THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: talk.religion.newage,alt.philosophy.zen,alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.misc From: dharmatroll@my-dejanews.com Subject: Re: Smullyan, Robot-Anatman, Roshi Alarms (was Invitation to http://taoism.net) Date: Sat, 20 Mar 1999 17:29:51 GMT In article <7cvse8$ck3@bolt.sonic.net>, tyagi@houseofkaos.abyss.com wrote: > |#> ...have you read _The Mind's I_ by Daniel Dennett? > > dharmatroll@my-dejanews.com: > | ...It is an anthology of wonderful essays and short stories, > | and Dennett and Hofstadter simply make comments about each > | chapter. It starts with a wonderful piece by Harding, from > | his _On Having No Head_. It also contains some gems from > | logician Raymond Smullyan, from his really fun book _The Tao > | is Silent_. > > "Is God a Taoist?" being exceedingly irreverent and challenging Exceedingly? Nah. But yes it is one of the most wonderful chapters in _The Mind's I_ and led me to read _The Tao is Silent_. Smyllyan's wonderful logic books are worth the read as well, and their titles reveal the playful humor all throughout his books, such as: _What is the Name of This Book?_ and _This Book Needs No Title_ and _To Mock a Mockingbird_. > | But what about an android, with a brain as complex as yours, except > | made of silicon? Or are you one of those meat-heat bigots who is > | filled with species-chauvanism, and who claims that androids are > | just 'robots' (you know that term offends them more than being > | called 'hinayanist')! > > why? 'robot' appears to have come to mean 'worker'. Actually, in sci-fi contexts, it means mechanical as in 'dark' inside without subjective experiences or qualia. An android is functionally equivalent to a meat-head but is made out of different stuff. The meat-heads assume that meat is necessary for consciousness and that a silicon instead of carbon base is not, but they believe this only because they happen to be meat-heads themselves, which is the faulty reason behind their silly species-chauvanism. > could I become a toaster in my next life? There is no "I" in this life to become anything else. There are only mental processes. > effectively people now think of themselves AS androids, recycling > their projected consciousness from one 'life' to another, No, if they think that, then they think they are souls who are possessing something, rather than a functional dynamic process. DT: > | Haven't you read what the android civil rights movement has been > | saying? Oh, I guess not, as it's only the 20th century, but > | just you wait a few hundred years and you'll see. > > without a soul, why bother with civil rights? if anatman is true, > then there are no consistent beings to protect, only transforming > beings without real and lasting identities. why do they need any > kind of 'civil rights'? Because we can feel and suffer. The idea of a soul or of permanence or of a 'you' going somewhere is a misunderstanding. There is a process going on right now, and we call that process 'you'. Whether it is the process of a meat-head brain or a positronic brain such as Mr. Data's or C3P0's doesn't matter, as it is the functional, dynamic relationship that are responsible for consciousness, and not meat, nor some soul or mindstream that enters and possesses the body. All that is nonsense. And that's what the android rights movement is all about. They're sick of meat-heads enslaving them and using feeble excuses about meat or souls to claim that droids don't have feelings like any other sentient being. > what is 'death' to a positronic brain? being shut down? > why is that not 'sleep' as long as it can be turned back on? The same thing can be asked about humans who are super-frozen. When Han Solo was superfrozen and taken to Jabba the Hut, was he asleep, dead? If you were frozen and then revived, what would you say? Did you exist during the interval? What if while you were frozen, each molecule was substituted for another molecule of the same kind and then you were unfrozen? Would that still be you? Why or why not? (These are very useful thought experiments in the contemporary debate of personal identity in the philosophy of mind, btw. This particular example comes from Peter Unger, _Identity, Consciousness, and Value_) > what if you couldn't control when you woke up, someone else had to do > that for you? to whose trust would you bequeath that responsibility? Princess Leia, of course. Or anyone else who has a Jedi Master in their immediate family. > how is this different than deciding which guide to trust with your > Buddhist training? deciding who you will ask to wake you up? It's different in that no one else can wake you up in Buddhism. You never blindly trust anyone. You test out a practice based on rational understanding, and if it is helpful you continue. Hopefully, you can try out several different types of Buddhist (or other kinds of) practices and paths and then see in your experience which is helpful. When you find a path that suits your personality and needs and which you find helpful, then you commit to it. And that commitment is not set in stone either: it means you stick it out through rough times, but if over a longer range of time you find it isn't working, then you move on. Remember, spiritually, you are not super-frozen or in a coma: rather, you are sleepy and deluded and in a daze; so you make the best choices you can based on the experience and evidence you have to work with, and then when you get more experience and data, you adjust your path accordingly. You never need trust some authority blindly and rigidly. This point is especically stressed in Buddhism (see the Kalama Sutra, which Steven Batchelor quotes in the beginning of his excellent intro to Buddhism, _Buddhism Without Beliefs_; also see his _Faith to Doubt_). Follow this path and remain vigilant and mindful always, and trust not any authority but look instead inwardly to the Force for guidance, and someday Jedi Knight shall you be. Hahahahahahaha --Dharmakaya Trollpa "Fear leads to anger; anger leads to hatred; and hatred leads to suffering" -Master Yoda -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==---------- http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|