Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
General Discussion | moderated by Dev Singh

The brain has nothing to do with the mind?


Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 157 in total
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #61
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
Really? Well it's rather easy. If you ask me "How are you?" I can tell you that you have been thinking about how I am.

You are just being silly as i was when i went to him to test his genuiness & in my mind asked," What will be the number of the bus by which i am going to travel to Delhi next morning ?"

He retorted," Have you come to me to ask such stupid questions relating to registered number of the bus to Delhi or what? Please get out of this room.I am not a thing to be tested for purity you want to purchase"

What do you say to this, dear Vocco?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #62
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Ravi Seth wrote:
You are just being silly as i was when i went to him to test his genuiness & in my mind asked," What will be the number of the bus by which i am going to travel to Delhi next morning ?"

He retorted," Have you come to me to ask such stupid questions relating to registered number of the bus to Delhi or what? Please get out of this room.I am not a thing to be tested for purity you want to purchase"

What do you say to this, dear Vocco?

Hmm, looks like a lie. You haven't even asked him a question and he gave you an answer. Well, perhaps you are not the first one who was asking that question, so he actually checks you for your genuineness (read naivete) by counter question, not you check him. And perhaps you are telling thins in a reverse order. Perhaps you are that man with those super abilities?

This post was last updated by Voco . Tue, 15 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #63
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:

Pavil Davidov wrote:

I disagree. Awareness can be measured in many ways.One example is that scientists flash cards and measure recognition time from neuronal firings. They can also measure the degree of awareness by the spread and intensity of those firings.

You could also measure the response time of a computer which does not prove the computer is aware ...

Well OK, let's go with that analogy. Is a computer aware or not? I am not saying it is. I am asking, how would we know? What would be our criteria for saying a computer is or is not aware? Let's start from facts. It's a good question.

Let's not take our notebook as an example, but one of the supercomputers they are now running. Within a few decades computers will be far more sophisticated than today. May they in the future become 'aware?' How do we approach such a question?

What would be our criteria for saying a computer is aware or not?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #64
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

. . . and an interesting aside - for those who say awareness is not a function of the biological organism but somehow stands outside and beyond the organism (and also for those who invert the question and say that the organism stands inside awareness) why should that awareness, or Mind if you prefer, why should it only enter into the human? Why should it not enter into the computer? Maybe awareness will enter the computer. Why not? Once you say it has "nothing to do with the brain" why should it prefer to reside only there?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #65
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Well OK, let's go with that analogy. Is a computer aware or not? I am not saying it is. I am asking, how would we know? What would be our criteria for saying a computer is or is not aware? Let's start from facts. It's a good question.

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Let's not take our notebook as an example, but one of the supercomputers they are now running. Within a few decades computers will be far more sophisticated than today. May they in the future become 'aware?' How do we approach such a question?

Well, we would need to give it some challenge, but what do you mean by awareness? You see a machine can be made to react to a stimuli too.

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Why should it not enter into the computer? Maybe awareness will enter the computer. Why not? Once you say it has "nothing to do with the brain" why should it prefer to reside only there?

I think it is wrong to assume that awareness "enters" either the brain or machine.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #66
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
What would be our criteria for saying a computer is or is not aware?

Is a computer alive? To be alive is to be aware (capable of sensing; sensitivity) and vice-versa.

Computers obviously can think, i.e., use memory, but are they sensitive to the absolutely unknown (so that the unknown becomes the known) and can this sensitivity be programmed into them?

Just asking, Paul. What do you say?

The game of Go has recently been computerized using sets instead of brute force for calculating. The computer has won three of a five game match from the world champion Go player. Go is said to be more intuitive than chess, which was conquered some time ago by computers using the brute force method of calculating.

So perhaps it is not necessary to be alive in order to be aware?

max

This post was last updated by max greene Tue, 15 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #67
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
Computers obviously can think, i.e., use memory, but are they sensitive to the absolutely unknown (so that the unknown becomes the known) and can this sensitivity be programmed into them?

Are you asking if machines can learn with a zero knowledge in them? I.e. produce knowledge on their own? Well, it can, but it must use then own language for this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #68
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
why should that awareness, or Mind if you prefer, why should it only enter into the human? Why should it not enter into the computer? Maybe awareness will enter the computer. Why not? Once you say it has "nothing to do with the brain" why should it prefer to reside only there?

Why say that mind or awareness 'enters' into the human ? ... K says it does not ... awareness, being formless, can not 'enter' in any material form ... it is a (common) 'mis-take' to believe that awareness resides in the body ...

Why do people believe so would be an interesting question ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #69
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
I think it is wrong to assume that awareness "enters" either the brain or machine.

One with you on this Voco ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #70
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Voco . wrote:
Well, we would need to give it some challenge, but what do you mean by awareness? You see a machine can be made to react to a stimuli too.

That's what I'm asking Jean. What does he mean by awareness. He stated that a computer is not aware. I am asking him for the criteria from which he concludes such.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #71
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Voco . wrote:
I think it is wrong to assume that awareness "enters" either the brain or machine.

I'm not assuming that. I'm asking those who say awareness is "outside" the brain, how they know it is not, in the same way, outside the computer, but operating it.

Jean uses the analogy of a radio, the transmission being from "outside." So, why not also a computer? On what basis the difference between man and a computer? I am asking him and Max.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #72
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
I'm asking those who say awareness is "outside" the brain, how they know it is not, in the same way, outside the computer, but operating it.

Awareness is neither inside or outside as awareness can not be 'located' in any place ... rather awareness is the formless space in which all forms manifest ...

The best analogy I know to understand this is the dream: in your dream all objects and people (forms) happen in the dreamer's mind (the 'space') ... but the dreamer himself does not appear in his dream (he remains formless) ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Tue, 15 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #73
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Is a computer alive? To be alive is to be aware (capable of sensing; sensitivity) and vice-versa.

You can add many sensory devices to computers and robotisation will even add more than a human has, infra-red vision for example. A robot may be trained to recognise and react to emotional discharges from other sources, may become emoto-sensitive.

max greene wrote:
Computers obviously can think, i.e., use memory, but are they sensitive to the absolutely unknown

I have no idea what is the "absolutely unknown" and how it differs from the unknown, Max. But there's no reason to deny the robot the capacity to discover for itself something it has not been programmed with. That, after all, is the very definition of AI.

Perhaps you mean the "absolutely unknowable" however, in which case your next phrase becomes an absurdity:

max greene wrote:
(so that the unknown becomes the known)

If something is unknowable, how can it "become know" to either a human OR a computer? But, if you do indeed mean the simple "unknown" then a robot can discover that which it has not been programmed with in a similar way than a human, through senses, movement and mentation.

max greene wrote:
The game of Go has recently been computerized using sets instead of brute force for calculating. The computer has won three of a five game match from the world champion Go player. Go is said to be more intuitive than chess, which was conquered some time ago by computers using the brute force method of calculating.

So perhaps it is not necessary to be alive in order to be aware?

Maybe, but then you have negated your definition of awareness as 'life' without at all considering what you mean by 'awareness' in the first place. So again, what is your criteria? It's not 'life' after all, is it? You just negated that.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #74
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
Awareness is neither inside or outside as awareness can not be 'located' in any place ... rather awareness is the formless space in which all forms manifest ...

Then how do you know a damned thing about it?

And, if it is "the formless space in which all forms manifest," why do forms manifest? Why does awareness bother with all that? It could just remain quiet and stick with the facts, K101.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #75
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
The best analogy I know to understand this is the dream: in your dream all objects and people (forms) happen in the dreamer's mind (the 'space') ... but the dreamer himself does not appear in his dream (he remains formless) ...

Now you introduce "the dreamers mind" but you've previously said the dreamer's mind is itself a dream. You are tied in more knots than a Coney Island pretzel.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #76
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
And, if it is "the formless space in which all forms manifest," why do forms manifest? Why does awareness bother with all that? It could just remain quiet and stick with the facts, K101.

Because mind is conditioned ... K101

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #77
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
you've previously said the dreamer's mind is itself a dream.

When did I ever say such absurdity Paul ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #78
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
Because mind is conditioned ... K101

You are saying that the Universal Mind is "conditioned?" By what?

You previously said that consciousness creates forms. Now you say it does so according to its conditioning? It must be formlessly conditioned in that case.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #79
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
You are saying that the Universal Mind is "conditioned?" By what?

lol Paul ... read K :-)

(and btw I am not using the terminology 'Universal Mind' I leave that to you, for me 'mind' is enough)

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Tue, 15 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #80
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
When did I ever say such absurdity Paul ?

Your arguments are circular, Jean. We are discussing the nature of mind and you introduce mind in as an analogy. Totally circular. You are the epitome of absurdity.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #81
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
lol Paul ... read K :-)

I did. He says nothing whatsoever along the lines of your theories. Instead of saying "read K" (which I have, the entire works and then some) give the readers here a citation.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #82
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Instead of saying "read K" (which I have, the entire works and then some) give the readers here a citation.

Are you saying that after such intense study of K's teaching you missed the point that mind is conditioned ?

??

