Please Delete, Or Lock And Move To The Rabbit Hole

[kakapo]

45 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Ahhhhh.  Thank you.  That gag was getting uncomfy and it seemed odd that you would keep quoting me, but, I was not to reply.

 

 

I feel like I understand what you're saying perfectly.  Where we disagree is:

 

I am considering 3 different phenomena as reality:  observer, observation, and observed.

You are considering 2 different phenomena as reality:  observer, and observed.

 

Good so far?

 

If you have to use a camera to look at reality, then you aren't looking at reality but rather an abstraction of it.

 

For purposes of discussion an eyeball is a biological version of a camera.

 

Imagine if I connect a camera to a television, and point it at a tobacco pipe.

 

If I look at the screen and point to the pipe on the screen and ask "what is this?"

 

If you answer "that is a pipe" your answer would be incorrect.

 

The correct answer would be "that is a television, the pixels on the television are emitting light, and the light is creating a pattern which resembles the object the camera connected to it is pointed towards.

 

The television can only ever display a representation of something, but that representation can only ever be an abstraction of something else, and never the actual thing being displayed.

 

A painting of a pipe is not a pipe, and a holographic experience of reality is not reality. 

 

The confusion here happens when you don't understand you are looking at a television.

 

In allegory of the cave the men chained to the wall know of no other reality besides the shadows on the wall, and to them that is all there is.

 

What I am saying is the computer monitor you are reading these words on, exists only inside your mind as energy and information in your neural networks it has no reality to it, at least no more than shadows on a cave wall, or a painting of a pipe is real pipe.

 

On a television you see pixels of light, in your mind you see the energy and information exchanged between neurons.

 

Where the observer = the observed fits into all this is that you are the energy and information inside the neural networks, and it is set up so you observe the contents of your own awareness.

 

By bad analogy your little man is sitting on a couch watching a TV inside your brain.

 

Except there is no little man or tv,  just energy and information flowing between synapses.

 

I Am a Strange Loop" by cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter is a 2007 book that delves into consciousness, self-awareness, and the development of the self using the idea of a "strange loop." This loop is a self-referential feedback mechanism in the brain that generates self-awareness and subjective experiences. In essence, Hofstadter proposes that strange loops are hierarchical structures incorporating self-reference and feedback, which give rise to self-awareness by creating an abstract "I" that observes and examines itself.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by kakapo

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, kakapo said:

 

If you have to use a camera to look at reality, then you aren't looking at reality but rather an abstraction of it.

 

For purposes of discussion an eyeball is a biological version of a camera.

 

Imagine if I connect a camera to a television, and point it at a tobacco pipe.

 

If I look at the screen and point to the pipe on the screen and ask "what is this?"

 

If you answer "that is a pipe" your answer would be incorrect.

 

The correct answer would be "that is a television, the pixels on the television are emitting light, and the light is creating a pattern which resembles the object the camera connected to it is pointed towards.

 

The television can only ever display a representation of something, but that representation can only ever be an abstraction of something else, and never the actual thing being displayed.

 

A painting of a pipe is not a pipe, and a holographic experience of reality is not reality. 

 

The confusion here happens when you don't understand you are looking at a television.

 

In allegory of the cave the men chained to the wall know of no other reality besides the shadows on the wall, and to them that is all there is.

 

What I am saying is the computer monitor you are reading these words on, exists only inside your mind as energy and information in your neural networks it has no reality to it, at least no more than shadows on a cave wall, or a painting of a pipe is real pipe.

 

On a television you see pixels of light, in your mind you see the energy and information exchanged between neurons.

 

Where the observer = the observed fits into all this is that you are the energy and information inside the neural networks, and it is set up so you observe the contents of your own awareness.

 

By bad analogy your little man is sitting on a couch watching a TV inside your brain.

 

Except there is no little man or tv,  just energy and information flowing between synapses.

 

I Am a Strange Loop" by cognitive scientist Douglas Hofstadter is a 2007 book that delves into consciousness, self-awareness, and the development of the self using the idea of a "strange loop." This loop is a self-referential feedback mechanism in the brain that generates self-awareness and subjective experiences. In essence, Hofstadter proposes that strange loops are hierarchical structures incorporating self-reference and feedback, which give rise to self-awareness by creating an abstract "I" that observes and examines itself.

