Please Delete, Or Lock And Move To The Rabbit Hole

[Daniel]

Just now, kakapo said:

 

You are free to do as you wish.

 

... naturally. 自然  

[Daniel]

On 9/20/2023 at 9:25 PM, kakapo said:

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

 

Ok.  This is the response to the actual quote from Hoffman ( below ).  If you claim to understand it and the analogy of the desktop interface hopefully you can answer some questions about it.  It has some major flaws approaching absurdity.

 

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

 

On 9/20/2023 at 9:25 PM, kakapo said:

Think of it like a computer desktop. When you want to delete a file, you just drag it to the trash can.

 

Wait.  A trash can?  The icon on the desktop which resembles a trash can that exists outside the mind?  Hoffman says "no features of icon are identifiable...". How does Hoffman identify the trash icon as the trash icon?  If what Hoffman is saying is true, they would never find the trash icon.  They would never be able to distinguish it from any other icon on the desktop.  And even if they did, they would never know what it does.  They would never know its function.

 

On 9/20/2023 at 9:25 PM, kakapo said:

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.

 

It's true that it's abstracted.  But Hoffman is claiming there is zero correspondence.  And that is false.  The file as an icon displays accurately what the file contains using file type extensions.  The icon changes and is displayed differently depending on which software created it, basically.  And if the file is a shortcut, a pointer, not the actual file itself, the icon indicates this accurately.  If there is hard drive corruption, if one knows where to look, the icons are updated.  If a network resource is unavailable, the icon is updated accurately.  The inner mechanisms of the computer are abstracted.  But they are exposed if s person knows where to look and has the tools / understanding to do so.

 

The point here is, just as was identified by FK Jansen, the French scientist, these models are over simplified and do not match reality.

 

Beyond that, this whole theory ignores that there are people, like me, who actually understand the inner mechanisms which are behind the abstraction.  I am an IT pro.  I do this sort of work professionally.  Anytime I approach a desktop interface I can see, if I choose to, the underlying structures in my "mind's eye".  That is how I fix stuff.  And, I'm very good at my job.

 

It's not just me.  Anyone who fixes things operates this way.  A car mechanic?  Absolutely.  It shouldn't take a mega-mind to realize the flaws in this interface model.  Hoffman says "there are no identifiable features...". That's false.  Perception doesn't work that way.

 

I brought this up in our conversation.  I used the examples of trees and their different properties when they are burned depending on their species.  Oak to cedar to willow.  One would never know their properties simply by looking at them. Until one employs a microscope.  Now the perception is amplified and there is direct objective, repeatable phenomena which corresponds perfectly with the so-called icon in Hoffman's theory.  One can predict how the wood will burn based on the cellular structure.

 

The illusion that Hoffman is casting only works for those who don't understand how computers work, or how cars work, or how wood burns, or anything.

 

From here, if the pattern holds from our other conversation, you will claim agnosticism.  You don't know if how the computer works matches the icon.  You don't know if the piston in the car is shaped like a piston, or if the cam shaft has a unique, precisely machined asymmetrical shape which is required for the engine to operate.  And that's fair.

 

However this sort of agnosticism, if it is consistent, must be applied to everything.  And that is where the agnosticism collapses.

 

If you, or Hoffman, were truly agnostic about your perception, you would never assume that I don't understand.  You would never place your own understanding above anyone else's.  It would be accepted that anyone you encounter, real or not, has access to the entire "source code of the matrix" and is able to perceive it clearly like Agent Smith, or The Architect, or The Oracle, or Neo.

 

If you were truly agnostic about your perception you would not be behaving the way you are.  And that's the same for Hoffman.  If they're perception was actually just an interface lacking any identifiable features of phenomena outside the brain, they would never be able to produce a scientific theory of anything. 

 

So Hoffman's theory is absurd.  It doesn't match reality at all. It's self defeating, and it's rather arrogant.  It assumes that no one can have accurate perception about the inner workings of the desktop computer simply because they don't.

 

Edited September 22, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

Hi Daniel,

 

As seems to be normal with you, everything I wrote was completely misunderstood and you are arguing about something else entirely.

 

At this point I am seriously beginning to question the situation here.

