Please Delete, Or Lock And Move To The Rabbit Hole

[kakapo]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

[Daniel]

42 minutes ago, kakapo said:

Hoffman suggests that our perception of the world around us is similar.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

8 hours ago, Daniel said:

Basically the conversation was highly repetitive on one end inspite of a wide variety of valid challenges to the analogies presented in this thread, corrections to misinterpretations of the sources brought, and logical contradictions of the conclusions. 

 

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

 

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

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

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

[kakapo]

7 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

Hoffman suggests that our perception of the world around us is similar (to the situation in the paragraph listed above)

 

[kakapo]

14 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

We are spending the vast majority of our time in private with situations like this one.

 

I say one thing, you take my words to mean something which I did not intend.

 

I posted my quote again, and I put a bold section in parentheses to clarify meaning. 

 

About 99.999% of our time is spent dealing with miscommunications like this.

 

I don't think frustrating is the correct word to use.

 

Let's please keep this in the private discussion to prevent annoying the community more than we already are.

 

I will continue to work with you as long as I am able to do so.

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by kakapo

[S:C]

Spoiler

 

SpoilerPlato’s cave metaphor has

Plato’s cave metaphor has to be seen it it’s context: construction of his idea of ‚the republic’ and specifically

the education of its statesmen according to his ‚proposed ideals‘ of the republic, which is in my opinion at a closer look rather totalitarian. 

 

The cave metaphor, in my opinion, originally wasn’t intended to be one of ontology or cognition per se, only as matters of influencing statesmen for the ‚so called good of the people‘ (maybe as a revenge remark on what ‚the good people‘ sentenced Socrates to.) 

 

 

So it’s comparisons are limping, in my opinion, when it comes to questions of (‚right’) cognition, so what I believe you have been debating so long.

 

Western thought concerning cognition or ‚truth‘ used mainly the reasoning of induction, e.g. taking the results of a specific case and derive to more abstract conclusions on other cases.

 

 

Other sciences rather use

the method of deduction, mainly logical assumptions whose truth relies on the

‚truth’ of their most basic premises. 

 

 

There can be several valid

deductions (different truths) who rely on different premises, that haven’t been proved. 

 

 

Premises for theories are

usually built on an interpretation (mind processing and presenting data) of

perceptions of an empirical nature (ears, eyes, nose etc.) 

 

I don’t know if that helps your case of understanding each other, if I try to reflect more in abstract what I believe you are talking about, but I will try, as I found this intriguing: 

 

Kakapo doesn’t share

Daniels premise of the ‚objective truth‘ of empirical sensations. A common

experience of sense data is therefore not seen as verification. Rather it

results in an intersubjective (self referential) experience, which some would

call a ‚relative truth‘. 

 

 

The _reasoning_ method of induction is

troublesome, as when there is one (seemingly) observation of cause and effect

(subject object duality implied), constant cause and effect relationships are

assumed and those are treated as cognition or knowledge by experience. 

 

 

One could, with a bunch of

people of one ‘thought-lineage’, argue that past experience cannot predict

future experience. One differing experience _could_ defy a seemingly

endless chain of similar past events. They _could_ be interpreted in

this case to be only *correlated* instead of relying on causality. 

 

 

Therefore the method of

induction may not claim general validity in its reasoning performance, in this ‘thought-lineage’.

As it may not _prove_ the presupposed assumption that observations will

occur in the future the same way as they have in the past: general validity can

only be claimed, when it would be impossible that this assumption could not be

true. 

 

 

But the opposite could be

true, as it contains no contradiction: future observations must not necessarily

happen as past observations. This seems at least possible. (However improbable that

might be.)

 

 

If both assumptions could

therefore be true, the assumption that observations (relying on cause and effect)

are foreseeable cannot be necessarily universally valid. The claim of the

method of induction as a being universally valid method of reasoning is

therefore deemed to be false. 

 

 

But there is also the

method of deduction, mentioned before: 

 

 

One reasoning step is

therefore deemed necessary or valid if his conclusion follows from its

premises, in other words: it is impossible for the premises to be true and the

conclusion to be false. 

 

 

If one (scientist or not) following

meticulously the method of deduction comes to an observation that – by all

reasoning steps following each other stringently – is in contradiction to his

current conclusion – he would do good to check his premises and all reasoning

steps again: the theory that had been working for his whole life, might just be

false.

 

 

 

 

 

Both methods rely on _empirical_

data to get the stamp of being ‘scientific’. 

