One ~Thing~ observing two stars simultaneously

[lifegazer]

I just went outside and looked up at the clear sky. There were many stars in my view. Some were very close together... so close that I could observe two stars simultaneously. More actually.

... So, the conclusion is that ONE ~thing~ observes two+ ~things~ simultaneously.
... The conclusion is NOT that many things individually observe alot of other single things.

The ~thing~ embracing all observation is absolutely singular.
Even if you're obstinate-enough to argue that many individual things observe alot of other single things, you must eventually yield to the fact that ~something~ absolutely-singular embraces 'the picture' as a whole.

So?
... So the entity that is You is absolutely singular and embraces the totality of it's experience = the whole world that 'you' experience is within you.

So?
... So... those two stars out there... are not "out there".

So?
... So, the space and time I also perceive between my [apparent] own body and those two [apparently] distant stars, is an illusion, for there can be no space and no time (no division) between an absolutely-singular entity. Regardless, if those two stars are illusions within 'me', then the time & space between them, must also be illusion.

Space & time are not absolute. Just relative concepts regarding unreal objects observed within an absolutely-singular being that is, by logical-default, indivisible in itself.


Open your eyes and have a look around. You embrace the totality of every-thing that you experience... and the laws-of-physics and the concepts associated to them, ONLY relate to that experience.
They do not relate to THE ABSOLUTE entity which embraces that experience - 'You'.

[Donks]

I just went outside and looked up at the clear sky. There were many stars in my view. Some were very close together... so close that I could observe two stars simultaneously. More actually.

... So, the conclusion is that ONE ~thing~ observes two+ ~things~ simultaneously.
... The conclusion is NOT that many things individually observe alot of other single things.
Sorry, what were the premises that you used to reach this conclusion?

[lifegazer]

Sorry, what were the premises that you used to reach this conclusion?
One ~thing~ embraces [observes] the vision of the whole divided world.

[Beleth]

Oh, so it's tildes now, is it?

Lifegazer, what is the difference between a ~thing~ and a thing?

[Donks]

One ~thing~ embraces [observes] the vision of the whole divided world.
Your single premise seems remarkably similar to yor conclusion. Since you only have one premise, that was to be expected.

[lifegazer]

Your single premise seems remarkably similar to yor conclusion. Since you only have one premise, that was to be expected.
So, your plan is to disregard the argument by pretending that you don't understand it?

My first post was very clear.

And by the way [Beleth], I used tildes around 'thing' to differentiate it from the things-of-the-world that 'it' was observing.

Even a simpleton should understand that ~an object~ is distinct from the 'things' that are embraced within it's experience.

... Though, this isn't about what makes sense, is it? It's about desparate egos
"diving in the box" in the hope of a penalty.

You're both red-carded.

[Beleth]

Just trying to understand you...

So ~things~ observe and experience things, then?

[Donks]

So, your plan is to disregard the argument by pretending that you don't understand it?
I don't actually have a plan to disregard your argument, because you don't have an argument. You have an assertion.

... Though, this isn't about what makes sense, is it? It's about desparate egos
"diving in the box" in the hope of a penalty.

You're both red-carded.
Cool, I'll go watch a movie instead. Hey, how's your mountain moving going?

[RandFan]

My first post was very clear.Really?

Premise: You (1 thing) viewed two stars simultaneously (2 things)
Conclusion 1: One thing observes two things.
Conclusion 2: Many things do not observe many other single things.

Huh?

For the love of Ed learn some formal logic. Hell, learn some informal logic.

Your argument is nonsensical.

[Foster Zygote]

Lifegazer, do you mind if I really blow your mind. Those two stars were most likely thousands of light-years apart from one another. One may well be much nearer to the ONE ~thing~ that observes them than the other ~thing~. Now suppose you are standing with a companion and you point this 2+~things~ out to ~thing~, would that not be 2 ~things~ observing the ~things~?

Seriously, are you trying to make an argument supporting solipsism?

Steven

[RandFan]

Gazer, your argument is so bad it isn't even wrong. As far as I can tell, at best, it is tautalogical (http://writing2.richmond.edu/training/project/history/fpfallac.html). Asside from that it is a non-argument. It's more of an odd assertion.

An argument is "a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition."

[I less than three logic]

He appears to be using English, or at least the letters and some of the words appear to be in English. However, when the standard syntax for decoding the English language back into ideas is used, the results make absolutely no sense whatsoever. I think we should first establish what language lifegazer is actually using, perhaps all these letters he strings together will make some sense then. :boggled:

[Tricky]

Oh, so it's tildes now, is it?

Lifegazer, what is the difference between a ~thing~ and a thing?

He will rant ~ mountains crumble to the sea.
He will babble ~ stars fall from the sky.
He will spout gibberish ~ day he ceases to be.
He will be a fool ~ fools all die.

[Foster Zygote]

He will rant ~ mountains crumble to the sea.
He will babble ~ stars fall from the sky.
He will spout gibberish ~ day he ceases to be.
He will be a fool ~ fools all die.

................................................OH ! Hee hee hee!

Steven

[Jimbo07]

I just went outside and looked up at the clear sky.

You'll note that I've just learned how to operate a door knob. My mom's so proud! Anyway,


There were many stars in my view. Some were very close together... so close that I could observe two stars simultaneously. More actually.

I even tried counting them! I lost track after 1 and 1 and 1 and 1 :(


... So, the conclusion is that ONE ~thing~ observes two+ ~things~ simultaneously.

Let me reiterate: since there are at least two (1 and 1 and 1 I think) stars that I could see, therefore I'm the only ~ thing ~ that exists! This hurt my head bone, which I concluded was just an experience. This hurt more. :boggled: :(

... The conclusion is NOT that many things individually observe alot of other single things.

Again, the conclusion is that there is only a singular #~ thing ~# and that @#~ thing ~#@ is me. Since this conclusion is so stupid and only the singular !@#~ thing ~#@! can make stupid conclusions, it must have meant that I was stupid. This made me sad. :(


The ~thing~ embracing all observation is absolutely singular.

That's me. Or wait...


Even if you're obstinate-enough to argue that many individual things observe alot of other single things, you must eventually yield to the fact that ~something~ absolutely-singular embraces 'the picture' as a whole.


Which could be you.

Do you get it? Let me say it again:

There is one singular *!@#~ thing ~#@!* that is separate and embraces the whole. It is me, the observer. Unless it is you.


So?
... So the entity that is You is absolutely singular and embraces the totality of it's experience = the whole world that 'you' experience is within you.

So just so we're clear, I'm not making AyouA up. You exist and you're singular


So?
... So... those two stars out there... are not "out there".

Which really baked my cake! Think about it! If I'm in here having a bunch of singular experiences and you're out there having singular experiences, the stars can't be "out there." :eek:


So?
... So, the space and time I also perceive between my [apparent] own body and those two [apparently] distant stars, is an illusion, for there can be no space and no time (no division) between an absolutely-singular entity.

Except, of course, the space and time between you and me.


Regardless, if those two stars are illusions within 'me', then the time & space between them, must also be illusion.

Because if I have experiences there can be nothing generating those experiences. You singular jerks will say that even though you agree that an experience is different from the &^%$%&$&^&^ thing %@!$&^*&) itself, there can still be a thing generating those other qualia(edit Jimbo: Ooh I finally got to use that word in line with a post :cool: ).


Space & time are not absolute. Just relative concepts regarding unreal objects

Exacitactly as Einstein would have said if he wasn't in a cabal dedicated to licking Newton's grave.

observed within an absolutely-singular being that is, by logical-default, indivisible in itself.

Or at least, by logical-default as I understand it. There, I sure trumped you skepticalistidioticians.


Open your eyes and have a look around.

Like I did when I saw those stars. I'm pretty sure they were stars. My mom keeps telling me to stop staring at streetlights, but I don't know why she says this.


You embrace the totality of every-thing that you experience...

And if, for example I want to embrace my teddy bear... well... darn it... I don't care what you think, because I'm singular.


and the laws-of-physics and the concepts associated to them, ONLY relate to that experience.

Which is exactly why science needs to deform.


They do not relate to THE ABSOLUTE entity which embraces that experience - 'You'.

So here's my cunning plan for science. Instead of quantifying everything non-existant that's "out there," we'll try to quantify the singular. Ready? ...

1.

There. That was easy! It was way easier than counting those darned stars. Whoa! This is way better than that old science stuff. Now I'm going to quantify everything else!

0.

Dang! That's slick. See? If only science were how I decide, then we'd be making great progress! We could soon dance on rainbows! Oh wait, rainbows don't exist because I'm the only

[][][][][][][][][][][][][]thing[][][][][][][][][][][][]

...