 

Oy.  I understand you.  Do you understand me?  You said you couldn't understand the words I was saying because they are out of context.  I'm trying to put them into context, so that we can have a discussion.  But you seem to be ignoring what I'm writing.  How about a diagram?  This is your own picture, that you posted.  OK?

 

Please:

1. The little man is the observer
2. The eggs and the pan on the screen are the observation
3. The eggs and the pan on the cooktop is the observed

 

1. observer
2. observation
3. observed

Do you understand what I am saying right now?  This is important.  If this works, I'll keep using diagrams.  OK?

 

 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

So the thing you label as observed, isn't actually being observed at all. 

 

An image of it is being replicated and displayed inside the brain, and that image inside the brain is what is being observed.

 

Here's where it gets weird.

 

There is no little man, he doesn't exist, and there is no screen or projector it doesn't exist either.

 

The film or movie that is playing is watching itself, and there is no one in the audience to watch it.

 

Yes I understand how absolute bat**** insane that sounds but that is what is actually happening.

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, kakapo 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.

I know.  This is what you're describing .  Notice, please, what you are calling the "observed" is just the "observation" on a screen. Not a literal screen, but it's still just perception.  Just observation.  The actual-observed-object could be eggs on a pan, or it could be flying monkeys. The actual-observed-objects are are things outside the brain.  And there's still 3 phenomena.  The stuff behind the question mark exists.  Agreed?

 

 

Using the 'observed' for what is in the brain makes this more cumbersome.  There's no good reason to use 'observed for what is happening in the brain.  If a person closes their eyes, they are not observing anything.  They might be imagining something.  Or dreaming something.  But they are NOT observing anything ith their eyes closed.  It's better to use the words 'obersavtion' or 'perception' or 'the-mind's-eye'.  But it's definitely not the observed.   I'm using the word 'observation' to try to sync up with you. 

[Daniel]

10 minutes ago, kakapo said:

So the thing you label as observed, isn't actually being observed at all. 

 

An image of it is being replicated and displayed inside the brain, and that image inside the brain is what is being observed.

 

Here's where it gets weird.

 

There is no little man, he doesn't exist, and there is no screen or projector it doesn't exist either.

 

The film or movie that is playing is watching itself, and there is no one in the audience to watch it.

 

Yes I understand how absolute bat**** insane that sounds but that is what is actually happening.

 

I know.

[Daniel]

5 hours ago, kakapo said:

In reality there is no such thing as color, shape, texture, smell, sound, or any of that. 

 

Such abstractions are only mental constructs and lack any inherent reality.

 

This is how **I** understand what you are describing above.  This is from the first reply you wrote to me and silent-thunder.  See the difference?  I can totally get on board with saying what is happening outside the brain is not perfectly known.  But so far there has not been any reasons brought for concluding that these qualities are ONLY constructs lacking any inherent reality.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kakapo]

30 minutes ago, Daniel said:

I know.  This is what you're describing .  Notice, please, what you are calling the "observed" is just the "observation" on a screen. Not a literal screen, but it's still just perception.  Just observation.  The actual-observed-object could be eggs on a pan, or it could be flying monkeys. The actual-observed-objects are are things outside the brain.  And there's still 3 phenomena.  The stuff behind the question mark exists.  Agreed?

 

 

Using the 'observed' for what is in the brain makes this more cumbersome.  There's no good reason to use 'observed for what is happening in the brain.  If a person closes their eyes, they are not observing anything.  They might be imagining something.  Or dreaming something.  But they are NOT observing anything ith their eyes closed.  It's better to use the words 'obersavtion' or 'perception' or 'the-mind's-eye'.  But it's definitely not the observed.   I'm using the word 'observation' to try to sync up with you. 

 

There could be an external reality, that exists outside the skull.

 

I can't say for certain.

 

This could be a quantum computer simulation.

 

I could be a Boltzmann brain.

 

There are too many unknown, unknowns to say with certainty. 

 

For purposes of conversation, I will assume that an external reality does exist, but it isn't a position I actually hold or try to defend.

