Your driving down the street and as you just cross a bridge it collapses. So you cannot turn back and you continue to drive just to arrive at a fork in the road. If you turn to the right you fall off a cliff , if you turn to the left you fall off a cliff, but if you get out of the car walk straight into the bushes you can at least least continue to move forward.

 

fair enough, but it is mostly just repeating what you have already stated. it's pretty much as i suspect, almost a template of certain contemporary schools of thought. my problem is i am jaded. i am jaded by the platitudes. i am a jaded by people presenting obvious conclusions as profound insight. i am jaded by the false attributions, false emphasis, false assertions. as i have already stated most people who have any interest have already read this stuff one thousand times before.

if you genuinely want to have a good discussion it would go smoother without all the preloading, allusions to things you clearly demonstrate you know nothing about, absurd propositions, etc. unless you want to create a mess in which people are confounded and marginalized from the get go. also this kind of behavior just reeks of signaling. do not be surprised if people see it as such.

if the fact that there is a difference between reality and imagination is a revelation to you, well... it's very confusing. you could just assume such things unless it becomes a problem.

it seems to be a real device of this kind of thinking to just rattle off mass dumps of information interspersed with somewhat reasonable points. this can come off as a certain well known tactic. if you want to speak plainly -- speak plainly.

as i have stated before this is a mess, i do not see how just a mass dump makes your point any clearer. the confluence of psychobabble, reasoned talking points and obvious observations just baffles me. you could at least clean it up, order your points, stay on topic, etc. just the basic courtesies if you are going to present it to the wider public. i warn you, some people will find an effort like this insulting and a waste of time. you could be accused of just scatter-gun signaling or the like. maybe you are just use to communicating in safe bubbles. maybe you just want to signal in a random manner. i still know little of the intent. the information is very conflicting.

alternatively presenting this as a serious inquiry into the nature of reality and asserting as yet unproven things about reality and its connection to things, asserting certain things are historically more popular than they are, etc (too much to address). then a lassez faire:

and then:

but prior indications suggest otherwise. it is contradictory.

things like this will leave people conflicted, unless they are moronic vessels just willing to soak up any information unchallenged. maybe this is your intended audience. this type of presentation and thinking is well know and mostly undesirable in civil discourse.

a sheer amount of grand presumptions abound, and i would question the wisdom of presenting them as any sort of falsifiable truths. i guess you see no problem with it and this reflects badly on you.

i will have to decide if it is worth addressing certain points. it is hard to devote the time to something so shoddily presented. i wonder if it is wise to incentivize this kind of behavior. it is obvious you don't care either way.

can not tell if that is suppose to be metaphorical or not but this is not consistent with my experience or relationship to music. music has nevertheless stuck with me for a long time and i understand the broader message. this is one stratum on which we agree. the other stuff i am lukewarm on. the method in which you present it is a further stumbling block.

i guess i appreciate the effort. i will try and accept this in the spirit, i presume, it is given. thanks for your time.

 

interesting metaphor, probably tells me more about your mindset than the other thousand and one words, but as you have just espoused a clear delineation between reality and what you characterize as imagination. even with the advent of a metric tonne of all this mind stuff, look around -- nothing has changed.

 

If you want please pick a mode of departure and we can dig into it to look at your concerns .
Yes I am using a certain way to phrase all of this , that being only as an easier to digest ,because you can take a single point and write paragraphs about that . I would like to get into where you disagree I am generally interested . If you think something is not true I would like to know why this that thank you for your time.

 

Take for example the Scientific method . This collective structure has been successful as it has because the scientists take personal responsibility in their dedication combined with self corrective measures which are built into the structure such that the system has the ability to transcend the limitations of it's individuals. You have the balance of the individuals work and dedication with to he collective efforts coupled with a system with self corrective mechanisms ,coupled with the ability to differentiate between fantasy and reality . To me this is an example of the way forward .

 

you requested plain speaking so here it is.

i have already stated my 'concerns', pretty clearly. as i have learned from the rest of the thread they will not be addressed, so it is really not worth my time. most your motives and intents are quite clear now. as i already stated, you have adopted a specific world view, your mind is set, that is really all there is to be said. there is no further discussion needed.

i am aware you are stealthy getting past the forum rules; a lot of this is clearly nouveau political marketing (propaganda). i have no problem with this personally, but i will respect the boards moderators wishes and not engage in these points.

i is rude to ask people to devote their time to discussion when it is obvious that you have made your conclusions and have put so little effort into. especially when they run at risk of running afoul of the forum rules. it is disingenuous to present this as a discussion. as i have already stated, this reeks of signalling and people may see this as deceptive evangelizing for a particular world view.

i suggest you re-frame this thread not as a discussion, but as to what it is.

seeing you display no impetus to, like the 'dedicated scientist', put in some work, refine your talking points, assemble them into a specific order, group them in ways as to present cogent arguments or salient points or an 'engaging -- whatever it is you are trying to do'. i do not know the way forward for you in that respect. as i have already stated, the way you are presenting them at the moment is quite frankly, insulting to the reader. i would not blame anyone for not wanting to engage.

you have severely restricted your options, you have self truncated your frame of reference. i am sure your fellow travelers in the framework you have adopted will tell you what to think and do.

the right/left dialectic you reference is 'fantasy/imagination' as you have chosen to characterize it. it is only as useful a tool as the time and effort you put into making it subjectively useful (or destructive) to yourself.

the bridge is endless and constantly collapsing at your heels, so you better run.

as much as i cringe at the name of science being brought up in this context of this thread, and the very poor characterization of the scientific process but i will just ignore and go with it.

like the 'dedicated scientist' the onus is entirely on oneself. you alone must the assume the mantle of the burden of proof, otherwise it is just unsubstantiated garbage. self corrective measures have already been deployed, but, as evidenced, i suspect they will be ignored.

there is no forward for you, you are already exactly where you put yourself. stop this ridiculous pretense.

as i already stated, if you are having problems differentiating between fantasy and reality, the problem is with you (and the cheshire cat). i would just keep that stuff quiet if you want to be taken seriously.

 

ahhh... the classics. i wish it were that easy.

the oldies are goodies but we have to think more **now**.

it has been decided.

we are going with, 'woke on wokeness' purple pill anti-realism with a twist of postliberalationalism-status-quo, just the slightest touch of black pill sadism and some social darwinism to smooth out the mix an' #keepitreal

only costs $5 a month on patreon --> that comes with a free youtube video.

!!! we got this !!!

 

I don't know what you mean by adopted a world view , I don't know why you think my mind is set , or on fact why you would think anything of me at all. Fir example if I myself try to imagine the actual beings you are which exists , I can only come up with a blAnk . Sure I can use my imagination to invent a character which I attach your username to but what justification could I possibly have for thinking it matches the real human being you are? This is exactly what I mean about differentiating reality from imagination, and yet you yourself have this elaborate storytelling about the human being I am all because I'm talking about ideas in a thread?
If I am as bad off as you say why is it that I have this ability to recognize that any storytelling of a character in my imagination which I attach to your username can only be fiction, yet you demostrably show time again that you cannot differentiate the difference between the mmj of your fantasy and the real actual being? So if your tired of having all these presuppositions and assumptions bout me and recognize that aLL you actually have in reality is the surface level of some ideas presented in such a way people can talk about them give feedback and present their own if they like , maybe we can move past your demonstrable stawman fallacies and talk for real if not best of luck to you going through life only seeing people for the characters you make up in your thoughts about them never recognizing they are living beings just as complex with the breadth of thoughts and feelings just like you have .

 

good lord, just cut the crap. as i already said stop this ridiculous BS pretense. now once again ***thorough the looking glass***

you, cheshiRe cat, are a charActer you have made up in your own non existent heaD imagining that you are communicating with someone wHo is long dead.
i think my assessments are reasonably correct. i did not mention what most of my assessments were, so we will never know if i was correct or not. who cares anyway. ideally this was never about you or me, at least for me it wasn't. this is a thread on a forum. you constantly assume my perception of 'you' has any bearing on this, incorrect assumption. why would you think that?

the presented ideas or your opinions are as inconsequential as mine or as indeed 'you' are in my assessment.
there is at least some mental perception of an entity when you imagine or ideate me, just more unsubstantiated assumptions of mental facility. you can still not prove what you say. if you can, do so. seems like a one way self-serving device.
it is ridiculous to assume one has to ideate a elaborate character to make some methodological inquiry. you only have to objectively assess a situation and presume only what is needed to make your assessment. simple data ie. being evasive, deceptive or whatever. that is all that is needed. *more later*
i can and have differentiated between the differentiate between mmj and the so called 'real' entity, if need be but as stated there is no need, it is merely your assumption that you can not, and you can not prove otherwise. these things cross peoples minds you know, you should consider that. collate your own thoughts and test them against whatever you think reality is.

the only thing you demonstrated was if you present people ambiguous information they take awhile to figure out what exactly is going on. especially in a such a limited scope. that is already well known. just like all your ideas you presented. then there are just the dumb tactics i was talking about from the beginning.
you were presenting ideas in a thread in written form. there was no "talking" if you want to get real pedantic.
i stated clearly that my interest was in seeing what was going on here. i found out. it was easy to see the run around, hence my annoyance. i perceived something was suspicious and confirmed my suspicions. simple process. experientially to me, 'you' are just a poorly arranged set of words on a screen. if you noticed, i only made procedural and methodological arguments which require some assessment of actual intent, therefore some character, it is not important it is only a place keeper that changes constantly as more information comes to hand. once you know the model is corrupt you know not to trust it. you can still make reasoned deductions. there are still inherent bounds and markers. 'you' do not figure into any of these calculations.

the only strawman arguments are the ones you constructed in your head about your own hypothesis. as you yourself proved to yourself.

as i have already stated.there is absolutely no reason to "talk for real". there is no more real than real.
you have no idea what i "actually have in reality" it was never about you. stop assuming. i am a 'blAnk', remember?
you have no idea about my experienced reality so you in turn have no idea how i perceive people in my life at any given time. mOre assumption on your part, i am a 'blAnk' according to you. you fall into the holes in you own logic or is this only self-serving one way process, but as i have already said 'you' are not important at all, in all this. 'you' have no bearing in the whole proceeding equation. it has never mattered what i think of you. i don't know why you thought that. you seem to be the one making all the assumptions.

great minds discuss ideas.
average minds discuss events.
small minds discuss people.

i am not a great mind but i can at least pretend. please do not make me discuss 'you' anymore.

 

You guys are still at it? :D

I confess, I don't get it. With trepidation - or maybe a slightly wicked desire to throw fuel on the fire - I ask, what's the beef?

 

What is real?
These colored dots

(Or not) EQUALITY
Yes! not equality


So long!

 

Yes you did not mention what your assessments where no matter how many times I repeatedly asked you to do that a conversion could be had correct.
Who cares anyway?
You are the one making descisions to participate in this thread you showed up said some things , I asked for clarification you respond with creating a straw man and then attacking it . Why are you commenting on a thread you don't care about? Out of every potential option you have to spend a moment of your life what is the purpose of making this choice of commenting here ?(if who cares anyway) why would I think what you name calling me and personal attacks has any bearing on the subject? That question was asked of you by multiple users .
I still cannot prove what I say?
Are you saying that what you are saying is proven?
If I am saying something not proved show me .
There is at least a small mental perception of an entity when 8 perceive your comments?
Yes I recognize a human being ( hopefully) is the mind behind it , I also think of that human being equal to myself in terms of complexity , I sure do not treat you as if you are a figment of my imagination as you are me.
This Cheshire cat thing apparently you believe 8 am 2xidting in your head with you such that I know the backstory to decipher what you mean be that I am not in your thoughts with you in such a way where one sentence spoken to me instantly unpacks all of its internal presuppositions and assumptions .
Now you say you have the ability to differentiate the actual human being that I am from the character in your thoughts you make the straw man out of then bash afterwards .
Here is the thing anyone can go back and read the constant personal attacks you have made the descisions to post over and over and then see that the content and nature of the attacks is imaginery, that your not speaking these attacks based on the material presented on the thread. What this means us that the only possibly way you could have made those choices to respond in such a way ,was that you thought what you were saying actually applied to the actual person you were responding to , how could it be that you knowingly made choices to respond on public thread to a person which you knew your thoughts did not pertain to?
You say you had an interest in finding out what was going on here and subsequently found out.
This again right here you are creating a fictional backstory which you are unaware of that you were doing . You certainly are not saying right now "iIfoundout" means you made up story to fill in gaps in your knowledge . You actually believe " I found out" pertains to the reality of the situation hence showing again that you are demonstrably unable to differentiate real person vs your 8magined in thoughts fictional version
Look at my behavior on contrast multiple 9ccasions asking you what you think or believe or what you are like even now I'm asking you move past this bizzare interactions to get to a deeper level.
I am 8ntetested in finding out what you disagree with and why it involves so much emotional content for you ,
Please I'm trying last time .
Take a single sentence on the subject or single idea you believe 8s not true , present your case show me how something is different than what I think ( you obviously believe this . ) You are disagreeing with me yet do far have made no case for something or presented what your assumptions are etc. If you don't want to speak on the topic in meaningful way I will cease to engage.

