How to KNOW that one is a machine?

[iamthatis]

Yes indeed, specially if you take into account the constellation worth of actions that we have absolutely no awareness of that go on inside our bodies that take place and keep us alive and healthy, mitosis for one, or recovery from illness.. even digestion is an entire system of complex actions that we've no awareness for.

In that sense, I believe that having the ability to turn certain actions unconscious isn't entirely bad per se, even new habits that replace older one that we wish to get rid of, hopefully they will become part of the set of actions we have integrated so that we have room to tackle new ones.

Yeah this is one of the things that Jorden Peterson says is very useful. Practice something until it becomes automatic, and then it becomes its own mini-personality, or mini-machine that will basically run itself. I can't find his video where he mentions this in all of its neuro-psychological glory.

An interesting one I did find is his talk below about the hypothalamus. Apparently one can remove the entire brain from a cat, leaving only the hypothalamus and the spinal cord, and it will continue to function as a normal enough cat, aside from being hyper-exploratory due to there being no memory function, so the poor kitty doesn't know what it hasn't explored before. The hypothalamus impels us to take care of many functions like hunger, thirst, reproduction, etc. When these drives aren't met, the hypothalamus gets us to stop and explore. So there's a sort of machine-like drive to the hypothalamus, but we are different than machines because we don't simply break down when we don't get what we want (ideally!).

 

[Alejo]

An interesting one I did find is his talk below about the hypothalamus. Apparently one can remove the entire brain from a cat, leaving only the hypothalamus and the spinal cord, and it will continue to function as a normal enough cat, aside from being hyper-exploratory due to there being no memory function, so the poor kitty doesn't know what it hasn't explored before. The hypothalamus impels us to take care of many functions like hunger, thirst, reproduction, etc. When these drives aren't met, the hypothalamus gets us to stop and explore. So there's a sort of machine-like drive to the hypothalamus, but we are different than machines because we don't simply break down when we don't get what we want (ideally!).

Well, if you don't get food or water for long enough, you do start to break.. or rather, your body starts to adapt to the new reality and that has consequences. And interestingly, a machine... beyond the automaton, also has another property, it was designed as such... and so were we.

So, perhaps another way to look at it, if machine seems not to capture the complexity of humanity, is to look at the intelligence of the design of ourselves, a design that can live without a lot of conscious choices, but that also has the capacity to develop consciousness about itself and grow more complex, without expiring.

 

[Nienna]

So, perhaps another way to look at it, if machine seems not to capture the complexity of humanity, is to look at the intelligence of the design of ourselves, a design that can live without a lot of conscious choices, but that also has the capacity to develop consciousness about itself and grow more complex, without expiring.

This leads to what I have been thinking about lately; that the brain is a tool of the soul/consciousness used to run and take care of the body which makes it possible for the soul/consciousness to make the decisions of right and wrong and what to do to learn the lessons here so that it can become more aware and knowledgeable if it is aware enough that it can do so.

 

[Alejo]

This leads to what I have been thinking about lately; that the brain is a tool of the soul/consciousness used to run and take care of the body which makes it possible for the soul/consciousness to make the decisions of right and wrong and what to do to learn the lessons here so that it can become more aware and knowledgeable if it is aware enough that it can do so.

Right, it's the place where the mind seats... sort of like the brain is the control interface for the physiological vehicles we inhabit.

 

[Yas]

Because I'm currently reading 'The Matter With Things' any time humans are compared to machines I am primed to be very resistant to the idea. McGilchrist summarises all the ways in which humans, and all living things, are not machines and all the problems associated with them being seen as machines by modern scientific thinking. It's a fascinating summary of how left hemisphere dominant perception of the world (especially in the extreme cases of schizophrenia, autism and split brain patients) is inclined towards this view. I just don't feel as comfortable as I used to be thinking in terms of 'functions, operation or programs' when talking about human beings.

I understand this. I think that for many people, it isn't comfortable to think of human beings as machines, and I don't think that's a good term to describe all human complexity and experience either. Yet, our bodies are in some way something like a biological machine, a very complex one and one that has the ability to connect or "interface" with consciousness, but that works in a machine-like way. And that isn't something bad per se.

