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

The brain has nothing to do with the mind?


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 157 in total
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #91
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

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

Is space inside or outside ? Where is space ?

??

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #92
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil,

Can computer be alive? Is a computer able to replicate itself, from the assembling of the basic materials all the to "life"?

We can't provide samples, or descriptions, of the absolutely unknown because the instant we do, it is the known. We can give it the name of the "absolutely unknown," but that is as far as we can go. But it is still out there, somewhere, and it is capable of being found and known.

With the "absolutely unknowable," (e.g., the present) it can be given a name, but it cannot possibly be found and known under any circumstances.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #93
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Can computer be alive? Is a computer able to replicate itself, from the assembling of the basic materials all the to "life"?

Is replication the criteria for life? Is that it? But AI research is looking into exactly that. What not have an industrial AI network that replicates itself? Would it then be 'life?' You don;t seem to have a criteria for either life or awareness, Max, but you still want to shove your opinions about it all down our throats. Why? Did you ever ask that? Why are you so dogmatic?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #94
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
We can't provide samples, or descriptions, of the absolutely unknown because the instant we do, it is the known.

Wel exactly, you give an opinion and then admit you can't substantiate it with even one example. Neither can I so we're quits. The "absolutely unknown" is a myth.

But here's a reasonable challenge for you. Can you name one single thing that was once "absolutely unknown," in the way you described it, as having "absolutely" no base in previous knowledge and that subsequently and "instantly" became known?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #95
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
With the "absolutely unknowable," (e.g., the present) it can be given a name, but it cannot possibly be found and known under any circumstances.

We've already said we're not talking about that. We're inquiring into your idea about the "absolutely unknown," in the way you delineated it.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #96
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Yes. The same questions are asked of all who do not agree with us and who we can't truly reply to because we have no real reply.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #97
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Yes. The same questions are asked of all who do not agree with us and who we can't truly reply to because we have no real reply.

Is that nonsense or am I just sleepy?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #98
Thumb_avatar Ravi Seth India 1573 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
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?

Sorry to come late.

Voco, my post was in response to Mike's where he wondered how could he excess others' mind.

k has at few occasion said he could excess people's mind but he would'nt do it respecting their privacy unless they permit it.

Though the narrated incident did happen with me and there is much more to it than what I told, but I would'nt elaborate it further.

Regarding your comment about 'super abilities', pl keep in mind that Nature accepts no magic. Magic is only when you are not aware how it is done.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #99
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote: Can you name one single thing that was once "absolutely unknown" * * * *
We're inquiring into your idea about the "absolutely unknown," in the way you delineated it.

I mentioned the absolutely unknown (as delineated in the second paragraph post 92). An example might be dark matter. What dark matter is we know little about, but in 1700 it is safe to say that it was not even imagined or considered. Dark matter I would call "absolutely unknown" at that time.

But this is just an example given to illustrate what I mean. Who knows, maybe some seer did consider dark matter back in the 1700's.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 16 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #100
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
I mentioned the absolutely unknown (as delineated in the second paragraph post 92). An example might be dark matter. What dark matter is we know little about, but in 1700 it is safe to say that it was not even imagined or considered. Dark matter I would call "absolutely unknown" at that time.

That's fine. As you say, it's an example to illustrate your meaning. Now, to make things clear what that meaning is we have to apply it to the human and to the computer. Recall that it is an example to clarify what criteria one would use to determine awareness. The specific issue at stake is, as you put it Max, the "absolute unknown."

How would we apply the example? What would be the difference between a human being and AI with regard the discovery of "dark matter?" Are you saying that the human would have some sort of insight into it which a computer, however sophisticated, would not? Or are you saying something different?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #101
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

I don't know whether AI can be programmed to discover the absolutely unknown -- something that has no known clue to, or hint of, its existence. This would have to be said by the AI experts.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #102
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Is space inside or outside ? Where is space ?

In everything.

Pavil Davidov wrote:
The "absolutely unknown" is a myth.

I would say "unknown" is a relative term. It is unknown until we know it, we cannot even speak of the unknown until we do not know something about it. We can't say "there is something absolutely unknown which I'm going to know", this is a fallacy of course.

max greene wrote:
Yes. The same questions are asked of all who do not agree with us and who we can't truly reply to because we have no real reply.

You have no reply, but yet you are making various claims, postulates, assumptions without any proof. You don't say: I don't know, let's explore. You say or at least it seems so to me: I know exactly that it is so.

Ravi Seth wrote:
k has at few occasion said he could excess people's mind but he would'nt do it respecting their privacy unless they permit it.

What do you mean by excess people's mind? By confusing them or what?

max greene wrote:
What dark matter is we know little about, but in 1700 it is safe to say that it was not even imagined or considered.

There is no past other than the memory, Max.

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Are you saying that the human would have some sort of insight into it which a computer, however sophisticated, would not?

I think a machine cannot have insight.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #103
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:

Jean Gatti wrote:

Is space inside or outside ? Where is space ?

In everything.

Yes everywhere ... same for awareness ... and mind ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #104
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
Yes everywhere ... same for awareness ... and mind ...

No.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #105
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
I don't know whether AI can be programmed to discover the absolutely unknown -- something that has no known clue to, or hint of, its existence. This would have to be said by the AI experts.

Don't rely on experts, Max. You gave the example of "dark matter." Now you say, "the absolutely unknown -- something that has no known clue to, or hint of, its existence."

