I am inclined to see things your way, that intelligence is a kind of creativity, rather than aptitude. This is why I disagreed that computers are intelligent in any sense. I imagine that they can attain all aptitudes, but this self-creating, self-moving element is never present.

I don't much like the question. If everything is something, then nothing is, as there would be no difference. I'm something of a monist, but there can be no differentiation at all on that level, as the moment you name something, then there has to be two things -- it, and not it. One of them can't simply be some false thing, as my ontology rests on distinction, and not on reality/fiction, true/false, natural/supernatural or anything like that. I don't think that models and such are anything but tools to highlight distinctions.

That said, yes, I think that we have souls. I believe that the distinction that has been drawn, and the experience referenced throughout history is something that relates to my own, but besides a symbolic relation, I don't have a scientific explanation, but I'd prefer to call it art, than magic, or supernatural.

I never suggested one (although all things being equal, I think that most people would say that they'd rather be more than less intelligent, more than less creative), I just asked if the flatworm would be more intelligent in that case. It wasn't mocking, or meant to be disparaging. I'm not sure that that isn't so. I was considering it, and just wanted to know if I read the implication properly.

I wouldn't call computers intelligent myself, nor see creative endeavors like musical composition, or an abstract painting to be a "solution".

My understanding is that computers have come up with novel mathematical proofs, which I'm told require some creativity, but they still are solutions to problems. I'm not sure that art is like that. I think that it's more expression. Making the internal external, and the problem may be a deep need to express yourself though, but computers can only be set to tasks, I don't think that they can feel the kind of alienation that leads one to such breath taking communications, and world-self relating.

So that the potential for novelty itself is intelligence? If then, say a flatworm as changed, and come upon a new behavior, or niche, and begins to adapt to it, is it then in this moment more intelligent than a human being on auto-pilot?

Alcohol reduces inhibition, so it all comes down to what personality traits you're inhibiting, I think. I have a deep seated agreeable streak which I repress for the most part when sober, and telling people what I really think and feel makes me feel good about myself. Doesn't always help my relationships, and sometimes I go overboard and have to tone things down, but it is something of an effort. I fear strangers, and have an extremely hard time meeting new people. I like familiarity, and tend to stay quiet and get overwhelmed by new influences. I'm the type of crazy that really needs a handle on things before I like to act.

This means that I'm way more likely to become more agreeable when I'm drunk. I'll be kinder and worry about keeping people happy, and less likely to voice concerns or rock the boat. That's what I was like when I was a kid, I'd let people do just about anything without showing concern or disapproval, so when I'm drunk, I become a lot more like that.

I feel better about myself and a lot more true to myself telling people how it is, and what I feel, but I have a hard time doing it calmly, and it's draining.

I don't know about "authenticity". Maybe I'm an authentic asshole. I think that following your better judgment, which may take more thought and effort in order to do what you think to be right is better than authenticity.

Lol, believe what you want man... best just ignore me I think.

I was only reading my following list, and came to the thread because of someone I followed, and gave my two cents based on where the conversation had gone based only on what they had written.

↪Wosret You have no idea what makes other people happy, and if your statement was correct, you couldn't even judge what makes you happy. Also wicked and good are moral concepts of human, not natural, creation. And even if we use them, many good people die miserable, like those dying in the gas chambers, watching their loved ones die too. And many wicked people die happy, loved by many, surrounded by family and good fortune. That's not all about materialism, and I never said it was. And many of those dying happy lied and cheated to get there. — Thanatos Sand

That was the only post to which I responded of yours. I hadn't even read that other one, let alone replied to it.

No I didn't. Go look.

You replied to me, and my conditions were lying cheaters.

How can anyone love you if they don't know you because you've hidden from them? How can you love yourself if you've hidden from yourself, because you live in denial? Do you think that comfort and fortune beings happiness, rather than boredom and restlessness? Do you think that a calm and uneventful death brings one more joy than a violent one?

Yes, I meant me as well. I'm constantly wrong about what will bring me happiness, what will satisfy me, and bring me health. I need to be silent and subtle to discover that in every moment.

Wisdom is about living a good life, a healthy life. Whether man made or not, it doesn't render it ineffective.

People are wrong about what will make them happy, what will satisfy them and bring them health. No wicked person dies happy, and no good person dies miserable. It's a mistake to think that material circumstances are all that relevant. The more you treat others differently, the more you lie and cheat, the more alienated you become from yourself, and everyone else. You will always die in isolation and desolation if you lived an unjust life.

The world is just, dispute appearances.

You make a 2 second google search, saw it on fake buddha quotes, didn't even read the page, and called it lies. Despite that the page said that it was in the darmapada, then just insinuated that it was fake because it didn;t sound right to them because Buddha was poisoned, which itself may not even be true.

Don't call me dishonest. We both know how frequently you lie. You think I don't know? Don't address me.

We're the authorities. We're drawn into, and by things because they resonate with us, make some kind of sense to us. When we turn it around, and quote the a source to someone else, it's because we've judged it as praise worthy, and upright (hopefully). Not because of where it originates, or who said it. Like a halo effect, when someone says one good or true things, it increases their overall credibility. Just as when someone says a bad or false thing, it undercuts their overall credibility.

I liked that thing that you quoted about behaving as if everyone else are the enlightened ones, and we're the only ones that aren't. Jung said that people nowadays can't find God because people can no longer bow low enough.

I'm sure that Wayz is a wayz better Buddhist, he has nothing to compete with me about. I'm more of a yogi, anyhow. That's been my path.

I used a couple Indian terms, and now just referenced something the Buddha said, but not as an authority, but just an example. I'm no scholar, I'm not that interested in perfectly repeating anyone. Just using the tools at my disposal in order to fail to communicate, lol.

