Observation Pays Off

Most won't know of my particpation in bringing people together, to confront the basis of what models can do, and how these things can change perceptions. I, from taking a stance on such model assumptions, realize, that if held to any position most firmly, would not allow any other thought constructs to make their way into my mind.

That is the nature of such stubborness, not to have listened and listened well to the outcome of questions as to the basis of reality.

So, could I have said I had been changed by the interactions and posts implied, that these served as catelyscts for change? Most definitely.

It is here then such a credit should be applied to the links of Not Even Wrong, The Reference Frame, and Cosmic Variance that these have help to direct my attention to the constraints neeeded in our thought processes. Our pursuates ofwhat indeed lies at the basis of this reality. So I here Thank them most graciously.

It's Not Over Until the ......

I think what sounds silly, is that if one already understood that our observation of the basis of reality is indeed "seeing and being sightful of what already exists," while it may be indivdualistic, as a idea, such construct from appearance, could be manifested into other possibilties no doubt.

Playing with the illlusions, possibly? :)

But having such a view does not in anyway invalidate what may be implied or said about what a "God" might think? That may be the mistake? To think that what "we" think supplants what already exists as a potential?

Any "possiblility" would have been okay, had it been realized what one was doing, yet, being fully aware you are a particpant. That "creavtivity and imagination," are actualy tools that we use to desribe these indepth journies, to bring back the reailty of what could exist naturally.

Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

I use paragraphs and picture sources as direct links and as secondaries.

I am pushing the boudaries of the internet. Forcing the issue of ownership as well as asking what new ways in which we shall use the internet. The basis of this thought held in regards to the visualization techniques, that amout from model consumption, and lead perspective into other areas.



Observation pays off?

If you look into the realities that we currently write, how are we to say that what truly lies at the basis of this "is" reality? Is what, if held to, "what lies beneath?"



You had to know what I am talking about here in terms of the nature of the harmonic oscillator? My attempts at describing what this reality may be, as no different then the "thought construct and models implied" and attached too, current realities.

Pushing them "beyond" what is currently accepted. What is held socialogically in societies construct thinking mind.

They(the teachers) would have to have known me to apply the constraints. While not given persepctve about my nature and methods, such constraints would have been from a position of mind(?), assuming it's value in relation to what is currently being desimmnated to the "public mind," as well as what is taught, is not being disrupted.

Of course:)