|
|
Post by enigma on May 5, 2017 22:07:00 GMT -5
It will probably not be too long until a computer program can pass the Turing Test. Have you ever seen (IBM) Watson in operation? (Beat two former Jeopardy champions a couple of years ago). A computer program recently (some months ago) beat a GO Champion, considered to be a greater challenge than beating the World Chess Champion some years ago, as there are vastly more possible moves in GO than in chess. So is the computer thinking, or not? It is not thinking, it is merely responding as programmed. In the examples I gave, the brain is responding similarly, responding to outside events from its own conditioning. You've never been in a situation where someone "pushed your buttons" and elicited a response? My G-o-d, it used to happen here all the time, people warned, but couldn't not-respond, knowing they were going to be cast out, but still couldn't-not-respond. Have you not ever once said to yourself after doing or saying something pretty stupid, What! Was! I! Thinking!? You weren't thinking. That was thoughts thinking, thoughts and words coming out because of previous programming/conditioning. This is what Libet and Gary Weber have shown. Thoughts appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing. The inference that they come from past conditioning or programing is just another thought appearing out of nothing. There is no reservoir of conditioned thoughts from the past waiting in the wings for the right moment to make its appearance. The past is only an inference, it doesn’t actually exist. The best way to view that idea is as just another thought coming out of nothing and returning to nothing.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 6, 2017 8:48:10 GMT -5
It will probably not be too long until a computer program can pass the Turing Test. Have you ever seen (IBM) Watson in operation? (Beat two former Jeopardy champions a couple of years ago). A computer program recently (some months ago) beat a GO Champion, considered to be a greater challenge than beating the World Chess Champion some years ago, as there are vastly more possible moves in GO than in chess. So is the computer thinking, or not? It is not thinking, it is merely responding as programmed. In the examples I gave, the brain is responding similarly, responding to outside events from its own conditioning. You've never been in a situation where someone "pushed your buttons" and elicited a response? My G-o-d, it used to happen here all the time, people warned, but couldn't not-respond, knowing they were going to be cast out, but still couldn't-not-respond. Have you not ever once said to yourself after doing or saying something pretty stupid, What! Was! I! Thinking!? You weren't thinking. That was thoughts thinking, thoughts and words coming out because of previous programming/conditioning. This is what Libet and Gary Weber have shown. Thoughts appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing. The inference that they come from past conditioning or programing is just another thought appearing out of nothing. There is no reservoir of conditioned thoughts from the past waiting in the wings for the right moment to make its appearance. The past is only an inference, it doesn’t actually exist. Just concepts, your concepts are no better than my concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on May 14, 2017 10:07:58 GMT -5
Did you ever meet with Gurdjieff to verify this statement? I've read a lot of student reports of their time with Gurdjieff. As to Ouspensky, one of his foremost students, Rodney Collin, described the last few days of Ouspensky's life. From that account it is obvious that Ouspensky knew he did not achieve the aim of the system. Yes fair point, if you look at Marie Seton (one of many of Ouspenskys translators and secretaries) and Ouspensky. She puts over her doubts on Ouspenskys realisation and Ouspenskys doubts on Gurdjieffs realisation too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 14, 2017 12:58:34 GMT -5
Thoughts appear out of nothing and disappear into nothing. The inference that they come from past conditioning or programing is just another thought appearing out of nothing. There is no reservoir of conditioned thoughts from the past waiting in the wings for the right moment to make its appearance. The past is only an inference, it doesn’t actually exist. Just concepts, your concepts are no better than my concepts. The better concepts are easier to both doggedly attach to and uncompromisingly let go of. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 14, 2017 13:46:13 GMT -5
Just concepts, your concepts are no better than my concepts. The better concepts are easier to both doggedly attach to and uncompromisingly let go of. The better concepts are the more expansive ones because they are inherently more difficult to grasp, and therefore attach to. (I.E. God as creative intelligence as opposed to a bearded father figure watching over you) |
|
|
|
Post by sheamus on May 14, 2017 15:41:18 GMT -5
stardustpilgrim,
I am neither prophet nor a fortuneteller,that being said,there are a few things I have learned in my 62yrs of existence. This is not a perfect world nor are perfect human beings. To ask why pain and suffering exists in this "world" is to abstract and to understand it you must address it on a more personal level. Pain and suffering is part of our existence. Your may perceive pain and suffering as something bad as where someone else may not. There are people who embrace pain and believe feeling it intensely creates a sense of euphoria they can get no other way. There are people who embrace suffering and believe that their suffering brings them closer to God and gives them a better chance to get into heaven.Your perceptions create your beliefs and your beliefs create your reality. If you perceive something to be bad then you believe it to be so therefore what you believe to be true creates your reality.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2017 10:04:20 GMT -5