That's also a thing I'd like to mention, we tend to think of the automatic functions of our "machines" as something bad and evil and that isn't necessarily the case. True, some of it isn't helpful, some of it is designed in a way that can become an impairment for growth and consciousness, but we can also think of it as wonderful in some ways too.

Think of our capacity to respond to 3D reality, like, for example, life-threatening events, by pumping hormones that make our bodies respond quickly to the situation. That's not bad, it's a good think we have that automatic response, as it is good that our hearts can pump blood and we can breathe automatically. But, of course, when the threat system is constantly activated when there's no threat, it can create all sorts of problems that can impair our growth and even damage our overall health. So we need to to be aware of when some of our systems aren't working properly and kind of repair them, so to say (or learn how to work with it so that it doesn't impair our growth so much, too, because some are just natural aspects of how our bodies work, so they don't need repair, just awareness).

And then there's also the incredible ability the body has to heal itself. And we can learn to work with it to help it heal, for example.

And there's this:

This leads to what I have been thinking about lately; that the brain is a tool of the soul/consciousness used to run and take care of the body which makes it possible for the soul/consciousness to make the decisions of right and wrong and what to do to learn the lessons here so that it can become more aware and knowledgeable if it is aware enough that it can do so.

So, it can be a tool used for good too.

But of course, that doesn't mean that the concept of machines isn't a good one in some way. It can help us see the machine-like aspects of ourselves and grow in awareness so that we can work on some of the bad aspects of that machine-like behavior.

I like how Nancy Colier, author of Inviting a Monkey to Tea talks about some of this. With my own words, she talks about how our minds can behave like monkeys, like, all over the place with automatic thoughts, feelings, etc, coming up all the time and out of nowhere. And that we can't expect it to behave differently, that's a dead-end because that's its nature, yet, if we develop an awareness that is separated from the contents of our mind and stop identifying so much with the contents of it, we can build a space where we are the observer and start choosing what we pay attention to. We don't need to pay attention to or believe in all that is being produced by our minds, which is in many ways influenced by our physiology and lots of other factors, we can learn to be more aware and choose.

I find this interesting because we tend to identify so much with our thoughts that we may believe our mind is our consciousness, and maybe part of it is indeed part of our consciousness (or at least some of what allows our consciousness to manifest), but, she brings up the idea that our thoughts are automatic in nature and that our consciousness lies in the awareness we build as observers (and choosers) over our automatic minds.

So going back to the first question in this thread, perhaps the key is to build our awareness of our machine-like behavior and, yes, it doesn't help to try to portray ALL human experience as mechanical, but it helps to know that there's a lot that is indeed mechanical and that only by building this awareness and working on what we can see, we can become less mechanical. I also think it's similar to the Gurdjieffian metaphor of the house and all the servants that don't have a steward, and it is all a mess, so we have to build a steward who can kind of organize the servants before the master can arrive. For most, it would be a lifelong work, sure, but in the end, we're here to learn so maybe we can see it as just another part of our lessons.

 

[Wandering Star]

So going back to the first question in this thread, perhaps the key is to build our awareness of our machine-like behavior and, yes, it doesn't help to try to portray ALL human experience as mechanical, but it helps to know that there's a lot that is indeed mechanical and that only by building this awareness and working on what we can see, we can become less mechanical. I also think it's similar to the Gurdjieffian metaphor of the house and all the servants that don't have a steward, and it is all a mess, so we have to build a steward who can kind of organize the servants before the master can arrive. For most, it would be a lifelong work, sure, but in the end, we're here to learn so maybe we can see it as just another part of our lessons.

I very much agree with you in what you say in your post and in particular in this quote.

 

[Andrey]

Lots of insightful comments so far.

I have personally been playing around with the idea of man as machine on a more literal level (as a thought experiment), even for actions that don't seem so machine-like at first glance. Even the process of a highly creative act or manifesting a new invention, when investigated with the hypothesis that it is also as equally mechanical, shows (at least to me) some traces of machine-like quality. There are very few people who dive into a creative act with a fully formed impression of what they would like to accomplish. For most people, it is more of a "create as you go along" mentality and see what happens. This I can attest to for myself when I used to create instrumentals on my computer back in the day. Sometimes I had faint traces of what I would like to compose, but for the most part, I'd experiment with different sounds and melodies, etc., and layer upon layer I usually just made it up as I went along until it started sounding good to me. I imagine this process must be the same for most people out there who are into the arts.

