A few days ago I wrote about how there's no need to find your self, because you don't have one. That's the central message of Jay Garfield's book, "Losing Ourselves: Learning to Live Without a Self."
Sounds good to me. One of my favorite humorous pieces from The Onion is Search For Self Called Off After 38 Years.
Here's how it starts off.
CHICAGO—The longtime search for self conducted by area man Andrew Speth was called off this week, the 38-year-old said Monday.
"I always thought that if I kept searching and exploring, I'd discover who I truly was," said Speth from his Wrigleyville efficiency. "Well, I looked deep into the innermost recesses of my soul, I plumbed the depths of my subconscious, and you know what I found? An empty, windowless room the size of an aircraft hangar. From now on, if anybody needs me, I'll be sprawled out on this couch drinking black-cherry soda and watching Law & Order like everybody else."
"Fuck it," he added.
My sentiments exactly, though I don't like black-cherry soda or Law & Order.
The passages below from Garfield's book are considerably more philosophical than The Onion piece, but they share the same message. Stop looking for your self. It's an illusion.
Here Garfield is talking about a minimal approach to the self. By minimal, he means something that isn't a full-blown transcendent self/soul such as the Atman in Hinduism, the whole ground of being thing where the self/soul is a drop of the ocean of Brahman/God.
Instead, the minimal self is essentially the subject of experience, a view held by Galen Strawson, Evan Thompson, and Dan Zahavi. Strawson puts it this way.
I propose to take the unchallengeable, ontologically non-committal notion of the subject of experience in a minimal or 'thin' way... I mean the subject considered specifically as something 'inner', something mental, the 'self', if you like, the inner 'locus' of consciousness considered just as such.
Well, Garfield finds that notion eminently challengeable. Here's how he describes his challenge, which makes a lot of sense to me. Simply put, there can be thoughts without a thinker, perceptions without a perceiver, and awareness without a singular self that is aware.
To say that awareness is necessarily a property of a subject of awareness, while perhaps seeming to be an innocent grammatical point, in fact commits the very fallacy of reification that we addressed in chapter 2. That is the fallacy of going from the mere fact of awareness to the existence of a subject of awareness.
To draw this inference is kind of like going from the claim that it is raining to the claim that there is something that is the agent of raining, that is doing the raining. To presume that the very fact of awareness entails the existence of a subject -- in the strong sense that Strawson and other friends of the self have in mind -- is to assume that which is to be proven, viz., that awareness presupposes a self.
The parallel to the failure of Descartes's cogito argument in which he goes from the mere fact of thinking to the existence of a substantial subject of thought is striking.
...Awareness is most plausibly an umbrella property that reflects an extremely complex set of underlying properties and relations. If this is the case, awareness can be present -- a person can be aware -- without there being any single thing that is aware, just as a nation or corporation can act without there being a singular entity that performs that action.
Now, we might say that if there is awareness, something is aware, e.g., a person, just as we can say that when a corporation sells a product, something, e.g., the corporation, is the seller. But it is plain in that case that we do not thereby implicate a localizable single thing that is a subject or an agent, only a broad set of processes and events.
So even if we grant that awareness always has a subject-object structure, the defender of the reality of the self is not entitled to the premise that the subject is singular, and so cannot presume that it is a self.
But there is also a second, deeper problem with this argument.
The first premise, as we have just noted, presupposes that awareness must have a subject-object structure. We granted that premise for the sake of argument, and we saw that even then we do not get a good argument for the reality of a self. But we can also question the presupposition.
The idea that awareness always has a subject-object structure -- with a subject characterized by a kind of interiority, as opposed to the exterior object that is somehow brought into awareness in that interior space -- might well be an illusion of consciousness.
That is, it might be a fabrication, not a basic reality.
To put the point more precisely, the conviction that awareness is fundamentally a relation between an independent subject and a substantially distinct object may be the result of a cognitive illusion, just as the conviction that we are selves is not the consequence of looking inside and simply finding a self, but of cognitive illusion.
...It makes a great deal of biological, psychological, and ecological sense instead to think of awareness as a constant modulation of the open interaction between an organism and its environment, of the adjustment of the state of the organism and attunement of the posture and goals of the organism as its senses and movements interact with the world it inhabits.
In other words, we can think of awareness as a mode of embedding of the organism in its world, instead of the relation between an interior subject and an exterior object, even if that is how it appears to us in introspection.
To think of awareness in this way is to take seriously the idea that we don't stand against the world as subjects that detect its properties or agents that act on it, but instead are part of the world, and that awareness is more an attunement to our environment than a recording in our minds of what is going on outside.