I've read a lot of student reports of their time with Gurdjieff. As to Ouspensky, one of his foremost students, Rodney Collin, described the last few days of Ouspensky's life. From that account it is obvious that Ouspensky knew he did not achieve the aim of the system. Yes fair point, if you look at Marie Seton (one of many of Ouspenskys translators and secretaries) and Ouspensky. She puts over her doubts on Ouspenskys realisation and Ouspenskys doubts on Gurdjieffs realisation too. There is a principle in the Work, one cannot see higher than one's own state of consciousness. IOW, the higher encompasses the lower, but the lower does not encompass the higher (that's what defines the student-teacher/teacher-student relationship). Ouspensky tried to judge Gurdjieff from his own level as a student. That will always put an end to the student-teacher/teacher-student relationship. At some point this is actually presented (by the teacher) as a problem to be solved. The student, to remain a student, must necessarily come to see, OK, maybe I don't know as much as I think I know. Ouspensky failed the test, and it probably took him 25 years to come to realize he had failed the test. If one passes a crossroads, making the wrong turn, sometimes you arrive at "You can't get there from here". Sometimes you have to go back to the crossroads. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 15, 2017 10:18:55 GMT -5
stardustpilgrim, I am neither prophet nor a fortuneteller,that being said,there are a few things I have learned in my 62yrs of existence. This is not a perfect world nor are perfect human beings. To ask why pain and suffering exists in this "world" is to abstract and to understand it you must address it on a more personal level. Pain and suffering is part of our existence. Your may perceive pain and suffering as something bad as where someone else may not. There are people who embrace pain and believe feeling it intensely creates a sense of euphoria they can get no other way. There are people who embrace suffering and believe that their suffering brings them closer to God and gives them a better chance to get into heaven.Your perceptions create your beliefs and your beliefs create your reality. If you perceive something to be bad then you believe it to be so therefore what you believe to be true creates your reality. Good post sheamus, welcome to ST's. I agree that for the most part to ask this question about suffering is an abstraction. But it can be a depth-less existential question that can some day get answers. But by that point the ~person~ who asked the question is not the same ~person~ who gets and answer. And maybe that's the whole purpose of the question. |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on May 15, 2017 12:53:52 GMT -5
Yes fair point, if you look at Marie Seton (one of many of Ouspenskys translators and secretaries) and Ouspensky. She puts over her doubts on Ouspenskys realisation and Ouspenskys doubts on Gurdjieffs realisation too. There is a principle in the Work, one cannot see higher than one's own state of consciousness. IOW, the higher encompasses the lower, but the lower does not encompass the higher (that's what defines the student-teacher/teacher-student relationship). Ouspensky tried to judge Gurdjieff from his own level as a student. That will always put an end to the student-teacher/teacher-student relationship. At some point this is actually presented (by the teacher) as a problem to be solved. The student, to remain a student, must necessarily come to see, OK, maybe I don't know as much as I think I know. Ouspensky failed the test, and it probably took him 25 years to come to realize he had failed the test. If one passes a crossroads, making the wrong turn, sometimes you arrive at "You can't get there from here". Sometimes you have to go back to the crossroads. For tantric sages there is no distinction between the higher and lower just as the seed contains the mighty oak tree. It's not uncommon for a student to deny his teacher whose love is beyond knowing. What is clear Ouspensky was still a student. When you turn on your teacher two things are possible. One you will love him and honour him even while you criticise him or her to their face and that will prove your worthiness and this can be towards the very end days of your self realisation or you will attach what you say of him or her until self realisation and Love comes even in the form of the so called lower students who are the divine essence as there is nothing else. Tano beautifully in her posts put this over but she deleted her posts but it is what it is. I do feel she was bringing much to share over. Like in the case of Andrew Cohen and Baleskar where they set up shop denied the teachers from Ramana to papaji that had come before them. Set up a Milarepa and Marpa type of school market stall where the students eventually exposed saw through them through the abuse and Rameshs case the sexual dishonesty they were projecting whilst using the teachings of non duality to justify their actions. So the lower came to teach the higher. To humble themselves before That through the experiential level to point out their attachments to deepen the realisation. Where they came as teachers only to have students come as teachers as the divine essence to deepen, to be made humble before That. It all serves. Just as Marie Seton said whilst eating with Ouspensky. He wanted her to criticise chastise a couple on behalf of him as part of the system , very similar to how Andrew Cohen would behave with his students but she couldn't do it as the earlier conversation was on Ouspensky admitted to her losing control trying to save the system from Gurdjieff who he felt had lost control. She felt a teacher should be free of the many things he was coming out with during the many nights she spent eating with him from the earnings of his students whilst they were digging holes and then filling them in, fasting for days, having other students ridicule them. Especially as she pointed out what on paper the teachings were offering. It seemed beyond the walk of the teachers who were putting it across. Why look to past teachers who address the ignorance of their times and don't fit the ignorance of these times. A living teacher and being in their presence is more fitting. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 16, 2017 13:03:30 GMT -5
There is a principle in the Work, one cannot see higher than one's own state of consciousness. IOW, the higher encompasses the lower, but the lower does not encompass the higher (that's what defines the student-teacher/teacher-student relationship). Ouspensky tried to judge Gurdjieff from his own level as a student. That will always put an end to the student-teacher/teacher-student relationship. At some point this is actually presented (by the teacher) as a problem to be solved. The student, to remain a student, must necessarily come to see, OK, maybe I don't know as much as I think I know. Ouspensky failed the test, and it probably took him 25 years to come to realize he had failed the test. If one passes a crossroads, making the wrong turn, sometimes you arrive at "You can't get there from here". Sometimes you have to go back to the crossroads. For tantric sages there is no distinction between the higher and lower just as the seed contains the mighty oak tree. It's not uncommon for a student to deny his teacher whose love is beyond knowing. What is clear Ouspensky was still a student. When you turn on your teacher two things are possible. One you will love him and honour him even while you criticise him or her to their face and that will prove your worthiness and this can be towards the very end days of your self realisation or you will attach what you say of him or her until self realisation and Love comes even in the form of the so called lower students who are the divine essence as there is nothing else. Tano beautifully in her posts put this over but she deleted her posts but it is what it is. I do feel she was bringing much to share over. Like in the case of Andrew Cohen and Baleskar where they set up shop denied the teachers from Ramana to papaji that had come before them. Set up a Milarepa and Marpa type of school market stall where the students eventually exposed saw through them through the abuse and Rameshs case the sexual dishonesty they were projecting whilst using the teachings of non duality to justify their actions. So the lower came to teach the higher. To humble themselves before That through the experiential level to point out their attachments to deepen the realisation. Where they came as teachers only to have students come as teachers as the divine essence to deepen, to be made humble before That. It all serves. Just as Marie Seton said whilst eating with Ouspensky. He wanted her to criticise chastise a couple on behalf of him as part of the system , very similar to how Andrew Cohen would behave with his students but she couldn't do it as the earlier conversation was on Ouspensky admitted to her losing control trying to save the system from Gurdjieff who he felt had lost control. She felt a teacher should be free of the many things he was coming out with during the many nights she spent eating with him from the earnings of his students whilst they were digging holes and then filling them in, fasting for days, having other students ridicule them. Especially as she pointed out what on paper the teachings were offering. It seemed beyond the walk of the teachers who were putting it across. Why look to past teachers who address the ignorance of their times and don't fit the ignorance of these times. A living teacher and being in their presence is more fitting. I agree. You have nothing if you don't have a living teacher. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 16, 2017 17:15:09 GMT -5
For tantric sages there is no distinction between the higher and lower just as the seed contains the mighty oak tree. It's not uncommon for a student to deny his teacher whose love is beyond knowing. What is clear Ouspensky was still a student. When you turn on your teacher two things are possible. One you will love him and honour him even while you criticise him or her to their face and that will prove your worthiness and this can be towards the very end days of your self realisation or you will attach what you say of him or her until self realisation and Love comes even in the form of the so called lower students who are the divine essence as there is nothing else. Tano beautifully in her posts put this over but she deleted her posts but it is what it is. I do feel she was bringing much to share over. Like in the case of Andrew Cohen and Baleskar where they set up shop denied the teachers from Ramana to papaji that had come before them. Set up a Milarepa and Marpa type of school market stall where the students eventually exposed saw through them through the abuse and Rameshs case the sexual dishonesty they were projecting whilst using the teachings of non duality to justify their actions. So the lower came to teach the higher. To humble themselves before That through the experiential level to point out their attachments to deepen the realisation. Where they came as teachers only to have students come as teachers as the divine essence to deepen, to be made humble before That. It all serves. Just as Marie Seton said whilst eating with Ouspensky. He wanted her to criticise chastise a couple on behalf of him as part of the system , very similar to how Andrew Cohen would behave with his students but she couldn't do it as the earlier conversation was on Ouspensky admitted to her losing control trying to save the system from Gurdjieff who he felt had lost control. She felt a teacher should be free of the many things he was coming out with during the many nights she spent eating with him from the earnings of his students whilst they were digging holes and then filling them in, fasting for days, having other students ridicule them. Especially as she pointed out what on paper the teachings were offering. It seemed beyond the walk of the teachers who were putting it across. Why look to past teachers who address the ignorance of their times and don't fit the ignorance of these times. A living teacher and being in their presence is more fitting. I agree. You have nothing if you don't have a living teacher. A living teacher has nothing you don't have. And the good ones will inform you of that fact, to keep you from putting them on a pedestal. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2017 8:31:55 GMT -5
I agree. You have nothing if you don't have a living teacher. And the good ones will inform you of that fact, to keep you from putting them on a pedestal. This is where I part company with the NDist (modern paradigm). |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2017 12:10:10 GMT -5
A living teacher has nothing you don't have. And the good ones will inform you of that fact, to keep you from putting them on a pedestal. This is where I part company with the NDist (modern paradigm). The theory is great if you want to cross the river to get somewhere. But it becomes an anchor if the place you want to get to is right where you are standing. You are always here, no matter where your body is located in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 18, 2017 14:37:01 GMT -5
This is where I part company with the NDist (modern paradigm). The theory is great if you want to cross the river to get somewhere. But it becomes an anchor if the place you want to get to is right where you are standing. You are always here, no matter where your body is located in the world.Rearrange that a little and it will make more sense. |
|
