# Consciousness; Quiddity (-Ness)

No, no it's not.

Ruling out the number 4 as power; the number 5 is more significant where power is concerned.

In fact I don't understand how you've reached that conclusion, it may be unintentionally rude to me but who gives two horsehockys.

Am I conscious? Never quite sure.
I wouldn’t bank on it, lest I face a quiddity crunch.
I guess I’m here some of the time,
Not all the time. Just some.
Would it matter?

They have a fight, triangle wins.

The "Time Cube" is just crazy talk.

Ruling out the number 4 as power; the number 5 is more significant where power is concerned.

uhhh?

The author says 4 is a power number but I know that power is more a set in and of itself. 1, 2, 3 and 4 make a set. Thus, 5 alone is a set. The number 5, as with speed-o-meters in cars; you wouldn't divide that as 4. Speed from 10mph to 200mph doesn't fit into a 4 set.

0mph
10mph 1 - 5
Med speed 3 - 5
Top speed 5 - 5

Try the same with 4.

10 mph 1 - 4
Med speed 2 or 3 - 4
Top speed 4 - 4

The first pattern wins.

Basically I know how power works, per se, speed o meters; plug sockets and energy propulsion, etc. And it's always a product that can be divided by 5. Take wall, plug, wire, deposit, on. Take captured energy in triangle wall socket with pronged plug.

Singularity on wall entrar prongs on a two scale.

More?

Lift arm above head and, rub.
Push arm out in front, and, clench.
Rub; push hand back and forth.
Clench; close hand into a fist.

These are all sets of 5 as you can count. The way a sentence is written, is 5, but the way it is produced is a 6, barely, and I have a lot to say about this number.

Last edited:
Four, shi, is sometimes associated with 死, shi, death. 8 is associated with fortune, 9 with suffering.

I’mma launch my own TV network, QVC. Quiddity Varies Considerably.

The author says 4 is a power number but I know that power is more a set in and of itself. 1, 2, 3 and 4 make a set. Thus, 5 alone is a set. The number 5, as with speed-o-meters in cars; you wouldn't divide that as 4. Speed from 10mph to 200mph doesn't fit into a 4 set.

0mph
10mph 1 - 5
Med speed 3 - 5
Top speed 5 - 5

Try the same with 4.

10 mph 1 - 4
Med speed 2 or 3 - 4
Top speed 4 - 4

The first pattern wins.

Basically I know how power works, per se, speed o meters; plug sockets and energy propulsion, etc. And it's always a product that can be divided by 5. Take wall, plug, wire, deposit, on. Take captured energy in triangle wall socket with pronged plug.

So your contention with Time Cube is that base 4 is a bad numerical system? Really? There's batpoop insane ramblings of nonsense of pages upon pages and your "gotcha" is that 4 was the wrong choice?

EDIT: Also rereading this, the math is nonsense. First you say 100-200, then you say 0 has no number, "1 - 5" = 10, "3 - 5" = "medium", "5 - 5" = "top". what

And the electrical sockets... Again, sorry if you feel insulted or whatever, but it's so hard to tell whether this is trolling or, well, similar to Time Cube. At least it's fun?

Singularity on wall entrar prongs on a two scale.

More?

Lift arm above head and, rub.
Push arm out in front, and, clench.
Rub; push hand back and forth.
Clench; close hand into a fist.

These are all sets of 5 as you can count. The way a sentence is written, is 5, but the way it is produced is a 6, barely, and I have a lot to say about this number.

So after feeling insulted over being compared to Time Cube, you procure a bad poem as proof of... Something? Literally in order to distance yourself from Time Cube, you write this?

Last edited:
The author says ....
Which author? Where? I'm quite lost. How is any of this connected to consciousness?

Which author? Where? I'm quite lost. How is any of this connected to consciousness?
I'm not the one who brought it up.

I'm not the one who brought it up.

As an observer, so far I think you bought it up.

The conversation can be fruitful and interesting if it directed to become a trade of ideas, and lay down any possible wall that would block or disturb the honest exchange.

I think there will be more peoples/poster who genuinely interest will join the thread, if the current active participant able to keep it up.

As an observer, so far I think you bought it up.

The conversation can be fruitful and interesting if it directed to become a trade of ideas, and lay down any possible wall that would block or disturb the honest exchange.

I think there will be more peoples/poster who genuinely interest will join the thread, if the current active participant able to keep it up.
There's evidence to suggest that Angst brought up TimeCube.

Look, you all seem to be going haywire, fighting inaccurate wars.

Whether you can help it or not, it's not my problem.

I shared an idea, I answered to each person; not much more I can do.

If you're going to act like artistic masterpieces, who should be viewed proportionately, at least have some difference between you. Haywire - Inaccurate war - it bores me to be honest.

How rude is it that birdjaguar doesn't take Angst into account when regarding the TimeCube topic? Pins it on me.

Right, I am done.

Your forum is a pervert-hive, sorry people who are not so perverse.

See-ya.

Last edited:
There's evidence to suggest that Angst brought up TimeCube.

