18 ms·

I have been very interested in this topic recently and the Buddhist teachings about source of consciousness. They are really interesting, but with some dark co

I have been very interested in this topic recently and the Buddhist teachings about source of consciousness. They are really interesting, but with some dark corners that are not clear enough to me. For example, what would it be the source of intelligence? and how does it relate to consciousness?

lynx23 3y ago
I suggest asking your local monk, I am sure they have a pleasantly sounding explanation for you.
- jdenning 3y ago
  That’s kind of dismissive. Just because something is “religion” doesn’t mean that it has nothing to say on the subject. In my experience, a lot of Indian “religious” texts have some pretty interesting philosophy above and beyond the dogma one might expect from religion. Eg, the Vedas talk a lot about perception and how it influences our experience in the world.
  - lynx23 3y ago
    Thanks ChatGPT for correcting my speech. But, I kind of wonder, what is wrong about this suggestion? Do you consider suggesting to ask the experts in a particular field as dismissive? Do you think asking the general public about a very specific culturally loaded topic is better then refering to the experts?
    - jdenning 3y ago
      Ugh, I just realized that accusing people who disagree with you of being ChatGPT is going to be a thing now. The dismissive part was the "pleasantly sounding" bit. If you want to continue the discussion in good faith, I'm game, but nothing you have written so far indicates to me that you are operating in good faith.
      - lynx23 3y ago
        To me, religious explanations always have an air of cozyness, because "reality" of human experience is usually much more harsh then people are prepared to accept. Case in point: "an act of god" vs "the universe doesn't care about you in particular". In any case, I realize I was a bit too cynical for a fruitful exchange, my bad.
        jdenning 3y ago
        That's fair - but I think that the cozyness you're referring to is more a product of someone building their entire world view off of a core "truth" that cannot be undermined. That kind of thing is pretty common among religious people (Edit: I think that a lot of modern materialists have the same problem); however, if you're willing to engage with non-empirical philosophy in general, there's a lot of interesting stuff in texts that you might otherwise dismiss as religious dogma. Not the stuff that is promoted by organized churches/gurus/etc for consumption by their followers, but writings from people who seem to have been genuinely trying to figure out WTF this whole existence thing is about. In my experience, a lot of Vedic/Hindu and Buddhist writings are in this genre (at least they are no worse than modern, western philosophy in this regard). A lot of very deep thinkers from the ancient world have been relegated to the pile of "religion", but if you give them a shot, you might find something interesting. If you engage with practically any text written more than a thousand years ago, you'll find things that seem silly from a modern perspective, but if you grant them some leeway re: how their cultural context influenced their thought, there are some real gems. (Edit: as a relevant example from Buddhism, check out the Diamond Sutra)
        jdenning 3y ago
        Separate reply, because I've already made two edits :) -- also don't confuse Judeo-Christian-Islamic philosophy with religions in general. The majority of Buddhist philosophy doesn't say anything about "acts of god"; rather they really emphasize that the problems you have in life are about *you*, not the universe, or any external forces/deities.
    - psnehanshu 3y ago
      Even if you tried 100 times to defend your comment, I would still think you were being dismissive. So don't waste your time defending.
    - wahahah 3y ago
      > Do you think asking the general public about a very specific culturally loaded topic is better then refering to the experts? What's the harm? "Experts" can share their perspectives as well.
- torcete 3y ago
  I might actually do that. I would love to have a conversation with one.
jdenning 3y ago
I think from the Buddhist perspective, “desire” (I think “un-satisfactoryness” is a bit more accurate) is the prime mover
taopai 3y ago
An important component to intelligence is self regulation. If anxiety or fear sizes you your cognition gets severely impaired. You can see this in professionals. My uncle is a remarkable lawyer. He was responsible for very important clients and has steel nerves but he is unable to do math. I know he is very intelligent in general but his emotions doesn't let him learn math. Since he was a child he associated maths with high anxiety because his father was an engineer who got angry and frustrated when he tried to push maths to his son. But in general sense I think the abstract concept intelligence doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what you do, not your potential.
- torcete 3y ago
  Your comment diverges from what I actually meant, but it's actually very interesting. I believe that part of the process of maturing is to master your emotions. Don't repress them but acknowledge them. They are there, but you don't need to let them lead your live. I think lots of people suffer from emotional traumas like your uncle's, me being one of them. And a lot of people are no even aware of them. Introspection is actually not that easy.
indigoabstract 3y ago
One example that comes to mind on what I see as a key difference between the two: Let us consider, say, ants and bears, they're obviously intelligent and reasonably well adapted to their environment (especially ants). If they could somehow consciously realize that they exist both as an individual and as a species and would feel threatened by some common enemy, maybe humans, they could then band together as a species against the common foe. If that happened, they would cause way more trouble that they usually do. Luckily for us, these types of thoughts never enter their minds. Even if a bear goes rogue and starts attacking people, they never reach a point where they band together and go on a crime spree or decide to take over the world. Somehow, we are able to imagine those possibilities, but they cannot and it isn't because they aren't intelligent enough. Something else is missing. In other words, if the animals had the minds of humans, we can only imagine what the world would come to. Probably an us vs them death-match.
- jemmyw 3y ago
  That doesn't mean that those animals aren't conscious though. It just means it's a scale. And while we're at the top of the scale, we might have accelerated away from the previous rung by social, rather than biological, means. Studies with animals have shown than we can build on their base intelligence with specific interactions. I'm not sure your scenario would play out. If animals always had our level then it would just be a different world. If they suddenly acquired it then I'm guessing, just as with humans, some would fight, many would ingratiate and look at how to become entwined with us. Livestock might trample the farmer but them hooves aren't going against human weapons. It's a silly thought, but I think if what you say were true then given planetary resources and environmental concerns most of the humans should be rising up against those of us exploiting then and living the good life.
  - indigoabstract 3y ago
    Well, it was just a thought experiment, since we have no way to find out. Yes, animals can learn many skills and also find surprising solutions to reach and open that food recipient you thought was safely locked, but there also seems to be a fuzzy limit to the thoughts available to them and it's plausible that, even given a human like level of intelligence, an average intelligent talking dog might be content to live its life in a human household with other dogs, while an average intelligent talking wolf might not. We don't know where feelings and desires come from, why somebody has a burning desire to be free or do some particular thing, while somebody else can be satisfied without freedom if their basic needs are met. Many people are preoccupied with AI these days, and most seem to consider consciousness as something that emerges from intelligence on a gradient, if they ever think about it. To me, consciousness looks more like something complementary to intelligence. In principle, wouldn't it be possible for an artificial system to be intelligent and react to its environment without having any feeling or experience about it, just by being trained to successfully respond to its survival challenges and perhaps be able to repair or construct copies of itself? Is there a survival advantage in being able to experience life? Doesn't it just needlessly complicate things? For some unknown reason, I find myself wondering about this from time to time.

