//Under Evolution//
To have the overview of all the thoughts, in order to make quick progress in the exploration, many thought groups are collapsed by leaving only their symbolic name representation. To help in knowing the existence of such expandable thoughts, symbol ">" has been added in some of the cases.
What if I don’t know the element causing problem in my compound exploration? (11/2/17)
I seem to be still need of knowing on transition effects, should I use the game itself for that?
Origins Of Board Games Vs. Origins Of Species| < 2/2/17: If you want to know the origins of board games, why don’t you start with the Darwin’s origin of species (as it is more elemental)? Would it be more proper to use this compound origins of board game to know the elements of principles, and then come back to see the whole origins of this world? (clarification required, < 2/2/17)
Percentage Use Of Compound Structure Vs. Percentage Use Of Elemental Structure| 26/1/17: Notion Origins (NO)| I started thinking on the use of compound-human-constructed, atom-as-element characteristic board games for constructing the mathematics of principles. Here I am trying to use compound board games, before even trying to know the elements, the origins of the game from the human, and the behaviour elements constructing human. I seem to be giving here more preference to compound than the elemental structure. (26/1/17)
Chess Piece Trying To Know Its World's Elemental Movement|
< 22/1/17: Nothing yet...
Even if I use Go or any other game as the medium to know the consequences of the compound elements knowledge, won't that act of using the game itself be a compound element with many other elements like the game origins and the origins of its creators, etc.? If there are any affects on being compound, won't that also be affecting the game and its results? Can we then trust it completely? (< 22/1/17)
Experience On Principles (their origin?) As The General Step | < 8/1/17: Linked Post:
Principles Is it possible to find a greater principle vector component (more effective principle which can make the other principle "anti-reactive"ーhave opposite effect) than that of the need principle suggested by the Evolution theory or any other standard principle using the Go game? (9/1/17)
If I want to still have more experience and identify/symbolize on the evolution of principles, or on the nature of transition, can I use Go game for that? (8/1/17)
Transitional Book Writers | 8/1/17: Nothing yet...
Origin story of symbols and language seems to be already using the data of origin of species.
What is the need of knowing other parts of culture (e.g. mythology)? Do they have any influence?
Are you finding any exploratory system based on transition? (< 7/1/17)
The problem is I am not finding any exploratory way to know the consequences of transitions. As everything is driven by evolution, the random things might be happening in a short time, which may get eliminated in the large time, but for me this short time of evolution is large in relation with my life span. (clarification required, < 6/1/17)
Shouldn't I first have experience on the evolution of representation, as it seems to be what every other book is about, along with their principles of exploration? (7/1/17)
Expected Data Structure | < 7/1/17: Nothing yet...
Should I now go through the evolution of representation and then come to the evolution of coding via complex elements route to design or represent my thoughts? (< 7/1/17)
Effect Percentage Of An Element On The Compound | < 7/1/17: Nothing yet...
Did the language come first or the symbol? "Need I" first have experience on the evolution of primitive culture? Isn't language also a form of symbolism? (< 7/1/17)
Should I first have experience on the evolution systems to explore on the nature of deviations. Can you consider this outside the frame of order of evolution (clarification required)?
Evolution and problem might just be a "concept" or category resulting from perceptions (?) of me; let me first go through the evolution of representation/symbol and then language to then think on the evolution of systems, expected data structure. (27/12/16)
What about having experience to particularly build the proper order?
Which other experience has similarity with my case, to use it as an exploratory way?
Having Experience On Culture As the General Step: Nothing yet...
Data Structure: Nothing yet...
Higher Exploratory Way As The General Step: Nothing yet...
Leakage of Progress: Nothing yet...