 

If a person had a disability which caused them to grossly misunderstood 100% of everything that everyone said all the time, then such a person could not possibly function in society.

 

I can't imagine this could possibly be the case with you, and suspect you are just behaving this way to create conflict for your own entertainment.

 

I will continue to respond in private until we have this mess worked out.

 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by kakapo

[Daniel]

It's very simple.  And it's precisely as I described in my first reply.  It's an interesting thought experiment to consider the difference between objective and subjective phenomena.  However, a bit foolish to apply this globally.

 

The observer is not the observed.  The observer is the observation.

 

Color exists outside the brain as an interaction of light waves with color receptors on the retina.  Arguments against the existence of color are semantic.  Nothing more nothing less.

 

The analogies of the camera and the screen, a computer simulation, the picture of the pipe all have serious flaws when compared to the life experiences of most human beings.  These analogies are fantasy not real world examples.

 

When these faults are posted a statement of agnosticism is produced:

 

"I operate under the assumption there is an external reality and the experience that is occurring represents it accurately (most of the time), but this is not something I philosophically defend."

 

But this is inconsistent and contradicts the analogies brought.  All of them REQUIRE external phenomena outside the mind.  It is not an assumption.  It also contradicts the video you brought from Anil Seth, and the links you brought about color, and several of the statements you have made. 

 

The assumption that perception is an accurate representation of phenomena outside the mind ( most of time ) is a huge departure from many of the things you've posted here.  It is in direct opposition to Hoffman's theory.  There is no reason to bring it.  Based on the pattern of the posts here, I expect you didn't understand the theory when you posted the video.

 

The bottom line is:  If your position is:  "I operate under the assumption there is an external reality and the experience that is occurring represents it accurately (most of the time), but this is not something I philosophically defend.". Then there was no reason to argue against what I posted on page 1.

 

The reasonable explanation for this is that you have adjusted your point of view.  I think that is a wise choice.  Although it is difficult to believe this is the case considering the private conversation we had where none of the three real world examples I brought would be discussed.

 

You would not even acknowledge that there are multiple individuals on a baseball team working cooperatively.  The phenomena of pitching the ball, hitting it with a bat, catching it in a mitt, would not be discussed because you would not assume the perception was accurate.

 

That contradicts with "I operate under the assumption there is an external reality and the experience that is occurring represents it accurately (most of the time)"

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

 

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

This is such a hilarious thread. I don’t understand why someone would keep on trying to engage in conversation when the other person is clearly saying not to do it here. 
 

Tubar is my new favourite word

Edited September 24, 2023 by Pak_Satrio

[kakapo]

2 hours ago, Pak_Satrio said:

This is such a hilarious thread. I don’t understand why someone would keep on trying to engage in conversation when the other person is clearly saying not to do it here. 
 

Tubar is my new favourite word

 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by kakapo

[Daniel]

Status Update:  The private convo continues regarding "is the Observer the Observed?"  One of the criticsms of Hoffman's theories by scientists as that Hoffman over simplifies and that they force their computer simulations in order to produce the pre-desired outcome.

 

This is the same thing happening in the private conversation.  The analogies are being forced to produce a sharp border between the external phenomena and the inner-perception.  Examples like driving a tank are being brought, because, driving a tank creates the imagery of a thick heavy walled insulation seperating and protecting the inner-perception from the outer phenomena.

 

But a better analogy is like wearing gloves.  And I think I've mentioned this before.  There is a causal chain which is producing perception.  What happens ant one end of the chain is perceived at the other end.  And vice versa.  This produces the feedback loop in the Ted-Talk brought by the OP as a scientific resource.  But the OP is denying what is actually in the video.

 

When a person is wearing gloves, and they make a snowball, there is no doubt that they are not touching the snow.  But there is also no doubt that the snow exists and it is being formed into a ball.  The external phenomena is known to exist.  The perception of the snowball is a direct consequence of the snowball.  The snowball is causing the perception.  If a person squeezes the ball too strongly, because their perception is hampered by the gloves, the mind auto-corrects next time as a result of the feedback loop.  All of it is produced by the external phenomena which is being detected by the sensory apparatus.

