Welcome to Thinkers!
[2013/02/12 15:37] Extropia DaSilva: Today the topic is…
[2013/02/12 15:37] Extropia DaSilva: Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh said, “when our mind is conscious of something, we are that thing”. How often, then, is a person ‘me’?
[2013/02/12 15:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me loves the swing
[2013/02/12 15:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hah. I wish a link to that quote, Extie 😉
[2013/02/12 15:38] Scarp Godenot: btw, you can also sit on that box thing over there , it has multiple anims
[2013/02/12 15:38] Extropia DaSilva: so..as you were concentrating on my words…who ARE you?
[2013/02/12 15:38] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s why I’m avoiding it, Scarp ㋡
[2013/02/12 15:39] Zobeid Zuma: I don’t understand the quote. It seems nonsensical to me.
[2013/02/12 15:39] Extropia DaSilva: so what is Hanh trying to tell us?
[2013/02/12 15:39] Scarp Godenot: Live dangerously Gwyn! haha
[2013/02/12 15:39] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The venerable Hanh is pretty much compressing 84.000 volumes of Buddhist philosophy in a single line,
[2013/02/12 15:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: but, alas, it points to its fundamental tenet: interdependent co-emergence.
[2013/02/12 15:40] Extropia DaSilva: I think the quote means to say that when you are conscious of something, you ARE that thing, subjectively speaking.
[2013/02/12 15:40] Ivy Sunkiller: is it compressing or hashing Gwyn?
[2013/02/12 15:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ivy: heh! You’d have to ask an Information Theory expert for that — I’m not one 😉
[2013/02/12 15:40] Ivy Sunkiller: /me smirks 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:40] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Cross the “subjectively speaking” out of that phrase, and you’re pretty close to it, Extie 😉
[2013/02/12 15:40] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): Yes….Hanh likes to talk about interdependence; and writes really well on it
[2013/02/12 15:41] Extropia DaSilva: so what would one have to say to be spot on?
[2013/02/12 15:41] Scarp Godenot: Zap comix Guru Mr. Natural summed it all up with three words “What does it all mean, Mr Natural?” ” Don’t mean shit”
[2013/02/12 15:41] Extropia DaSilva: what, precisely, did he mean?
[2013/02/12 15:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: When you’re conscious of something, the experience of “being conscious of something” is You.
[2013/02/12 15:41] Ivy Sunkiller: Scrap: http://xkcd.com/171/ ?
[2013/02/12 15:41] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp 😛
[2013/02/12 15:41] Extropia DaSilva: Oh, OK I get that.
[2013/02/12 15:42] Ivy Sunkiller: yes, I still make that mistake 😛
[2013/02/12 15:42] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): We aren’t atomic–we exist in a web of relationships to other people, other beings and other objects….the boundaries between stuff is more a rule of thumb than something really real
[2013/02/12 15:42] Ivy Sunkiller: you have to forgive me
[2013/02/12 15:42] Ivy Sunkiller: or change your display name to Scrap and all is well
[2013/02/12 15:42] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or, if you wish to put it the other way… there is no “you” outside of being conscious of things.\
[2013/02/12 15:42] Scarp Godenot: I am not me
[2013/02/12 15:42] Extropia DaSilva: some philosophers of self and neuroscientists argue that the self- and they mean a unified self- is an illusion.
[2013/02/12 15:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: This is, btw, what Buddhists mean with “there is no intrinsic self”. There is only a “self” in the extent of perceiving things.
[2013/02/12 15:43] Extropia DaSilva: I guess they mean an intrinsic self?
[2013/02/12 15:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: “Ilusion”, in the Buddhist context, just means “no intrinsic existence” — not that it doesn’t exist.
[2013/02/12 15:43] Gwyneth Llewelyn: you guess well, Extie.
[2013/02/12 15:43] TR Amat: I can see people on the Mini Map, bu not oherwise… Does that mean that you’re not really here? 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:43] Extropia DaSilva: If it is an illusion, it is a very persistant one.
[2013/02/12 15:44] Scarp Godenot: I suffer from the illusion of buddhists
[2013/02/12 15:44] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): Well–we’re not really here. We’re in lots of other places now. 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, the problem is always one of translation really…
[2013/02/12 15:44] Extropia DaSilva: I am really here:)
[2013/02/12 15:44] Gwyneth Llewelyn: When we Westerns speak of “illusion”, we usually mean, “something that doesn’t exist, that is imagined, has no existence” or something along those lines.
[2013/02/12 15:44] Extropia DaSilva: I am just not sure where ‘here’ is.
[2013/02/12 15:45] Extropia DaSilva: No, we mean someting with an appearance other than what is actually the case.
[2013/02/12 15:45] Scarp Godenot: There is no there here
[2013/02/12 15:45] Scarp Godenot: haha
[2013/02/12 15:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: In Buddhist thought, it means something different: something that doesn’t exist intrinsically, i.e. not by itself, but in dependence of something else (in this case: in dependence of the mind that creates or believes in the illusion)
[2013/02/12 15:45] Zobeid Zuma: There is There and SL is SL, and ne’er the twain shall meet.
[2013/02/12 15:45] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie, yes, that would be more correct, I agree.
[2013/02/12 15:45] Ivy Sunkiller: Extie: http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/858428_4906883824387_1115734172_o.jpg
[2013/02/12 15:45] Scarp Godenot: The thing about Buddhists, is that they don’t like it when people call their own shit on them
[2013/02/12 15:45] Ivy Sunkiller: Khani found here
[2013/02/12 15:45] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): haha
[2013/02/12 15:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: those wouldn’t be very serious Buddhists 😉
[2013/02/12 15:46] Extropia DaSilva: Like, two lines of seemingly different sizes, but in fact both the same size. A pencil in a glass of water that appears to be broken but is in fact not broken..
[2013/02/12 15:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, I can grok that definition 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:46] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Works well in this case.
[2013/02/12 15:46] Scarp Godenot: btw, there are martinis on the table, just click.
[2013/02/12 15:46] Extropia DaSilva: A mind which seems like its owner to be unified but is in fact a disparate collection of sense perceptions..
[2013/02/12 15:47] Scarp Godenot: Focused on sex
[2013/02/12 15:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well yes, but all those sense perceptions are inter-related
[2013/02/12 15:47] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *and* focused not only on sex, but on achieving pleasure 😉 heh
[2013/02/12 15:47] Extropia DaSilva: the primary purpose of sex IS pleasure:)
[2013/02/12 15:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Gosh, and me thinking it was just to perpetuate the species… silly me 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:48] Scarp Godenot: I was set straight by a Tibetan Buddhist friend of mine who was insulted to be considered Zen.
[2013/02/12 15:48] Gwyneth Llewelyn: “insulted”, tsk tsk
[2013/02/12 15:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Bad friend of Scarp, bad!
[2013/02/12 15:49] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): Yeah, from a Buddhist perspective nothing is really separate….we just draw lines of separation because it’s a useful fiction, but the degree of inter-relationships means that nothing can be untangled from anything else…
[2013/02/12 15:49] Scarp Godenot: The irony
[2013/02/12 15:49] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Quite so, Scarp 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:49] Extropia DaSilva: Oo now I like what Violet just said:)
[2013/02/12 15:50] Extropia DaSilva: It just seems true.
[2013/02/12 15:50] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The “useful fiction” is what we routinely call conventional reality. It’s actually QUITE useful, or we’d have nothing to talk about 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:50] Scarp Godenot: I do consider the Dalai Llama to be a cool guy though. Because he is always showing people that they don’t get his philosophy, and that makes them worship him even more, which is the opposie of his intention.
[2013/02/12 15:50] Extropia DaSilva: Natural selection would not favour useless fictions.
[2013/02/12 15:50] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me wonders why Extie is reading Hahn
[2013/02/12 15:50] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): haha
[2013/02/12 15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Scarp 😉
[2013/02/12 15:51] Zobeid Zuma: He’s cool because he achieves the opposite of what he intended?
[2013/02/12 15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: And I totally agree with that, Extie!
[2013/02/12 15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Zo, Scarp is just trolling 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:51] Extropia DaSilva: I was reading David Chalmers, who quoted Hanh.
[2013/02/12 15:51] Scarp Godenot: He’s cool, because he is always throwing a pie in the face of sycophants…. heh
[2013/02/12 15:51] Extropia DaSilva: who is ‘he’?
