Please Delete, Or Lock And Move To The Rabbit Hole

[kakapo]

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.

 

 

[kakapo]

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.

Edited September 13, 2023 by kakapo

[kakapo]

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.

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, kakapo said:

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.

 

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.  

 

2 hours ago, kakapo said:

You remember when I posted the transcript of the TED talk with top neuroscientist Anil Seth

 

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?

 

1 hour ago, kakapo said:

But the evidence does not support it."

 

I posted a TED talk with top Neuroscientist Anil Seth

 

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:

 

4 hours ago, kakapo said:

We do not look out.

 

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.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, kakapo said:

“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.”

 

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?

 

Quote

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.

 

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.

 

1 hour ago, kakapo said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

1 hour ago, kakapo said:

Daniel I feel I have done my best to help you here,  at this point I am asking you kindly please stop.

 

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. 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

[kakapo]

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]

10 hours ago, kakapo said:

Spoiler

 

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.

 

 

( I put your reply in a spoiler to save people screen-space and so they wouldn't need to scroll through it )

 

Not at all.  I'm not upset.  I haven't been upset.  It is an insult for someone to ask me to read things twice, or watch videos twice.  But that doesn't mean it's upsetting.  Altough it is hypocritical to ask me to do that, when it seems you don't know what is contained in the diagram you posted, or in the video you posted, or in the links you posted.  If you don't know what your own sources are saying, it's ironic, to say the least, to ask me to read things twice.

 

Regarding doing your best, you have not responded to what I said.  That's not doing your best, unless, you're doing your best to avoid and ignore.  If it is *actually* your intention to do your best to respond and not to preach, gratefully it is easy to copy and paste these issues here so that you can have another opportunity to respond.

 

1)  A lie is defined by the accuracy of the content?  Yes or No?

 

2)  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? Yes or No?

 

3)  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?  Yes or No?

 

4)  Please respond to this example?  If "color" did not exist how does anyone learn to drive a car?  

 

5)  Is this information below wrong? Isn't this an objective true and consistent defintion of 'color' Yes or No?

 

6)  Didn't both of the links you brought provide this objective defintion?  Yes or No? 

 

 

 

Edited September 13, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

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.

[Daniel]

1 hour ago, kakapo said:

Spoiler

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.

 

 

It's much easier to just respond here.  In the amount of time spent refusing to answer, answers could have been given.

 

1)  A lie is defined by the accuracy of the content?  Yes or No?

 

2)  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? Yes or No?

 

3)  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?  Yes or No?

 

4)  Please respond to this example?  If "color" did not exist how does anyone learn to drive a car?  

 

5)  Is this information below wrong? Isn't this an objective true and consistent defintion of 'color' Yes or No?

 

6)  Didn't both of the links you brought provide this objective defintion?  Yes or No? 

 

Cone cells, or cones, are photoreceptor cells in the retinas of vertebrates' eyes, including the human eye. They respond differently to light of different wavelengths, and the combination of their responses is responsible for color vision.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

Daniel,

 

Please see my previous reply.

 

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, kakapo said:

Daniel,

 

Please see my previous reply.

 

 

1)  A lie is defined by the accuracy of the content?  Yes or No?

 

2)  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? Yes or No?

 

3)  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?  Yes or No?

 

4)  Please respond to this example?  If "color" did not exist how does anyone learn to drive a car?  

 

5)  Is this information below wrong? Isn't this an objective true and consistent defintion of 'color' Yes or No?

 

6)  Didn't both of the links you brought provide this objective defintion?  Yes or No? 

 

Cone cells, or cones, are photoreceptor cells in the retinas of vertebrates' eyes, including the human eye. They respond differently to light of different wavelengths, and the combination of their responses is responsible for color vision.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Daniel

[Cobie]

19 hours ago, Daniel said:

…  in a spoiler … so they wouldn't need to scroll through it …

The quoted post in a spoiler, I like that very much. Thank you.  
 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Cobie

[kakapo]

Hi Daniel,

 

I will be responding to you on  https://kakapo.freeforums.net/  when I have time.