 

So, its not like a camera and a screen, or a person driving a tank.  It's like wearing gloves.  That accurately describes the sensitivity and feedback that is occuring constantly with the perception in the mind.

 

The observer is not the observed.  If it was, they would never accidentally crush the snowball, nor handle it more gently the next time.

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Daniel

[Daniel]

3 hours ago, Pak_Satrio said:

This is such a hilarious thread. I don’t understand why someone would keep on trying to engage in conversation when the other person is clearly saying not to do it here. 

 

It's not difficult to understand if a person can look at the thread objectively and try to see both sides of the issue.

 

3 hours ago, Pak_Satrio said:

Tubar is my new favourite word

 

I replied on page 1.  I answered honestly and correctly.  The attempts to argue against what I have said have all failed.  The sources posted have been cherry picked and misinterpretted.  That's what's happening here.  There shouldn't be any objections to pointing that out.

[Daniel]

18 hours ago, kakapo said:

 

 

1 hour ago, kakapo said:

 

 

 

Why won't you read the critical analysis of Hoffman's theories?  What are you afraid of?

[kakapo]

17 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

 

Why won't you read the critical analysis of Hoffman's theories?  What are you afraid of?

 

What are you afraid of?

 

The behavior you are desiring me to engage in with you will lead to me being suspended and or banned.

 

That is to say long argumentative circular forum posts and threads that reach tens of thousands of replies.

 

I've explained multiple times I have no problem with a public discussion with you, but that it's not going to fly in public here on this particular forum..

 

I created a public forum, so we could keep the discussion public without disturbing the locals or the moderators here, but you were not interested. 

 

The only choice remaining is private discussion.

 

If you prefer public discussion we can use the external forum I created.

[Daniel]

23 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

What are you afraid of?

 

The behavior you are desiring me to engage in with you will lead to me being suspended and or banned.

 

What?  That doesn't make any sense.  I've posted the critical information here.  Not a single whiff of moderation resulted from it.  Here it is again.

 

 

LINK

 

You clearly don't know how the moderation works here.

 

Quote

 

That is to say long argumentative circular forum posts and threads that reach tens of thousands of replies.

 

Reading the criticism and discussing it moves the conversation forward and avoids circular posts.

 

Quote

 

I've explained multiple times I have no problem with a public discussion with you, but that it's not going to fly in public here on this particular forum..

 

But you refuse to read criticism of the ideas you are promoting here.  And none of it has anything to do with banned subject matter.  That's a diversion.

 

Quote

I created a public forum, so we could keep the discussion public without disturbing the locals or the moderators here, but you were not interested. 

 

Because it's unneeded.  Unless you want to preach about an incomplete stolen tradition.  If that's your intention, it's off topic anyway.

 

Quote

The only choice remaining is private discussion.

 

False.  You can discuss this topic, here and now without any risk of moderation.  All you need to do is read the opposing view why the observer is not the observed and discuss its strengths, if it has any, and/or the weaknesses, if it has any.

 

Repeating the same faulty arguments over and over is on you ,not me.

 

Quote

If you prefer public discussion we can use the external forum I created.

 

I'd prefer that you click the link, read the paper, inform yourself of the faults and the fraud of Hoffman's theory, then admit it was foolish to introduce it.

 

Then go back and read my post on page 1, realize I was 100% correct, and have some gratitude for bringing clarity to the grandiose claims posted in this thread.

 

Then go back and review the sources you've posted here, excluding Hoffman, realize you misinterpreted them and cultivate some healthy humility.

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

3 hours ago, Pak_Satrio said:

This is such a hilarious thread. I don’t understand why someone would keep on trying to engage in conversation when the other person is clearly saying not to do it here. 
 

Tubar is my new favourite word

 

Pak could you chime in and let him know I can't have a 10,000 page circular argument without the mods locking the thread and suspending me and him?

 

You understand that's exactly what will happen right?

 

He seems to think that can't or won't happen here.

 

See his post above this one.

[Daniel]

12 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

Pak could you chime in and let him know I can't have a 10,000 page circular argument without the mods locking the thread and suspending me and him?

 

You understand that's exactly what will happen right?

 

He seems to think that can't or won't happen here.

 

See his post above this one.

 

It's only circular if you keep repeating the same arguments, virtually verbatim.  I keep bringing new content, new examples.

