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: <1995Jan21.181536.2796@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 18:15:36 GMT
Lines: 74
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:1901 comp.ai.philosophy:24866 comp.ai:26692


It seems strange to me that you are so strongly dualist, with ongoing talk
about how mind stuff is DIFFERENT from body stuff and levels of existence.

To me the distinction seems misinformed.  We see that by changing our
bodies we can change our perceptions.  You have mentioned that drugs
can effect our feelings, but don't have to -- if we are trained enough
we can control our feelings even when our bodies are altered.  However,
do you believe that we are so seperate between mind and body that if you
destroy the physical eyes you can still be trained to see the world?

It seems that this is making rather strong presuppositions about the duality
between "self" and "world" -- ones which I don't accept.  It seems to me
that the "world" can only adequately be described in terms of an observer,
and an observer in terms of a world.  A world unobserved is a world without
characteristics and properties, as a person without self-ness is a person 
without properties.  

"There once was a monk named P'an Yun who, on first coming to Zen master
Shih T'ou, asked him the question, "What kind of men are those who avoid
the company of all dharmas?"
  So saying, his mouth was covered by Shih T'ou's hand.  However, not
realizing the Truth of the master's gesture, he paid a visit to venerable
master Ma Tsu and asked him.
  "Let me see how you can drink the river Hsichiang in one gulp and then
I will tell you," was the reply.
  After hearing this, P'an Yun attained full realization."

It was an uninformed question.  If you meditate, in your introspective
experience you can find that there is no "I" or "center of self."
This was rediscovered in Western science by Gregory Bateson, and then
by Fransisco Varela and Humberto Maturana.  Descartes was wrong when
supposing that the simplest unquestionable is "I think," rather, what
is immediately introspectively obvious is merely "thought," and the "I"
is postulated after that.

If one doesn't buy into the duality between self and other, and recognizes
that we bring about a world through perception and distinction, we see the
truth of the following koan:

"There once was a monk who said to Zen master Fa Yen, "I don't as you,
Master, what is the meaning of 'to point at' (chih).  I want you to
explain to me the true meaning of 'the moon' (yueh)."
  "It seems to me you have realized the meaning of 'to point at.' Can
you tell me what it means?"
  At this, another monk said to the master, "I'm not going to ask you
what the meaning of 'the moon' is.  I want you to tell me the true meaning
of 'to point at.'"
  "The moon," was the answer.
  "I ask you what 'to point at' means," protested the monk, "why do you
answer 'the moon'?"
  "Because you ask what 'to point at' means," said the master."

Object is indication.  This discovery long predates western science, which
is only beginning to rediscover it, and is being held back by objectivist
reductionist mechanistic science.

   But all of this goes against your heavy dualism between "self" and 
"other," "mind" and "body."

   You postulate a "consciousness" which is separate from "body."  I
may postulate that it is not so.  Do either of us have evidence?

   I could claim science's Occam's razor trick.  My world-view is simpler,
not containing extra elements such as independently existing "souls" and
so on.  So science would go along with my view.

   But that is not why I believe what I believe.  I believe what I believe
because my experience holds it so.  Isn't it true with all of us?

Greg Stevens

stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu

