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" <edgaro...@att.net> 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" <edgaro...@att.net> 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!" <billsm...@hhs1963.org> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > >
