|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 15, 2014 12:00:30 GMT -5
No, because that's the way I see it. The wink and the quoting back to you was just the way it came out. You give me far too much credit.  Hehe Enigma had his pants down!  |
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Sept 15, 2014 12:01:17 GMT -5
No, because that's the way I see it. The wink and the quoting back to you was just the way it came out. You give me far too much credit. Hehe Enigma had his pants down!   |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 12:02:47 GMT -5
A state of wonder
UG: This state is a state of not knowing; you really don't know what you are looking at. I may look at the clock on the wall for half an hour -- still I do not read the time. I don't know it is a clock. All there is inside is wonderment: "What is this that I am looking at?" Not that the question actually phrases itself like that in words: the whole of my being is like a single, big question mark. It is a state of wonder, of wondering, because I just do not know what I am looking at. The knowledge about it -- all that I have learned -- is held in the background unless there is a demand. It is in the 'declutched state'. If you ask the time, I will say "It's a quarter past three" or whatever -- it comes quickly like an arrow -- then I am back in the state of not knowing, of wonder.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 12:07:14 GMT -5
Beautifully said!  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 12:10:03 GMT -5
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?No. What I am saying is that both ALICE and Andrew are just speculating (and concluding wildly) about their actual state of freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:10:10 GMT -5
That's not only TMT, but it's personalized TMT. What you replied to was absent reference to the personalities involved and focused only on the ideas. Is that worse than regular TMT?  yes!! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:11:08 GMT -5
Is that worse than regular TMT? LOL Its worse, but not as bad as impersonalized TMT |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:12:02 GMT -5
I call for the duck test!  Is that a 'yes'?  Quack! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 12:13:10 GMT -5
Beautifully said! I'm well on board with that quote, I think I posted it on spiritualforums back in the day. I wonder if Enigma remembers the conversation about 'the dog'.....? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 15, 2014 12:13:22 GMT -5
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 Do you exist? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 15, 2014 12:14:13 GMT -5
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?No. What I am saying is that both ALICE and Andrew are just speculating (and concluding wildly) about their actual state of freedom. I'm not sure Alice is speculating really, because its all programmed in. Its more 'robotic' than 'speculation'. I would say I'm speculating. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:18:26 GMT -5
I agree. I imagine that, theoretically, technology could be such that machines could be programmed to be spontaneous, intelligent and free in the way that humans are. But then....perhaps they wouldn't be machines any more. If you are programmed you are NOT free and NOT spontaneous by definition.  Thus, those with decoder rings can tell the difference between a programmed human and a free human being, if I may be so bold.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:20:23 GMT -5
Well, if I recall correctly, didn't somebody actually state this as the goal directly at one point? Was that, perhaps, figgles and Andy that wrote that??  Andy. But Figgles validated it. Perhaps she didn't see the implications vis-vis hyperminding, but the validation, by my recollection, did occur. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:21:41 GMT -5
I actually gave some leeway to that and took the word "programmed" to refer to something quite a bit broader in scope. Think back to the dialog with Top on the subject from the summer ... I did too at first, but it suddenly gave me the giggles. Well, ain't no choice between those two, none at all!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2014 12:33:22 GMT -5
Let me rephrase this as well, as the grasp that you presently have of it is in the personal again. I am 100% certain that you are not free to write a post that I would only be able to read headless.
That's not any better actually. What you are saying there is that your 'headlessness' depends upon the kind of post I write. you've mistaken an absence for the presence of something yet again. She wrote the opposite of your interpretation. ...You are saying that I only write one kind of post, and you cannot read those kinds of post without involvement of yer head. No, her idea is that if words come from a personal place, then they are limited in their reach. You are still assigning your headlessness or head-fulness, to me and the content/nature of my posts. Can you imagine a point where you could read a post written by someone whom you now regard to be completely unconscious and neck deep in delusion, and still be 'head free'? You mistake her meaning because you take yourself to be a person. Yes, she is assigning her posts to you, but you are not what you think you are. |
|
yes!!
