Challenge Accepted: Satyr vs. Unreasonable

Satyr wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:

Challenge: Anyone.

Subject: Anything.

Mutual Agreed Guidelines: Null.

Judges: The Fool.


Bring it, if you dare!

Accepted.

Does the centre of the wheel move?

No, the "centre" of any possible 'wheel' does not move, in any dimension of thought.

Please fix your spelling mistakes in future posts/responses so that I can make sense of your arguments, thank you.

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:

Challenge: Anyone.

Subject: Anything.

Mutual Agreed Guidelines: Null.

Judges: The Fool.


Bring it, if you dare!

Accepted.

Does the centre of the wheel move?

No, the "centre" of any possible 'wheel' does not move, in any dimension of thought.

Please fix your spelling mistakes in future posts/responses so that I can make sense of your arguments, thank you.

Define centre.

Do it without leaving an infinitely divisible behind.
In other words prove an absolute.

Advice:

You will firstly have to define a point in space time that is not changing or, like i said, infinitely divisible, because it is a human construct. You would have to prove a singularity.

Secondly you would have to prove that the wheel itself is not moving as a whole, as it being part of a space/time continuum that is always in flux i.e. that the wheel is on earth and the Earth is moving and so any centre, which does not really exist, is also moving along with it.

A wheel is an interpretation of a phenomenon in flux, as such it is an abstraction that exists as continuous flow outside the mind, and as an abstraction, a symbol, an interpretation, within the mind, in reference to it.

So, in fact, no centre can be found on the wheel because no matter what high powered instrument you use, the centre will never be found. What will be seen, or not seen, is an infinitely divisible phenomenon with no static point, moving continuously, not only round and round with the rotation of the wheel, but also along with the earth it is on, and due to time, constantly changing, decomposing, and so never static, even though seemingly still

The centre, in fact, is a human construct, with no real meaning, like the #1 or a here or a now.

What it refers to is a generalized space/time contained within the limitations of human perceptions.
A frozen, ambiguous symbol of a point.

If we use instruments, technology, to enhance our perceptions, then we will find that no matter how much we look deeply there is no centre at all, but it vanishes in a haze, and that no matter how closely we look the point is infinitely divisible and so not there.

All we perceive, everywhere is movement.

It is our distance from it or our sensual limitations that give the illusion of stability as when we look at the moon it looks like it is not moving, or if we look at a distant star it seems static, when in fact they are moving.

Satyr wrote:

Define centre.

I assume you mean: center.

When I see the word written "centre", my brain recalls its roots en français, which is not my Mother's tongue.

It is Amerikanized-English. (which can simply be called: Amerikan)

Satyr wrote:

Do it without leaving an infinitely divisible behind.
In other words prove an absolute.

I will only prove whatever I am able to prove infinitely or absolutely, if you will let me.

That requires obvious concessions on your part ... like listening, and listening very well.

Satyr wrote:

Advice:

You will firstly have to define a point in space time that is not changing or, like i said, infinitely divisible, because it is a human construct. You would have to prove a singularity.

Secondly you would have to prove that the wheel itself is not moving as a whole, as it being part of a space/time continuum that is always in flux i.e. that the wheel is on earth and the Earth is moving and so any centre, which does not really exist, is also moving along with it.

I appreciate your advice Satyr, but it is not needed. -- the advice, that is.

Here is what I said: "No, the "centre" of any possible 'wheel' does not move, in any dimension of thought."


Therefore, I cannot merely prove or define a "point in space-time" through only 4-dimensions of thought. Because my statement is a generalization of these "dimensions of thought", then it will necessarily require me to go both outside & within all possible dimensions. Commonly, we know of width, length, height, and time as our 4-dimensions of thought common to the masses. However, there are more (or less, depending on your 'perspective'). Are these 4-dimensions of thought not "human constructs"? Yes, they are. However, Einstein's Theory of Relativity assumes that a 'point' or 'consistency' (universal constant) exists in order to practicalize and empiricize thoughts into both Rational & Reasonable mannerisms. Every human mind, and possibly every living consciousness, does this on a day-to-day basis. Everything & Everybody assumes that Something exists, not Nothing, not your absent Absolute.

And thus, I can only "prove a singularity" based on your perception. Now, while this may be an impossible task, or not, is contingent upon many factors that I may or may not be aware of in the end. To begin with however, I will not prove the singularity to you. -- I will attempt to prove it to myself first. From that 'point' onward, then I will attempt to convince you next, and all others subsequently.


The second part of your 'advice' is unnecessary. Whether a 'wheel' is in motion or not does not take away from the fact that it actually has a center, because the human mind assumes, and in essence, places the center there (at the 'center' of the 'wheel')! -- a projection of Metaphysical thought, very similar to the 4-dimensions of thought. This action transcends all "known" dimensions and it establishes the 'absolute' connection between self and consciousness: "self-consciousness".

When it comes to referencing such 'centers' of motion, I will be using Sol as my singular reference and guide within my next movements/retorts.


Therefore, at your pleasure, I will say that the 'wheel' is the 'sun' and that you cannot visually place the center, because staring at the sun for too long will blind your eyes! This will run contrary to your statement that a 'wheel' must "be on earth" (although a person may use Earth as the reference, it doesn't matter)...