 

The item you have labeled with the question mark may exist, and my hope would be that it does exist, but I cannot say with certainty that it does.

 

The image of the egg in the frying pan you have labeled as observed, is also the observer.

 

It observes itself, you are the image of the egg in the pan, you are the smell of the cooking egg, you are the sound of the sizzle, you are the feeling of warmth from the stove, and you are the taste of the egg.

 

The little man should be removed from the picture. 

Edited September 10, 2023 by kakapo

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, kakapo said:

One time I took 20 dried grams of Psilocybin mushrooms, and I saw faces, arms, and hands coming out of my carpet,  all with the carpet texture on them. 

 

If it were possible to see actual reality, such a thing as a hallucination could not occur. 

 

OK... last diagram, and then I think I've explained myself enough.  And hopefully we can have a normal conversation.

 

The intoxicant effects the observer and what you're calling the observed.  It doesn't change the object at all.  Nothing changes about the eggs and the pan on the cooktop.  Agreed? That means that the hallucination is only changing the perception.  It doesn't say anything about whether or not actual reality can or cannot be seen.

 

[kakapo]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

OK... last diagram, and then I think I've explained myself enough.  And hopefully we can have a normal conversation.

 

The intoxicant effects the observer and what you're calling the observed.  It doesn't change the object at all.  Nothing changes about the eggs and the pan on the cooktop.  Agreed? That means that the hallucination is only changing the perception.  It doesn't say anything about whether or not actual reality can or cannot be seen.

 

 

Operating under the assumption an external reality exists, and an object exists outside the skull.

 

We do not actually ever see the object in this diagram,  we only ever see the screen in the mind. 

 

The hangup becomes that almost 100% of all people believe the screen in the mind is actual reality, and it is not actual reality it is an abstraction or representation of reality.

 

This is an important distinction to make.

 

It is no more reality than shadows on the wall of a cave.

 

Taking 20 dried grams of mushrooms, makes the screen go all crazy, but my assumption would be that the object that exists outside the skull would not be affected by this assuming it exists.

 

 

 

[Daniel]

14 minutes ago, kakapo said:

This could be a quantum computer simulation.

 

 

Yes.  I am most familiar with these concepts as "simulation theory".

 

14 minutes ago, kakapo said:

The item you have labeled with the question mark may exist, and my hope would be that it does exist, but I cannot say with certainty that it does.

 

A perfectly fair statement.

 

14 minutes ago, kakapo said:

The image of the egg in the frying pan you have labeled as observed, is also the observer.

 

But it's not the actual-observed.  Observed is a misnomer.  The 'observed' is an object outside the brain.  I think we, you and I, need to agree on a better word / phrase for this.  And, I think we, you and I, need to agree on a word / phrase for what exists outside the brain in behind the "question-mark".

 

Once we agree on those words, 80% of the struggle in our discussion is ended.

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

4 minutes ago, kakapo said:

We do not actually ever see the object in this diagram,  we only ever see the screen in the mind. 

 

That's just semantics, isn't it?  Once I define 'seeing' in terms of electro-magnetic waves of light, then that connects the outer object with the inner experience.  And I thought you brought a sciency article confirming this?

[kakapo]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

Yes.  I am most familiar with these concepts as "simulation theory".

 

 

A perfectly fair statement.

 

 

But it's not the actual-observed.  Observed is a misnomer.  The 'observed' is an object outside the brain.  I think we, you and I, need to agree on a better word / phrase for this.  And, I think we, you and I, need to agree on a word / phrase for what exists outside the brain in behind the "question-mark".

 

Once e agree on those words, 80% of the struggle in our discussion is ended.

 

You are the image of the egg cooking.

 

You are the smell of the egg cooking.

 

You are the sound of the egg cooking.

 

You are the taste of the egg.

 

You are the feeling of the egg.

 

You are the memory of previous eggs.

 

You are the imagination of future eggs.

 

You are the emotion such an experience brings.

 

You are the entire experience itself.

[kakapo]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

That's just semantics, isn't it?  Once I define 'seeing' in terms of electro-magnetic waves of light, then that connects the outer object with the inner experience.  And I thought you brought a sciency article confirming this?

