Daniel

The Dao Bums
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2,393

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

Everything posted by Daniel

  1. deleted

    Daniel replied to Cobie's topic in Esoteric and Occult Discussion

    FYI, @Cobie, this thread is super helpful for me in my convo with Kakapo. I can't attach pictures there in the same way I do in public threads. So I come here, edit a post, attach a needed picture. then I can attach that picture into the private convo, then I delete it over here. poof! so helpful having this thread.
  2. As I said in the private conversation. And I said it kindly. I meant it kindly. The first task is: we need to agree on language and meaning. This was ignored. Then I asked again, and I asked "please". I gave a single statement from the wikipedia article on Donald David Hoffman and asked if we both agree on the meaning of what it said. Since you began the conversation with me, I would have expected that there would be some desire to speak the same language and to agree on what words actually mean.
  3. Nevermind?? I just answered. Oooh! Look at all that yummy philosophy you added in the edit. Let's see what it says. Now I'm back to happy. Personally, I don't see a single thing wrong with russel's paradox. I see no real need to "get around" it. It doesn't make the "set of all sets excluding itself" any less absolutely literally infinite. It's still literally absolutely infinite. It just doesn't loop into itself. Who cares? It's semantics. That's why it's so easy to avoid it. Leibniz can remain happy wherever he is. Question: Are you understanding this "contradiction"? And is it at all related to infinity of any type? Is this a set-of-all-sets defeater? "the class m of propositions can be correlated with the proposition that every proposition in m is true. This, together with a fine-grained principle of individuation for propositions (asserting, for one thing, that if the classes m and n of propositions differ, then any proposition about m will differ from any proposition about n) leads to contradiction." I'd need to spend some time and energy to understand this. There needs to be opposing concepts, which, when linked, are always false. OK. It's supposed to be a contradiction prohibiting the formation of semantics, if not, the foundations of mathematics. So, it seems like they are not talking about absolute infinity at all. Just another problem of similar import. Which, again, I do not get at all. The foundations of math, in my best judgement, would not have even the tiniest fault if the the largest set able to be described consistently was "the set of all sets excluding itself". Oh gee whiz. Really? The foundations of mathematics were developed long before that. At least the 1600s with Leibniz. But arguably something like 500BCE. So basically it's a nothing-burger? "Cantor's paradise". Love-it. Important note: "all-inclusive collections" = a set. Not a category. No, not at all. Russel's paradox and transcendental numbers are not related in any way. A russel set includes anything you can imagine and more, excluding itself. That's it. it is literally here, there, and everywhere.

  4. deleted

    Daniel replied to Cobie's topic in Esoteric and Occult Discussion

    .

  5. deleted

    Daniel replied to Cobie's topic in Esoteric and Occult Discussion

    no water? no spirit?
  6. In case I misinterpretted the question. Since I was talking about spectrums, my position is almost everything operates on a spectrum. There are rare extreme phenomena which are black/white, open/closed, etc. dichotomies. This does make life and decision making both difficult and delicious, for me. Just speaking for myself.
  7. It depends. In general, it works for positive assertions, but not negative. "It's false" does not gaurantee the opposite is "true". See: Aristotle's Theorum. From falsehood nothing. In particular, I try very hard to judge true / false on a case by case basis. Although, I'm not perfect. Sometimes I'm hasty, lazy, or just plain wrong.
  8. which is dualistic. if it is non-dual, truly non-dual, then the word "with" has no meaning.
  9. pickled is slang for "drunk or tipsy". So what ever it is that Mark was sending my way, was interpretted/translated through the ether as "getting pickled sounds good right about now."

  10. eternity can't be....

    Daniel replied to old3bob's topic in General Discussion

    I'm not arguing, I promise. I think that the eternal moment is a concept which could, possibly, overlay onto what you're saying about cycles of time. The reason this is important, to me, is that it helps to conceptualize what an immortal would experience and be capable of. On the other hand, perhaps the "eterrnal moment" perspective is not achievable, for an immortal, depending on certain conditions. Perhaps there are different types of immortals.

  11. Yin Shen Demon Attached

    Daniel replied to Nahfets's topic in Esoteric and Occult Discussion

    Volunteer work, charity, and compassionate selfless deeds, but not too much. Not in a way which interferes with family or personal obligations. No self-sacrifice. Charity. Reversing the curse, imo, would involve taking the energy of helping the distressed victim and helping it find its home. If possible helping those who are not "beautiful".

  12. deleted

    Daniel replied to Cobie's topic in Esoteric and Occult Discussion

    Question: were you expecting Damo, Bodhidharma to exist in the DDJ? If not, is there an ancient text where they are expected?
  13. Your threats about moderation have been and will continue to be ignored. The conclusion is here. It was in my first reply to the thread. In our private conversation, it seems you agree with this. But then when it is stated clearly, you roll back that agreement. It's not me being circular. your own links have confirmed that color is a semantic label, for the reaction of wavelenghts of light on the cone-receptors of the retina. These wavelengths of light have an inherent reality. One of the objections to Hoffman's theory which is presented by scientists is that he is claiming there is an evolutionary advantage to avoiding the inherent objective reality of color. But. There is an evolutionary advantage to "mimicy" in nature. the example given is a non-poisonous snake mimicing the coloration of a poisonous snake. This has an objective evolutionary survival advantage. The random mutation producing the mimicry is "selected for" in evolution. There are many examples. This is why a psychologist is not ideal for making claims about physical sciences. They are operating outside their field of expertise. It's not necessarily a problem. It could be the person working outside their field makes a brilliant discovery. But, it's a problem when the person who is outside their field starts casting insults at their critics who are in the field. That's why I brought the quotes about space-time. Hoffman is insullting the critics, calling them stupid. This is a major cause for concern regarding Hoffman's integrity. It's what caused me to seek out critical assessments instead of just reading about it on wikipedia. It seems there's other reasons to question Hoffman''s integrity. Like I mentioned in the private convo, the game-theory experiments appear to have been coordinated forcing a specific pre-desired outcome. I need to read and learn more to be sure. But that's what it looks like has happened. I think it would be really good for you, Kakapo, to read the critical review of Hoffmans work. At the very least it explains how Hoffman is making the claims you seem to feel so strongly about. My friend, reading the criticism will make your arguments stronger. Opposition research is a very useful tool.
  14. What you're missing is the feedback. This was in the Ted-Talk video you posted. While, it may be true in the thought experiment described above "the surgeon has never seen anything but..." you seem to be neglecting that if this were a proper model of reality, the surgeon would be recieving constant feedback reinforcing whether or not the television display and remote controls are accurate. This feedback is what actually produces perception. The feedback becomes so reliable that the mind predicts what it thinks it is going to perceive before it fully processes the sensory data. The predictions combined with the sensory data produces "perception". The ted--talk demonstrated that the predictive nature of perception can be used to impair perception and fool it. But the reason this works is a direct consequence of the accuracy of the constant feedback. And this feedback is coming from multiple different sensory apparatus. So, this thought experiement needs to be adapted. Otherwise it is describing a person that is unlike almost any other human being. This is from the ted-talk you posted. Look at the label at the bottom of the screen.
  15. The television display is **accurately** presenting objective qualities about the object in the surgery, else, the surgery would fail. The grape objectively exists. It exists outside the mind. It has objective qualia outside the mind. If so, the surgery would fail.
  16. "By the power never invested in me...." Why do I have a craving for pickles? Was that supposed to happen?
  17. Unless the comprehension is just one of the infinite forms which it possesses.
  19. Baptism by the holy spirit is what made Jesus, Jesus... baptism by fire? this is what gives the power of discernment, salvation, indwelling of the holy spirit... the power to heal by faith... access to the spirit of truth... It's basically the reason a Christian believes they have heavenly authority to proclaim truth, and deny the truth of others. It's one of the primary causes for the multitude of denominations. Everyone considers their version and interpretation "holy".
  20. I understand Cantor's proof, which you brought of transfinite numbers, to be the proof of no gaps in uncountable infinity. I think there is also something somewhere that shows the specctrum of light is a physical, real world, objective example of uncountable infinity. Let's see if I can find it.... Here you go. University of Illinois. Great! Did you notice this matches exactly what I said? I said: "A paradox is simultaneous opposing concepts which when linked are not always false" Seemingly contraditcory = opposing concepts yet is perhaps true = are not always false If you are looking at the B defintion, I don't think those were standing in the way of "actual infinity". I think it was russel's paradox from the early 1900s. It's no more a contradiction than the "liar's paradox". It's looping self-references. Godel's work is more complicated, but, I think the solution that he brought for the set of all sets is similar. It's just semantics. Another layer of abstraction is introduced beyond the set. It's, of course, your choice how you perceive reality. Absolute literal infinity can be mathematically justified. And this version of infinity is lacking any gaps. But just like many other natural phenomena that are beyond the physical senses, it makes perfect sense to ignore it. And, I can understand why some find it rewarding to deny it.
  21. The critical review referred to above is a remarkable exploration in Hoffman's work. I am still going through it. It will probably take at a least a week to distill the info into something which can be posted here. It's not just Leslie Allan's work, it is a compilation of all the criticism of Hoffman's "Conscious Reality" going back to 2015. It appears to be a fair assessment. When Hoffman and his team are able to address a criticsm, it is recognized. Also, readers should know that Kakapo has started a private conversation with me on Sept. 14th before I re-engaged with this thread. It is, essentially, copying andd pasting posts from this thread into a private conversation. I have tried to reset the conversation privately, in a kind and friendly manner. The first task is to make sure that we agree on language and meaning. This has been ignored. Then I noticed that the private posts were simply copies of what was being posted here about Hoffman. This is why I have re-engaged in this thread.
  22. Found it... I haven't read the article, but this gives enough to research it for ourselves. https://suvacobhikkhu.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/the-mass-suicide-of-monks-in-discourse-and-vinaya-literature-by-venerable-analayo/ "...The narrative concerns a mass suicide by monks disgusted with their own bodies, which reportedly happened after the Buddha had praised seeing the body as bereft of beauty..."
  23. I'm not sure what you're looking for, or would accept. However, if you want evidence of an accurate prediction, I accurately predicted the behavior which would identify someone who considers themself a "baptised teacher". And I was spot-on in my profiling the evangelical nature of buddhist preaching. I noticed it several months ago, when the individual cherry-picked scripture to force their pre-desired conclusion. And refused to consider any alternatives. Made claims that I could not ever understand the dao unless I did it their way. Receiving "empowerment" = "baptism"
  24. My question was, why are you saying there are gaps in uncountable infinity? Cantor showed there aren't any. Regarding contradictions, I think a better term is paradox. A contradiction is simultaneous opposing concepts which when linked are always false. A paradox is simultaneous opposing concepts which when linked are not always false. The problem with defining actual infinity, as far as I know, is, as was briefly mentioned in another thread, russel's paradox. But that has been resolved. It's actually really simple, and shouldn't be a big surprise. Just go one level higher. Abandon the "set" and move on to category theory. The set of all sets is defined as an absolutely general conglomerate. And that's still math, so you can trust it. BTW, Math is nothing more than philosophy.
  25. How do you know?