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #83
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
(and btw I am not using the terminology 'Universal Mind' I leave that to you, for me 'mind' is enough)

You repeat and repeat the passage where K is asked by a questioner about the mind being outside the brain. You disagree, saying the mind is not outside the brain. But you continue to identify in some way with that idea. Now you say 'mind' is enough. You say 'mind' is conditioned. Is mind form? Is it conditioned by other forms? Is that what you're saying?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #84
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
Are you saying that after such intense study of K's teaching you missed the point that mind is conditioned ?

No, it's clear to me that K uses 'mind' in two main ways. Firstly as the 'individual' minds of each of us and secondly the Mind which he says emanates from what he called The Ground.

The first mind is conditioned, the second Mind is not. So says K. You confuse everything, Jean.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #85
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul, you want only to argue. I was trying to ask questions for inquiry.

The "absolutely unknown," as I meant it, is something other than anything ever sensed before, so that there is no record, no base from which to proceed. Can a machine be programmed to have such sensitivity? I doubt it because the very act of programming infers a base, a protocol, a method.

The "absolutely unknowable" is different from the "absolutely unknown," as I see it. The unknowable is the timeless present, which cannot be thought about and hence subjected to time. This is the moment of life and awareness, the moment existence is created.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #86
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The "absolutely unknown," as I meant it, is something other than anything ever sensed before, so that there is no record, no base from which to proceed. Can a machine be programmed to have such sensitivity? I doubt it because the very act of programming infers a base, a protocol, a method.

But we have that base, which is senses, recognition, cognition. The talk is about all that can be reproduced in an artificial way, it's of course hard, and machines will never be the same as humans, but still it could do many of the tasks that we do, even more efficiently.

This post was last updated by Voco . Tue, 15 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #87
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Then how do you know a damned thing about it?

Good question. If awareness is neither "inside" nor "outside", then it is neither in between somewhere.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #88
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Paul, you want only to argue. I was trying to ask questions for inquiry.

Not at all. You used a very odd phrase "the absolutely unknown" and I asked what you meant by it. I gave two possible alternatives and invited your response. You're too ego-sensitive, Max.

max greene wrote:
The "absolutely unknown," as I meant it, is something other than anything ever sensed before, so that there is no record, no base from which to proceed. Can a machine be programmed to have such sensitivity? I doubt it because the very act of programming infers a base, a protocol, a method.

The computer is manmade and man needs "a protocol, a method" to build and program one. The human however is not man made. He evolved through nature. There is no protocol or method to make a man, yet he is programmed, conditioned, is he not? And, in spite of this, he can discover, using his senses. But what happens when he does this? Does he start from a blank sheet? No, he starts from his knowledge, going back as far as he needs to to begin to build the experience back up again.

Take an example: A man sees an animal he has never seen or "sensed" before. First he recognises it as an animal and then he categorises this 'new' animal according to its various dispositions, comparing those with other animals he has known. That's not argument, it's fact.

You may argue that you didn't mean an animal. You may say you meant something for which he has absolutely no previous experience to relate to. Well, that'd be more difficult to prove. I mean, any and every example of such a thing I could possibly give, you would say it relates to something. If he has never seen an ocean, say . . . but he has sensed water and salt etc.

OK, say something distant such as the stars. Perhaps a man has been blind all his life and suddenly has an operation and sees the stars for the first time. In what way would that be different than a computer seeing the stars for the first time? Perhaps the computer has been taught to make emotional responses. How would it respond? Wouldn't that depend, in the same way as with a man, on the complexity of his programming (conditioning)?

But you've still avoided my direct question: What criterion would you use to judge if a computer is aware or not?

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #89
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
The "absolutely unknown," as I meant it, is something other than anything ever sensed before, so that there is no record, no base from which to proceed.

So, take a human in that case. Give me an example of something with regard to which the human would have, "no record, no base to proceed." Can you give an example of something you are talking about which would have "absolutely" no base in the previous record? I can't think of a thing here so you need to help me.

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #90
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Voco . wrote:
Good question. If awareness is neither "inside" nor "outside", then it is neither in between somewhere.

Well, we could go to A A Milne (creator of Winnie the Pooh) for a view on that:

Emeline had not been seen
For more than a week, she slipped between
The two tall trees at the end of the green
And we all run after her, "Emeline"
Emeline, we didn't mean
We only said your hands weren't clean
But when we got to the end of the green
Emeline was not to be seen

Emeline came skipping between
The two tall trees at the end of the green
We all run up to her, Emeline
Where have you been, where have you been
Sillies, she said, I saw the queen
And she said my hands were perfikly clean

I hope that explains things. If not, google 'the grand old Duke of York.'

"Wherever you go, there you are." Insight from Mullah Nasruddin

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Tue, 15 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 90 of 157 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)