kakapo

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.

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.

48 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

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. 

 

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.

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

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......

"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.

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

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......

"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.

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

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......

"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.

1 hour ago, Daniel said:

 

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...

 

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.

34 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

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...

 

Kakapo:When I was a child I was told, you can't see your own brain.

Kakapo:What if that was a lie?

Daniel: I answered "it's not a lie, it's incomplete"

The lie here being that you can't see your own brain.

This is an example of what I am talking about with my words not reaching you.

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Sorry.  I saw the ~confused~ reaction to my post.  

 

What I meant to say is:

 

"My question is:  what is the connection between the chain cave and the shadows?

 

There are none, right?  The shadows are still shadows.  The person is still a person."

 

In context of the conversation, the OP was claiming that almost all humans are in some sort of 'chains' or 'bondage' in plato's-cave.  My hope was that the OP and I would discuss the accuracy of the perception of these shadows.  Accuracy is the key-point which is being ignored.

 

So, in your question, you are asking about leaving the cave and returning.  In this thought-experiment, what do you think happens when the person returns to the cave?  Are the shadows still shadows?  Is the person's arm still an arm?  Is there any change in the individual's perceptions?  I vote: no.  There is no change in perception. Instead, there is a recognition that there is MORE than shadows.  It's not that the shadows are false.  It's that the perception has been proven to be incomplete.

 

Then we can go back to the very first question typed in this thread...

 

 

It's not a lie.  it's incomplete.  There's many many good reasons to trust our perceptions as accurate even though it can be fooled and impaired.

 

But this does not discredit perception nor render all attributes and qualia void.  That seems to be religious doctrine, aka dogma.

 

Kakapo:When I was a child I was told, you can't see your own brain.

Kakapo:What if that was a lie?

Kakapo:What if the ONLY thing you can see is your own brain?

Daniel: It's not a lie.

Daniel I think this is another instance of you hearing things I never said, and understand words I wrote in a way different then I intended them to be understood. 

When I was a child I was told you can't see your own brain.

As I have grown older and thought about the situation, I have determined that not only can you see your own brain, but that your own brain is the only thing you can possibly see. 

When you watch a nature documentary on your 85" QLED 8K TV you might think man, nature is freaking gorgeous! 

The only problem is you are not looking at nature.

You are looking at an abstract representation of it, crafted out of light emitted from pixels on your television.

It's just like how a painting of a pipe, no matter how realistic is not an actual pipe.

The map is not the territory. 

The experience you are having right now has no more reality than a painting of a pipe does.

It's not real.

There may be a real world outside of your skull, on which this experience is based on.

What you are looking at however is not actual reality.

It is simulated reality.

6 hours ago, Daniel said:

 

Sorry.  I saw the ~confused~ reaction to my post.  

 

What I meant to say is:

 

"My question is:  what is the connection between the chain cave and the shadows?

 

There are none, right?  The shadows are still shadows.  The person is still a person."

 

In context of the conversation, the OP was claiming that almost all humans are in some sort of 'chains' or 'bondage' in plato's-cave.  My hope was that the OP and I would discuss the accuracy of the perception of these shadows.  Accuracy is the key-point which is being ignored.

 

So, in your question, you are asking about leaving the cave and returning.  In this thought-experiment, what do you think happens when the person returns to the cave?  Are the shadows still shadows?  Is the person's arm still an arm?  Is there any change in the individual's perceptions?  I vote: no.  There is no change in perception. Instead, there is a recognition that there is MORE than shadows.  It's not that the shadows are false.  It's that the perception has been proven to be incomplete.

 

Then we can go back to the very first question typed in this thread...

 

 

It's not a lie.  it's incomplete.  There's many many good reasons to trust our perceptions as accurate even though it can be fooled and impaired.

 

But this does not discredit perception nor render all attributes and qualia void.  That seems to be religious doctrine, aka dogma.

 

Daniel,

I don't think you are a bad person, but it is very frustrating to say the least for me to communicate with you. 

You read my words and understand them to mean things I never intended.

" discuss the accuracy of the perception of these shadows."

The Mahayana Buddhists compared the mind to a mirror in it's function.

The mind offers reflections of reality, just as a mirror would.

The issue here is "what exactly am I looking at, reality or simulation?"

The answer is  100% "simulation", no ifs, no ands, no buts.

We do not perceive reality, we perceive only an abstraction of it. 

Color does not exist out there, it only exists in the mind.

Shape does not exist out there, it only exists in the mind.

Scents do not exist out there, they only exist in the mind.

None of what we see or experience exists in actual reality, it' just how our brain makes sense of the stimuli provided from our sensory organs.

The reality we see and experience is not real, though it is possible it bears a passing resemblance reality outside our skulls.

The key problem here almost all humans on earth believe they look outwards into the world and universe, but they do not.

We do not look out.

We look in.

What we see is the contents of our own mind and nothing more.

We do not see an external world, we see only an internal one.

This is just like the men chained to the wall in Plato's cave, watching the shadow puppets.

It is just like the Buddhist teachings of a mirror that reflects reality.

Imagine mistaking a painting of a pipe for an actual pipe.

Imagine mistaking a reflection in a mirror for the thing being reflected.

Imagine mistaking the experience of a physical object, for the actual object.

Daniel,

I think it's best we end conversation here my friend.

You are welcome to DM me if you have further things you feel you need to discuss.

Thanks for your understanding!

31 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

No thank you.  I am not watching 34 minutes of video ( 17 minutes repeated ).  I have demonstrated I understand hat you ar saying on page 1.  Using the picture below:  Yes, I know, you don't want the little man in the picture.  But since this is your diagram, and it included the little man, there should not be objection on the grounds of "you just don't get it, you just don't understand."

 

 

This describes your experience under the influence where the object did not match the obervation/observed.  This diagram shos I understand what you are describing.  If you can point out a flaw in this diagram EXCLUDING the little man.  Then maybe I will consider spending time on watching the video 1 time.  Claiming I need to watch it twice is pretty silly.

 

 

I didn't say it didn't make sense.  I said, you seem to be reluctant to acknolewdge that nothing about what have typed communicates anything about the objects beyond 'you'.

 

Let the people complain.  I'm not the one repeating and rewinding.  

 

 

The pixels of light are not "on a television screen".

The inter-atomic forces which produce physical sensations which are interpretted by the brain as observations accurately describe the physical attributes of the objects that are outside of 'you'.  Those physical sensations accuratey describe the physical attributes in part, but not in total.  The exceptions are physical impairments on the brain or dreaming, which hopefully you recall was an example I brought long ago as maybe a worth while avenue to explore.

 

The proof of the accuracy of perception and your own trust in it is the conversation we're having, your reaction to it, the diagram you posted, and the diagrams I posted in response.

 

Daniel,

I have posted a transcript of the video, and made some bold highlights for you to read.

If possible please read the bold parts, twice for comprehension.

I think in all honesty our conversation here is over.

I will chalk the difficulty here in communication to me being a bad communicator.

I've done my best but we still aren't making the connection.

Anywho I will be happy to continue in private with you if you wish, feel free to send me a DM.