[2013/02/12 15:51] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, that’s even MORE interesting. And what did Chalmers mean?
[2013/02/12 15:51] Scarp Godenot: Dalai Llama
[2013/02/12 15:52] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Dalai Yak… Llamas live in the Andes, Yaks in the Himalaya 😉
[2013/02/12 15:52] Extropia DaSilva: I have no idea. He is one of those philosophers who can take words, every one of which I understand, and combine them into sentences that, to me, are gobledegook.
[2013/02/12 15:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha I know that feeling!
[2013/02/12 15:53] Extropia DaSilva: But..
[2013/02/12 15:53] TR Amat: Back… The world wasn’t convinced I existed…
[2013/02/12 15:53] Zobeid Zuma: That’s how I feel about pretty much all philosophy, Extie.
[2013/02/12 15:53] Scarp Godenot: He does have great advice for meat eaters, and that is to eat a cow instead of 500 chickens. Less beings killed…..
[2013/02/12 15:53] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): Hanh really is an eloquent writer, particularly on interdependence…was trying to dig up a passage, but I don’t have the reference handy right now
[2013/02/12 15:53] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I would love to see the original sentence, because the bit about “we are that thing” is a bit, mmh, surprising.
[2013/02/12 15:54] Extropia DaSilva: Essentially he argues that consciousness cannot be reduced to materialism and that along with fundamental material stuff like electrons there is fundamental phenomenal stuff like consciousness.
[2013/02/12 15:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me *nods* @ Scarp.
[2013/02/12 15:54] Zobeid Zuma: Doesn’t sound like good advice to me, Scarp.
[2013/02/12 15:54] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ahhhh now we’re getting somewhere
[2013/02/12 15:54] Scarp Godenot: I’m loving the beef, so I approve… haha
[2013/02/12 15:54] Extropia DaSilva: He is what is known as a ‘property dualist’.
[2013/02/12 15:54] Zobeid Zuma: It’s probably really horsemeat, tho…
[2013/02/12 15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But then he’s not fully getting Hanh’s meaning… since that wasn’t a dualist proposal
[2013/02/12 15:55] Extropia DaSilva: (what do you call a burnt Tesco burger? Black beauty)
[2013/02/12 15:55] Elle Verhoeven (trap): Schopenhauer observed that people might control what they do, but do not control what they want. You are composed of these two realities, and I’m guessing that for many of you the environment of Second Life allows you to express more of what you want as an identity. What would Hanh make of Schopenhauer’s separation of action from intrinsic will?
[2013/02/12 15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:55] Scarp Godenot: I thought Buddhists got around dualism by saying all the universe is one consciousness
[2013/02/12 15:55] TR Amat: Beef burgers – I say ‘Neigh!’. 🙂
[2013/02/12 15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Elle, Hanh most surely take issue with “intrinsic will” 😉
[2013/02/12 15:55] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *would
[2013/02/12 15:56] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): I’m not big on beef/meat, though I do like my pigbutt calamari and godknowswhat sarimi 😛
[2013/02/12 15:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and you’re all makming me hungry grr)
[2013/02/12 15:56] Extropia DaSilva: Oh yes, Elle. I am totally a constructed identity. It is just, not only my primary who constructed my identity but all the people of SL I interact with.
[2013/02/12 15:56] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me *nods* @ Extie and agrees…. as I’ve already agreed with in the past
[2013/02/12 15:56] Zobeid Zuma: My favorite philosopher: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKobmM2OnDc
[2013/02/12 15:57] Extropia DaSilva: Who is it, Zo?
[2013/02/12 15:57] Zobeid Zuma: “Miller” from Repo Man. 😀
[2013/02/12 15:57] Scarp Godenot: I’m guessing Schopenhauer was around before we understood DNA and how human motivations are hard wired into the fabric of our molecules.
[2013/02/12 15:57] Gwyneth Llewelyn: In fact, Elle’s and Extie’s point about SL is actually a very interesting one — we may claim to “construct an identity”, or “express an identity” in SL. That means that we’re aware that identities are something “constructed”.
