Daniel

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.

And, Hoffman's idea doesn't match reality. The perception that exists in the brain is much-much more related to the physical object than an icon on the desktop computer. This is from the critical analysis of Hoffman's work by Leslie Allen. The critical analysis you seem to be refusing to read. ... The implication here is that according to Hoffman, when I sit on a chair, I’m sitting on a conscious experience. And when I look at the moon through my telescope, I’m really looking at a conscious experience. As Hoffman explains: ‘We only see the chair icons we each construct each time we look’ [2008: 98]. ... How does our ability to manipulate ‘icons’ with such precision to enable scientists to land a spacecraft on a body millions of kilometres from anyone aid reproductive fitness? Through advances in technology, scientists also now have the capacity to see molecules and atoms and to see distant galaxies.

I'm so sorry to hear that. You are saying multiple things which conflict, and then the analogies also conflict. And none of it matches reality unless it is moderated, but moderating it consistently produces a reboot of the conversation.

Not directed to me, but, the most basic concept of spirit is, nephesh, in Hebrew. It is the vital force that produces autonomous bodily functions like breathing, and a heartbeat, pupil dilation, hunger, thirst... It's actually very complicated in my tradition, but, this most basic concept is not too bad. Here is a detailed write-up on the subject. https://torah.org/learning/mlife-lor8-3/

Now it has a name, "conscious realism", I can understand precisely how it works, and its foundation. I can also research the opposing point of view, it has a name, and I can understand precisely how it works, and its foundation. Because I pursued the discourse, that produced the Hoffman video, and now I know it's name. I am now capable of researching both sides and coming to a proper conclusion for myself.

Well, I am learning a lot about this philosophical position. And I never heard of Hoffman before. It's all good learning. I wonder if the Hoffman video would have been posted if I hadn't pursued it in the manner I did.

Status Update: The Private Conversation appears to have stalled out. 9 pages. 224 messages. Started Friday Sept. 14 5:20 PM. The highest activity is on the weekends. Other than that it's early morning, or late evening. Basically the conversation was highly repetitive on one end inspite of a wide variety of valid challenges to the analogies presented in this thread, corrections to misinterpretations of the sources brought, and logical contradictions of the conclusions. At one point there was a comment about planting these ideas in my subconcsious where they would eventually hit me like a ton of bricks. What I noticed about the conversation was a sort of "reboot" behavior that would be produced when I disproved the analogies or conclusions or statements in this thread. After the reboot, a statement would be posted inviting me to proceed with the conversation. The conversation ended, or at least stalled out for now, when I reminded them that they had started the conversation with me, and the conversation could end when they stopped conversing. If I were to point to 1 thing which I think prevented actual discussion of the topic in a meaningful way it is this: Once a person has convinced themself they are not seeing outside their own mind, what ever does not match their own mind is immediately rejected. This is facinating to me on multiple levels and has far reaching implications. "[ I ] only see an internal world" indicates there is no opportunity for discussion of an opposing point of view.

.

... and then he realized ... his battle ship was just a dinghy.

Ohhhhhh. That went way over my head. So, which definitions are divergent? Or is it that you've lost interest?

I'm confused. Why are angels being counted? Even more so, why are angels being introduced into this at all? I cannot fathom ( sea-faring-pun-intended ) why you're saying this about angels. And which defintions are divergent between us? For paradox I'm using "definition A" from the quote you brought. Is it absolute literal infinity? Is it that you are wanting to limit the use of the word "infinity" to numeric quantities and nothing more?

@ChiDragon, Thank you, that makes good sense. I think line 11 is important when considering Laotze as an atheist, because, a deity, theos, does not ever dissappear. It would never fear this. So, here, like you said, it might be using the word 神, but Laotzu does not actually believe in it. Certainly not in a western framework of theism. It is being used as an example among the other examples, but that does not in any way confer a theistic ( theos ) belief. In this case, it is actually teaching against it. And thank you for pointing out, the focus is clearly on 得一 and its converse.

I think you're a talented poet. And while I don't consider myself one of the fallen, I very much appreciate your writing. Sincerely.

And that's precisely what I was hoping to discuss at some point in this thread. Thank you for saying this. a-theist. theos. greek. are we talking about a greek god concept? if so, then I think we can all agree that Laotze would be completely atheist.

I was asking about the english word choice "deity" for 神 in the context of chapter 39? 神得一以靈 what is it that Laotze is explaining here? What is it that Laotze intended for the people to understand? I am not unfamiliar with atheism like perhaps a common individual at that time and place. It's a rather simple theological position. Perhaps the simplest theological position that exists. So, the word "deity" is not needed for me, it can be avoided. What is the lesson being taught here from Laotze, the atheist and naturalist? Please?

a medium, like water and air it is attracted, accumulated, drawn(?), which is a matter of resonance passive consciousness OK. That's a very interesting version of "spirit". Not arguing, not disagreeing. Just completely non-judgy interest. I appreciate the info. I'll keep that in mind as I am learning the DDJ.

What does this mean? To speak, rarely is natural? ... rarely is natural? speaking? speaking is rarely natural? ohhhhhh. I get it. "To speak rarely is natural" = "To speak is often un-natural!" Un-natural? That's the undead. It's talking about Zombies. Obviously. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unpopular opinion, per Laotzu: Zombies can talk! You heard it here first. Although, they really only know 1 word: "brains" Unpopular opinion: Zombies can dance. See below. I cued it up to the good part, but the whole video is entertaining.

~belly-laughs-omg-belly-laughs~ so good.

Unpopular opinion: lurker is my new favorite word. it is so much fun to say.

Does it have agency? Does it make choices? Does it have preferences? Affiinities? Aversions? When you say conscious, to me that means self-awareness, but, basically nothing else. Is that what you mean by conscious?

@ChiDragon, Small problem? Using the english word "deity" in Chapter 39 produces a problem if Laotze's philosophy is to be understood as the english word "atheist"?

@Mark Foote, Is there anything about the above corrections which have bearing on omni-presence and the absolute literal infinity I have described? And I would very much appreciate consistency of language in our discussion, if at all possible. This is not "actual infinity". That's different. And if there is a condition which produces an automatic failure-state, may we please use the word contradiction, if it is produced by opposing concepts linked together?

Yes. Sorry. And thank you. That is what that notation is known to mean. I was focusing on the semantic fault which was identified a few sentences later. the assumption that {x:x∉x} exists is paradoxical.(Note: It does not depend on any definition of what ∈ means. Russell offered the Barber Paradox to illustrate this: A barber shaves all those and only those who don't shave themselves. It doesn't matter it means, it could be shaving! But it's the self-referential negation, imo, that causes the semantic fault. This is why just a few sentences later, the paradox is "avoided" by adding a couple of layers of abstraction, captial "X" and captial "Y". The meaning of the operators is of zero-consequence. But it must be a self-referential negation to produce the contradiction. "A barber shaves all those and only those who don't shave themselves." = contradiction IFF the barber is considered. "A barber shaves all those and only those who shave themselves." =/= contradiction IFF the barber is considered. This is why I said: "That's a sematic contradiction. The fault is the negating self reference." It's because: "It does not depend on any definition of what ∈ means" AND the contradiction disappears when the negation dissappears. Hopefully now it makes sense why I said: "x is being defined as something which is not itself and nothing else." If the barber is excluded, then the contradiction dissappears because the self reference is avoided. If the barber is excluded, that would be "something else". if x is an unshaven barber, then it is getting shaved. x is being defined as something which is not itself. If the barber is excluded somehow in the statement, then the target of the function is being defined as something else. See below: "A barber shaves all those and only those who don't shave themselves." "all those and only those who don't shave themselves" is the target of the set. The function which defines it. {x:"all those and only those who don't shave themselves"} x conforms to the function "all those and only those who don't shave themselves" When the set is "built" x is defined as "all those and only those who don't shave themselves" AND NOTHING ELSE. The contradiction occurs when the barber is included as "all those and only those who don't shave themselves". What if I define x as "all those and only those who don't shave themselves" and SOMETHING ELSE? "A barber shaves all those and only those who don't shave themselves excluding themself, the barber." This defines x in terms of "all those and only those who don't shave themself" AND "not-the-barber". Lacking the exclusion, x is defined as something it is not and nothing else. Adding the exclusion, x is defined as something it is not and something else. That's what I meant. Not completely false, at least. Note: I'd like to remain consistent with the language in our conversation, if possible. A paradox might not be false. A contradiction is always false. That's why I was careful to use the word "contradiction" in the examples with the barber. Yeah, I made a mistake here too. Sorry, and thank you for the correction. I should not have used those words "the theory of everything." I must have heard it somewhere, read it somewhere and I incorrectly introduced it into our convo. I was not intending to put an official label on Leibniz's over-arching philosophy and intention of his work. But the intention and over-arching philosophy was indeed a theory of everything And that included math, and sets, and all kinds of wonderful things including a theory on the divine ( as he imagined it ) as infinite ( as he imagined it ). See below. This is what I meant. From The Math dept. at Rutgers University, in the bizzarely named "middle-sex" NJ. ( I have family there ) Leibniz, on the other hand, was a philosopher, and sought to "reconstruct" the universe through pure reason. [6, p. 45] As a result, Leibniz saw mathematics as a potential link between his interests in other fields. Similarly, he hoped his symboli c language would be applicable to all fields of science. Thus, Leibniz's progress in both symbolism and mathematics were linked to each other, and his wish to "reconstruct" the world into a harmonious whole. https://sites.math.rutgers.edu/~cherlin/History/Papers2002/leibniz.html If you read the article, I think it will be clear why Leibniz is a personal hero of mine.

Thank you. There are only 2 occurences of 靈 in the TTC. Also Chapter 39. And it's interesting 神 and 靈 are being brought very close together here. Just on first glance, what's most intersting to me is the pattern: 以靈... 以靈 神得一以靈 contrasted with 神無以靈? Which would indicate: " 神得一" and "神無" are being contrasted in the context of this chapter (39), but are both similar in the manner of "以靈"? Question: in "神得一以靈",in context, is 神 subordinate to 靈? Question: in "神無以靈" same question. is 神 subordinate to 靈? I mean "subordinate" literally, just in order, not master/slave. Is it 靈 then 神? Since these two ideas are brought close to together, I am trying to understand their differences and similarities in this context, since, right or wrong, they are both translated at times as "spirit" in english.