...all credit for the above philosophy is given to it's originator, Ichazo
.“… FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM….” – Mike Yes Mike, and this is one reason that as practical and useful as the scientific point of view is, one using it alone clearly is not able to accurately apprehend reality as such. “iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES.” – Mike As much ‘fun’ as such a hypothetical might be, again, it seems to be looking in the ‘wrong place’ if one is on a search for the being as such. “…ALSO WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE YOU CAN).” – Mike Ahhh, yes. This is an excellent point and one seldom addressed. If examined and taken to it’s logical conclusion, clearly mind would be omniscient, among other attributes. “THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST IT IS CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS ALSO SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. – Mike Exactly Mike! Being conscious negates both, phenomenology and solipsism for at least the reasons you present. “BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS?” – Mike Here you point out, subconsciously perhaps, the central point. Machines can be made that ACT AS IF ……. Acting is not being in this case. It is so obvious. “THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS ONLY SECONDARY.” – Mike I’m not exactly sure what you mean here Mike. Taking a guess, I’ll point out that many different systems can clearly address the issue here. Buddhism for example uses the notion of ‘appearances’. Here it is recognized that our thinking mind clearly misapprehends things as they are, yet we do share such appearances, some call it phenomena. Making this recognition dissolves any ultimate duality. One recognizes that both appearances and things as they are exist, consubstantially. “BUT ONCE MATTER IS BELIEVED IN, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE MIND EXISTING AND ACTING OUTSIDE MATTER.” – Mike Well, yes. This is one aspect of the cause of all suffering, ignorance or wrong view….using the Buddhist analysis again. “AS FOR CONSCIOUNESS, WHO KNOWS? IT MIGHT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT EXISTANCE.” – Mike Perhaps you are using the term consciousness in a different sense from Mind. If so, we may need to readdress much of this. While the relative ‘mind’ is of course dependent (relative, subjective), absolute ‘mind’ is not. And, the union of these two ‘minds’ is the ornamental ‘mind’. That which can look through the large ‘eye’ of the absolute at the relative thoughts arising, staying for a bit and then falling away… seeing these subjective things as being ornaments. On Nov 10, 10:04 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > “… FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T > SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM….” – Mike > > Yes Mike, and this is one reason that as practical and useful as the > scientific point of view is, one using it alone clearly is not able to > accurately apprehend reality as such. > > “iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE > (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES.” – Mike > > As much ‘fun’ as such a hypothetical might be, again, it seems to be > looking in the ‘wrong place’ if one is on a search for the being as > such. > > “…ALSO WE CANNOT EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT > LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE YOU CAN).” – Mike > > Ahhh, yes. This is an excellent point and one seldom addressed. If > examined and taken to it’s logical conclusion, clearly mind would be > omniscient, among other attributes. > > “THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST IT IS > CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS ALSO > SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. > – Mike > > Exactly Mike! Being conscious negates both, phenomenology and > solipsism for at least the reasons you present. > > “BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE > CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS?” – Mike > > Here you point out, subconsciously perhaps, the central point. > Machines can be made that ACT AS IF ……. > Acting is not being in this case. It is so obvious. > > “THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS > ONLY SECONDARY.” – Mike > > I’m not