[2013/02/12 15:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Really, Scarp? 😉
[2013/02/12 15:58] Extropia DaSilva: I always thought Berkely’s ‘to be is to be perceived’ was a good philosophy for SL. Because, in order for anything to exist in SL, somebody must first imagine it.
[2013/02/12 15:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: If they were, Scarp, we would be unable to learn things 😉
[2013/02/12 15:58] Gwyneth Llewelyn: A very good point, Extie.
[2013/02/12 15:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The tough point is that the same applies to RL too…
[2013/02/12 15:59] TR Amat: How does not everyone having the same sensory apparatus effect things?
[2013/02/12 15:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Let me give you a stupid example,
[2013/02/12 15:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: if you have never used a chair before,
[2013/02/12 15:59] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and don’t know what it is for
[2013/02/12 15:59] Scarp Godenot: I think we should think of Secondlife not as a place to change identity, but like the telephone a neutral platfrom of interaction. We use the tools to communicate in a real McLuhanesque way here.
[2013/02/12 16:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: for you, “chair” as a concept doesn’t exist.
[2013/02/12 16:00] Extropia DaSilva: Hmm..If my primary needs to be here at one minute to midnight because you all expect the host to remain for the event, does that mean the environment of SL controls my primary as much as ve controls me?
[2013/02/12 16:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But once someone “Imagines” a use for the chair,
[2013/02/12 16:00] Zobeid Zuma: How about a bean bag?
[2013/02/12 16:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and defines the chair as something to be sit upon,
[2013/02/12 16:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: and tells you how to do it,
[2013/02/12 16:00] TR Amat: If you are using viewer 1.23, this place may look somewhat different. 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:00] Extropia DaSilva: Oh is this Wittgenstein?
[2013/02/12 16:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: then “suddenly” the chair “exists” for you as a useful tool not to get your ass frozen cold on the floor
[2013/02/12 16:00] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me points at self
[2013/02/12 16:01] Elle Verhoeven (trap): Sounds like Pato, Gwyneth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms
[2013/02/12 16:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Quack. (Pato = Duck in Portuguese)
[2013/02/12 16:01] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): heheh
[2013/02/12 16:01] Elle Verhoeven (trap): *Plato 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:01] Ivy Sunkiller: if it quacks like a duck…
[2013/02/12 16:01] TR Amat: I thought Plato was all archetypes, eternal, not much room for new ones being created?
[2013/02/12 16:01] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Elle: it might sound like Plato, but it’s actually Siddharta 😉
[2013/02/12 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The fundamental difference is that Plato claims there are ‘absolute forms’ somewhere out there
[2013/02/12 16:02] Scarp Godenot: We mustn’t forget that philosophy is always viewed through our theory of knowledge, so postuating non existence of things can’t really apply to most arguments.
[2013/02/12 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Siddharta just says that they’re inside our very creative minds 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:02] Zobeid Zuma: I’m gonna duck out. I’ll see y’all next week!
[2013/02/12 16:02] Elle Verhoeven (trap): Ah, I was off by 50 years.
[2013/02/12 16:02] Extropia DaSilva: Ondrejka pointed to a ‘piano’ some enterprising folks had built in an old RPG and argued it was not a real piano becaise it did not function as one. He then turned to a bunch of prims, fashioned into a piano, running a script such that you could play it, and said, this functions as a piano so it IS a piano.
[2013/02/12 16:02] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): Take care, Zo 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:02] Ivy Sunkiller: byes Zo 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Quack to you too, Zo 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:02] TR Amat: I guess you could use Jung’s Collective Unconsciousness? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:02] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: a nice point.
[2013/02/12 16:03] Extropia DaSilva: wish I could remember which RPG..
[2013/02/12 16:03] Gwyneth Llewelyn: TR: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof — that’s why I like Jung’s theory, even though it fails Occam’s razor 😉
[2013/02/12 16:03] Extropia DaSilva: Ultima Online. That was it.
[2013/02/12 16:03] Scarp Godenot: all definitions of ‘things’ are relative and agreed upon by the speakers of the language to some degree, no? Otherwise it doesn’t work.
[2013/02/12 16:03] Ivy Sunkiller: Extie: is your body a body then, if it doesn’t function as one (biologically speaking)?