Satyr wrote:

A wheel is an interpretation of a phenomenon in flux, as such it is an abstraction that exists as continuous flow outside the mind, and as an abstraction, a symbol, an interpretation, within the mind, in reference to it.

So, in fact, no centre can be found on the wheel because no matter what high powered instrument you use, the centre will never be found. What will be seen, or not seen, is an infinitely divisible phenomenon with no static point, moving continuously, not only round and round with the rotation of the wheel, but also along with the earth it is on, and due to time, constantly changing, decomposing, and so never static, even though seemingly still

The centre, in fact, is a human construct, with no real meaning, like the #1 or a here or a now.

What it refers to is a generalized space/time contained within the limitations of human perceptions.
A frozen, ambiguous symbol of a point.

If we use instruments, technology, to enhance our perceptions, then we will find that no matter how much we look deeply there is no centre at all, but it vanishes in a haze, and that no matter how closely we look the point is infinitely divisible and so not there.

All we perceive, everywhere is movement.

It is our distance from it or our sensual limitations that give the illusion of stability as when we look at the moon it looks like it is not moving, or if we look at a distant star it seems static, when in fact they are moving.

I disagree with all of this, especially what I have highlighted.

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Define centre.

I assume you mean: center.

When I see the word written "centre", my brain recalls its roots en français, which is not my Mother's tongue.

It is Amerikanized-English. (which can simply be called: Amerikan)

Is this even relevant?
Redirection meant to create an emotional reaction rather than a rational one. He understood the intent, but had to play the fool so as to pretend he is other than what he is.

I was using the Canadian English dictionary...the proper English one, along with the British version.

Case in point:
No definition can be offered, even though he is the one claiming a center and so the burden of proof is upon him to prove it.
I cannot prove what is not there, and so I must use the magical the hypothetical to argue that what there is no evidence for is actually plausible.

Quote :

I will only prove whatever I am able to prove infinitely or absolutely, if you will let me.

Which would be an absurdity.
You might as well try proving God or a here.
The latter is, in fact, what you are attempting to do.

You should have thuogh twice about flapping your mouth so hard.
Now, you are, once more, going to embarrass yourself.

Quote :

That requires obvious concessions on your part ... like listening, and listening very well.

Does it require suspending reason and only using our fantasies?

Methinks it is.

Quote :

Here is what I said: "No, the "centre" of any possible 'wheel' does not move, in any dimension of thought."

The thought is not the wheel. The thought is an interpretation of the wheel.
But even so, even this interpretation, does not have a center. It is only an ambiguous point with no definite meaning.
It relies completely on ambiguity.

I can think of a Leprechaun...this does not make it real.
You can imagine the horizon being the end of the Earth, but this has nothing to do with what it actually is: the extent of your sensual awareness, simplified and interpreted into an abstraction.
Your distance from it makes it seem, to you, as a line, but no line exists and as you draw nearer the line turns into a curve and then if you look closer still, it turns into another line and so on and so forth into infinity.

There is actually no line, as there is no center as there is no point.

Quote :

Therefore, I cannot merely prove or define a "point in space-time" through only 4-dimensions of thought. Because my statement is a generalization of these "dimensions of thought", then it will necessarily require me to go both outside & within all possible dimensions.

Huh?

Shit, this will be fun...a magic trick.

Use semantics to confuse us all and redirect as as you perform a slight of hand maneuver.

Quote :

Commonly, we know of width, length, height, and time as our 4-dimensions of thought common to the masses. However, there are more (or less, depending on your 'perspective'). Are these 4-dimensions of thought not "human constructs"? Yes, they are. However, Einstein's Theory of Relativity assumes that a 'point' or 'consistency' (universal constant) exists in order to practicalize and empiricize thoughts into both Rational & Reasonable mannerisms. Every human mind, and possibly every living consciousness, does this on a day-to-day basis. Everything & Everybody assumes that Something exists, not Nothing, not your absent Absolute.

They assume it but cannot refer to it anywhere in experience.

The something is an invention, just like the #1.
Practically useful, but not actual.
It is only useful as a tool for making sense of a world of constant flow.

Are you trying to prove the practicality for the concept of a center or the actual center?
I can prove the practicality in a belief in God, this does not make the concept of a God any more real. It makes it a useful construct in controlling the masses and placating primal fears and existential anxieties, but having no reference to reality, it is not real.
I can prove the practicality for a belief in Santa Claus, but this does not prove than an actual one exists.

In fact the concept contradicts reality.

In any case, both God, as the point, as the center, are absurd notions, since they refer to nothing but a chimera...a mental model.
The center only exists in the human mind wanting to orient itself in space/time, just as space is a projection of the possible and time a measurment of one's movement within the possible.

Back to the wheel itself:
On the actual Wheel, because I refuse to speak about fantasies and imagination, nobody can point to a center or one point that is not in motion.
If we were to magnify the point where our perception can go no further, we will find that the motion persists no matter how deeply we magnify it, until the wheel loses substance altogether and becomes electrons and neutrons, themselves in motion.
Then, if we can go still further superstrings we are told...vibrating.
Science, itself, has no notion of a inert state, because this contradicts empiricism and the very concept of existence as perpetual activity.

