Merle, Nature works intelligently.
And nature is NOT a she. Nature is much too intelligent to be a SHE! Edgar On May 26, 2013, at 8:09 AM, Merle Lester wrote: > > > no it's nature and how she works!... merle > > > Bill, > > It's an intelligently computed reaction... > > Edgar > > > > On May 26, 2013, at 3:55 AM, Bill! wrote: > >> >> Edgar, >> >> What would you consider the action of plants turning toward a light source? >> Would you consider that rationality, reason, intelligence, reaction or what? >> >> ...Bill! >> >> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@...> wrote: >> > >> > Chris, >> > >> > I'm proud of your understanding of my theory, at least in your first >> > sentence. >> > >> > Yes, it is true that stones are fundamentally result states of >> > computations occurring in the world of forms. What WE experience as stones >> > are OUR computations of the interactions of our empty form with the empty >> > forms of stones. However stones don't themselves compute their next state >> > at least in the usual sense of the stone itself as an active intelligence. >> > >> > As to the definition of reason and rationality I repeat that all organisms >> > can be considered as intelligent 'programs' running in the information >> > world of the world of forms. They are intelligent in the sense that they >> > are able to compute actions that enable them to function more effectively >> > than would be the case if they just followed the laws of inanimate nature >> > as the computations that are stones do. >> > >> > So rationality and reason in my definition doesn't mean someone is >> > exceptionally intelligent. It just means that they do better than randomly >> > following the laws of inanimate nature. Even worms and bacteria are this >> > kind of intelligent system and in my sense they do reason. >> > >> > Hmmm, maybe I should start using intelligence instead of reason or >> > rationality? >> > >> > Do you think that would help people understand what I'm saying better? >> > >> > Edgar >> > >> > >> > >> > On May 25, 2013, at 5:20 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > I thought in your view inanimate stones compute their next state? >> > > >> > > And what I mean by rationality is not intelligent computation but >> > > meandering through the associative network of concepts which seem to >> > > make up my conscious arena. >> > > >> > > The putting on of pants need not involve that arena at all and may >> > > consist solely of neural level computations, which seems to be your idea >> > > of rationality. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > --Chris >> > > 301-270-6524 >> > > On May 25, 2013 2:15 PM, "Edgar Owen" <edgarowen@...> wrote: >> > > >> > > >> > > Chris, >> > > >> > > By reasoning I mean intelligent computation. All organisms compute to >> > > function. Without this intelligent reasoning they'd be inanimate stones. >> > > >> > > Which seems to be Bill's goal since he thinks that's Zen... >> > > >> > > Edgar >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > On May 25, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: >> > > >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> I can get dressed perfectly well without activating any reasoning >> > >> circuits. Subconscious planning and spatial understanding circuits may >> > >> be used. But not what I think Bill means by rationality. >> > >> >> > >> To be it sounds like you say rationality is involved if ones nervous >> > >> system calculates the path of fluid flow in a gravity field as one >> > >> pours tea out, or you know calculates the muscle activations needed to >> > >> push a lrg through the pants. That is embodied calculation, or effort >> > >> less effort, or intuitive action. What I and I think Bill! and many Zen >> > >> writers mean by rationality is an add on - cognition not embodied >> > >> directly but simulated in the nervous system. Trying to think, thoughts >> > >> that try to be more than thoughts, conscious reasoning, that sort of >> > >> activity. Mistaking that sort of activity for reality is what Zen >> > >> cautions against, not the embodied practical reason of the nervous >> > >> system. >> > >> >> > >> Thanks, >> > >> --Chris >> > >> 301-270-6524 >> > >> On May 25, 2013 8:57 AM, "Edgar Owen" <edgarowen@...> wrote: >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> Chris, >> > >> >> > >> Yes, if you manage to put your pants on in the morning you ARE using >> > >> your rational mind. >> > >> >> > >> Bill obviously walks around without pants all day hoping to preserve >> > >> his Zen... >> > >> >> > >> Edgar >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> On May 25, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Chris Austin-Lane wrote: >> > >> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> I say the thoughts have actual reality and a limited illusory implicit >> > >>> world view they carry with them. >> > >>> >> > >>> I don't find much reason to distinguish the neuronal firings of >> > >>> hearing a frog jumping into the water and the neuronal firings of >> > >>> remembering a frog jumping into water. But to take a thought >> > >>> seriously, haha, that way leads to madness. >> > >>> >> > >>> The fact of maths being so effective in science is still in my mind >> > >>> part of the mystery, and some little model of computation cribbed from >> > >>> recent popular science fails to address it. >> > >>> >> > >>> I also am pretty sure one may put pants on without having an effective >> > >>> reasonable model of computation externalized. One may just put the >> > >>> pants on. >> > >>> >> > >>> Thanks, >> > >>> --Chris >> > >>> 301-270-6524 >> > >>> On May 25, 2013 7:10 AM, "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: >> > >>> Edgar, >> > >>> >> > >>> People create illusions so why can't people decide on whether they're >> > >>> real or not? >> > >>> >> > >>> I say they're not. >> > >>> >> > >>> ...Bill! >> > >>> >> > >>> --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: >> > >>> > >> > >>> > Bill, >> > >>> > >> > >>> > People don't decide whether illusions are real or