SIGN UP NOW for The Gnostic Centre's ONLINE PROGRAMS starting JANUARY 2018 - https://t.co/V1wgynI0Nm
On 19 Dec 2017, at 16:19, 'Syamala Hari' via Sadhu-Sanga Under the holy association of Spd. B.M. Puri Maharaja, Ph.D. wrote:
Well, one can use the word 'meaning' with the meaning you suggested also. I did not mean it the way you suggested. While working with computers/robots, we frequently use the phrases: "It knows", "it understands", etc. There is a difference between a human being's knowing and understanding and a robot's "knowing" and "understanding" is it not? In fact, if you tell your dog to fetch a ball, the dog understands what you said and fetches the ball. The robot will also do the same and you may say the robot "understands" your instruction but its "understanding" is certainly different from a human being's or even the dog's "understanding" of your instruction.
How do you know that?
I think you can say that if the robot is an automata. In that case, it is controlable, always defined, etc. But that intuition can be shown not available for a computer or any universal machine (in arithmetic). After Turing)Gödel's work, we know that we know about nothing on what the universal machine are capable and not capable.
On the contrary, we know that such machine have a rich theology, and that such a theology contains, in its sharable probable parts, the whole of(public) physics, making that theory testable. And the test done up to now, confirms Mechanism (and thus suggests that weak materialism, physicalism, etc. are wrong).
In the case of the robot, the "turn right" instruction is a material process: giving it energy or momentum to initiate action followed by action according to instructions already coded into its hardware. Turnig right or fetching the ball is a completely material process in which the robot ha no conscious experience of anything. The content of a conscious experience or what a conscious being is aware of in an experience is what I called meaning in my post. We have different experiences. Seeing an apple and eating it. What we aware of in the two experiences is what I call the meanings of those actions, the actions themselves being material processes. This meaning is NOT matter or the material process which exist in both the human being (or dog) and in the robot.
Locally. But eventually, "matter" is only a meaningfull idea in the mind of the machine or the numbers. the solution of the mind-body problem already provided by the machine in arithmetic, is that "matter" does not exist, like in Plotinus and other rational mystic.
More simply, the meaning of a word is not the same as the word, or the sound we make when uttering the word because the same meaning can be conveyed by different words in different languages.
OK. Like a mind can be conveyed by different bodies or different representations in arithmetic.
Pribram found an accurate description in terms of Gabor functions, of the brain's material/physical memory which stores our experiences. Then he says that the Gabor function describes both the brain's physical memory and the psychological content also. What I say is that the gabor function is like a comuter's bit or qubit and different from the concept (psychological) concept. So his theory still does not solve the hard problem.
Even without mechanism, I think it is better when we do science, especially in metaphysics, to not invoke metaphysical notion, like primairy matter, in an explanation.
Many people confuse the evidence for a physical reality with evidence for physicalism or weak-materialism (the belief in primitive matter), but as the antic dream argument already has refuted, there is no evidence for any ontology (except personal consciousness), and with mechanism, it becomes invalid to assume anything more than numbers or similar inductive structures and laws.
Mechanism solves the hard problem of consciousness, in the sense that it explains why any universal machine introspecting itself get aware of something non-doubtable, true, and not justifiable rationally, concerning them. The machine already knows that they have a soul, and that the soul is not a machine. The hard problem is reduced in explaining physics from machine self-reference. They have a theology which includes physics, and so is testable, and it works until now.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Online_Sadhu_Sanga/1C5A8C4D-EE97-4E35-B0F6-BFB003CA4E87%40ulb.ac.be
[Spontaneous (self-induced)motion in the universe is an objective physical evidence of universal consciousness. A dead or unconscious universe would have no motion or change (time). Physics of consciousness is governed by the physical laws at cosmic scale] https://t.co/IvxU1VqsLt
Philosophy now comes to us in one form: the peer-reviewed article, published (preferably in English) in an academic journal. No wonder philosophy has become so irrelevant https://t.co/FUcrGXsptM
Heidegger's Fourfold is well-known, but a more foundational ontological breakthrough has been achieved by Sri Aurobindo through his delineation of fourfold Vedic deities addressed as Varuna, Aryaman, Mitra, and Bhaga as principal powers and cosmic players. https://t.co/pNGpbVhoF2
Perhaps, quite the contrary, Sir? Hegel didn't understand India, falsifying our social reality with secondary, even tertiary, textual knowledge? It's that narrative that needs to be challenged with better self-understanding backed by better histories. https://t.co/9ZnCqWv1kH
[comparison with Hegel can throw new light on understanding social and economic inequalities in India/intellectuals and activists challenging entrenched casteism and the upsurge of Hindu fundamentalism in India will be eternally grateful for Hegel’s India] https://t.co/TKBurMFBkj
[Pribram shares interactions he has had with luminaries including David Bohm, Francis Crick, John Eccles, Dennis Gabor, Hubel and Wiesel, Wolfgang Kohler, Karl Lashley, Aleksandr Romanovitch Luria, Ilya Prigogine, B. F. Skinner, Eugene Sokolov, and others] https://t.co/iTJCbcHMWY
History of ideas, be it Hegel or Bergson, shows a struggle or speculative uncertainty while The Mother & Sri Aurobindo have the advantage of safely relating to the Veda and Upanishads besides Lurianic Kabbalah (Esoterica-Magick-7, 1996 by M. Alan Kazlev). https://t.co/THnW1ugWvd
[The author has very ably succeeded in propounding that the two traditions have achieved a new height and dimensions in the philosophies of Sri Aurobindo and Hegel]
Absolutism East West Comparative Study Sri Aurobindo Hegel - Vijai Kant Dubey https://t.co/Cqzd7xnxxV via @amazonIN