This does not account for sudden flashes of brilliant ideas that many people have that sets the stage for world changing ideas, inventions, arts, etc. This does not seem to be very mechanical. However, I imagine a more conscious individual would be able to have brilliant ideas way more often than less conscious people. Let us also take into account the "brilliant" ideas that have had negative impacts on society. If we take the latter into consideration, one can make the argument that "brilliant ideas" are also equally mechanical. I suppose there are levels to this.

This brings me to the idea of Gurdjieff's subjective and objective art and I will speak only in relation to artistic creations. I imagine a fully conscious person could create a piece of art that is significantly more profound or beautiful than a piece of art created by less conscious persons. I imagine the conscious individual begins the piece with fully formed impressions and sets out to recreate what he/she sees in his/her mind to the tee.

Anyways, my idea is that when Gurdjieff talks about people being literal machines until they become more conscious and awake, I think he may be onto something to SOME degree, though this can seem like a pretty harsh way of looking at human beings. This idea also doesn't take it account the absolute reality of the suffering human beings experience throughout their lives. If we were literal machines, we wouldn't suffer or feel emotions. With that being said, I think when we do the Work on ourselves, it might be a good idea to apply the "literal machine" concept as a metaphor for ourselves only as far as it can be beneficial for the work, but to not take the idea too literally, especially in relation to others, otherwise you might end up treating people in a cruel manner. I've seen this happen in some 4th way groups I looked at on facebook, where they violate the free will of others with the explanation that they are "just machines" and don't have a will of their own.

So the "literal machine" idea can be a double edged sword. It could be beneficial when applied to the self when doing the Work; detrimental when applied to anyone other than the self. External consideration should probably be exercised here.

Anyways, just thinking out loud. I'm sure I missed the mark on some things in this post, so any kind of feedback is welcome. Thanks for reading.

 

[Goemon_]

Anyways, just thinking out loud. I'm sure I missed the mark on some things in this post, so any kind of feedback is welcome. Thanks for reading.

If we were literal machines, we wouldn't suffer or feel emotions.

I don't see why we could not have mechanical emotions. Someone push one of your buttons as we say and you have an automatic emotional reaction. Same with suffering. Now, when you start noticing your own reaction you can neutralize the automatic reaction. That is part of the work.

I've seen this happen in some 4th way groups I looked at on facebook, where they violate the free will of others with the explanation that they are "just machines" and don't have a will of their own.

So the "literal machine" idea can be a double edged sword. It could be beneficial when applied to the self when doing the Work; detrimental when applied to anyone other than the self. External consideration should probably be exercised here.

Well, if you use a machine, let say a computer, you don't violate freewill. So, maybe I am misreading between the line here but, maybe what you think you observed as a violation of free will is not always a violation of free will. Not violating free will is very hard, though.

I have in mind things that G was accused of being kind of evil, when he would make money out of credulous people, when I see it as giving them what they asked for.

Of course, I could be wrong.

 

[Goemon_]

Session 11 June 2011:

Q: (L) The kind that just don't want to be cruel to animals identify with the animals more strongly. They just don't have anything else. And then those that think it's spiritual, they're just kind of like New Age fundies. (Ailen) Yeah, but I was thinking that there might be some kind of difference in their essence or genes in the sense that some of them make a choice...

A: Not really. The only evidence for "soul potential" is the realization that the body is just a machine and needs optimal fuel.

That fit the discussion, although it's about the body as being a machine and I am pretty sure we could say that a man is not just a body.

 

[Andrey]

I don't see why we could not have mechanical emotions. Someone push one of your buttons as we say and you have an automatic emotional reaction. Same with suffering. Now, when you start noticing your own reaction you can neutralize the automatic reaction. That is part of the work.

I agree with your point about mechanical emotions and how we may respond emotionally to external stimuli. What I meant to say is that the reality of the experience of suffering as a human should be looked upon with empathy and compassion for a sentient lifeform and not as a machine reacting to stimuli. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, thinking like that (as a concept) within the context of Work on the self is fine, but I think the feeling of compassion, empathy or sadness one may feel upon witnessing human suffering is the appropriate response rather than seeing them as literal machines, even if they are suffering due to mechanicalness.

