Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dsinc!ub!galileo.cc.rochester.edu!prodigal.psych.rochester.edu!stevens
From: stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens)
Subject: Re: Thought Question
Message-ID: <1995Jan21.173202.1107@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@galileo.cc.rochester.edu
Nntp-Posting-Host: prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
References: <3f23q4$oc4@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> <1995Jan12.184559.2530@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3f5nuu$mks@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <1995Jan14.153326.20818@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se> <3fbdcb$44t@ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> <1995Jan15.225423.23577@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3fcp55$2if@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <1995Jan19.060823.19335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <3flr53$dkn@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 95 17:32:02 GMT
Lines: 59
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1899 comp.ai.philosophy:24864 comp.ai:26690

In <3flr53$dkn@ixnews1.ix.netcom.com> prem@ix.netcom.com (Prem Sobel) writes:
>In <1995Jan19.060823.19335@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> 
>stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu (Greg Stevens) writes: 

>...
>>Not just with sensory processing, but with emotions.  I can make you 
>>feel anxious by injecting nalaxone. I can make you sedated with 
>>morphine.

>While it is true you can damage or interfer with someone's body, it 
>does not mean that you can make them feel what some or even most feel
>when given certainn drugs. WhileI am not there yet, I know by experience
>that what is said that with mastery of mind and consciousness one can
>choose how one reacts, or if one reacts to ANY stimulus. This is in
>terms of teh subjective state. The control over the damage to the body
>is another question which is not addressed now.

[...]

>It is agreed that the body as it is affects who one relates to the
>ohysical world, but it DOES not determined my relationship to other
>planes or levels of reality.

It seems odd to me that someone of obvious meditative and possibly even
Buddhist inclinations would take such a dualist stance.  It's all
"this plane" vs. "that plane" and "mind" vs. "body."

Now, mind you, I won't be caught taking either a materialist stance or
a solipsist stance.  Both are, in fact, dualist positions in a way:
the materialist accepts the distinction between mind and body, and
disregards mind, while the solipsist also accepts the distinction, and
disregards body.  Either way, it is exactly the "this/that" thinking that
Buddhist doctrine tries to discourage.

Consider this about dualism, and accepting dualism in the NAME of unity:

"Once, when the venerable Master Yao Shan held the position of abbot, he was
walking in a temple courtyard in the company of his two disciples, Tao Wu
and Yun Yen.  Two trees stood in the front of the temple, one withered and 
the other in full spendor.  Pointing to them, the master asked, "Which
of these trees is following the right way?"
  "The one in splendor," replied Tao Wu.
  "No," replied the master, and he asked again, "Which is correct?"
  "The withered one," answered Yun Yen.
  "No," replied the master.
  At this point they were joined by a monk, and Yao Shen asked the same
question.
  "The withered tree complies with the withering of itself, and the splendid
tree follows its splendor."
  "No! No!" exclaimed the Master."


I think the premise that the DISTINCTION between mind and body exists is
at fault.  After all, what, in your meditative awareness, makes obvious
such a distinction?

Greg Stevens


