Buddhism and Karma (Religion)
by George Jelliss 
, Crewe, Wednesday, January 23, 2013, 16:39 (4320 days ago)
Here is a discussion of what is wrong with Buddhism, from an atheist who has taught at a Buddhist school:-http://rationalist.org.uk/4021/the-dark-side-of-buddhism-I did a search for 'Karma' on this site and it appears to have been discussed between dhw and B-M on an 'Afterlife' thread a couple of years ago, but to avoid condfusion I thought it best to start anew. B-M's experience of Buddhism appears to be at odds with the version expounded in this article.
--
GPJ
Buddhism and Karma
by David Turell , Wednesday, January 23, 2013, 19:47 (4320 days ago) @ George Jelliss
George; Here is a discussion of what is wrong with Buddhism, from an atheist who has taught at a Buddhist school: > > http://rationalist.org.uk/4021/the-dark-side-of-buddhism-George, glad you are participating again. You are bringing in wonderful material. I would love to see Matt or Tony respond to this, the conclusion of the article:-"At the end of the day, it's still true that, in many respects, Buddhism maintains its moral edge over Christianity or Islam handily. That instinct for proselytising unto war which has made both of these religions such distinctly harmful forces in the story of mankind is nowhere present. But, the drive to infect individuals with an inability to appreciate life except through a filter of regret and shame is perhaps even more dangerous in Buddhism for being so very much more subtle. Squeezed between the implications of inherited evil instincts and a monolithic conception of what counts as a right answer to the question of one's own personal existence, a young person entering a Buddhist community today is every bit as much under the theological gun as a student at a Catholic school, but because society has such a cheery picture of Buddhist practice, she has far fewer resources for resistance than her Catholic counterpart. And that allows sad things to happen. I would urge, then, that as fulfilling as it is to point out and work to correct the gross excesses of Christianity (and, let's face it, fun too), we can't let the darkness of Buddhist practice go by unremarked just because it works more subtly and its victims suffer more quietly."-Since the author is an atheist, this must be a clear and accurate criticism. And very different than Kabbalah.
Buddhism and Karma
GEORGE: Here is a discussion of what is wrong with Buddhism, from an atheist who has taught at a Buddhist school:-http://rationalist.org.uk/4021/the-dark-side-of-buddhism-I did a search for 'Karma' on this site and it appears to have been discussed between dhw and B-M on an 'Afterlife' thread a couple of years ago, but to avoid confusion I thought it best to start anew. B-M's experience of Buddhism appears to be at odds with the version expounded in this article.-DAVID: George, glad you are participating again. You are bringing in wonderful material. I would love to see Matt or Tony respond to this, the conclusion of the article [...]-My thanks too. This is fascinating stuff. Some people regard Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion, but just like most religions it seems to have lots of different forms, as does the concept 'karma'. This one sounds like a strange perversion of BBella's favoured afterlife! According to one of my reference books, some versions maintain that you're stuck with what you've got, so if you've been a bad boy you will remain a bad boy (Brahman), whereas others (Jain) give you the chance to stop enjoying yourself and work your way to being released from the cycle of rebirths. (My reference book doesn't put it in quite those terms.) Our author must have landed among some Brahmans, but we need Tony or Matt to enlighten us further. What struck me most forcibly was the author's clear distress at the effect of these insensitive teachings on his students. One of the arguments I find most misleading and downright insulting is some religious folks' insistence that without their particular version of God, there would be no empathy or morality in the human world. Most forms of (mainly atheist) Buddhism teach compassion and respect for all living things, and the implication that atheists ... not to mention agnostics ... would be incapable of such finer feelings is utter nonsense. As we've seen from the articles about the pope, faith in God does not automatically engender empathy or morality, and as we can see from this article, the absence of God makes not the slightest difference to the author's concern for his fellow beings. These comments are a digression from the topic of karma, but it's a good excuse to get them off my chest!
Buddhism and Karma
by David Turell , Thursday, January 24, 2013, 17:29 (4319 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: My thanks too. This is fascinating stuff. Some people regard Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion, but just like most religions it seems to have lots of different forms, as does the concept 'karma'. -I wish Matt or Tony would comment. They know alot more than I do about this.
Buddhism and Karma
by BBella , Thursday, January 24, 2013, 19:48 (4319 days ago) @ dhw
GEORGE: Here is a discussion of what is wrong with Buddhism, from an atheist who has taught at a Buddhist school: > > http://rationalist.org.uk/4021/the-dark-side-of-buddhism > This one sounds like a strange perversion of BBella's favoured afterlife!...What struck me most forcibly was the author's clear distress at the effect of these insensitive teachings on his students. -dhw, it does sound like a "perversion" of my IBT ideal. The greatest difference is this type of karma is more religious in nature in that a God/Lawgiver outside of the souls is deciding what is best for the souls. In my IBT afterlife ideal, there is no overlord or God doing any deciding for anyone.-ps..will be answering your last post on Afterlife soon.
Buddhism and Karma
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 29, 2013, 01:06 (4103 days ago) @ dhw
GEORGE: Here is a discussion of what is wrong with Buddhism, from an atheist who has taught at a Buddhist school: > > http://rationalist.org.uk/4021/the-dark-side-of-buddhism > > I did a search for 'Karma' on this site and it appears to have been discussed between dhw and B-M on an 'Afterlife' thread a couple of years ago, but to avoid confusion I thought it best to start anew. B-M's experience of Buddhism appears to be at odds with the version expounded in this article. > > DAVID: George, glad you are participating again. You are bringing in wonderful material. I would love to see Matt or Tony respond to this, the conclusion of the article [...] > > My thanks too. This is fascinating stuff. Some people regard Buddhism as a philosophy rather than a religion, but just like most religions it seems to have lots of different forms, as does the concept 'karma'. This one sounds like a strange perversion of BBella's favoured afterlife! According to one of my reference books, some versions maintain that you're stuck with what you've got, so if you've been a bad boy you will remain a bad boy (Brahman), whereas others (Jain) give you the chance to stop enjoying yourself and work your way to being released from the cycle of rebirths. (My reference book doesn't put it in quite those terms.) Our author must have landed among some Brahmans, but we need Tony or Matt to enlighten us further. > -It sounds traditional Hinduism to me. I mentioned Theraveda to David, but one of the translated books I have is from a Theravedan monk, and the translation speaks consistently of the concept of breaking the round of rebirths... something which this article's group seems to have missed. -> What struck me most forcibly was the author's clear distress at the effect of these insensitive teachings on his students. One of the arguments I find most misleading and downright insulting is some religious folks' insistence that without their particular version of God, there would be no empathy or morality in the human world. Most forms of (mainly atheist) Buddhism teach compassion and respect for all living things, and the implication that atheists ... not to mention agnostics ... would be incapable of such finer feelings is utter nonsense. As we've seen from the articles about the pope, faith in God does not automatically engender empathy or morality, and as we can see from this article, the absence of God makes not the slightest difference to the author's concern for his fellow beings. These comments are a digression from the topic of karma, but it's a good excuse to get them off my chest!-I love talking with dhw, because he reminds me in my darkest moments, that human decency can prevail.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Buddhism and Karma
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 29, 2013, 01:03 (4103 days ago) @ David Turell
