Friam

DEBATE about Religion and Atheism

Classic

List

Threaded

27 messages Options

glen ropella

Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling

Sarbajit Roy wrote at 09/30/2012 10:28 AM:

> The Gita, however, (as I'm fairly sure the Old Testament does too)
> expresses that once a man's side is determined, he is obliged by DUTY
> to do what is "right", even if it involves heinous killings on a
> massive scale or even the killing of his close relatives. DUTY is one
> of the core elements of Dharma (the way of righteousness). Of course
> DUTY cannot be taken in isolation, because the essence of the Gita is
> the continuous weighing of choices between the Dharmic Law (kill /
> harm nobody) versus the inferior Niti (Penal) Law (slay all offenders
> on sight). Gita 1:30, 2:31 etc.
>
> So DUTY would probably be compressible. I am an ant, so I'm duty bound
> to pick up every speck of sugar I can find and convey it back to the
> mother ship.

Yep. I'm totally ignorant of Gita. But this one clause suggests to me
that duty is compressible, by (my) definition:

"Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities ..."

Incompressible (components of) systems are initiators of cause rather
than passive transmitters of cause. If a duty is defined by removing
one's _self_ from the situation, detachment, then it's definitely not
prima causa.

But I wonder, also, about the Dharmic Law, which sound like _rules_ to
me ... rules have an input and an output, mindlessly transmitting cause
from the former to the latter. Is there any inherent "be present", "pay
attention", "be attached", "be the change you want to see", take
responsibility for your actions element to Dharmic Law? If not, then
it, too, is compressible.

To promote an agent to an actor, we have to make it a prima causa, give
it the ability to _start_ a causal chain ... or at least affect someone
else's chain in a way that couldn't happen were it not present.

Note that an actor's influence on the propagation of events need not be
unique. I.e. 2 different actors could produce the same result. But in
order for it to actually be an actor rather than an agent, the result
cannot be "optimized out", so to speak. An actor can only be
(perfectly) replaced by another actor ... though an agent can
approximate/simulate an actor.

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Prof David West

Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling

I hesitate to jump in as I was taught the Bhavagad Gita by a
professor/translator, not my mother or my local guru.

But, as I was taught ...

"duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the
story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding
between two contradictory laws - but between attached and non-attached
action. Only the latter avoids the accrual of Karma (western spelling).
Non-attachment is definitively not detachment (detachment is an instance
of attachment). Non-attachment is acting with "perfect knowledge" that
the action is the "right" action in that context, with context being the
totality of the world. (A kind of omniscience, the possibility of which
is for another time and place.)

An action taken because "it is my duty," "blood will make me happy," "I
believe the end result will bring about world peace," "I am afraid,"
"but they are my kinsmen" - is an attached action. You act on the
delusional perception that doing so makes a difference and that you are
the causal source of that difference. Only when you know that you are
merely the means by which a correct action expresses itself are you
truly non-attached and free from acquiring yet more Karma.

I stand ready to be corrected by those more knowledgeable.

And how this affects compressible/non-compressible I haven't a clue.

dave west

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 03:24 PM, glen wrote:

> Sarbajit Roy wrote at 09/30/2012 10:28 AM:
> > The Gita, however, (as I'm fairly sure the Old Testament does too)
> > expresses that once a man's side is determined, he is obliged by DUTY
> > to do what is "right", even if it involves heinous killings on a
> > massive scale or even the killing of his close relatives. DUTY is one
> > of the core elements of Dharma (the way of righteousness). Of course
> > DUTY cannot be taken in isolation, because the essence of the Gita is
> > the continuous weighing of choices between the Dharmic Law (kill /
> > harm nobody) versus the inferior Niti (Penal) Law (slay all offenders
> > on sight). Gita 1:30, 2:31 etc.
> >
> > So DUTY would probably be compressible. I am an ant, so I'm duty bound
> > to pick up every speck of sugar I can find and convey it back to the
> > mother ship.
>
>
> Yep. I'm totally ignorant of Gita. But this one clause suggests to me
> that duty is compressible, by (my) definition:
>
> "Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities ..."
>
> Incompressible (components of) systems are initiators of cause rather
> than passive transmitters of cause. If a duty is defined by removing
> one's _self_ from the situation, detachment, then it's definitely not
> prima causa.
>
> But I wonder, also, about the Dharmic Law, which sound like _rules_ to
> me ... rules have an input and an output, mindlessly transmitting cause
> from the former to the latter. Is there any inherent "be present", "pay
> attention", "be attached", "be the change you want to see", take
> responsibility for your actions element to Dharmic Law? If not, then
> it, too, is compressible.
>
> To promote an agent to an actor, we have to make it a prima causa, give
> it the ability to _start_ a causal chain ... or at least affect someone
> else's chain in a way that couldn't happen were it not present.
>
> Note that an actor's influence on the propagation of events need not be
> unique. I.e. 2 different actors could produce the same result. But in
> order for it to actually be an actor rather than an agent, the result
> cannot be "optimized out", so to speak. An actor can only be
> (perfectly) replaced by another actor ... though an agent can
> approximate/simulate an actor.
>
> --
> glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

glen ropella

Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling

The only way I can imagine detachment being a form of attachment would
be that both attachment and detachment are limited to _partial_
[de|at]tachment. I.e. non-attachment must be some sort of singularity
approachable from either direction.

http://www.wuala.com/gepr/public/singularity.svg/?mode=list

But if that's the case, then we're guilty of equivocating on the word
"attachment". Perhaps replacing "detachment" with "anti-attachment"
might prevent the equivocation.

