Daniel

Apologies. I distinguish between deity and spirit. Yes, the deity aspect was certainly closed. Here in America, an Atheist can believe in spirits, ghosts, baba-yaga ( link ), whatever. It's like I said. Atheism is a very simple theological position, at least where I am. It takes a position on 1 thing and 1 thing only. "I do not believe in God or gods". That's it. They might believe in spirits or ghosts, one would need to ask them. Understood. I will not make any spiritual posts. I only want to know about the DDJ here. I want to be able to ask questions and listen to the answers. I very much appreciate what you're doing. Sincerely.

Yay! I posted a picture of one in another thread before we began this conversation. The topic was Chapter 5 of the DDJ. Beautiful invention. Produces consistent air to the furnace when operated manually in both directions. It's a huge improvement. Understanding the mechanics of its functioning fits perfectly with what I think is happening in Chapter 5. I know a bit about primitive forge work, the consistent even heat is important for tempering a blade properly.

@Mark Foote, Nah, we're just past the horizon line, approx 5 miles from the shore... we're far past the breakers but not "out to sea". It's like glass out here... you honestly couldn't have picked a better spot to drop anchor and get wet. But seriously, I wonder why these ideas are so nauseating to you? Why not share?

What is your native language, if you don't mind me asking? And when you say "I did not lose my heritage and the meaning of the characters" are you saying you are Chinese and you knew the meanings of the characters before reading Chen GuYing's book?

I missed this detail about the different types of spirits. Thank you, Cobie, for the wiki-link and highlighting this. ChiDragon, this seems to be a cross-over between daoism and chinese folk religion? It's true that there are "spirits" "ghosts" and "gods" in daoism? And some believe in them? But you are saying Laotze did not? ( and I'll add this question paranthetically... what beliefs aren't in daoism? It's a huge religion, right? )

What about the shadowwork you mentioned?

"... with what I know. " How true. How bittersweet. Inner-demons. Yeah. I've got a few. ...I have spent nights with matches and knives, Leaning over ledges, only two flights up. Cutting my heart, burning my soul. Nothing left to hold, Nothing left but, blood and fire... ...I am intense, I am in need, I am in pain, I am in love. I feel forsaken.. Blood and Fire Are too much for these restless arms to hold. And my nights of desire are calling me, Back to your fold. And I am calling you, calling you from 10, 000 miles away Won't you wet my fire with your love, babe?

There's that famous Nietzsche quote reverberating in my brain-places again... The abyss? Being watched? Jung would say the one who enters the abyss, is also part-abyss-themself, and they are actually watching themself?

... naturally. 自然

No thank you, we can discuss it here without risk of moderation. If you are careful. The only reason it cannot be discussed here is if your intention is to promote banned subject matter. Because I value integrity, I am not interested in that banned subject matter. So, there's no reason to depart from this venue.

I think you can safely discuss whether or not "integrity" meaning "complete" is valued. It seems clear to me that you are not promoting the banned subject matter. If incomplete knowledge, understanding, wisdom is valued, this explains the incomplete perspective being presented in this thread. The best example, again, is "We do not look out, we only look in". That's a one sided, incomplete perspective. Not only that, the word choice is significant ( unless it is a product of sloppy language ). Projecting your own one-sided perspective on all readers including myself by saying "WE" is extremely one-sided and incomplete. It could be you mean something else, or it could be your subconscious being perfectly honest about its projection of itself on all others. And this honesty is "leaking" out, even if the conscious mind does not intend for this or is maybe even aware of it. And, it's obvious to me, if a person does not value "integrity" in this context of being "complete", then they will not value other people's knowledge, understanding, and wisdom. It would need to match their own to be valued. This explains why the critical analysis of Hoffman's theories is not being read so we can discuss it. It doesn't match the one-sided perspective, what is already in your mind, so, it is not valued? It's a good fit, isn't it? Lack of value for integrity?

Understood. And the reason they are prohibitted from promoting themself here is because the group promotes a broken lineage, a broken tradition, right? It's incomplete? And this matches what I've noticed about what you've posted here? It's incomplete? The quotes plucked ( feathers reference unintended ) from the sources are incomplete. The understanding of what the sources are saying is incomplete. The perception is incomplete. All of it is incomplete? You do not value things which are whole, complete? Integrity is not a valued principle? Integrity means "complete".