There are so many factors involved if we take into consideration concepts derived from the channeling transcripts regarding the law of free will, lesson plans, etc. If these concepts are true, then man becomes less a literal machine, and more a magical being (best term I could come up with right now!), wouldn't you say?

 

[Goemon_]

There are so many factors involved if we take into consideration concepts derived from the channeling transcripts regarding the law of free will, lesson plans, etc. If these concepts are true, then man becomes less a literal machine, and more a magical being (best term I could come up with right now!), wouldn't you say?

I would agree. I am just not sure what to make of people who seems to just follow every new narrative provided by the PTB. Are they really evolving ?

 

[Candice]

What I meant to say is that the reality of the experience of suffering as a human should be looked upon with empathy and compassion for a sentient lifeform and not as a machine reacting to stimuli. Like I mentioned in an earlier post, thinking like that (as a concept) within the context of Work on the self is fine, but I think the feeling of compassion, empathy or sadness one may feel upon witnessing human suffering is the appropriate response rather than seeing them as literal machines, even if they are suffering due to mechanicalness.

Yet humans are in fact biological “machines reacting to stimuli”, it’s just the truth of reality. I’m not sure why seeing and comprehending the state of humanity, especially the modern human somehow negates the possibility of both knowing this information and having compassion for humanity in this state.

If you’re telling people outside of the work they’re machines then that lacks external consideration and is rather pointless. However you mentioned people in 4th way fb groups discussing this and I can’t see how that violates free will? It would be an impossibility to discuss 4th way work by tiptoeing around the biggest tenet of both the literature and the Work itself.

This reminds me of liberals who would rather call a man a woman than state the truth because that’s the “compassionate” thing to do.

If these concepts are true, then man becomes less a literal machine, and more a magical being (best term I could come up with right now!), wouldn't you say?

Could you elaborate on that?

 

[Andrey]

Yet humans are in fact biological “machines reacting to stimuli”, it’s just the truth of reality. I’m not sure why seeing and comprehending the state of humanity, especially the modern human somehow negates the possibility of both knowing this information and having compassion for humanity in this state.

If you’re telling people outside of the work they’re machines then that lacks external consideration and is rather pointless. However you mentioned people in 4th way fb groups discussing this and I can’t see how that violates free will? It would be an impossibility to discuss 4th way work by tiptoeing around the biggest tenet of both the literature and the Work itself.

This reminds me of liberals who would rather call a man a woman than state the truth because that’s the “compassionate” thing to do.

Hi Candice,

You are correct, I have been unconsciously assuming you can't have one without the other so that is a mistake on my part and it is something to think about. I think for people who are doing the work, there would be an element of being merciless with the self (though this can also be a limiting sentiment) and viewing self as machine through a more cold and objective but penetrating lens. I've done this to some degree to myself, but it often teeters into being unnecessarily cruel towards the self. I notice a few times that when I have an attitude of compassion and empathy for my mechanical self, I feel more whole. So I guess it is important to strike some sort of balance between the contrasting attitudes.

Fourth way literature in general can come off a bit cold, and it seems sometimes that many people who take it up as part of their developmental path also adopt this attitude towards not just other students, but sometimes towards the rest of humanity as well. It can be challenging to find the "compassion and empathy" factor in this philosophy, but it is there, just not as obvious I guess. Gurdjieff himself I think adopted a more sympathetic and compassionate view towards humanity in his later years as opposed to his younger years when he had (it seems) a colder, harsher approach to the work.

As far as the fb group I mentioned, some person was sort of bragging about how he got someone to easily do his bidding. Someone else commented that what he did was not a cool thing to do, and he replied back with a comment saying that the person he manipulated into doing his bidding is merely a machine and had no will of his own and that somehow justifies it. I've seen this happen with other groups as well, where they twist elements of 4th way philosophy for self-serving ends.

Could you elaborate on that?

Well, I'm not trying to get too much into new age woo here, and I am well aware of the story of the evil magician hypnotizing his flock into thinking they are something other than what they really are so please bear with me here!