The universe itself is motion and so, by definition, all that is contained within it, including ideas, are in a constant state of flow.

Ideas, themselves, are energy flows within neural networks, and so the very idea is a flow of energy evoking an image or a concept.

Quote :

The second part of your 'advice' is unnecessary. Whether a 'wheel' is in motion or not does not take away from the fact that it actually has a center, because the human mind assumes, and in essence, places the center there (at the 'center' of the 'wheel')! -- a projection of Metaphysical thought, very similar to the 4-dimensions of thought. This action transcends all "known" dimensions and it establishes the 'absolute' connection between self and consciousness: "self-consciousness".

Then you can't define it.
All "known dimensional space"?
We are to discuss imaginary, unknown, hypothetical space to prove your imaginary world of centers?

I place god in the beyond, so?
I place Leprechauns in another dimension, so?

Let us use your tactics and see where they lead us.
If I wish to prove immortality I can claim that this concept must be understood as a concept made possible by an unknown, imaginary, hypothetical dimension where death means life and life is a precursor to death, the real life.

In fact this type of absurdity has already been used and excluded from the realm of the plausible by any man with a rational brain not governed by need and emotion.
If we are to accept this line of irrational reasoning, then there is no end to what we can "prove" as possible.
Anything our mind can conjure up, can be dealt with by placing it in some other dimension where such absurdities are somehow real, even if they contradict reality.

Quote :

Therefore, at your pleasure, I will say that the 'wheel' is the 'sun' and that you cannot visually place the center, because staring at the sun for too long will blind your eyes! This will run contrary to your statement that a 'wheel' must "be on earth" (although a person may use Earth as the reference, it doesn't matter)...

You are either purposefully trying to misunderstand and play the fool, or you are an actual one.

Then the Sun, dear sir, is in the galaxy and so is in a state of continual motion. And the galaxy is in the universe which, by all accounts is expanding, or is in a state of entropic decay and so in a state of flux...

I would say that the very concept of idea is reliant on motion, activity.

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

A wheel is an interpretation of a phenomenon in flux, as such it is an abstraction that exists as continuous flow outside the mind, and as an abstraction, a symbol, an interpretation, within the mind, in reference to it.

So, in fact, no centre can be found on the wheel because no matter what high powered instrument you use, the centre will never be found. What will be seen, or not seen, is an infinitely divisible phenomenon with no static point, moving continuously, not only round and round with the rotation of the wheel, but also along with the earth it is on, and due to time, constantly changing, decomposing, and so never static, even though seemingly still

The centre, in fact, is a human construct, with no real meaning, like the #1 or a here or a now.

What it refers to is a generalized space/time contained within the limitations of human perceptions.
A frozen, ambiguous symbol of a point.

If we use instruments, technology, to enhance our perceptions, then we will find that no matter how much we look deeply there is no centre at all, but it vanishes in a haze, and that no matter how closely we look the point is infinitely divisible and so not there.

All we perceive, everywhere is movement.

It is our distance from it or our sensual limitations that give the illusion of stability as when we look at the moon it looks like it is not moving, or if we look at a distant star it seems static, when in fact they are moving.

I disagree with all of this, especially what I have highlighted.

Who cares if you disagree with it?

A Muslim disagrees with the notion of an afterlife where he does not get 77 virgins.

A schizophrenic disagrees that the aliens not out to get him.

A Scietologist disagrees that he has not come from outer space.

A retard disagree that he's retarded.


A statement is not an argument.

I disagree with your disagreement.
I highlight it in red to make it more imposing.

Another emotional effect.

Satyr wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:

I disagree with all of this, especially what I have highlighted.

Who cares if you disagree with it?

I do.

Satyr wrote:

A Muslim disagrees with the notion of an afterlife where he does not get 77 virgins.
A statement is not an argument.

I know.

Satyr wrote:

I disagree with your disagreement.
I highlight it in red to make it more imposing.

Another emotional effect.

You're redundant and missed the point of my disagreement, let me rephrase it for you in case you missed it:

I do not accept your given definitions nor premises regarding the concept of a 'center'.

Satyr wrote:

Unreasonable wrote:

Satyr wrote:

Define centre.

I assume you mean: center.

When I see the word written "centre", my brain recalls its roots en français, which is not my Mother's tongue.

It is Amerikanized-English. (which can simply be called: Amerikan)

Is this even relevant?

Yes, it is relevant, because at the heart of Philosophy, you and I define words. That is why you and I are here, right now.

A misspelling would negate the whole enterprise; one crack in the foundation ruins the whole temple.

I accept no Reason less than perfect, enemy.

Satyr wrote:

redirection meant to create an emotional reaction rather than a rational one. He understood the intent, but had to play the fool so as to pretend he is other than what he is.

You are redirecting right now.

And do not speak toward me in the third-person; it makes you sound desperate to any possible onlookers, as if there were any...

Satyr wrote:

I was using the Canadian English dictionary...the proper English one, along with the British version.

My Authority is rooted in Amerikan-English, not your pathetic French-Canadian and/or British dialect.

If you want to learn pure & true English, then I urge you to travel Westward.

If you were 'proper' at all, then you would learn how to type properly before stepping yourself into the Arena, enemy.