not. Reality does! >> > >>> > Get that through your solipsistic head! >> > >>> > >> > >>> > Edgar >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > >> > >>> > On May 25, 2013, at 9:11 AM, Bill! wrote: >> > >>> > >> > >>> > > Edgar, >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > As long as you agree dualism is an illusion you can call it >> > >>> > > 'reality' if you wish. I don't agree, but we can let others decide >> > >>> > > for themselves if illusions are real or not. >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > ...Bill! >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, Edgar Owen <edgarowen@> wrote: >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > Bill, >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > Total agreement as stated. >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > Just incorporate what I said yesterday that these forms exist in >> > >>> > > > reality instead of in your nutty head and you'll have the whole >> > >>> > > > meaning.. >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > Edgar >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > On May 25, 2013, at 3:41 AM, Bill! wrote: >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Siska, >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > As you'll soon find out Edgar and I have almost the polar >> > >>> > > > > opposite opinion on just about everything. In fact he'll >> > >>> > > > > probably disagree with this statement ;>) and will certainly >> > >>> > > > > jump all over the rest of this post. >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Rumi's poem/metaphor was: >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > I looked for my self, >> > >>> > > > > But my self was gone. >> > >>> > > > > The boundaries of my being >> > >>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea. >> > >>> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again. >> > >>> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself. >> > >>> > > > > It always happens like this. >> > >>> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams, >> > >>> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body. >> > >>> > > > > Another being takes form. >> > >>> > > > > And when the sea sends word, >> > >>> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. >> > >>> > > > > - Rumi >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > I can just imagine Rumi standing on the beach watching the >> > >>> > > > > waves form, come rhythmically in, crash upon the beach and >> > >>> > > > > then spend themselves by slipping back into the sea - losing >> > >>> > > > > himself in Buddha Nature and later composing this poem. My >> > >>> > > > > interpretation of it is: >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > I looked for my self, >> > >>> > > > > But my self was gone. >> > >>> > > > > The boundaries of my being >> > >>> > > > > Had disappeared in the sea. >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Rumi is describing the holistic experience of Buddha Nature. >> > >>> > > > > The illusion of dualism has vanished and his illusion of >> > >>> > > > > 'self' as something independent and apart from everything else >> > >>> > > > > has vanished with it. It has vanished into sea which is a >> > >>> > > > > metaphor for emptiness. >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Waves broke. Awareness rose again. >> > >>> > > > > And a voice returned me to myself. >> > >>> > > > > It always happens like this. >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Dualism returns. His holistic experience of Buddha Nature has >> > >>> > > > > been interrupted and his illusion of self has returned. This >> > >>> > > > > alternation between holism and dualism, between emptiness and >> > >>> > > > > self happens regularly, much like the waves surging >> > >>> > > > > rhythmically upon the beach. >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Sea turns on itself and foams, >> > >>> > > > > And with every foaming bit another body. >> > >>> > > > > Another being takes form. >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > Now that he is abiding in dualism all other illusions, >> > >>> > > > > perceptions, thoughts, etc..., of all other (10,000) things >> > >>> > > > > appear. >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > And when the sea sends word, >> > >>> > > > > Each foaming body melts back to ocean-breath. >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > But when he returns again to Buddha Nature all these illusions >> > >>> > > > > melt back into emptiness. >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > That's my reading of this anyway. It will be interesting to >> > >>> > > > > see what Edgar comes up with although I think I could almost >> > >>> > > > > write it for him... >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > ...Bill! >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > --- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, siska_cen@ wrote: >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > Hi Bill, >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > I followed until: "Waves broke". >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > The rest is a bit confusing. It's as if the 'self' is back. >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > Siska >> > >>> > > > > > -----Original Message----- >> > >>> > > > > > From: "Bill!" BillSmart@ >> > >>> > > > > > Sender: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com >> > >>> > > > > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29 >> > >>> > > > > > To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com >> > >>> > > > > > Reply-To: Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com >> > >>> > > > > > Subject: [Zen] Nice Quote >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > > ..Bill! >> > >>> > > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> ------------------------------------ >> > >>> >> > >>> Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or >> > >>> are reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > > >
