Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.  #yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796 -- 
#yiv6277951796ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 
0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796ygrp-mkp #yiv6277951796hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796ygrp-mkp #yiv6277951796ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796ygrp-mkp .yiv6277951796ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796ygrp-mkp .yiv6277951796ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796ygrp-mkp .yiv6277951796ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv6277951796ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv6277951796 
#yiv6277951796ygrp-sponsor #yiv6277951796ygrp-lc #yiv6277951796hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv6277951796 
#yiv6277951796ygrp-sponsor #yiv6277951796ygrp-lc .yiv6277951796ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv6277951796 
#yiv6277951796activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv6277951796
 #yiv6277951796activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv6277951796 
#yiv6277951796activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv6277951796 #yiv6277951796activity span 
.yiv6277951796underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv6277951796 
.yiv6277951796attach 
{clear:both;display:table;font-family:Arial;font-size:12px;padding:10px 
0;width:400px;}#yiv6277951796 .yiv6277951796attach div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6277951796 .yiv6277951796attach img 
{border:none;padding-right:5px;}#yiv6277951796 .yiv6277951796attach label 
{display:block;margin-bottom:5px;}#yiv6277951796 .yiv6277951796attach label a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6277951796 blockquote {margin:0 0 0 
4px;}#yiv6277951796 .yiv6277951796bold 
{font-family:Arial;font-size:13px;font-weight:700;}#yiv6277951796 
.yiv6277951796bold a {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6277951796 dd.yiv6277951796last 
p a {font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv6277951796 dd.yiv6277951796last p 
span {margin-right:10px;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:700;}#yiv6277951796 
dd.yiv6277951796last p span.yiv6277951796yshortcuts 
{margin-right:0;}#yiv6277951796 div.yiv6277951796attach-table div div a 
{text-decoration:none;}#yiv6277951796 div.yiv6277951796attach-table 
{width:400px;}#yiv6277951796 div.yiv6277951796file-title a, #yiv6277951796 
div.yiv6277951796file-title a:active, #yiv6277951796 
div.yiv6277951796file-title a:hover, #yiv6277951796 div.yiv6277951796file-title 
a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6277951796 div.yiv6277951796photo-title a, 
#yiv6277951796 div.yiv6277951796photo-title a:active, #yiv6277951796 
div.yiv6277951796photo-title a:hover, #yiv6277951796 
div.yiv6277951796photo-title a:visited {text-decoration:none;}#yiv6277951796 
div#yiv6277951796ygrp-mlmsg #yiv6277951796ygrp-msg p a 
span.yiv6277951796yshortcuts 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;font-weight:normal;}#yiv6277951796 
.yiv6277951796green {color:#628c2a;}#yiv6277951796 .yiv6277951796MsoNormal 
{margin:0 0 0 0;}#yiv6277951796 o {font-size:0;}#yiv6277951796 
#yiv6277951796photos div {float:left;width:72px;}#yiv6277951796 
#yiv6277951796photos div div {border:1px solid 
#66;height:62px;overflow:hidden;width:62px;}#yiv6277951796 
#yiv6277951796photos div label 
{color:#6

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 

 


 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.
 

 An artificial machine cannot experience the Divine as the human body can.  
Therefore, it cannot believe nor experience enlightenment.
 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread salyavin808 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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. (-:
 

But labeling something a god is surely belief?
 
 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread salyavin808 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 
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?!
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?
  From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
   
    


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

  #yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807 -- #yiv0039790807ygrp-mkp {border:1px solid 
#d8d8d8;font-family:Arial;margin:10px 0;padding:0 10px;}#yiv0039790807 
#yiv0039790807ygrp-mkp hr {border:1px solid #d8d8d8;}#yiv0039790807 
#yiv0039790807ygrp-mkp #yiv0039790807hd 
{color:#628c2a;font-size:85%;font-weight:700;line-height:122%;margin:10px 
0;}#yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807ygrp-mkp #yiv0039790807ads 
{margin-bottom:10px;}#yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807ygrp-mkp .yiv0039790807ad 
{padding:0 0;}#yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807ygrp-mkp .yiv0039790807ad p 
{margin:0;}#yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807ygrp-mkp .yiv0039790807ad a 
{color:#ff;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807ygrp-sponsor 
#yiv0039790807ygrp-lc {font-family:Arial;}#yiv0039790807 
#yiv0039790807ygrp-sponsor #yiv0039790807ygrp-lc #yiv0039790807hd {margin:10px 
0px;font-weight:700;font-size:78%;line-height:122%;}#yiv0039790807 
#yiv0039790807ygrp-sponsor #yiv0039790807ygrp-lc .yiv0039790807ad 
{margin-bottom:10px;padding:0 0;}#yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807actions 
{font-family:Verdana;font-size:11px;padding:10px 0;}#yiv0039790807 
#yiv0039790807activity 
{background-color:#e0ecee;float:left;font-family:Verdana;font-size:10px;padding:10px;}#yiv0039790807
 #yiv0039790807activity span {font-weight:700;}#yiv0039790807 
#yiv0039790807activity span:first-child 
{text-transform:uppercase;}#yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807activity span a 
{color:#5085b6;text-decoration:none;}#yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807activity span 
span {color:#ff7900;}#yiv0039790807 #yiv0039790807activity span 
.yiv0039790807underline {text-decoration:underline;}#yiv0039790807 
.yiv0039790807attach 
{clear:both;

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 

 


 Share,
 

 Please, read my reply to Salyavin regarding believing and knowing the Divine 
Being.  When It is known, the human being can experience enlightenment which is 
the coexistence of the self and It in the human body while living in the world. 
 This is what MMY was saying about living heaven here on earth.  As a matter of 
fact, this is the message that Moses wanted to convey when he wrote about the 
Garden of Eden in Genesis of the Old Testament.
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread salyavin808 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 12:31 PM
 Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread salyavin808 


Enlightenment is nothing. These mutha's are going to want the vote! 

 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACHINES 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 
 
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 
 
 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACH... 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 Ryan Calo, from the University of Washington’s School of Law warns that our 
laws will have to adapt to robotics and artificial intelligence or be faced 
with dif...
 
 
 
 View on www.dailymail.co.uk 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 
 
  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 

 


 Salyavin,
 

 Now everyone here would like to know if you are enlightened currently or is it 
possible to regress once the apex of human life has been attained?
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


 

Enlightenment is nothing. These mutha's are going to want the vote! 

 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACHINES 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 
 
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 
 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACH... 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 Ryan Calo, from the University of Washington’s School of Law warns that our 
laws will have to adapt to robotics and artificial intelligence or be faced 
with dif...


 
 View on www.dailymail.co.uk 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread Bhairitu noozg...@sbcglobal.net [FairfieldLife] 
Most humans don't even know what enlightenment is.  Just look at FFL.  
Now for bots artificial enlightenment would be no electronic excitation 
just silence.  If they like it then they'll just sit there doing 
nothing.  Problem with robots taking over solved.


On 07/20/2015 12:04 PM, jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:





Salyavin,

Now everyone here would like to know if you are enlightened currently 
or is it possible to regress once the apex of human life has been 
attained?


---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


Enlightenment is nothing. These mutha's are going to want the vote!

Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACHINES 
 





image 




Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACH... 
 

Ryan Calo, from the University of Washington’s School of Law warns 
that our laws will have to adapt to robotics and artificial 
intelligence or be faced with dif...


View on www.dailymail.co.uk 



Preview by Yahoo




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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 
*To:* FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
*Sent:* Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
*Subject:* [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?




---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread salyavin808 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 


 Salyavin,
 

 Now everyone here would like to know if you are enlightened currently or is it 
possible to regress once the apex of human life has been attained?
 

 I can't say that I'm currently enlightened, I've got AC/DC pounding in the 
headphones and I'm off down the pub in a minute, so I'm guessing I won't be 
appearing on BATGAP any time soon. 
 

 But I've been there, quite nice I suppose if you like that sort of thing. Not 
worth giving up a career for at the end of the day but you don't know at the 
time, especially with the brochures they hand out. Still, I'd rather know than 
not know if you see what I mean...
 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


 

Enlightenment is nothing. These mutha's are going to want the vote! 

