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

The brain has nothing to do with the mind?


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 157 in total
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #121
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

Voco . wrote:
I've meant that machines can't invent something like a lamp or a ship.

Maybe not right now. I don't see why they may not be in the future. At present they can invent language. I'd say that would have been said impossible ten years ago.

Voco . wrote:
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.

Right now, no. The interesting discussion however is whether or not there would be any principal that would deny them the ability to do so in the future. The exponential growth rate of informatics innovation puts us on that road. The future of computers or robots that will learn independently and effectively reprogramme themselves is not rules out by any means. Such machines will improve themselves and even build bigger and better models of themselves in a self-evolutionary way. One can see the dangers.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #122
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
There's no end to it. . . . why invent a phrase such as "in a state of conflict" which has nowhere been implied.

You said in post 110 " ... set man against the computer . . ." I see this as a state of conflict. How do you see it?

max

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #123
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

The animal is not only self-replicating but it is also self-sustaining. We can procreate and we can grow our own food for sustenance. Do we see machines being able to mine and grow their own materials, design and manufacture their own parts without human intervention? Until this can be done (not saying that it can't be) humans will still be in control.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #124
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
You said in post 110 " ... set man against the computer . . ." I see this as a state of conflict. How do you see it?

I clearly said you seemed to be making a comparison.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #125
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

I don't see the word "seem" or "seemed" anywhere in the posting (110).

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #126
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
Until this can be done (not saying that it can't be) humans will still be in control.

Right. Let's not deny the possibility outright. But what will the awareness of that machine then be?

You see, if you say it will not be aware and offer the criteria for such a statement as being that only living organisms are aware, then you have simply shifted the proof without actually saying a thing. What we are actually questioning is exactly that: Is awareness forever limited to biological entities? It is now . . . but 'forever?'

Additionally, if we decide that the future robot is 'aware' we would have also decided that it was alive, unless the conceptual connection between awareness and life is set aside.

The valid point you have now brought in is that of independence. At the moment the machine is fundamentally dependent on the human. That is clear. But with self-sustaining and self-learning machines there is no necessary dependence. Yes, they could produce their own means of subsistence, whatever that would be. And they would undoubtedly be more successful at it than us. At that point we would no longer be in control.

The basic question comes back to this: Do we have reason to say that awareness is not an emergent quality of matter, once systems of information exchange become sufficiently complex? I think we live in denial of our material basis. Human hubris wants to believe we are separate from that. Not 'more than that' but at some level entirely separate from it, as heaven is to Earth.

"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 #127
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
I don't see the word "seem" or "seemed" anywhere in the posting (110).

It was uttered under my breath :-)

Seriously, I didn't intend to make it quite so definite. I've edited it now.

But then, what was your purpose of bringing the point in?

If you were not making even an implicit comparison between the capacity of man, on the one hand, and the machine, on the other, to respond to the "absolutely unknown," in the context of awareness, what were you doing? It beats me.

It seemed to me you were indicating that man has awareness and is therefore able to respond adequately to the "absolutely unknown" whereas the computer, not having such awareness, would not be.

And you still haven't given an adequate example of man responding to the "absolutely unknown" a thing for which you say has had no previous sensory clue. With regard "dark matter" all we have are exactly that, clues and measurements consisting of extrapolations from previous clues and measurements. And you pointedly admit that 18thC man showed no response to 'dark matter,' having not even the clues about it. So he cannot be drawn in as an example of man's capacity of response to the "absolutely unknown."

"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 #128
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Off the subject, Paul, but this crossed my mind as we're --ah, humm-- discussing:

One can either compare alternatives, or he can examine each one on its own merits. He remembers what he has examined and he sees which one is best. He does not "choose" this best one -- choose out of uncertainty -- instead, he takes it because he understands (sees) it to be the best. This is choiceless action, and this action does not involve comparison. Comparison comes with thinking.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #129
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Pavil Davidov wrote:
And you still haven't given an adequate example of man responding to the "absolutely unknown" . . .

And you won't be getting any more, as you want only to argue. Argumentation and display appears to me to be your driving motive here.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #130
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
And you won't be getting any more, as you want only to argue. Argumentation and display appears to me to be your driving motive here.

The fact is that you brought up a subject, made a rash statement, gave an example which didn't stand and then accuse me of argumentation.

I don't care, Max. I wanted to understand your argument and see if it stood, but you are not prepared to meet me halfway.

So far not one person has given a criteria for 'awareness' yet a few want to pronounce on it with no evidence.

The one thing I have said is that awareness is evidenced by one thing only, response and that, from this, the only measurement of awareness we have is in response to stimuli. And I say, that's a fair measurement. If you show me a picture of a naked Sophia Loren I will respond. If you show it behind my head I will not. That delineates the extent of my awareness, in that case.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #131
Thumb_stringio Pavil Davidov Poland 4402 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED

max greene wrote:
One can either compare alternatives, or he can examine each one on its own merits. He remembers what he has examined and he sees which one is best. He does not "choose" this best one -- choose out of uncertainty -- instead, he takes it because he understands (sees) it to be the best. This is choiceless action

That may be so but your example of 'dark matter' did not stand on its own merit and you then recused yourself from the discussion.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #132
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Paul,

The problem is, no reply of any kind, no reply however complete and correct, will ever satisfy you. You have an agenda, Paul. You have a single-minded objective which makes conversation with you impossible. You have to dominate, you must have the last word, you just cannot be mistaken in anything that you do.

max

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 2 readers
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #133
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
The problem is, no reply of any kind, no reply however complete and correct, will ever satisfy you. You have an agenda, Paul. You have a single-minded objective which makes conversation with you impossible. You have to dominate, you must have the last word, you just cannot be mistaken in anything that you do.

Well, if doubting and questioning is an agenda for you, then I have nothing to say to you. What is then a conversation to you? To make one accept what you are saying? Paul, instead of you don't make any claims, he questions, his view is scientific, your view is dogmatic.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #134
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
Paul, instead of you don't make any claims, he questions, his view is scientific, your view is dogmatic.

In a sense Paul's view is also dogmatic ... he believes in the dogma of thought but does not question its fundamental postulate which is about division/fragmentation of the world ... he sees forms but he does not understand the formless ...

PS: And btw don't worry too much for Paul Voco, his account has been deleted many times (by himself or by the admin here) ... Paul is like the Phoenix always rebirthing from its own ashes and coming back under another name (Paul Davidson, Arivalagan, Pandavi, Pavil Davidov, Luap Nosdivad, Julia Rojas etc ...) and from another place (India, Brazil, Poland etc) ... he is a very creative mind :-)

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Thu, 17 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #135
Thumb_3252 Voco . Luxembourg 878 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
In a sense Paul's view is also dogmatic ... he believes in the dogma of thought but does not question its fundamental postulate which is about division/fragmentation of the world ... he sees forms but he does not understand the formless ...

You make absolutely no sense, sorry. I won't go in the details, one who sees will understand what I'm saying.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #136
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Voco . wrote:
You make absolutely no sense, sorry.

Maybe you are too attached to your own beliefs and ideas Voco ? especially those ideas about yourself ?

You are probably too focused on the manifested world (of forms) and not giving enough attention to the 'unmanifested' reality ... which happens here and now ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

This post was last updated by Jean Gatti Thu, 17 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #137
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

max greene wrote:
(to Paul) You have to dominate, you must have the last word, you just cannot be mistaken in anything that you do.

Right Max, Paul places much pride in his own 'intellectual' capabilities ... he wants to 'prove', to be right, and starts all kinds of endless argumentations to prove his points (even personal attacks and insults can be used when rational arguments fail) ... this is the arrogance of ego ... it is self inflation ...

The problem is that truth cannot be reached by pure intellect and logic ... truth is beyond thought ... thought even becomes an obstacle when its foundations (ie. division/fragmentation) are not understood ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #138
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:
You are probably too focused on the manifested world (of forms) and not giving enough attention to the 'unmanifested' reality ... which happens here and now ...

Doesn't make any sense to me either, sorry Jean...

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #139
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Doesn't make any sense to me either, sorry Jean...

Does it make more sense if I tell you that the 'unmanifested' is awareness ? ie. WHO you are ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #140
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

jean wrote:
You are probably too focused on the manifested world (of forms) and not giving enough attention to the 'unmanifested' reality

Do you mean by "forms", like the mountains, the sky, the trees? The manifest world? (I'm not sure what 'manifest' means, vs. 'unmanifest')

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #141
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Do you mean by "forms", like the mountains, the sky, the trees? The manifest world? (I'm not sure what 'manifest' means, vs. 'unmanifest')

The 'manifested' is everything you can perceive with the senses (hear, see, feel etc) and also the movements of thought (imagination, voices in the head etc) ... everything which 'moves' ... the unmanifested does not 'move', it remains quiet and silent, the space in which all forms manifest ... ie. presence ... awareness ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #142
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

Ok, so what's your point?

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #143
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Ok, so what's your point?

You asked me a question and I gave you an answer ...

Do you have any other question Mike ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #144
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

No, but I don't really understand. Is one "manifest", is a tree "manifest", what contact between one is there between the self and the-in quotes-"unmanifest"?

I'm not saying I deny 'presence', or 'awareness', but one has to be careful with one's terms.

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #145
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Is one "manifest", is a tree "manifest", what contact between one is there between the self and the-in quotes-"unmanifest"?

What is the self ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #146
Thumb_farside0411 m christani United States 262 posts in this forum Offline

From post #18, in 'Death':

Hm.. Self-image, psychological knowledge, suffering, loneliness, pleasure, pain, desires, possessions, envy, ambition, striving, hope, hopelessness, despair, conditioning, time as past, present, future, belief...

mike

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #147
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

m christani wrote:
Hm.. Self-image, psychological knowledge, suffering, loneliness, pleasure, pain, desires, possessions, envy, ambition, striving, hope, hopelessness, despair, conditioning, time as past, present, future, belief...

You are describing here the 'observed' ... what about the 'observer' of all this ? Isn't self the observer ?

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #148
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw Tom Paine United States 3181 posts in this forum Online

Jean Gatti wrote:
m christani wrote:

Hm.. Self-image, psychological knowledge, suffering, loneliness, pleasure, pain, desires, possessions, envy, ambition, striving, hope, hopelessness, despair, conditioning, time as past, present, future, belief...
You are describing here the 'observed' ... what about the 'observer' of all this ? Isn't self the observer ?

'Self' is the conditioned background that is looking and labeling...condemning or justifying what is observed, right?

Let it Be

This post was last updated by Tom Paine Fri, 18 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #149
Thumb_photo_jg4 Jean Gatti Belgium 8638 posts in this forum Offline

Tom Paine wrote:
'Self' is the conditioned background that is looking and labeling...condemning or justifying what is observed, right?

Yes Tom, and by 'labelling', by 'judging', by 'condemning', by 'resisting' the 'observed', this 'observer' separates himself from the observed ... and this division is precisely what the self is about ... duality observer/observed ...

Why resist 'what is' ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #150
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 5845 posts in this forum Offline

Jean Gatti wrote:. . . this 'observer' separates himself from the observed ...

There is no separation possible in true observation because there is nothing to separate. There is only the observed. It is when one thinks he is observing that there is separation.

Thinking separates. Observing (awareness) does not.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 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.)