Fourth Dimensional Graph

[Thewritersunion]

I’m making a new fourth dimensional graph that will have to disprove the brain (meta-speaking), disprove neurons send memory (they send information), and add emotions to the dimension while disproving time.
(Emotions: self-deception, Infinity, Nothing(ness), love, fear, counterintuitive, strange loops, fractals, politics, and everything else like corruption) (might add economics to it to and fantasy, and also the YN PROBLEM will have to be solved, and computer stuff added, History too)

[ajasatya]

What is the meaning of "disproof"? Who are you trying to convince? IMO, that's still playing inside the fence of mental games.

Free yourself from those requirements. Be free now.

[cetus]

@Thewritersunion Just out of curiosity. What exactly is the YN  PROBLEM?

[Nahm]

@cetus56 Ran out of wine. 

[cetus]

21 minutes ago, Nahm said:

@cetus56 Ran out of wine. 

Yes of course.  A fine Yquem from the Bordeaux region of France. At $649.00 a bottle that could be a problem.

[Thewritersunion]

@cetus56 to be frank, this is only a preliminary thought, so much dedication will have to go to this.

Its basically trying to combine math, emotions, and humanity together.

If this model does end up as something, it’ll be radical for sure.

[TheAvatarState]

@Thewritersunion You are approaching this problem from an unworkable angle. A graph is a *symbol* that plots other data points. So you'd have to prove those other data points. And how would you prove that proof? How do you prove emotions exist, let alone them being more fundamental than matter or time? Do you know why scientists still haven't figured out the mind-body problem in 2000 years? Perhaps you're playing the wrong game...

Well, thank goodness you haven't wasted your entire life yet on this Quixotic quest. 

I like your vision. And I think you should give it a lot more thought, it has potential. But proofs are way below what you're trying to do. You must understand the limits of any stab you take at translating the post-rational to the rational domain. It will be messy, incomplete, and a pointer at best. 

[Thewritersunion]

@TheAvatarState the idea is supposed to be drawn like a 3D flower

 

and Emotions do exist. They are essence itself.

[TheAvatarState]

36 minutes ago, Thewritersunion said:

@TheAvatarState the idea is supposed to be drawn like a 3D flower

 

and Emotions do exist. They are essence itself.

So it's not a graph. I'm all for 3-d depictions of high level concepts. Another one I find interesting is, in the case of this savant with a brain injury (forget his name), he visualized numbers as shapes. He was able to do incredible mathematics with accuracy that no human being has ever had. In a way, it's kind of a reverse of your concept. I think it could be valuable. I just want to let you know from the start, that it will be relative and partial. Trans-rational phenomena can never be symbolized. 

Your emotions exist because they are in your direct experience. You say they exist. But they can never by accurately symbolized or proven. This is a fundamental concept to contemplate. 

[Nahm]

@Thewritersunion Work it backwards, from usefulness. That’d make the unification easier, keeping in mind you can’t disprove something which does not exist to begin with. You might also find useful a book called The Fields (Lynn McTaggert) , and a YouTube search of John Hagelin’s work. Also, consider why the speed of light limit, isn’t simply called light.  

[Thewritersunion]

I know the middle of the graph will contain “Infinity/Nothingness”

also I’ll have to make a new number system, so studying linguistics is a must.

 

anymore suggestions, your answers are lovely! ? 

[Nahm]

Help me understand that. Why the middle? And why a new number system, why linguistics? 

And again, what is the usefulness of the end result / what comes of it which is shareable, communicable?

[Thewritersunion]

@Nahm

Let me collect my thoughts. I’ll take a few days. ✌️