Please be honest. Have you ever considered the difference between knowledge, understanding, and wisdom? I have.

what's the name of the group?

" [it] will take years of discussion [for you] to arrive even at the most basic of understandings." -- My understanding includes what you have posted and has moved beyond it.

how do you know this is a rule? and how do you know about patterns of moderation if you have only been a member here since Jan 2023?

And as I stated in the conversation, many problems seem to be the result of "sloppy language". If it is a repeated problem, why not stop being sloppy with your language?

Just FYI, Kakapo has my permission to engage in private conversation with me. I let them know we can discuss it as long as they wish. I am 100% confident no harm can come from it.

@stellarwindbubble, Thank you for your reply. Per your request, I will not quote anything from it. First, my intention is to discuss this concept of the dynamic between the observer and the observed assuming they are identical. This is the premise of the thread. I do not intend to deviate from it. But, it cannot be discussed unless the analogies, thought experiments, match the concept as it is described by that premise. It's not that I am changing what they are describing, it's that the analogies simply do not match up. Just as you identified that plato's cave is out of context and does not fit, the camera-and-TV analogy does not match, nor does the brain-in-a-vat analogy, nor any simulation theory. The problem with each of these analogies is that they REQUIRE data being recieved from outside the mind. REQUIRE. It is inconsistent and illogical to assert agnosticsm about the existence of phenomena outside the mind if the analogies used are 100% gnostic. As I stated in the private conversaton, if the intention is to model "the-observer-is-the-observed", then these analogies need to be adjusted. There cannot be any input coming from outside the mind. No causal chain. A proper analogy cannot include a camera. It is only a screen lacking any and all inputs. A proper analogy cannot include any "simulation". It cannot be a simulation theory like "the matrix" where a human is in a vat with a cable plugged into their brain stem producing a fully immersive faux-reality. Neither of these analogies match the premise where it is unknownable if there is a reality outside the mind. A proper analogy, as I mentioned in private conversation, lacking a camera, describes a person who is completely blind. This does not describe most human beings. A proper analogy of the human in a vat, is not "the-matrix". It is a sensory deprivation tank. I'm not sure if you have these where you are, but we have them in my town, and I know people who have done them. Some like it, but most of those I know freak out. It's not actually healthy for a human to completely cut off all sensory inputs. It's a form of torture. So, these analogies neither match the premise of the thread, nor, do they match reality for most human beings. Most human beings are not blind from birth. And none are in a sensory deprivation tank for prolonged periods unless they are being tortured. From this, a choice needs to be made in order to have a rational discussion of the topic. Either the analogies are adjusted in order to maintain the agnostic position about the existence of phenomena outside the mind, or, the agnostic position must be abandoned. And this ignores that this agnostic position is a sharp departure from what is posted in this thread in multiple places. The best example is about "color". A gnostic denial of "color" has been repeated in this thread. But that is not consistent with an agostic position on phenomena outside the mind. It's fine to adjust a person's position and say, "Yes. You're right. That doesn't make sense. Instead I propose ... " The reason, I think, this is not happening, assuming only good things about my conversation partner, is that it is assumed that I cannot possibly understand this concept because I have not adopted it. So, nothing I say which is correcting what is posted is accepted. It must be wrong. I must be wrong. It is assumed that I do not understand, I am in the outgroup. I'm not a member of the club. Therefore I MUST be wrong. In truth, I understand these ideas very well and I have adopted them, and moved beyond them. And this also ignores the repeated misrepresentations of the sources brought, again, the best example is "color". But also this idea of "We do not look out, we only look in." This is clearly refuted in the video posted with Seth Anil as the speaker. But there is no acknowledgment of this or any of the other faults brought in this thread. The idea that what I am seeing is an incomplete rendering of the physical world is introduced here in America somewhere between middle school and high-school. I recall learning about it first in chemistry class, and then spending more time on the concept in high school physics. The table appears to me to solid, but, it isn't. The air appears to be empty-space, but, it isn't. All of it is an illusion, but, it's a useful illusion. It's not a complicated idea at all. But that does not in any way invalidate that there are inter-atomic forces which produce an accurrate sensation of pressure between my rear-end and on the couch cushion. Nor does it in any way cause a rational question in my mind, "does the cushion exist? or is my mind creating it?" Anymore than questioning "what if the moon is made of cheese? What if the president of the USA is actually a lizard-alien hybrid?" There is a reason these are called conspiracy fringe theories.

Nope. That is not what he suggests. He suggests the opposite. "No features of the icon are identifiable with any features of the file in the computer’ [Hoffman et al 2015a: 1484]." And that's another example. This is why I said: You are completely misinterpretting Hoffman's theory. He is not saying "similar" he is saying "nothing about it is similar". That's completely opposite. Good night, I sincerely hope everything goes well with your family.

As I said in the private convo, the longer it goes on, the stronger my arguments will become, and the longer the list of challenges will become. While your arguments will remain the same. What does that tell you? Bringing real world examples which are intended to deny the accuracy of real world perception is a fail. It will always be a fail. Self-defeating.

The threats of moderation are ignored, as stated previously.

This is what Hoffman actually wrote. A literal quote. "No features of the icon are identifiable with any features of the file in the computer’ [Hoffman et al 2015a: 1484]." The claim is: No features of the icon are identifiable with any deatures of the object. There is no correspondence. Nothing is in common between the perception in the mind and the object which is outside the mind. This does not match reality. Not even a little. Hoffman's book is titled "The Case AGAINST REALITY".

And here is the full rebuttal of the "icon on the desktop analogy" Note: veridical = verifiable Let me start with Hoffman et al’s desktop icon analogy. He draws a distinction between realist strategies that mimic the world and ‘strict interface’ strategies in which perception does not preserve any structures of the world. As he and his team write, the latter winning perceptual strategy is analogous to using the icon on our desktop: ‘No features of the icon are identifiable with any features of the file in the computer’ [Hoffman et al 2015a: 1484]. However, in dismissing veridicality of the icon on our desktop, Hoffman and his collaborators may be pressing their analogy too far. Clearly, the icon on our desktop is representing a file in some respects. It’s a mistake to think that to represent the file with some level of veridicality, the icon needs to be identical with the file. The icon is, after all, a representation. A map can faithfully represent the terrain it maps without being identical to the terrain. Cohen [2015: 1515f] drives home exactly this point in more detail. Consider my perception of the tree in my back yard. When I see the tree, I experience a tree percept with brown and green features in my visual field. For my tree ‘icon’ to represent the actual tree in my yard, it need not reveal all (or even most) of the features of the actual tree in my yard. We don’t require my tree percept to reveal the cells, molecules and atoms that make up the actual tree for it to be veridical. We don’t require my percept to represent the complex process of photosynthesis that is going on in the actual tree. For my percept to be veridical, we require it to stand in the appropriate causal relation to the tree planted in my back yard. So, we require the actual tree to be an essential part of the causal chain of happenings that start from light from the sun reflecting off its surface particular wavelengths in the brown and green parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. The causal chain continues with those waves hitting the photoreceptors in my eyes, then with electrical impulses being transmitted along my optic nerves and then being processed in the visual cortex part of my brain. This final part of the causal chain leads me to have the private phenomenological experience of the tree. When these causal relations between the actual tree and my tree percept (the tree ‘icon’) are realized, we say that my perception of the tree is veridical. In the same way, we say that the file icon on my desktop is veridical when it stands in the appropriate causal relation to the actual file in the computer. And by design, I create that causal connection when I configure the properties of a desktop icon to point to an actual file within the folder structure of the computer’s storage. Now, when I drag the icon to the trash or move it to a different folder, the actual file is deleted or is moved. It is precisely when I drag the icon to the trash and it is not deleted, or when I move the icon to a different folder and the wrong file is moved, that we say that the icon does not represent that file; that the icon is not veridical.

And this is from FK Jansen a French scientist and Medical Doctor: Hoffman’s Interface Theory from a Bio-Psychological Perspective NeuroQuantology | October 2018 | Volume 16 | Issue 10 | Page 92-101 | doi: 10.14704/nq.2018.16.10.1872 Conclusion: ... The interface theory is essentially based on mathematical formalism and might correspond well to lower-level animals. However, Homo sapiens as a species has proven its fitness over more than 100,000 years, and this survival has been ensured by the great complexity of perception considering the past, the present and the future that cannot be modeled with basic evolutionary games or genetic algorithms. In other words, Hoffman's models are extremely over simplified. The "science" doesn't match reality.