Originally posted by black beetle
No dogmatism from me, so my position is not ruined; instead, the author of the link you provided appears to know next to nothing as regards the way the six schools of Buddhism built up a holistic synthesis based on the accurate teaching and the factual theses of all the so called Hinayana and Mahayana systems😵

I posed that quote in an effort to expand the view that the self is the individual person. The quote suggested this expansion, as did the quote I posted concerning the Eucharist. I believe that this expansed self concept is deeply present in the world's spiritual traditions and wanted to make that point. I do not endorse anything else at that link.

Originally posted by JS357
I posed that quote in an effort to expand the view that the self is the individual person. The quote suggested this expansion, as did the quote I posted concerning the Eucharist. I believe that this expansed self concept is deeply present in the world's spiritual traditions and wanted to make that point. I do not endorse anything else at that link.

Of course I see your point and I don't imply that you somehow wanted to cause confusion. I apologize if I gave you this impression; I deeply respect you.

My poitn is that in the Buddhist tradition the projection of Self/ Ego is not replaced by another, transcedental Self that envelops the false projection of Self/ Ego, as in my opinion our Suzianne appears to beleive having the feeling that the Buddhist simply missed the "right answer". The Buddhist systems are all related to the evaluation of the mind, they are not religious doctrines that the "beleiver has to accept them by means of taking a leap of faith or because they are the Word of G-d or because they are written in a specific holy scripture etc". The author of the link is simply lost between Zen, Taoism, the traditions of the Elder Brothers and the traditions of the Vajra Gurus. Oh well😵

Originally posted by Taoman
Greetings EB. I trust you and all about are well and happy. I and mine are pretty good, thank you.
As you know, though poetic liciense and adaptive appearance may suggest otherwise I have no argument at all with the absence and the openness, the no-found self existing entity, mental or otherwise. It appears this is the difficulty to verbally corral the meani ...[text shortened]... at this world a merry dance.
"Nothing holy" pops that holy phrase too.

Amitiés, mon ami.

Namaste😵

Originally posted by RJHinds
All we need to know about Buddhism is that it is a false religion and a waste of time. 😏

All you need to know about Buddhism you cannot get to know it, but it's OK😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Of course I see your point and I don't imply that you somehow wanted to cause confusion. I apologize if I gave you this impression; I deeply respect you.

My poitn is that in the Buddhist tradition the projection of Self/ Ego is not replaced by another, transcedental Self that envelops the false projection of Self/ Ego, as in my opinion our Suzianne a ...[text shortened]... oism, the traditions of the Elder Brothers and the traditions of the Vajra Gurus. Oh well😵

"Every communication is an act of interpretation."

http://catandgirl.com/?p=2638

I find this to be especially true in matters discussed here.

Originally posted by JS357
"Every communication is an act of interpretation."

http://catandgirl.com/?p=2638

I find this to be especially true in matters discussed here.

Yes, it's the Holomovement; there are as many realities as sentient beings😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes, it's the Holomovement; there are as many realities as sentient beings😵

Earlier elsewhere you have led me to think of the possibility that if, for example, a thermostat senses the temperature, it is sentient of a reality. A rather focused reality, but one nonetheless. Given that a thermostat could be a coiled bimetal on a dial, with a vial of mercury attached that can tip, closing a circuit, it seems that all the world is sensate, each part with its own reality to enjoy managing in its own way. Therein, it finds its meaning. Even the water that freezes when it's cold outside.

Originally posted by JS357
Earlier elsewhere you have led me to think of the possibility that if, for example, a thermostat senses the temperature, it is sentient of a reality. A rather focused reality, but one nonetheless. Given that a thermostat could be a coiled bimetal on a dial, with a vial of mercury attached that can tip, closing a circuit, it seems that all the world is sensate, ...[text shortened]... its own way. Therein, it finds its meaning. Even the water that freezes when it's cold outside.

