Speaking of idiocy hows it going help the aged? 
:-"
Everything exists nothing is the opposite of that by definition. /thread
@Three Times Great:
You are becoming confused.
An hypothesis seeking to describe reality is formulated through interpretation of sense perception, be it an hypothesis projecting into unknowns, the creation of a system to describe a complex process or set of processes, or whatever.
This hypothesis, which seeks to describe the object, is then tested against this object in order to determine the validity of that hypothesis.
One does not seek “truth” as there is no such thing, merely premises/hypotheses/whatever of differing accuracy.
Not absolutes, once again; degree.
Accuracy is determined by comparing these premises (based upon sense perception) against further, hopefully more thorough, sense perception.
Given that the universe is not a figment of my imagination, one hopes that this will not be seen as circular…
An appeal to authority? Hmmm.
I would like you to provide an example of one static object, lacking activity, interaction, reaction.
Because this is the definition of something that does not exist.
You are a solipsist.
Condescend to explain your own thoughts without referring me to another’s.
So you are typing this post out to yourself?
Remember: the keyboard is in your mind. You don’t need to use your fingers.
A concept which seeks to describe an object sets that object as it standard in order to verify the accuracy of that concept.
Then you are suggesting that you have created me and that our conversation exists only as a construct within your mind?
Yes, you are a solipsist.
Because our(?) minds fabricate perception of a false universe, the illusion.
Yes, I see.
You are dallying with solipsism here too, but I am not convinced that you are being entirely sincere.
If I am receiving sense perception, if my sensory organs are being stimulated and sending signals to my brain which end up as perception which is interpreted and formulated into conceptualizations, then there are 2 possibilities:
- That my sensory organs exist not to aid my survival in a harsh environment, as they tell me they were evolved to do, but that they exist to deceive me and/or lead me on a magical journey of self-discovery where they will teach me about “me, myself” - which is nothing more than a vaguely defined awareness floating in nothingness, yet somehow connected to organs which feed it the illusion…
or,
- That my sensory organs exist to aid my survival in a harsh environment, as they tell me they were evolved to do; accepting input from a universe that does not care about the imaginings within my mind, but exists independently from them. A universe of which I am the expression of certain dynamic processes which produce the effect of an organic body which in turn produces consciousness. A complex organism which has evolved to understand and manipulate it’s environment through it’s capacity to receive sense perception, formulate premises and act upon these premises - to it’s own benefit or harm.
At which point the measure of the accuracy of these premises is attained. Their degree of “truth”.
The point here is that we have got sidetracked from the original exchange where I was asserting an interpretation of reality and citing empirical testing as the measure of it’s validity.
I can understand your doubt at ones ability to arrive at perfect interpretation through imperfect means, but nowhere do I claim perfection or refer to anything as perfect.
Reality exists as that which forms my bodily organs and in turn produces the effect of my consciousness. My consciousness perceives reality through sensory organs, themselves an effect produced by bodily organs -me- and responding to input from the environment with which they are in contact.
As a result of this input, I gain perception of this environment and form models and concepts to describe it in relation to my needs/instincts/etc.
These models are then tested against further perception to determine their validity, which is not circular given that this perception is based upon sensory input from the surrounding environment.
It is circular should I ignore this input and base my models off of other models; in other words, untested.
When I am seeking to describe an object, that object becomes the standard, since it is the reference point which all my models are based upon.
No, the value of an hypothesis is through observation and empirical testing.
The acuity of an individuals perception is another matter. This is why it is useful to acknowledge the existence of other minds and to compare ones own interpretation of reality with their’s.
If we all can agree that the sky is blue, then it probably is.
I will still enforce my rules of ettiquette- you know this Sidhe 
- do not waste your time…aside from that- im doing well- good to see you are still alive and well i hope 
well if thats true -then that’s great for definition…i think its safe to say- im a little more advanced than merely dictionary definitions…so ill just go ahead and label this as i (unfortunately) usually do “false”
…once again your- “truth of dictionary definitions”…
…is false
lets just play around as you tend to make me do Sidhe…“everything exists” right? -your own words…therefore the definition of nothing is an idea and since everything exists and “idea” is a part of everything- then you are saying that ideas exist- if ideas exist and nothing is an idea…than the idea of nothing exists…if the idea of everything and the idea of nothing are opposites- what is the point in making this distinction unless you are trying to prove (to the op) that nothing is an oppositional force to existence (“everything exists”) beyond the scope of the individual definition of existence and nothing? (you can not prove that nothing is a force by saying that “nothing” and “existence” are opposites in the dictionary lol)…i know you would like for this to be true sidhe and that you have have made some grand discovery (that nothing is a force instead of a lack of force) by studying trivial differences in the dictionary, but dictionary definitions is not enough to prove what you are trying to prove sidhe-(you even have to warp your own theory to make it plausibe…case and point- you presume to be so strictly adherent to the dictionary definitions of words yet “by definition” [as you say]“everything exists” is not a word in the dictionary- this is very important to understand how you warp your own theories in order to make them plausible…so once again- you refer to dealing strictly with definitions- you do this by saying “by definition” at the end- but in order for a statement to be concluded in such a way we must presume the statement addresses words that are defined…now- “nothing” is defined in the dictionary… you have said that you have given the opposite of the dictionary definition of “nothing” yet “everything exists” can NOT even be found in the dictionary- let alone “by definition” [as you say] be the opposite of a word that CAN be found in the dictionary- in other words- i do not even have to go into detail to disprove your statement- it is in fact immediately false as it is [your argument is invalid]- simply going by what you said- it is in fact FALSE that nothing is the opposite of the word “that” and if you are not saying this [which i am sure you are not] then it is in fact FALSE that nothing is the opposite of the phrase “everything exists” -[not even a word- you use an actual phrase, compare it to a word and then say they are opposites by definition- lol] your comparing must use an idea that can not be found in the dictionary in order to relate to the conversation [because the conversation is not dealing with strictly dictionary definitions] and then somehow think that no one will notice that you are warping your own theory to be supported by one of the most valid and simplest of means possible[the dictionary])…i dont believe you’ve ever understood this- you actually believe what you are saying is the truth and therefore you have been repeating this tired notion ever since i can remember… the fact is sidhe- that i am quite advanced in logic- and you know this is quite easy for me- you can pretend that you are speaking the truth but you know it is very weak and almost invaluable not to say irrelevant to any decent conversation of existence…let the elementary school kids play around with dictionary definitions and the difference between the dictionary definition of existence and the dictionary definition of nothing lol…we’re adults here sidhe and i do not believe people are joining relatively deep conversations about existence to hear trivial differences between the definitions of words in the dictionary- i mean, if that were the best an argument could produce i would most likely not engage in it because it is too trivial- simply because you are so obssesed with your dictionary definitions, i have addressed this- but otherwise i would not be inclined to do so regularly.
…wow- too many problems with that sidhe- not only is the statememt itself completely invalid (for infinite reasons including ones directly stated above)- what it implies is invalid as well- (i mean, many times people say invalid things but still come up with valid conclusions or implications- but as i said- not only is your statement invalid- but what it implies [what you really want people to notice] is completely false anyway- so you are not even capable of creating truth from your invalid statements- rightly so it follows- invalid statement- by false conclusion)…well then, i guess it seems you are not capable of saying the truth no matter how hard you try sidhe 
(just teasing of course)
God bless
-hth
Are you arguing with science and the definition of a mathematical axiom?
oh dear.
Everything is everything and something and nothing is nothing, it’s not fricking rocket science.
If you are going to bore me with hate is nothing and love is everything crap then if I was you I wouldn’t. Yeah
“Maths is beauty bare”
Euclid.
ok sidhe ill call your bluff just for fun…i decided to look up “nothing” at dictionary.com as you say it is the opposite of “everything exists” by definition 
here’s what was found for the definition of “nothing”…
…here’s what was found for the definition of “everything exists”…
NOTHING!!! lol i guess everything exists is the same as nothing!!! 
so in fact we have just witnessed one of the many infinite ways in which you contradict yourself sidhe!! …what you claim as opposites in definition are in fact the same!!! lol just kidding sidhe
-hth
God bless
Another circular argument don’t you get tired of contradicting yourself?
And yes I am Sidhe I admitted that on another thread, proves at least you can read. 
it’s all fun and games herd, the longer you are on the net the easier it becomes to tolerate and even enjoy people who are the antithesis of you. 
yea right sidhe i knew it was you as soon as i saw this line…
the placement of the word idiocy so early in your speech immediately followed by this statement…“Nothing is ultimately 100% true” -if you haven’t said that before lol …that was all i needed- i swear- as soon as i saw the “nothing is 100% true” gimmick i knew it- it went perfectly well with the “idiocy” at the beginning of your speech- (and then i remembered how this guy named calrid just blatantly spoke out against me in some thread with only one short sentence not saying much at all while putting up the 
at the end- i remember saying to myself who’s this guy??) and that was it i knew it- i said, “that’s sidhe” …you can’t fool me sidhe 
…gotcha
I never intended to fool anyone least of all my Arch Nemesis; Professor Moriarty I presume?
I gave away lots of clues, you got them. It’s all good. 
The games afoot!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekx3unEYYWg[/youtube]
Pied Piper?
I am not concerned with describing any “object” here other than the object of perception itself. One may of course take many measurements of as many objects of sense perception as one wishes, through that same vehicle of sense perception, and compare/contrast them. I am not claiming this does not occur, or that this is not useful and necessary to us. But you are missing that I am taking perception itself, the conscious process of perceptive mental construction and representation, and looking at it as a whole. We can never compare this process itself to anything other than itself, and so objects apprehended by the perception are meaningful only from within that sphere of perceptibility, which itself remains wholly outside the realm of comprehension, validity or understanding through any means contingent upon any aspect of consequent of perception itself.
It is the traditional BIV argument, or the dream argument - are the “objects” that you “perceive” in a dream “real”? You may dismiss this question as irrelevant, but what it reveals is that there is absolutely no distinction between perceived imaginary objects and perceived “real” objects - they are all imaginary, by definition of what it means to have a perception. And my initial point here, regarding perceptibility itself, is that we know only the imagined images it shows us, and can know nothing of what intially caused those images, as it is impossible to obtain information in a non-perception oriented manner.
So you are free to assume that the objects which you apprehend are real, or that they are “degrees of truth” if you wish, but you are no more justified in doing so than the dreamer is in assuming his dreamed imagined world is real and represents “degrees of truth” based on his comparisons of the objects he apprehends in his dream-state.
Of course.
That you think I am saying anything counter to this shows how completely you misunderstand what I am saying here, or rather, how you misjudge that which I am referring to in my arguments.
The universe is not a figment of your imagination? How do you know this? Does the dreamer know that the universe which he experiences is not a figment of his imagination?
I am interested in your explaining to me how it is that you know the universe which you perceive is not a figment of your imagination.
An evasion of my question based on an unsubstantiated criticism of expertise per se. Interesting.
You ignored my point, so I will repeat it: Observation of reality yields stasis as much as it yields mutability. Do you understand that all motion is relative? The consequent of this is that all stasis is relative also; its all relative.
If you lack the basic understanding of Relativity to grasp this concept, then that is not my fault, nor is there anything I can do to educate you on the subject.
This computer is sitting here, and is not moving.
All motion is relative motion. All non-motion is relative non-motion. Every thing in existence is both moving at every possible speed/velocity as well as remaining absolutely static, all at the same time. This is very clear and straightforward consequence of relativity theory, and one does not need to be an expert in math to understand these concepts, they can be derived easily through thought experiment, as Einstein himself demonstrated. But once again, if you do not understand relativity there isn’t much I can do for you.
For those who do grasp relativity, the implications of this are staggering. For one thing, nothing is moving, and yet everything is moving. We observe things moving, and we observe things standing still. That is all. That you translate one of these but not the other into an absolute ontological category (“Flux”) to which you subject as a standard everything else, is, again, not something I can do much to educate you about.
Name calling now? Firstly, disprove my statement, “observations are not direct contact with “reality”. Your very notion of “reality”, some standard to which our perception is subject and based on which we can ascertain some degree of accuracy of observation, is entirely fictitious. There is no reality without human construction”. And then disprove solipsism.
If you cannot do either, then your name calling is meaningless, nothing more than throwing an (assumedly) derrogatory label around an entire concept in order to let yourself dismiss that concept as irrelevant - you are freeing yourself from having to consider the ideas I present, by manipulating language in the guise of labels (“solipsist”). Attack the content of what I have claimed here, attack the content of the solopsistic argument, if you can, but don’t merely use the word as a substitute for thinking.
It was an honest recommendation, as clearly you are unfamiliar with his ideas.
More ignorant denial. My keyboard is in my mind, just like every perception I have is in my mind. Whatever exists outside of my mind, I cannot know. If anything exists there at all. The mind constructs its reality internally, everything you experience is an internal image created by your brain. Whatever energy “outside your mind/body” originates these experiences, and how so and in what ways, is completely impossible to know. But that you assume, like most every other person on the planet, that what you see and experience is “real” and “out there” shows only that you have never thought seriously about these ideas, or that you are intellectually incapable of grasping them, for whatever reason.
Once again, disprove the solipsistic argument. I’m waiting.
The object itself is a concept. Have you yet grasped this?
What we have are concepts “verifying” concepts, perceptions “verifying” perceptions. Just as the dreamer “verifies” his dream by comparing dreamed objects to each other.
See above. If you are going to revert to name calling, at least be creative. The fact that you assume the label of solipsism is so devastating and obviously accusatory only proves that you are using language as a means away from thought, using labels as an excuse to not have to think. You are self-validating your ideas, rather than honestly looking at them and trying to see whether or not they are justified.
If you are unable or unwilling to offer arguments or rebuttals, and would rather resort to sarcasm and evasion, then I do not see a point in continuing. You are more than welcome to disprove my “solipsistic” perspective here, if you can. Once again, I’m still waiting.
That is where you are mistaken. It is correct to assume that some energetic formal construction exists which gives rise to the process of consciousness, but other than this most basic fact, most general and non-defined, we can know nothing of this “environment” which “produced” the organs or the consciousness itself. All that can be known is that a consciousness exists, and from this fact we can certainly assume that it exists for some reason, but that is all.
The point I am making is that our way of experiencing is fundamentally subjective and imaginary. There are no “objects” in reality, there are no “things” as we understand them. Likewise there are no “laws of nature” in reality. All of these things are products of the human imagination, seeking to give image and meaning to the extensive and subtle sensations that are constantly going on inside of itself. Whatever lead to this state of things, whatever may be outside of the human condition and subjectivity of experience, is entirely foreign and unknown. Now, you can assume that this other environment/reality is as your perceptive imagination and human ideas conceives of it, but that is only to disregard everything aforementioned about the imaginative-nature of perception itself. To acknowledge that the mind cosntructs its reality internally in the form of ideas and images (delusions), and then to go on and assume that the reality outside of this mind is as the mind experiences it, is entirely contradictory. Either one accepts the truth that everything you experience exists as you experience it only in your mind, and that you cannot know anything about what is “really” there, or one dismisses this and assumes that reality outside of his mind is as his mind tells him it is.
You are skating the issue and trying to have it both ways.
That is ungrounded assumption. My entire point is that you cannot know this, rather you assume it in order to maintain meaning to your perspective, to keep it grounded. Once again, either you assume that reality outside your mind is as your mind tells you it is, or you understand that your mind can render back to you only what is already in your mind to begin with.
Either you accept that perception is mental creation, imagination, just like the dreamer’s dream, or you do not.
Once again I am not concerned with limited objects of perception from within the perceptive framework, but rather I am concerned with perception itself, as a whole. More specifically, with the relationship between this perception itself, as a whole, and the reality outside of this perception, outside of the human mind. That relationship, capturing and expressing it as best as possible, is my chief concern here, and has been this entire time. If you are more concerned with merely assuming this relationship’s valid and known status and then concerning yourself with relating perceived objects to each other from within this assumed perceptive framework only, then we are merely talking past one another.
Not when you understand that “blue” is a mental construction and that light has no color in itself. Light is merely frequency, the color which we give to is is entirely human created, in the mind, as a way of distinguishing various frequencies from one another.
Do you actually think that colors have a reality in themselves outside of human perception of them? I can see how far you are from being in a position to understand what I am saying here.
But once again, we are probably only talking past one another. You are concerned with the validity of comparing perceived objects to each other from within an assumed valid and known perception framework, whereas I am concerned with this perception framework itself and its relationship to the reality outside of itself.
I hope you will take the time to review my response Three Times Great.
The fact that you say there is “light that is just frequency” entirely undoes your position.
How can there be something which is what you are not perceiving? Namely, you are “adding blue” to this uncoloured frequency: there is no need to perceive light for it to exist (objectively).
I entirely understand your position. It is you who ignores your own statements that undo your position.
Please refer to my previous response, and also, explain how there is “uncoloured frequency” which we then describe as blue, if there is nothing outside of perception.
thank you.
Note, if you accept that there is an object (light “energy”) outside of perception, which is itself not perceived (we perceive a colour) then you also admit that there is an objective reality which is that which is not perception.
One does not need to exit the entirety of perceptibility as a whole in order to understand that color is fictitious and exists only as mental construct. This may be demonstrated without leaving the context of perceptibility itself. It does not undo my position at all, as my position does not rest in any way upon colors not being mental constructs.
So you may look at this from one of two vantage points: from within the context of perceptibility, which itself understands that the colors we perceive are only conditional and subjective mental constructs of a colorless raw energy we call photons, or light. Or, you can look at it from beyond the context of the perceptibility framework, as I am doing, which states that all perceived phenomena, be it colors, photons, chairs or anything else, are subjective and conditional mental constructs. Either way, color is seen as mentally constructed in nature, a byproduct of the conditional way in which man represents and attempts to make sense of perceptions to himself. This understanding can take the form of from within perceptibility, in which case the light photons are the “real” reality and the colors the virtual reality, or it can take the form of from outside perceptibility, i.e. the form of subjective experience that I am here addressing, in which case both the light photons and the color are virtual in nature.
Take your pick. But remember that I am only concerned with the later perspective here, and not the former.
Once again, my position does not rest upon, nor does it concern itself with the comparison of perceived phenomena to each other from within the perceptibility context itself.
No. Here you misunderstand. I have already acknowledged the existence of a reality outside the mind, that is to say, outside of human perception. However, we do perceive photons, through technological aid. So either one is subject to the natural human interpretive perception of photons, i.e. colors, or one is subject to the technologically-aided further perception of photons, which reveals that color is illusory.
One does not need to go the entire way to see the truths of subjectivity. For example, I cited relativity theory, this is entirely within the perceptive framework, and itself demonstrates the position of subjective experience quite nicely. As I have indicated here, I am not interested in comparing perceived phenomena to each other, as you are doing when you compare colors to photons - what I am concerned with is the perceptibility itself, as a whole, as a context, and the relationship between this and the existence outside of this context.
@Three Times Great:
You are artificially separating perception (sensory information originating from external stimuli) which the mind reacts to, from stimuli itself, then demanding proof that there is any stimuli.
What is perception if it is not caused by that which is perceived?
I described this in the previous post. I do not care to repeat myself.
It is on the surface of a planet which is rotating on it’s own axis, orbiting a sun, which is moving within a galaxy, which is hurtling through space at terrific speeds.
I originally described the unverse as a process of constant flow; interaction, reaction - activity. A static state is the antithesis of this.
So you have replied with your limited perception of relative states of motion, your frame of reference, to dispute this.
Let’s look at it a different way:
The metal and plastic components of your machine are being affected by the ambient heat, light, humidity of the environment they are occupying. The metal is oxidizing, the plastic is transfering heat, the monitor is emitting photons, etc.
The reason it is sitting on your desk and not floating away under it’s own inertia is because the Earth’s gravitational field is attracting it … interacting with it.
How is any of this occuring if your computer is not composed of a constantly interacting process which is never static?
Are you referring to the elevator experiment?
That is not an example of a static state. That is an example of limited perception.
If you are referring to a different thought experiment, cite that experiment and show how it gives examples of what you claim.
You have not shown me anything that I observe as standing still.
I observe, extrapolate an hypothesis from that observation and then communicate that hypothesis via the medium of this forum.
It was more a summation of my impressions of you.
You are free to respond emotionally if you like, but it was not my intent to hurt your feelings.
The mind constructs concepts referring to reality in response to sense perception.
I went over this in the previous post, but you have chosen to ignore that.
“Whatever energy”, an illuminating turn of phrase, that instigates the nerve impulses which send information which your brain interprets and formulates as concepts is what perception is based upon. In other words, stimuli, which stimulate the senses to send information to the brain which is acted upon.
You describe these stimuli as “impossible to know” as if it is possible to perceive anything other than through perception and then declare this as the refutation of all knowledge of the universe as if mental models are based only on mental models and not on perception of stimuli.
Is that your position?
Yes, we are done here.
The phenomenon, or stimuli, which stimulates my sensory organs which in turn send messages to my brain which are interpreted as perception is not a concept.
My formulation of -perception of a phenomenon- into a mental model is the concept.
I have no interest in discussing your hurt feelings. Drop it.
If you are going to continue whining at me then neither do I. Report me to the moderators if I am misbehaving…
And yet there is an environment, of which we receive perception, and formulate mental models which refer to it.
If you agree that the mind is the product of a vague formal construction must you not then also concede that perception of the surrounding environment is also produced by other vague formal constructs?
Otherwise you are left in the position of stating that the mind is all that exists and that it is subject to deceitful sensory perception which feeds it an illusion of an external environment?
Which is solipsism, isn’t it?
I know, and I do not disagree with you.
What I disagree with is your inability to grasp that a limited, subjective perception does not necessitate error, nor does it forbid knowledge.
Yes… and these abstract conceptualizations are formulated in response to perception of the universe.
Do you get it yet?
It is intimately knowable given that one can perceive it.
Beyond that, in response to bodily limitation, one can construct machines to perceive what the body cannot.
Unless these machines are deliberately built to deceive their builders… at which point the purported tragicomedy is felt at full effect.
Why do you separate yourself from it? Are you not a consciousness produced as the effect of an organic process? Are you asserting a dichotomy between the mind and the universe?
Yes, it’s deceptive nature.
Contrary to the possibility that my species’ senses have evolved over millions of years of natural selection in order to provide me with the ability to pass on my genes successfully…
And yet this says nothing about perception itself other than stating that mental models are by their very nature imperfect.
You have not understood what I said about degrees of accuracy, have you?
That an hypothesis does not seek to perfectly describe what it refers to does not invalidate it. Because it does not attempt to. Because it cannot.
Therefore, one hopes to move as close as possible to accuracy without ever reaching the unreachable absolute.
An eternal journey.
If you like.
I do not and see no reason to do so as construction of mental models is not interchangeable with perception of stimuli.
Then I think the key is where you disconnect yourself from reality and begin to refer to it as “out there”. This false dichotomy is the beginning of your error.
There is no particular gap between your body, the consciousness it produces and the perception which this consciousness receives.
Any such gap is the product of your… imagination…
For example, a red ball emits photons, reflecting from the sun, and these photons travel through the atmosphere to your retina where they are collected as signals by the optic nerve and sent to the brain as sensory information.
This is then called a “red ball” by the mind reacting to the sensory input.
Whereupon we have arrived at the formulation of a mental model, an abstract conceptualization, a Thing, an Idea, whatever.
To return to a previous point, the above sequence is a smooth flow of dynamic processes, change, which our minds formulate into mental models as static and distinct events where in fact the process is unfixed and constantly active.
You will note that the input and the consequent reaction are distinct in that they are not interchangeable; one is the consequent “causal” manifestation of the other. And in this case I describe it as such in the hope of ease of communication…
That the formulation of mental models is a reaction to reality rather than a creation of same is a point you must acknowledge. Consequently, that the formulation of mental models does not constitute “reality” but merely an interpretation of it.
I had a feeling when I wrote that out that I should’ve issued a caveat stating just that…
I assumed you would assume…
Oh well.
false…reality itself is interpretation… saying humans interpret reality is the same as saying humans interpret interpretation 
God bless
-hth
I have already acknowledged that these is a reality outside the perceiving mind. You just are not mentally capable of grasping what I am saying, are you?
More evasion. You did not prove any such thing. You attempted to do so, failed, and I stepped in and demonstrated what those failures were. And I care to repeat myself as little as you do.
And you have yet to grasp relativity, which explains that all motion is relative motion, and all non-motion is relative non-motion. Nothing is intrinsically either in motion or static.
You have yet to grasp this simple idea. Just as you have yet to understand that I have already conceded the existence of a reality external to the mind. Just as you have already failed, repeatedly, to show how the idea of perception as subjective conscious creation is incorrect. I’m going to stop here, since you repeately talk past me, ignore my points, construct straw men (like your first point in this post of your, which is utterly meaningless as I have already conceded that something external to the mind exists).
I do not care to banter words with someone who is either unwilling or incapable of genuine intellectual conversation, or of honesty. But thanks anyways.
I will wait and see if you can form any actual arguments that touch upon what I am in fact saying here, or perhaps a sign that you have come to understand these simple notions such as basic relativity, without which you will forever remain stuck defending your reified self-contradictory ontological categories.
@Three Times Great:
We’re finished here, I think.
science.howstuffworks.com/scienc … /printable
So, one’s perspective of lack of motion relative to another object, or vice versa, is the only possible basis for the assertion of a static state; a false basis constructed from a subjective perspective with limited mental horizons. A mental model based upon a mental model.
Now do you see the distinction?
I already stated this in my previous post, a statement which you ignored.
That aside, I defined Flux as activity, interaction, reaction, movement. Not just movement. I had hoped that you would go further and attempt to describe an inert phenomenon, which would have been interesting to discuss, yet your simplicity is demonstrated by how you choose to address my assertions. I find it bemusing that you accuse me of the construction of straw men and of evasion when I have consistently addressed every point you made and dismissed them all; especially when your original accusation was that I was advocating an absolutist perspective with regard to reality, something which I made it clear I was not doing from the start. Degree, remember?
Your fall-back is then to accuse me of resting upon mental models of mental models when I have demonstrated that I base these mentals models upon stimuli.
So this is not so much the exploration of the nature of perspective as it is you attempting to save face.
You are of course free to declare victory at this point, or invent further accusations to throw at me without responding to any of the content.
Hello, little lamb. Precious, darling, sweetness.
I remember you… and the bitter scent of vengefulness. Did you harness the power of IMAGINATION to write that little message to me? Shit, do you remember that old chestnut?
It is a pity that it was not sufficiently IMAGINATIVE enough to seem unlike repeating exactly what the other guy said.
Perhaps you are not very IMAGINATIVE after all. Do you still think god is a woman?
I am a very evil person. I hope you will redeem me. Perhaps you can get together with MagnetWoman and help me commune with the One Cosmic Consciousness…?
I ache to be reborn. Positively ache for it.
Such is the nature of this forum that I am not altogether free to express myself to you as I would prefer; husbandry has it’s uses after all.
As I read the OP my first thought was that the correct usage would be ‘nothingness’ and then, as usual, you beat me to it, Nah. Dang it. 
Aristotlean-influenced (e.g., Western) thought generally views ‘nothingness’ as non-existence or the privation of being. The negation to which you referred is viewed in the West as a negation of genuine being wherein being is considered a positive principle. And it follows that Western thought also doesn’t process well the idea of negation of negation, which results in neither attachment to the idea of ephemeral phenomena as genuine being nor attachment to the nihilistic view that everything is illusory. So Western thinking has evolved with the constant subtext of a fundamental tension between the substantialists and the nihilists. When determining categories of thought as we try to characterize existence, the opposition is generally viewed to be between the particular and the universal, rather than something else, like an opposition to that opposition itself.
I agree with you that it’s not about existence, at least other than the fact that everything we experience arises through dependence on something else. In that sense, our existence has an aspect of both substantiality and non-being, and an aspect that is beyond both substantiality and non-being. All of that is the something else, whatever one chooses to name it.
well unfortunately for you, you have missed my days of great imagination- my brain is nowhere near the same as it used to be…it seems all i have now to spew is pure logic… but every now and then you can see the greatness my brain once had to offer …do not worry though- God is restoring my brain for me- you see, through God’s love one may restore their brain power- it simply takes time and work (start thinking deeply again)…atheism on the other hand is a disease of the soul my dear-
God bless
-hth
It is (still) so amusing how you repeatedly invalidate your own ideas. You are quite a rare gem, are you not?
Read through your quoted description of reference frames, only this time, actually read it. Or rather, think about it. 
Suffice that the very notion of a reference frame itself, the very idea of motion supposes the equally necessary state of motionless. Can you have a coin with only one side? Can you have a reference frame - in motion - without also having a reference frame at rest?
Have you yet grasped that motion exists only in the exact same sense as its relative non-motion does? Can you see that the entire concept of motion is meaningless without its counterpart? That to reify one but not the other (really, to reify it at all…), to presume one at the expense of the other as ontological “standard” (your words) is nonsensical.
So what do you have when you take the notions of motion as well as motionlessness and merge them together into one single, unified idea? ](https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/uploads/default/original/2X/7/7c349bf1053f368a5729d053e1e91215f22ce66c.gif "Brick wall"){kind=small}
No less embarassing, for yourself, is your (continued) misrepresentation of my point of view here. But I do of course realise that if you were to grasp the content of what I am saying your own perspective would collapse into the house of cards that it is - so I can certainly see the incentive for you to look away.
But as you say, we’re done here. Thanks for the conversation, its been fun.
Wait, stop I blinked or something for a second… did you really just say that HTH??
Well said. =D>