Guest guest Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Anders, You are aware of yourself, right ? Now, do the following: Everytime you are aware of yourself ask who is this self being aware of itself ? Then watch, observe and enquire with all your attention this self - in short, locate this " self " . Can you do that ? Ok ok Anders, I know that you won't do that but instead of practical enquiring (which is work) you will give, as thousands of times before, just a report what your lazy thoughts are about it. No thank you Anders, I am not interested in your thoughts. Werner Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > In a message dated 3/27/05 9:25:08 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > > And common sense could never tell us if a machine was being conscious > > > or not. For example, a Turing test could possibly give as a clue if a > > > machine could think or not, but it would tell us nothing about if the > > > machine is self-aware or not. The capacity of thinking is not the same > > > as being self-aware. Thinking does not automatically imply > consciousness. > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > P: Well, Al, let me indulge you. Suppose one day, someone invents a > robot > > that not only could do things (we have those already) but could talk > about > > what it > > does) even if that action is new to him. And if the action is > completely new, > > the response to a question about it, could not be preprogrammed. So, > the > > robot > > stops vacuuming the floor, and you ask it why, and the robot says: > > " Your pet mouse escaped from its cage, and was eating a piece of > cracker > > right > > in front of me. " If the robot has never been programmed to stop for a > > mouse, > > or to recognize a mouse, and gave this as a reason for stopping, > you must > > conclude: > > > > a) it learned it on his own. > > b) It is aware of it because it gave that knowledge of the mouse as its > > reason for stopping. > > > > > > This household robot might be equipped with only clever AI. To be self > aware is not the same as intelligence. No matter how smart the robot > appear to be, we cannot from that smartness tell if the robot is being > aware of itself or not. A robot might some day invent a cure for > cancer, or compose highly creative art and poetry, maybe even become > the president of the U.S.A., but we would still don't know if that > robot is self aware or not. Such robot would of course be very aware > of the world around it and possess high intelligence, but would it be > self aware? For example, the robots scientists experiment with today > can perhaps recognize human faces, know the difference between up and > down e t c, but are not self aware; they have no consciousness. > > al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 - Werner Woehr Nisargadatta Monday, March 28, 2005 3:43 AM Re: Originary Mimesis/al Anders, You are aware of yourself, right ? Now, do the following: Everytime you are aware of yourself ask who is this self being aware of itself ? Then watch, observe and enquire with all your attention this self - in short, locate this " self " . Can you do that ? Ok ok Anders, I know that you won't do that but instead of practical enquiring (which is work) you will give, as thousands of times before, just a report what your lazy I am not interested in your thoughts. Hi Werner: Let's get interesting.... What or Who is aware of YOU. Is it the same what or who that is aware of ME? And if that is the case, why are we not aware of each other more intimately? Anna ** If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: /mygroups?edit=1 Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Nisargadatta , " Werner Woehr " <wwoehr@p...> wrote: > > Anders, > > You are aware of yourself, right ? > > Now, do the following: > Everytime you are aware of yourself ask who is this self being aware > of itself ? Then watch, observe and enquire with all your attention > this self - in short, locate this " self " . Can you do that ? > > Ok ok Anders, I know that you won't do that but instead of practical > enquiring (which is work) you will give, as thousands of times > before, just a report what your lazy thoughts are about it. No thank > you Anders, I am not interested in your thoughts. > > Werner The observer is the observed, but awareness is more than the observed. al. > > > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Pedsie2@a... wrote: > > > > > > In a message dated 3/27/05 9:25:08 AM, anders_lindman writes: > > > > > > > > > > And common sense could never tell us if a machine was being > conscious > > > > or not. For example, a Turing test could possibly give as a > clue if a > > > > machine could think or not, but it would tell us nothing about > if the > > > > machine is self-aware or not. The capacity of thinking is not > the same > > > > as being self-aware. Thinking does not automatically imply > > consciousness. > > > > > > > > al. > > > > > > > > > > P: Well, Al, let me indulge you. Suppose one day, someone invents > a > > robot > > > that not only could do things (we have those already) but could > talk > > about > > > what it > > > does) even if that action is new to him. And if the action is > > completely new, > > > the response to a question about it, could not be preprogrammed. > So, > > the > > > robot > > > stops vacuuming the floor, and you ask it why, and the robot says: > > > " Your pet mouse escaped from its cage, and was eating a piece of > > cracker > > > right > > > in front of me. " If the robot has never been programmed to stop > for a > > > mouse, > > > or to recognize a mouse, and gave this as a reason for stopping, > > you must > > > conclude: > > > > > > a) it learned it on his own. > > > b) It is aware of it because it gave that knowledge of the mouse > as its > > > reason for stopping. > > > > > > > > > > This household robot might be equipped with only clever AI. To be > self > > aware is not the same as intelligence. No matter how smart the robot > > appear to be, we cannot from that smartness tell if the robot is > being > > aware of itself or not. A robot might some day invent a cure for > > cancer, or compose highly creative art and poetry, maybe even become > > the president of the U.S.A., but we would still don't know if that > > robot is self aware or not. Such robot would of course be very aware > > of the world around it and possess high intelligence, but would it > be > > self aware? For example, the robots scientists experiment with today > > can perhaps recognize human faces, know the difference between up > and > > down e t c, but are not self aware; they have no consciousness. > > > > al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 - Werner Woehr Nisargadatta Monday, March 28, 2005 9:24 AM Re: Originary Mimesis/al Hi Anna, Sorry, I am not an expert to answer your question. In addition I don't think that intimancy is what we all are seeking. What does intimacy mean for you ? Is it a goal, or an ideal for lonely and frustrated people ? Is it like sticking our heads togehter and gossip about our neighbor ? Or is it that some other persons feels and sees all your needs and wishes and will fulfill it spending the rest of his life with that task ? Werner Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Monday, March 28, 2005 3:43 AM > Re: Originary Mimesis/al > > > > Anders, > > You are aware of yourself, right ? > > Now, do the following: > Everytime you are aware of yourself ask who is this self being aware > of itself ? Then watch, observe and enquire with all your attention > this self - in short, locate this " self " . Can you do that ? > > Ok ok Anders, I know that you won't do that but instead of practical > enquiring (which is work) you will give, as thousands of times > before, just a report what your lazy I am not interested in your thoughts. > > > > Hi Werner: > > Let's get interesting.... What or Who is aware of YOU. > > Is it the same what or who that is aware of ME? And if that is the case, > why are we not aware of each other more intimately? > > Anna > > > > Ok, Werner, and no apologies are necessary. Anna p.s. there is no-thing but intimacy with What Is... > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 28, 2005 Report Share Posted March 28, 2005 Hi Anna, Sorry, I am not an expert to answer your question. In addition I don't think that intimacy is what we all are seeking. What does intimacy mean for you ? Is it a goal, or an ideal for lonely and frustrated people ? Is it like sticking our heads togehter and gossip about our neighbor ? Or is it that some other persons feels and sees all your needs and wishes and will fulfill it spending the rest of his life with that task ? Werner Nisargadatta , " Anna Ruiz " <nli10u@c...> wrote: > > - > Werner Woehr > Nisargadatta > Monday, March 28, 2005 3:43 AM > Re: Originary Mimesis/al > > > > Anders, > > You are aware of yourself, right ? > > Now, do the following: > Everytime you are aware of yourself ask who is this self being aware > of itself ? Then watch, observe and enquire with all your attention > this self - in short, locate this " self " . Can you do that ? > > Ok ok Anders, I know that you won't do that but instead of practical > enquiring (which is work) you will give, as thousands of times > before, just a report what your lazy I am not interested in your thoughts. > > > > Hi Werner: > > Let's get interesting.... What or Who is aware of YOU. > > Is it the same what or who that is aware of ME? And if that is the case, > why are we not aware of each other more intimately? > > Anna > > > > > > ** > > If you do not wish to receive individual emails, to change your subscription, sign in with your ID and go to Edit My Groups: > > /mygroups?edit=1 > > Under the Message Delivery option, choose " No Email " for the Nisargadatta group and click on Save Changes. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.