Let robots be \"babies\" first... (Humans)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, February 01, 2011, 03:06 (4840 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Attempting to say that there is anything close to the same rigidity in metaphysics as in science is missing its point.
> 
> I'm still Adlerian in thought. He went from being born Jewish to accepting Catholicism before his death, based on his proof of God! I'll accept your point that metaphysics is not as rigid as science, but I have every right to read science, and reach my own conclusions as to the necessary existence of a UI. I am an acceptor of Aristotilean first cause, from reading Feser's "The Last Superstition". Why is there anything? Are you suggesting that a beginning is not necessary?-I've never moved to deny you the right; only that public declarations require public responses! -I'm resorting back to my Buddhist experiences here, but yes; there is an entire universe of thought where a beginning is not only unnecessary it is destructive. A common Tibetan meditation is, "What did your face look like before your parents were born?" -Causality is a misperception that distracts from the oneness of reality. Our minds and our egos move us continuously away from the uniting principle of here and now. You see a similar strand of thought when you read Christ, Ezekiel--any number of Rabbis actually--but in all great religions that prompt for action above words. -Eastern thought has one thing that Western thinkers have been amazed at for years: They've thought more about "nothing" than anyone else. You began with Aristotle, I began with Siddhartha. Piercing the dark veil, the east asserts that the universe always is and always was. They too deny--on metaphysical terms--that because we cannot perceive a beginning, we have no right to claim knowledge of it. But clearly the world isn't primarily spiritual the material exists; therefore there must be a "middle way..."-So yes, you have someone whose metaphysics is also categorically opposed to claiming knowledge beyond that we can conceivably reach. -These discussions today are making me yearn again for zazen...

--
\"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.\"