s1eep

Maybe comprehension is like digestion, where it intakes whole subjects and not only bits at a time. In fact, I believe it is, I think life was that perfect.

Well at least you admit life is too complex to do things perfectly. And I do understand you wordlessly, we think with our tongues which is truly our heart, if I paused, I comprehend you somehow, you are digested. What allows me to digest? What makes you food for my brain?

But if you were without food or drink your answer wouldn't be the same. I believe nature is the significant in our lives.

That's because life is too complex, I told you this before. I cannot possibly enter your "soul" and learn your every perception of life; I believe that you cannot know the true knowledge of the universe, like the big bang in it's actual state, and that this and things like it make life too complex to answer. You take advantage of one of life's perks, 'I can't enter the soul', I will never be able to know what you can and cannot comprehend. Again, what supports me against your complexity, how am I able to understand you, wordlessly? Is there some special relation?

It doesn't change the fact we can't comprehend it.

I don't think the universe is the significant to the human objective, but rather Earth, for humans. (i.e. it doesn't matter what the universe is doing, it is too distant).

How can the the present, and that moment we cannot comprehend truthfully, co-exist, or how could that moment have existed in the same universe? What supports the two predominantly?

Thus, life is too complex to understand. What supports us against the complexity?

I can't. That is the complexity of life - I cannot even write true knowledge, life is written in too complex of a code.

No it cannot, it can show me it's own version of said events, but not the actual event, checkmate science.

You are also unable to understand. Go on, say one life-word that is not a human word.

That's putting the complexity of life upon my head. That's my point, I don't.

No you don't. That would mean you have a complete answer to every question. Can you tell me how the universe truly looked minutes after the big bang in the form of a conscious observer? No, you cannot create conscious observers through which we can propagate observation. You are not above the complexity of life, you just believe you might be in the future, which is still submitting to it's complexity. Enough wordplay, you don't know what you're talking about where life is concerned.

Life itself cannot/has not been answered, but it is the greatest significance to us, it is the reason we are alive, which means that it comes before everything else. When you go about your daily activities, you can simplify what you're doing down to only "Life", you need not say a word at all. We were confronted by a complexity that we couldn't comprehend, and it confronts us for all of our lives; it is the only question we should be trying to answer, as we are never away from it- it is the ultimate significance to us.

You cannot or have not acquired all of the necessary evidence to create an answer for life. You would need the ability to take over people's consciousness as to acquire the sensual and more knowledge to build a correct answer. There are many reasons. You can't even create life-knowledge, you use words, words are much simpler than natural life. And just because you haven't yet doesn't mean that you will, and by saying that you might be able to in the future is only submitting to life's complexity, "I'll work on it, it's not that complex", is not the answer to life, and you have fell to it's complexity.

We cannot understand life, it's too complex (if you say that you will come back later with evidence in an attempt to understand it, you are only submitting to the complexity), but we can live life, we are supported. How are we supported against the complexity of life? How do we put up a fight, so to speak? It's complexity is present, but we can co-exist; how do we do so if it is that complex?

Evolution does not explain how we are supported by life, it is one of the reasons life is such a complex question; and I reject linear time because, as with you, the burden of life was overlooked (I'm a big fan of the natural pre-man-made reality).

Everything you were in to pre-scientific observation. The period of time when a person is alive is the meaning I'm using, and I don't believe in linear time.

Life is the reason for being; the living carry the burden of life. The burden of life outweighs the burden of proof – a man need not prove he exists to exist, for that he needs only life. While we are alive we can answer many questions, but we cannot answer the question “what is life?” The question “what is life?” is too complex. There are many reasons for this; one reason is that we cannot travel to the far ends of the universe to retrieve the knowledge we require to build the correct answer, and another is that we cannot access another being to experience life from its perspective; humans cannot create the correct answer. There are many more reasons why. Life’s complexity is all its conceivable associations; we are not capable life-scientists. However, we exist amongst the complexities of life; we are supported pre-scientific observation. We cannot understand, but we can live. What makes life life-supporting? How are things able to live with this complexity?

Is it correct that scientists have found the question of life is too complex to answer? Or that science has not answered this question yet?

Consciousness is produced! If we were to simplify ourselves to only the consciousness, we find that we find that we are expanding. No consciousness is that specific, it is the mind which it inhabits that makes things unique. There is nothing stopping us from living again in a different life, or life-two; that does not mean that we will- but I think something else might make us live again, just a guess.

Thanks for your time.

The fact we sustain existence is part of the burden of life, and because we are able to exist in this complexity, we must understand it somehow. That is, we understand it already, or we are understanding it, because we co-exist with the rest of life that serves as the missing piece we cannot comprehend. Our genius is aligned to life- we are already life-compatible 'pre-scientific observation'. What makes human genius life-compatible? What makes scientific observation life-compatible? Not it's method, that is procedure, but "what part of life allows this procedure"?

The methodology of science is the procedure, and not the reason we can do it, the answer would be something to do with life and humans, not humans and human behavior. I fear already that no matter what I say and how simple it is you will respond lazily, depressingly, egotistically.

I prefer the reincarnation where, if I was born again, I wouldn't have my prior memories. It makes more sense. The author might be correct, who knows? No-one has died and come back to prove it, we'll never truly know until after we are dead.