George; Here is a discussion of what is wrong with Buddhism, from an atheist who has taught at a Buddhist school: > > > > http://rationalist.org.uk/4021/the-dark-side-of-buddhism > > George, glad you are participating again. You are bringing in wonderful material. I would love to see Matt or Tony respond to this, the conclusion of the article: > > "At the end of the day, it's still true that, in many respects, Buddhism maintains its moral edge over Christianity or Islam handily. That instinct for proselytising unto war which has made both of these religions such distinctly harmful forces in the story of mankind is nowhere present. But, the drive to infect individuals with an inability to appreciate life except through a filter of regret and shame is perhaps even more dangerous in Buddhism for being so very much more subtle. Squeezed between the implications of inherited evil instincts and a monolithic conception of what counts as a right answer to the question of one's own personal existence, a young person entering a Buddhist community today is every bit as much under the theological gun as a student at a Catholic school, but because society has such a cheery picture of Buddhist practice, she has far fewer resources for resistance than her Catholic counterpart. And that allows sad things to happen. I would urge, then, that as fulfilling as it is to point out and work to correct the gross excesses of Christianity (and, let's face it, fun too), we can't let the darkness of Buddhist practice go by unremarked just because it works more subtly and its victims suffer more quietly." > -See my response to the OP, but in general, this critique is valid. There are forms of Buddhism that adhere to the idea that no one except Buddha is/was capable of enlightenment. (Usually Theravedan Buddhism.) It's what caused the Buddhist "Schism" and created the Mahayana school of Buddhism that represents the majority of Buddhism today. -> Since the author is an atheist, this must be a clear and accurate criticism. And very different than Kabbalah.-Kabbalah has important theological roots, but considering that Kabbalah starts with a supreme being, it IS going to be very different than Buddhism. By its nature, Buddhism skips origin questions and generally, downplays the role of gods--and the Tibetan forms even promise that you can reincarnate as gods.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Buddhism and Karma
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, August 29, 2013, 00:56 (4103 days ago) @ George Jelliss
I'm uh... rather late to this game (being that Jan 2013 is nearly 9 months ago) -but sticking true to my word to dhw that I would read and comment--Here we go!- Having spent 8+ yrs practicing at least the meditative aspects of Buddhism, this article seems an example of perspectivism. Why? In the branch of Buddhism I practiced, (Zen in general, Soto/Kwan Um in particular) karma was never mentioned once. I'll have to dig, but I remember even that Dalai Llama expressing doubts about reincarnation--so even though karma is a thought that is implicit in many practicing forms of Buddhism, the views of this article aren't encompassing. -In my readings, the fourth state of meditation is supposed to be the "rememberance of past lives." But... at no point is there any reference (that I'm aware of) about the Buddha being able to tell someone else about their past lives... -To me, an important sentence in this thought rings loud and clear:-"For nine years, I worked as a science and maths teacher at a small private Buddhist school in the United States."-The United States is a particularly poor model to use to study Buddhism. Seriously.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Buddhism and Karma
Xeno: I'm uh...rather late to this game (being that Jan 2013 is nearly 9 months ago)...-Welcome back, Matt. We have missed you hugely. You will see from the page upon page of threads that we have had some lively discussions in your absence and could have done with your particular insights.-"Buddhism and Karma" has not been on the agenda, but it's interesting to read our various comments at the time. Not a great deal one can add, except that to refresh my memory, I've had another look at one of my reference books, which defines karma as the theory that "every action has a consequence which will come to fruition in either this or a future life [...] An individual's present situation is thereby explained by reference to actions in his past history, in his present or in previous lifetimes." It seems that the overall aim is to break the cycle of birth and death (samsara), which doesn't say a great deal for the life of a Buddhist. I'm sure you'll agree that the birth of a child (how is Josephine, by the way?) is to be celebrated, whereas one senses that the correct response for a karma-style Buddhist would be something like: "Oh crikey, here we go again!"-However, you would not have spent 8+ years practising the meditative aspects of Buddhism if you had not found it beneficial. Karma obviously doesn't figure in your branch of Buddhism, so maybe we could change the subject and you could summarize just what it is that you meditate on, and how it helps you. -Once again, welcome back.
Buddhism and Karma
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 08, 2013, 19:02 (4092 days ago) @ dhw
Xeno: I'm uh...rather late to this game (being that Jan 2013 is nearly 9 months ago)... > > Welcome back, Matt. We have missed you hugely. You will see from the page upon page of threads that we have had some lively discussions in your absence and could have done with your particular insights. > > "Buddhism and Karma" has not been on the agenda, but it's interesting to read our various comments at the time. Not a great deal one can add, except that to refresh my memory, I've had another look at one of my reference books, which defines karma as the theory that "every action has a consequence which will come to fruition in either this or a future life [...] An individual's present situation is thereby explained by reference to actions in his past history, in his present or in previous lifetimes." It seems that the overall aim is to break the cycle of birth and death (samsara), which doesn't say a great deal for the life of a Buddhist. I'm sure you'll agree that the birth of a child (how is Josephine, by the way?) is to be celebrated, whereas one senses that the correct response for a karma-style Buddhist would be something like: "Oh crikey, here we go again!" > > However, you would not have spent 8+ years practising the meditative aspects of Buddhism if you had not found it beneficial. Karma obviously doesn't figure in your branch of Buddhism, so maybe we could change the subject and you could summarize just what it is that you meditate on, and how it helps you. > -The core to Zen is simple: Learn how to sit still and do nothing. Become a dispassionate observer of your own mind. It is this process that (to me) confirms the presence of "free will." -The benefits are subtle... there's no overnight epiphany here. Over time you learn to recognize your own thought patterns as well as their roots and motives. As you observe, you can get a peculiar sensation as I've said before--there's alot going on inside your mind that you have no formal "control" over. I'm sure that when any of us had a sick loved one, we were probably unable to force the thoughts back. However, meditation here gives you a lever so you can at least separate yourself, however slightly, from the concept of experiencing the thoughts, and observing the thoughts. -> Once again, welcome back.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Buddhism and Karma
MATT: The core to Zen is simple: Learn how to sit still and do nothing.-I could make a comment here about certain folk I know, but they're not Zen Buddhists.-MATT: Become a dispassionate observer of your own mind. It is this process that (to me) confirms the presence of "free will." The benefits are subtle... there's no overnight epiphany here. Over time you learn to recognize your own thought patterns as well as their roots and motives. As you observe, you can get a peculiar sensation as I've said before--there's alot going on inside your mind that you have no formal "control" over. I'm sure that when any of us had a sick loved one, we were probably unable to force the thoughts back. However, meditation here gives you a lever so you can at least separate yourself, however slightly, from the concept of experiencing the thoughts, and observing the thoughts.-Clearly this does have benefits, or you wouldn't keep doing it. Levels of consciousness are fascinating, and dangerous. The theatre is a wonderful illustration of the dangers and the complexities. The actor must inhabit someone else's consciousness ... he must "be" that person. The moment he steps outside and sees himself being the character, he loses the character. There are some actors who are so immersed in this self-effacing process that they can no longer "be" themselves. They lose personal spontaneity. Watch them when they're being interviewed, and you will sense that some of them have to ACT being themselves. Writing for the theatre entails an even more complex separation of levels. You're absolutely right that "there's a lot going on inside your mind that you have no formal "control" over", but in this case you do and you don't have control. You are the writer. You are aware that you are the writer. The characters are inside your mind, but you are also inside their minds. And yet you are not, because they often do things that surprise you (and if they didn't, they would bore the audience). You may have to intervene, but that is dangerous because they may be right, and then the play will lose all conviction (the critics will say that it doesn't ring true). On the other hand, maybe they are wrong and you are right, and intervention is justified. All this time, you are ... like David's God ... inside and outside them and yourself. But you are also in the front row watching it all happen (like David's God again?). How many levels are intertwined here? Of course it is these levels that we assume distinguish us from other forms of life. I doubt if an ant will sit still and do nothing except observe its own mind. Perhaps that's why ants have created such an efficient social structure. They don't question their role. They think intelligently (David disagrees), but only within the parameters of that social role. Your branch of Zen meditation seems almost to be trying to establish the same kind of oneness enjoyed by the ant colony ... by separating yourself from your mind, you can create a unity within yourself and between yourself and the world around you. I guess the effectiveness depends on your own personality. I enjoy oneness (which I certainly feel from time to time), and I also enjoy separation. But then I'm generally a happy soul, so I don't feel any pressing need to be at one with a God, or to be released from the endless pain and suffering of birth, death and rebirth.
Buddhism and Karma
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 00:54 (4056 days ago) @ dhw
MATT: The core to Zen is simple: Learn how to sit still and do nothing. > > I could make a comment here about certain folk I know, but they're not Zen Buddhists. > > MATT: Become a dispassionate observer of your own mind. It is this process that (to me) confirms the presence of "free will." > The benefits are subtle... there's no overnight epiphany here. Over time you learn to recognize your own thought patterns as well as their roots and motives. As you observe, you can get a peculiar sensation as I've said before--there's alot going on inside your mind that you have no formal "control" over. I'm sure that when any of us had a sick loved one, we were probably unable to force the thoughts back. However, meditation here gives you a lever so you can at least separate yourself, however slightly, from the concept of experiencing the thoughts, and observing the thoughts. > > Clearly this does have benefits, or you wouldn't keep doing it. Levels of consciousness are fascinating, and dangerous. The theatre is a wonderful illustration of the dangers and the complexities. The actor must inhabit someone else's consciousness ... he must "be" that person. The moment he steps outside and sees himself being the character, he loses the character. There are some actors who are so immersed in this self-effacing process that they can no longer "be" themselves. They lose personal spontaneity. Watch them when they're being interviewed, and you will sense that some of them have to ACT being themselves. > -There's alot here that is simply what I consider to be tautology: in the good sense. To be completely honest, I feel like this on most occasions. The only time I can really be "spontaneous" is usually in my head--usually while pretending I'm singing one of my songs in public. When in performance mode, I can safely say I'm not myself, and because of that, I usually feel like I can do anything. It sounds sad, but please remember that I'm talking from a position of knowing myself extremely well. I won't go so far as to say I "act" myself, but I certainly don't relish reading my own story, so to speak. I'm working on that.
-> Writing for the theatre entails an even more complex separation of levels. You're absolutely right that "there's a lot going on inside your mind that you have no formal "control" over", but in this case you do and you don't have control. You are the writer. You are aware that you are the writer. The characters are inside your mind, but you are also inside their minds. And yet you are not, because they often do things that surprise you (and if they didn't, they would bore the audience). You may have to intervene, but that is dangerous because they may be right, and then the play will lose all conviction (the critics will say that it doesn't ring true). On the other hand, maybe they are wrong and you are right, and intervention is justified. All this time, you are ... like David's God ... inside and outside them and yourself. But you are also in the front row watching it all happen (like David's God again?). How many levels are intertwined here? > -This comes back to how I view the idea of character. You know. Every character really does have their own soul. They have their own direction. The difficulty I've found thus far in being a writer, is in teasing out what those characters would really do. The character's can't come off as if they're scripted (though they are!) and I think the single sign of bad writing points to precisely this... "smell." This has to be balanced... as you're aware in my own story, I already know how the story is going to end... so I have to tread very carefully so that the discoveries of the plot and the end are still a surprise to the characters... this isn't easy. -> Of course it is these levels that we assume distinguish us from other forms of life. I doubt if an ant will sit still and do nothing except observe its own mind. Perhaps that's why ants have created such an efficient social structure. They don't question their role. They think intelligently (David disagrees), but only within the parameters of that social role. Your branch of Zen meditation seems almost to be trying to establish the same kind of oneness enjoyed by the ant colony ... by separating yourself from your mind, you can create a unity within yourself and between yourself and the world around you. I guess the effectiveness depends on your own personality. I enjoy oneness (which I certainly feel from time to time), and I also enjoy separation. But then I'm generally a happy soul, so I don't feel any pressing need to be at one with a God, or to be released from the endless pain and suffering of birth, death and rebirth.-The argument from social biologists is that the ant colony itself is the organism, and that the individual ants equivalent to cells in the human body. In that sense, David kind of undermines himself: If we can agree that the ant colony represents a single organism, but that organism displays intelligence in terms of being able to solve problems... but the individual ants themselves are simple automatons... then he's undermining the argument that chemical transactions in the brain are insufficient to produce intelligence. -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysU56JzBjTY-"I must conclude that I am not yet real." -How many of us could say the same thing?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Buddhism and Karma
