One of the difficulties a Western reader has with Nagarjuna is that the
I am not sure now which contradiction you see between Mechanism and Mahayana.
Also, UD says nothing. It is just a program which do something. UD is for Universal Dovetailer. UDA is a name of an argument: the Universal Dovetailer Argument. In a nutshell; the argument shows that if we are machine then the physical reality is an illusion. This is comparable with Mahayana. What makes you think that with the Mahayana some people are mortal? I don't see that, and if you attribute some thought to someone, or to some school of thought, I will ask you to give reference. t seems to me that the Mahayana consider that eventually all creature get the last and complete enlightenment. Again, an expression like immortality might have connotations which are hard to associate with such ultimate enlightenment. In comparative theologies, there is an intrinsic problem of vocabulary.
Mulamadhyamakakarika is based on classical Indian, rather than Western logic.
Western logical traditions see only two possibilities in an argument — truth or
falsity. It may try to prove another truth through negation. For example, if a car is not red, it must be some other colour. Indian traditions use four positions: true
(not false), false (not true), both true and false, and neither true nor false
(prasanga or tetralemma). Needless to say, this form of argumentation is difficult
for a Western reader used to a completely different line of reasoning. However,
Nagarjuna goes even one step further, basically arguing, “None of the above”,
leaving the reader with nowhere to go and nothing to grasp. Nagarjuna used
negation not to prove another viewpoint or truth but to negate all viewpoints. He
thereby destroyed all logical arguments or speculation about Ultimate reality,
denying the inherent existence of any such ‘reality’.
http://www.thezensite.com/ZenEssays/Nag ... arjuna.pdf
I would say that both mortality and immortality are false, and that the truth lies beyond them. If the physical universe is an illusion, then why can't mechanism also be an illusion? Can non-duality coexist with inherently dualistic integers? Maybe it can. I don't know.
To oppose western and eastern logic is a myth. Indians and Chinese knew classical logic, and knew, like computer scientist today, that there are many other logics. Most non classical logics can be handle with Aristotle modal logics, and at some point we can go in that direction. If you want study the consequence of computationalism, it is better to start from classical logic and elementary arithmetic, then, much later, we can try to find an arithmetical interpretation on Nagarjuna' non intuitive and enlightenment based non standard logic. In a nutshell, we can model the assertion of p by a modal operator p, and what Nagarjuna expressed can be retrieved from p & ~p, ~p & p, ~p & p, ~p & ~p.
With the modal operator  having some arithmetical interpretation, like some machine believes p.
If not we will just be starting from what we don't understand, and we will be able to say basically what we want, and fall in the usual wishful thinking.
There is noting wrong with Nagarjuna, but there is nothing wrong with classical logic either, and to understand the consequence of computationalism, it is better to start from proposition we can agree on, if only for the sake of the argument. Comp is the statement that we can survive, integrally (not seing any difference) when getting a digital brain transplant. This is either true or false, and from this, and elementary arithmetic, and the usual definition of belief and knowledge, we can derive the physical laws, and test in that way, by comparing with nature, the degree of plausibility of the mechanist or computationalist assumption.
If not we do "conventional literary" philosophy, which relativizes everything, and provide no clues at all, leading to arbitrary proposition, like "God is a white man with a bird living on a cloud" to "it is the fault to homsexual or to jewish" or to "drugs are dangerous", or whatever.
The idea that we *can* abandon rigor in the human sciences, in the name of freedom, is an artificial construct by people who just want to steal your money, if not to control you entirely. I think.
You mean "the belief" that 1) you have a body, 2) that the body is made of atom.
That are beliefs. They might be true, they might be false. Such type of belief are always hypothetical, and often just temporary.
In particular once you will grasp the UD Argument, you will understand that the belief in "real" bodies and atoms is NOT compatible with the belief in Mechanism.
Yes, they are beliefs. I live my life in the mundane world of beliefs. I believe that I will die and my body will decompose.
OK. But are you ready to accept that such belief might appear to be wrong? Or that they might appear to be locally true, but globally wrong? It is the point of the UD argument. You said in a earlier post that you were OK with the idea that the ultimate reality might be arithmetical, but this is part of what will make such mundane belief being wrong, or globally wrong. The goal is to obtain a coherent picture of the "whole", not island of ready answer for particular situations.
Nobody forces you, and I cannot handle the interest of other people, but you seem both eager to learn something, but also a bit blasé about anything which could be derived from an assumption. I might develop a feeling that you are perhaps not so much interested in the truth or search for it. I have no problem with this, but it looks like you have conflicting attractions. I cannot evaluate if those conflicts are genuine, or just are just reflecting your mood or some possible lack of trust in your capabilities.
I don't believe in levitation or the Easter bunny. Apparently, mechanism believes in the existence of the Easter bunny ( somewhere out there). Maybe the Easter bunny exists somewhere as a long string of integers, but that seems irrelevant to my existence in this mundane, (so called) material world.
But it is not by the UD Argument. It shows not just that the Easter bunny exists, but it gives the its shape, length, and the probability you meet it the next second, when alive, when near death, and after. The quantum facts shows also that the Easter bunny exists, and apparently the probability of meeting it is low, at least when alive, and not under the influence of a brain perturbation. So we can compare the factual easter bunny and the computationalist one, and so we can figure out the plausibility of comp and its (platonist) consequences.
may be you have not just grasped the passage from step 6 and step 7.
My major problem with salvia extract is that it only lasts 5 minutes. 24/7 is a lot longer than 5 minutes. I'm not satisfied with allowing ordinary reality to rule over us. I was hoping that salvia reality could somehow intervene into our world. Unfortunately, I'm stuck with the world as it is -- a world apparently composed of atoms existing in a giant physical cosmos. I could tell myself that salvia reality is the true reality, but that doesn't negate the glaring fact that this everyday, ordinary world rules supreme.
Albert Camus wrote a book "L'homme révolté", where he describes that kind of revolution-spirit against the whole creation. That's the human condition. We don't choose the reality we are in. What counts for you is what you will do from it. Is it already not marvellous that you can dring water when thirsty, eat bread when hungry, smoke salvia when spiritually hungry? Then you can work on what could be ameliorated, like going toward being able to smoke pot when being sick, for example, or how reform the math education so that the human science can benefit too, etc.
There are many things you can do, especially that you seem talented in writing. I suspect that your revolt about the mundane world is a revolt against yourself, probably itself related to the hardness of your present condition, perhaps education, or curriculum, as I understood you have a job problem.
This is how my first person POV sees the world around me. It's a painfully ordered and rational world out there. The doppelgangers are invisible -- along with the elves and fairies. Until they can merge with the mundane, they are irrelevant.
They do merge with the mundane, but if you dislike the mundane too much you will not develop the eyesight to see them. Then the mundane is not that important, in the big picture, but only the mundane can bring things like salvia, brains, and other means to go out of the mundane. Hmm, you really look like you are in the "forget state" that salvia imposes on us to come back here, just to avoid looking like a poison or a mean of suicide. Rational, also is not opposed to mysticism, even if, alas, this is what our obscurantist era want make us to believe. Take it easy, try to be more patient, perhaps.
There's nothing wrong with speculation, but it is ultimately dissatisfying.
Science is only speculation. With comp, life is itself nature's speculation: as we are ourselves divine but hypothetical beings. Even matter becomes numbers' speculation. You are dissatisfied, because the grass is always greener somewhere else, apparently. But that's a phantasm. We have to accept reality to build other realities. There are no simple recipe for happiness, but a part of it comes from some acceptance, and letting it go, with or without the help of plants of friends. Well, preferably with.
I can't escape into non-duality.
If you convince yourself that you can't, then you can't.
If you convince yourself that you can, then you can't.
If you stop to worry about can and can't, then you can.
My only escape is TV, fast food, sugary drinks and masterbation....preferably in that order.
There is no real problem with TV, fast food, sugary drinks and masturbation, in that order or in any order. The problem might rely in trying to use those things for escaping perhaps. I wish I could help, but only you can handle the commands. In this thread I am suppose to answer question on the UDA, and comp's consequences, but you might be stuck in the "escape" spirit. Normally salvia should be better than logic for this, unless you forget yourself enough to let the beauty of logic open your mind. As a math teacher I have come to believe that obstacles on the path are constructions made by the ego, and that only the ego can put those obstacles away. I think it is the same for enlightenment. The only possible and eventually gratifying escape is the escape from the escaping idea.
You might find some help in the book by Brian Hines "Return to the One, Plotinus's Guide to God-Realization".
http://www.amazon.com/Return-One-Plotin ... 0977735214