 

Best wishes.

[Daniel]

2 hours ago, kakapo said:

Hi Daniel,

 

I will be responding to you on  https://kakapo.freeforums.net/  when I have time.

 

Best wishes.

 

why not here?  six questions?  five are yes/no?  six answers would look like this:

 

"yes, yes, yes, I don't know; I hadn't considered that, yes, yes"

 

super simple.

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

On 3/23/2023 at 7:08 AM, kakapo said:

What if that was a lie?

 

A lie is defined by the accuracy of the content?  Yes or No?

[kakapo]

Daniel,

 

I will not be answering your questions here. 

 

Best wishes.

[kakapo]

 

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.

[kakapo]

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

 

Edited September 15, 2023 by kakapo

[Daniel]

On 9/14/2023 at 6:03 PM, kakapo said:

Daniel,

 

I will not be answering your questions here. 

 

Best wishes.

 

Why not?  If what you're saying is true, then these should be simple questions to answer.  Or, perhaps what you're saying isn't true.  And it's difficult to admit it.

[Daniel]

On 9/14/2023 at 7:47 PM, kakapo said:

Donald David Hoffman

 

From the wiki-monster:  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_D._Hoffman

 

"Within the interface theory of perception, neither primary nor secondary qualities necessarily map onto reality."

 

The key word for me in this sentence is "necessarily".  

"Within the interface theory of perception, neither primary nor secondary qualities necessarily map onto reality."

 

This ^^ means that qualities might map onto reality OR might not map onto reality.

 

Agreed?

[Daniel]

On 9/14/2023 at 7:47 PM, kakapo said:

an American cognitive psychologist

 

A psychologist who is criticising physicists?  does this make sense to you?  is a psychologist qualified to comment on space-time and these sorts of complicated mathematical constructs?  this is far beyond their field of study.

 

[Daniel]

On 9/14/2023 at 8:06 PM, kakapo said:

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

 

 

The first 10 minutes of a 3 hour interview?  This doesn't even come close to addressing the important question of accuracy of the simulation.

 

Have you done any research on the competing theories of perception?  You do know this is just a theory, right?  Philosophy, not physical science?

 

Here's another philosopher who would be good to consider.  They did a critical review of Hoffman.  It's long.  48 pages.  But I'm curious to see what they say about it.

 

[Daniel]

The critical review referred to above is a remarkable exploration in Hoffman's work.  I am still going through it.  It will probably take at a least a week to distill the info into something which can be posted here.  It's not just Leslie Allan's work, it is a compilation of all the criticism of Hoffman's "Conscious Reality" going back to 2015.  It appears to be a fair assessment.  When Hoffman and his team are able to address a criticsm, it is recognized.

 

Also, readers should know that Kakapo has started a private conversation with me on Sept. 14th before I re-engaged with this thread.  It is, essentially, copying andd pasting posts from this thread into a private conversation.  I have tried to reset the conversation privately, in a kind and friendly manner.  The first task is to make sure that we agree on language and meaning.  This has been ignored.  Then I noticed that the private posts were simply copies of what was being posted here about Hoffman.

 

This is why I have re-engaged in this thread.

[kakapo]

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.

 

 

[Daniel]

 

18 minutes ago, kakapo said:

The surgeon looks at a television like display and remotely controls a robot which does the surgery.

 

The television display is **accurately** presenting objective qualities about the object in the surgery, else, the surgery would fail.

 

18 minutes ago, kakapo said:

At no point does the surgeon believe he is looking directly at the grape.

 

The grape objectively exists.  It exists outside the mind.  It has objective qualia outside the mind.

 

On 3/23/2023 at 7:08 AM, kakapo said:

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

 

If so, the surgery would fail.

 

Edited September 17, 2023 by Daniel