miracle, or great feat of thought, cannot perfect.

Again - it's nature is strange to us(by it's nature, I mean mind directly, not indirectly by way of it's user's experience of it.)

you are right. Give me half an hour and I'll post what you requested.

I agree/disagree with you theMadFool, there is a lot of asymmetry too.

If the universe was symmetrical, moving things would become dishevelled; they wouldn't hold up in such a perfect state.

Take, per se, a flat plane. The only positions available in such a perfect state would be checkered like a chess board, anything coming off diagonally or strange would result in dishevellment.

Is perfect/perfect symmetry?

The universe is more asymmetric than symmetric, but harmony of compound asymmetrical parts has resulted in symmetrical forms.

Life is more about symmetry than asymmetry, but the universe is definitely not symmetric.

It brings about the notion that for harmony to be obtained must it pass through a symmetry check?

The prisoner may unshackle and free itself. Although this would be behind the scenes.

Philosophy doesn't do that thing you suggested, people do.

I'm very fond of illusions, as I am the number 3(1 - the writer. 2 - the Joker. 3 - the illusion; if you want a more comprehensive pattern please ask).Shadows are a 2, I posit.))

Sunlight is a lot more advanced than Sun Dial logic, there are many more configurations all of which to be understood with the frames you have already perceived through experience of your own shadow.

The shadow form, if unseen, or partially seen, may manifest into an illusion.

Think of shadows as man's dormant creation ability, and furthermore, man's dormant imagination. Why isn't our imagination more apparent?

I'm not suggesting shadows do animate secretly, but that the potential is there, so addressing it as either yes or no is wrong.

'Didn't know' implies some sort of choice mechanism, I believe the intellectual terminology is 'unaware of'.

I went to the doctor's, he presented a paper with a diagnosis... I didn't know it.

I posit regarding all evidence I have or have not attained on the subject matter, or produced in this discussion/debate.

I can't draw it but it looks like a hovercraft. The front is the boat aspect, the back is just the propellors, and they link in a 'klein' manner.

If it is spawned at all it generates whirling power into it's global center and that contained power then judges automatically and roams, wherever the flow takes it.

Given that her theories are concise, Mary learns 1 thing, true red(and possibly a multitude of other things about why other colours look the way they do/blend. Such as, how yellow is made).

She would also be able to distinguish red from other colours without any retrospective cognition, now having experienced true red. This however isn't learning but application.

If you disagree I wonder, do we learn how to experience? No. Distinguishing red without retrospective cognition is now fortified.

See the connotation between conciseness and intellectuals.

If what you prepare to say or what you theorise, is concise, you can be intellectual, almost automatically. You cannot reduce conciseness to simplicity in communication. The more clear it is the better, but by no means is clarity straightforward, you may not be able to word correctly something that can be made clear through metaphor, and then poets claim to misunderstand and you are deemed obscure.

Forgive me for bringing up the Winged Propeller shape which is an active shape like a tesseract.

It has two symmetrical propellers at the back of a 'klein bottle' connected front chassis on which a sentient (capable of roaming and judging passively) intelligence is created in its global center, through the harmonious swirling power generated by the torque of propellers and the front layer that simulates aerodynamicity.

Seems like jibberish - then you are not looking at conciseness, you are a non intellectual on shape or lesser than me, or you're thinking perversely.

First judge if my description of the Winged Propeller shape is concise, perhaps engage with debate. It seems there are no debates on this forum, just competitive discussion.

Philosophy must be concise but by no means must it be straightforward. Intellectuals are not drones who speak in one way, they are multi-linguists, per se.

I'm well aware my old bean.

I'm careful not to.

I don't want to hurt something or end something's life abrubtly.

I'll blow/shuffle a spider away, but also help one out the bath in finicky approach.

I made an ant farm once but they reproduce too quickly.

Insects are not the same as animals, they are a different type of beast. I think they don't experience sadness and instead have deeper sense of wrath; no adrenaline but a majestic chemical calm, instead.

You sometimes step on a snail or slug by accident. Ought you feel guilty? ;)

Understanding is knowing a subject mechanically, such as with C++. If - there is - a - any number here - do - X.

A tree is/can be green and brown...

If you know each part of the former sentence, you therefore understand what is meant. To get a machine to understand then it must be programmed concisely.

I like the businessman in political power, perhaps he'll do a good job. The military runs things anyway - the president is just a figurehead. I'm from merry old England, but cast opinion is not shrouded by my own greed. I'm being elegant. He has a few titles under his belt, stands against racism and is patriotic.

Consciousness is not understanding, it's alertness of simulation.

It's not the part that you/most think it is. It is not the pineal gland - the spirit.

Think of 'alertness of simulation' as, metaphorically, a resounding yes in response to a encircling no; or an answer, in response to a query from an external mind.

Consciousness isn't awareness because we must put in effort to become aware. We must open our eyes, per se.

Yes consciousness exists.

If you are hit with enough pressure you become unconscious, the simulation cannot alert you in this state. People have claimed to hear ringing sounds when regaining consciousness(parses with 'resounding yes to a encircling no').

You can't expect everything to neatly parse with English Language, some concepts are way too abstruse.

Take descriptions of advanced shapes, such as a metatrons cube or a tesseract.

You wouldn't clearly write a description of a tesseract. It wouldn't pass off saying it was a cube inside a cube - go on - have a go.

I understand what a tesseract is, and it compels a deep sort of conversation.

I think the problem is deeper discussions are treated as 'sweet talking' when truly they're just intriguing to the wise of men.

I conclude by saying people should have more freedom where writing it concerned, they must be concise and then intellectual, but not necessarily direct.

Economy should be fun.

The problem is perversity.

A metaphor...

Reddit Philosophy is just a propaganda outlet that hastily shuffles away good threads into the recycle bin.

The subreddit is paid to showcase content that supports certain regimes.

It isn't fun at all because it serves special interests.

The case is, a platform for fun, serious discussion is hijacked by mischievous people who, themselves, hog all the fun. The majority is overwhelmed by their tyranny and must conform or suffer dishevelment, loneliness.

The same goes for the Economy.

Emotions are not pre-linguistic(the brain registers emotes, emotes are legible) nor pre-conceptual(the way emotion is applied to objects/subjects makes them more a sticker, than a blank sticker book, and a sealed sticker packet).

Emotions affect the mind, giving comfort or discomfort to boost cognitive processes.

One's innovations, per se, are color green cognition; are stimulated by negative emotions envy, greed, lust, etc.

There are other uses of emotions...

You can touch the desert rock, but it would be a temporary, disposable sense.

Partial simulations craft by imagination are mostly extrasensory, noi, ibrio, procip, etc. This allows for a hybrid type of sense that's half real and half unreal between the veil of reality and your own.

Martial arts is a skill. Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Creating Audio, or what I call 'special arts', are also skills.

Is there a definition for playing darts? Darts has a definition, but literally playing darts is a skill set which goes undefined.

That rules a majority of the answers in this thread as false.

A painting is a painting, a sketch, a sketch.

Therefore art has no definition; the term art generalises martial art (art style) and special art (art craft). A worthy art term is a philosophical subject matter where we are discussing both art style and art craft.

Art, defined is, the subject matter of martial and special art skills.