Daniel

It's much easier to just respond here. In the amount of time spent refusing to answer, answers could have been given. 1) A lie is defined by the accuracy of the content? Yes or No? 2) Please respond to the example of the baseball game. Doesn't this demonstrate the remarkable accuracy of the simulation which is produced in the mind? Yes or No? 3) Please respond to the example of the toddler learning language. Doesn't this demonstrate the remarkable accuracy of the simulation which is produced in the mind? Yes or No? 4) Please respond to this example? If "color" did not exist how does anyone learn to drive a car? 5) Is this information below wrong? Isn't this an objective true and consistent defintion of 'color' Yes or No? 6) Didn't both of the links you brought provide this objective defintion? Yes or No? Cone cells, or cones, are photoreceptor cells in the retinas of vertebrates' eyes, including the human eye. They respond differently to light of different wavelengths, and the combination of their responses is responsible for color vision. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

Just skipping the word fear and using "exciting" or even "spooky", works. But would exciting or spooky exist without doubt?

for the record, I tried gentle. but that doesn't matter. It's in the past, I'm pretty sure the message has been recieved. Only good things can come from it.

I don't know about any of them, I can only speak for myself. For me, doubt, is a gate, a portal, that I use to open my mind to all that could-be. It's similar to proverbs, the famous quote about the beginning of wisdom. Doubt is a portal to fear. And fear can be kind of fun. So I'm not giving up my doubt, I love it.

~raises hand~ I don't, I don't. Certainty is the end of exploration, imagination, and creativity. Certainty is the end of learning.

@old3bob, I'm one of those optimistic idealists who view reality as "perfect". I don't think it's too complicated to explain my point of view in case it's helpful. Many-worlds-theory 1) This is not the only existence. There are infinitly many existences. Each opportunty for choice spawns all the possible outcomes simultanteously. 2) If so, there is an existence where each and every choice has produced the absolute perfect outcome. 3) If so, there is an existence where each and every choice has produced the absolute the imperfect outcome. 4) If so, there are infinite other extistences where the choices produce some combination of perfect and imperfect outcomes. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that this specific existence is either #2 or #3. It is neither absolutley perfect, nor absolutley imperfect. However there is a version of me that exists in the perfect world, and there is a version of me that exists in the imperfect world. There are infinite versions of me, and I am experiencing all of those possibilities even if I am only aware of this one, in the here-and-now. The fault as an asset, perfection as a liability 1) If I am confident that the here-and-now is neither completely perfect nor completely imperfect this is an opportunity. when the imperfect outcome is analyzed and is avoided in the future, the imperfect choice becomes an asset. 2) If perfection is lifted up as the ideal, then it becomes much more difficult to make progressive incremental positive changes, per the true and consistent axiom: "the perfect is the enemy of the good." 3) Also, if there were only perfect outcomes, and nothing to improve, nothing to learn, nothing to explore, this perfection would never be appreciated. 4) And. Perfect outcomes are subjective. what is considered perfect from my perspective may not be perfect for anyone else. In order for a perfect world to exist each and every person would need to have exactly the same values, principles, priorities, opinions, affinties, and aversions. Everyone would be exactly the same. I don't know anyone who envisions this as a perfect world scenario. Do you? Can you? Therefore, perfection in this context is a liability. Perfection isn't perfect, it's not actually desireable. And the faults, are an asset if individuals have the capability to learn from them and support those who are suffering as a result of the inherent imperfection. Lacking this imperfection would not be good, and certainly not perfect. Time is not flowing; everything is 'Now'. 1) The fundemental unit of time is the "moment". Each and every moment is defined by significant events before and after it. 2 ) If time is eternal, each and every event loses its significance because the number of events is absolutely infinite. 3) Lacking any significant events, all moments are combined into 1 moment. Time is not flowing from an eternal perspective. Therefore all choices, all opportunities, all outcomes, in any possible world are concurrent. If there is a problem, and it has a solution, even if the solution takes 1,000,000,000,000 years to be acheived, none of that matters from an eternal perspective. The problem exists, and it is solved concurrently. All possible worlds are united. 1) Each existence described in the first section is defined by significant differences between them. 2) If there are infinite existences, then the differences are infinitely insignficant. 3) All the possible worlds are united in the same way that each and every moment is united. There are not distinctions or differences from the infinite perspective. Therefore the absolutely perfect world, co-exists with the absolutely imperfect world, along with all the other possiblities in the spectrum of perfect-to-imperfect. This, to me, defines perfection. 1) diversity 2) opportunity to improve 3) confidence that if I escape the limitations of the here-and-now, I ill merge ith all those other infinite versions of me. And there are eternal, concurrent perfection, imperfection, diversity, opportunity, problems, and solutions to explore. Or enjoy concurrently.

famous? on Youtube? Nah... we'll be nothing more than needles in a haystack.