 

If you are concerned about moderation, you know what to do...

 

On 9/21/2023 at 8:14 AM, kakapo said:

Please go to to the "Forum and Tech Support" section,

 

You see?  This whole moderation threat is a diversion.  You know where to go to get clarity on this.  Go open a thread in Tech Support just like you did when you first created the account you're using now. 

 

If your group is lurking here... it's not a good look for you to keep avoiding discussion like this 

 

It's like I said before.  Engaging with an opposing view is useful!  It will make your ideas stronger.  Maybe ask your "senior"?  What do they say?

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Daniel

[kakapo]

5 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

It's only circular if you keep repeating the same arguments, virtually verbatim.  I keep bringing new content, new examples.

 

If you are concerned about moderation, you know what to do...

 

 

You see?  This whole moderation threat is a diversion.  If your group is lurking here... it's not a good look for you.

 

It's like aI said before.  Engaging with an opposing view is useful!  It will make your ideas stronger.  Ask your "senior"?  What do they say?

 

Hopefully Pak will set you straight on this one, our mutual friend Shadow_self is on a long forced vacation for exactly the type of behavior I am describing.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/54386-shadow_self/

 

My hope is you and I can self moderate and keep this private or off forum to prevent any problems.

Seems completely reasonable to me.

[Daniel]

16 minutes ago, kakapo said:

 

Hopefully Pak will set you straight on this one, our mutual friend Shadow_self is on a long forced vacation for exactly the type of behavior I am describing.

https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/54386-shadow_self/

 

My hope is you and I can self moderate and keep this private or off forum to prevent any problems.

Seems completely reasonable to me.

 

This whole moderation threat is a diversion.  Pak is not a mod.  Shadow_self is a repeat offender.  Literally.  

 

Let's talk about the observer, the observation, and the observed.  Ok?  That's the topic.

 

The two most recent agenda items are:  Hoffman's theory.  And the gloves analogy vs. The tank driver analogy.

 

I've noticed inconsistency on your position regarding Hoffman's theory.  Without rehashing it, I think your best option is to abandon it.  Just admit it's self defeating, and you probably shouldn't have brought it into the discussion at all.

 

After that, I think it makes sense to discuss the two differing, but, similar analogies the tank driver compared to the pair of gloves.  At the end, if we actually discuss it in a non-biased rational manner, I think it will be difficult, perhaps impossible to deny the gloves are a closer match to the perceptual experience of most human beings.

 

Then we can go back to color, shape, smell, etc and realize that there is very good reason to believe these qualities have inherent accurate correspondence to actual phenomena outside the brain.  This matches what I posted on page 1.  

 

And that will be the end of our discussion barring any backpedaling on your part in future posts.

[kakapo]

I am not going to attempt further public conversation with you.

 

It's clear to me my options are self moderate or get suspended and banned.

 

We can chat in private if you wish, or we can talk in public on the forum I created.

[Daniel]

14 minutes ago, kakapo said:

I am not going to attempt further public conversation with you.

 

It's clear to me my options are self moderate or get suspended and banned.

 

Bro-seph... that's not real. Your fear is unfounded.

 

Quote

 

We can chat in private if you wish, or we can talk in public on the forum I created.

 

 

My inbox is open for you.  Absolutely open door policy.  We can discuss it as much as you want.

 

But I'm not leaving this venue for several reasons.  Primarily I think it's best that your group is not interfering in what we're saying.  

 

You have my permission to converse with me.  They do not.  

 

Also, making your ideas stronger will only happen if you use your own mind to assess what I'm saying.  The collective, please forgive me, is a crutch.  If there is one thing hopefully you've noticed:

 

I am advocating for your independence from the collective. If there is just 1 flaw to focus on, the most important weak point in your methods, it seems to me, it's an over reliance on this collective.  It's established that this group does not possess complete knowledge. 

 

So, I think it would be wise to seek ways to complete it.  That requires independence.  A great first step would be reading the opposing view of Hoffman's theory and discussing it like gentlemen.

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Daniel

[Apech]

11 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Bro-seph... that's not real. Your fear is unfounded.

 

 

 

My inbox is open for you.  Absolutely open door policy.  We can discuss it as much as you want.

 

But I'm not leaving this venue for several reasons.  Primarily I think it's best that your group is not interfering in what we're saying.  

 

You have my permission to converse with me.  They do not.  

 

Also, making your ideas stronger will only happen if you use your own mind to assess what I'm saying.  The collective, please forgive me, is a crutch.  If there is one thing hopefully you've noticed:

 

I am advocating for your independence from the collective. If there is just 1 flaw to focus on, the most important weak point in your methods, it seems to me, it's an over reliance on this collective.  It's established that this group does not possess complete knowledge. 

 

So, I think it would be wise to seek ways to complete it.  That requires independence.  A great first step would be reading the opposing view of Hoffman's theory and discussing it like gentlemen.

 

 

 

Or what?  pistols at dawn?

 

 

[Daniel]

Just now, Apech said:

Or what?  pistols at dawn?

 

Or... it's willful ignorance.

[silent thunder]

A conversation occurs when two or more parties engage with and listen to one another in an exchange of ideas. 

 

So far here, folks seem to be talking at one another, not with one another.  Not much conversation taking place.

 

I've experienced and embraced a space within awareness in recent years where one engages new, strange, or opposing concepts without submitting to the compulsion to instantly reject or support them.

[Apech]

Just now, Daniel said:

 

Or... it's willful ignorance.

 

You're a clever guy Daniel and I like a lot of what you post.  But sometimes, intentionally or not you appear to be indulging in intellectual bullying.  This is the DaoBums where everyone is cool and knows the martial art of internet debate.  Be cool.

 

(sorry about the overuse of the word cool).

 

 

[Daniel]

2 minutes ago, silent thunder said:

A conversation occurs when two or more parties engage with and listen to one another in an exchange of ideas. 

 

So far here, folks seem to be talking at one another, not with one another.  Not much conversation taking place.

 

I've experienced and embraced a space within awareness in recent years where one engages new, strange, or opposing concepts without submitting to the compulsion to instantly reject or support them.

 

In light of this,would you please share some feedback on my initial reply to this post?  Is it opposing the point of view?  Is it embracing it?  Perhaps a moderate middle path?

 

On 9/9/2023 at 12:08 PM, Daniel said:

the paint is not in the mind.

 

the observation is the observer.  the observer is not the observed.

 

the color is 'red' is just a label, a symbol in the mind which is bound to the neurochemical reaction when a specific range of wavelengths of elecrto-magnetic radition interacts with the retina.  Those wavelengths are not the mind, nor are the they the observer.

 

while it's an interesting thought experiment to consider objective compared to subjective phenomena, it seems foolish to me to apply this idea globally to the point of "everything is subjective, everything is in the mind" 

 

[Daniel]

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

Edit, I feel this thread has reached a threshold, it's been TUBAR,  Trolled Up Beyond All Recognition.

 

Hee.  My turn...

 

Trolling.  I don't think you know what that word actually means.

[kakapo]

20 minutes ago, Daniel said:

 

Bro-seph... that's not real. Your fear is unfounded.

 

 

 

My inbox is open for you.  Absolutely open door policy.  We can discuss it as much as you want.

 

But I'm not leaving this venue for several reasons.  Primarily I think it's best that your group is not interfering in what we're saying.  

 

You have my permission to converse with me.  They do not.  

 

Also, making your ideas stronger will only happen if you use your own mind to assess what I'm saying.  The collective, please forgive me, is a crutch.  If there is one thing hopefully you've noticed:

 

I am advocating for your independence from the collective. If there is just 1 flaw to focus on, the most important weak point in your methods, it seems to me, it's an over reliance on this collective.  It's established that this group does not possess complete knowledge. 

 

So, I think it would be wise to seek ways to complete it.  That requires independence.  A great first step would be reading the opposing view of Hoffman's theory and discussing it like gentlemen.

 

 

Tell you what Daniel go ask the mods if we can discuss this here even if it takes 1,000,000,000,000 posts, 1, 000,000,000 pages and takes 100 years, of circular arguing.

 

If they come here and give their explicit permission to allow such a thing I will be happy to have this discussion with you in public here.

Edited September 24, 2023 by kakapo