[2013/02/12 16:04] Extropia DaSilva: kind of vague that. What constitutes extraordinary proof?
[2013/02/12 16:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yeppers, Scarp
[2013/02/12 16:04] TR Amat: RPG = Rocket Propelled Grenade? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:04] Extropia DaSilva: It gets Seren hot. And that is good enough for me.
[2013/02/12 16:04] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: falsifiable propositions in the sense used by Popper
[2013/02/12 16:05] TR Amat: So, does not being able to see mesh objects in SL make it a different world for you? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:05] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: and using your own definition, it follows simply that “things” don’t have intrinsic existence — they depend on people to define them and agree upon first.
[2013/02/12 16:06] Scarp Godenot: no argument there.
[2013/02/12 16:06] TR Amat: Does some one who is blind and deaf live in a different world?
[2013/02/12 16:06] Ivy Sunkiller: I guess it would depend on what the “function” of a thing means. If the function of your body in SL is to carry you around and let you express yourself, then it fits that function. If somebody wants to have a piano in an apartment as a prop, then having one that doesn’t play does still fulfill that function.
[2013/02/12 16:06] Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, TR, but it shows how even this world does not have intrinsic existence — if it had, we would see precisely the same things, no matter what viewer we had. But the experience we have of SL depends on the viewer.
[2013/02/12 16:06] Extropia DaSilva: But is it true, as Spinoza argued, that everything must ultimately be made out of some prime Substance which necessarily exists?
[2013/02/12 16:06] Scarp Godenot: We separate the forest from the trees as separate things by agreement.
[2013/02/12 16:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me *nods* @ Scarp — exactly
[2013/02/12 16:07] TR Amat: Maybe, if information is the Primal Substance…
[2013/02/12 16:07] TR Amat: Figure/Group separation, by agreement?
[2013/02/12 16:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, it’s not easy to disprove Spinoza’s argument, specially not in a single Thinkers session — after all, he had decades to write “Ethics” 😉
[2013/02/12 16:07] TR Amat: Ground*
[2013/02/12 16:07] Gwyneth Llewelyn: But I can still try!
[2013/02/12 16:07] Scarp Godenot: In my experience linguistic arguments usually win all philosophical arguements…. heh
[2013/02/12 16:08] Gwyneth Llewelyn: If there is a “prime substance”, what qualities does it have?
[2013/02/12 16:08] Scarp Godenot: primness
[2013/02/12 16:08] Scarp Godenot: by definition
[2013/02/12 16:08] Scarp Godenot: see?
[2013/02/12 16:08] Scarp Godenot: primeness that is
[2013/02/12 16:08] TR Amat: Yes, but abatars are not made of prims. 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:08] TR Amat: avatars*
[2013/02/12 16:08] Gwyneth Llewelyn: What is “primeness”? I mean, how does that primeness affect things?
[2013/02/12 16:08] Extropia DaSilva: When you see speech rendered as a waveform you see no space between words, just a continual sound. And when you hear a foreign language you cannot speak, itsoundslikethis because your mind cannot impose spaces between words. So in reality as you speak these words in your mind the spaces do not exist.
[2013/02/12 16:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (my questions are really not me being a nuisance; they’re essential for the argument)
[2013/02/12 16:09] Scarp Godenot: I was just showing the circularity of the argument of primal substance.
[2013/02/12 16:09] Ivy Sunkiller: Extie: whataboutgerman?
[2013/02/12 16:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Yes, exactly, but I don’t think that’s what Spinoza meant
[2013/02/12 16:09] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): Take care, guys….gonna go become dinner 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:09] Ivy Sunkiller: sorry, had to 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:09] TR Amat: Sometime you parse what you’ve heard, again, and a different serious of words spring into hearing…
[2013/02/12 16:09] Extropia DaSilva: Gwyn is never a nuisance and anybody who even suggests she is gets an instant ban.
[2013/02/12 16:09] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hahahahhaa lol
[2013/02/12 16:09] Scarp Godenot: Seeya Professor!
[2013/02/12 16:09] Ivy Sunkiller: byes Violet!
[2013/02/12 16:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: I was pre-emptively warning that there was a purpose in the questions 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:10] TR Amat: May you be tasy and satisfy, Atraxia. 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:10] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (bye BViolet!)
[2013/02/12 16:10] TR Amat: tasty*
[2013/02/12 16:10] Professorette Violet Ninetails (ataraxia.azemus): /me waves
[2013/02/12 16:10] Scarp Godenot: btw, Extie, you have ban power on this whole sim! feel the powah…
[2013/02/12 16:10] TR Amat: Ataraxia*
[2013/02/12 16:10] Extropia DaSilva: I rarely use it.
[2013/02/12 16:10] TR Amat: But, Linden can ban evend the banners?
[2013/02/12 16:10] Extropia DaSilva: I have no idea where all this is going.
[2013/02/12 16:11] Elle Verhoeven (trap): Perhaps we might recenter the conversation?
[2013/02/12 16:11] Scarp Godenot: straight to solipsism is my guess
[2013/02/12 16:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway, the problem with “prime substance” theories is to explain how that kind of thing can give rise to any other things that are NOT prime substances
[2013/02/12 16:11] Extropia DaSilva: Good idea, Elle.
[2013/02/12 16:11] Gwyneth Llewelyn: You and your solipsism, Scarp 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:11] TR Amat: Are quarks now “atoms”? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:11] Scarp Godenot: That is where Thinkers always goes! haha
[2013/02/12 16:11] Extropia DaSilva: so let us get back to the central question. Is there such a thing as ‘I’?
[2013/02/12 16:12] Scarp Godenot: Yes
[2013/02/12 16:12] Scarp Godenot: But I is not static
[2013/02/12 16:12] TR Amat: As a working definition, “I” is useful. 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:12] Extropia DaSilva: and when are you conscious of it?
[2013/02/12 16:12] Gwyneth Llewelyn: And because it’s not static, it’s not intrinsic.
[2013/02/12 16:12] Scarp Godenot: I is
[2013/02/12 16:13] TR Amat: Self-modelling – is it banned by law in some places? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:13] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Whenever you want, Extie 🙂 But most people aren’t.
[2013/02/12 16:13] Scarp Godenot: I is ‘being’ in the philosophical sense
[2013/02/12 16:13] TR Amat: If you model youself as separate from others, is the bits you can control just by thinking about them “I”?
[2013/02/12 16:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, we usually have a pretty good idea of what that “I” is, if we don’t delve too deeply — e.g. we can say it’s our body, our emotions/feelings, our thoughts, or all of the above
[2013/02/12 16:14] TR Amat: So, you model others modelling you…
[2013/02/12 16:14] Extropia DaSilva: higher order intentionality, you mean?
[2013/02/12 16:14] TR Amat: If we use a tool, does that become part of “I”?
[2013/02/12 16:14] Scarp Godenot: I is point of view at spacetime x with memory. Hows that for an on the spot definition? heh
[2013/02/12 16:14] Extropia DaSilva: pretty good!
[2013/02/12 16:14] Gwyneth Llewelyn: TR: yes, a good way to put it: “the things you control”. Although there are a few bits you seem to be unable to control as well. Example: heart rate
[2013/02/12 16:15] TR Amat: I is the bit that does the tripping over in the dark. 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:15] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Damásio calls the “I” the auto-biographical function of the brain.
[2013/02/12 16:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: i.e. that bit of the brain that (using Scarp’s definition) is constantly updating the point of vuew at spacetime x, and putting it into memory
[2013/02/12 16:16] TR Amat: Given a bit of feedback, I seem to have some control over my heart rate…
[2013/02/12 16:16] Extropia DaSilva: My favourite philosopher calls it a strange loop. And you should know who it is from that definition:)
[2013/02/12 16:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: In fact, Damásio claims that all our memories always have a reference to this “self”. Otherwise, they’re not memories — they’re fantasy, dreams, day-dreaming etc
[2013/02/12 16:16] TR Amat: I may not know where I am, but I know who I am? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:16] Gwyneth Llewelyn: AHA yes Extie 🙂 🙂 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:17] Scarp Godenot: Fave Nietzche quote: Reasons? I am not one who can be asked after their reasons, I would have to be a cask of memory to carry about my reasons with me. Is my experience but of yesterday? It is long ago that I experienced the reasons for my experiences and many a bird flyeth away”.