Ohhhhhh.... are you asking what I think about a translator adding it and capitalizing "B" in Buddha? I think they clearly missed the point and are not doing a good job practicing buddhism, and I doubt the quality of their other translations. It would be interesting to check the translations that were brought. If there is one which both avoids the title Buddha and correctly translates the questions in future tense, that's the translator I would trust. ( and I am encouraged that I noticed the potential problem and accurately understood the story when I analyzed it. That's good news for me. I can trust my understanding of the basics of buddhism )

If you have the opportunity, and you see any "asavas" flying over head... duck and cover.

Maybe I mentioned it in my reply to Mark, I'm not sure. My friend confirmed it would not be a title, not a role, not a name, just a matter of fact descriptor of "enlightenment". I tried to ask about the direct translation to "awake" or "awakened", but he wouldn't go there. It was very important for him, it seemed, to express that enlightenment was real, and that I should aspire for it. He knows I am not interested in it, and I am happy to be reborn, again and again if that is my, let's call it, destiny. But he cares. He doesn't want me to suffer, and definitely doesn't want me to cause suffering. His solution? enlightenment! He wants to save me. If I diminish it to just "awake" that might weaken his position in attempting to advocate for my salvation. Those are my thoughts.

Speaking of future verses present... and asavas happen... and ridding one self of them... Have you ever heard the expression about "wishing"? "If you wish in one hand, and asava in the other..."

Yes! And my friend confirmed, the questions asked were all in future tense. If I recall, the two translations Mark and I were comparing did not agree on the present or future tense of the questions. So, the buddha keeps answering "no, no, no, no...." it's easy to answer no, if a person keeps asking about the future if none of that matters. there's also a beautiful imagery there with the lily growing in the pond. did you know that lily ponds are almost always jet-black? opaque? ( naturally, I think there's a lot more to the story than just this, if one is motivated to probe deeper )

My friend and I had a nice chat. He ended up given some details about the translation, but, we got side tracked because he kept referring me to "asavas". He said the important point of the whole story was ridding oneself of asavas. I wanted to focus more on the details of the story specifically. But he is old, and I think he cares about me more than the story, and sees my own asavas as a great impediment in my life. So, that was the focus.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuji_(philosophy) "In Chinese philosophy, wújí (simplified Chinese: 无极; traditional Chinese: 無極; lit. 'without ridgepole', meaning 'without limit') I'm just now seeing this comment. Kind of a lovely syngery with the other convo we were having yesterday regarding the Ain-Soph (never-ending). Unless 'zero' is not compatible with this and zero never coincides with infinity.

Cool. Thanks. I'll try to keep that in mind in my DDJ pursuits.

( I put your reply in a spoiler to save people screen-space and so they wouldn't need to scroll through it ) Not at all. I'm not upset. I haven't been upset. It is an insult for someone to ask me to read things twice, or watch videos twice. But that doesn't mean it's upsetting. Altough it is hypocritical to ask me to do that, when it seems you don't know what is contained in the diagram you posted, or in the video you posted, or in the links you posted. If you don't know what your own sources are saying, it's ironic, to say the least, to ask me to read things twice. Regarding doing your best, you have not responded to what I said. That's not doing your best, unless, you're doing your best to avoid and ignore. If it is *actually* your intention to do your best to respond and not to preach, gratefully it is easy to copy and paste these issues here so that you can have another opportunity to respond. 1) A lie is defined by the accuracy of the content? Yes or No? 2) Please respond to the example of the baseball game. Doesn't this demonstrate the remarkable accuracy of the simulation which is produced in the mind? Yes or No? 3) Please respond to the example of the toddler learning language. Doesn't this demonstrate the remarkable accuracy of the simulation which is produced in the mind? Yes or No? 4) Please respond to this example? If "color" did not exist how does anyone learn to drive a car? 5) Is this information below wrong? Isn't this an objective true and consistent defintion of 'color' Yes or No? 6) Didn't both of the links you brought provide this objective defintion? Yes or No?

