|
Quoting Brian VanderElzen:
"I'm not following your logic here at all. If you ever manage to cure an aggressive brain tumor with ice skating, I'll be very interested to learn more.
Not sure how brain and fully engaged are even "almost" synonymous.
I do think that there is much evidence for self curing of even lost causes."
I think I recall I once had a teacher who was told
he had only 6 months to live or something; and he went on a world trip and was still teaching 10 years later.
My logic was explained in my post:
I look at each concept; I simplify them till they have common ground; then I maintain maximum room for each concept to co-exist by separating them by one step only where they overlap.
"Brain": wherever this word occurs it seems to fit the simplification of "a sorting-out space".
Example: "What Joe Bloggs is saying is a no-brainer" means there is apparantly nothing to sort out.
"Agressive" always involves "going for it" that is "advancing" so MUST involve distinguishiong between BEFORE and AFTER (or how could you say you were going someplace?)
So "agressive" also "has sorting out space" ; it separates the two places before you start being agressive or how could you "know where you are going" if you hadn't "got it sorted"?
My method says: cannot double define "sorting out space": must have at least ONE difference between the "brain" as "sorting out space" and "agressive" as "having got things sorted".
What is THE LEAST way I can do this separation (physicists call this "making time the least" or "quantizing action"?
(To see the pattern "least time" AND "quantized action" you would need a quasi-separation giving you 3 "colours".)
Returning to the puzzle: how can I have two perspectives on "sorting out place" as simply as possible (with maximum room to move)?
How about: a sorting out space with some it held constant (not available for sorting out) but you can swap that reserved area around the sorting out space?
That means whatever you sort out; there is always something in reserve; another way you could sort things.
I could call this "to more" which sounds like "tumour" curiously...
Well it IS growthg potential: the potential to look at things in a different way.
So my simplification process (every way "brain" and "agressive" can happen = logic = quantum electro dynamics as it implies a minimum of 4 bases (brain 1 brain2 agressive1 agressive2) to allow generalisation/specification (electro-magnetism) betwen the concepts (brain" and "agressive".
(to see BOTH these 4 bases AND the "DNA" (the Do Not Agree) of "brain" and "agressive" (that is to keep "brain" separate so agreemeing to disagree with "agressive": this would require "RNA" (re-negotiated agreement) as the 4 bases are a minimum pattern of the two concepts swapping perspectives (agreeing on at least something).
To see 4 bases AND DNA and RNA: would require 3 triplets (as the 4 bases are duplicated by an imaginary 4 bases from the pattern DNA, RNA as "being together apart" (DNA) but agreeing on something gives one exchange so 4 bases again.
Cannot have double-defining of 4 bases so there must be an exchange hidden there somewhere; evereything tripopoing up on everything else: three triplets plus 4 bases plus DNA plus RNA (see this tripoing up, this chemistry, this "accomodation space" and you get "chemical RNA"....
Returning to "to more" : potential for growth was found in the max-space min-count combination of the concept "brain" and the concept "agressive".
Now add "tumour": it simplifies to "growth potential" as it is made of undifferentiated cells (cells that are brain cells but not partricularly specialised brain cells)(perhaps they are brain stem-cells).
Cannot double-define "tumour" so how get maximum space but minimum counting (minimum repeats) (one step only) in differentiating "growth potential)(from "agressive + brain") and "growth potential" (from "tumour")?
How about "a reserved growth potential" that can swap places with the active growth potential: so TWO perspectives on "growth potential"?
BUT IF YOU HAVE TWO PERSPECTIVES ON "GROWTH POTENTIAL"..... you have "could go this way; could go that way"!
A balancing act!
If over time you still have this: you have a moving balancing act: holding steady while balancing side to side....
sounds a lot like ice-skating!
Does it work? Does ice-skating neutralise "agressive brain tumour"?
In no-number-land it appears both cannot occur at once; in reality ice-skating is a potential door: the casting vote is with the person with the so-called "agressive brain tumour".
"Agressive brain tumour" may be a "cure" for the stess and strain of having to do a constant balancing act....
What "cures" "agressive brain tumour" is the freedom of the person.
|
