> > s previously: But you are suggesting there is a 'secret'
> > interest? I don't know why you should think there
> is a secret interest?
>
> SA:? Because it's not obvious.? At least to me it's
> not.
> squonk: There is no secret interest. Simple as that.
SA: ok. And I didn't mean "secret" in a derogatory way, I hope you know. I
feel something is going on in this discussion that I'm not attentive to, so
thus, the continual discussion. By the way, thanks for sticking with me on
this.
> SA previously:? Why do you have "?", question marks all over
> the place in your posts?? I
> don't see these in any other posts.
> ???? Vat:? a large tank or tube
> ???? Nope, don't think this has anything to do with
> Zen.? Does this vat connect
> to the world?? Thus why I brought up
> "alienation".
> squonk: I don't know about the ?'s.
> Re. Zen and DQ. I don't claim to be an expert on Zen,
> so please forgive me if i don't know what i'm
> talking about.
> I thought immediate experience of reality was?the goal of
> Zen teaching.
> I thought DQ was the primary experience of the moq, and so
> equated the two via DQ.
SA: I'd agree thus far.
s:
> If 'brains in vats' or anything like it doesn't
> achieve primary experience then the experiment doesn't
> help.
> I didn't use that term, but an moq description
> involving sq and DQ.
SA: I understand what your metaphor, maybe that's what this "brains in vats"
is, merely a metaphor, maybe? If so, and your trying to communicate an "moq
description" that involves "sq and DQ", then I see your point more clearly.
What is difficult, and thus the "disagreement" on my part, is this sci-fi
rendition, which would make an excellent anime, yet, if you truly want to take
the next step and do this industrial scale brain in vats, it would seem too
early, a hasting of evolution. Do we need brains in vats this very moment? If
we continue with the thought-experiment pattern, and put aside on actually
making these brains in vats, then it is the thought, the pattern that your
trying to communicate that I would be interested in.
> > s: You are free to express your view on the matter.
> > Remember we are dealing with a thought experiment, so
> > unless the experiment is realised no one is going to
> get hurt by what ever moral imperative you bring to the
> > situation.
> > One could argue that to imagine experimentation is a
> > precursor to realisation sooner or later?
> > Therefore, it may be possible to discourage certain
> morally objectionable thought experiments?
> > In this case we have thought police censorship.
SA: Is this kin to somebody's thinking about killing somebody and their having
a really bad day, but we shouldn't be concerned?
> SA previously: I could care less about getting into a censorship
> discussion, sorry,
> but this seems to be your interest, not mine.
>
> squonk: It isn't my interest. I don't know what the
> experiment may throw up, but my hope was that it may have
> thrown something up regarding sq and DQ. It may not go
> anywhere at all. It is not about censorship.
> You've spent all your time going on about everything
> other than that which i hoped you may have helped to
> provide stimulating ideas. It's a shame.
SA: It's this distracting "brain in vat". This is why I propose we get rid of
this hang-up, and talk about this thoughtful "secert", the message behind all
of this - "something regarding sq and DQ". Now I'm for that.
> SA previously: I'm not trying to bring this "censorship"
> issue up at all, but it seems you might be.
> squonk: Moral outrage is a form of censorship isn't it?
SA: Anything can be about "censorship" if you want it to be.
s:
> And the moq is centred on morals, so anyone discussing the
> moq is?dealing with?this anyway: social codes censor
> biological codes, intellectual codes censor social codes,
> etc. If you, 'could care less about getting into a
> censorship discussion' then i would avoid discussing
> the moq SA.
SA: The moq can be about everything, correct? It is supposedly the
metaphysics that describes reality best. So we could talk about censorship,
the neighbors dog, black holes, or my son running down the hill at this very
moment, which he is. I'm up for the "something about sq and DQ".
> > s previously: Have you chosen not to answer my question regarding
> > alienation being degenerative in the context of the
> thought experiment SA?
>
> SA previously:? I brought it up above on this post.? Sorry it took so
> long.
>
> squonk: OK. The world is created in our own culture and it
> can be changed.
SA: true.
> SA previously:? Hmmm, so this leads in Ian in ways I didn't know.
>
> squonk: Ian is into his brains in vats stuff i suppose, and
> he's welcome to it.
SA: yes he is.
> Squonk:
> > The mechanics is not all that relevant, because what
> the experiment is concerned with is the 'blank
> slate' a biological Human brain provides.
> > To get bogged down in the nitty gritty of how and why
> and do you mind if you don'ts is trivial; let's
> begin with a blank slate human brain. Let us refer to this
> blank slate as a group of static biological patterns.
> > We may have reason to believe that this state of
> static biological patterns has direct access to DQ unmediated
> by additional social and intellectual static patterns,
> or, to use David's term, a 'mind'.
> > It has been argued that babies experience the same Zen
> > state that Zen masters prescribe.
> > It has been argued that this state is that which many
> > people try to reach when they are being creative, or
> use substances to demolish static patterns of the mind.
> > If a mind can choose to do this, and if that choice
> has a metaphysical basis, then the thought
> experiment?enquires if
> > doing it on a large scale is a moral imperative??(see
> the thought experiment itself).
SA: Difference between babies and Zen masters, Zen masters, for one, can talk
about their experience. This talk is Zen too. Static patterns are Zen.
Dynamic quality is Zen. Zen doesn't see a difference, and Zen recognizes a
difference. I like 'sq is dq' 'dq is sq'
> SA previously:? It's the vats, the real time application, the
> industrial scale 'breeding',
> and where the brains would come from - that's what I
> question.? I understand
> your mosying around with a thought-experiment, but do you
> want to do anything?
> squonk: Social and intellectual patterns are breed in real
> time applications and the 'vat' used is called
> Culture.
SA: yes, thoughts are real time participance's. Curious, has "vat" meant all
this time "culture". If so, this is the secret language I'm talking about. If
not, and your introducing something to the discussion, then I understand. I
was beginning to think, this thought-experiment, as you recently mentioned,
what's up in the air, open to anything, true?
way out here,
SA
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