[2013/02/12 16:17] TR Amat: If I don’t know where I am, how is the “spacetime x” relevant?
[2013/02/12 16:17] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, TR, I’d say that you THINK you know who you are, and by doing so, attribute qualities to that “you”, and this is what, in turn, you call “you”
[2013/02/12 16:18] TR Amat: The model of self – is that different from “I”?
[2013/02/12 16:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, the self is merely a mental construct
[2013/02/12 16:18] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Like a chair 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:18] Scarp Godenot: The above quote is Nietzche saying that personality is changeable and never the same. The I is always in flux.
[2013/02/12 16:18] TR Amat: A chair can be a weapon in a barroom brawl. 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:19] Gwyneth Llewelyn: To keep Scarp’s fears of solipsism at bay, I shall add that the self is as real as the chair
[2013/02/12 16:19] TR Amat: Chair-y of contradiction. 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:19] Extropia DaSilva: ..
[2013/02/12 16:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: What you’re saying, TR, is that not even a chair is always “just a chair”, but that it depends what we’re use it for 😉
[2013/02/12 16:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: So there is no “intrinsic chairness” in the chair.
[2013/02/12 16:20] Scarp Godenot: Zen koan. Self and Chair, which is more real?
[2013/02/12 16:20] Gwyneth Llewelyn: It can also be a weapon, or a decoration element.
[2013/02/12 16:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: from your perspective, the self is as real as the chair. I don’t think you can say one is “more real” than the other.
[2013/02/12 16:21] Scarp Godenot: If a leg falls off a chair, is it still a chair. Is the leg a chair? Is the cushion a chair? how many legs removed to un chair the chair?
[2013/02/12 16:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and from my perspective, it’s the same, too 🙂 )
[2013/02/12 16:21] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oooh good one Scarp!
[2013/02/12 16:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: we’ll make a good Buddhist out of you 😉
[2013/02/12 16:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: That is, in fact, one of the first lessons in analytic meditation 😉
[2013/02/12 16:22] Extropia DaSilva: Chair is a function, so if I sit on a table it is not a table, it is a chair.
[2013/02/12 16:22] Scarp Godenot: Thinking involves no particular point of view philosophy, so I would make a bad buddhist as I don’t take buddhism seriously…. haha
[2013/02/12 16:22] Ivy Sunkiller: the chairness of a chair is a pattern our brain makes out of observing multiple types of chairs, which it then uses to identify any further object as a chair or non-chair, thus there is no intrinsic concept of chairness, it’s always a subjective pattern
[2013/02/12 16:22] Gwyneth Llewelyn: The only difference is that one usually starts with replacing the word “chair” in your sentence with “self”, but one does precisely that kind of awkward questions.
[2013/02/12 16:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Even more than that, Ivy: this process only starts when you see your FIRST chair.
[2013/02/12 16:23] Ivy Sunkiller: yes!
[2013/02/12 16:23] TR Amat: So, if you sit on someone, does that make self into chair? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:23] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Before that, you don’t evn know what a chair is — soi, for you, a chair doesn’t exist
[2013/02/12 16:23] Ivy Sunkiller: TR: yes, and also – been there, done that
[2013/02/12 16:24] Ivy Sunkiller: /me grins
[2013/02/12 16:24] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: the best Buddhists are the ones that don’t take anything very seriously, but specially, they don’t take themselves (their selves) very seriously 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:24] Extropia DaSilva: I wonder what exists for a newborn babe? I bet it does not even know that thing that sometimes passes in front of its vision is its own arm.
[2013/02/12 16:24] TR Amat: Been there, doe that, got the antimascara? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:24] TR Amat: done*
[2013/02/12 16:24] Scarp Godenot: People like me, burned by religion early, stay completely away from anyone claiming to have ‘the answer’.
[2013/02/12 16:24] Ivy Sunkiller: Gwyn: ah, but does it not exist, or is it just your ignorance of it’s existance?
[2013/02/12 16:25] TR Amat: http://www.google.com/ – is that a real statement of some kind? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:25] Extropia DaSilva: Are all religions like that, though? Claiming to know ‘the answer’?