 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACHINES 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 
 
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 
 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACH... 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 Ryan Calo, from the University of Washington’s School of Law warns that our 
laws will have to adapt to robotics and artificial intelligence or be faced 
with dif...


 
 View on www.dailymail.co.uk 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3168081/Should-robots-human-rights-Act-regulate-killer-machines-multiply-demand-right-vote-warns-legal-expert.html
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread salyavin808 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 Most humans don't even know what enlightenment is.  Just look at FFL.  Now for 
bots artificial enlightenment would be no electronic excitation just silence.  
If they like it then they'll just sit there doing nothing.  Problem with robots 
taking over solved.
 

 If we tell them they can fly we could really start screwing some money out of 
them too.
 
 On 07/20/2015 12:04 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
   

 
 

 Salyavin,
 

 Now everyone here would like to know if you are enlightened currently or is it 
possible to regress once the apex of human life has been attained?
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 

 
 
 Enlightenment is nothing. These mutha's are going to want the vote! 

 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACHINES 
 
 
 
 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACH... Ryan Calo, from the 
University of Washington’s School of Law warns that our laws will have to adapt 
to robotics and artificial intelligence or be faced with dif...


 
 View on www.dailymail.co.uk 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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  mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread jr_...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 

 


 Bhairitu,
 

 You seem to agree with Kurzweil that AI can surpass human intelligence.  But 
would a Divine Being want to live in a cold silicon chip or a quantum computer?
 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


 Most humans don't even know what enlightenment is.  Just look at FFL.  Now for 
bots artificial enlightenment would be no electronic excitation just silence.  
If they like it then they'll just sit there doing nothing.  Problem with robots 
taking over solved.
 
 On 07/20/2015 12:04 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
   

 
 

 Salyavin,
 

 Now everyone here would like to know if you are enlightened currently or is it 
possible to regress once the apex of human life has been attained?
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 

 
 
 Enlightenment is nothing. These mutha's are going to want the vote! 

 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACHINES 
 
 
 
 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACH... Ryan Calo, from the 
University of Washington’s School of Law warns that our laws will have to adapt 
to robotics and artificial intelligence or be faced with dif...


 
 View on www.dailymail.co.uk 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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  mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread salyavin808 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 


 Bhairitu,
 

 You seem to agree with Kurzweil that AI can surpass human intelligence.  But 
would a Divine Being want to live in a cold silicon chip or a quantum computer?
 

 Surely if it's a quantum computer it's already enlightened, at least according 
to the idea that quanta reside in the unified field of pure consciousness?
 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :


 Most humans don't even know what enlightenment is.  Just look at FFL.  Now for 
bots artificial enlightenment would be no electronic excitation just silence.  
If they like it then they'll just sit there doing nothing.  Problem with robots 
taking over solved.
 
 On 07/20/2015 12:04 PM, jr_esq@... mailto:jr_esq@... [FairfieldLife] wrote:
 
   

 
 

 Salyavin,
 

 Now everyone here would like to know if you are enlightened currently or is it 
possible to regress once the apex of human life has been attained?
 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 

 
 
 Enlightenment is nothing. These mutha's are going to want the vote! 

 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACHINES 
 
 
 
 Right for ROBOTS? Act now to regulate KILLER MACH... Ryan Calo, from the 
University of Washington’s School of Law warns that our laws will have to adapt 
to robotics and artificial intelligence or be faced with dif...


 
 View on www.dailymail.co.uk 
 Preview by Yahoo 
 

  
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com wrote :
 
 
 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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  mailto:no_re...@yahoogroups.com
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 
 
 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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 mailto:FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, 
 mailto: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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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. (-:
 

But labeling something a god is surely belief?
 

 Using any label for just about anything is based on belief. The desire/impetus 
to label is based on belief. 
 
 From: salyavin808 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?

2015-07-20 Thread awoelfleba...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] 

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  wrote :

 
 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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.
 

 No one alive can build that machine. Machines are not living cells and they 
are not sentient beings and never will be no matter how many "Terminator" 
movies you watch.
 

 

 

 ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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 
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Monday, July 20, 2015 7:14 AM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Can Artificial Enlightenment Exist?
 
 
   

 

---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,  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,  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.