How are these Jewish?

What's smaller? A bank account with 0 dollars? A bank account overdrawn 100 dollars? 0 is not infinitely small. -100 is smaller.

I'd check it out. Not the gaming side, but, the philosophy side might be fun.

Erm. Is its mother Jewish? ~kidding~ But seriously, what makes you say so? How do you evaluate is or is not Jewish?

Infinitely small? Zero? Anyone can define anything they want however they want I suppose. Once it's zero, it's not small, it's empty. But if you want to define zero that way, that's your choice. Take out a ruler and measure the size of something of 0 length, and let me know how it goes? Please don't forget to let me know what you decided to measure? Agreed. If you say so.

I interpret "The lie here being that you can't see your own brain." to mean "Perception is a lie." If this is not correct, please restate so that it is clearly stated. Examples: Color is a lie. Shape is a lie. Scent is a lie. "... you can't see your own brain" does not clearly describe a lie. There are many examples of things which are unseen, that do not automatically produce falsehood. Of course. I understood every word, the first time. It describes perception as a "best guess". It does not, at any point, discuss the accuracy of this "best guess". I asked you about the accuracy of the "best guess". I brought 2 examples demonstrating the remarkable accuracy of the best guess. The first example is baseball. The 70 mph pitch, hitting it with a bat, and the catch by the outfielder, all show that the "best guess" is extremely accurate. Also, language acquisition by babies/toddlers would not be possible if the human mind did not accurately perceive shape, color, sound, scent, taste, and touch. There's many-many examples. Sadly, you did not respond to any of this other than restating, rewinding, and repeating the same things over and over. Please respond to the example of the baseball game. Doesn't this demonstrate the remarkable accuracy of the simulation which is produced in the mind? Please respond to the example of the toddler learning language. Doesn't this demonstrate the remarkable accuracy of the simulation which is produced in the mind? Are you able to acknowledge that this as not addressed AT ALL in the video? And that accuracy is what defines a lie? The evidence does not support that there is no inherent reality of color, or shape, or scent. The video says perception can be impaired or fooled. It says that it (perception) is an abstraction. But it doesn't take the leaps of faith, that you are taking. Those things are simply not in the video. For example: This ^^ is not in the video. Like I said, "looking out" is in the diagram you, yourself posted. "looking out" is in the video you keep referring to. "We do not look out." is NOT in the video. You are adding that, which exaggerates greatly what is being said. This is what is in the video. We absolutely look out, but, what Anil is saying is, the brain anticipates what it is perceiving. And this anticipation effects perception. That was the point of bringing the green cylinder on the checkerboard. It shows how anticipation can impair perception. But this doesn't mean: "We do not look out." That is a gross exaggeration. That is not in the video. This is what your link actually says: “Color is this computation that our brains make that enables us to extract meaning from the world.” Of course, if you want to get technical about it, there are receptors called cones in our eyes that act like little color channel sensors. One cone processes blue, another processes red, another green. An elaborate network of sophisticated cells in the brain compares the activity of these cones, and then signals from our brain produce the impression of colors. This system is working furiously, all the time. As I said previously. What you're saying is semantics. Nothing more. The "color" is a description of the interaction of the retina with a specific range of wavelengths of light. And that is what the quote you brought is saying. The semantics are: "color" = "interaction of the retina with a specific range of wavelengths of light" That's it. It's language. The "color" is accurately perceived in the mind ( except for those who are color-blind or otherwise impaired ). If there as no such thing as "color" then no one would consistently stop at "red" lights in traffic. No one would consistently continue forward when the traffic lights are "green". Traffic would be total chaos, if "color" was not an accurate simulation in the brain for "interaction of the retina with a specific range of wavelengths of light". Please respond to this example? If "color" did not exist how does anyone learn to drive a car? From the link: "Respectively: “green” is light with a wavelength between 520 and 570 nm. But these kinds of definitions merely correspond to the experience of those things, as opposed to actually being those things. There is certainly a set of wavelengths of light that most people in the world would agree is “red”. However, that doesn’t mean that the light itself is red, it just means that a Human brain equipped with Human eyes will label it as red." Note: "green" has an objective definition. "green" exists and corresponds to an objective experience outside the mind. The word "green" is a label. Disagreements over the linguistic label which is ignoring the actual phenomena which is being described is semantic, nothing more. Nope. It's not true. "we do not look out" is false. Your own diagrams indicate looking out. Your own video indicates looking out. It may be difficult to accept, but you have anticipated that I must be wrong, and your Buddhism must be correct. This anticipation seems to be corrupting your perception. Here's the pictures again. They both show looking out. There is actually a rapid interplay between the observation, the anticipation, and the reinforcement or rejection of the external-stimuli combined with the anticipation based on continuous external stimuli. This is how people learn. None the less "we do not look out" is false. "There is no inherent reality to color" is false. "It's like the difference between a picture of a pipe and an actual pipe." is false. It's clear that I understand these concepts. Very-very well. I have brought questions, you seem reluctant to answer. I answered a question you were unable to answer. Have you at all considered that I do not need help? I'm trying to discuss this topic with you. I am not asking for help. I'll be completely honest, you seem to be in-love with this concept that there is no color, no shape, no scent. And that's fine. But, this passion is compromising the ability to think clearly about whether or not the concept is true. It's ironic that your intial premise is "what if it's a lie?" And you seem incapable of considering that you are infact lying to yourself. And your own perceptions are being distorted. Even something objective like a diagram you, yourself posted, and a video, you yourself posted are being exaggerated for the purpose of coming to the defense of your beloved, a Buddhist doctrine.