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 15, 2013, 02:02 (4055 days ago) @ xeno6696
Matt: The argument from social biologists is that the ant colony itself is the organism, and that the individual ants equivalent to cells in the human body. In that sense, David kind of undermines himself: If we can agree that the ant colony represents a single organism, but that organism displays intelligence in terms of being able to solve problems... but the individual ants themselves are simple automatons... then he's undermining the argument that chemical transactions in the brain are insufficient to produce intelligence.- I don't follow your reasoning. Of course chemical reactions in the brain can produce intelligence, far more than computers ever can if you believe Penrose's comments. The issue is that intelligence is part of consciousness, and we don't know how that emerges from the complex of billions of neurons and trillions of synapses. The ants are automatons but acting together the colony acts as if it has intelligence, when really it is following instintual intelligent information in the genomes of the individuals. We can argue how that information was developed.
Buddhism and Karma
I am transferring this discussion to "Cell Memories", where it is more appropriate.
Buddhism and Karma
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 14, 2013, 23:39 (3995 days ago) @ dhw
I am transferring this discussion to "Cell Memories", where it is more appropriate.-Whoops...
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Buddhism and Karma
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, December 14, 2013, 23:36 (3995 days ago) @ David Turell
Matt: The argument from social biologists is that the ant colony itself is the organism, and that the individual ants equivalent to cells in the human body. In that sense, David kind of undermines himself: If we can agree that the ant colony represents a single organism, but that organism displays intelligence in terms of being able to solve problems... but the individual ants themselves are simple automatons... then he's undermining the argument that chemical transactions in the brain are insufficient to produce intelligence. > > > I don't follow your reasoning. Of course chemical reactions in the brain can produce intelligence, far more than computers ever can if you believe Penrose's comments. The issue is that intelligence is part of consciousness, and we don't know how that emerges from the complex of billions of neurons and trillions of synapses. The ants are automatons but acting together the colony acts as if it has intelligence, when really it is following instintual intelligent information in the genomes of the individuals. We can argue how that information was developed.-If I read you correctly here, you're basically saying (via the ant example) that the intelligent behavior we see when we're looking at an ant colony is simply our own projection of intelligence (call it confirmation bias) on what is basically a collective of mindless automatons. -I'm going to focus surgically on this sentence:-"The ants are automatons but acting together the colony acts as if it has intelligence, when really it is following instintual intelligent information in the genomes of the individuals. We can argue how that information was developed."-Well, what's the drastic difference between an ant and a neuron in this example? I'm saying that the intelligent behaviour of an ant colony isn't an illusion of intelligence, but that it is actually intelligence. And that if you accept the argument that this intelligence is ultimately the result of gene expression contained within the DNA of the individuals of the colony, then you necessarily accept an identical argument for the human brain. That's because neurons are no less automatons than the individuals of an ant colony. -"The issue is that intelligence is part of consciousness,"-And I would state that I don't think we can make that case. I can write a computer program that has no consciousness, yet clearly displays intelligent behavior. How about that robot I posted about some years back that was able, by the simple act of observation, to derive Newton's equations for motion?
