Rational thought and its meaning.

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Just give this a chance, and give me your response.

Do for me what you would want me to do for you, but do it first. If you give me the chance, I will give you the chance.

Think for yourself and how this makes you feel. Every action has a NEAR equal and opposite reaction

Thoroughly read until you feel that you understand, give it a chance at perspective from the definitions given then think about how it makes you feel. Feeling is the answer. Give it a chance.

I can actually understand these definitions because I actually feel them. Its just human nature, being impulsive.

Zero- the near perfect balance of force and matter in any given space of existence, near true neutral. Example of the balance in a connection you may have had? An orgasm or an epiphany. The most unexplainable feeling known to humankind besides death. The warm and tingly feeling that moves in waves across your body. Heat and near numbness at the same time. Everything in near perfect balance, force and matter. When you do something for someone else without actually thinking about how it will effect you. When you will help for the cause to make things easier for them, another human being. Its your way of doing something but wanting to do the same for humanity. Its me giving you these definitions in the hopes that when you feel them and understand them, that I still somehow want credit, or the reassurance that I do exist. I just want to make sure that somehow I am still here and remembered to be able to help others achieve this zero, for those I love, the ones who have helped me, I want to make sure they are helped and taken care of in hopes of essentially creating more existence. (Our current definition and rationalization of Pi) Starts with the 3(basic elements of existence: force, matter, and neutral).14159265(random after this point, because it is existence, completely random, but must have the three basic elements to have the rest). To completely know Pi would to cease to exist, so we will never know, as long as we do exist.

Existence- Physical matter and rational force existing in the same space without perfect balance. See: Zero

Life- Zero. Existence.

True Neutral- in-existence, impossibility, everything in perfect balance manifesting true neutral. For true neutral to be truly neutral, it must be neutral about being neutral, and it must things to compare itself to in perfect balance to know that it is neutral. To know that it is neutral would imply that it must create, or manifest existence. What is our existence but the physical matter to touch and the rational force to drive it. In base, magnetism and protons/electrons. But for any given space of existence to be truly neutral it must have everything else be in true neutral, which in itself is impossible. Therefor it will continue to manifest more existence, it is to create. To find true neutral and be able to rationalize it, we would have to find Pi, by which my theory, will never happen and I have a reason, a rational actual reason for it, that makes sense.

Physical matter- the building blocks that without any force to move them would cease to exist, so no matter what, they must have the most minute amount of rational force. (same concept of matter that we have now.)

Rational Force- The force that may or may not take the path of least resistance but will always attempt to at the chance of making a more efficient connection. The only thing that hinders it from taking that path is physical matter. (our concept of magnetism now)

The quote “I think therefore I am”, we exist to exist, if we didn’t we wouldn’t. Its not that we question our existence, but we question how to exist better, and why is essentially a question of how to make things more efficient.

With these definitions, I attempt to re-define the way math works and our ability to understand it so we can actually do. In stead of questioning why, we just ask the how, to find the easiest path of total resistance. Those are the definitions that I feel, I want to spread the feeling but still want to know I exist. Every single original idea breeds the need to be recognized for it. I remove myself almost completely from the equation but not completely because I exist. This is an idea I would die for, but would rather continue to exist so I can continue to create.

We exist, everything is here, but at an atomically correct scale we are literally made up of a lot of empty space, the empty space, but we are still here. What is the most efficient way that existence can balance itself besides to literally manifest more existence so the other existence can have a chance at perfect balance, or true neutral.

Humankind does not understand the actual idea of feeling less human because we literally can not make that connection. We are only able to feel more or the same, greater than or equal to. It is ingrained in our actual being to not understand the true neutral, but to only understand more or equal. We do not strive for less or nothing as humanity, but both more or equal.

To accept existence is the key, not to attempt to rationalize it, but to create more or be equal.

Less of something is an idea that we do not grasp because it doesn’t exist, more or equal is the only thing we can feel and the closest thing to “less” is numbness, the nothingness. The near balance of physical being and rational force. So, if you feel my definition of zero and do not feel my definition of true neutral, by actual reasoning, you EXIST.

Do you feel my definition of zero after thinking about this?
If you do, then you truly understand my definition, and do not understand the current definition used, then I hope we have some sort of neutrality. But then again, think about it then make those definitions for yourself. I need help creating the true definition of zero that we can actually understand.

Understanding is the physical connection to a rational thought. The zero I was talking about. So do for me what you would want me to do for you, but do it first. Be zero, because if you give me the chance and tell me what you feel, I will give you the chance, the same chance at whatever you want, to help you with anything.

Exist to create, what do you think?
This literally scientifically rationalizes religion, why we have evolved towards the belief in one true god, or all-powerful force. We are all trying to have the same rationalization that things will be okay when we die, that it is what needs to happen so we can create more, but our problem is that we are barely creating, not being efficient enough in creating. This takes science and religion to a near perfect medium. Brings them to a zero to allow creation with both, it’s the how, not the why. It removes the selfishness(thinking about how it will be better for us) from the equation, and allows for the greater good(us just knowing it WILL get better). With the agreement, or near agreement, it allows for everything to move smoother.

2

If it is unexplainable, then it is not known. How can you know something that you cannot explain? You may have conjecture, intuition, impulse, belief or conviction and be unable to full explain it, but you cannot KNOW something and be unable to explain it.

I would suggest that you think about how it will affect you even when you may not be thinking about how it will materially benefit you. For instance, imagine seeing a homeless Mother with her child (where the Hell is Child Protective Services when you need them?) and you can tell they are hungry. You’ve got ten bucks, you could really use your ten bucks, but you know how guilty you would feel if you walk on past. You give them the ten bucks, which you essentially paid to avoid the feeling of guilt.

You can pay in material, or in action. You always pay in time because every action takes time. In short, there’s no way that I can see to do something without thinking about how it will affect you. The obvious counter is situations where you do not have, “A chance to think,” but I dismiss that counter based on my opinion that (due to previous experiences) your decision in an impulse situation has already effectively been made, and the question is only whether or not one will actually find himself in such a situation.

You want to help to avoid (or mitigate) guilt or to outwardly make you feel good about yourself.

I do exist. I don’t feel definitions, I read them.

For starters, please decribe perfect balance.

That’s fine, I don’t know what you mean by, “Rational Force,” as opposed to just force, but that’s fine.

I don’t always attempt to take the path of least resistance, many people don’t. Rock climbers don’t, they could just drive up the mountain if there is a road. I could see an argument for rock-climbing being non-pragmatic, but I don’t know about irrational. Staying in good shape is probably rational, and one could make the argument that doing something you enjoy is inherently rational. I would disagree with that argument, but staying in shape, as a principle, seems rational enough.

Exist better? I occasionally question what I could do to exist in a materially better way, or do you mean to be a, “Better person?”

Black hole? Less empty space.

Please explain how less of something does not exist? If you are stating that the amount that was once there and is no longer there (i.e. the difference) does not physically exist, then I can agree to that. However, if your suggestion is that there can’t be less of an identifiable item than there was at some other point, then I disagree for reasons I consider obvious.

How can you be physically connected to a non-physical concept, the concept of a thought?

[/quote]
We have evolved toward that belief? As evidenced by what? The fact that a lesser percentage of the World’s Population self-define as Religious than those that did a few hundred years ago?

I’m sorry if my post seems harsh since this is your first post. It seems as though you were asking for people to read and analyze, though. Unfortunately, we’re going to have some definitional stuff to get through (including your definitions, themselves) before we get to the point.

3

Why is this thread on two different boards?