There ain't nobody in a body

Is the mind the same as the body? What is consciousness? Can machines have it?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 10936
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: There ain't nobody in a body

Post by Arising_uk » Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:07 pm

Dontaskme wrote:... I know my limits. ... One day I hope to become as popular as J K Rowling, ...
:lol:

Walker
Posts: 4389
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: There ain't nobody in a body

Post by Walker » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:45 pm

Arising_uk wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 12:07 pm
Dontaskme wrote:... I know my limits. ... One day I hope to become as popular as J K Rowling, ...
:lol:
How about as rich?

Walker
Posts: 4389
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by Walker » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:48 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:18 am
There is a continuing dishonesty in not citing external sources for terminology she has internalized as her own intuition. Not giving credit where credit is due.
The same accusation was leveled against Helen Keller, early in her fame. Look it up.

It is not dishonesty.

*

Looking out the same window as another, sharing the same view as another, creates common observations not limited by time or space.

“Now, as long as there is the thinker separate from thought, there must be conflict, the process of duality, there must be this gap between action and idea. But cannot the mind actually experience that extraordinary state when there is only thinking, and not the thinker, when there is only an awareness in which there is no condemnation or comparison? The condemnatory and comparative process is the way of the thinker separate from thought. There is only thinking, and thinking is impermanent. Realizing the impermanency of thinking, the mind creates the permanent as the atma, the higher self, and all the rest of it, but it is still the process of thinking. Thinking is conditioned; it is the result of the past, of accumulated experience, knowledge, so it can never lead to the unknown, the timeless. After all, the self, the 'me', is nothing but a bundle of memories, and even though you give it a spiritual quality, a permanent value, it is still within the area of thought and, therefore, impermanent.”
J. Krishnamurti, 1956

http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamur ... &chid=4851
Last edited by Walker on Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by marjoram_blues » Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:57 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:48 pm
marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 10:18 am
There is a continuing dishonesty in not citing external sources for terminology she has internalized as her own intuition. Not giving credit where credit is due.
The same accusation was leveled against Helen Keller, early in her fame. Look it up.

It is not dishonesty.

Looking out the same window as another, sharing the same view as another, creates common observations not limited by time or space.
Re Keller, I'll take your word for it.
I don't think there is real or meant dishonest re not sharing the source of her ideas. The dishonesty is more with self-deceit, presenting them as her own intuitions.
It's just not helpful when others would like a clear source of the specialist terminology used.
All the better to check comprehension.
Last edited by marjoram_blues on Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Walker
Posts: 4389
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by Walker » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:08 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:57 pm
I'll take your word for it.
Don't blindly accept what I write.

The charges were not baseless.
They were based upon ignorance of how the mind works, but ignorance is not baseless.

The rationale that proves Helen Keller's good heart and mental process is worth looking up, because that is the point.

One is less likely to slander or libel another with charges of dishonesty once one better understands how it is one knows, what one knows, which is epistemology.

And even if you think the rationale that applied to Helen Keller is unique to her, which it is not, the research of looking it up will still expand your awareness of mind and its shenanigans.

Emotion, motion, emote, mote, mote in the eye that blinds.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by marjoram_blues » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:11 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:08 pm
marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:57 pm
I'll take your word for it.
Don't blindly accept what I write.

The charges were not baseless.
They were based upon ignorance of how the mind works, but ignorance is not baseless.

The rationale that proves Helen Keller's good heart and mental process is worth looking up, because that is the point.

One is less likely to slander or libel another with charges of dishonesty once one better understands how it is one knows, what one knows, which is epistemology.

And even if you think the rationale that applied to Helen Keller is unique to her, which it is not, the research of looking it up will still expand your awareness of mind and its shenanigans.

Emotion, motion, emote, mote, mote in the eye that blinds.
It's not about blind acceptance of what you wrote about Keller. I don't have the time right now.
And I wanted to clarify my main point, see above explanation.

Also, on a philosophy forum, it is worthwhile pointing out that if the same 'dishonesty' in not providing references, would be termed 'plagiarism'. And has its own penalties.
Not that this applies here but nevertheless...it lacks courtesy.

I just think it was her usual avoidance. And calling it dishonest, without qualifications as above, was perhaps going a step too far.
Last edited by marjoram_blues on Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Walker
Posts: 4389
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by Walker » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:23 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:11 pm
Also, on a philosophy forum, it is worthwhile pointing out that if the same 'dishonesty' in not providing sources in a text, would be termed 'plagiarism'. And has its own penalties.
Not that this applies here but nevertheless...it lacks courtesy.
Helen Keller was accused of plagiarism under more significant circumstances.

Walker
Posts: 4389
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Pain

Post by Walker » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:23 pm

Image

Detachment from pain.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by marjoram_blues » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:25 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:23 pm
marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:11 pm
Also, on a philosophy forum, it is worthwhile pointing out that if the same 'dishonesty' in not providing sources in a text, would be termed 'plagiarism'. And has its own penalties.
Not that this applies here but nevertheless...it lacks courtesy.
Helen Keller was accused of plagiarism under more significant circumstances.
Yes, I get that this little piece is insignificant. As is all, including Keller, in the grand scheme of things...

Dontaskme
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:30 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:11 pm
Walker wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:08 pm
marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 1:57 pm
I'll take your word for it.
Don't blindly accept what I write.

The charges were not baseless.
They were based upon ignorance of how the mind works, but ignorance is not baseless.

The rationale that proves Helen Keller's good heart and mental process is worth looking up, because that is the point.

One is less likely to slander or libel another with charges of dishonesty once one better understands how it is one knows, what one knows, which is epistemology.

And even if you think the rationale that applied to Helen Keller is unique to her, which it is not, the research of looking it up will still expand your awareness of mind and its shenanigans.

Emotion, motion, emote, mote, mote in the eye that blinds.
It's not about blind acceptance of what you wrote about Keller. I don't have the time right now.
And I wanted to clarify my main point, see above explanation.

Also, on a philosophy forum, it is worthwhile pointing out that if the same 'dishonesty' in not providing sources in a text, would be termed 'plagiarism'. And has its own penalties.
Not that this applies here but nevertheless...it lacks courtesy.

I just think it was her usual avoidance. And calling it dishonest was perhaps going a step too far.

The point has been clarified, ..see above explanation. But before you see, you must remove the mote in your own eye obstructing the self-shinning clarity awaiting your return. A good leader always walks behind you.

.

Walker
Posts: 4389
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by Walker » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:32 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:25 pm
Walker wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:23 pm
marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:11 pm
Also, on a philosophy forum, it is worthwhile pointing out that if the same 'dishonesty' in not providing sources in a text, would be termed 'plagiarism'. And has its own penalties.
Not that this applies here but nevertheless...it lacks courtesy.
Helen Keller was accused of plagiarism under more significant circumstances.
Yes, I get that this little piece is insignificant. As is all, including Keller, in the grand scheme of things...
That never occurred to me.

The greater significance of Keller's circumstances is that money was involved, as she was paid for publication, which had implications for her personal reputation and legitimacy, for she wrote sensory descriptions of senses she did not have.
Last edited by Walker on Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Pain

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:33 pm

Walker wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:23 pm
Image

Detachment from pain.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KEI4qSrkPAs

Playing with fire, it appears I get burnt. Yet as fire I cannot burn myself.
Last edited by Dontaskme on Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.

marjoram_blues
Posts: 1630
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2015 12:50 pm

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by marjoram_blues » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:36 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:30 pm
marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:11 pm
Walker wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:08 pm

Don't blindly accept what I write.

The charges were not baseless.
They were based upon ignorance of how the mind works, but ignorance is not baseless.

The rationale that proves Helen Keller's good heart and mental process is worth looking up, because that is the point.

One is less likely to slander or libel another with charges of dishonesty once one better understands how it is one knows, what one knows, which is epistemology.

And even if you think the rationale that applied to Helen Keller is unique to her, which it is not, the research of looking it up will still expand your awareness of mind and its shenanigans.

Emotion, motion, emote, mote, mote in the eye that blinds.
It's not about blind acceptance of what you wrote about Keller. I don't have the time right now.
And I wanted to clarify my main point, see above explanation.

