Discussion:
A philosophical problem
(trop ancien pour répondre)
rami17
2017-05-10 21:42:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Hello...


I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"
is the "consequence" of "understanding", then once
that you build a hierarchy of ideas and
Logical relations and by also measure, then you will be able to
understand mathematical equality Of 2 + 2 = 4, and once you understand
that, at this very precise moment that you understand mathematical
equality 2 + 2 = 4, then you will be ultimately conscious
Of the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, that is why I have said that
the process of consciousness is much simpler than the process of
intelligence in action, so I hope that my argumentation is clear. Now
there remains something to be explained is that even if the process of
intelligence in action has not been easy for humanity, the fact that a
human being understands the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, then
this understanding will greatly reduce complexity and let us see the
"truth" as it really is, a child who tries initially to understand the
the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 will see this process as being
"difficult", but is that really "truth"? I do not believe because the
understanding of the essence of what is "truth" tells us that truth can
only be reached when there is complete comprehension of a process or a
thing, then the perception of the child who sees in the beginning of the
process of understanding the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 as being
"difficult" is not the truth, it is rather the perception of the one who
understood "completely" the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 and which
tells us that equality is easy which is the truth.

I have spoken of the understanding of the very essence of what is
the truth, for example, when you look at the door of a car, can you say
that it's a car ? I do not think, it's who looks and understands
everything that is Car that can say it's a car! do you understand ?
Then, in my opinion, it can be inferred that it is understanding of a
process or thing that greatly reduce or erase "complexity" and which
reveals to us the truth, It is like this for the mathematical equality
of 2 + 2 = 4 If a child in the beginning tries to understand this
equality, he will say that the mathematical equality is "difficult", but
is that the truth? I think no, because it's like the example of the car
which I have just given you, it is once the understanding
of equality is complete that it will greatly reduce or erase the
"complexity" and will confirm that the equality is truly "easy", and
This is the truth and that is the veridic perception and this is the
very essence of truth.

So if you have understood what I'm trying to explain,
Is that we could say that mathematics is easy and simple, our universe
is easy and simple and any thing or process is easy and simple,
But it is because we are limited intellectually or physically that we do
not understand it, i see this as in an axis of reality, i mean that the
complexity of mathematics and knowledge of mathematics is 0.1
on a scale of 100, and we are still weaker at 0.001 on a scale of 100 ,
even though knowledge of the universe and mathematics is easy, we feel
this as difficult.

But my point of view is not complete, I will present my other reasoning:

We can say, for example, that to define what a car is, we have
to "understand" what a car is, then we
can therefore affirm that the completeness of knowledge
of the car brings us to understand in a perfect way
what is a car .. now the important question in logic is: is it possible
to state the same thing about the variable of the "complexity" of
comprehension, that is to say: perfect knowledge leads us to understand
the very nature of the complexity of knowledge, as in the case of the
car i have just given you above, because it is the one who really knows
the car who can define the car, can we say the same thing about the
complexity of understanding? does it is the one who really knows
knowledge that can say what is the complexity of the understanding of
this knowledge? Do you understand my problem that
use logic effectively to solve this problem?
As in the problem of the car, above, what can we
say about the heaviness or the size of the car which characterizes
the car, we can say that it is the one who has knowledge about the car
and who understands the car that can accurately state what the heaviness
or the size of the car, but can we say the same thing about the
characteristic which is called the "Complexity" of understanding? I mean
that by analogy, if complexity is the characteristic of the
size of the car and if comprehension is the understanding of the car,
can we say the same thing and say that the completeness of understanding
can be defined only when there is more complete understanding and that
greatly reduce or erase complexity because when you understand more
fully this leads us to say that understanding is easy? I think that to
solve this problem it is necessary to look that in the case of the car,
the size and the heaviness are not of the variables of the
"comprehension" function, whereas in the case of complexity,
comprehension is, on the other hand, a variable of the complexity of
comprehension, so these are two different problems, so that the nature
of the complexity of Comprehension is relative to comprehension, since
comprehension is a variable of the complexity of comprehension, so the
problem is better solved in this way and complexity should be seen as a
function of comprehension, and more there is comprehension and more
there is understand and more there is less complexity of understanding.

And now here is my definitive proof and solution to this problem:

As you noted in my second reasoning, I have concluded that understanding
is a variable of complexity of understanding, for the more there is
comprehension the more there is less complexity of understanding. The
problem is not resolved as we can assert that understanding is the
theoretical representation of the car example that i have given above,
but since the more we understand theoretically the car, the more there
is less complexity of understanding, so we can say that the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system is easy, but this
is not true because, first of all, there is a contradiction, since two
theoretical systems, one which is more complex and another that is less
complex system, can both become as easy when there is definitive
understanding, and since the mechanism of awareness of the theoretical
understanding of the understanding of the car system rely on the speed
of our brain, that means that when you remember an understanding in your
brain, the brain is quick in its computation to do it, and This rapidity
of computation of the brain makes us see comprehension as easy, for
example, when
you look at an equality of 2 + 2 = 4, your brain has already understood
this equality before when you were still a child, but when you look at
this equality now, the brain brings back the understanding of this
equality and it does so quickly , and this is what does our brain, you
do not have to understand the equality yet again, no, the brain makes a
quick computation and brings you back the understanding of this equality
quickly, that's what makes it easy to understand the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system, since the
theoretical representation of the understanding of the system of a car
is brought back quickly by the brain in the form of an understanding of
the parts of the theoretical system of the car, as in the case of 2 + 2
= 4, and this shows us the theoretical representation of understanding
of the system of the car as being easy, it is the brain that is fast and
which facilitates because of its speed of computation as in the case of
2 + 2 = 4.. so the ease of understanding is a consequence of the speed
of computation of the brain, so it is not the theoretical representation
of the understanding of the car system that is easy. Thus I believe that
the problem is definitely resolved by my logical and effective reasoning.


Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Amie
2017-05-10 23:35:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Cher Amine

Dans les Univers 1+1=1 = Amour infini = Constance/Patience
Les Races Prendre des million annee a Evoluer
Post by rami17
Hello...
I have explained with 2 + 2 = 4 that the "consciousness"
is the "consequence" of "understanding", then once
that you build a hierarchy of ideas and
Logical relations and by also measure, then you will be able to
understand mathematical equality Of 2 + 2 = 4, and once you understand
that, at this very precise moment that you understand mathematical
equality 2 + 2 = 4, then you will be ultimately conscious
Of the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, that is why I have said that
the process of consciousness is much simpler than the process of
intelligence in action, so I hope that my argumentation is clear. Now
there remains something to be explained is that even if the process of
intelligence in action has not been easy for humanity, the fact that a
human being understands the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4, then
this understanding will greatly reduce complexity and let us see the
"truth" as it really is, a child who tries initially to understand the
the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 will see this process as being
"difficult", but is that really "truth"? I do not believe because the
understanding of the essence of what is "truth" tells us that truth can
only be reached when there is complete comprehension of a process or a
thing, then the perception of the child who sees in the beginning of the
process of understanding the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 as being
"difficult" is not the truth, it is rather the perception of the one who
understood "completely" the mathematical equality of 2 + 2 = 4 and which
tells us that equality is easy which is the truth.
I have spoken of the understanding of the very essence of what is
the truth, for example, when you look at the door of a car, can you say
that it's a car ? I do not think, it's who looks and understands
everything that is Car that can say it's a car! do you understand ?
Then, in my opinion, it can be inferred that it is understanding of a
process or thing that greatly reduce or erase "complexity" and which
reveals to us the truth, It is like this for the mathematical equality
of 2 + 2 = 4 If a child in the beginning tries to understand this
equality, he will say that the mathematical equality is "difficult", but
is that the truth? I think no, because it's like the example of the car
which I have just given you, it is once the understanding
of equality is complete that it will greatly reduce or erase the
"complexity" and will confirm that the equality is truly "easy", and
This is the truth and that is the veridic perception and this is the
very essence of truth.
So if you have understood what I'm trying to explain,
Is that we could say that mathematics is easy and simple, our universe
is easy and simple and any thing or process is easy and simple,
But it is because we are limited intellectually or physically that we do
not understand it, i see this as in an axis of reality, i mean that the
complexity of mathematics and knowledge of mathematics is 0.1
on a scale of 100, and we are still weaker at 0.001 on a scale of 100 ,
even though knowledge of the universe and mathematics is easy, we feel
this as difficult.
We can say, for example, that to define what a car is, we have
to "understand" what a car is, then we
can therefore affirm that the completeness of knowledge
of the car brings us to understand in a perfect way
what is a car .. now the important question in logic is: is it possible
to state the same thing about the variable of the "complexity" of
comprehension, that is to say: perfect knowledge leads us to understand
the very nature of the complexity of knowledge, as in the case of the
car i have just given you above, because it is the one who really knows
the car who can define the car, can we say the same thing about the
complexity of understanding? does it is the one who really knows
knowledge that can say what is the complexity of the understanding of
this knowledge? Do you understand my problem that
use logic effectively to solve this problem?
As in the problem of the car, above, what can we
say about the heaviness or the size of the car which characterizes
the car, we can say that it is the one who has knowledge about the car
and who understands the car that can accurately state what the heaviness
or the size of the car, but can we say the same thing about the
characteristic which is called the "Complexity" of understanding? I mean
that by analogy, if complexity is the characteristic of the
size of the car and if comprehension is the understanding of the car,
can we say the same thing and say that the completeness of understanding
can be defined only when there is more complete understanding and that
greatly reduce or erase complexity because when you understand more
fully this leads us to say that understanding is easy? I think that to
solve this problem it is necessary to look that in the case of the car,
the size and the heaviness are not of the variables of the
"comprehension" function, whereas in the case of complexity,
comprehension is, on the other hand, a variable of the complexity of
comprehension, so these are two different problems, so that the nature
of the complexity of Comprehension is relative to comprehension, since
comprehension is a variable of the complexity of comprehension, so the
problem is better solved in this way and complexity should be seen as a
function of comprehension, and more there is comprehension and more
there is understand and more there is less complexity of understanding.
As you noted in my second reasoning, I have concluded that understanding
is a variable of complexity of understanding, for the more there is
comprehension the more there is less complexity of understanding. The
problem is not resolved as we can assert that understanding is the
theoretical representation of the car example that i have given above,
but since the more we understand theoretically the car, the more there
is less complexity of understanding, so we can say that the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system is easy, but this
is not true because, first of all, there is a contradiction, since two
theoretical systems, one which is more complex and another that is less
complex system, can both become as easy when there is definitive
understanding, and since the mechanism of awareness of the theoretical
understanding of the understanding of the car system rely on the speed
of our brain, that means that when you remember an understanding in your
brain, the brain is quick in its computation to do it, and This rapidity
of computation of the brain makes us see comprehension as easy, for
example, when
you look at an equality of 2 + 2 = 4, your brain has already understood
this equality before when you were still a child, but when you look at
this equality now, the brain brings back the understanding of this
equality and it does so quickly , and this is what does our brain, you
do not have to understand the equality yet again, no, the brain makes a
quick computation and brings you back the understanding of this equality
quickly, that's what makes it easy to understand the theoretical
representation of the understanding of the car system, since the
theoretical representation of the understanding of the system of a car
is brought back quickly by the brain in the form of an understanding of
the parts of the theoretical system of the car, as in the case of 2 + 2
= 4, and this shows us the theoretical representation of understanding
of the system of the car as being easy, it is the brain that is fast and
which facilitates because of its speed of computation as in the case of
2 + 2 = 4.. so the ease of understanding is a consequence of the speed
of computation of the brain, so it is not the theoretical representation
of the understanding of the car system that is easy. Thus I believe that
the problem is definitely resolved by my logical and effective reasoning.
Thank you,
Amine Moulay Ramdane.
Loading...