Satyr wrote:

Case in point:
No definition can be offered, even thuogh (*second warning*) he is the one claiming a center and so the burden of proof is upon him to prove it.

First of all, mind your spelling & grammatical errors. You may appear stupid to others by spelling like a child. You seem that way to me when you do so. I am debating you formally here. Now, you may hold this debate as less formal or serious than I, but I tell you that I hold it under the highest respect. I declare that your minor errors are both insulting to yourself and me. I implore you to cease such insults. My initial hope was to argue my points against a Reasonable Man...


Now, if you will be so kind as to allow me to continue and define my terms for you, then I will be much obliged!

I will define and prove 'center' where time, and yourself, permit me to.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

I will only prove whatever I am able to prove infinitely or absolutely, if you will let me.

Which would be an absurdity.
You might as well try proving God or a here.
The latter is, in fact, what you are attempting to do.

You should have thuogh (*third warning*) twice about flapping your mouth so hard.
Now, you are, once more, going to embarrass yourself.

You are stating that it will be "absurd" for me to prove my point to you.

Therefore, I will be "absurd" in order to do it, since that is the only way to suffice your requirements.

However, I contend that most people, other than you, would merely ask me for a reasonable proof, not an absurd proof. I am not aware of the norms of where you live Satyr, but this is strange to me. You do not ask me to be reasonable. You force me to give you an 'absurd' truth (i.e. proof). Therefore, that is what I will give to you. You will probably not understand it, because it is absurd, as requested by you-yourself!

You cannot take this request back; you cannot now ask me to be 'reasonable'. We are beyond that then.

I will only be reasonable insofar as it is useful to forming my 'absurd' argument & definition.


If I "embarrass" myself now, then it will be because this is what you desire, a metaphorical projection of your own fantasies. I can understand my opponent/enemy, you, wanting me to fail, because you have stepped into the Arena. However, you go further than that and want to kick sand in my eyes should I fall. Well, you will not get such enjoyment from me, because I will not fall.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

That requires obvious concessions on your part ... like listening, and listening very well.

Does it require suspending reason and only using our fantasies?

Methinks it is.

I disagree with your assumption that we must suspend reason and use our fantasies.

However, you have asked me, as clearly seen above, to be absurd. Therefore, that is what I will become.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Here is what I said: "No, the "centre" of any possible 'wheel' does not move, in any dimension of thought."

The thought is not the wheel.

I know.

Satyr wrote:

The thought is an interpretation of the wheel.

Wrong, the thought is both a perception, and then, an interpretation of the wheel.

There is no 'wheel' (concept or mental abstraction) without perception.

Satyr wrote:

But even so, even this interpretation, does not have a center.

Wrong, the interpretation may be judged to have a center, to which we deem that wheels have centers to them.

Satyr wrote:

It is only an ambiguous point with no definite meaning.

I contend that it is only ambiguous to an ignorant mind that lacks the highest ability for introspection. -- perhaps yours.

Satyr wrote:

It relies compeltely (*final warning*) on ambiguity.

Wrong, Truth and existent-things, in general, require knowing things specifically and generally, together.

This is not ambiguous if you are capable of thinking of such possibilities. -- perhaps you are not.

Satyr wrote:

I can think of a Leprechaun...this does not make it real.

Actually, it does make a Leprechaun "real".

However, it does not make a Leprechaun actual.

Satyr wrote:

You can imagine the horizon being the end of the Earth, but this has nothing to do with what it actually is: the extent of your sensual awareness, simplified and interpreted into an abstraction.

Your distance from it makes it seem, to you, as a line, but no line exists and as you draw nearer the line turns into a curve and then if you look closer still, it turns into another line and so on and so forth into infinity.

There is actually no line, as there is no center.

This is a bad analogy for the point you are attempting to make. I disagree with your conclusion.

There are actually 'lines' and 'centers' in existence, through concept & form.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Therefore, I cannot merely prove or define a "point in space-time" through only 4-dimensions of thought. Because my statement is a generalization of these "dimensions of thought", then it will necessarily require me to go both outside & within all possible dimensions.

Huh?

Shit, this will be fun...a magic trick.

Use semantics to confuse us all and redirect as as you perform a slight of hand maneuver.

This section does not merit an attentive response from me.

Satyr wrote:

They assume it but cannot refer to it anywhere in experience.

The something is an invention, just like the #1.
Practically useful, but not actual.

Wrong, it can only be in experience. That is how the human mind is made aware of dimensional possibilities.

Wrong, the something is not "an invention".

Wrong, what is practical is what is actual.

Satyr wrote:

Are you trying to prove the practicality for the concept of a center or the actual center?

No, I am proving the actual existence for a 'center' of a 'wheel'. Whether it is practical or not is secondary to the fact, by nature.

Satyr wrote:

I can prove the practicality in a belief in God, this does not make the concept of a God any more real. It makes it a useful construct in controlling the masses and placating primal fears and existential anxieties, but having no reference to reality, it is not real.
In fact the concept contradicts reality.

In any case, both God, as the point, as the center are absurd notions, since they refer to nothing but a chimera.
The center only exists in the human mind wanting to orient itself in space/time.

Wrong, the history of Western Philosophical Thought teaches one thing above all else:

There are subjects & objects (that exist) and we don't absolutely know what they are.