lynx23 3y ago

I suggest asking your local monk, I am sure they have a pleasantly sounding explanation for you.

jdenning 3y ago
That’s kind of dismissive. Just because something is “religion” doesn’t mean that it has nothing to say on the subject. In my experience, a lot of Indian “religious” texts have some pretty interesting philosophy above and beyond the dogma one might expect from religion. Eg, the Vedas talk a lot about perception and how it influences our experience in the world.
- lynx23 3y ago
  Thanks ChatGPT for correcting my speech. But, I kind of wonder, what is wrong about this suggestion? Do you consider suggesting to ask the experts in a particular field as dismissive? Do you think asking the general public about a very specific culturally loaded topic is better then refering to the experts?
  - jdenning 3y ago
    Ugh, I just realized that accusing people who disagree with you of being ChatGPT is going to be a thing now. The dismissive part was the "pleasantly sounding" bit. If you want to continue the discussion in good faith, I'm game, but nothing you have written so far indicates to me that you are operating in good faith.
    - lynx23 3y ago
      To me, religious explanations always have an air of cozyness, because "reality" of human experience is usually much more harsh then people are prepared to accept. Case in point: "an act of god" vs "the universe doesn't care about you in particular". In any case, I realize I was a bit too cynical for a fruitful exchange, my bad.
      - jdenning 3y ago
        That's fair - but I think that the cozyness you're referring to is more a product of someone building their entire world view off of a core "truth" that cannot be undermined. That kind of thing is pretty common among religious people (Edit: I think that a lot of modern materialists have the same problem); however, if you're willing to engage with non-empirical philosophy in general, there's a lot of interesting stuff in texts that you might otherwise dismiss as religious dogma. Not the stuff that is promoted by organized churches/gurus/etc for consumption by their followers, but writings from people who seem to have been genuinely trying to figure out WTF this whole existence thing is about. In my experience, a lot of Vedic/Hindu and Buddhist writings are in this genre (at least they are no worse than modern, western philosophy in this regard). A lot of very deep thinkers from the ancient world have been relegated to the pile of "religion", but if you give them a shot, you might find something interesting. If you engage with practically any text written more than a thousand years ago, you'll find things that seem silly from a modern perspective, but if you grant them some leeway re: how their cultural context influenced their thought, there are some real gems. (Edit: as a relevant example from Buddhism, check out the Diamond Sutra)
      - jdenning 3y ago
        Separate reply, because I've already made two edits :) -- also don't confuse Judeo-Christian-Islamic philosophy with religions in general. The majority of Buddhist philosophy doesn't say anything about "acts of god"; rather they really emphasize that the problems you have in life are about *you*, not the universe, or any external forces/deities.
  - psnehanshu 3y ago
    Even if you tried 100 times to defend your comment, I would still think you were being dismissive. So don't waste your time defending.
  - wahahah 3y ago
    > Do you think asking the general public about a very specific culturally loaded topic is better then refering to the experts? What's the harm? "Experts" can share their perspectives as well.
torcete 3y ago
I might actually do that. I would love to have a conversation with one.