exactly sure what you mean here Mike. Taking a guess, I’ll > point out that many different systems can clearly address the issue > here. Buddhism for example uses the notion of ‘appearances’. Here it > is recognized that our thinking mind clearly misapprehends things as > they are, yet we do share such appearances, some call it phenomena. > Making this recognition dissolves any ultimate duality. One recognizes > that both appearances and things as they are exist, consubstantially. > > “BUT ONCE MATTER IS BELIEVED IN, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE MIND EXISTING > AND ACTING OUTSIDE MATTER.” – Mike > > Well, yes. This is one aspect of the cause of all suffering, ignorance > or wrong view….using the Buddhist analysis again. > > “AS FOR CONSCIOUNESS, WHO KNOWS? IT MIGHT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT > EXISTANCE.” – Mike > > Perhaps you are using the term consciousness in a different sense from > Mind. If so, we may need to readdress much of this. While the relative > ‘mind’ is of course dependent (relative, subjective), absolute ‘mind’ > is not. And, the union of these two ‘minds’ is the ornamental ‘mind’. > That which can look through the large ‘eye’ of the absolute at the > relative thoughts arising, staying for a bit and then falling away… > seeing these subjective things as being ornaments. > > On Nov 10, 7:36 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > “…AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY POINT TO AND > > DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A MYSTERY.” – > > Mike > > > I see. For me, since I ‘am’ consciousness, I clearly know > > consciousness, thus it is no mystery at all. > > > I AGREE THAT FOR ME CONSCIOUNESS IS NO MYSTERY, SINCE I EXPERIENCE IT, > > BUT FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW IS IS A MYSTERY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T > > SEEM TO FIT INTO THE SYSTEM. iT SEEMS THAT MINDFUL BEINGS COULD EXIST > > WITH NO INNER EXPERIENCE (PHILOSOPHICAL ZOMBIES. ALSO WE CANNOT > > EXPERIENCE THE CONSCIOUNESS IN OTHERS DIRECTLY(AT LEAST I CAN'T; MAYBE > > YOU CAN). THE PHENOMENOL VIEW TEMPTS ME TO ADOPT SOLIPSISM; AT LEAST > > IT IS CONSISTANT THOUGH NOT SATISFYING. IT MAKES ME FEEL TOO ALONE ANS > > ALSO SEEM INTUITIVELY FALSE. BUT THE QUESTION ARISES CAN MACHINES BE > > MADE THAT ACT AS IF THEY ARE CONSCIOUSS? IF SO ARE THEY CONSCIOUSS? > > THE IDEA OF MATERIALISM ARISES IN CONCIOUSNESS, SO PERHAPS IS IS ONLY > > SECONDARY. BUT ONCE MATTER IS BELIEVED IN, THEN IT IS HARD TO SEE MIND > > EXISTING AND ACTING OUTSIDE MATTER. AS FOR CONSCIOUNESS, WHO KNOWS? IT > > MIGHT HAVE AN INDEPENDENT EXISTANCE. > > > On Nov 10, 6:12 pm, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > “…AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY POINT TO AND > > > DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A MYSTERY.” – > > > Mike > > > > I see. For me, since I ‘am’ consciousness, I clearly know > > > consciousness, thus it is no mystery at all. > > > > “….THE CONCEPTS THEMSELVES SEEM INTUITIVELY CLEAR OR RELATIVELY CLEAR. > > > FOR EXAMPLE THE CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS SEEM CLEAR TO ME, HOWEVER I > > > CAN NOT EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS IN TERMS OF OTHER CONCEPTS. DEPENDING ON > > > HOW I DEFINE CONCEPT, CONCEPTS THEMSELVES MUST EITHER BE PARTLY > > > CONSCIOUS OR ELSE SOME OF THEM CAN BE WHOLLY UNCONSCIOUS, BUT THEY > > > EXIST IN MIND AND MND EXIST IN WHAT WE CONCEPTULIZE AS MATTER. AT > > > LEAST THAT IS HOW I CONCEPTUALIZE THIS.” – Mike > > > > Ahhh, I see. For me, I don’t make the full link between concepts and > > > matter. However, I can see how one could make such a link. But, of > > > course, again, even using concepts the notion of matter sort of > > > disappears upon full analysis. > > > Oh, for me, ‘intuitively clear’ and ‘relatively clear’ of entirely > > > different substances. The former has to do with the absolute and the > > > latter with the relative. > > > > “…BY LOOKING AT EMOTIONS AND OTHER SUCH THINGS FUNCTIONALLY (HOW THEY > > > WORK AND WHAT THEY DO RATHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE MADE OF) IT IS > > > POSSIBLE TO MAKE HIGH QUALITY WORKING CONCEPTS FOR THESE THINGS.” – > > > Mike > > > > So, this is what you mean by being able to speak meaningfully about > > > something? The only use