Satyr wrote:

Back to reality:
On the actual Wheel, because I refuse to speak about fantasies and imagination, nobody can point to a center or one point that is not in motion.
The universe itself in perpetual motion and so, by definition, all that is contained within it, including ideas, are in a constant state of flow.

Ideas, themselves, are energy flows within neural networks, and so the very idea is a flow of energy evoking an image or a concept.

Wrong, the universe only seems to be in motion, because there exists within it reference points to which the human eye can attach meaning & form.

This is known as [possibility].

Satyr wrote:

Then you can't define it.

Wrong, I can define anything I please to define.

Satyr wrote:

All "known dimensional space"?
We are to discuss imaginary hypothetical space to prove your imaginary world of centers?

I place god in the beyond, so?
I place Leprechauns in another dimension, so?

I do not welcome rhetorical questions.

Be direct or get the fuck out of my sight; you sound like an ignoramus, a complete fool.

Satyr wrote:

Let us use your tactics and see where they lead us.

If I wish to prove immortality I can claim that this concept must be understood as a concept made possible by an unknown, imaginary, hypothetical dimension where death means life and life is a precursor to death, the real life.

In fact this type of absurdity has already been used and excluded from the realm of the rational by any man with a rational brain not governed by need and emotion.

If we are to accept this line of irrational reasoning, then there is no end to what we can "prove" as possible.

Anything our mind can conjure up, can be dealt with by placing it in some other dimension where such absurdities are somehow real, even if they contradict reality.

Everything is real. Nothing is unreal.

And besides, you cannot complain about my line-of-reasoning when you-yourself beg/plead/ask/implore me to "absurd".

I do not tolerate hypocrites for long; do not tell me to be reasonable when proving my point to you requires being otherwise.

Satyr wrote:

You are either purposefully trying to misunderstand and play the fool, or you are an actual one.

Then the Sun, dear sir, is in the galaxy and so is in a state of continual motion. And the galaxy is in the universe which, by all accounts is expanding, or is in a state of entropic decay and so in a state of flux...

I would say that the very concept of idea is reliant on motion, activity.

Empirical Science is not Philosophy or Theory, sir.

I claim that the Universe-itself is not expanding or moving at all...


With all of this said, if you choose to continue to make spelling & grammar mistakes like a child would, then I will concede my argument against you by deeming that you are not taking this debate seriously, and that you are a fool by definition, a man of whom deserves no respect from me. If you do not plan to be perfect with your Logos & Eros, then do not bring your pathetic words toward my direction, I beg of you.

Original quote/claim: here.

Unreasonable wrote:

The center of a wheel in motion DOES NOT MOVE!!!

Argument stated: here

Satyr wrote:

Does the centre of the wheel move?

Retort from this thread: below.

Unreasonable wrote:

No, the "centre" of any possible 'wheel' does not move, in any dimension of thought.

Before I go on to define 'center', let it be shown that Satyr is personally challenging me based on my claim spelled thus: "center", not to be taken from his own dialect (as the authority for this particular debate). The reason that he is not allowed to do this is because my notion of 'center' was the original motivator for this entire argument, not his mention and rephrase of the definition to its French-Canadian root.


My definition, as follows: "center"

Fragmentation (as broken apart by my own neural thought processes): "cen"-"T"-"er"

Meaning: quoted through my personal ownership, and also referencing no authority outside myself.

"The center of a thing is its [core] or [root]. It is the essence from which visual stimulation originally arrives to the human eye. And because Essence & Existence may precede one another respectively, depending on the context, we do not necessarily need to demonstrate how phenomenal stimuli enters the thought processes of the human mind primarily via empirical explanation, but rather it can be shown first & foremost through literal and metaphorical description. For example, when we hear the phrase: "the center of the sun", in English, we assume that the 'center' precedes the existence of 'sun' in a literary stance. This is true anyway. Because, in attempting to pinpoint the 'center', core, or root of the "sun", a person must "pinpoint" a "reference point" to which, to refer, to the "sun" as an object/subject. This can only be accomplished by literally looking toward the sun! And where exactly is the sun except at the Center of its Existence/Essence, always? Using this logic, the only "sun" the human mind can even comprehend is the 'center' (of it), always. The fundamental reason for all of this is, explicitly, without a [center] to the Sun, Sol, there would be no "sun" at all, because there would be no reference point to it as an object/subject in any possible dimension ever conceived by the human mind."


Now that my definition is complete, here are some sources that I would use as my empirical evidence (Emphasis highlighted, also note that I did not look at these sources before I wrote my full, personal description. I took nothing from the following definitions before-the-fact.):

Etymology: here

Quote :

center

c.1374, from O.Fr. centre, from L. centrum "center," orig. fixed point of the two points of a compass, from Gk. kentron "sharp point, goad," from kentein "stitch," from PIE base *kent- "to prick" (cf. Breton kentr "a spur," O.H.G. hantag "sharp, pointed"). The verb is from 1622. Spelling with -re popularized in Britain by Johnson's dictionary, though -er is older. Centrist is 1872, from Fr. politics. Central as U.S. colloquial for "central telephone exchange" is first recorded 1889.

