Off-Topic cannot logically apply to a multi-faceted Universe that contains multi-faceted creatures.

[A] I certainly CAN ask questions while opposing your position, but if neither of us are required to answer the other's questions, this debate seems to be only a description of our two paradigms without any truly meaningful interaction. And the only way to truly "shake the foundation of Man's current systems" is to make arguments that are convincing rather than a series of questions. It is certainly fair to say that you "cannot answer what has yet to be discovered" if your paradigm is inferior to that modern-day science, but does it not seem reasonable to expect a paradigm that claims to be more effective than mine to offer a model that is superior to mine? The entirety of your argument for the irrationality of the concept "off-topic" seems to rest on the belief that your paradigm offers a greater (deeper?) understanding of the Universe than the paradigm of empirically and mathematically derived models/relationship and directed study. Having said that, I think we are having two different debates. To the best of my ability to follow, you are arguing that there can be analogies created between seemingly unconnected phenomenon. I am arguing that by any reasonable definition of a "successful conversation", "off-topic" is an exceedingly useful definition to have, and, more recently, and perhaps counter-productively, that it is also exceedingly useful in developing an accurate predictive model of the Universe. In an attempt to bring this debate back to it's original point, could you please define what your overall claim is? That is, what are you trying to accomplish by "logically applying" off-topic things? This, I think, will greatly help bring this topic back to its original purpose. [B] So long as we are using the English language and have the common goal of communicating effectively, I must again request that you stick to commonly agreed-upon definitions of words, unless it has been specifically agreed upon that a word will be redefined for this debate. "Dark matter" has a meaning that is accepted by the world. Though I have already rejected (and you have given me no reason to believe) that pointing to similarities between objects does not necessarily result in a meaningful analogy, I will attempt to address your analogies and show why they are flawed, to say nothing of what they may be trying to say. Incidentally, there is a certain amount of poetry in your analogies, but even so, I fail to see any truly deeper meaning in any of them. 0) The Universe and the human brain operate on different principles entirely. The human brain exists (insofar as it has an objective purpose) to give humans several tools to aide in reproduction. It follows the principles of "neural networks" abstractly and electromagnetism physically; it receives information, predicts reality, and solves problems. We have no reason to believe Universe has any capacity to reason. On the cosmic scale of stars that specifically mention, there is barely any interaction between stars and none of these interactions are re-weighted based on external stimulus. Stars operate on the principles of nuclear reactions (primarily fusion) and interact noticeably only through gravity. The "light" created by the universe and some metaphorical "light" from the brain is not a reason to connect the two. I see no reason whatsoever to point to any perceived poetic similarities between the two. 1) Genitalia pass genetic information between beings. That stars give off energy and black holes pull in matter is perhaps an abstract similarity that you are tying to men releasing sperm and the sperm being received by women. But this "similarity" is again all but meaningless and doesn't contribute to any discussion about either sex or stars. 2) I have never heard of an asteroid being calcium-rich, while may are made of iron. Asteroids are held together by gravity, kidney stones create no gravitational force to speak of. Kidney stones are within the bodies of sentient beings. This does not contribute to any discussion about kidney stones or asteroids. 3) Water is not conscious. "Consciousness" is a word that if rarely (if ever) well defined, but there is no even remotely reasonable definition that would classify water as conscious. It has no capacity to feel, emote, predict, or reason. Its physical property of reflectivity has essentially nothing to do with mental reflection. That both are describe as "flowing" are simply the use of a single word to describe radically different and unconnected phenomenon. 4 - 7) I had written arguments for these, but ran out of space; I think you can predict my arguments, but if you would like to hear them, please ask 8) "did I mention that the black hole is legitimately the female's genitalia and the star that explodes is legitimately the male's genitalia" Yes you did mention it. You have yet to offer any substantial evidence or reasoning that such a bond exists. Following the principles of Bayesian statistics, if you are going to take every perceived similarity as evidence for this 'bond', you must also take every perceived difference as evidence against it. I'd list the dissimilarities, but I feel such a list is endless and unnecessary. [C] First and foremost, quoting scientists (or really anyone) for their philosophy isn't really a convincing argument. As easily as you can quote Nikola Tesla, I can quote Immanuel Kant: "Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life" and point out that your own "wisdom" is hardly organizing anything meaningfully. I can also point out that Tesla died in 1943 and could hardly know which direction "today's science" has come. Or that many physicists are very eager to unify the theories of physics into a "clearer", rather than "deeper" explanation of the universe. That being said, these quotes have little convincing power, and I doubt either of us are more convinced as a result of them. If you claim that your paradigm is more effective than science's by any reasonable criteria, I'd be eager to hear your arguments or evidence for this. Incidentally, how have you "scarified everything to achieve [your] level of analysis"? I deny your statement that science is not "pragmatic"; in terms of practical understanding and benefit it has done far more than philosophy. I'd like to echo your sentiment: I in no way mean to belittle you, but by the standards of rationalism and empiricism, your analogies mean very little. They don't predict anything. They don't claim anything. At best they point to similarities, but even here their accuracy is questionable. [D] My paradigm, followed to the letter, suggests no commitment. A perfectly rational being weighs all criteria and probabilities and has a model of the universe that most accurately reflect these. I like to believe that whatever perceived bias I have towards modern science is well grounded in the reproducibility of its results and its accurate predictive power. I do not understand where your own confidence comes from. I googled "Black Eye Hole", but am still confused. Many images are artists' renditionings of black holes; many are photos of eyes. Are you referring to the phenomenon in which massive objects bend light? Could you give me a direct link to the site/image? [E] I am not asking questions for the sake of my own confusion. It bears mentioning that you have currently used a total of one question mark in your posts, and it was a seeming rhetorical question ("did I mention... genitalia?") " you are hardly in a position to criticize my number of questions. You say "always open yourself up and accept the possibility that what you're doing is not constructive and is in fact destructive" and then say that it is "silly to say that omni-reverance may not be good". Regardless, referencing "wise men" as a group continues to hold very little sway in my belief and, likely, the belief of anyone following this debate. I will continue to question under what criteria you are judging the legitimacy of a conversation, since this is what the purpose of this debate ultimately is. Only with a clear idea of what is "good" in a conversation can we come to a well-founded conclusion to the applicable-ness of "off topic". I have repeatedly told you it is in the purpose assigned by those having the conversation or, if you're not willing to accept that, in coming to understand the universe " something we might attempt to compare by comparing the accuracy of our universal models. Could you please take a stand and tell me what criteria you think is best, and which you might be willing to use so that this debate can be resolved? [-] Rest assured, I am doing nothing of the sort. You are claiming that two things are connected and are only offering examples of similarities. If whatever you have is "beyond anything [I have] ever experienced", but can be arrived at logically, please demonstrate the connection through logic rather than just the similarities. If you do choose to claim one cannot arrive at it logically, this has interesting ramifications for this debate. Suddenly "Off-topic cannot logically be applied..." seems like a non-sensical statement (if logic itself cannot be applied to the universe). The debate then becomes me defending the use of logic to understand the universe. [-] I understand that you are using analogies to describe the universe. One might even go so far as to say I was "playing dumb", but since you seem to firmly believe there is deep philosophical meaning in your analogies, I must continue to ask: what is it? You are trying to take the claim "Aerogant can think about the universe poetically" and transform it into the conclusion "everyone is wrong for trying to have conversations that are reasonably confined to a specific topic", despite the fact your interpretation is very subjective. More than that, all you have done is claim your wisdom, quote "wise men", list your analogies, and criticize (somewhat hypocritically) my lack of questions.