jdenning 3y ago

I think from the Buddhist perspective, “desire” (I think “un-satisfactoryness” is a bit more accurate) is the prime mover

taopai 3y ago

An important component to intelligence is self regulation. If anxiety or fear sizes you your cognition gets severely impaired. You can see this in professionals. My uncle is a remarkable lawyer. He was responsible for very important clients and has steel nerves but he is unable to do math. I know he is very intelligent in general but his emotions doesn't let him learn math. Since he was a child he associated maths with high anxiety because his father was an engineer who got angry and frustrated when he tried to push maths to his son. But in general sense I think the abstract concept intelligence doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is what you do, not your potential.

torcete 3y ago
Your comment diverges from what I actually meant, but it's actually very interesting. I believe that part of the process of maturing is to master your emotions. Don't repress them but acknowledge them. They are there, but you don't need to let them lead your live. I think lots of people suffer from emotional traumas like your uncle's, me being one of them. And a lot of people are no even aware of them. Introspection is actually not that easy.

indigoabstract 3y ago

One example that comes to mind on what I see as a key difference between the two: Let us consider, say, ants and bears, they're obviously intelligent and reasonably well adapted to their environment (especially ants). If they could somehow consciously realize that they exist both as an individual and as a species and would feel threatened by some common enemy, maybe humans, they could then band together as a species against the common foe. If that happened, they would cause way more trouble that they usually do. Luckily for us, these types of thoughts never enter their minds. Even if a bear goes rogue and starts attacking people, they never reach a point where they band together and go on a crime spree or decide to take over the world. Somehow, we are able to imagine those possibilities, but they cannot and it isn't because they aren't intelligent enough. Something else is missing. In other words, if the animals had the minds of humans, we can only imagine what the world would come to. Probably an us vs them death-match.

jemmyw 3y ago
That doesn't mean that those animals aren't conscious though. It just means it's a scale. And while we're at the top of the scale, we might have accelerated away from the previous rung by social, rather than biological, means. Studies with animals have shown than we can build on their base intelligence with specific interactions. I'm not sure your scenario would play out. If animals always had our level then it would just be a different world. If they suddenly acquired it then I'm guessing, just as with humans, some would fight, many would ingratiate and look at how to become entwined with us. Livestock might trample the farmer but them hooves aren't going against human weapons. It's a silly thought, but I think if what you say were true then given planetary resources and environmental concerns most of the humans should be rising up against those of us exploiting then and living the good life.
- indigoabstract 3y ago
  Well, it was just a thought experiment, since we have no way to find out. Yes, animals can learn many skills and also find surprising solutions to reach and open that food recipient you thought was safely locked, but there also seems to be a fuzzy limit to the thoughts available to them and it's plausible that, even given a human like level of intelligence, an average intelligent talking dog might be content to live its life in a human household with other dogs, while an average intelligent talking wolf might not. We don't know where feelings and desires come from, why somebody has a burning desire to be free or do some particular thing, while somebody else can be satisfied without freedom if their basic needs are met. Many people are preoccupied with AI these days, and most seem to consider consciousness as something that emerges from intelligence on a gradient, if they ever think about it. To me, consciousness looks more like something complementary to intelligence. In principle, wouldn't it be possible for an artificial system to be intelligent and react to its environment without having any feeling or experience about it, just by being trained to successfully respond to its survival challenges and perhaps be able to repair or construct copies of itself? Is there a survival advantage in being able to experience life? Doesn't it just needlessly complicate things? For some unknown reason, I find myself wondering about this from time to time.