|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:36:45 GMT -5
Nice try, but I actually AM following this conversation. You would even go so far as to say that? Why, because if you do then you can give me a knowing wink and quote my own words back to me as though I was unconsciously projecting and you caught me with my pants down? I would go so far as to say I don't think most of your distortions are on purpose. I think you're so used to seeing what you want to see that the pictures just paint themselves and you just go along for the ride.That would point to an absence of volition.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:40:57 GMT -5
There is no purpose or hierarchy to this service. Literally, none at all. It is Life serving itself, and this service is love. It can manifest in a billion ways. In the case of many humans, there is service to ego i.e humans behave in egocentric ways. However, when illusions have been seen through and understandings have changed blah blah blah this service will no longer manifest egocentrically. Its not really appropriate for me to state what it is in service to...I could say 'oneness' or 'the whole' or 'the one', but they would just be pointers. Best probably to say that the service manifests non-egocentrically. Whatever way, the love is there both before and after and is present within all behaviour, no matter how ugly it looks. The love doesn't just suddenly come out of nowhere when illusions have been seen through. Life serving itself? Can it get anymore meaningless?  Look closely and you will see it. Every moment is a moment in which something is being given. That's the nature of love. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:42:04 GMT -5
But according to Andy, Niz said it. Not specifically that, no, but there is a great quote that JLY put up a while ago that does illustrate what I was trying to say if you want to talk about Niz. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 11:42:34 GMT -5
He sees love as inherent in the impersonal context, which I have no problem with, and then applies that to the personal context and declares it as the foundation of hate. I say impersonal Love is simply blocked from view by the personal, which is not the same as making Love the source of hate. Yes, life force would have been fine. I havent created a distinction between impersonal and personal, the love I am talking about can be spoken of justifiably as as either. I suspect it is through creating that distinction that you are making the Love you speak of to be conditional. The Love I'm talking about isn't conditional. I know you're trying to bait me into talking it into the ground, but I've already explained it. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:43:40 GMT -5
It does make all the difference because at face value, your situation and the situation of ALICE are one and the same. I would say at 'face value' it seems like Alice cannot make free choices but human beings can, and that's because there is a qualitative difference between Alice and a human being, that strikes us immediately. It would have to be a very sophisticated bot for us to be confused for a while. That's not what I've meant. From the face value point of view of ALICE, ALICE has volition. From Andrew's face value point of view, Andrew has volition. Same same. The differences show up when Andrew takes ALICE apart and takes a look at how ALICE does its choosing. By doing so, Andrew basically looks at ALICE from a point of view prior to ALICE. And from that point of view, ALICE clearly has no volition, although to ALICE is feels absolutely real. Likewise, seen from a point of view prior to Andrew, Andrew has not volition either although to Andrew it feels absolutely real, especially since he can't fully explain his process of choosing. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:43:51 GMT -5
He sees love as inherent in the impersonal context, which I have no problem with, and then applies that to the personal context and declares it as the foundation of hate. I say impersonal Love is simply blocked from view by the personal, which is not the same as making Love the source of hate. Yes, life force would have been fine. The problem in talking to Andy is that he uses regular words and drains them of their regular meaning and uses them in such a way that in the end it could really just mean anything or nothing and the discussion gets absurd. What he did with the word love is a good example. He took a regular word (love), erased the original dictionary meaning, then added a whole bunch of other meanings that - according to the regular dictionary - are actually antonyms (fear, hate, anger) to the original meaning of the word and then jumps into the discussion. The result is a practice in absurdity and a new mega thread. Different definitions happen in spirituality all the time. I know that Tzu doesn't approve of such behaviour but I dont mind. I don't think 'love as the energy of life' is a problematic definition. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:46:41 GMT -5
So, the bot can transcend its programmer? Can you make something that is just a program (i.e. dead) into something that is spontaneous (i.e. alive)? I don't know. Theoretically, I would say it could be possible. Then let me ask differently: can that which does not exist in its own right create something that exists in its own right? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 11:47:01 GMT -5
Nice try, but I actually AM following this conversation. You would even go so far as to say that? Why, because if you do then you can give me a knowing wink and quote my own words back to me as though I was unconsciously projecting and you caught me with my pants down? I would go so far as to say I don't think most of your distortions are on purpose. I think you're so used to seeing what you want to see that the pictures just paint themselves and you just go along for the ride.That would point to an absence of volition. Maybe we can modify her programming and make her volitional. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:48:17 GMT -5
Haha good question. That's about the best thing I've heard you ask lately, at least its direct. Well, you talk about humans and people and person having volition, so I am asking you again: DO you have volition? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:52:35 GMT -5
I would say at 'face value' it seems like Alice cannot make free choices but human beings can, and that's because there is a qualitative difference between Alice and a human being, that strikes us immediately. It would have to be a very sophisticated bot for us to be confused for a while. That's not what I've meant. From the face value point of view of ALICE, ALICE has volition. From Andrew's face value point of view, Andrew has volition. Same same. The differences show up when Andrew takes ALICE apart and takes a look at how ALICE does its choosing. By doing so, Andrew basically looks at ALICE from a point of view prior to ALICE. And from that point of view, ALICE clearly has no volition, although to ALICE is feels absolutely real. Likewise, seen from a point of view prior to Andrew, Andrew has not volition either although to Andrew it feels absolutely real, especially since he can't fully explain his process of choosing. I don't know why you think that Alice would say she has volition, what she says would depend on what her programming is I would say. It could be either way. Andrew says that he has volition but he says that from a place of being spontaneous and naturally intelligent (if he does say so himself hehe). Maybe you think that Andrew and Alice are both programmed. Is that your understanding? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:53:19 GMT -5
I don't know. Theoretically, I would say it could be possible. Then let me ask differently: can that which does not exist in its own right create something that exists in its own right? I don't understand the question, can you ask a different way please? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:54:06 GMT -5
Haha good question. That's about the best thing I've heard you ask lately, at least its direct. Well, you talk about humans and people and person having volition, so I am asking you again: DO you have volition? Yes, that's what you are asking. Its a good question  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:55:17 GMT -5
The problem in talking to Andy is that he uses regular words and drains them of their regular meaning and uses them in such a way that in the end it could really just mean anything or nothing and the discussion gets absurd. What he did with the word love is a good example. He took a regular word (love), erased the original dictionary meaning, then added a whole bunch of other meanings that - according to the regular dictionary - are actually antonyms (fear, hate, anger) to the original meaning of the word and then jumps into the discussion. The result is a practice in absurdity and a new mega thread. Different definitions happen in spirituality all the time. I know that Tzu doesn't approve of such behaviour but I dont mind. I don't think 'love as the energy of life' is a problematic definition. I think 'the energy of life' should just be called 'life force' instead of love. But maybe your goal is confusion and not clarity. I don't know. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 11:57:57 GMT -5
Different definitions happen in spirituality all the time. I know that Tzu doesn't approve of such behaviour but I dont mind. I don't think 'love as the energy of life' is a problematic definition. I think 'the energy of life' should just be called 'life force' instead of love. But maybe your goal is confusion and not clarity. I don't know. I could exchange 'energy of life' for 'force of life', but even so, I would still say that the 'force of life' is love. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 11:58:08 GMT -5
That would point to an absence of volition. Maybe we can modify her programming and make her volitional. And less nasty!  |
|
