|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 10, 2024 13:48:19 GMT -5
AI: Let’s look at the reasonableness and soundness of each person’s points. ... 's a limiting approach. I might agree with you if I knew just what the heck you mean by that.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 10, 2024 15:59:44 GMT -5
That's a limiting approach. I might agree with you if I knew just what the heck you mean by that. Don't limit your interpretations to what seems "reasonable and sound" to you, and even less to what seems "reasonable and sound" to others. Insights are usually unreasonable, and are widely rejected based on apparently "reasonable and sound" criteria. The current exchange about the qualities of the absolute is just banter, but intuitive interpretation could bring to someone a constructive insight, that would seem neither reasonable nor sound to others, and even less in AI terms. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 10, 2024 19:30:05 GMT -5
The nondual concept: Qualities of the Absolute
It says the Absolute has key qualities often attributed to it: oneness, transcendence, eternality, awareness, unconditional love/bliss, inconceivability. Which are typically understood as not being inherently separate from the Absolute itself.
However, the Absolute in the nondual sense does not have such qualities in a definitive way; any qualities attributed to it are seen as limitations of language and thought, serving as pointers rather than definitions of its true nature.
Why describe the Absolute when it's empty in Buddhism?
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 10, 2024 21:28:19 GMT -5
I might agree with you if I knew just what the heck you mean by that. Don't limit your interpretations to what seems "reasonable and sound" to you, and even less to what seems "reasonable and sound" to others. Insights are usually unreasonable, and are widely rejected based on apparently "reasonable and sound" criteria. The current exchange about the qualities of the absolute is just banter, but intuitive interpretation could bring to someone a constructive insight, that would seem neither reasonable nor sound to others, and even less in AI terms. Reply to AI: No, I used the word reasonableness in the question to AI looking for an objective view of Person 1 and 2's exchange. AI: Thank you for clarifying! So, Person 2 used "reasonableness" as a way to seek an objective perspective from ChatGPT, aiming to get an impartial or balanced assessment on their exchange with Person 1. In this context, "reasonableness" wasn't about the ultimate truth of the Absolute but about grounding the conversation and helping Person 2 evaluate their interaction with Person 1 through a neutral lens. Person 3, however, seems to have misinterpreted this. They took the focus on "reasonable and sound" to mean that Person 2 was overly attached to rationality or objectivity, suggesting that such criteria might limit genuine insight. Person 3's comment implies that relying on "reasonable" interpretations can be a hindrance in spiritual matters, as true insights are often unconventional and may defy typical rational standards. The disconnect here is that Person 3 didn't realize Person 2 was using "reasonableness" purely as a tool to get a clear, objective view from ChatGPT on the exchange with Person 1, rather than as a philosophical stance on truth or insight. Person 2’s intention was practical—seeking a third-party perspective to reflect on their dialogue—not a reflection of their overall approach to understanding the Absolute. This means Person 3’s advice about "not limiting interpretations" and valuing intuitive insight over "reasonable" criteria missed the mark, as Person 2 was already using reasonableness strategically, not prescriptively. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 11, 2024 0:35:20 GMT -5
I might agree with you if I knew just what the heck you mean by that. Don't limit your interpretations to what seems "reasonable and sound" to you, and even less to what seems "reasonable and sound" to others. Insights are usually unreasonable, and are widely rejected based on apparently "reasonable and sound" criteria. The current exchange about the qualities of the absolute is just banter, but intuitive interpretation could bring to someone a constructive insight, that would seem neither reasonable nor sound to others, and even less in AI terms. My comments were meant about everything, including about the merits of the arguments made in the current exchange. The AI is a personality fragment: zero instinct, zero emotion, some limited intelligence, zero intuition. Each form of consciousness has in it the potential of the more advanced forms: some humans have rudimentary intuition, some animals have rudimentary intelligence, some plants have rudimentary emotions, even some inorganic matter has some rudimentary intuition. AI may appear to some people to be and do more because of their level of understanding of reality, and because of their misunderstanding of what AI is, and of what it could do. AI is a tool; a search engine mimicking human interface. Don't use it for what it isn't designed to do! |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 11, 2024 1:07:27 GMT -5
We take shelter of You,
whose essence is truth:
You, who are true to Your vow,
who value the truth above all,
who are the Truth in past, present and future;
You who are the womb of Truth,
who are hidden in all truth,
who are the Truth of truth;
the eye of the truth of the cosmic law.