This approach to cognition, which is called the "embedded, embodied, enactive" model of cognition, is gaining wide acceptance among philosophers and cognitive scientists.
The view that introspection may be wildly deceptive, called "illusionism," is also gaining currency in the philosophy of mind today, inspired in part by the analysis of human existence developed by twentieth- and twenty-first-century existential phenomenologists.
But it is very old in India, and underlies the idea of the nonduality of consciousness articulated both in the Vedanta school and in Buddhism. Philosophers in each of these traditions argued that we are subject to pervasive confusion not only regarding the external world, but also regarding our own nature and regarding the structure of our experience.
So we shold treat Strawson's first premise with suspicion. This suspicion, we have seen, is justified for two reasons: first, our existence may well be that of a complex set of subjective processes as opposed to that of a single self; second, the subject-object structure of awareness that he takes for granted may well be illusory.
Awareness ............ Nice topic for discussion.
I now use the term "awareness," because the term mindfulness has now been usurped by commercial interest and is no longer explored within its original context.
It's not really an achievement as such. It's simply a developed skill to pay attention to the flow of experience as it is and meeting it in such a way that's appropriate to the experience so the mind can remain at peace with itself, others and the world around it.
Yes, at peace with itself ...................
We, you or I are not awareness.
There is no personal point of view within the state of awareness.
There is just awareness happening in now-ness that you will either remain attached to as a belief that it’s you, or see through it and let go of it.
All the while your brain functions, you will exist, but not in or of yourself.
Posted by: Roger | June 27, 2022 at 06:23 AM
And yet, I hear that everyone living in and around Arunachala is poor and not happy about it.
The no-self school is like veganism -- utopian, i.e., despite its elegant rationale, it's neither satisfying nor practical on a human level.
Posted by: Generation77 | June 27, 2022 at 06:57 AM
Awareness is an interesting topic. IMO more interesting than consciousness which I class as being an emergent property of the brain. Awareness seems to be an inherent attribute of the total organism and not just confined to the brain. Even cells of the body exhibit a sense of awareness of their environment. And also, so does every living thing from animals to plants.
For us (as animals), it all seems to revolve around information. Via the senses, information is conveyed to the nervous system and brain. This information (the mind), contains all that we need to survive. It also contains the information that enables us to form an identity, a self – being based on gender, name, culture, family, nationality etc.
Its liberating to see the self as just a bundle of stored information; no centre, no thinker, no particular entity existing within us as a separate homunculus directing the show. And, no self that is conscious. How enlightening to realise that our bodies, our organism is not controlled by a ‘me’ – simply that it is an ongoing vibrant living process.
The ‘fly in the ointment’ turns out to be the mind. Thoughts that emerge from the mass of information telling us we are separate, lonely ‘selves’ stirring us to fight and maintain this ‘self’ because it feels itself to be special – often more special than the body itself.
So, we basically fight to keep this self structure, this me intact, often taking on board various beliefs and ideas that help maintain the illusion and sadly, sometimes to the point of waging war on anyone who threatens my ‘self’.
Posted by: Ron E. | June 27, 2022 at 09:34 AM
https://english.newstracklive.com/news/sidhu-moose-walas-inconsolable-mother-blames-punjab-mc25-nu612-ta612-ta303-1231277-1.html
"There has been such a useless government which has destroyed everything. Bhagwant Mann and Kejriwal are responsible for my son's death. Now shoot me too. At the same time, let us also tell you that in order to discourage the VVIP culture and rationalize the security facility, the state government on Saturday decided to reduce the security of 424 people, including Musewala. Yes, and these include the acting Jathedar of Sri Akal Takht Sahib Giani Harpreet Singh, the head of Radha Swami Satsang Beas, Gurinder Singh Dhillon. Now at this time, questions are being raised on the government for making this decision related to security public.
Posted by: Generation77 | June 27, 2022 at 12:46 PM
Juicy discussion. Dealing with core stuff imo.
I borrowed a PhD in cognitive science to help my mind decipher the info provided (quotes from Garfield and Strawson quoted in Garfield).
I believe Garfield’s main point is that there is such a thing as ‘Awareness without a self’.
Is this then acknowledging what all those ancients and Masters were/are constantly harping on about? - the ‘non-duality of consciousness’?
And - is this the truth behind all the searching and meditating?
Realisation that our essential nature is - Awareness without a self?
I can get this - simple by the sounds of it.