Having Experience on People Who Created/Discovered The One I am Going To Know Should I read Darwin's Autobiography before reading any of his books? (B11P91, 20/11/16)
[WIA]
a. Darwin's Autobiography might involve the data, which I may not require. But, it might make me come in the origins order of what he experienced; does this have any chances of eliminating problems which might have got hidden behind before? (20/11/16)
b. How does the follow of origins order make something visible? (20/11/16)
c. Can the reading of Darwin's Autobiography help in having experience on elementary origin experiences? (22/11/16)
Think on the side problems coming from the read of Darwin's Autobiography. (25/11/16)
If I don't know the elements of problems, won't I be able to see the structure or conformation of the problem? (25/11/16)
a. Should I start with the experience on Origins of Concepts and then move towards infinitesimals? (06/11/16)b. Won't it be good to read Origins of Concepts, only if I come in need of it? (06/11/16)
c. Origin of concepts seems to be related to humans and thus their atoms at the elemental level. But, for the knowledge of Origin of Concepts Rabbi Sir denied elemental (Quantum Mechanics, Neuroscience, etc.) requirement. What makes this connection to be not considered significantly? (B11P84, 07/11/16)
What is the need of Origins of Concepts experience now? If I am taking concepts as the starting point, knowing their origins seems to be more elemental. (B11P84, 07/11/16)
[Terminated. I have taken the decision of reading Origin of Species, based on the principle that being more elemental than Origin of Concepts.]
[WIA] a. Shouldn't I at least read books like "Rational Imagination" to explore my situation in different ways? (31/10/16)
If I say I shouldn't read on Rational Imagination like books, it is something like me banning the current exploratory thinking itself. (B[ook]11P[age]79, 01/11/16)
I may be able to make many explorations, which may give rise to different decisions. If it is the case, should I first have experience on "exploration"? (B11P81, 03/11/16)
a. Even to take decision of whether to have experience on "problem" or on "exploration"--as I see them as most general ones now--I need to have exploratory ways, viz. different ways of statements, which lead to further exploration, like questions. (B11P81, 03/11/16)
b. Exploring on problems via go game or by books provide automatic in built exploratory ways, I may not need exploratory ways, isn't it? (B11P81, 03/11/16)
Having experience on thinking evolution might help in knowing the origins of thinking in me, which I can use to make my thinking faster than before.
Math seems to be the most general notion. Should I go for group theory directly for a general experience? (B[ook]11P[age]80, 01/11/16)
For that to properly to explore it, don't you need to know the evolutionary process of how it came into being? (10/12/16)
Should I proceed with the one which has clarity? Should I leave infinitesimals, if it is not clear now, as it might suggest me to have more experience on its origin or any other data. (<10/12/16)
a. Does the greater progress in anything give us the same general properties which other systems have? So should I make greater progress in the systems with greater clarity, and then return to not-clear systems later? (B[ook]11P[age]80, 02/11/16)
b. Right now I am considering to attain knowledge of everything in an evolutionary way; if I don't have clarity in something, I am considering to go through its evolutionary origin. (10/12/16)
Should I have experience on systems like order emerging out of chaos? (B[ook]11P80, 01/11/16)
Isn't this similar to having experience on evolution? (10/12/16)
Evolution seems to involve the systems whose back "sin" moves are corrected in the next generation systems, but not forgiven for the individual element of the same generation. I might face such evolution, where I may not be able to correct back my step. (B[ook]11P80, 01/11/16)
If there was not need then why did evolution choose that path?
If origin is demanding it, shouldn't you try knowing why it is demanding it?
English might even have its independent origin from certain elements. Think on this. Or does it have only from other languages?
I might need experience on "Prehistory of language".
English might have influence, otherwise shouldn't it have began like a Sumerian language? Or has it really began like that?
I can try having experience on the oldest known language, and then later I can then check with English, would this be a better step?
Think on the side effects of reading on evolution of English.
Would you now want to go with phonetics or just the evolution of English language or the prehistory of language (tribal languages)?
What about coming in the order of the origins of our conscious: evolution of sense→ evolution of language, etc.?
Are you then asking me now to learn all the prehistorical languages?
To understand me better should DI have experience on the prototypes of humans? Does this help in knowing how I have attained transitional skills? What transitional skills do humans have?
If I am thinking on having experience on the evolution of humans, won't it be better to have experience on the more elemental experience, the origin of species?
Notions in me seems to be faster than language, as they sometime seem to indicate the presence of some principles which I haven't looked at. (<26/11/16)
Can every conformation be represented by the existing metaphorical language? (26/11/16)
Think more getting into the depth, like that in going into more depth of language. Now, it seems that I may not need to know about other languages from which English came from, but later I might see from a more powerful spectacle that I need to know those parent languages to understand better. Get into this notion to explore more. (26/11/16)
If origin of English has come from other languages, should I have more experience on those languages now? (26/11/16)
Now I know my old restriction, on why left getting into more depth to understand language before; that seems to be the result of me seeing math, a high level precise language, which I thought of knowing rather than improving my knowledge on the existing low level English language. But now I have come in need of understanding English language to get the existing experiences. (26/11/16)
What should I do when there is a clash between the principles: "Go in the order of origins/Go from elements to compound" and "Go for something only when in need of it". (20/11/16)
[WIA] Shouldn't I have more experience on random moves and on the evolution of systems? (31/10/16)
a. Should I have more experience on maze/labyrinth? (B[ook]11P[age]80, 01/11/16)
c. But, should I use the same maze to know about maze? (B11P80, 01/11/16)
It is not clear on what you are trying to say. (10/12/16)
I can take study of evolution as a single game in understanding the problems or the systems of evolution. But I will be inside it, which might bring me up problems. (31/10/16) 2.2: Are you saying on the problems due to transitional moves? If yes, wait, I am still thinking on it. (10/12/16)
> Principles I started thinking on the best move I can take next to understand this world. I have followed the following principles to come to a decision:
[a]. The only understanding of elements, will have the potential to construct and understand every other compound structure.
[b].Going in the order of origins takes us from elements formation to compound formation.
[c]. Look for something only when in need of it--seems similar to minimalist principle. (Credits:
Dr. Rabbi Akkiba Angiras)
1. My Chemistry teacher said on her having had lot of calcium tablets, thinking them to be necessary on some of the factors which she knew, but that to have made a disadvantage on one of her health issue. It seems that the knowledge of compound elements may not give a determined result, but only the elemental knowledge seems to give a determined result.
For 2. If one starts thinking about the amount of protein, carbohydrates and other nutrients one should take to develop muscles, he might either collect compound experiences from different people or case studies. Or he/she may choose to start understanding elements of humans, the atoms first (or the human anatomy and its dynamics). The results obtained from the case studies might not be that deterministic as that obtained by understanding the true elements of humans.
> Origins Order To go in a general way (by principle [a]), and not face directly, the compound structure like concepts formed by humans, it seems better to start with elements which come before concepts. If we consider origins order:
[a1]. Origin of Atoms.
[b1]. Origin of Chemical Compounds.
[c1]. Origin of Universe.
[d1]. Origin of Species.
[e1]. Origin of Culture.
[f1]. Origin of Language (or Concepts).
> Pure Experience I should start having experience on the origins of atoms first. Right now, we seem to not have pure experience on the origins of Atoms; what we have seems to be concepts, like Quantum Mechanics, which seems to be better understood after having experience on the origins of concepts. It should also be noticed that, Quantum Mechanics (QM) requires mathematics, a unique system of human thought. In Mathematics, I can emphasize mainly on the concept of infinitesimals or points, which can be considered as the ultimate elements.
If we think on starting Microbiology or Cell Biology, they implicitly require the knowledge of conceptual chemistry and physics. Or, is there any optimized way to go through these subjects?
If we go on searching for the pure experience, Darwin's Origin of Species seems to be the only first experience involving thoughts convertible into direct experiences; other starting points like QM aren't direct experiences, they seem to involve certain editing and assumptions on experience to create methods which they use; these I consider as concepts.
After reading Darwin's Origin of Species, we can consider reading on Origin of Culture and then go on to complete the order given above; after the completion of the above order, one can first understand infinitesimal concept of math, and then go on for understanding atoms (Quantum Mechanics) and Universe (Special and General Theory of Relativity). One can keep on completing the cycles to refresh back again and again. I am not able to see any other plan than this one.
> Experience On Thinking As A General Step I also thought on improving my thinking now, to make better decisions. But, improving thinking requires me to understand myself better, which requires me to understand first atoms, cells, etc. (by principle [a]). It seems that I can improve even this skill, when I come via above order, to the stage of [f1] and go further to complete conceptual theories to understand Neuroscience.
> Ignorant Decision It is true that I may not have enough experience now, and decision might change with experience. Is this decision going to change? It seems that principles don't change lot with time, and thus my decision might not. Changes might occur, when there is clash between different principles. Is there any other principle which is conflicting the above ones?
> Reading General Books If we think to start with books, which are reflections by great thinkers, like some of them suggested to start with Carl Sagan's Cosmos (I haven't read this book); we can get many books which are reflections, analysis from their own experiences, we can't go on reading all those such books. We may get those reflections as a secondary output from our own exploration via above order; if we choose to read reflections book first, we may be not using our time effectively. This supports principle [c].
I have also explored in thought group II, on the problems associated with my moves; I have at the end nullified these notions, by thinking on progress towards searching true elements, and solving problems when I face it.
> Present Optimized Order Exploring Origins of Language → Darwin's Origin of Species → Exploring Origin of Culture → Exploring Origin of Concepts (Susan Carey, Quine, Pierce?) → Exploring infinitesimals → Exploring Math Concepts → Exploring Particle Physics → Exploring QM → Exploring Chem → Exploring Biology and Classical Mechanics → Special and General Theory of Relativity → Back again to the origin of the element-est, to recycle again and again to polish the knowledge.
If we start understanding everything in an evolutionary and origins context, it seems to cover the understanding of everything completely. With this principle, I thought of understanding elementary particles, and then Quantum Mechanics to go on understanding Neuroscience and me for increasing the lifespan of humans. These are concepts and are not direct experiences. To understand them, I came in need to first understand on how concepts get created by humans, which might involve knowing psychology of humans (dealing with illusions, perceptions).
To understand elements, I need to understand compound humans, whose understanding itself requires the understanding of elements.
If I think on having direct experience, like that of Origins of Species, which is only an experience, and are not any edited versions like concepts; Neuroscience, Microbiology, and all other subjects use chemistry and physics concepts, which can't be touched now. So, you are "trusting" experience than concepts?
Doesn't it seem better to start with Darwin's Origins of Species? For a beginner, it is the only elemental origin experience with no-technical statements; if we want to start with elements--the atoms--it requires the knowledge of quantum mechanics, which requires the knowledge of concepts (involving problems like that of infinitesimals) created by humans; these concepts, to be understood properly, it seems better to understand humans first, and track the construction of concepts to solve any problem. Unfortunately we are born as evolved humans, who don't know how each and every atom of us have evolved, we don't know about our self. (B[ook]11P[age]83, 05/11/16)
I don't know whether starting with Darwin's book, and then going through all the origin related non-concept resources first and then on infinitesimals to lead through QM, and the entire knowledge, would cause any problem, or whether there is any other better way than this.
I see here two orders, which are coming into fight: Elemental or Natural Origin Order (NOO) Vs. Human Evolutionary Order (HEO). NOO demands knowledge of elements first, whereas to attain that we need to understand humans who have created that knowledge, so I need to understand HEO, which itself requires knowledge of elements.
Would it be better to follow NOO as much as possible by extracting experience? If it is not possible at all, I can try refreshing back later. (05/11/16)
The need of NOO is for not confronting any problems due to ignorance of evolutionary knowledge. Is there no problem associated with it?
I should also consider time factors, while choosing the order. (B11P42)
Do you think you can have experience on every stage of evolution? (B11P46)
a.What problems you might face by your choice of "Origins of Species" as the first move now? Because of me ignorant of pre-origins stages, I may not understand certain things clearly, I may even have misunderstandings. What can you do to reduce this problem? And is there any alternative move, which produces less problems than this? Is this the only possible route of less problems? (B11P83, 06/11/16)
b. If there is no other way, then it seems better that I choose to read "Origins of Species" now, with being cautious on not knowing pre-stages. (06/11/16)
a. Can't you have direct experience on elements now, like seeing the pictures of atom? But all those pictures are not direct pictures, they are built in an indirect way, which requires knowledge of Physics Concepts. (06/11/16)
b. You didn't know about cells, and human anatomy properly, but you got information on diet, which might help you. Can't you do that same here, for understanding elements/atoms? (06/11/16)
c. I will not be able to understand properly, will I be? But, can't I use that small mechanism which is helping in making that small progress, and use it effectively to collect the tiny progresses into a big progress? (06/11/16, logical possibility)
I can even use Origin of Species to progress my thinking, on the systems which evolve by acquiring only the needed things Vs. the systems which may develop acquiring things not needed at the time. (B11P86, 09/11/16)
Should I have more experience on "problems"? (B[ook]11P[age]78, 30/10/16)
a. As in chess, where I can keep on checking whether all my pieces are supported with every change in the moves, is there any way or algorithm of keeping me out of problems with every move?
b. But, Chess is a different case; yeah, but check whether that type of conformational exploration is possible here. (09/11/16)
Isn't there a possibility of me reading on problems to itself cause problem(s)? Is there a way of checking this assertion? Even if there is no way, should I leave it here? It is going to affect my next moves right? (B11P81, 02/11/16)
What problems do you think will be caused by the exploration on problems? Is there a way to find them? Are they solvable? (B11P81, 02/11/16)
How do you think exploring on problems would itself cause problems? (B11P81, 03/11/16)
My present action of thinking to search for a better experience, might also cause problem. (B11P82, 04/11/16)
So, every action might have problems associated with them. Why don't you explore on problems? What if percentage of problem caused by exploring on problem is greater than that produced by other actions? (B11P82, 04/11/16)
How do you know about the percentage of problem caused by different actions? (B11P82. 04/11/16)
What all I am using now to solve this problem are explorations, I can try strengthening my exploration and come back (?). What if small exploratory system is causing less problem than the bigger exploratory system? (B11P82, 04/11/16)
If every actions can have problems associated with them, then I should choose the one with less problem association. (B11P83, 04/11/16)
Haven't I come in need of exploration on problems in an evolutionary way? (04/11/16)
Problem is a conformation (concept?) identified by us, right? Your main goal now is to know this world, right? If yes, can't you explore the world in an evolutionary way, from its origins? You might face problems when you are taking a transitional step. (B11P83, 05/11/16)
Progress is for sure bounded, but what if the capture of problems leads to a greater progress? (B11P84, 07/11/16)
I can try having a standard for pure progress and them if there is significant reduction in progress w.r.t to that of standard in my exploration, then I can try checking up the problem. (B11P84, 07/11/16, Clarification required)
Can you measure the progress also by seeing on how much your total-assumption-free relation/theory matches with the reality? (B11P84, 07/11/16)
Even if I get stuck in the problem, won't I get experience on the problem, and won't I become more strong with a stronger algorithm?
Does there exist problems which I may not know? (B11P85, 08/11/16)
a. Do I come to know about problems, only when I experience it or at least have an experience on of-that-kind conformation? If that is the case, you may not know certain problems if you don't have certain experience. (B11P85, 08/11/16)
b. If you have experience on elements, you may be able to conceive any conformation formed by them, as they might involve that elemental similar experience coming from those elements. If one doesn't yet have experience on true elements, it seems possible that he may become blind to certain cases. (09/11/16)
c. How to have experience on those true elements? Is there a way of creating a system, which can reach to give an experience at least a bit above that of true elements, I.e. a simple compound element formed from those true elements? (09/11/16)
d. Even if one has experience on those true elements, would he/she be able to conceive every possible compound which can be formed by them? Is there any requirement of an algorithm in such cases? I should try exploring all the possible explorations, I can. Should I, won't you face problems with lot of exploratory ways, think more. (09/11/16)
e. So, if you can have experience on the nature of point or infinitesimal which math uses, you can conceive everything, and not be blind to anything? (09/11/16)
f. Can't we even create other new elements, if there is any possibility of varying certain factors? (09/11/16)
g. Are there any such conformations or configurations which you can categorize as problematic? (09/11/16)
h. Is there any possibility that, making all the problematic muddy place transparent, to lead the solidity of practical progress of thoughts? (09/11/16, Clarification required)
I think I should have higher exploratory model on how a progress should be, only then, it seems that I can decide on any problems. (B11P86, 09/11/16)
[Decision Point] Everything seems to depend on true elements, greater the compound elements/conformations/exploratory ways I have, greater might be my possibilities of knowing the true real elements (which are the highest action determiners--are they?) . There seems to not exist no haunting from exploratory ways, after I have determined or found true elements. (B11P87, 10/11/16)
Then, should I improve my exploratory ways now? Should I go on locking the most elemental ones? Infinitesimals seems to be the most elemental ones, should I then get ready to explore it?
[Decision Point] You are thinking on progress to depend on my ability to find true elements. (B11P87, 10/11/16)
[Decision Point] Understanding infinitesimals seems to be important in my path of knowing the true elements. To go there, I need to come in the origins path, to be in the general state and not be ignorant of anything to the best possible level. Shall I then now, start with Origin of Species? Let the exploration begin! (B11P87, 10/11/16)
When are you then going to develop your exploratory ways? In the origins path, after knowing origins of species, the culture, and then the concepts (which seems to be exploratory ways). (B11P87, 10/11/16)
"Discovery should bring the right evolved system"--I had a different notion on discovery, but I have written what I remember, this may become clear later. (31/10/16)
I should complete this notion before getting into Dantzig book, which speaks on the problem of irrational numbers (?) to have come from higher expression power of new symbols (?). I am afraid on me getting trapped into Dantzig's problematic exploratory way (if it is the case), and lose my notion, which might have chances to take me to the solution. (31/10/16)
a. Points are the extreme elements, shouldn't I start with them? (31/10/16)
b. Yes, they are the elements and it is better to start with them.
Should I continue solving infinitesimal problem, if it is for sure going to mark my progress?
a. If I can solve infinitesimal problem now itself, I will be able to see the origins in the strong up to date spectacle. (06/11/16)
b. Will I be able to solve it now? What if I am missing an experience from the pre-stage origins? Can't you identify the required experience and then go on with it? Can't you try your best now to solve it? If you can't, you can try searching for the experience, right? And this is not just about the infinitesimals, everything which I am going to explore next are concepts. If you are not able to progress, you can try reading origins of concepts. (06/11/16)
c. What if I am not able to detect the problem elements? Can't you then go back to understand the origins? (06/11/16)
d. If you are worried about not able to see origins in the strong spectacle in the first cycle, you can see it for sure in the second cycle? NOO (Natural Origins Order) is the natural order, and might help me in having automated problem gobbling advantage. As I am not even starting from the first step of NOO, I.e. knowing the elementest, it seems to be upon optimization now. How is it upon optimization? (06/11/16)
e. It is not even a problem for you to come in NOO, right? Would it be an extra? No, I don't think it to be an extra, it is going to be the compound element, upon which others can be built up. (06/11/16)
a. Is understanding directly proportional to the elementest view? (B11P84, 07/11/16)
b. If you just know the elements, it seems that, you can derive working of the every compound formed by of those elements. It seems that, time can be saved if one learns elements first. (07/11/16)
c. If I am not dealing with true elements, there might be chances of my considered compound elements to not exist after combination with other compound elements; there only true elements may stay inert, and not the compound elements. (07/11/16)
d. It seems that only true elements can combine to form every other conformation, but not the compound elements. Is it possible to notice the compound elements in the order of decreasing (or increasing) ability of them to form a certain number of conformations? Can ever a non-true element have greater (or same) number of conformation forming ability than (or as) that of a true element? (07/11/16)
e. I may not even be starting with genuine compound elements, if I choose Origins of Concepts or any other such intermediate, as they have chances of being formed by not knowing the elements of them, they might have lots of confusions, misunderstandings because of being ignorant of the past. How to reduce these problems? (07/11/16)
f. If I want to start with Origins of Concepts here, I can better start with Origins of Species. (07/11/16)
g. If you want to start with Origin of Species, you can start with Chemistry, right? It is a collection of raw experience; no, it involves concepts. If I intend to start with conceptual Chem, I can better start with infinitesimals now. But, starting with the elementest, which can give only raw experience might help in general way. Why do you not want to start with human concepts? They might involve errors, assumptions which may not be found in direct experience. Origin of Species seems to be the only starting point, which is more elemental with no concepts and most filled with direct experience. (07/11/16)
You seem to be already using transitional model, the language, and you itself is a transition, which uses its transition model itself to understand this world. Do you think you would have made better progress without that transitional language? I seem to have learnt compound language first before the elementary ones. (B11P89, 13/11/16)
Are you then using compound elements now? (B11P89, 13/11/16)
If there is no way to know the true elements, should I then use compound elements? Are you then saying that there was no way to progress without language? (B11P89, 13/11/16)
Isn't language a compound elemental tool? Are there any such tools which I should implement before proceeding forward? (B11P89, 13/11/16)
Why was compound element language implemented? Is it to express experience? Couldn't you have progressed without it? (B11P89, 13/11/16)
I think it is about optimizing based on the magnitude of progress that could be achieved by utilizing the transitional tool before reaching it in a origin's way and the magnitude of progress that could be achieved by not utilizing the transitional tool and progressing it forward to later utilize/acquire it in the origin's way. (B11P89, 13/11/16)
How did you learn the compound element without learning the elements? (14/11/16)
What are the elements of compound element, language? (14/11/16)
Language seems to have come from the evolved human wear (a transitional wear for the one inside it) and not by the one, to whom it has been given. To understand the language, should I understand human wear? (14/11/16, clarification required)
To produce language, I should be able to understand my human parts and move the atoms in a proper way to make sound; but, I seem to have that power without knowing about my atoms. (B11P90, 15/11/16)
This compound knowledge of language seems to be not helping building up other conformations. I can even try seeing how language, a compound element got evolved, I can then use it for further any progress. (17/11/16)
Even while making any of your conformations from your body (walking, eating, and everything), aren't you doing a compound conformation, without knowing much about elements? (17/11/16)
m. It seems that, whatever I do is leading to a conformation, irrespective of my knowledge on atoms, which I am moving. (17/11/16)
[Important] Are there any such transitional skills which I should acquire first before anything? Isn't this against your "element to compound" principle? So, am I facing problems by not knowing the elements before and to have learnt language? (B11P89,13/11/16)
It seems that to learn language, I didn't need to know about the atoms/any other elements. (B11P89, 13/11/16)
Check whether you can use this power of yours to attain things in a transitional way. (17/11/16)
Now, I want to know about the working of atoms, but I can't use my transitional power to know this; I don't know, how I move these atoms, I don't know how they work, I can just move them; this moving atoms tranisitionally (without knowing atoms) seems to not help me here in knowing about atoms itself. (17/11/16)
Has the need of a compound thing (e.g. language) come to the man instead of the elementest one (e.g. knowledge of elements, the atoms or infinitesimals or points)? (B11P90, 13/11/16)
Do you think it is not possible to know the working of compound without knowing the working of its elements? (15/11/16)
Even if I know the working of compound element, won't I be driving it from the indirect working of elements? (15/11/16)
Do you think it is difficult to know compounds directly? (15/11/16)
Isn't "Algorithms We Live By" a possible transitional step? (19/11/16)
Language seems to have evolved due to its need of communicating something to others, does this same thing happen to other tools? I should be able to recognize that need, to create the transitional tool, whenever required. (19/11/16)
A common man seems to not need gun most of the time, but an army man needs it most of the time; does this imply that the gun evolved due to great need for the army men, but it got used also by common men? (B11P91, 19/11/16)
Won't improving on exploring/thinking skill would also be a possible transitional move? I will be coming to this improvement, when I reach the stage of understanding the evolution of concepts. (19/11/16)
Should I now read on Origins of Language and then go on to pure experience/concepts? (B11P91, 20/11/16)
Have I come in great need of knowing the Origins of Language? I need to create measure of that need. I can handle pure experiences of Darwin's book; later I can come to Origins of Language stage to improve the exploration skill. (B11P91, 20/11/16)
Isn't reading autobiographies also a possible transitional step? (20/11/16)
Should I have experience on languages only to have experience on the collected experience?
Mathematics looks like the precisest language than any other languages. Then, should I start having experience on its genesis?
If math is powerful, why has it not been able to eliminate other languages?
Even other languages seem to be like math, which have certain elements and relations among them.
What about having experience on earliest languages to know on languages linked with english?
It might also help in my own better expression of experience.
Would I had come to this order without knowing the principle of origins and need?
Knowing the evolution of language might help me in knowing the evolution of concepts/recognized object sounds.
If I come to know the evolution of language first, I may even be able to understand the restricted way in which origin of species or any other concept has grown from the part of language limitation or symbolic limitation.
Isn't there any other stages which I should know before knowing/having experience on the evolution of language?
By need principle, I should now have experience on language. Isn't it?
Should I read on general evolution of syntax of languages before going through Sumerian or any other such languages?