Math is per se, the war of worlds. Persona Vs persona. Except there are many personas. Shapes for example. Man Persona Vs Shape persona equates ideas such as Pythagoras and length width depth height maxth boxth etc.

In any case it doesn't belong more with philosophy as a field. This is what we're discussing... Perhaps logic is for philosophers, more...

Hmm... I'm having second thoughts but it wasn't you trust me.

Edit: it's about equal. Both philosophical and mathematical.

he was, you just don't know it.

There is no reason why we can't do mathematics and create philosophies; technically, because Aristotle said to do it, doesn't mean you do.

We study logic both mathematically and philosophically to become subservient of logic.

What separates us from robots is our, per se, 'sixth sense' metaphorically; we don't just calculate we assimilate...

In a way I agree with you but more aptly I don't.

*draws a katana and takes a few steps forward, impales his stomach and falls to his knees*

"It can't be done!"

"I can't...I...I.. I CAN'T"...

then answer the question using proper prose and not wrathful tapping of keys.

then it is settled; no need to express your confusion so boldly, it's destructive. I believe that's antisocial. I feel insulted by your response, it's a sugar coat on what you're actually thinking at that time. It is throwing toys out of pram babyish, plus, no need to spam respond to a simple text.

Information is the state of data before data is informed/full of itself.

If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

The answer to this question is...

Yes it does because logic would have it so, but this sound, to the party that is not around, is just information(et. Of a sound).

The Sky is blue. Data. The Sky is blue- to a newborn- is data becoming knowledge. The Sky is blue- to a persona wise of this- is knowledge. Information is the mode(mathematics) of contexts of data.

Data that is knowledge, must share itself, thus information has mode(in a linguistic and not mathematical sense).

The Sky is blue- in the contexts of a newborn, a wise persona, and empirically- is information(only given all contexts).

Data- in all contexts- is information.

Data-All.

Logic belongs with math...
What are Nations?
Humanities is a reference to fields such as Literature, Art, etc.

that's surely wrong by a large margin.

I consider these subjects part of other fields.

Logic. Math.
Ethics. Politics.
Metaphysics. Science.
Aesthetics. Humanities.
Etc.

If were merely discussing the subjects, surely my point still stands(thinking about knowledge).

not all spasms are retardation if you implied.

Spasms are real brainy things.

Evil doesn't always make sense, can be destructive of such, it's one of the reasons why we are good aligned; per se, things thus appear to be what they appear.

Evil is thus isolated, to remain in tact.

It is isolated.

In your statement you recognise evil as something distinct from good.

"I place evil... inside the universe, how is it dealt with?

You recognise that evil must be 'dealt' with...

Thus, isolation.

What if God is not a being, and is thought of as more being(in a sense of 'to be')-ness, is that provable?

Per se, God, the cohesive energy(not the God I believe in but...).

It depends on what God.

I think sin, thought of morbidly, is part of us - it's within us - we draw from it's source(like a passive wanting/seething).

Evil doesn't have to be 'part of us', we can all live just good.

Evil in my eyes is morbid stupidity, there is no greater evil, only solipsist or all future acts are determined morbid stupidity; how can one have a stupidity that's greater than another stupidity - deeply think about it.

Stupid 1 is ~ what? ~ by stupid 2. Outwitted?

We have determined morbid stupidity and predetermined morbid stupidity, neither are a part of us.

Good is the way to go.

Philosophy: subjective wit of substance, or wisdom, to certain fields of expertise.

We're discussing definition of philosophy, and whether the fact it is a field should be neglected - and not what is conducted in the ongoing field of philosophy.

well, yes, a wiser interpretation.

It should be everyone's priority to distinguish between knowledge and wisdom, though their concepts are similar, if not knowing the difference, one can only be lead to bad thinking.

Try wisdom as 'my words on a subject' and knowledge as 'a subject'.

No, I personally, and other readers in their analysis carry truth from memories.

You could arrive to the justification that claims can carry truth through a quizzing but not a direct answer, like you were beating out an ideal answer.

I'm specifically referring to the way written word or verbal speech is, when separate to physical expression, not a concise statement(i.e. is at a high percentage an off-key of what was truly meant).

However, claims can be understood, and understood as right or wrong, for example: I say ' I'm going to make a cross with my fingers ' and then show you; there is a true statement. It can be classed a low percentage off-key.

Thus, it's possible to narrow down claims enough to judge optimistically or pessimistically if they are true or false, but all claims, whether false or true, are justified claims.

It is justified it is data.
It is justified it is true because I've seen it.

Seeing it is a true-courier, thus.
A claim itself is not a true-courier, in fact, because of misinterpretion, even if wholly understood.

What I mean may be wrong but there's no way of judging that through the written word here, lest we were being inconcise.

We are the experiencer enigmas that experiences the being eclipses. What the experiencer is, I don't know, perhaps it's something to do with super symmetry; in my opinion everything is symmetrical but super symmetric phenomena occured, creating an illusion of asymmetry. For every illuminated phenomenon is shadow- for every shadow, a concave, and a mirror. In part a human is many, and this many, together, is super symmetric.

Helper:
If you view things plainly it seems as if it's not all symmetrical but if you consider each part its own center, you can imagine it.

truth and justification do not necessarily fall under the same category.

why is that, if you'd care?

Pain over.

Thinking of it in the way I suggested is painful. It's more see-through, doesn't appear.

There is no such thing as a greater good in a empirical sense, only a good that is greater than another good, in which case it is a greater good in a semi-logical sense. Good is moral-equality, any evil subtracts from this equality making it determinable on the moral-net.

There is no such thing as a greater evil, only solipsist. There is evil which is stupidity by good and solipsist which is stupidity by self as if all next moves would be evil.

Morality is always absolute, but in primal times there may be a mistake third party in a special episode of misunderstood goodlessness.

143 is a random number algorithm, where 1 is a constant, 4 is a change and 3 is a choice.

Such as plates, poles and seismic activity, whether you choose to change the constant the outcome is random.

Random is more a algorithmic collection of shapes, such as a marked circle in a square. If the circle rotates and the square ticks synonymously in 'algorithmic' manner, if you pick a corner and twist the whole collection, it's too complex to be a matter of skill as to which corner the mark is closest to.

Source: the weather

Or perhaps not having a technology that does everything is bad...

Oddly, more.

It is acceptance of death and it's further form decrepit; you're not there, mirrored, thus you are not there twice.

It is a precondition of ugliness; you tire out.

It is a prerequisite of afterlife and sacrelige; you dream and recover.

Imagine perception wherein the left and right span an infinite region of space that folds back on itself.

Change is being at the centre of this fold, manifolding.

A good image is having a flat face with two eyes, and out of the corner of each eye is seen a precise left and right in accordance with the flat face; seemingly infinite space is suppressed in mind but you could imagine that perceived left and right to go on forever and fold back on itself. Thus, change is focusing on that central region, causing a manifold.

Strange does not mean incomplete. It does not mean we have to fret. It does not mean dull or incoherent. It means, well... This is my point.

I cannot understand my mind because it is strange... And walah - that is all I can say on the topic.

It is, all I know, comprehensive.

It is... Sortable, we can make arrangements, and diminish.

Mind is not toy but a toy can be used to be concise about it.

Morality is not enforced otherwise people become safe from detour/decrepit. You want morality to remain in the realm of theory, in that case we are at liberty.

There are many cases of morality, eight in total, beginning with pure morality, middling with non biased morality, ending with concise morality. Pure morality is where good and evil are opposite and integer, non biased morality is where good and evil are analytical and precise, and finally concise morality is where good and evil are concise and enforced by intellectuals (do not consider enforcement to be physical).

I don't agree morality should be enforced, the police or the mercenaries who enforce, should only enforce laws written by men, not laws written by gods. Hypothetically in the meta of this topic, godlessness is better, and morality can only be godless if thought paroptic(made up word, to mean ~ in the theoretical realm of experience).

No.

Advanced gestalt is pre word, consider the big bang as an advanced gestalt.

Words are double so it would be a "professional gestalt."

Mind and body primarily, but minor differences exist such as thoughts being like pathways while emotions being like landmasses.

You are aware of your... Something very strange...

This is not a pleasing sum, it is better said unequivocally, as wisdom.

Your right to exist.

It is not but it was one of the start points. I could have been more concise.

When there's too much nurture, time's fatherhood has bias, and vice versa with nature's motherhood.

Nature is nurture, nurture is nature.

Life Quality, primarily. Life has a level of quality, if it's unacceptable, life has no value. Life begins to have value when it's quality is acceptable.

To live is not to experience life's value but to be born is in light of life's value. It's a population question, 'should I have children?' is among the questions involved.