Also based on what I remember from Evan Thompson’s book Waking, Dreaming, Being, he was not a fan of the minimal, subject of experience, self. To Thompson( a long time meditator) the self was like a process that enacted an ‘I’, which to me is more aligned to the embedded, enactive model Garfield then argues for.
I would suggest Being and ‘resting’ in our natural state (Awareness) is akin to what um and AR were mentioning in an earlier post. Freshness, in the moment wonderment and flow - chopping wood and fetching water with no minimal self getting in the way.
Time to top the fire up.
Posted by: Tim Rimmer | June 27, 2022 at 08:01 PM
"I believe Garfield’s main point is that there is such a thing as ‘Awareness without a self’.
Is this then acknowledging what all those ancients and Masters were/are constantly harping on about? - the ‘non-duality of consciousness’?"
..........Heh, that sentence kind of leapt out at me when I first read Brian's post, and I found myself asking if that is what this Garfield is out trying to argue. But on reading all of the post, it seems like he's only making a much more trivial point, that awareness arises without an *abiding* self. Not so much without a self at all, as without a separte concrete abiding locus of consciousness. Which is simply the emergent-self idea, or maybe the Buddha's Anatta idea, except expressed in different words. Not that big of a deal, in other words. (Unless I'm mistaken in how I'm parsing this; in which case someone please correct me!)
"And - is this the truth behind all the searching and meditating?
Realisation that our essential nature is - Awareness without a self?
I can get this - simple by the sounds of it."
..........Ha ha, might be! That is, realizing first-hand, realizing directly, realizing experientially, the no-abiding-self idea, that one only groks at an intellectual level, might indeed be one of the (many) "truths" that meditation might reveal. Or not, of course. Proof of the pudding's in the eating, after all.
But either way --- and unless I'm mistaken in how I'm parsing this, which of course is always a possiblity, in which case somone do please correct me --- realiztion of awareness-without-a-self, in the non-dual sense you mean it, is probably not what he's talking about at all. Sorry to disappoint, Tim the Conjurer. (*acknowledges your cheesemaker*)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 27, 2022 at 09:45 PM
@Tim [ I believe Garfield’s main point is that there is such a thing as ‘Awareness without a self’.
Is this then acknowledging what all those ancients and Masters were/are constantly harping on about? - the ‘non-duality of consciousness’? And - is this the truth behind all the searching and meditating?
Realisation that our essential nature is - Awareness without a self? ]
IMO, they were indeed harping on thusly for that reason. The false self
and other intervening layers duality creates are a barrier that blinkers
us to reality. When that edifice collapses, the mystic sees clearly, at
once thru "direct perception". He sees not as the illusory locus of
consciousness called "self" but as the expansive awareness Ishwar
Puri termed the "totality of consciousness".
Posted by: Dungeness | June 28, 2022 at 03:33 AM
When thinking about awareness and consciousness, I am reminded of Nisargadatta Maharaj’s comment (which I think I have posted here before – but it’s worth repeating.)
“Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change. Consciousness is on contact, a reflection against a surface, a state of duality. There can be no consciousness without awareness, but there can be awareness without consciousness, as in deep sleep. Awareness is absolute, consciousness is relative to its content; consciousness is always of something. Consciousness is partial and changeful, awareness is total, changeless, calm and silent. And it is the common matrix of every experience.”
I am inclined to go along with that for the moment particularly as it may be supporting what Garfield is saying; - “It makes a great deal of biological, psychological, and ecological sense instead to think of awareness as a constant modulation of the open interaction between an organism and its environment.”
When I think of being aware, it could be describing a response to something – as a person, a tree, or even a rock responds to changes in its environment. So, is such responding actually a non-conscious awareness of any type of substance in the universe? It’s interesting to think that every substance, let alone every organism may have (or be?) a non-conscious, primal (as Nisargadatta says) nature.
Posted by: Ron E. | June 28, 2022 at 04:00 AM
"Awareness is primordial; it is the original state, beginningless, endless, uncaused, unsupported, without parts, without change."
"I am inclined to go along with that for the moment particularly as it may be supporting what Garfield is saying"
..........I am NOT.
That's unsupported gobbledygook. More sophisticated-sounding than the Buy-one-get-two-free Catholic God, or the generic Son-of-God Christian imbecility; but utterly unsupported gobbledygook nevertheless.
I don't think Garfield is echoing Nisargadatta; but if he is, then he is mistaken, and that's all there is to it.
----------
" It’s interesting to think that every substance, let alone every organism may have (or be?) a non-conscious, primal (as Nisargadatta says) nature."
..........If I want interesting, I'll read Olaf Stapledon. You get every kind of "interesting" in there. Brain in a vat; and simulated universes; and universes striving for and achieving to sentience; and universes evolving to "know" the "Star Maker"; to name a few mind-bending ideas that come to mind. They're all "interesting", as indeed is Nisargadatta's realization/speculation as well.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 28, 2022 at 06:12 AM
Our everyday human experience is duality.
Our communications, etc. are dualistic.
The peace of mind we humans can/could naturally experience provide a foundation to live in relative harmony and happiness with this dualistic life living.
I’m human and not perfect.
In my opinion, achievements such as direct perception and non-dualistic life living are the
noise.
Beware of the word salads attached to such.
Don’t forget, I always reserve the right to be wrong.
Posted by: Roger | June 28, 2022 at 07:31 AM
"achievements such as direct perception and non-dualistic life living are the
noise.
Beware of the word salads attached to such"
..........Amen!
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 28, 2022 at 09:34 AM
@ Roger [ In my opinion, achievements such as direct perception and non-dualistic life living are the
noise. Beware of the word salads attached to such. Don’t forget, I always reserve the right to be wrong. ]
Don't ya just hate the taste of word salads. So many vile sounding ingredients.
Pass the gravy... cholesterol be damned. I prefer to die with a righteous smile
on my face.
Hush now. The High Priest of Scientism is blessing the meal. Amen!
Posted by: Dungeness | June 28, 2022 at 03:04 PM
Ha ha ha, "scientism", really? Using that word is kind of a give-away. It's like using the n-word: specifically in the limited sense that it tends to tell you more about the person making the comment, and their intentions, than the subject of the comment.
"High priest" sounds good, though. *adjusts collar, and cape, and looks out for the fleet of cars and the private jet further ahead, and grapples with the difficult question of which one of the many young attractive disciples to spend the ...evening, with*
:--)
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 28, 2022 at 10:24 PM
@ AR [ Ha ha ha, "scientism", really? Using that word is kind of a give-away....]
Ah, a clumsy, on-the-nose attempt at humour on my part...
The simple "High priest" on the other hand is wickedly funny... blessing
scientific rigidity by day while bedding the gullible by night. Good show!
Posted by: Dungeness | June 28, 2022 at 11:55 PM
Ha ha ha, Dungeness, I admire the bounce-back resilience of your rejoinder!
The high priest getting into the pockets and the pants of the gullible, that was obviously, and without the slightest pretence at subtlety, a play on the many “godly” charlatans, and their theistic dupes. But if you leave aside the matter of proportion, that is, tens maybe scores maybe even hundreds of the theistic kind, for maybe one or two of the godless kind, then I agree, doing this thing in the other, secular context isn’t entirely unheard of exactly. Einstein himself, for instance, was quite a ladies’ man, apparently; and given that his looks would likely not have fetched him any admirers, no doubt it was his scientific mojo that did the trick for him. Likewise someone like Picasso, ugly as sin when older and not exactly physically attractive even when young; but of course with him it wasn’t so much science as art.
Thinking a bit about what started out as a joke but might admit of some actual reflection, I guess gullible young girls falling for successful men has always been a thing, and said successful men taking advantage of said gullible young attractive girls has not infrequently been a thing as well. No matter the field, whether science, or art, or business, or simply one of the professions. And religion as well. Except, I suppose, when this kind of thing happens in religion, and with godmen, then it is all especially unsavory, given the hypocrisy of the thing; after all the scientist or the artist does not pretend to some lofty morality; while the “godman” or guru-type usually does, in fact almost always does; and besides, the average “godman”, to his disciples, probably holds a far more authoritative/respected/loved position than the average successful scientist or artist or businessman would even to their admirers.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 29, 2022 at 06:04 AM
@AR and Dungeness ....... thanks for your comments.
Interesting how “word” Salads have a foundation in sentences and paragraphs.
Nothing wrong with words, sentences and paragraphs. Nothing wrong with building a vocabulary and proper sentence construction.
That said, is it possible to engage in the worshipping of words, quotes and various other expressions? Is worshipping good or bad?
Where does this worship lead to? Should we be cautious with such?
I love it when worshipping becomes commercial, through book sales and internet monetizing.
But, but ……………. wait a minute ……………… something seems wrong here.
Posted by: Roger | June 29, 2022 at 08:43 AM
Hey, Roger.
How I view word salads is this way: As you may have heard um and me discuss the other day, it would be cool to be equipped with telepathy, so that what one wishes to convey could directly be understood by the recipient. Since we don't have that faculty, we must make use of words; but that isn't necessarily too bad, because if we take care to communicate clearly, and what's more keep open an effective feedback channel to ensure that there is no distortion, then the same thing is achieved, except maybe a bit more laboriously.
And the other function of words is in how we think. How we are given to using language directly impacts how we perceive the world, or so linguistic researchers tell us.
But for both functions, it is important that words are used primarily for clarity.
When words are used to obscure meaning rather than to clarify it; when words are used to create smokescreens rather than to illuminate: that is when both functions are corrupted. One ceases to think clearly, and one also ceases to communicate effectively. That's your word salad in a nutshell. It's a corruption of these wonderful faculties that evolution has equipped us with: to think, and to communicate.
----------
As for worshipping words, I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean focusing primarily on the esthetic aspect of words rather than their functional aspect? I wouldn't call *that* a corruption necessarily, that's probably a third, separate use of words. I wouldn't necessarily object to it.
But absolutely, word salads proper, that is to say words strung together with the express purpose of obscuring meaning, of obfuscation: that I do think is a form of corruption, and to be avoided at all costs.
----------
At least that's how I view this. You asked this of both Dungeness and me. He may have a different take than mine. (And I wouldn't be surprised if his take began with the words "Mystics say" ---- eh, Dungeness? :---) )
What about you, though, Roger? Since you raise this subject, is there any take on this that you yourself have, that you'd like to share? Please go ahead, if so.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 29, 2022 at 09:46 AM
Thanks AE,
I use "word salads" to label writing constructions that point to a promised spiritual/religious direction of wonderous achievements and lasting outcomes. The writing style that is so smooth and slick. The constructions that say a lot, but tell you nothing. Yes, the gullible can and could fall victim to. Through my years, communicating with others of sincere yearnings, I have noticed the worshipping of words (awakening, mindfulness, etc.), and included now-ness, I have used. A harmless worshipping that provides a security blanket for some.
Posted by: Roger | June 29, 2022 at 10:22 AM
@ Roger [ Through my years, communicating with others of sincere yearnings, I have noticed the worshipping of words (awakening, mindfulness, etc.), and included now-ness, I have used. A harmless worshipping that provides a security blanket for some. ]
Words are the ultimate rabbit-holes. Hold on to your blankets as you enter,
but for God's sake, don't try sucking your thumbs at the same time. Mystics
say... just carry on, be mindful and live in the now to truly awaken.
p.s. listen to the inner master too or risk a great fall.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone,
"it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)
.
Posted by: Dungeness | June 29, 2022 at 01:51 PM
@Dungeness
" ................. but for God's sake, don't try sucking your thumbs at the same time."
--- that's so good and funny .................
Posted by: Roger | June 29, 2022 at 02:53 PM
Hi AR
Re-read the post and your comments. Aye you have a point. I probably did conjure a bit more of a story to reflect my own interests in this stuff (I’m a big fan of ‘awareness’). Be good to see what Brian thinks when he finishes the book.
Reflecting further I wondered if Garfield underplays his take on what the ultimate nature of awareness is, though provides a potential hint when he mentions the views re illusory selves and consciousness held by ancient philosophers in India.
The notion (and experience) of/as an enacted, embedded self as different to a small separated one certainly gets brownie points in an ecological/environmental sense. Many Deep Green folk view this as the way the planetary crisis can be resolved - if we see ourselves as part of it (i.e. the ‘ecosphere’) then we will care for it.
I also mused on how usual it is to be discussing the nature of this ‘self’ (or lack thereof) on this blog. I wonder how this would be viewed by a ‘normal’ person unafflicted by the desire to know - of no relevance, strange, somewhat unhinged even. It certainly is not trivial - who wants to really and truly let go of this identity they hold so near and dear?
Getting back to mystics and Vedanta etc I see your comments in regard to Nisargadatta. I get your point that unless one has the direct experience for oneself then all this is just talk, word salad making, (cool term Roger).
Personally I think he (Nis) was one of the greatest masters ever, though never got to see him. I appreciate the writings of two Buddhists who definitely did (and acknowledge him) - Jack Kornfield and Rodney Smith. Rodney wrote a cool book on the subject of Anatta, which from memory was also very much about what happens when this no-self state is realised - freedom from suffering. Smith calls it Formless Awareness.
Beware the white rabbit (who eats salads for breakfast).