 

 

Kakapo doesn’t accept

Daniels premise of empirical sense data being valid or true – in a

_more_ than *intersubjective* sense. This seems to be a question

that cannot be answered by science, as science relies on empirical data.

 

 

What Daniel did in his

arguments, was following the method of induction to prove his point, that Kakapos

premise of empirical sense data being either invalid or irrelevant

for a _more_ than *intersubjective* truth. But Kakapo never

did refute the intersubjective truth of empirical sense data, he

just isn’t interested in intersubjective truths relying on

empirical sense data.

 

 

They have different or

rather contradicting premises, which seems legit at this point. Premises about _pre-empirical_

data collections, no matter if done by an individual or a collective (subject-object duality implied), no matter

if referring to ‘a sphere of platonic idea(l)s’ or ‘a sphere of emptiness’ have

an ‘air’ of being un-scientific, just by mere definition of the word ‘scientific’,

in my opinion, but being – for lack of a better word – ‘beliefs’ or ‘world

views’ or ‘realities of life’.

 

 

That leaves the matter of what is the definition of ‚truth‘ rather unilluminated and ghostly.
 

To reach an understanding of common premises, I would guess you both have to agree on what your definition of „truth“ (beyond perception of empirical sense data) is and that doesn’t seem possible: In my opinion this cannot be done by scientific (e.g empirical sense data) means, as that is the root of your trouble of understanding each other. Whatever the answer is, it is not one of science, as long as science relies on empirical sense data (as it should, in my opinion.)
 

 

 

 

Realities of life or world views aren‘t truth apt in my tradition, yet (at least). That’s where you would end up with Plato’s stories (totalitarian regimes). 

 

 

 

Also I don’t believe it is necessary to change one’s world view or try to experience e.g. fully understand some one else’s. (Maybe it is, maybe it is not possible to experience for you - in your current state - and is it even an experience you‘d wish for? Is your wish for truth that intense to follow through?)

As long as one person doesn’t suffer or hurt others with their minority view, why not leave this debate unanswered? 

Again, even if you put a label like ‚conscious realism‘ on it, it limits your experience and understanding, as again that might be a better or worse interpretation of what someone is trying to say. You could maybe apply the terms of the philosophical school of monism as well or tired and tame old non-duality. 
 

When I write in spoilers I reserve the right not to be quoted. Thanks. Hope I could bring something helpful along, if not, sorry, for hopping in: I won’t do it again. 
 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by stellarwindbubble
formatting cannot be fixed, can it?

[Cobie]

5 hours ago, kakapo said:

… I will continue our discussion in private …

 

3 hours ago, kakapo said:

… we'll have to keep this private …

 

3 hours ago, kakapo said:

We'll continue to work together in private …

 

3 hours ago, kakapo said:

 We'll continue to work together in private …

 

3 hours ago, kakapo said:

I'll speak with you in private …

 

2 hours ago, kakapo said:

 I'll speak with you in private …

 

2 hours ago, kakapo said:

Let's please keep this in the private discussion …

 

 

 

(I privately  think) that’s beyond creepy. 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Cobie

[Daniel]

@stellarwindbubble,

 

Thank you for your reply.  Per your request, I will not quote anything from it. 

 

First, my intention is to discuss this concept of the dynamic between the observer and the observed assuming they are identical.  This is the premise of the thread.  I do not intend to deviate from it.  But, it cannot be discussed unless the analogies, thought experiments, match the concept as it is described by that premise.  It's not that I am changing what they are describing, it's that the analogies simply do not match up.  Just as you identified that plato's cave is out of context and does not fit, the camera-and-TV analogy does not match, nor does the brain-in-a-vat analogy, nor any simulation theory. 

 

The problem with each of these analogies is that they REQUIRE data being recieved from outside the mind.  REQUIRE.   It is inconsistent and illogical to assert agnosticsm about the existence of phenomena outside the mind if the analogies used are 100% gnostic. 

 

As I stated in the private conversaton, if the intention is to model "the-observer-is-the-observed", then these analogies need to be adjusted.  There cannot be any input coming from outside the mind.  No causal chain.  A proper analogy cannot include a camera.  It is only a screen lacking any and all inputs.  A proper analogy cannot include any "simulation".  It cannot be a simulation theory like "the matrix" where a human is in a vat with a cable plugged into their brain stem producing a fully immersive faux-reality.  Neither of these analogies match the premise where it is unknownable if there is a reality outside the mind.