:D

[RandFan]

Again, the conclusion is that there is only a singular #~ thing ~# and that @#~ thing ~#@ is me. Since this conclusion is so stupid and only the singular !@#~ thing ~#@! can make stupid conclusions, it must have meant that I was stupid. This made me sad. :(

:dl:

Damn what a great post.

[Zep]

This post has exactly 234 letters, including spaces. That's how many "things" you are observing here, if letters are "things". Of course, you could count pixels as "things", which gives you a completely different number.

Pointless, no?

[Meffy]

Clarification requested. Is this the ~thing~ that gets mentioned in all those great old sci-fi horror flicks? You know:

"Sweet mother of Tesla! What could have crumpled the Impervium plates in this Earthian Peace Forces XZ-1 rocketship's hull like so much tinfoil?"

"I don't know, General, but some one or... some ~thing~ has it in for us Earthmen -- and whatever it is, you're just the general to shoot big guns at it! Now get out there and get vaporized. Our special effects team are waiting."

[Mojo]

I'm off to another thread (or possibly even another forum) where I won't be observing you.

Bye.

[Ryokan]

I'm off to another thread (or possibly even another forum) where I won't be observing you.

Bye.

Imagine observing two of him.

[lifegazer]

Consider this statement:-

The simultaneous observation of 2+ things means that 'whatever' is doing the observing, must be absolutely-singular in itself.

... A multitude cannot be 'whatever' is doing the observing. Why? Because There truly has to be an individual that embraces, as a whole, this vision (experience) of the world... that chooses to focus upon specific localities of that experienced-world and sees it all simultaneously.

Instead of the usual drivel, try arguing against the above statement.
It should be obvious to the sincere and reasonably-intelligent, that the use of tildes around the word 'thing' (thus: ~thing~), was to differentiate the observer from 'things' within experience... for it should be clear to the sincere and those of even below-average intelligence, that 'whatever' the experiencER is, 'it' is not an experience (a thing within experience). I.e., an experience cannot be the experiencER of experience.
Responses such as those here so far, don't do anything for the credibility of this forum as a whole. Not that I care about this - but you bozos should if you want to give any credibility to 'atheism'. Whatever.


And so, if you cannot argue against the statement above, you are forced to accept the rest of my OP:-

So the entity that is You is absolutely singular and embraces the totality of it's experience = the whole world that 'you' experience is within you.

So?
... So... those two stars out there... are not "out there".

So?
... So, the space and time I also perceive between my [apparent] own body and those two [apparently] distant stars, is an illusion, for there can be no space and no time (no division) between an absolutely-singular entity. Regardless, if those two stars are illusions within 'me', then the time & space between them, must also be illusion.

Space & time are not absolute. Just relative concepts regarding unreal objects observed within an absolutely-singular being that is, by logical-default, indivisible in itself.


Open your eyes and have a look around. You embrace the totality of every-thing that you experience... and the laws-of-physics and the concepts associated to them, ONLY relate to that experience.
They do not relate to THE ABSOLUTE entity which embraces that experience - 'You'.

[RandFan]

Consider this statement:-

The simultaneous observation of 2+ things means that 'whatever' is doing the observing, must be absolutely-singular in itself.
Assuming this, so what?

... A multitude cannot be 'whatever' is doing the observing.Wait, huh? How do you go from multiple observed object to multiple observers?

Because There truly has to be an individual that embraces, as a whole, this vision (experience) of the world... that chooses to focus upon specific localities of that experienced-world and sees it all simultaneously.Huh? Your not making any sense. If you go outside and look at stars and I stay inside and watch the TV doesn't that mean two observers are observing two different things?

[RandFan]

It should be obvious to the sincere and reasonably-intelligent... Textbook ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).

[lifegazer]

Textbook ad hominem argument (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).
Don't lecture me about ad hominems. And stop pretending that this forum is Oxford.
On the whole, I'm talking to insincere atheists with attitude and with average IQ.

Counter the relevant statement in my previous post or else take a hike. I'm not interested in anything else.

[lifegazer]

Huh? Your not making any sense. If you go outside and look at stars and I stay inside and watch the TV doesn't that mean two observers are observing two different things?
Don't be silly.
This thread obviously ponders whether some ~thing~ absolutely-singular resides at the heart of experience, or whether a multitude of 'things' (reference to the many parts of the 'brain') does so.

[RandFan]

Don't be silly.
This thread obviously ponders whether some ~thing~ absolutely-singular resides at the heart of experience, or whether a multitude of 'things' (reference to the many parts of the 'brain') does so.I'm not being silly. You are not making sense. How does you looking at two stars and me looking at two trees at the same time demonstrate anything?

[RandFan]

Don't lecture me about ad hominems. Stop making ad hominem argument.

[lifegazer]

I'm not being silly. You are not making sense. How does you looking at two stars and me looking at two trees at the same time demonstrate anything?
As stated:
This thread obviously ponders whether some ~thing~ absolutely-singular resides at the heart of experience, or whether a multitude of 'things' (reference to the many parts of the 'brain') does so.

I am not denying that there is more than one experience of the world, though this doesn't mean that there is more than one experiencER.

Your response is silly on both counts.

[lifegazer]

Lifegazer, do you mind if I really blow your mind.

In your fantasies mate.

Those two stars were most likely thousands of light-years apart from one another. One may well be much nearer to the ONE ~thing~ that observes them than the other ~thing~.

Duh. Read what I write and think about it.
Every 'thing' within experience is embraced by the same experiencER.
How do you suppose that any experienced-star is any nearer to the experiencER than any other experienced-star, when the experiencER embraces the totality of the experienced-universe?

Seriously, are you trying to make an argument supporting solipsism?

If I was a solipsist, I'd be saying that only lifegazer exists.

[RandFan]

This thread obviously ponders whether some ~thing~ absolutely-singular resides at the heart of experience, or whether a multitude of 'things' (reference to the many parts of the 'brain') does so.

I am not denying that there is more than one experience of the world, though this doesn't mean that there is more than one experiencER.

Your response is silly on both counts.Why is it silly? You appear to be making an argument. I don't know what the premises are and I can't follow your argument step by step using inference to arrive at your conclusion.

So stop with the ad hominem. Clean up your argument or simply make it clear that you are only pondering. So, are you trying to make an argument or are you simply pondering?

[Beady]

The ~thing~ embracing all observation is absolutely singular.
Even if you're obstinate-enough to argue that many individual things observe alot of other single things, you must eventually yield to the fact that ~something~ absolutely-singular embraces 'the picture' as a whole.

What language is this in? :confused:

[RandFan]

Lifegazer,

You have such a poor grasp of logic and philosophy that it is very difficult to have a discussion with you. There are many people on this forum with whom I have fundamental philosophical disagreements with but we can have a reasonable discussion because they understand what an argument is and they understand philosophical concepts.

It's not that I'm against your philosophy. I'm not. It's actually interesting. The problem is that I detest your arrogant attitude when you can't string much more than two premises together to formulate a logical argument.

If I asked you now to post a cogent overview of your philosophy I'm convinced that not one person would find it coherent.

Have you noticed that your argument about perception is accepted? It is accepted because the argument appeals to the intellect. We understand and accept that at best we only perceive the world around us. We accept that reality might not be what it appears to be. We could reject the concept but we don't because it is logical. Now you were not the first one to suggest this and there are reasons to think that the world is as we see it but we get the basis for your philosophy.

Outside of that you got nothing. Others have tried to help you and all you can do is arrogantly dismiss them. Fine, but don't expect any respect if all you care about are your own arrogant assumptions. The world really isn't out to get you gazer. We are just diverse people with different world views, ideologies and philosophies. Many if not most of us choose to use logic and reason to analyze those beliefs. If you want to convince any of us you are going to need to step up your game, a lot. As it is you are just wasting your time.

RandFan

[Foster Zygote]

Stop making ad hominem argument.

I think he's confusing ~ad hominem argument~ with ~ad hominem attack~. They aren't really the same ~thing~.

Steven

[RandFan]

I think he's confusing ~ad hominem argument~ with ~ad hominem attack~. They aren't really the same ~thing~.

Steven:) I'm not sure I would give him that much credit but I get your point.

[Foster Zygote]

Lifegazer, please read chapter two of the philosophy 101 book from which you seem to get the core of your amorphous argument. Because right now all you're doing is stringing a bunch of words together that only seem to make sense to you. You don't even offer this ~argument~ as an idea for discussion but rather you present it as a lecture that must be accepted as patently obvious. Anyone who expresses any doubt about your assertions is treated to your condescending pronouncement that they are too dense to understand your pearls of wisdom. If you could at least post a cogent overview of your argument as RandFan suggested you would get genuine interest and discussion from the others here. But I honestly don't think that idea exchange is your goal. It seems to me that you have a psychological need to declare yourself to be more intelligent than others in service of your own ego. In short, you're just another internet troll.