Look, you all seem to be going haywire, fighting inaccurate wars.

Whether you can help it or not, it's not my problem.

I shared an idea, I answered to each person; not much more I can do.

If you're going to act like artistic masterpieces, who should be viewed proportionately, at least have some difference between you. Haywire - Inaccurate war - it bores me to be honest.

How rude is it that birdjaguar doesn't take Angst into account when regarding the TimeCube topic? Pins it on me.

Right, I am done.

Your forum is a pervert-hive, sorry people who are not so perverse.

See-ya.

*shrug, is this bombastic reaction even necessary? Warpus mentioned TimeCube. While it's you who mentioned and elaborate what "the author said". Naturally Bird ask you "which author", you refuse to name him because you feel you never "bring it up" hence it's not your responsibility.

While I told you the conversation so far have been interesting, if all the participant, not specifically you, able to treat this as trade of ideas, not some intellectual arena. Then you react to this by killing your own thread with bombastic rant and exit the discussion.

If you keep projecting everything as a threat to you, I think it would be hard to start a discussion or conversation. Even a nod can be interpret as some condescending attack that try to harm your dignity, while it's not.

Am I acting like an artistic masterpiece? hahahaha is that a compliment? thank you!

Consciousness, seems to inaccurately represent what is, for no use of a better term(I jest, 'spirit'), something more. Consciousness is the quiddity(~whatness) of the subject. However, I argue that consciousness is a process of, this something, and it has been factorised falsely - where no concise term had been applied.

To be conscious is to be alert of universe physics, though it is often considered to be awareness.

If we regain consciousness after an unconscious spell we do not instantly become aware of the environment(it's often blurry and clouded in mind.)

To be aware of universe physics is is a jump forward, a set function is necessary; for example; to focus, to look, to sniff, etc.

I cannot be aware passively but can be subliminally aware(a fraction of total awareness) of local physics, such as seeing out of the corner of my eye.

Alertness is a reception; it occurs passively, and it ties in pretty well with consciousness.

Therefore, consciousness is not what is inner drive(-driver), but that's something more. The phenomenon of consciousness is something related to this something but in theory it is a element of the accurate association. I conclude by asking for constructive debate or discussions on this matter(possibly including the word 'spirit' in a non-theological sense).

I hope I am not going to regret this, but I will bite.

You mention "universe physics" (later on also "local physics"), as if the physical world is somehow picked up by your consciousness instead of a form already shaped in your consciousness being selected to present the physical world. There is a long debate in philosophy on this, but virtually everyone is agreeing that the material world is not picked up itself; instead a form is selected from forms available to consciousness of the observer.

As for "consciousness is not inner-drive(r)", who said that "consciousness" is a drive(r)? That is rather bizarre an idea. A bit like claiming that the ground is what walks you. What the ground does, of course, is allow for certain routes (if you can't even sense a route, it's no wonder you won't take it; although in the mind you can always stumble upon a metaphor of a route you hadn't thought of, potentially paving the way for that in a future thought).

I do think, however, that you are trying to pinpoint something delicate about consciousness (going by your last sentence). I could note that it's not likely that anyone can separate himself/herself/vampself from consciousness to the degree they could identify it without using it to do so (which is a spiral pattern and you shouldn't endanger yourself imo).

No, no it's not.

Ruling out the number 4 as power; the number 5 is more significant where power is concerned.

Hmm you say it's not and you dive into timecube-like text right away.

Come on, this seems even more obvious. I'm not the only person who noticed. This is timecube satire.. or something inspired by it.. or by something similar. The fact that you already know what timecube is and don't have to ask tells me that I'm likely on the right track here.

HOWEVER, since a good satirist rarely admits the nature of an act, especially right in the middle of it, I'm going to stop pointing this out. I am not sure I can participate in this thread further though, given that if I tried to write timecube-like text to respond to the content in this thread, it could now be seen as mockery instead a genuine attempt to engage in this format.

If this is instead some mental health thing, then I deeply apologize and hope everything works out

Right. I'm sorry but I felt Angst was molesting me.

I only mentioned the author of TimeCube after reading it for the first time after Angst mentioned it.

I cannot control my response, I dislike bullies.

Right. I'm sorry but I felt Angst was molesting me.

I only mentioned the author of TimeCube after reading it for the first time after Angst mentioned it.
I cannot control my response, I dislike bullies.

Look, I actually highly enjoy these threads of yours, I'm serious when I'm saying it's fun. But I also think they're incredibly opaque and kind of nonsensical, which is why I'm probing with questions, and actually suggesting literature for you isn't me being mean, it's me trying to help you out.

Right. I'm sorry but I felt Angst was molesting me.

I only mentioned the author of TimeCube after reading it for the first time after Angst mentioned it.

Sigh, he enjoyed talking to you, he told me and others in separated platform, smh, you really should work a little bit on your feeling of (in)security. If anyone trying to bully you here, they will make you understand and obvious. Trust me.

Replies
15
Views
496
Replies
18
Views
641
Replies
11
Views
481
Replies
96
Views
3K
Replies
108
Views
3K