 

It's not semantics at all.

[kakapo]

Suffering alone exists, none who suffer;
The deed there is, but no doer thereof;
Nirvana is, but no one is seeking it;
The Path there is, but none who travel it.

[Daniel]

10 minutes ago, kakapo said:

The hangup becomes that almost 100% of all people believe the screen in the mind is actual reality, and it is not actual reality it is an abstraction or representation of reality.

 

The problem I have with this idea, is that there is an implication using the word "abstraction" that the representation is inaccurate or false.  I agree it's incomplete.  But, that doesn't mean that human sensory faculties are somehow distorting reality to the point where the existence of objects that are outside the brain are doubted.   That's a HUGE distortion.

 

And if the mechanisms of intoxicants can be studied and the neurochemical effects determined to be a corruption / disruption / impairment of the sensory faculties of the brain, then, the perception while intoxicated can be labeled as false.  The dead bodies resulting from drunk drivers confirms it.

[Daniel]

17 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

You are the image of the egg cooking.

 

You are the smell of the egg cooking.

 

You are the sound of the egg cooking.

 

You are the taste of the egg.

 

You are the feeling of the egg.

 

You are the memory of previous eggs.

 

You are the imagination of future eggs.

 

You are the emotion such an experience brings.

 

You are the entire experience itself.

 

I understand what you're saying, but that does not mean that none of those things ALSO exist outside of my brain.

 

17 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

It's not semantics at all.

 

OK.  Are we having this conversation?  Did you have any possible clue the way I was going to edit and update those diagrams to rapidly get us on the same page?  If not, then this experience between you and I is real.  I am not in your brain.  The experience of interacting with me is happening in your brain.  But those diagrams are not the product of some random neurochemical false perception that your brain conjured up.  Those editted diagrams came from outside your brain.  And we both looked at them and saw the same things.

 

That's pretty strong evidence of a shared objective reality outside the mind, don't you think? 

 

Edited September 10, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

The problem I have with this idea, is that there is an implication using the word "abstraction" that the representation is inaccurate or false.  I agree it's incomplete.  But, that doesn't mean that human sensory faculties are somehow distorting reality to the point where the existence of objects that are outside the brain are doubted.   That's a HUGE distortion.

 

And if the mechanisms of intoxicants can be studied and the neurochemical effects determined to be a corruption / disruption / impairment of the sensory faculties of the brain, then, the perception while intoxicated can be labeled as false.  The dead bodies resulting from drunk drivers confirms it.

 

We can dig into this really easy. 

 

You look at a television connected to a camera.

 

What you see is pixels of light.

 

Those pixels can be made to represent any thing you point the camera at.

 

It is possible to sit your entire life chained to a couch and believe what you are watching on television is actual reality.

 

It is possible be to chained to a wall and observe shadows on a cave wall and believe those to be actual reality.

 

In fact that is the actual truth for almost 100% of all humans.

 

If you are using a camera and a television to observe reality, you are looking at a representation.

 

A painting of a pipe is also a representation.

 

It does not matter if it is an accurate representation or not. 

 

Right now the computer screen you are looking at is not a computer screen at all.

 

It is literally a holographic experience your brain is creating to make sense of your environment.

 

A painting of a pipe is not a pipe.

 

 

 

 

[Daniel]

3 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

We can dig into this really easy. 

 

You look at a television connected to a camera.

 

What you see is pixels of light.

 

Those pixels can be made to represent any thing you point the camera at.

 

It is possible to sit your entire life chained to a couch and believe what you are watching on television is actual reality.

 

It is possible be to chained to a wall and observe shadows on a cave wall and believe those to be actual reality.

 

In fact that is the actual truth for almost 100% of all humans.

 

If you are using a camera and a television to observe reality, you are looking at a representation.

 

A painting of a pipe is also a representation.

 

It does not matter if it is an accurate representation or not. 

 

Right now the computer screen you are looking at is not a computer screen at all.

 

It is literally a holographic experience your brain is creating to make sense of your environment.

 

A painting of a pipe is not a pipe.

