kakapo

We are spending the vast majority of our time in private with situations like this one. I say one thing, you take my words to mean something which I did not intend. I posted my quote again, and I put a bold section in parentheses to clarify meaning. About 99.999% of our time is spent dealing with miscommunications like this. I don't think frustrating is the correct word to use. Let's please keep this in the private discussion to prevent annoying the community more than we already are. I will continue to work with you as long as I am able to do so.

Think of it like a computer desktop. When you want to delete a file, you just drag it to the trash can. In reality, what's happening inside the computer is a complex action involving changing magnetic fields in a hard drive or flipping transistors in a solid state drive. But you don't need to know all those details to interact with the computer. The desktop is a kind of "interface" that hides this complexity and allows you to get the job done. Hoffman suggests that our perception of the world around us is similar (to the situation in the paragraph listed above)

I'll speak with you in private, for reasons stated previously.

I'll speak with you in private, for reasons stated previously.

We'll continue to work together in private Daniel, I suspect this is going to be a multiyear endeavor with you.

We'll continue to work together in private Daniel, I suspect this is going to be a multiyear endeavor with you.

Daniel, Seeing as we are probably going to be at this for possibly years, and maybe tens of thousands of replies, we'll have to keep this private, or on the other public forum I created outside of thedaobums site. Historically the mod team here suspends and or bans people when arguments go on for months and have thousands of replies, then they lock the thread. Maybe that is the best thing to do in such a situation, I don't know. I do know they aren't going to allow for the number of replies that are going to be required for you and I to achieve some basic level of understanding.

"conscious realism", Think of it like a computer desktop. When you want to delete a file, you just drag it to the trash can. In reality, what's happening inside the computer is a complex action involving changing magnetic fields in a hard drive or flipping transistors in a solid state drive. But you don't need to know all those details to interact with the computer. The desktop is a kind of "interface" that hides this complexity and allows you to get the job done. Hoffman suggests that our perception of the world around us is similar. We don't see the world as it is, but as a simplified interface that helps us interact effectively with it. The objects we see around us, like trees and cars, are just symbols on this interface. Just like the file on your desktop isn't the actual complex arrangements of magnetic fields on your hard drive, the car you see isn't the actual reality. It's just your interface's way of representing a certain object that you can interact with in a specific way. Hence the term "Conscious Realism". It's the idea that our conscious experience is not an accurate reflection of an objective reality, but a user-friendly interface that allows us to navigate the world.

Hi Daniel, I've had a medical emergency with a family member, and it appears they may die. I will continue our discussion in private as I am able to do so. One thing I would like to comment on is how you keep repeating how you understand what I am saying perfectly, then in the next breath, you restate my position in your own words and it is 100% clear we are not on the same page at all, even a little bit. There definitely are some major communication challenges here between us. Communication is not happening. I am saying X, and you are understanding me to say Y. It is clear to me so long as this challenge exists we are in for a very long discussion. Thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of replies may be necessary if things continue as they are.

Cobie, I feel like interesting conversations can happen in private that would otherwise annoy the community in the open. It's a strange phenomenon, where people selectively forget things that have been explained repeatedly and ask the exact same question that was already answered, and get upset when you refuse to answer it again. Dealing with a situation like this takes a lot of patience, and seems to annoy the community in general and especially the moderation team. Hopefully Daniel and I can come to some state of equilibrium in private without annoying everyone else.

If discussions become circular and argumentative, then the moderators suspend the individuals involved, and lock the thread. I would love to continue the discussion with him in public, but it seems like it's going to take months to reach a conclusion with him. The moderators here will simply not allow for such a thing, and I am trying to avoid any trouble here.

In the demonstration above, a grape still exists, but the surgeon looks at television display representing the grape. At no point does the surgeon believe his hands touch the grape, or that he is not looking at a television display representing the grape. The situation I describe would be one where the surgeon has never seen anything but the television display, and the remote controls, and mistakes the display and remote controls for an actual grape.

Below is a video of telesurgery done on a grape. The surgeon looks at a television like display and remotely controls a robot which does the surgery. At no point does the surgeon believe his hands are actually touching the grape. At no point does the surgeon believe he is looking directly at the grape. He understands that he is using telepresence, and looking at a device which allows for this.