Yes, although the nature of the cognizance of the sentient beings
(ie the perception, the conceptions, the feelings, the ideas and the rest psychophysical reactions that arise due to the differ interactions between the bodymind of the sentient being and its environment)
and the nature of the sensitivity of a sensor, or the nature of the sensitivity of the water etc.
(ie reactions that arise strictly from conditions due to differ interactions of the non-sentient being with its environment alone),
are different
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Yes, although the nature of the cognizance of the sentient beings
(ie the perception, the conceptions, the feelings, the ideas and the rest psychophysical reactions that arise due to the differ interactions between the bodymind of the sentient being and its environment)
and the nature of the sensitivity of a sensor, or the nature of the sensitivity of ...[text shortened]... to differ interactions of the non-sentient being with its environment alone),
are different
😵

This raises the question whether it is in principle possible for us to engineer (without using natural means of reproduction that start with a cognizant beings) a sentient being that has this cognizance (being the perception, the conceptions, the feelings, the ideas and the rest psychophysical reactions that arise due to the differ interactions between the bodymind of the sentient being and its environment).

Put in simple terms related to this thread, can we make a being that sees meaning in things? Nature seems to have done this.

Originally posted by JS357
This raises the question whether it is in principle possible for us to engineer (without using natural means of reproduction that start with a cognizant beings) a sentient being that has this cognizance (being the perception, the conceptions, the feelings, the ideas and the rest psychophysical reactions that arise due to the differ interactions between the bo ...[text shortened]... to this thread, can we make a being that sees meaning in things? Nature seems to have done this.

In order to construct such a non-organic sentient being, able to interact with the physical world as if it were a human being, a mamal, a bird etc, and to break the current AI horizon, methinks we have to back it up with an adaptive input that allows for the process of a program that includes all the modes of the inner world (feelings, IQ, EQ, projection and extrapolation of sentiments and ideas), etc etc) of a specific one or more organic sentient beings
😵

Originally posted by black beetle
In order to construct such a non-organic sentient being, able to interact with the physical world as if it were a human being, a mamal, a bird etc, and to break the current AI horizon, methinks we have to back it up with an adaptive input that allows for the process of a program that includes all the modes of the inner world (feelings, IQ, EQ, projectio ...[text shortened]... olation of sentiments and ideas), etc etc) of a specific one or more organic sentient beings
😵

Has the natural world achieved that?

Leaving out your specification that it be "non-organic," that is.

I am a chemist so my definition of "organic" is, having covalent bonds to carbon atoms, like, say, ethanol or bicarbonate of soda.

Originally posted by JS357
Has the natural world achieved that?

Leaving out your specification that it be "non-organic," that is.

I am a chemist so my definition of "organic" is, having covalent bonds to carbon atoms, like, say, ethanol or bicarbonate of soda.

Yes, the natural world massively achieved it by means of the propagation of the sentient beings😵

Originally posted by JS357
Has the natural world achieved that?

Leaving out your specification that it be "non-organic," that is.

I am a chemist so my definition of "organic" is, having covalent bonds to carbon atoms, like, say, ethanol or bicarbonate of soda.

Edit: "Leaving out your specification that it be "non-organic," that is."

My English stink; excuse me, I should have use the word "inanimate"😵

Originally posted by black beetle
In order to construct such a non-organic sentient being, able to interact with the physical world as if it were a human being, a mamal, a bird etc, and to break the current AI horizon, methinks we have to back it up with an adaptive input that allows for the process of a program that includes all the modes of the inner world (feelings, IQ, EQ, projectio ...[text shortened]... olation of sentiments and ideas), etc etc) of a specific one or more organic sentient beings
😵

Then with -animate replacing -organic we have nature having done it. It has broken through the AI horizon without deservedly being attributed the "A" in "AI". There is nothing that is not natural.

Originally posted by JS357
Then with -animate replacing -organic we have nature having done it. It has broken through the AI horizon without deservedly being attributed the "A" in "AI". There is nothing that is not natural.

Sure thing😵