[2013/02/12 16:25] Ivy Sunkiller: Extie: yes
[2013/02/12 16:25] Gwyneth Llewelyn: For someone who is ignorant of something’s existence, it does not exist. In their worldview, it doesn’t exist. our own worldview — because we’re familiar with chairs — it most certainly does exist. So, what worldview is more real? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:25] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: most are, yes
[2013/02/12 16:26] TR Amat: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimacassar
[2013/02/12 16:26] Scarp Godenot: BTW Gwyn, I have met MANY buddhists over the years and exactly none of them has reached the level considering their own beliefs as random and relative….. Just my observation….
[2013/02/12 16:26] Ivy Sunkiller: if there is a chair in SL, and there is somebody who knows what a chair is, but has no idea about SL, does that chair exist for him?
[2013/02/12 16:26] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Quoting one of my teachers: “Most religions are 90% of speaking about ‘the truth’ and 10% of telling believers about a method to figure it out. Buddhism, which is not a religion, is 99.9999% about method, and the remaining are just a tiny reminder to let you know when you’ve found the truth and recognise it for what it is” 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:27] Extropia DaSilva: Ivy: No
[2013/02/12 16:27] Extropia DaSilva: not that specific chair
[2013/02/12 16:27] TR Amat: Because we can agree on the properties of werwolves, does that mean they exist? 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:27] Extropia DaSilva: yes
[2013/02/12 16:27] TR Amat: Werechair…
[2013/02/12 16:27] Scarp Godenot: I would tell the Buddhists that method is delusion.
[2013/02/12 16:27] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: what do you mean, “reaching the level considering their own beliefs as random and relative”?
[2013/02/12 16:28] Ivy Sunkiller: /me has seen plenty of werewolves
[2013/02/12 16:28] Extropia DaSilva: In some sense werewolves must exist, otherwise we could not speak of them. You could say they conceptually exist.
[2013/02/12 16:28] Scarp Godenot: I mean they cannot get outside their own belief systems to put it in context
[2013/02/12 16:28] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah. Hmm
[2013/02/12 16:28] TR Amat: Sounds like you’ve seen a few werechairs, too, Ivy. 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:28] Elle Verhoeven (trap): Many if not most of the Thinker conversations are posted on the web. Elle Verhoeven does not have a web presence as of yet. It is a new name. So I will take this opportunity to speak to the person who has Googled my name and is now reading this in your web browser. Yes, you. Hello there. I see you. I see that you have Googled me. Why don’t you hop on Second Life and send me this message: XH5PJM
[2013/02/12 16:28] Ivy Sunkiller: TR: I actually did! 😀
[2013/02/12 16:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, if they are attached to their belief systems, then have still a long way to go 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: *then they
[2013/02/12 16:29] Ivy Sunkiller: TR: in fact <_<… >_>… *whispers* I am one
[2013/02/12 16:29] Gwyneth Llewelyn: hahahahaha Elle
[2013/02/12 16:29] Extropia DaSilva: (It was me who Googled her name)
[2013/02/12 16:29] Ivy Sunkiller: 😀
[2013/02/12 16:30] Extropia DaSilva: Oo one minute left folks, let us have a conclusion! Anyone?
[2013/02/12 16:30] TR Amat: /me imagines a werechair with teeth while thinking about Ivy… 🙂
[2013/02/12 16:30] Elle Verhoeven (trap): To the extent that I have faith, I have faith we will come to understand consciousness as a physical phenomenon — along the lines of everything else in the universe. Hanh’s ideas don’t necessarily conflict with what I know about how the brain functions today. Things are stored and rendered as electricity among synapses — which might as well be the form itself as far as the consciousness is concerned. Hanh’s statement suggests that the consciousness is precisely the same thing as it is rendering. If we “are the thing that our mind is conscious of” then it would suggest that it is the complexity of the brain itself which is the consciousness — including its working memory. Would that be a fair estimation of Hanh?
[2013/02/12 16:30] Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nevertheless, Scarp, that the methods work is just a matter of scientific empirical proof: follow the methods, note the result, see if they’re repeatable under different circumstances, places, and locations, and there you go, you have a validated theory.
[2013/02/12 16:31] Extropia DaSilva: Thanks Elle!
[2013/02/12 16:31] Extropia DaSilva: OK MY TIME IS UP!