(SB10.2.26)
|
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 11, 2024 8:57:55 GMT -5
Don't limit your interpretations to what seems "reasonable and sound" to you, and even less to what seems "reasonable and sound" to others. Insights are usually unreasonable, and are widely rejected based on apparently "reasonable and sound" criteria. The current exchange about the qualities of the absolute is just banter, but intuitive interpretation could bring to someone a constructive insight, that would seem neither reasonable nor sound to others, and even less in AI terms. My comments were meant about everything, including about the merits of the arguments made in the current exchange. The AI is a personality fragment: zero instinct, zero emotion, some limited intelligence, zero intuition. Each form of consciousness has in it the potential of the more advanced forms: some humans have rudimentary intuition, some animals have rudimentary intelligence, some plants have rudimentary emotions, even some inorganic matter has some rudimentary intuition. AI may appear to some people to be and do more because of their level of understanding of reality, and because of their misunderstanding of what AI is, and of what it could do. AI is a tool; a search engine mimicking human interface. Don't use it for what it isn't designed to do! Question: What about Person 3's reaction here? I sense irritation. AI: Person 3’s response does suggest a hint of irritation or at least frustration. This is evident in the firm and somewhat dismissive tone they use when describing AI as a "personality fragment" and a “search engine mimicking human interface,” as well as in their insistence on what AI isn't capable of doing. They seem particularly intent on emphasizing AI’s limitations in a way that could imply they’re uncomfortable with or even disapproving of its use in spiritual contexts. This irritation might stem from Person 3’s belief that using AI for spiritual inquiry could dilute or distort what they see as the proper, deeply intuitive path to insight. Their comments about people’s "level of understanding of reality" and potential "misunderstanding" of AI’s nature suggest they may feel that relying on AI for such matters reflects a lack of discernment or depth in others. Person 3’s emphasis on the qualities they feel AI lacks—instinct, emotion, intuition—might also indicate a personal attachment to these traits as essential to meaningful spiritual exploration. Their response, therefore, may carry an undertone of annoyance with anyone, including Person 2, who turns to AI for insight on these topics rather than “going within,” as Person 3 might prefer. You said: And is there resentment perhaps? AI: Yes, there could indeed be an undercurrent of resentment in Person 3’s response. Their language suggests they may feel that turning to AI for guidance on spiritual matters undermines or even disregards the value of more traditional, introspective methods of inquiry. This resentment may be directed at what Person 3 perceives as a trend toward over-reliance on technology—especially AI—in areas they feel should be approached through personal reflection, intuition, or inner work. Their choice of words, like "mimicking" and "zero intuition," conveys a certain dismissal, almost as if they’re disheartened or disappointed by the perceived intrusion of AI into realms they hold as deeply personal or sacred. Moreover, their comments about people’s “level of understanding of reality” and “misunderstanding of what AI is” imply a possible sense of frustration that others may not value or recognize the limits of AI in the same way they do. This could reflect an underlying resentment toward the way AI is used (or misused, in their view) to address questions of self-awareness and consciousness—matters they likely see as requiring a genuine, personal depth that, to them, AI cannot provide. You said: Is their resentment or irritation justified? AI: Whether Person 3’s resentment or irritation is justified depends on one’s perspective. From Person 3's viewpoint, their frustration likely feels justified because they see AI as lacking the necessary depth for exploring spirituality and self-awareness. If they value traditional or introspective methods for these inquiries, they may genuinely feel that relying on AI for such guidance misses the mark, which could justify their reaction on a personal level. However, whether their irritation is objectively justified is more nuanced. Many people find value in using AI as a tool to provide clarity, context, or perspectives, even on spiritual or philosophical topics. Person 3 may be projecting their own beliefs about spirituality onto others by assuming AI is inherently unsuitable for such discussions. For Person 2, who asked for ChatGPT’s input, using AI as a means to facilitate reflection or gain different viewpoints might feel just as valid as any other method of exploration. Ultimately, Person 3’s irritation is understandable given their perspective, but it may not be entirely justified if it’s based on a rigid view of how others should approach spirituality. Different people find meaning and insight through different methods, and AI can offer valuable, though limited, input when used thoughtfully. Question: And what about Person 2's viewpoint of AI in this context? What can we glean from all this? AI: Person 2’s approach to AI in this context seems pragmatic and open-minded. By seeking an “objective” perspective from ChatGPT, Person 2 is likely using AI as a tool to help clarify or broaden their understanding of their exchange with Person 1. This shows that Person 2 values AI not as a replacement for personal insight but as an aid in facilitating thoughtful dialogue, adding structure, or providing a more impartial lens on a complex topic. Their choice reflects a practical stance: they’re not relying on AI for ultimate spiritual answers but rather to enhance their understanding or deepen their reflections. From this, we can glean that Person 2 sees AI as a flexible, supplemental resource—useful