Want to be further confused, eh? The Buddha once gave a "flower sermon", in which he held up a flower and said nothing. A lot more clear than anything I could say.

Like clockwork.

We can't make sense of either, no. We can think it, and do it though. Watch out for that.

Everything is special and unique though, it's just maya, samsara that is repeatable. The world truly is both just, and good under it all.

Clarity obscures, obscurity clarifies... so let me confuse the shit out of everyone...

The material that makes you up changes over time, until none of what was there a decade ago remains. Memory is an autobiographical narrative, we remember a story. There are only so many forms the story can take, and only so many kinds of stories that we tell. We learn the forms until we just begin to identify everything that that comes, as the same as what came before. Nothing new under the sun. What makes you what you are is the kinds of relationships you have, the co-dependence of identity, and your form and function. Any completely unrepilcatable experiences wouldn't be representable, even to yourself. Language, and concepts require repeatability.

The irony always strikes me... which of us is the one that believes in special unchanging immutable souls? The one that says they're repeatable, or the one that hold stead fast to their special uniqueness?

(From here. Hopefully these are all accurate quotes.) — 0 thru 9

Something is true no matter who said it, or where it is found. Something is false no matter who says it, or where it is found in my view. This is why I attempted to askew notions of just appealing to authority when I was challenged.

I also referred to them all as "characters". I learn from real people how to play characters, and I learn from characters how to be a real person. .

Again, concepts are not something that can be understood, or apprehended a priori, besides for logical form only, coherency and consistency. Facts are logically contingent, and neither necessary, nor contradictory, but all could be true. If it were that easy, then there would be no question.

You're not mocking people's names? Shouldn't be too attached then...

In all fairness, I disputed it myself when it was thrown in my face a few days ago, but I spent some time thinking about it, and decided that I was mistaken. I disputed it for different reasons, suggesting that it was an ironic statement, that he meant only that the "I" hand't gained anything, his ego (a way better objection than any of yours *sticks out tongue*).

And don't half-assed address me, so that you try not to give me a notification... do or do not bro.

''God exists'' is not a concept. It's a proposition and therefore, has to be either true or false. Buddha refused to assign a truth value to that proposition. Why? — TheMadFool

"God exists" is a proposition, but both "God" and "exists" are concepts, and not propositions. I personally like to try to figure out what's being talked about before I move on to propositions about them.

I don't care... how do you expect me to when you condescend, while claiming that I'm not giving examples in the midst of disputing one?

I guess it's time to do other things.

I did... what we're discussing is an example I gave... wayz

“Nothing.” “However”, Buddha said, “let me tell you what I lost : Anger, Anxiety, Depression, Insecurity, Fear of Old, Age and Death.”

That's the example. It can be dismissed, disagreed with, translations called into question and all that... but that I'm not giving examples is not one of them...

You continually just presuppose that it's either God, or not God, as if this concept itself is true or false. My suggestion was that no concept is like that at all. They're all expressions of experience, and life. The concepts are neither true nor false, so that nothing is gained in affirming or denying them. Though powerfully enchanting ideas may best be askewed. .

I'll also mention that Buddhism is hardly complete when it comes to mere survival, or how to develop functional societies either. When it came to that, then Buddha did just point to convention. The ascetic life is somewhat parasitic by its nature on a functioning society, which can support it with donations, and charity.

The cessation of suffering isn't enough, it doesn't tell you how to structure society. Maybe if we were all awake it would be super obvious, but I doubt that.

None of them are complete doctrines, that cover every single aspect of life, and what you may encounter.

Words are not the things... cups are just as ineffable.

No, for like the tenth time, I did not.

As I attempted, and obviously failed to say, I didn't agree with any of the options. I also think that Buddhism is a response to yogic and Hindu tradition (which were the conceptual tools that Buddha would have had at his disposal), and yoga is about liberation, and union with the divine. I also like the idea that it means to yoke, or bring to things together, or into alignment. Both seem quite plausible to me.

His goal, and the goal of Buddhism was not to realize the true self, and union with the divine, but the cessation of suffering. Not like he went out of his way to deny the divine, and Buddhism makes use of the both the concepts of reincarnation, and karma as a cause of it, both of which would presuppose many Hindu ideas.

The things that he explains losing are the causes of suffering. Similarly to Daoism, what is found is the way. The truth, the light, and the way. Which is lived, demonstrated, and emulated.

I personally don't think that the people, or authorities matter all that much, just the way does, as expressed in your own life. I'm no scholar, and certainly am not always right about everything. I'm just after a way to live and conduct myself in the world, preferably the best way.

There are several things that I find objectionable about many of the characters. We can't all found religions, and I prefer to see the best ones as being about equity, and the value of life at their heart. What I say doesn't mean to be authority based, but just expressions of my own life, and how I correlate my own experiences to these teachings. Isn't that what we're all doing. If it is helpful to others, then great. Many things said here are helpful to me.

No, I'm not interested in talking to you, don't bother addressing me.

It's in the sutras, his objection is that it doesn't sound right, and probably isn't translated right because Buddha was poisoned (which isn't extractly clear itself...).

Similarly to gnosticism, devas are emanations of the one supreme God.

He was asked what he gained, and he replied "nothing", and explained that he had only lost things. Lao-tzu similarly said that those that seek learning gain, those that seek the way lose.

To put it more bluntly. Did Buddha find God? No, he didn't find anything at all.

Third time around, I didn't say that. I said that conceptual schemes are not to be trusted, and "God" is a conceptual scheme. They're ideas, which one's experiences are filtered through. Da Buddha is pretty hardcore in his rejection of convention, and complete focus on personal experience, and practice.