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