Prof David West wrote at 10/01/2012 04:21 PM:
> "duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the
> story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding
> between two contradictory laws - but between attached and non-attached
> action. Only the latter avoids the accrual of Karma (western spelling).
> Non-attachment is definitively not detachment (detachment is an instance
> of attachment). Non-attachment is acting with "perfect knowledge" that
> the action is the "right" action in that context, with context being the
> totality of the world. (A kind of omniscience, the possibility of which
> is for another time and place.)

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Russ Abbott

Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling

Think of attachment as: I must ensure that X comes to pass. I want it so badly.

Think of detachment as: I must not want so badly that X comes to pass. I must stay detached.

Think of non-attachment as: I may participate in the process whereby X comes to pass -- or doesn't come to pass. If I participate I may go all out in my participation. I may care very much whether X comes to pass. It it does, I may feel very happy. If it doesn't I may feel very sad. But whether or not X comes to pass I still have my laundry to do.

-- Russ

On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 5:40 PM, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

The only way I can imagine detachment being a form of attachment would
be that both attachment and detachment are limited to _partial_
[de|at]tachment. I.e. non-attachment must be some sort of singularity
approachable from either direction.

http://www.wuala.com/gepr/public/singularity.svg/?mode=list

But if that's the case, then we're guilty of equivocating on the word
"attachment". Perhaps replacing "detachment" with "anti-attachment"
might prevent the equivocation.

Prof David West wrote at 10/01/2012 04:21 PM:
> "duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the
> story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding
> between two contradictory laws - but between attached and non-attached
> action. Only the latter avoids the accrual of Karma (western spelling).
> Non-attachment is definitively not detachment (detachment is an instance
> of attachment). Non-attachment is acting with "perfect knowledge" that
> the action is the "right" action in that context, with context being the
> totality of the world. (A kind of omniscience, the possibility of which
> is for another time and place.)

--
glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Carl Tollander

Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling

In reply to this post by glen ropella

It's sort of like being cool.

If you act like you're cool, and go around telling yourself how cool you
are, you're not cool.
If you care about whether or not you're cool, you're not cool.
So if you get invested in how much you're not caring about whether or
not you're cool, you're still not cool, you just think you are. And so on...
So it is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of coolness to not
care about how cool you are.

Same goes for hot.

Carl

On 10/1/12 6:40 PM, glen wrote:

> The only way I can imagine detachment being a form of attachment would
> be that both attachment and detachment are limited to _partial_
> [de|at]tachment. I.e. non-attachment must be some sort of singularity
> approachable from either direction.
>
> http://www.wuala.com/gepr/public/singularity.svg/?mode=list
>
> But if that's the case, then we're guilty of equivocating on the word
> "attachment". Perhaps replacing "detachment" with "anti-attachment"
> might prevent the equivocation.
>
> Prof David West wrote at 10/01/2012 04:21 PM:
>> "duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the
>> story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding
>> between two contradictory laws - but between attached and non-attached
>> action. Only the latter avoids the accrual of Karma (western spelling).
>> Non-attachment is definitively not detachment (detachment is an instance
>> of attachment). Non-attachment is acting with "perfect knowledge" that
>> the action is the "right" action in that context, with context being the
>> totality of the world. (A kind of omniscience, the possibility of which
>> is for another time and place.)
>

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling

In reply to this post by glen ropella

Attachment / de-attachment / non-attachment etc are distractions from
the 2 paths

A) The path of self knowledge for people on the threshhold of enlightenment.
B) The path of selfless service for the others.

I can't really "explain" these things because of language and societal
differences.

Most of what we are discussing here has already been resolved in the Gita,
a tolerably good simple English online version is here (please dont
treat the Gita as a religious book - its a societal book with "rules")
http://www.ourpathtogod.com/bhagavadgita/index.htm
by about chapter 5 the answers should be clear.

Without giving anything away :

It is about man as an "agent" without memory (or rudimentary memory)
pre-programed by a higher evolved Being (with complete memory) to
"act" in the "right" way depending on circumstances and "anticipation"
of possible outcomes. [robots to terraform Mars]

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, glen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> The only way I can imagine detachment being a form of attachment would
> be that both attachment and detachment are limited to _partial_
> [de|at]tachment. I.e. non-attachment must be some sort of singularity
> approachable from either direction.
>
> http://www.wuala.com/gepr/public/singularity.svg/?mode=list
>
> But if that's the case, then we're guilty of equivocating on the word
> "attachment". Perhaps replacing "detachment" with "anti-attachment"
> might prevent the equivocation.
>
> Prof David West wrote at 10/01/2012 04:21 PM:
>> "duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the
>> story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding
>> between two contradictory laws - but between attached and non-attached
>> action. Only the latter avoids the accrual of Karma (western spelling).
>> Non-attachment is definitively not detachment (detachment is an instance
>> of attachment). Non-attachment is acting with "perfect knowledge" that
>> the action is the "right" action in that context, with context being the
>> totality of the world. (A kind of omniscience, the possibility of which
>> is for another time and place.)
>
>
> --
> glen
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>

Sarbajit Roy (testing)

Re: DEBATE about Religion and Atheism - modeling

In reply to this post by Prof David West

Hi David

The only place I would somewhat differ with your analysis is on the
"accrual" of Karma.

My own view is that Gita refers to 2 control loops

The Outer (slower / higher) Loop is on "semi-attached" Ethical evolved
norms. Analogous to a Voltage loop

There is a faster Inner Loop acting on situational / contextual
attachments (feedback) analogous to the Current Loop.

In the context of Arjuna's dilemma, the Arjuna killing software
(programmed into the Kshatriya warrior caste) has encountered an
unprogrammed situation - "can I kill my own analogs ?". The software
then breaks out of the inner loop (via error handler / maintenance
handler) and "Krishna" the Outer Loop reprograms Arjuna to continue
the killing .. "you do your job because the others are doing theirs".

I recall a paper by Peter van Roy (no relation) on "Overcoming
software fragility with inter-acting feedback loops and reversible
phase transitions" which helped me understand some of it.

www.info.ucl.ac.be/~pvr/bcs08vanroy.pdf

Sarbajit

On 10/2/12, Prof David West <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I hesitate to jump in as I was taught the Bhavagad Gita by a
> professor/translator, not my mother or my local guru.
>
> But, as I was taught ...
>
> "duty has almost nothing to do with the philosophical lesson of the
> story. Arjuna's dilemma is not between kill and not kill, or deciding
> between two contradictory laws - but between attached and non-attached
> action. Only the latter avoids the accrual of Karma (western spelling).
> Non-attachment is definitively not detachment (detachment is an instance
> of attachment). Non-attachment is acting with "perfect knowledge" that
> the action is the "right" action in that context, with context being the
> totality of the world. (A kind of omniscience, the possibility of which
> is for another time and place.)
>
> An action taken because "it is my duty," "blood will make me happy," "I
> believe the end result will bring about world peace," "I am afraid,"
> "but they are my kinsmen" - is an attached action. You act on the
> delusional perception that doing so makes a difference and that you are
> the causal source of that difference. Only when you know that you are
> merely the means by which a correct action expresses itself are you
> truly non-attached and free from acquiring yet more Karma.
>
> I stand ready to be corrected by those more knowledgeable.
>
> And how this affects compressible/non-compressible I haven't a clue.
>
> dave west
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 1, 2012, at 03:24 PM, glen wrote:
>> Sarbajit Roy wrote at 09/30/2012 10:28 AM:
>> > The Gita, however, (as I'm fairly sure the Old Testament does too)
>> > expresses that once a man's side is determined, he is obliged by DUTY
>> > to do what is "right", even if it involves heinous killings on a
>> > massive scale or even the killing of his close relatives. DUTY is one
>> > of the core elements of Dharma (the way of righteousness). Of course
>> > DUTY cannot be taken in isolation, because the essence of the Gita is
>> > the continuous weighing of choices between the Dharmic Law (kill /
>> > harm nobody) versus the inferior Niti (Penal) Law (slay all offenders
>> > on sight). Gita 1:30, 2:31 etc.
>> >
>> > So DUTY would probably be compressible. I am an ant, so I'm duty bound
>> > to pick up every speck of sugar I can find and convey it back to the
>> > mother ship.
>>
>>
>> Yep. I'm totally ignorant of Gita. But this one clause suggests to me
>> that duty is compressible, by (my) definition:
>>
>> "Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities ..."
>>
>> Incompressible (components of) systems are initiators of cause rather
>> than passive transmitters of cause. If a duty is defined by removing
>> one's _self_ from the situation, detachment, then it's definitely not
>> prima causa.
>>
>> But I wonder, also, about the Dharmic Law, which sound like _rules_ to
>> me ... rules have an input and an output, mindlessly transmitting cause
>> from the former to the latter. Is there any inherent "be present", "pay
>> attention", "be attached", "be the change you want to see", take
>> responsibility for your actions element to Dharmic Law? If not, then
>> it, too, is compressible.
>>
>> To promote an agent to an actor, we have to make it a prima causa, give
>> it the ability to _start_ a causal chain ... or at least affect someone
>> else's chain in a way that couldn't happen were it not present.
>>
>> Note that an actor's influence on the propagation of events need not be
>> unique. I.e. 2 different actors could produce the same result. But in
>> order for it to actually be an actor rather than an agent, the result
>> cannot be "optimized out", so to speak. An actor can only be
>> (perfectly) replaced by another actor ... though an agent can
>> approximate/simulate an actor.
>>
>> --
>> glen
>>
>> ============================================================
>> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
>> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>