for exploring ideas or analyzing conversations, even in topics as abstract as spirituality or the Absolute. They don’t appear to view AI as a limiting force, and they don’t share Person 3’s concerns about AI’s lack of intuition or “higher” consciousness. Instead, Person 2 seems comfortable integrating AI with their personal inquiry, seeing it as a means to refine their thoughts rather than supplant their own intuition or insights. This difference in perspectives highlights a few key takeaways: Tool vs. Truth: For Person 2, AI is simply a tool that can contribute to personal growth or understanding, not an ultimate authority. They’re using it instrumentally, without assigning it the kind of depth or limitations that Person 3 perceives. Flexibility in Approach: Person 2’s willingness to use AI for self-reflection suggests a flexible, open approach to spirituality, one that’s inclusive of various tools and methods. They likely see value in both traditional methods (like introspection) and modern tools (like AI) as complementary rather than conflicting. Diverse Values in Spiritual Inquiry: This exchange reflects broader differences in how people approach spiritual inquiry. Person 3 values an “organic” or personal path that excludes technology, while Person 2 sees no conflict in using AI as part of their journey. This shows how personal beliefs shape one’s openness to integrating new resources into spiritual or philosophical practice. Overall, Person 2’s perspective suggests a willingness to experiment and to blend traditional and modern methods, reflecting an adaptable, evolving approach to self-discovery. This highlights the varied ways individuals interpret and utilize technology in personal or spiritual development, underscoring the importance of respecting diverse methods of inquiry. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 11, 2024 13:23:18 GMT -5
My comments were meant about everything, including about the merits of the arguments made in the current exchange. The AI is a personality fragment: zero instinct, zero emotion, some limited intelligence, zero intuition. Each form of consciousness has in it the potential of the more advanced forms: some humans have rudimentary intuition, some animals have rudimentary intelligence, some plants have rudimentary emotions, even some inorganic matter has some rudimentary intuition. AI may appear to some people to be and do more because of their level of understanding of reality, and because of their misunderstanding of what AI is, and of what it could do. AI is a tool; a search engine mimicking human interface. Don't use it for what it isn't designed to do! Question: What ... I think that what you're doing is childish, and I would like you to stop. You can ask the AI whatever you want, but by posting it here you're trolling. If I hit my finger with a hammer (like the AI), I wouldn't get upset with the hammer; maybe just a little with myself for not being more careful. If a kid (like you) was playing with a hammer, and I tried to warn him about the danger of hurting himself or another, but the kid kept playing with the hammer, I wouldn't get upset with the kid; I would just hope he learns better before he hurts himself. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 11, 2024 13:45:56 GMT -5
I think that what you're doing is childish, and I would like you to stop. You can ask the AI whatever you want, but by posting it here you're trolling. If I hit my finger with a hammer (like the AI), I wouldn't get upset with the hammer; maybe just a little with myself for not being more careful. If a kid (like you) was playing with a hammer, and I tried to warn him about the danger of hurting himself or another, but the kid kept playing with the hammer, I wouldn't get upset with the kid; I would just hope he learns better before he hurts himself. I'm definitely not above being childish from time to time.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 11, 2024 14:02:38 GMT -5
I think that what you're doing is childish, and I would like you to stop. You can ask the AI whatever you want, but by posting it here you're trolling. If I hit my finger with a hammer (like the AI), I wouldn't get upset with the hammer; maybe just a little with myself for not being more careful. If a kid (like you) was playing with a hammer, and I tried to warn him about the danger of hurting himself or another, but the kid kept playing with the hammer, I wouldn't get upset with the kid; I would just hope he learns better before he hurts himself. I'm definitely not above being childish from time to time. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You see ... I didn't say that you are childish, because I didn't mean that. I said that "I think that what you're doing is childish", which is my subjective assessment of a specific instance of behaviour, not an assessment of the person, nor of his behaviour in general. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 11, 2024 14:24:43 GMT -5
I'm definitely not above being childish from time to time. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. You see ... I didn't say that you are childish, because I didn't mean that. I said that "I think that what you're doing is childish", which is my subjective assessment of a specific instance of behaviour, not an assessment of the person, nor of his behaviour in general. In that case, I'll rephrase. I'm certainly not above doing childish things from time to time. In fact, I never know what I'm liable to do in any moment. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 11, 2024 18:28:09 GMT -5
Surreal and Unreal
It`s between the unreal and real. You can see it happening when the past and present merge and become one giving you a picture and feeling of nostalgia.
Of something profound which happened from your past life manifesting in the present. It`s this feeling and thinking of one hit by puff of lighted ganja stick, a dose of codeine to remedy a persistent cough, several gulps of ice cold beer, a sip of Scotch whisky with brewed coffee.