 

Refix the name of this thread is what is real or not? Equality.
First you repeatedly make choices to comment in such a way to demonstrate that your position is that other human beings are what you imagine them to be . This is the subject what is real or not
You have a. Actual human
B.imagined idea of a stranger
In what reality is a and b the same?
Next to you believe yourself ( actual being which exists)
To be identical with say me a stranger to you my internal thought process image in thoughts if you?
Of course not in fact you are aware of at least hundreds of thousands of individual details of which no amount of imagining in my thoughts can account for . Yet you have chosen multiple times to think of me in your interactions as myself being identical to your thought construct of me a stranger to you this gets to the heart of this thread equality.
You have not been treating me as if I am a real being as yourself in which no strangers image can even match 1 percent accuracy .
What is real or not? Equality

 

If " at it," is me trying to ask refix for clarrification than yes still at it haha
I have no beef with anything or anyone
For example refix mention he is jaded , but did not explain in what context do they mean? Is that a good or bad thing? Do they have a fundimental different different view causing the jaded? If so What is it ? Yet for any sentence refix gave never got into specifics enough to communicate anything .
Then there this other peculiar aspect of attempted 9erdonsl attacks that never made me feel attacked for no demonstration of such accusations where given . Thus led me to only see those attoted stesckd as avoiding going into any specifics if topic which made me curious why participate tcsll then? Silpkybto troll? Why? So I made more attempt to try get to the topic , why does the topic evoke such powerful emotions and xenophobia for refix? If it goes not evoke emotions or xenophobia then why the appearance of it?
I am simply trying to communicate in a cooperative way exchange ideas learn from each other hear people's views refix can go back search what is real or not ? To see the history of these threads and nature of their content throughout the years a tradition of sorts .

 

it is prudent to be wary, all ye who enter. there is no beef, at least on my part. i am providing analysis and critique and reading barely coherent psychobabble that i am having a hard time comprehending because it is so badly presented. i am slowly piecing it together. all i have basically said is tidy this S* up. that is my main objection. it is hard to comment on something when you can barely understand it because of physical limitations. you have to make educated guesses based on the larger sphere. i think they think i have some personal horse in this race. you would have to try and interpret this stuff for yourself. good luck.

i have no grand objections to the ideas presented. i have already stated this in multiple ways, it just falls on deaf ears. i think the work should be done by the one who wants to benefit. some procedural and methodological things stick out as strange, and some things that are based on things that are outside the bounds that can be discussed here. i am trying to be objective but it seems i am being dragged into something personal. i really don't know, and if i assume this is the case, i fear i will be accused of asserting things about a fictional character that i have made up in order to take a guess at what i think i should be thinking about a reality based entity that blah blah blahstrawmanning blah... you see my point?

i just like all opinions to have a place at the table. leads to better reasoning. i think i have i explained myself and my role fairly extensively. maybe not. i know for sure that i am not infallible -- on that i have all the evidence. i have proven it to myself many times over.

i guess we both still see some benefit here, even if it is just spewing screes of psychobabble at each other. it is still interesting. until it is not.

what's the beef? your guess is as good as mine.

 

i have already addressed the important parts of this multiple times i have raised multiple concerns and questions which all get ignored. i have explained all this multiple times, but it seems to fall on deaf ears. if you will not accept what i have said, so be it. i will try to remain objective about all this. now, it is your thread you do the work, you alone see the benefit.

the personal stuff does not interest me. i will no longer comment on it. believe what you want to believe.

i hope you have aired your grievance towards me adequately. if it is an apology you want, you have it.

i am aware of the history of these threads. i will engage in them however i see fit, within the rules and the bounds of common decency.

 

Thank you for your contributions here and participation. I have looked through your comments again , as before when I looked through them I am left with 20 or more mutually exclusive interpretations which is why I had asked for clarification to narrow that down such that I don't b
Need to guess at an interpreinterp. You made your decision which is yours to make in such matters .I don't have a way to connect to the actual person you are besides that and I have no desire to invent in my imagination what you mean by what you have said I have been interested in the real person and have tried to reach out and make that connection to cooperate to dig deeper . I am fine with your desciside to stay ambuigous. Thank you for your time.

 

Each moment of my internal life , psychologically ,emotionally I ask myself "what is real or not?"
I do this with the content of each thought as it enters. I do not treat my thoughts as though when they enter they are true. I treat them as if they have to be evaluated weighed against the collection of know facts and reality . This is because of our vast capability to misunderstand with even a couple peices of missing information . We can feel the most powerful yet fake emotions , our imagination can and dies trick us constantly.
Next I see other human beings of every second color size weight intelligence age just as myself in terms of incredible complexity for thoughts feelings ,accomplishment,growth ,changing, a plastic mind taking in into bettering all the time .
As such I treat whatever imaginings and thoughts I have about people as a line drawing compared to the actual person , just as I know a stranger cannot walk up to me off the street and 8n their imagination create a cariacture of me through imagining and have it come close to the actual real being I am, I treat others the same way I try to limit presuppositions and assumptions about people and constantly remind myself of the fast complexity millions and millions of things each human being is.
I try to treat human beings even in my thoughts in such a way that asking questions to learn more about them , engaging in cooperative Enterprise , reserving judgements without adeqet information .
I believe by treating others as human beings in our thoughts and in person in these ways will lead to the type of world which has more equality of the best sense optimal cooperation and best of all problem solving which extends past the limitations of a single mind.
What is real or not? Equality.

 

You can not trust your mind all the time. Brain is not a good tool for judging what is what. It's been designed to deal with simple difficulties with simple patterns:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativity_bias

You can't even say what is positive and what is negative, let alone judging objectively on everything and connecting the result of your every judgment together to infer a correct answer for every problem.

 

seems your fuel might have somewhat quenched the fire. a brief detente? at least for now.

it is understandable, my methodology can be a little 'difficult' at times. in debate you are often asked to present arguments for topics you personally find 'difficult'. i sometimes get caught up in my own mess so it would be unreasonable to expect other people not to.

i am a great fan of 'disinterested' interest. it can be a great antidote to the current information glut we experience on the internet and the mess it creates. like all things, it can create as much as it clears.

maybe some things to consider are what one person interprets as dismissal and finds suspicious, for another may be simply an effort to move on. such an instance may breed bad will. it may be prudent to not dismiss criticism so lightly, and leave no ambiguity, especially if you present problems that, can be directly or indirectly, be so existentially important in any given persons life. to offer up contingent solutions that are controversial within a broader context can seem 'detached from human concern'. people who are 'detached from human concern' can cause concern. practically, it also discourages engagement and therefore a well rounded set of ideas.

as i said i do think the framework for your the human reward system is a little wonky. highly contingent on, as to my knowledge, still highly contestable topics, which you weight as facts. but if i am to take you on your word it is still a work in progress. some possible conclusions of such speculation are, in my mind, extremely grave for humanity. some people strangely find them liberating. for now, i will remain impartial.