Also, on a philosophy forum, it is worthwhile pointing out that if the same 'dishonesty' in not providing sources in a text, would be termed 'plagiarism'. And has its own penalties.
Not that this applies here but nevertheless...it lacks courtesy.

I just think it was her usual avoidance. And calling it dishonest was perhaps going a step too far.

The point has been clarified, ..see above explanation. But before you see, you must remove the mote in your own eye obstructing the self-shinning clarity awaiting your return. A good leader always walks behind you.

.
Nope.
You have forgotten where my complaint about your lack of citation originated.
But you know what, continuing with your avoidance suits you.
So be it.

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4257
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am

Re: There ain't nobody in a body

Post by Dalek Prime » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:38 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:04 am
Dalek Prime wrote:
Tue Oct 03, 2017 2:27 am
Yeah, well, if it's all just a fabrication, you won't have any objection to me hypothetically torturing you then.

Didn't think so.
Well there is no 'you' to think. Thoughts appear in 'you' inseparable from the thinking. There is no thinker, only the thought there is a thinker. When no thoughts are present, neither is the thinker. Thought and thinker are one without a second...



There is no such thing as a you torturing someone or you being tortured... ''I am being tortured'' is a mental construct.

The I AM doesn't make the claim it's being tortured, the mentation does via a mental re-action after the event.. Any pain is temporal ..while that in which pain arises and subsides is always eternally present, unscathed by any sensation.

Metaphorically speaking no one can torture what they are, one cannot torture the empty awareness that is aware of all sensation, sensation comes and goes ..but what you are, is the empty eternal awareness of all sensation.

There's just responses and reactions to the causes of bodily pain. The cause in this instant is not a person, but a heavy rock colliding with soft body tissue.

Let me try and explain...

If a landslide containing many large heavy rocks fall on top of a human body standing in it's way...the body feels pain, but the body does not say ouch'! ...the ouch'! comes from a mentation triggered by the sensation of pain....this mentation is in the exact same moment the collision takes place....the ouch'! triggers a re-active response, after the event has already taken place...the ouch'! appears in the form of sound, heard as a word with attached meaning as if belonging to a ''you''...but the ''you'' is only the awareness of the whole event, NOT the mental activities re-cognition of the event which is only a response to a memory past appearing as if it happened NOW

..... heavy rocks are not responsible for 'torture', rocks do not torture, neither does the body know it is being tortured...such ideas are purely fictional.

When a human being, an assumed ''someone or other'' hits you on the head very hard with a large rock....same applies as in the above explanation..but in this context...the body feels pain from a rock being planted on the head very hard...there is no 'someone' present in the immediate action of the rock colliding with the head, except the idea within the re-action after the event...as felt by the sensation of pain...pain doesn't belong to a ''someone'' ..the 'you' is the experiencing of pain, the empty awareness of pain, not the pain itself.

...rocks hurt when they hit the body, but a rock cannot torture the body, the body reacts with pain, but it does not say or think it is being tortured....'torture' is a 'mental construct'... 'pain' is not a mental construct, pain is a real sensation known only by awareness as it arises and fades in it....

That pain appears to be happening to a ''me'' is an artificially constructed ''add on'' that doesn't exist in reality except as conceived in this conception through language which artificially imposes upon what's already happening, creating the illusion of the pain belonging to a 'me' or the idea of 'other'...but there is no ''other'' outside of that mentation. Language is the only thing that appears to be alive here. Language is the only thing that appears to be responsible...but language is a fiction. The awareness of language is not an illusion, awareness is real, the real is this immediate unchanging awareness aware of all apparent change.



.

Sorry for the long post, it sometimes takes a lot of explaining, to de-construct the illusion of ''other''

.
Okay. So let's commence the torture.

Dontaskme
Posts: 3871
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Response to Greta re single mega thread

Post by Dontaskme » Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:45 pm

marjoram_blues wrote:
Wed Oct 04, 2017 2:36 pm
Nope.
You have forgotten where my complaint about your lack of citation originated.
But you know what, continuing with your avoidance suits you.
So be it.

All known knowledge is sourced from the same place...namely, Not-knowing.

The You cannot avoid itself. You cannot leave what you never entered. Neither can you enter what you never left.



.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests