1. lol at 'harnessing the power of light speed'.

2. 'we can see this in...would...' - no. you can't mix up present/real and future/hypothetical tenses like this. You can't use something that hasn't happened to yet to demonstrate a point. especially when that suggestion opposes many intuitive experiences of history.

If there are no words for the concept, then why (mis)use technical words? You can express the same thing much better using simpler words. My guess is whatever you're trying to convey can easily be expressed in words, even if there's not 1 word for the entire thought. If you want, you can invent a new word signifying that sentence (but then don't call it NE or something already defined).

So then when using a word in a way that you know is non-standard, clarify that. If I say "I like to rape people", but by "rape" I mean "be very nice to", I would have to clarify that otherwise I shouldn't be surprised that people took it the wrong way.

I'm just saying be careful/humble. I know absolutely nothing about nitting, so if I were to read a wiki entry and then claim that I have a new insight that no expert knitters have, that would be a hasty claim. You may or may not be making a hasty claim (though perhaps less extreme than my example).

These are contradictory.

if maximizing the group might screw over the individual then it cannot be shown that the individual will gain more by maximizing the group.

Have you been keeping up with current technological talks? I'm not talkn about conspiracy theory.

Are you aware of Nash's work on Einstein's relatively work.

How in the world could you think its intellegent to mock me for saying such a thing.


Its really easy to see the effects working together as a whole would effect technological revolution. I have no idea what you mean by the past history opposing this intuition.

Technology will soar when we work together. Don't be ridiculous.

Do you understand if we could time travel, the concept of self completely gets re written because what you are can be completely manipulated.

Do we see that a change in self and a change in time are married concepts?

Another thing on the subject of experts vs new insight. This reminds me of one of Feynman's lectures when he talked about the suggestion mail he reads. So I mean, always be aware of the possibility that your new insight is in the category Feynman is talking about.

+

= herpderpderp

Haha.

Yes I am doing the best I can, and believe it or not I am probably the best you will meet at explaining all this. I try to always use simple words, and it is an extremely difficult subject, not to mention we have obviously conditioned ourselves to resist the idea that the world can be brought to peace but we ignore it everyday, all of us.

Krishnamurti was well versed in many languages, many subjects, and many past knowledges (religious and the like). And he could not explain it to hardly anyone. Buddha, Jesus, all these people never actually liberated the people. There are many who obviously understood all this, but its very difficult and English makes it harder. Would it seem crazy to you if I suggest english has suppresed the true meaning of vedic sankrit words?


Yes but to say 'be very nice' is very accurate as to what you really mean. Its an empty statement that does not tell me what you like to do to people, nor do I know if nice to you is mean to me.

Words are very limited, meaning is what is important, and that is found in dialog not correct usage.

In math I often had no idea what the chapter was or what the teacher was teaching, I was often not in class, but I breezed through hs and the couple years of uni that i eventually dropped out of. I have a strong understanding of math and what it is and very little knowledge on the specific ways in which we present the material to each other.

A typical exam mark in uni by a well respected high level (my calc I) teacher, would say 'wrong answer, very creative solutions, A' I would have forgot a minus sign in the middle of my calcs.

Obv this sounds conceited but I am just trying to give you context.

Nah, not conceited at all.

yea, i don't know, its a mystery.

because there's an enormous body of work done by scientists and engineers engaged in war, businesses competing to be first, and other greedy or noncooperative scenarios.

that 2 people can do more/faster together than separately is not a general truth. sometimes that's true, but it doesn't have to be.

Even Bruce Lee couldn't figure it out:

Slowponied by asdfasdf32. Time to quit RGT

Yes this is a lecture on youtube over the course of a few days and I watched it recently.

My insight (is not mine) is as old as time, and older if you know the real meaning of time

Does it make sense to you that whatever magic that created this world, grew it into a state of enormous suffering? I am assuming you know about all the war in this world. In this way I think science and intelligence do not pass the sanity test.

Or do you think randomness just 'happened' and randomness slaughters humans daily?

Did RF do work on chaos theory and strange attractors? Is he the one that was driving himself crazy goin back and forth trying to solve fractals?

If so I have a book by or about him annotated when i was younger that can explain why he struggled. It is directly related to all this.

Also F mentioned in that lecture, he reads every letter just in case.

No, you do not know what Nash came up with. Game theory as you know cannot do that.

What nash new that will bring peace, is not the same applying game theory to extract a moral foundation.

You should be able to understand this without pointing all this out and me having to explain it.

If you stop trying to show I am wrong you will see it.

I don't think its funny because there is actually people being slaughtered at this moment, and its mine and your ignorance that is causing it.

We've been over that its not conceited if its true.

Couldn't figure out why he looks like Jackie Chan?

And the logic you use tells you that if everyone worked together they couldn't surpass such technology? Really? Did war bring that about, or teamwork? Your math and conclusions are wrong. Its obvious and doesn't pass the sanity test.

Do we really need war for these things or were you taught by a conditioned society, a society of war?

You are no longer in the same context because you are now talking about a piece of the world.

It's not them that I'm laughing at.

Holy cow, you still don't know what conceited means.

your definition of conceited was quickly refuted.

the song 'youre so vain' - the guy who the song is about, the one who thought it was about him and was right - he's still vain for thinking its about him. doesn't matter that he's right.

You are saying the individual does not have a better life if the world is no longer at war. Maximizing the group does not screw over the individual, but its the fear of it i think i pointed at.

if we need to go into this more specifically because i didn't explain well we can.

no, that's not my claim.

your claim is that something would happen.

my claim is NOT that something wouldn't happen. my claim is that something wouldnt necessarily happen.

its merely a statement that your claim is unsupported. which is obviously true, you are merely asserting something. you have absolutely no demonstration that the world is the way you say it is.

Thats not the same context and I shouldn't have to point that out, especially at this point.

I know but your daily life is what is slaughtering these people, specifically your skeptical approach to this world that does nothing but allow you to justify your ignorance on the subject.

EDIT: I deleted my response; this isn't going anywhere.

This we should go into.

I'm not sure your exact context. We might say peace would 'happen' but I think rather its more correct to say that is the definition of peace.

I also have not shown how and why these things would come about. So if you are judging that aspect you shouldn't until you understand them.

The claim we need war is unsupported. The claim we can't achieve peace is unsupported. The claim war can produce technological advances that are anywhere near a peaceful world is unsupported.

I do not need to show I am correct. When we put these things together it suggest human should be working together to see if we cannot bring out peace.

Ironically this movement IS peace. But that sentence has not yet been proven.