0:00 whatever reality is it's not what you see 0:06 what you see is is just an adaptive fiction the thing we see with our eyes 6:34 is not some kind of limited window into reality it is completely detached from reality 6:47 likely completely detached from reality you're saying 100 likely okay 6:53 so none of this is real in the way we think is real 10:24 whatever reality is you don't see it

Donald David Hoffman (born December 29, 1955) is an American cognitive psychologist and popular science author. He is a professor in the Department of Cognitive Sciences at the University of California, Irvine, with joint appointments in the Department of Philosophy, the Department of Logic and Philosophy of Science, and the School of Computer Science. Hoffman studies consciousness, visual perception and evolutionary psychology using mathematical models and psychophysical experiments.

Daniel, I will not be answering your questions here. Best wishes.

Hi Daniel, I will be responding to you on https://kakapo.freeforums.net/ when I have time. Best wishes.

Daniel, Please see my previous reply.

Hi Daniel, Unfortunately continuing in this manner runs the risk of suspension for both of us. Forum members start complaining, and mods start locking threads and suspending people when discussions turn circular and argumentative which is what is happening here. In hopes of preventing annoying the community here, I would like to present you with some options. Option 1: We can have a discussion in private via DM. Option 2: We can have a public discussion on another forum, where it won't annoy the community here. I created https://kakapo.freeforums.net/ if you would like to chat there in public I can do that for you. Option 3. You can drop this and move on. Please let me know which of these 3 options will work best for you. Thanks so much for your understanding.

I have really tried here Daniel. I've done my best. I've quoted top neuroscientists over and over, and I've done my best. You keep saying I interpret what you say as X, when X has nothing to do with anything I am saying. I've explained over and over, different ways, and I've been as patient as I can with you You are not comprehending what I am saying, and continue to get upset arguing about things I am not evening talking about. It's frustrating to me, it's frustrating to you, and I am certain it is frustrating to other people reading this thread. We are approaching the point where the moderators are going to start suspending people because the people on the forum are going to start complaining about this behavior. You are welcome to message me in private and we can continue this to your heart's content. Here in public this is creating a problem. Please stop. Message me in private to continue, or drop this and move on. Pick one of these two options please.

Daniel I feel I have done my best to help you here, at this point I am asking you kindly please stop. You are welcome to message me in private via a DM, and we can talk as long as you want to and it won't bother the people here on the forum. I am sure we are approaching the point at which forum members will get annoyed by this repeated exchange. I've done my best for you, but I feel this needs to come to an end to prevent problems. Please feel free to message me to continue this exchange in private.

"Not true." It doesn't happen that way in real life. That is a gross exaggeration. It is true that we do not look out, into a world or universe. It is true we do look in, into our own minds. The world you experience is literally the inside of your mind. The experience you are having is energy and information in your neural networks, that is what you are looking at, not some external world. You may not like this, but it is a statement of fact. Most people live their lives believing they look out into the world, but they do not. There is no exaggeration, most people are mistaking their experience for actual reality, the experience has the same relationship to reality that a painting of a pipe has to an actual pipe. It is not an exaggeration.

"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." https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/that-dress-isnt-blue-or-gold-because-color-doesnt-exist “A color only exists in your head,” says neuroscientist Beau Lotto. “There’s such a thing as light. There’s such a thing as energy. There’s no such thing as color.” https://www.askamathematician.com/2012/06/q-do-colors-exist/ Physicist: Colors exist in very much the same way that art and love exist. They can be perceived, and other people will generally understand you if you talk about them, but they don’t really exist in an “out in the world” kind of way.

"But the evidence does not support it." I posted a TED talk with top Neuroscientist Anil Seth, I posted his credentials, I posted a transcript, and even bolded sections and asked you to please read them. I am not sure what more to tell you here.

I've given various reasons to support what I'm saying. You remember when I posted the transcript of the TED talk with top neuroscientist Anil Seth, and I asked you to please read the bold parts twice for comprehension. The reason I did that wasn't to insult you, it's because it's like your brain is just forgetting everything that is being said as soon as it's said then going off on a tangents where you interpret things I said in ways I never intended you to to interpret them. I don't know man, but I think you might need to take a time out on this topic, it's getting a little bit weird with you.