---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote :
Salyavin, I'm gonna combine your two responses, one to me and one to JR, and respond to both. Here's our exchange: Hi salyavin, it's neither knowing nor believing. It's experiencing and then interpreting or labeling. I bet "believing" happens in its very own section of the brain. (-: But labeling something a god is surely belief? Salyvin, if the first human labeled something "tree," was there a belief involved?! No, because a tree is actually there. If you called it "god" that would mean you thought it was more than a tree or you didn't have much of an opinion of god. I think what you're getting at, esp in your response to JR, is that we label something as god or divine and these words have meanings that are problematic. But why are they? Because we are making unwarranted assumptions about inner experiences with vast conceptual and historical baggage. Whatever we experience is some cool stuff going on inside. You can call it what you like but the term god has implications whatever god it is you believe in or want it to be. Mind you, at least it's an experience of something nice and profound which is more than most religious people get! From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:31 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : Salyavin, Believing is the initial cognition of a Divine Being after experiencing all of the information from the world through the five senses. Knowing a Divine Being is the stage of believing in which the mind is convinced of Its existence through the information from the senses. Enlightenment occurs when the mind and It are one and coexist in the body as it lives in the world. Convinced is a worrying word for me in this instance, labeling experiences as some sort of "other" is making unwarranted assumptions. I could call it all-round superniceness and it would be the same thing, it's us who call it divine and thus dump our needy baggage all over it. An artificial machine cannot experience the Divine as the human body can. Therefore, it cannot believe nor experience enlightenment. How do you know? If we build a machine that mimics ourselves perfectly, who are we to say that it can't have joyous experiences. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Hi salyavin, it's neither knowing nor believing. It's experiencing and then interpreting or labeling. I bet "believing" happens in its very own section of the brain. (-: From: salyavin808 <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist? ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <jr_esq@...> wrote : IMO, I don't believe artificial intelligence can know God. Knowing God requires a biological base, with a complicated connections of nerve cells in the brain and a body structure made of bones, flesh and blood. "Know" god? Don't we mean "believe"? I'm sure a computer could acquire beliefs about where it came from, probably worship it's creator, at least they won't be in error about who that is! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <emptybill@...> wrote : This article is full of inaccurate generalities about Buddhism and shows ignorance about the foundations of the varied darshana-s of the Indian subcontinent. Since most current Euro-American "thinkers" who consider consciousness and AI are philosophical amateurs, this article is a display of truncated post-empirical/analytic musings. How about this question instead? Can an artificial intelligence know God? This is an equivalent counter-question, which means it is a panapoly of foolish assumptions posing as intelligent inquiry.