Dictionary: here

Quote :

cen⋅ter

   /ˈsɛntər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sen-ter] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun

1. Geometry. the middle point, as the point within a circle or sphere equally distant from all points of the circumference or surface, or the point within a regular polygon equally distant from the vertices.

Wikipedia: here (chosen via alphabetical order).

Quote :

Center (algebra)

The term center or centre is used in various contexts in abstract algebra to denote the set of all those elements that commute with all other elements. More specifically:

* The center of a group G consists of all those elements x in G such that xg = gx for all g in G. This is a normal subgroup of G.
* The center of a ring R is the subset of R consisting of all those elements x of R such that xr = rx for all r in R. The center is a commutative subring of R, so R is an algebra over its center.
* The center of an algebra A consists of all those elements x of A such that xa = ax for all a in A. See also: central simple algebra.
* The center of a Lie algebra L consists of all those elements x in L such that [x,a] = 0 for all a in L. This is an ideal of the Lie algebra L.
* The center of a monoidal category C consists of pairs (A,u) where A is an object of C, and u:A \otimes - \rightarrow - \otimes A a natural isomorphism satisfying certain axioms.

Theory: here

Quote :

This entire website centers on a core theory of the relation between mind and matter...

As an ending note, if you, Satyr, wish to debate or redefine my definition as it stands, then I implore you to not only defeat my original definition, but from ALL of the sources where & whence it came.

Thank you.

Also, I invite you to not edit your future posts.

It makes you seem incompetent.

Besides the adolescent crap and all the posturing and imitating I will only focus on this piece:

Unreasonable wrote:

"The center of a thing is its [core] or [root].

Replacing one absurd concept with another.

A reliance on dictionary definitions, authority, which define the word, not the truth of it.
A definition for the word God can also be found...this does not make God real, and a definition for the word Unicorn can, also be found.

Quote :

It is the essence from which visual stimulation originally arrives to the human eye.

Define essence.

My definition is this:
The sum of all the past that results in a phenomenon.

The human eye is limited in its scope and so it is not the final arbitrator as to what is actual, since like in the case of the horizon, it can be fooled because the stimulation gathered are simplified.

A horizon is no more a line than a wheel has a center or a core.
If you approach this "center" which is no more than the extent of visual perception, it vanishes.

There is not a single point, on the wheel, or anywhere for that matter, that is not in motion - or in flux.
Not even the eye is still.

The relationship between the observer and the observed is at play here.

Quote :

And because Essence & Existence may precede one another respectively, depending on the context, we do not necessarily need to demonstrate how phenomenal stimuli enters the thought processes of the human mind primarily via empirical explanation, but rather it can be shown first & foremost through literal and metaphorical description.

Then you are avoiding the subject.

Quote :

For example, when we hear the phrase: "the center of the sun", in English, we assume that the 'center' precedes the existence of 'sun' in a literary stance.

What?

The hypothetical center of a phenomenon precedes the phenomenon?
God, you are reaching.
Then what is it? A point in the void awaiting matter to encompass it and make it the center?

We "assume"? This is a rational argument?

Quote :

This is true anyway. Because, in attempting to pinpoint the 'center', core, or root of the "sun", a person must "pinpoint" a "reference point" to which, to refer, to the "sun" as an object/subject.

And so the mind pinpoint it in his abstraction, which are nothing more than ambiguous generalizations.

the #1, for instance:

We use it to describe a general unity.
One apple. But the apple can be halved. Then we say, one half of an apple.
The half apple can also be halved and so we say one quarter of an apple.

The one is lost and only representative of our generalization of a fruit.
We can go the other way.
The apple is part of a tree.
One apple tree...which is part of a group of tree, one forest, which is part of a planet, one planet.

Quote :

This can only be accomplished by literally looking toward the sun! And where exactly is the sun except at the Center of its Existence/Essence, always?

Is that where it is?
Well, given that you do not define essence or existence, you are merely playing semantic games.

Quote :

Using this logic, the only "sun" the human mind can even comprehend is the 'center' (of it), always.

This is logic?
The mind can only percive a phenomenon with uncertain boundaries and it imagines a point that it can never perceive nor find nor accurately define.
So it generalizes, as you are doing right now, eliminating the fact that the sun is also in motion around a galactic core which is also moving and all of it is fragmenting due to entropy...which means all of it is motion, not in motion, but motion itself

Quote :

The fundamental reason for all of this is, explicitly, without a [center] to the Sun, Sol, there would be no "sun" at all, because there would be no reference point to it as an object/subject in any possible dimension ever conceived by the human mind."

The reference point is the human construct. The observer makes of himself a reference point and even this he cannot define nor accurately place.
It is a comparison.

But the wheel itself, besides this abstracted bull,if looked at closely will not reveal a single perceived point of inertia.
Look as hard as you can at the point where the spokes come together on a stabilizing piece of wood and the entire thing rotates continually.
The smallest point you can perceive is in motion.

Anyways, I am wasting my time here.

I've made my positions clear and I leave it up to others to judge my arguments.

1) Everything is divisible, meaning there is no one point and so no core.

2)The point is the event horizon of the mind, limited by its sensual awareness.

3)Even if we were to assume a point, it too is in motion, since the entire universe is expanding.