But this is not the case with "dark matter." The scientists got to it by clues and hints. That's how science proceeds, from the known to (what then becomes) the known. That's how the human mind works. So your particular example of the "absolutely unknowable" does not hold with your new criteria, something "that has no known clue to, or hint, of its existence," as that is precisely ALL we have with "dark matter."

We are back to square one. Have you any example at all of humans discovering something so totally "unknown" to the senses that they have neither hint or clue about how to approach it.

If you do not then your analogy proves to be totally spurious.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #106
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Voco . wrote:
We can't say "there is something absolutely unknown which I'm going to know", this is a fallacy of course.

Right. Max made an 'analogy' which simply turns out to be a riddle. The fact remains that everything that a human knows or can know becomes known through previous knowledge PLUS new data.There can be no "absolutely" unknown in the sense that Max puts it unless there is no previous knowledge at all. Perhaps it is true for the fetus, at an early stage of its development. Past that stage, we rely on clues and hints, sensory contact and mentation.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #107
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Voco . wrote:

Pavil Davidov wrote:

Are you saying that the human would have some sort of insight into it which a computer, however sophisticated, would not?

I think a machine cannot have insight.

It depends on what is meant by insight. It seems to me that mostly what is written on the subject here is wishful thinking and fantasy. When I have had 'insights' I have traced them back to the mundane quite easily, mostly. They are not supernatural events at all. But when I have described this to people here they have declared, "Oh, but then it can't have been an insight." They have adopted an unprovable tenet which gives them an answer for everything.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #108
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Consider it totally spurious, Pavil. It is not worth one of our long-winded arguments.

Dark matter to the eighteenth century man meets the parameters of my "absolutely unknown," and you are well aware that it does. Well, here's another: Certain stars that are now known to exist and are visible to us were absolutely unknown to exist by the man 35,0000 years ago.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 16 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #109
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
It depends on what is meant by insight.

Well for example how could a machine invent anything? I don't think machines will ever have such a capacity. They might reproduce themselves though (by assembling each other of course).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #110
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Dark matter to the eighteenth century man meets the parameters of my "absolutely unknown," and you are well aware that it does. Well, here's another: Certain stars that are now known to exist and are visible to us were absolutely unknown to exist by the man 35,0000 years ago.

You are missing your own point. You were asking how a computer would approach the "absolutely unknown." Now you bring it back to 'eighteenth century man' but that man DID NOT approach dark matter and could not. That's why your argument is spurious.

You seemed to want to set man against the computer to compare how each would react to the "absolutely unknown," as a proof that the human is aware and the computer is not.

Use 'dark matter,' which was your example, not mine, and show us.

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

This post was last updated by Pavil Davidov (account deleted) Wed, 16 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #111
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

For the life of me, I don't see how you came up with this idea of me wanting to compare man to computer as a proof of something or other! Are you in search of argument so badly that you have to make such claims?

I don't care what a computer can or cannot do.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 16 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #112
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Voco . wrote:
Well for example how could a machine invent anything? I don't think machines will ever have such a capacity.

Oh, they are already doing so. They give a robot a goal and provide it with a certain environment and it goes ahead, experimenting within its environment, to meet the goal. It invents a way without being told how.

And see here and here

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #113
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:

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?

and you later added

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.

You were using the invented category "the absolutely unknown" and asking if a computer can be "sensitive" to it. You asked it in the context of a discussion Jean and I were having with regards whether awareness is beyond measure. The question was whether or not a computer can be 'aware' in the same sense a human is aware. It was a comparison between the human and the computer on the issue of awareness. You entered that discussion.

Now you say you were not making a comparison. OK. But why then ask the question? It seems you were claiming that a human has this "sensitivity to the absolutely unknown" but a computer may not. If you weren't saying that then I have no clue as to why you posted on the subject. It would seem to be a bit of a diversion. But I don't blame you. Jean brought computers into it.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #114
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

The underlying issue is Jean's claim that 'awareness' is immeasurable.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #115
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Now you say you were not making a comparison. OK

Right. I did not "set man against the computer . . ." in a state of conflict. I pointed out what computers and man can do, as I see it.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #116
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
The underlying issue is Jean's claim that 'awareness' is immeasurable.

"Claim"? Has awareness ever been measured?

We might also ask whether space has ever been measured (we measure capacity and distance, not space), or whether the present has ever been measured.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Wed, 16 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #117
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
The question was whether or not a computer can be 'aware' in the same sense a human is aware.

Once again this question arises out of an erroneous identity

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #118
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
Oh, they are already doing so. They give a robot a goal and provide it with a certain environment and it goes ahead, experimenting within its environment, to meet the goal. It invents a way without being told how.

I wouldn't call it an invention... I've meant that machines can't invent something like a lamp or a ship. And also it can't be self-sustaining, it always controlled or supported by a man in some way, it's just an extension of man.

This post was last updated by Voco . Wed, 16 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #119
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Right. I did not "set man against the computer . . ." in a state of conflict. I pointed out what computers and man can do, as I see it.

That's the trouble with wiggle room. There's no end to it. Max, why invent a phrase such as "in a state of conflict" which has nowhere been implied. Yes, you questioned what a computer can do, in the context of a discussion on what human awareness is. That's all I said. Grow up.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #120
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Jean Gatti wrote:
Once again this question arises out of an erroneous identity

What is the name printed on your passport?

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 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.)