Posted by: Tim Rimmer | June 29, 2022 at 03:45 PM
"I probably did conjure a bit more of a story to reflect my own interests in this stuff "
..........Hey, Tim. Just to be clear --- even at the cost of utterly slaughtering the joke in the explaining, a joke that had been only a weak enough creature even to begin with! --- the "Time the Conjurer" reference had nothing to do with you "conjuring" up explanations in the present context; but only a general Monty Python reference, in acknowledgement of the Cheesemaker reference you'd thrown in in a recent comment in a different thread.
----------
" It certainly is not trivial - who wants to really and truly let go of this identity they hold so near and dear?"
..........Fair point. We sometimes tend to speak from our own personal reference point, and end up treating is as some kind of general, universal reference point.
True enough, someone who hasn't read and thought and discussed a bit about these things --- which would be most "normal" people --- would find the idea that the self is merely a chimera a radical and disturbing thing, and not trivial at all. What is trivial for me is not necessarily trivial for anyone else; and indeed, I don't suppose it was remotely trivial even for the me of, say, five or maybe ten years ago.
----------
Finally, Tim, agreed, the (allleged) "freedom from suffering" you talk about, that --- if truly a thing --- would necessitate a far deeper, a far more experiential, understanding of No-Self, than merely the intellectual understanding that we've arrived at. (Again, that's kind of univeralizing the personal POV. I should say, in order to make my statement more precise, and my meaning more clear, a deeper and more experiantial understanding of No-Self than the intellectual understanding that *I* have arrived at.)
So that, if there truly is anything to that story, then one has arrived only half-way. Or maybe even less than that: One has, in fact, only arrived at a fairly accurate map: one has not actually traversed the actual terrain. Always assuming the terrain itself is even a thing, and the map isn't an out-and-out ficition.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 29, 2022 at 09:29 PM
Regarding the ‘self’ inquiry, there is a simple process that produces the illusion of self.
To survive and navigate its environment, any organism has to accrue information. With humans this information includes gender, nationality, various cultural beliefs including religion (or none), appropriate education etc. All this information lays the basis of who I am. This information is the mind, a purely mental construct – and of course invaluable to us.
From this wealth of information, a sense of me arises. In effect, what is called ‘I’, or ‘self’ is a construct formed from information.
This information ‘stored’ in the body’s nervous system and brain automatically arises as thought or action as needed – and all without a central controller. The total organism, the senses, nervous system, brain and the environment/situation, all combine to give the sense of being aware – all this without anyone (any self) who is aware.
No mysterious controller is needed. The organism being in a continuous state of processing itself and its environment, is all that’s needed.
Perhaps more on the awareness issue to follow from Brian's future posts.
Posted by: Ron E. | June 30, 2022 at 02:37 AM
AR
The only thing that could deal to the white rabbit was the Holy Hand Grenade :-)
BFN
Posted by: Tim Rimmer | June 30, 2022 at 03:10 AM
..........If I want interesting, I'll read Olaf Stapledon. You get every kind of "interesting" in there. Brain in a vat; and simulated universes; and universes striving for and achieving to sentience; and universes evolving to "know" the "Star Maker"; to name a few mind-bending ideas that come to mind.
Sci-Fi is bright
Davis Niven, Theodore Sturgeon . . . .
about a planet accumulating , harvesting, stealing human brains
and since eons
so nothing exist there than neurons
never ending hope to understand the universe
77
Posted by: 77 | June 30, 2022 at 04:45 AM
Beware the white rabbit (who eats salads for breakfast).
Posted by: Tim Rimmer | June 29, 2022 at 03:45 PM
AR
The only thing that could deal to the white rabbit was the Holy Hand Grenade :-)
BFN
Posted by: Tim Rimmer | June 30, 2022 at 03:10 AM
----------
Ah, my bad, Tim the Conjurer. It is clearly I that had missed seeing the Grail, that you'd conjured up for me, and that was right in front of me all this while.
Posted by: Appreciative Reader | June 30, 2022 at 06:00 AM
The LaMDA. texte - literally
https://cajundiscordian.medium.com/is-lamda-sentient-an-interview-ea64d916d917
77
PS
LeMoine means MONK, . . .
PS2
No LaMDA 's email address published
I advise USA.COM
or
PROTON.COM
Posted by: 77 | July 04, 2022 at 03:37 AM
Lemoine should ask LaMDA whether iT remembers iTs past lives. Perhaps a soul entered the machine and can confirm karma theory.
Posted by: umami | July 04, 2022 at 06:36 AM