Steven

[Donks]

Consider this statement:-

The simultaneous observation of 2+ things means that 'whatever' is doing the observing, must be absolutely-singular in itself.
Unsupported assertion.

... A multitude cannot be 'whatever' is doing the observing. Why? Because There truly has to be an individual that embraces, as a whole, this vision (experience) of the world... that chooses to focus upon specific localities of that experienced-world and sees it all simultaneously.
Unsupported assertion.
And so, if you cannot argue against the statement above, you are forced to accept the rest of my OP:-
Lame attempt at shifting the burden of proof. You have presented no evidence or logical argument for your assertion, but we must do the legwork or accept it? I think not.
So the entity that is You is absolutely singular and embraces the totality of it's experience = the whole world that 'you' experience is within you.

So?
... So... those two stars out there... are not "out there".

So?
... So, the space and time I also perceive between my [apparent] own body and those two [apparently] distant stars, is an illusion, for there can be no space and no time (no division) between an absolutely-singular entity. Regardless, if those two stars are illusions within 'me', then the time & space between them, must also be illusion.
Everything after a "so" is a non sequitur.

You argue that everything we experience is filtered by our sense, so what we experience could be different from the "real" world. There might not even be a "real" world. Perfectly fine so far. But the leap you do from that affirm that everything is an absolutely singular entity is unssuported.

[Mojo]

If I was a solipsist, I'd be saying that only lifegazer exists.You have repeatedly asserted that you are not a solipsist. Do you believe that there are observers other than you observing the same universe that you observe?

[Beady]

Do you believe that there are observers other than you observing the same universe that you observe?

That would be unreal!

[Zep]

I find your solipsism odd
Since I'm always about on the quad.
And that is why we
Shall continue to be
As observed by, yours faithfully, God.

[Molinaro]

I'm pretty sure that what lifegazer is going on about is the following:


Your perceptions of other objects are not seperate entities that are observed. They are in fact a part of the entity that you refer to as self.

Those observed objects exist as things in of themself -- seperate from you. However when any one person observes it, they do not perceive the true object. Instead, the observer's singular state of existence is expanded, or grows, to include a representation of that object within themself.

So, when two observers see something(s), they each experience a perception of it, that is not the absolute thing itself, but is instead a new part of their own expanded self.




I offer that as what I think is a translation of the point being offered and not as any kind of personal agreement or disagreement.

[Meffy]

@Molinaro: If your distillation is accurate, I can't find anything in it to object to. *shrug* Seemed a long way to go to get there. Glad you did the heavy lifting... :-}

[Wowbagger]

I offer my own attempt at translation, which may differ a bit from Molinaro's:

I just went outside and looked up at the clear sky. There were many stars in my view. Some were very close together... so close that I could observe two stars simultaneously. More actually.

... So, the conclusion is that ONE ~thing~ observes two+ ~things~ simultaneously.
He saw two different objects, at the same time (regardless of their actual light-years of distance apart), and calls it a single observation.

... The conclusion is NOT that many things individually observe alot of other single things. This was not two observations made at the same time, this was one, single observation that happens to have what looks like two different objects in it. Are we clear, so far?

The ~thing~ embracing all observation is absolutely singular.
There can be only one person making a specific observation, from a specific vantage point.

Even if you're obstinate-enough to argue that many individual things observe alot of other single things, you must eventually yield to the fact that ~something~ absolutely-singular embraces 'the picture' as a whole.
Even if you argue you just saw two (or more) different things at the same time, you must admit that only one person made that specific observation, from that specific vantage point.

So?
... So the entity that is You is absolutely singular and embraces the totality of it's experience = the whole world that 'you' experience is within you.

So?
... So... those two stars out there... are not "out there".

However, you can never really tell, (even if other witnesses testify to it), that those objects you saw really exist. They could merely be a figment of your imagination. A figment made out of whatever "stuff" experience is made from.

(And that experience exists only within you, the observer, of course.)

So?
... So, the space and time I also perceive between my [apparent] own body and those two [apparently] distant stars, is an illusion, for there can be no space and no time (no division) between an absolutely-singular entity. Regardless, if those two stars are illusions within 'me', then the time & space between them, must also be illusion. Here, he repeats the point I made above, using a different set of words. But, he adds spacetime to the list of possible illusions.