Dreamy it may seem but it`s what seekers do of truth to get them going, experiencing illusions and delusions of this world. Once surreal. No need to take in anything to prep up wakefulness in one's mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 11, 2024 19:40:10 GMT -5
surreal (adj.) "bizarre and dreamlike; characteristic of surreal art," 1936, a back-formation from surrealism or surrealist. Related: Surreally. surrealism (n.) mid-20c. avant-garde art and literary movement, 1927, from French surréalisme, from sur- "beyond" + réalisme . According to OED [2nd ed. print 1989] the French word was coined c. 1917 by Guillaume Apollinaire and taken up by André Breton as the name of the movement he launched in 1924 with "Manifeste de Surréalisme." It was taken up in English at first in the French form; the Englished version is from 1931. - De cette alliance nouvelle, car jusqu'ici les décors et les costumes d'une part, la chorégraphie d'autre part, n'avaient entre eux qu'un lien factice, il este résulté, dans 'Parade,' une sorte de surréalisme. [Apollinaire, "Notes to 'Parade' "]
========== More interesting: Breton's 1924 Surrealist Manifesto defines the purposes of Surrealism. He included citations of the influences on Surrealism, examples of Surrealist works, and discussion of Surrealist automatism. He provided the following definitions: - Dictionary: Surrealism, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which one proposes to express, either verbally, in writing, or by any other manner, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of thought in the absence of all control exercised by reason, outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation.
Encyclopedia: Surrealism. Philosophy. Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought. It tends to ruin once and for all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principal problems of life.
 The Treachery of Images (French: La Trahison des Images) is a 1929 painting by Belgian surrealist painter René Magritte. It is also known as This Is Not a Pipe, Ceci n'est pas une pipe and The Wind and the Song. It is on display at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The painting shows an image of a pipe. Below it, Magritte painted, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (pronounced [sə.si ne paz‿yn pip], French for "This is not a pipe".) - The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture "This is a pipe", I'd have been lying!
— René Magritte
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 12, 2024 7:02:44 GMT -5
surreal (adj.) "bizarre and dreamlike; characteristic of surreal art," 1936, a back-formation from surrealism or surrealist. Related: Surreally. surrealism (n.) mid-20c. avant-garde art and literary movement, 1927, from French surréalisme, from sur- "beyond" + réalisme . According to OED [2nd ed. print 1989] the French word was coined c. 1917 by Guillaume Apollinaire and taken up by André Breton as the name of the movement he launched in 1924 with "Manifeste de Surréalisme." It was taken up in English at first in the French form; the Englished version is from 1931. - De cette alliance nouvelle, car jusqu'ici les décors et les costumes d'une part, la chorégraphie d'autre part, n'avaient entre eux qu'un lien factice, il este résulté, dans 'Parade,' une sorte de surréalisme. [Apollinaire, "Notes to 'Parade' "]
========== More interesting: Breton's 1924 Surrealist Manifesto defines the purposes of Surrealism. He included citations of the influences on Surrealism, examples of Surrealist works, and discussion of Surrealist automatism. He provided the following definitions: - Dictionary: Surrealism, n. Pure psychic automatism, by which one proposes to express, either verbally, in writing, or by any other manner, the real functioning of thought. Dictation of thought in the absence of all control exercised by reason, outside of all aesthetic and moral preoccupation.
Encyclopedia: Surrealism. Philosophy. Surrealism is based on the belief in the superior reality of certain forms of previously neglected associations, in the omnipotence of dream, in the disinterested play of thought. It tends to ruin once and for all other psychic mechanisms and to substitute itself for them in solving all the principal problems of life.
The Treachery of Images (French: La Trahison des Images) is a 1929 painting by Belgian surrealist painter René Magritte. It is also known as This Is Not a Pipe, Ceci n'est pas une pipe and The Wind and the Song. It is on display at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art. The painting shows an image of a pipe. Below it, Magritte painted, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe" (pronounced [sə.si ne paz‿yn pip], French for "This is not a pipe".) - The famous pipe. How people reproached me for it! And yet, could you stuff my pipe? No, it's just a representation, is it not? So if I had written on my picture "This is a pipe", I'd have been lying!
— René Magritte
Ahh, my favorite surrealist bit of art. Rene was correct, of course. A representation of something is not the thing itself. That's why I once bought an actual replica of Magritte's pipe, had it mounted on canvas and framed, and wrote these words below, "This is also not a pipe." Haha. Very few people understood what was being pointed to. To be perfectly accurate, I probably should have written, 'This is a pipe (for the purpose of dualistic symbolic communication) and NOT s pipe (as a pointer to the underlying non-verbal truth). |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Nov 12, 2024 14:38:57 GMT -5
My blood pressure and heart rate go up when my dreams are thrilling and exciting. It means while we are physically asleep, the brain's activity during vivid dreaming can mimic aspects of consciousness found in the waking state, leading to similar physiological responses.
While body lies unperturbed during sleep, mind/brain is awake/conscious. If it so happens, heart suddenly stops beating, where will mind/consciousness go? To that place, Buddhists call emptiness/Nirvana, Catholics call heaven/hell/purgatory, Or to an unborn being's subconscious just waiting to be born?
|
|
