From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!think.com!ames!ncar!unmvax!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Mar 24 09:57:34 EST 1992
Article 4620 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!think.com!ames!ncar!unmvax!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Buddhism
Keywords: athiesm, debugging, thirst, arrogance arising from ignorance
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.223024.2815@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: 19 Mar 92 22:30:24 GMT
References: <1992Mar14.015607.1320@norton.com> <1992Mar18.004449.9503@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> <1992Mar19.174509.12697@ncsa.uiuc.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Lines: 68

In article <1992Mar19.174509.12697@ncsa.uiuc.edu> rbrown@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Rich Brown Cray Operations) writes:
>In article <1992Mar18.004449.9503@aio.jsc.nasa.gov> dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov writes:
>Now, I missed the part where we inject some Buddhism into a machine to make it
>artificially intelligent.  But even if the claim (by Mr. Onstott, I think)
>were true, that:
>>|> Reason is not "just another
>>|> way of thinking", it is the only valid way of thinking.
  To set the record straight, I was NOT the individual who claimed this.
In fact, my entire thesis, and supporting hermenutic and comparitive analysis
of Mr. Yoder's Buddhism and the Historical Buddhism, has been to show that this
claim can not be taken as TRUE.
  Further, I asserted that the analytic methodology employed by Mr. Yoder
was problematic in that it is difficult to analyze WHAT Buddhism IS--
which would be a prerequisit for employing the analytic Mr. Yoder wants to use.
For more information on this please see post-modern analysises of the 
Buddhisitc
tradition.  In particular, a paper, whose author I have forgetten, entitled,
"Buddha and the Manufacture of Tradition."


>it is also true that, for a reasoning being to apprehend the truth (i.e., to
>attain enlightenment), logic is _insufficient_.  As Mr. Lyndes pointed out:
>>
>>There are many kinds of mental
>>activity each with its own purposes, all inter-related, and all
>>forming a whole.  Rationality is good for making inferences.  It
>>does not provide the premises.  Experience and praxis/practice provides
>>tests for matters of truth.  Senses of beauty, elegance, fairness,
>>spirituality makes possible a quality of life.  Shall we go on?  The
>>point is not "which is best", but "how do we harmonize the whole."
>
>So, to make a machine intelligent, we certainly must infuse it with logic, but
>might we also not have to infuse it also with a sense of beauty, a sense of
>elegance, a sense of fairness, a sense of spirituality, etc?  As my own
>knowledge of AI is rather limited, I will leave those tasks to the qualified
>experts in the field.
  Some, like my self, would argue that this is, indeed, a necessary 
precondition for "intelligent" behavior.  However, there are plenty of those
who would argue otherwise.

>
>Now we may notice that 1) states the problem, 2) states its cause, 3) states
>that a solution exists, and 4) states the way to achieve the solution.  Hardly
>seems like mystical mumbo-jumbo at all now, does it?  Actually, more like pop
>psych, 2600 years ahead of its time!
>
  This seems fairly accurate.

>end to suffering, _in_this_very_life_."  Truth number three is the infamous
>_Nirvana_ you may have heard about.
>
>Oh, and by the way, Buddhism is atheistic.
  I thought you had already agreed to through out specific dogmatic 
approaches.  I don't think Tibetian Buddhism would be considered exactly
atheistic.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu

"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