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Buddhism and Karma
by David Turell , Sunday, December 15, 2013, 01:27 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696
> Matt: If I read you correctly here, you're basically saying (via the ant example) that the intelligent behavior we see when we're looking at an ant colony is simply our own projection of intelligence (call it confirmation bias) on what is basically a collective of mindless automatons.-Agreed > > > > Matt: "The ants are automatons but acting together the colony acts as if it has intelligence, when really it is following instintual intelligent information in the genomes of the individuals. We can argue how that information was developed." > > Matt: Well, what's the drastic difference between an ant and a neuron in this example? I'm saying that the intelligent behaviour of an ant colony isn't an illusion of intelligence, but that it is actually intelligence. And that if you accept the argument that this intelligence is ultimately the result of gene expression contained within the DNA of the individuals of the colony, then you necessarily accept an identical argument for the human brain. That's because neurons are no less automatons than the individuals of an ant colony. -Agreed again, but from those automatic neurons consciousness, free will and free thought appear. And, of course, we have no idea how. And computers can't do it, and Penrose says they never will. > > David: "The issue is that intelligence is part of consciousness," > > Matt: And I would state that I don't think we can make that case. I can write a computer program that has no consciousness, yet clearly displays intelligent behavior. How about that robot I posted about some years back that was able, by the simple act of observation, to derive Newton's equations for motion?-But it is constricted intelligent behaviour based entirely on and constrained by your programs limits. No free unrelated thought appears. Computers appear intelligent but they are simply robotic.
Buddhism and Karma
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, December 15, 2013, 04:27 (3994 days ago) @ David Turell
Agreed again, but from those automatic neurons consciousness, free will and free thought appear. And, of course, we have no idea how. And computers can't do it, and Penrose says they never will.-Well, Penrose also wasn't a computer scientist.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Buddhism and Karma
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 15, 2013, 02:34 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696
Matt: And I would state that I don't think we can make that case. I can write a computer program that has no consciousness, yet clearly displays intelligent behavior. How about that robot I posted about some years back that was able, by the simple act of observation, to derive Newton's equations for motion?-This is why I tried (unsuccessfully) to underscore the importance of abstract thinking in the definitions. Your computer program will be able to make logical decisions based on whatever criteria you allow, but will it be able to generate new ideas from abstract concepts? If instinct is hard-coded pre-programmed behavior, and basic intelligence is decisions based on pre-defined logic programming, then we need a new word for what it is that humans do because we go far, far beyond either of those categories.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.
Buddhism and Karma
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, December 15, 2013, 05:38 (3994 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Matt: And I would state that I don't think we can make that case. I can write a computer program that has no consciousness, yet clearly displays intelligent behavior. How about that robot I posted about some years back that was able, by the simple act of observation, to derive Newton's equations for motion? > > This is why I tried (unsuccessfully) to underscore the importance of abstract thinking in the definitions. Your computer program will be able to make logical decisions based on whatever criteria you allow, but will it be able to generate new ideas from abstract concepts? If instinct is hard-coded pre-programmed behavior, and basic intelligence is decisions based on pre-defined logic programming, then we need a new word for what it is that humans do because we go far, far beyond either of those categories.-I don't disagree with that at all. What always sucks me back in though, is the question of whether intelligence isn't simply an emergent property of a particular configuration of neurons. (By emergent, I mean the observation of ant colony intelligence. What if human intelligence isn't simply an observation of a more sophisticated emergent property? Free will COULD be an illusion. (Though I don't believe that.) ) -Hey, and for the record, after having watched all of Survivorman and especially "Beyond Survival," I understand beyond a shadow of a doubt your original criticism about my understanding of science. Ancient peoples, regardless of how we view their societies to our own, solved many of the same problems, and it behooves us to learn about these solutions, even if they might take us down uncomfortable holes.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Buddhism and Karma
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Sunday, December 15, 2013, 06:22 (3994 days ago) @ xeno6696
Hey, and for the record, after having watched all of Survivorman and especially "Beyond Survival," I understand beyond a shadow of a doubt your original criticism about my understanding of science. Ancient peoples, regardless of how we view their societies to our own, solved many of the same problems, and it behooves us to learn about these solutions, even if they might take us down uncomfortable holes.-:) Glad we understand each other now. Sometimes I question our entire frame of reference. The way we look at things is so skewed by our own arrogance(as a society) that we often miss the forest for the trees.
--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.