4) Existence itself, has no meaning outside action, activity, motion, change.
Anyone trying to argue a static point is trying to prove a non-existence...and an absurdity with no reference to reality.

5) Essence is nothing more than the sum of all the past. So a phenomenon is not a static thing but a dynamic process, a culmination of a becoming as it has been shaped by interacting with other phenomena.

5) A point is the freezing of the wave of existence into a simplified ambiguity. It is a mental snapshot of a dynamic process. It only exist as a reference point inside the head and it depends on not being defined and on remaining ambiguous. The more undefined and ambiguous it stays, the more real it is beleived to be. It becomes a word and a word is a symbol, a metaphor.
There are two basic types of words, with variety of degrees in between:

A}Words that refer to phenomena outside the brain.

b}Words that refer to phenomena inside the brain.

When I say a horse, I am using a symbol to refer to an abstraction based on stimulation gathered of a phenomenon outside my head.
The word tries to refer to the phenomenon that exists independent of my interpretations of it.

When I say a unicorn, I am taking mutiple abstractions, of the first kind, and combining them into an abstraction with no reference to anything independent of this abstraction. It is a fantasy creature.

Abstractions, themselves, are dynamic, in that they are produced inside a brain through continuous neurological activity.

In math, as in geometry, the abstraction is a useful generalization with no actuality.
The center of the circle is the point equidistant from the edge of the circle, but the edge of the circle is placed under the microscope is jagged and non-existent and the center is forever falling back into infinite divisibility.

So, we make it a general concept based on our event horizons, so as to make it practical.
Like the #1 in mathematics.
There is no one anything.

We call one a generalized, simplified phenomenon, by eliminating all its contingencies and focusing upon a piece which we arbitrarily call one.
The piece itself is infinitely divisible and unifiable.
We can include it in a new arbitrary unity and call it one batch of apples or one basket of fruits.

The idea of a core refers us back to the concepts of a spirit, a soul, an atom, a one, a thing-in-itself, substance, nothing/somehting.
The absolute by any other name...

All projections of a hypothetical with no reference, anywhere but in our abstractions, to reality.

A singularity would drop out of space/time, if it were not a human invention with no actual meaning.
The inert would not exist, as existence is constant flow.
The Big Bang itself, that mother of all centers, is not an singularity but an event horizon.
We can call it, for lack of a better metaphor, an near-absolute.

I rest my case.

Take care.

I will present my closing argument within the next 10 days and ask The Fool for the final judgment.

Satyr wrote:

Besides the adolescent crap and all the posturing and imitating

You mean this Satyr?

Satyr wrote:

In other words prove an absolute.

Satyr wrote:

Advice: ...

Satyr wrote:

Is this even relevant?

Satyr wrote:

Redirection meant to create an emotional reaction rather than a rational one.

Satyr wrote:

He understood the intent, but had to play the fool so as to pretend he is other than what he is.

Satyr wrote:

You might as well try proving God or a here.

Satyr wrote:

You should have thuogh twice about flapping your mouth so hard.

Satyr wrote:

Huh?

Satyr wrote:

Shit, this will be fun...a magic trick.

Satyr wrote:

Use semantics to confuse us all and redirect as as you perform a slight of hand maneuver.

Rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, rhetoric, and rhetoric is all you have. You have no points worth making. You utilize no counterpoints worth mentioning. Next time you debate another, I recommend you end your childish antics. Act like a man, at least.

Satyr wrote:

Replacing one absurd concept with another.

A reliance on dictionary definitions, authority, which define the word, not the truth of it.
A definition for the word God can also be found...this does not make God real, and a definition for the word Unicorn can, also be found.

You are wrong.

By definition, it is both literally & metaphorically impossible to define any concept without utilizing another.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

It is the essence from which visual stimulation originally arrives to the human eye.

Define essence.

Essence is an ether of Pure Possibility that allows energy to manifest itself into forms of Existence.

The fundamental separation between these energies is the appearance of Life & Death: animation.

The human mind categorizes energy into three distinct concepts: positive, negative, and neutral.

Satyr wrote:

My definition is this:
The sum of all the past that results in a phenomenon.

The human eye is limited in its scope and so it is not the final arbitrator as to what is actual, since like in the case of the horizon, it can be fooled because the stimulation gathered are simplified.

A horizon is no more a line than a wheel has a center or a core.
If you approach this "center" which is no more than the extent of visual perception, it vanishes.

There is not a single point, on the wheel, or anywhere for that matter, that is not in motion - or in flux.
Not even the eye is still.

The relationship between the observer and the observed is at play here.

I appreciate your definition of Essence, but it seems to be unnecessary at this point in our debate.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

And because Essence & Existence may precede one another respectively, depending on the context, we do not necessarily need to demonstrate how phenomenal stimuli enters the thought processes of the human mind primarily via empirical explanation, but rather it can be shown first & foremost through literal and metaphorical description.

Then you are avoiding the subject.

That is not true; I defined the subject.

A [center] is real and actual to a wheel : A [root] is real and actual to a tree.

You cannot get around this; both are necessitated by definition.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

For example, when we hear the phrase: "the center of the sun", in English, we assume that the 'center' precedes the existence of 'sun' in a literary stance.

What?

The hypothetical center of a phenomenon precedes the phenomenon?
God, you are reaching.
Then what is it? A point in the void awaiting matter to encompass it and make it the center?

This section does not merit an attentive response from me.

Satyr wrote:

We "assume"? This is a rational argument?

Since all premises for literal & metaphorical word structures are based on the assumed existence of forms, yes, assumptions predominant a "rational argument".

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

This is true anyway. Because, in attempting to pinpoint the 'center', core, or root of the "sun", a person must "pinpoint" a "reference point" to which, to refer, to the "sun" as an object/subject.

And so the mind pinpoint it in his abstraction, which are nothing more than ambiguous generalizations.

the #1, for instance:

We use it to describe a general unity.
One apple. But the apple can be halved. Then we say, one half of an apple.
The half apple can also be halved and so we say one quarter of an apple.

The one is lost and only representative of our generalization of a fruit.
We can go the other way.
The apple is part of a tree.
One apple tree...which is part of a group of tree, one forest, which is part of a planet, one planet.

That is incorrect, because the particular/specific abstraction is not ambiguous at all. In fact, it moves in a contrary direction: towards practicality.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

This can only be accomplished by literally looking toward the sun! And where exactly is the sun except at the Center of its Existence/Essence, always?

Is that where it is?
Well, given that you do not define essence or existence, you are merely playing semantic games.

This section does not merit an attentive response from me.

Satyr wrote:

Quote :

Using this logic, the only "sun" the human mind can even comprehend is the 'center' (of it), always.

This is logic?
The mind can only percive a phenomenon with uncertain boundaries and it imagines a point that it can never perceive nor find nor accurately define.
So it generalizes, as you are doing right now, eliminating the fact that the sun is also in motion around a galactic core which is also moving and all of it is fragmenting due to entropy...which means all of it is motion, not in motion, but motion itself

Yes, this is logic.

The human mind perceives a particular point and fills out the rest of the phenomena afterward, not beforehand.

Satyr wrote:

The reference point is the human construct.

This is incorrect. The human constructs himself, not the reference point.

Satyr wrote:

The observer makes of himself a reference point and even this he cannot define nor accurately place.

This is incorrect. I can and will define my self.

My name is Adam. This is my Identity. I am now defined and accurately placed.

I-(ndividuality) can even be a reference point to myself.

Satyr wrote:

It is a comparison.

But the wheel itself, besides this abstracted bull,if looked at closely will not reveal a single perceived point of inertia.
Look as hard as you can at the point where the spokes come together on a stabilizing piece of wood and the entire thing rotates continually.
The smallest point you can perceive is in motion.

This is incorrect. Nothing is in motion except perhaps your consciousness.

The Individual Self remains still, unmoving, and consistent with every breath you take: Sol.

My closing argument:

Satyr, you have entered into this debate without seriousness. You do not correct your spelling errors. You do not perfect your grammar. You edit your posts at your pleasure. I consider all of these huge mistakes in a debate between serious & powerful intellects. Rather than fight a bear as a bear, you cripple yourself to fight a bear as a dog. Now, this may or may not be a successful tactic depending on the context, but I see that it reduces your ability to both: 1) make coherent or meaningful points, and 2) be taken seriously with respect. Regardless of this, even though I see it as your primary detriment in this debate, I would personally not hold it against you when it comes to the final judgment.

However, next time, clean it up.


Secondly, I have provided my definition of [center] to the best of my ability. I see that it still stands and I will continue to defend the definition as I have given it here and elsewhere in my life. I do not believe that you, Satyr, have caused me to reexamine my inherent meaning for the word even after I listened to your arguments against me. The primary reason for this is due to your unsubstantiated Metaphysical beliefs. You believe the Universe is expanding. I do not. You believe that Everything is in a constant flux. I do not. You believe that there is no singular reference point that can be made, because Everything is in motion. I do not. Regardless of these metaphysical disagreements, you and I did not delve deeply into one another to expose the fundamental hows & whys such beliefs came to be. Perhaps that shall be saved for another time and another place...

I am confident in my definition as I have given it. I leave it up to the judge to decide whether or not I have given an absurd enough account for it as prescribed by you, Satyr-yourself. You asked me to describe and prove the impossible. Thus, that is what I attempted to do. What I want for the judgment is to determine if Reason persuades me one way or the other to concede my definition for any cause whatsoever. If there is an iota of doubt in my ability to define the "center" of a wheel-in-motion, or a circle, then judge against me. If I do not give the best definition for it, then I simply desire to know where I can find a better one. Personally, I do not feel that it is you, Satyr, because you ask for Absurdity over Reason. Despite my attempt to give you it, I will do my best to define the form of things as they stand.


Summation:

1. Assume a [wheel] or [circle] exists.
2. Confined within shape & form exists a [center]. (which even may not be accurately placed)
3. The 'center' of a 'wheel' is necessitated by the existence/form of any particular wheel.
4. A wheel in motion signifies 'motion' around the wheel, but not at the 'center'.
5. The concept of 'motion' predicates a predetermined reference 'point' a priori.
6. Assume a [point] is a 'center'.
7. The 'center' must then exist by definition.




I appreciate your challenge to me Satyr, kind sir, friend. -- thank you.

The Fool, I request your formal judgment of this thread here & now.

*thread locked without a formal judgment*