 

 

 

 

 

I've heard these analogies before, they simply don't compare.  No one looks at a TV and then their own arm and imagines there are human arms inside the TV.  The shadows are real shadows.  No one looks at a shadow and confuses a shadow with a human being.  No one confuses a painting of pipe with a pipe.  No one goes to a resteraunt and literally EATS the menu.

[kakapo]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

I understand what you're saying, but that does not mean that none of those things ALSO exist outside of my brain.

 

 

OK.  Are we having this conversation?  Did you have any possible clue the way I was going to edit and update those diagrams to rapidly get us on the same page?  If not, then this experience between you and I is real.  I am not in your brain.  The experience of interacting with me is happening in your brain.  But those diagrams are not the product of some random neurochemical false perception that your brain conjured up.  Those editted diagrams came from outside your brain.  And we both looked at them and saw the same things.

 

That's pretty strong evidence of a shared objecive reality outside the mind, don't you think? 

 

You can connect a camera to a television, and put the camera outside your front door.

 

What you see on the TV may actually be happening outside of your home.

 

The problem becomes when you start confusing what you are seeing on TV for actual reality.

 

In Plato's republic men are chained to the wall and believe the shadows on the wall to be reality.

 

In actual reality almost all humans alive today are looking at the contents of their own minds, and believing what they are seeing is an external reality.

 

It is not external, it is just shadows on the cave wall.
 

 

[kakapo]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

I've heard these analogies before, they simply don't compare.  No one looks at a TV and then their own arm and imagines there are human arms inside the TV.  The shadows are real shadows.  No one looks at a shadow and confuses a shadow with a human being.  No one confuses a painting of pipe with a pipe.  No one goes to a resteraunt and literally EATS the menu.

 

When you look at your own arm, that is not your arm.

 

You only get to see an experience which occurs inside your mind.

 

The experience of the the thing, is not the thing itself.

 

Just as a painting of a pipe, is not a pipe.

[Daniel]

Just now, Daniel said:

In fact that is the actual truth for almost 100% of all humans.

 

The problem again, is there seems to be an assumption being made that the inner experience is NOT accurate simply because it is not known to be perfect.

[kakapo]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

The problem again, is there seems to be an assumption being made that the inner experience is NOT accurate simply because it is not known to be perfect.

 

Pixels of light on a television, are not the same thing the camera is actually looking at.

 

A painting of a pipe is not a pipe.

 

The experience of something, is not that something itself.

 

The experience of something has no reality, at least no more reality than a shadow on a wall.

[Daniel]

1 minute ago, kakapo said:

 

You can connect a camera to a television, and put the camera outside your front door.

 

What you see on the TV may actually be happening outside of your home.

 

The problem becomes when you start confusing what you are seeing on TV for actual reality.

 

In Plato's republic men are chained to the wall and believe the shadows on the wall to be reality.

 

In actual reality almost all humans alive today are looking at the contents of their own minds, and believing what they are seeing is an external reality.

 

It is not external, it is just shadows on the cave wall.
 

 

 

But plato's analogy is an exaggeration to make a point.  It's exaggerated.  The shadows on the all ARE reality.  They are in a cave.  There are fires for light and warmth.  Why are you assuming the shadows are not real.

 

And why are you assuming there's a problem if I look at the TV and see some intruder picked on the security camera.  That's not a problem, that's a solution to a big problem.

 

3 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

When you look at your own arm, that is not your arm.

 

You only get to see an experience which occurs inside your mind.

 

The experience of the the thing, is not the thing itself.

 

Just as a painting of a pipe, is not a pipe.

 

I know it's not actually my arm, but it's a very-very good abstraction.  Super-duper good, much-much-much better than a 2-d picture on a TV.  A pipe I can put in my mouth and smoke is a very-very-very good likeness of a pipe.  Comparing it to a picture is, forgive me, silly.  Not even close.  

[Daniel]

@kakapo,

 

You keep saying the perception is not the actual object.  That's true.  But you have not told me one thing about the perception which is false.

 

Just becuase the perception is not 100% accurate, does not mean it is faulty.  There needs to be a problem.  There needs to be some measure of the inaccuracy and where that inaccuracy exists.

[Daniel]

Even an estimate would be useful here.  The perception of my arm is... what?  75% correct?  80%?  99%?