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 [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 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
