That is a matter of a proper statement. I am assuming asking the right question is always the issue. A 6 and a 9 are the same shape so if the statement is whether or not it is this shape than it would be true so long as you don't get too specific on a meaning a particular number may have.

When I was asking about true or false, true and false, and neither true nor false I was referring to statements. Things that are objective and not opinions. I was watching a video in which the talker was saying sometimes things are neither or both true and false at the same time. Particularly in reference to more eastern philosophy. I assume in the west we prefer things to be more strictly true or false?

From what I have read here so far I am assuming the statements that aren't well defined are maybe the problem more than whether or not it is strictly true or false? What if all statements are made by and evaluated by the same person so different vantage points don't become an issue?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fXW-QjBsruE

Made me think of the latest vsauce video when you mentioned that paradox.

This post in general is about any confidence that gets into the realm of absolute. But in terms of a handful of women that think their beauty is certain I am annoyed when they give a gesture to indicate that this was something they already knew and are neither complimented or disgusted by the words. It seems to show a lack of empathy.

People also say a person is beautiful inside and out when both apply but never say they are beautiful on the inside (in a public manner anyway) when only one applies.

Surely there are women or men that think they are qualified for say a sales job because they are attractive even if they know this isn't a skill set. It is unfounded confidence that annoys me. Whether it is billionaires thinking they have all the skills mom and pop businesses wish they had, or doctors from an Ivy league school that don't think conversing with a more average person could inspire any knew knowledge. My point is confidence beyond a certain point surely must be wasteful.

I don't require gratefulness for a compliment. My point is some people think their beauty is factual in all circumstances. And as far as complimenting someone on their personality that would be my first approach if I knew them well enough at that point.

It doesn't threaten me. I just think people shouldn't blind themselves with things that are empty and aren't accomplishments.

I just assumed since the movies address reality itself and how the mind can be fooled that it was a philosophical topic. I am not asking about esthetics of the films.

I don't suppose the full cast is official yet? I hope Hugo, Lawrence, and Helmut Bakaitis can still be in this. Doogie Houser can't be a big part of this. Lol.

So was the first film intellectually good or was it too just novalty?

Can anything ever be real without sensory feedback? I see videos about people who have been blind their whole lives and it's obvious they lack more than visual knowledge about the world. It's like they can't touch the reality most people can.

No, prison is pretty apt. Particularly for people with brain damage that can't really live or die.

Which begs the question of how we end up in this so called prison to begin with. As far as erotic asphyxiation I hope David Carradine is in a better place now. Lol.

I read the first page of your post. If the next 23 pages contain little more evidence of conscious existence after death than I'm honestly not convinced.

I saw no reference to particular studies. And only references to sensory experience during NDE that do not provide information unattainable by those physically present.

I am reading that thread currently. It appears to be 24+ pages so bare with me. Lol. Can I DM you afterwards?

You are the first person to actually address the original question.

Lol. Well done.

I am only referring to situations when the brain has no measurable activity.

I've had sleep paralysis, but never an OBE. Just felt stuck in a body that won't move. You know there is testimony of people claiming to have floated into a different room and reported on the events in that room that nobody in the room where their body is knew but was confirmed true. Might be false statements, but certainly it is informational.

I am only asking which of two types of experiences is more plausible. Common among many people, or totally different. I'm not asking what is evidence. I am more asking which is more compelling to look further into something for evidence.

So you say complete death is needed before concluding anything about an experience that is marked by the temporary stoppage of brain activity? Completely dead people don't talk. So why not give consideration to what we can get?

https://www.livescience.com/66071-human-animal-hybrid-embryos.html

This is what I was referring to. And why not add intelligence to other creatures? We only know how we behave with intelligence. Maybe there are other forms of logic we can benefit from. Currently we have only ego over all other life because of our intelligence whether it was because evolution or more accidental.

I hope the mind is both ethereal and of the brain since my mother's stroke 15 years ago. I would hate to think we've been caring for a completely different person since then.

So the concensus is our mind invented an afterlife and it was never the result of evidence? Just straight fear of the mind ceasing as the Buddhists may describe when talking about a deep meditation?

I just hope that if there is an afterlife that we have genders even without procreation. So the virtues we bestow on the sexes mean something and women are everything lovely even without a need.

Sorry. Some phrases allude me. I read into them too much.

https://www.theidioms.com/a/

One of my favorite sites.

I hear that, but I mean more than perception but measurable differences.

This remark is reported to have been said by Samuel Johnson in James Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson, 1791. The occasion was Johnson's hearing of a man who had remarried soon after the death of a wife to whom he had been unhappily married.

Based on this it almost sounds like the first marriage didn't last long enough to have mattered?

Isn't a wormhole a gravity well?

what does that mean?

If attachment is what causes suffering than would only objects that can never be taken away be the only way to desire that doesn't lead to attachment and therefore suffering? Perhaps if we were wizards and can conjure with our minds?

I guess we might need to add time to infinity if there is a process by which an infinite ocean refills itself? Or perhaps virtual particles that are trigger happy to become real? Lol. And I assume any place within an infinite ocean must be the center? Therefore any ripples will never reach the shore because there will never be one and therefore no entropy is added to this world? Or can ripples or motion itself exist in this ocean?

With my original question I didn't think too hard on the point that if one did take a drop of water from an infinite ocean they would have no place to take it. And if I created infinite land next to an infinite ocean that might create even more questions.

I was largely thinking in terms of the movie, "Dr. Strange" in which the Ancient One keeps her youth by stealing energy from the dark dimension which I was led to believe is an infinite world as perhaps our universe maybe as well. So basically 2 or more infinite universes at least in the fiction exists. The Ancient One had an ethical dilemma over her theft from the dark dimension even though in theory nothing is lost, but I wasn't sure. Many physicists believe there could be many worlds split into more worlds whenever a paradox needs to be resolved so Schroder's Cat can actually be both alive and dead, but in different worlds.

It isn't entirely arbitrary. We know enough about nutrition to know what a body needs to be its best, and the healthcare and shelter needed to keep a person from freezing to death. They need not a mansion. A small space without rot or infestation should be fine.

I am just wondering if my logic isn't too full of confirmation bias. If those that make a livable minimum wage are few than it is a small price to pay, but if they are many than it becomes everyone's problem and therefore we must pay for it regardless. Is this sound logic even if it points in the same direction?

Yes homeless people do live, until they don't. But that is no standard to set for ones lowest economic group? And generally they do rely on social programs.

Why can't one go further on this topic? Haven't there been multiple definitions of infinity,

I had none of these issues 7 years ago, and felt overall better 20 years ago. I could go longer without sleep and got so much more from sleep when I did. My concentration and creativity was boundless. Personally if I could be at my best for 10 years and die immediately after than be as now for 30 years (which is very optimistic) then die, I would get done everything in life I would want. I would even have my eyesight as before as that I could confirm what got done.

Well I have bone spurs in my neck so my sleep is constantly being disrupted by pain and my balance is off and I feel weakness in my arms sometimes. My hand eye coordination has declined. I have headaches everyday now. I developed a retina disease a few years back and can't read nearly as fast as I used to. Jogging leaves my legs tired for days after. Every activity takes excessive amounts of time to recover from. I don't even remember anything that happened 2 days ago. Memories are so incredibly shallow now and I have to write down literally everything or it could be gone forever.