 

A proper analogy, as I mentioned in private conversation, lacking a camera, describes a person who is completely blind.  This does not describe most human beings.  A proper analogy of the human in a vat, is not "the-matrix".  It is a sensory deprivation tank.  I'm not sure if you have these where you are, but we have them in my town, and I know people who have done them.  Some like it, but most of those I know freak out.  It's not actually healthy for a human to completely cut off all sensory inputs.  It's a form of torture.

 

 

So, these analogies neither match the premise of the thread, nor, do they match reality for most human beings.  Most human beings are not blind from birth.  And none are in a sensory deprivation tank for prolonged periods unless they are being tortured. 

 

From this, a choice needs to be made in order to have a rational discussion of the topic.  Either the analogies are adjusted in order to maintain the agnostic position about the existence of phenomena outside the mind, or, the agnostic position must be abandoned.  

And this ignores that this agnostic position is a sharp departure from what is posted in this thread in multiple places.   The best example is about "color".  A gnostic denial of "color" has been repeated in this thread.  But that is not consistent with an agostic position on phenomena outside the mind.  It's fine to adjust a person's position and say, "Yes. You're right. That doesn't make sense.  Instead I propose ... "  The reason, I think, this is not happening, assuming only good things about my conversation partner,  is that it is assumed that I cannot possibly understand this concept because I have not adopted it.  So, nothing I say which is correcting what is posted is accepted.  It must be wrong.  I must be wrong.  It is assumed that I do not understand, I am in the outgroup.  I'm not a member of the club.  Therefore I MUST be wrong.  In truth, I understand these ideas very well and I have adopted them, and moved beyond them.

 

And this also ignores the repeated misrepresentations of the sources brought, again, the best example is "color".  But also this idea of "We do not look out, we only look in."  This is clearly refuted in the video posted with Seth Anil as the speaker.  But there is no acknowledgment of this or any of the other faults brought in this thread.

 

The idea that what I am seeing is an incomplete rendering of the physical world is introduced here in America somewhere between middle school and high-school.  I recall learning about it first in chemistry class, and then spending more time on the concept in high school physics.  The table appears to me to solid, but, it isn't.  The air appears to be empty-space, but, it isn't.  All of it is an illusion, but, it's a useful illusion.  It's not a complicated idea at all.  But that does not in any way invalidate that there are inter-atomic forces which produce an accurrate sensation of pressure between my rear-end and on the couch cushion.  Nor does it in any way cause a rational question in my mind, "does the cushion exist? or is my mind creating it?"  Anymore than questioning "what if the moon is made of cheese?  What if the president of the USA is actually a lizard-alien hybrid?"  There is a reason these are called conspiracy fringe theories.

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

7 hours ago, Cobie said:

(I privately  think) that’s beyond creepy. 

 

Just FYI, Kakapo has my permission to engage in private conversation with me.  I let them know we can discuss it as long as they wish.  I am 100% confident no harm can come from it.

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

10 hours ago, kakapo said:

We are spending the vast majority of our time in private with situations like this one.

 

I say one thing, you take my words to mean something which I did not intend.

 

I posted my quote again, and I put a bold section in parentheses to clarify meaning.

 

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

[kakapo]

7 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I privately  think) that’s beyond creepy. 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

[kakapo]

17 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Daniel]

12 minutes ago, kakapo said:

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

 

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

[Daniel]

14 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

4 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

[Daniel]

Just now, kakapo said:

 

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

 

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

 

what's the name of the group?

[kakapo]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

 

 

[kakapo]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

what's the name of the group?

 

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

 

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

[Daniel]

9 minutes ago, kakapo said:

"You keep using that word..."  reference to the "Princess Bride"

 

 

Please be honest.  Have you ever considered the difference between knowledge, understanding, and wisdom?  I have.  

[Daniel]

16 minutes ago, kakapo said:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

1 minute ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

 

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

[Daniel]

15 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Edited September 21, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

6 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

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

[Daniel]

Just now, kakapo said:

 

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

 

No thank you, we can discuss it here without risk of moderation.  If you are careful.  The only reason it cannot be discussed here is if your intention is to promote banned subject matter.  Because I value integrity, I am not interested in that banned subject matter.  So, there's no reason to depart from this venue. 

[kakapo]

10 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

No thank you, we can discuss it here without risk of moderation.  If you are careful.  The only reason it cannot be discussed here is if your intention is to promote banned subject matter.  Because I value integrity, I am not interested in that banned subject matter.  So, there's no reason to depart from this venue. 

 

You are free to do as you wish.