Could you disprove the following statements as false?

Question

1. Since wholes include you, you would be thought as part.
2. Since parts compose you, you would be thought as whole.
3. Since differences distinguish you, you would be thought as equivalence.
4. Since equivalences equate you, you would be thought as uniqueness.
5. Since limits limit you, you would be thought as link.
6. Since links link you, you would be thought as limit.
7. Since influences influence you, you would be thought as sensation.
8. Since sensations sense you, you would be thought as influence.
9. Since derivatives inherit you, you would be thought as origin.
10. Since origins originate you, you would be thought as derivative.
11. Since conditions condition you, you would be thought as rule.
12. Since rules rule you, you would be thought as condition.
13. Since fulfillments fulfill you, you would be thought as intent.
14. Since intents intend you, you would be thought as fulfillment.

Could you disprove these statements as false?

Source: thought predictor ( http://wwf.totalh.com/tp )

Answer 1

I agree with these philosophical statements which go a long way in identifying our existence in this universe. The link and limit part in particular is very apt covering our finiteness.

Answer 2

No; they are both true and false; the Will is positive, the Judgment is negative and all words have more than one meaning. Get a dictionary. There is not a link of them to purpose in life, therefor they constitute incoherency.

1. Since wholes include you, you would be 'thought as part'.
2. Since parts compose you, you would be 'thought as whole'.
3. Since differences distinguish you, you would be 'thought as equivalence'.
4. Since equivalences equate you, you would be 'thought as uniqueness'.
5. Since limits limit you, you would be 'thought as link'.
6. Since links link you, you would be 'thought as limit'.
7. Since influences influence you, you would be 'thought as sensation'.
8. Since sensations sense you, you would be 'thought as influence'.
9. Since derivatives inherit you, you would be 'thought as origin'.
10. Since origins originate you, you would be 'thought as derivative'.
11. Since conditions condition you, you would be 'thought as rule'.
12. Since rules rule you, you would be 'thought as condition'.
13. Since fulfillments fulfill you, you would be 'thought as intent'.
14. Since intents intend you, you would be 'thought as fulfillment'.

Since when? Would be but not. Thought in its self does not fulfill mente, it is not fulfillment.

Answer 3

I think all of them realte to me but the question is do I realte to them back. A whole might include me, but it does make me a part. The whole thing is a contradiction of itself.

Answer 4

wow, i never thought about things that way...