Daniel

Respectfully, did you read what I wrote previously about wavelengths? Did you read what I said about the difference between qualia and experience? You don't know what a drunk driver is? You don't know that they kill people? Meaning their perception is altered causing death. Maybe you don't agree that it's a good analogy, or relevant, but... if you're telling me you don't understand what those words mean, I can excuse myself from your thread. This doesn't follow for me. I'm sorry. It just doesn't. The halucination is evidence of a change in brain chemistry which in turn produces impaired ( changed / altered ) perception. This has nothing to do with reality. It has everything to do with perception. The test you're proposing ( If hallucinations exist then actual reality cannot be perceived ) is not testing reality. It's testing perception. Just re-read what you wrote: "If it were possible to see actual reality, such a thing as a hallucination could not occur." "to see" means that your test is about perception, not reality. The physical sense of "seeing" is being examined. Not reality. So. All that can be said from this test is that perception can be altered. But the test says nothing about the qualia, the attributes themself. If the scientific method is desired to be employed, a different test needs to be developed for that. The display on television is not the same as the garden. The display on the camera is different. Notice what you said. "What you see and experience might be a representation of what is happening outside of your skull, but it is not required to be, as is evidenced by the fact you can hallucinate." Right. The events outside the skull is 'reality'. The perception may or may not agree with what is happening outside the skull. Outside the skull = qualia = observed Inside the skull = perception = observation Inside the skull = observer observer = observation observer =/= observed

I think I understand your position. It's below: I simply disagree with this. This ^^ . I agree with this. My assertion from my previous post restated using these terms would be: experience =/= qualia. experience is a sensation which results from qualia. If I am on DMT and somehow go walk around, I'm still going to be tripping over stuff and walking into walls even if I do not have any visual or physical sensations of their presence. The intoxication fades; I will have bumps and bruises. If what you're saying is true, there would be no deaths from drunk drivers. This ^^ . I basically, mostly, agree with this. But would replace crude with material. Or maybe coarse. Perhaps hollow. And only if when you say 'see' you're describing what most consider the physical senses. If I understand, though, that would mean: "In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that." is false. Not the best analogy, imo. The shadows are still shadows. Nothing has changed about them. They still exist in exactly the same way they did before. And if they leave the cave, that's a totally different scenario. No one is leaving our shared objective reality such that qualia are abstractions which are inherently unreal. Maybe-maybe one could talk about dreams, and dreaming. But the bed still exists even if the person is under full anesthesia just as it does when they are awake. Nothing has changed about the bed during the dream state.

Maybe I can be like you... when I grow-up someday. Errr. Grow-down?

Sorry friends, we started talking about this topic in another thread. I've copied all the relevant content over here.

ChiDragon wrote:

Specifically, I'm looking at 昔之, and that seems to indicate that what follows is a beginning, and is describing "becoming" not "unbecoming". A sort of evolution, not devolution. If so: "物生 from 有 ，有生 from 无" makes good sense and is logical from context and flow. (becoming / evolution) "物生 into 有 ，有生 into 无" doesn not make good sense and is not logical from context and flow. (unbecoming / devolution)

ChiDragon wrote:

Chapter 39 seems to indicate @ChiDragon is correct. 于 should be interpretted as 'from'. 昔之 得一者. 天? 得一 以清 地 ? 得一 以寧 神 ? 得一 以靈 谷/裕 ? 得一 以盈 But, I'm still working through the translation. And I'd like to follow through on the process I proposed in the DDJ40 thread.

There. And thank you. I'll do a little copying and pasting to move the comments over there.

Yes, of course. Just a preview of my thoughts, I'd like to finish the chapter to see where it's going.

.

OK.

Specifically, I'm looking at 昔之, and that indicates that seems to indicate that what follows is a beginning, and is describing "becoming" not "unbecoming". A sort of evolution, not devolution. If so: "物生 from 有 ，有生 from 无" makes good sense and is logical from context and flow. (becoming / evolution) "物生 into 有 ，有生 into 无" doesn not make good sense and is not logical from context and flow. (unbecoming / devolution)

Please. That's not nice. Not as bad as 'word-salad' but, it's close.

Your input is valuable, cobie. Your participation is welcome.

The question in the DDJ40 thread is about the character 于. In context is it 'from' or 'into'? Chapter 39 seems to indicate @ChiDragon is correct. 于 should be interpretted as 'from'. 昔之 得一者. 天? 得一 以清 地 ? 得一 以寧 神 ? 得一 以靈 谷/裕 ? 得一 以盈 But, I'm still working through the translation. And I'd like to follow through on the process I proposed in the DDJ40 thread.

I was reading the thread about martial arts, and this popped up in my YouTube suggestions:

the paint is not in the mind. the observation is the observer. the observer is not the observed. the color is 'red' is just a label, a symbol in the mind which is bound to the neurochemical reaction when a specific range of wavelengths of elecrto-magnetic radition interacts with the retina. Those wavelengths are not the mind, nor are the they the observer. while it's an interesting thought experiment to consider objective compared to subjective phenomena, it seems foolish to me to apply this idea globally to the point of "everything is subjective, everything is in the mind"

Do you acknowledge the emptiness of your own words, ideas, and this philosophy? Do you know what 'emptiness' means?

You have my sincere sympathies.

Welcome back. Respectfully, gently, I request not to be included in these sorts of comparisons? Something about it doesn't feel right to me. I haven't forgotten that you asked some questions before you stepped away from the forum for a bit. I will reply to those. However, while you were away I've been involved in some other conversations, and I'd like to re-read much of this thread to return to the flow of what's being said here. As I'm typing this, I'm wondering if, maybe, the reason I balk at being included in this sort of comparison has to do with my agnosticsm, which is perhaps a little unique. Most people apply agnosticsm in a theological context, but I expand on that and move beyond it. If I begin from the premise and assume or acknowledge that something is unknown, that does not prohibit learning about it. Instead of trying to know it, it's possible to trace its border, for lack of better words. Once the border is completely traced, then, it can be understood, this is unknowable. Agnostic. There is no gate, no portal to its interior dimension. One of things which is unknowable like this is the interior experience of each and every human being. With practice it can be modeled and predicted with some accuracy, especially for the rare extreme examples, but, words like "You are... " and "You are not..." cannot be true and consistent unless very carefully qualified. It cannot be known precisely who a person IS or IS NOT from the outside. And so comparing two individuals doubles the potential of error. I'm not trying to read your words hyper-literally as if you intended to make a specific perfect comparison. I'm just trying to explain, maybe, why it doesn't feel right to me. It feels good to me reading your words and ideas, they resonate with me. But if agnosticsm is part of what both of us aspire to, and admire, then I don't think statements phrased in form of "You are..." or "You are not..." fit with that.

Please see the fine print at the bottom of the OP.

The less I seek my source for some definitive The less I seek my source, closer I am to fine - The Indigo Girls

I can relate. I spoke with my dad today too. We chat weekly on fridays. Usually when I ask about his health, he has a good attitude. It's sad for me but good. He says, "If I'm hurting, I still know I'm alive. That's how I know I'm alive." Today he said, "Your mom and I are hurting a lot." And, they were headed to another funeral this afternoon. My cousin died. He was only 65. I didn't know him. I come from a big family. But that also means there's potentially a lot of funerals. My parents have been to a lot of funerals lately. 6 in the past 6 months.

"quick and then edit it out ( before Daniel sees it )" - That is called cowardly.