You asked "what if it's a lie?" I answered "it's not a lie, it's incomplete" I've given various reasons to support what I'm saying. You have ignored each and every one and restarted preaching from a pulpit. come down off the soap-box, and let's talk about the lies being told. Pick a lie. 1 statement. pick 1 thing, and let's see if it's a lie. Color? Shape? Scent? pick 1 and let's talk about it instead of preaching Buddha Buddha says...

Not true, I am understanding you perfectly you are denying a whole list of things. But the evidence does not support it. You are *telling* me and asserting. But the evidence does not support it. That is not a discussion. What follows is not a discussion. It is preaching. Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" As you have repeatedly stated it is a best guess. But how good is the guess? This is what is being ignored. Accuracy. It's a simulation. Is it a good simulation? what is wrong with the data that is being recieved and delivered in the mind. Per your on words, you don't know that. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Color could exist, but you would never know. In fact there are good reasons to trust that color exists. But you keep ignoring what I've said. No problem. Let's just go with what you are saying. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Color could exist. You would never know one way or the other. Per your on words, you don't know that. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Shape could exist, but you would never know. In fact there are good reasons to trust that shape exists. But you keep ignoring what I've said. No problem. Let's just go with what you are saying. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Shape could exist. You would never know one way or the other. Per your on words, you don't know that. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Scents could exist, but you would never know. In fact there are good reasons to trust that shape exists. But you keep ignoring what I've said. No problem. Let's just go with what you are saying. Per your own words you do not know what is outside your own mind. Scents could exist. You would never know one way or the other. Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Not true. Your own diagram has the indivdual looking out. Your own video has the individual looking out. Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatdly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Note: this is not discussing the accuracy of the simulation. You are repeatedly asserting it is a simulation. I have agreed multiple times. Can we move on to the original question you asked: "what if it is a lie?" Not true. The shadows accuratey describe shadows. They are not an abstraction. How accurate is the mirror? Is the mirror warped or inverted? It doesn't happen that way in real life. That is a gross exaggeration. It doesn't happen that way in real life. That is a gross exaggeration. It doesn't happen that way in real life. That is a gross exaggeration. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You have repeated all of these points. But you are still not discussing the accuracy of this simulation. And you are still denying that color, shape, and scent exist in spite of claiming absolute ingnorance of anything outside your mind. It doesn't matter if Buddhism teaches it. Buddhism also teaches letting go of doctrine and dogma. Are you ready to discuss the accuracy? That means, you say something. I respond, then you respond to what I said, not just repeat the same thing over and over and over and over......