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 [email protected], 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected], 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: [email protected]
> >>> > > > > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2013 10:04:29
> >>> > > > > > To: [email protected]
> >>> > > > > > Reply-To: [email protected]
> >>> > > > > > 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
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >
>




------------------------------------

Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are 
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Reply via email to