of ‘meaningfully’ I could find at the web link > > > was “For example, the meanings of words like “feelings,” “emotions,” > > > or “consciousness” seem so natural, clear, and direct to us that we > > > cannot see how to start thinking about them.” > > > I agree with this. > > > > And, yes, I meant quarks. And, while I do appreciate your speculation > > > and attempts at description, I don’t find it necessary to revert to > > > any type of ‘atomism’. > > > > For both, mind and what appears to be matter, in fact all being mind, > > > I find that looking at process including functions and results are > > > quite useful for describing all things. > > > > Again, Mike, I greatly appreciate your true humility when it comes to > > > such lofty notions!!! It makes interaction a joy and a mutual > > > exploration. Thanks again! > > > > On Nov 10, 2:36 pm, Isparklaria <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > ORN, > > > > > I AM USING CAPS TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ MY REPLY. > > > > > “…So, consciousness remains a mystery, for now…” – Isp. > > > > > Isp, by saying the above (admittedly pulled out of context), do you > > > > not presuppose the position of materialism? > > > > > PERHAPS I SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT CONSCIOUNESS REMAINS A MYSTERY FOR > > > > MATERIALIST. HOWEVER, I HAVE NEVER HEARD CONSCIOUNESS EXPLAINED IN ANY > > > > OTHER TERMS. AT THIS TIME IN HISTORY, WORDS, IT SEEMS, CAN MERELY > > > > POINT TO AND DESCRIBE CONSCIOUNESS, BUT NOT EXPLAIN IT. HYENCE IT IS A > > > > MYSTERY. > > > > > “In the case of some materialists, consciousness is denied as being > > > > some sort of illusion or explained by untested > > > > incomplete theories that have huge gaps. While these gaps may > > > > eventually be filled without violating materialism, they haven’t been > > > > yet.” – Isp > > > > > The notion of ‘gaps’ arises for about any area of human > > > > conceptualization, no? > > > > > TRUE, WHEN CONCIOUS CONCEPTULIZATION IS CONSIDERED. BUT IN A GOOD > > > > EXPLANTION THE GAPS ARE SMALL AND THE LEAP FROM ONE CONCEPT TO THE > > > > NEXT SEEMS, YES SEEMS NOT NECESSARILY IS, INTUITIVELY OBVIOUS TO ALL, > > > > OR AT LEAST TO THE PEOPLE WHO STUDY A PARTICULAR FIELD. IN ADDITION > > > > THE CONCEPTS THEMSELVES SEEM INTUITIVELY CLEAR OR RELATIVELY CLEAR. > > > > FOR EXAMPLE THE CONCEPT OF CONSCIOUSNESS SEEM CLEAR TO ME, HOWEVER I > > > > CAN NOT EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS IN TERMS OF OTHER CONCEPTS. DEPENDING ON > > > > HOW I DEFINE CONCEPT, CONCEPTS THEMSELVES MUST EITHER BE PARTLY > > > > CONSCIOUS OR ELSE SOME OF THEM CAN BE WHOLLY UNCONSCIOUS, BUT THEY > > > > EXIST IN MIND AND MND EXIST IN WHAT WE CONCEPTULIZE AS MATTER. AT > > > > LEAST THAT IS HOW I CONCEPTUALIZE THIS. > > > > > “…The best of these foundations, in my opinion is the idea that mind > > > > exists in matter but is not the same as matter in that mind is about > > > > complex form and pattern. This approach has not yet answered the hard > > > > question of consciousness, but this approach, in conjunction with > > > > materialism, allow scientists to speak meaningfully about love, > > > > meaning, hate, fear and other things that materialism, by itself, was > > > > not able to speak about in a meaningful way.” – Isp > > > > > Isp, how does this approach “allow scientists to speak meaningfully > > > > about…”? I don’t quite understand, sorry. > > > > And, of course, when the very notion of ‘matter’ is brought up, is > > > > not > > > > this concept controversial in itself? > > > > > BY LOOKING AT EMOTIONS AND OTHER SUCH THINGS FUNCTIONALLY (HOW THEY > > > > WORK AND WHAT THEY DO RATHER THAN WHAT THEY ARE MADE OF) IT IS > > > > POSSIBLE TO MAKE HIGH QUALITY WORKING CONCEPTS FOR THESE THINGS. THIS > > > > IS WHERE THE FIELD OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HAS TAKEN US. THEY ARE > > > > NOW WORKING ON MACHINES THAT HAVE FUNCTIONAL EMOTIONS. THAT IS NOW > > > > CONSIDERED THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE A MACHINE THAT HAS ANY FLEXIBLE > > > > INTELIGENCE. LOGIC ONLY MAKES VERY DUMB AND INFLEXIBLE MACHINES THAT > > > > CAN BE CHESS PLAYING SAVANTS AND DO OTHER SUCH THINGS BUT CANNOT DO > > > > MOST BASIC FUNCTIONS THAT HUMANS CAN DO. THESE EMOTIONS ARE CREATED BY > > > > LOGICAL > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
