It is there within the pointless interaction we had a couple of days ago. People are able to read back and judge for themselves if they wish. I imagine they don't care. But you admitted that you entered the discussion simply for your amusement, and I assume (please correct me if I am wrong) to feather your ego? I cannot imagine any further interaction with you being constructive or addressing the point. Can you supply evidence for your statement that qualia are not cognitive representations, for example?
Then it would be trivial for you to cut and paste it here. 'Pointless' is merely your own opinion, not relevant at all here.
Indeed, one or two have done that.
Imagine away.
I think you likely misconstrued something I said so I'd like the reference for this please.
You are mistaken. Do you accept my correction?
It is still constructive for me even (as has happened frequently) when you fail to address the point, and/or the question.
No, take it as my working hypothesis.
No, my opinion is simply not relevant to you.
It is there in the record for anyone so motivated to check. As I said I have no interest in pursuing this sort of puerile exchange. (Puerile is indeed my opinion).
Why would I not? What is your purpose of derailing a discussion from the subject matter remains to be ascertained for anyone interested. I am not.
I answered all your questions. My answers are on record. You just continue asking more. For whatever reason.
Then thank you for admitting your error. It is a pity you are not more amenable to discussion as I have a working hypothesis that infers exactly the opposite.
Its irrelevant to the topic too so I disagree.
So its yet another of your unsupported claims. Got it.
I have no idea.
I'd say you responded to my questions.
I'm interested to learn of that. If I find your argument convincing I shall throw out my working hypothesis. But it seems to me more likely that you misconstrued my hypothesis or our respective cognitive frameworks don't align.
For the last time, the claims are evidenced in this thread. People can judge for themselves. The record supports my statement. It requires no further corroboration.
I gave answers. You might not have accepted them and you failed to supply reason for not doing so. Instead you just litter your responses with accusations of me "weaving" and "ducking". I didn't do anything of the kind. The record is in this thread.
But I have no such interest to engage in further conversation with you. In my opinion, this discussion is littering the thread. It is tiresome.
Unfortunately most here don't actually want to discuss openly, there is evidence of that at least
So you say. But still no cigar.
Not from where I'm standing.
Might not? I accept all responses I'm given. I don't necessarily agree with them but I do accept them.
They aren't accusations in fact, that's your opinion. Merely descriptions of your behaviour.
So you keep claiming. The record speaks for itself and doesn't match your repeated claims. Which could be the reason why you rarely, if ever, reference it directly rather just wave a hand in its general direction.
Yeah you've said its tiresome before, nothing new or revelatory there. Even though you repeat yourself often with your irrelevant opinions, I still find your behaviour amusing, even entertaining.
Might be interesting to investigate that. First how many people are here? To establish whether 'most' is correct we'd first need to know the number of eyeballs, then divide that by four. Do you have any numbers to put on your claim?
I count at least three, they probably know who they are, others could put their hands up but that's hardly likely to happen is it?
So you reckon there are 3 people here, so this means 2 of the 3 don't want to discuss openly? They want private discussion or no discussion at all ? But if there are 3 people here, two of them (you and me) are already discussing openly. So where does your 'three' come from?
Oh, your counting wasn't of the total number of people watching, I got it now. So back to my earlier question, how do you figure the number of people here?
What do you mean "here"? I mean posting recently, in order to clarify my assumption, that's all it was BTW, not a statement of fact, I can't know what other people are really thinking, that's obvious.
Based on your subsequent postings I most likely misconstrued the post of yours I first responded to. Your 'evidence' claim must have referred to 'people who didn't wish to discuss openly' rather than to the 'most' claim. As you were 🙂
Got it 😛
I'm guessing the people who don't wish to discuss openly find the questioning/doubting/skepticism of subjective views too oppressive?
I'm guessing the people who don't wish to discuss openly find the questioning/doubting/skepticism of subjective views too oppressive?
Last edited:
Hi Richard,
If you are guessing about me, its not necessarily too oppressive. I said one dac was better than the other. Then a question was asked of me by someone who IMO sometimes asks questions only in order to ridicule whatever the reply might be. His fun would might be considerably diminished without the audience he seeks to entertain. To find out, I gave him an opportunity to receive a serious reply if it was my opinion he was really after. Naturally, he declined.
Last edited:
Hi Mark
In fact you were the only one I had evidence for - that you prefer to share subjective observations/opinions in private. Which to me seems fair enough given there has been at least one call on this thread for such to be censored from the forum. I noted the way that your invitation to share observations about the DACs privately was twisted and figured that the situation was indeed terminal, unless/until he gave up the twisting of your words. Your olive branch was rejected so nothing much will change.
I was interested after reading your comments on Topping vs Benchmark - I know practically nothing about the internals of these two DACs beyond the DAC chips used. Are the analog stages post-DAC chip comparable or are those in Benchmark's box more costly/elaborate given the 3:1 price differential?
In fact you were the only one I had evidence for - that you prefer to share subjective observations/opinions in private. Which to me seems fair enough given there has been at least one call on this thread for such to be censored from the forum. I noted the way that your invitation to share observations about the DACs privately was twisted and figured that the situation was indeed terminal, unless/until he gave up the twisting of your words. Your olive branch was rejected so nothing much will change.
I was interested after reading your comments on Topping vs Benchmark - I know practically nothing about the internals of these two DACs beyond the DAC chips used. Are the analog stages post-DAC chip comparable or are those in Benchmark's box more costly/elaborate given the 3:1 price differential?