Sorry I missed your post, jdlaw. I tend to miss posts if a person posts on the back of their previous post without anyone else posting in-between.
jdlaw wrote:I added the back cover text. I think too many people have just accepted the Turing Halting Problem as sacrosanct and the reason that there will never be a computer that computes experience.
Let's think of the two following phrases.
1) There is neither "a computer that computes experience," nor, "a computer that does not compute experience."
2) There is neither "a self," nor, "not a self/no-self" (refer to my previous post).
On the face of it, we are in the realm of polarities colliding. These two phrases are, in fact, saying something is beyond the two binary categories. Actually, these are 'Koans' (
a paradox to be meditated upon that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to abandon ultimate dependence on reason and to force them into gaining sudden intuitive enlightenment - Merriam-Webster) to trick a person out of the illusion of binary categories!
Moreover, if a person believes there is a "self" then they oppose the idea of "no-self." If a person believes in “no-self” then they oppose the idea of "self." This splitting of the mind manifests in a multitude of ways, just like when a person believes that "a computer cannot compute experience" projects onto another that they are wrong if they believe that "a computer does compute experience."
By the way, I'm not opposed to any of your ideas jdlaw, since I'll always remain impartial. :-)
Furthermore, the aforementioned, doesn't mean letting go of the categories of "self" or "no-self," etc. There are neither "categories" nor are there "not categories." Indeed, binary thinking is a reflexive cognitive function, but, what is behind that cognitive function?
