kakapo

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

I think you can safely discuss whether or not "integrity" meaning "complete" is valued.  It seems clear to me that you are not promoting the banned subject matter.

 

If incomplete knowledge, understanding, wisdom is valued, this explains the incomplete perspective being presented in this thread.  The best example, again, is "We do not look out, we only look in".  That's a one sided, incomplete perspective.  Not only that, the word choice is significant ( unless it is a product of sloppy language ).  Projecting your own one-sided perspective on all readers including myself by saying "WE" is extremely one-sided and incomplete.  It could be you mean something else, or it could be your subconscious being perfectly honest about its projection of itself on all others.  And this honesty is "leaking" out, even if the conscious mind does not intend for this or is maybe even aware of it.

 

And, it's obvious to me, if a person does not value "integrity" in this context of being "complete", then they will not value other people's knowledge, understanding, and wisdom.  It would need to match their own to be valued. This explains why the critical analysis of Hoffman's theories is not being read so we can discuss it.  It doesn't match the one-sided perspective, what is already in your mind, so, it is not valued?

 

It's a good fit, isn't it? Lack of value for integrity?

 

Please be patient and check the external forum for a response.

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

Understood.  And the reason they are prohibitted from promoting themself here is because the group promotes a broken lineage, a broken tradition, right?  It's incomplete?

 

And this matches what I've noticed about what you've posted here?  It's incomplete?  The quotes plucked ( feathers reference unintended ) from the sources are incomplete.  The understanding of what the sources are saying is incomplete.  The perception is incomplete.

 

All of it is incomplete?  You do not value things which are whole, complete?  Integrity is not a valued principle?

I am not allowed to comment further on this, but will address it on the public forum I linked to you previously.

I cannot even have this discussion in private with you here on this forum per the rules.

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

what's the name of the group?

Please go to to the "Forum and Tech Support" section, and read the 4th pinned post (from top to bottom).

Per the rule established there I am not allowed to answer your question.

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

" [it] will take years of discussion [for you] to arrive even at the most basic of understandings."  -- My understanding includes what you have posted and has moved beyond it. 

 

4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

how do you know this is a rule?  and how do you know about patterns of moderation if you have only been a member here since Jan 2023?

I belong to a group of about 30 people, most of them lurk here. 

Several members of our group have been here on the forum since the time of Ron Jeremy circa 2004.

17 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

And as I stated in the conversation, many problems seem to be the result of "sloppy language".  If it is a repeated problem, why not stop being sloppy with your language?

You are free to interpret the situation that way if you wish, whatever the reason trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to nail a block of jello to the wall.

I will do my best to work with you, though currently it looks as though this will take years of discussion to arrive even at the most basic of understandings.

7 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I privately  think) that’s beyond creepy. 

 

 

When myself or one of my friends that lurk here win the lottery, we will absolutely buy this forum from it's owner Sean, and create a join by request subforum for 100,000 page multiyear arguments to allow for such discussions.

At the moment it's not something that is allowed.

I created an external forum where it could be public, but he wasn't interested.

14 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Nope.  That is not what he suggests.  He suggests the opposite.

 

"No features of the icon are identifiable with any features of the file in the computer’ [Hoffman et al 2015a: 1484]."

 

And that's another example.  This is why I said:

 

 

You are completely misinterpretting Hoffman's theory.  He is not saying "similar" he is saying "nothing about it is similar".  That's completely opposite.

 

Good night, I sincerely hope everything goes well with your family.

 

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.

7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Nope.  That is not what he suggests.  He suggests the opposite.

 

"No features of the icon are identifiable with any features of the file in the computer’ [Hoffman et al 2015a: 1484]."

 

And that's another example.  This is why I said:

 

 

You are completely misinterpretting Hoffman's theory.  He is not saying "similar" he is saying "nothing about it is similar".  That's completely opposite.

 

Good night, I sincerely hope everything goes well with your family.

 

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.

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

As I said in the private convo, the longer it goes on, the stronger my arguments will become, and the longer the list of challenges will become.  While your arguments will remain the same.  What does that tell you?

 

Bringing real world examples which are intended to deny the accuracy of real world perception is a fail.  It will always be a fail.  Self-defeating.

 

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. 

7 hours ago, Daniel said:

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.

 

"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.

On 9/17/2023 at 1:10 PM, Cobie said:

 

as I said 

 

 

 

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. 

2 minutes ago, Cobie said:

I thought the whole request to go to pm or another forum was creepy, abusers like to stay out of the public eye.

The reason given (past complaints) daft, as future complaints easy to avoid by starting to listen instead of endlessly repeating the same point.

 

 

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.