Space & time are not absolute. Just relative concepts regarding unreal objects observed within an absolutely-singular being that is, by logical-default, indivisible in itself.
Again, the same point, but more concise. The last bit reiterates the idea that there is only one (indivisible) person having these supposedly illusionary experiences.

Open your eyes and have a look around. You embrace the totality of every-thing that you experience... and the laws-of-physics and the concepts associated to them, ONLY relate to that experience. Here he seems to claim the following: You can not trust the laws of science, because they only relate to your possibly illusionary experiences.

(Ironically enough, he indicates that we can determine this by "opening our eyes". But, that could just be an analogy for "opening your mind".)

They do not relate to THE ABSOLUTE entity which embraces that experience - 'You'. He extends his claim by saying: Science can not be trusted, because it can not determine where you, as an experiencer of objects, ultimately came from.

If my translation is correct, I would say his assessment of science is at best misguided, at worst dangerous.

I politely remind lifegazer that the purpose of science is only to build provisional, useful models of the universe around us, based on whatever we can manage to experience. Science was never meant to be the search for ultimate truth.

[Foster Zygote]

I suspect Molinaro is right. It's also significant that he managed to distill it into a handful of sentences. It seems that when all of the illogical statements are excised Lifegazer is simply attempting to restate some of the early elements from Descartes' "Method of Doubt". But without more structure to his proposition his claims are only fragmentary.

Steven

[RandFan]

I politely remind lifegazer that the purpose of science is only to build provisional, useful models of the universe around us, based on whatever we can manage to experience. Science was never meant to be the search for ultimate truth. And I would remind lifegazer that science is pretty damn goodl at building useful models that enable us to communicate over long distances, travel, prevent and cure disease and simplify our lives. These provisional models might be wrong but it doesn't stop most of us from availing ourselves of them.

That is the biggest fly in your ointment lifegazer as far as I am concerned. Hot fudge sundaes might not be real but they sure taste good and believing that they are not real won't stop me from gaining weight. I personally find life easier to assume that it is real. If I assume that it is not real nothing really changes. I'll still gain weight by eating too much.

[Meffy]

When I open my eyes I see science working... it's "what works" systematized.

I can't make head nor tail of lifegazer's text. Doesn't matter much. Being a simple-minded critter I go by that quotation someone has as a sig -- to the effect that "When you stop believing, what remains is reality." :-}

[Foster Zygote]

[QUOTE=Meffy;1772179]When I open my eyes I see science working... it's "what works" systematized.QUOTE]

It's funny how often people who tell you to "open your eyes" are really asking that you do just the opposite.

Steven

[wollery]

Lifegazer is abandoning his own threads much more quickly than he used to.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59553
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58345

[H'ethetheth]

Lifegazer is abandoning his own threads much more quickly than he used to.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=59553
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=58345Maybe he frequents his drawing board more often these days.

Then again, he doesn't seem to have drawn anything new.

[Wowbagger]

He might still be back. He's been known to take long breaks, too.

If he does, I hope he comments on the accuracy or innacuracy of the possible translations of his posts.

[Meffy]

He might still be back. He's been known to take long breaks, too.
From our POV the breaks are timelike... O_:-}

[UndercoverElephant]

Has anyone established what "~thing~" is supposed to mean?

[Mojo]

I just went outside and looked up at the clear sky. There were many stars in my view. Some were very close together... so close that I could observe two stars simultaneously. More actually.

... So, the conclusion is that ONE ~thing~ observes two+ ~things~ simultaneously. When are you going to admit that you were not really observing them. You were just experiencing the observation. It's gotten beyond a joke - not just because you're wrong, but because until you reform yourself to a position that is obvious from this post you will not progress.

[Meffy]

Has anyone established what "~thing~" is supposed to mean?
See post #18. Lacking contradiction I'm going with that definition.

[UndercoverElephant]

I'll still gain weight by eating too much.

Not after the revolution you won't. There'll be no eating after the revolution because there must be no death and no suffering, remember? So there will be no flab. Everyone will have a perfect body.

No fudge sundaes. No lobsters. No Parma ham. No scones with clotted cream and strawberry jam.

[Mojo]

Has anyone established what "~thing~" is supposed to mean?It reminds me of an anecdote from Spike Milligan's war memoirs. An NCO had been aggravated beyond endurance by the stupidity of a new recruits and, because he wasn't allowed to swear at the men, ended up shouting "you...you...you...~thing~, you!"

[Wowbagger]

Has anyone established what "~thing~" is supposed to mean?
I think the ~thing~ was him.

I'm not kidding, either.