Taking into account everything we have learned through the transcripts, other spiritual and metaphysical sources, observing human nature at it's best, and analyzing the anomalous events in our personal lives and humanity at large, you can make a decent case for human beings being higher order intelligences having a human experience. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. It really depends on things like FRV, etc., where you can perceive the truth about things more frequently. Some of the things I was into back in the days, I found so great that I assumes it could have only come from a magical source, and looking at those same things now it doesn't have the same effect, and the things I find "magical" today seem to be more sophisticated and have more substance to it.

Anyways, unsure what my point is and not sure what I meant with man being a magical being. It seems if ordinary mechanical man or woman has the universal right to free will as much as more conscious men and women and is undergoing life lessons of their own, wouldn't that make him/her more or less on the same level as higher order beings? I don't know just sort of rambling at this point. I'll try to think of a better way of articulating what I'm thinking and get back to you.

 

[Candice]

I think for people who are doing the work, there would be an element of being merciless with the self (though this can also be a limiting sentiment) and viewing self as machine through a more cold and objective but penetrating lens. I've done this to some degree to myself, but it often teeters into being unnecessarily cruel towards the self.

Something you can do is while you’re observing yourself is try to see where these feelings of coldness and cruelty are coming from and why you feel that way.

For me self observation and finally observing an elusive part of myself no matter if it’s good or “bad” I feel joy. I love discovering more about myself and knowing why I do what I do. For example recently I was having a discussion about something with my partner and we were talking about pride, I’ve found it to be one of my biggest lessons to overcome and as we were talking I had an inner view into a part of myself I’d never seen before, like a cave and therein lived something, my awareness was like a light just making seen a small area into the entrance of this cave and I saw something quickly retreat. Someone else may have quickly tried to ignore that because who wants to see something so weird inside of themselves but I was ecstatic because I then also connected “it” with these episodes of “pride” causing problems in my life. So I can’t relate to your own experience of feeling cold etc. with self observation. However I do understand not everyone reacts the same to self observation.

I usually feel curiosity, joy, a feeling of “expansion” and much lighter in general. I don’t take stuff I see personally, or beat myself up about it, I go “ooh that’s why I do this and that, how exciting”. To one person a truth is cruel to another it’s enlightening, the exact same truth.

I notice a few times that when I have an attitude of compassion and empathy for my mechanical self, I feel more whole.

Yes, this is it! The more you know yourself and acknowledge that you’re not just “good” things, you can have compassion for yourself, you can heal and bring all parts of yourself into alignment. The more you see the mechanical nature of your own self then you can have compassion for the mechanicalness of others. It’s easier to see the mechanicalness of others, the true task is to see it in oneself. I really do hope people aren’t spending all their time judging and criticizing others for being automatons and thinking that because they’ve read some esoteric literature that they’re now not mechanical themselves. The discovery of who we really are is ongoing and endless.

A personal example of compassion brought about through self observation is when I finally could see the truth of why my mother was the way she was, her trauma and suffering and how these have led to her behavior and programs. When I truly could see her I felt love like I’ve never felt before, not a subjective love but something so much more. So when her programs play out I don’t get triggered anymore because I know why and now our relationship is much better. But I could never have seen that in her if I had not been doing the work on myself. I saw in her myself and vice versa. So this is an example of what I hope is objective compassion.

It can be challenging to find the "compassion and empathy" factor in this philosophy, but it is there, just not as obvious I guess.

I've seen this happen with other groups as well, where they twist elements of 4th way philosophy for self-serving ends.

Well I’m not sure about other groups as the forum is more than enough for me and I’ve never seen people here using 4th way knowledge for self-serving ends. In fact when people here network about their problems there is always an abundance of “compassion and empathy” even when a mirror is used, I’d say especially then.

It seems if ordinary mechanical man or woman has the universal right to free will as much as more conscious men and women and is undergoing life lessons of their own, wouldn't that make him/her more or less on the same level as higher order beings?

Who are these “higher order beings”?

I don't know just sort of rambling at this point. I'll try to think of a better way of articulating what I'm thinking and get back to you.

Yes please do get back to us because I’m sorry but I’m not comprehending what you’re trying to say.

 

[Andrey]

Who are these “higher order beings”?


Yes please do get back to us because I’m sorry but I’m not comprehending what you’re trying to say.

Hello again Candice.

Actually, I think I would disregard that previous comment at this point about humans being "magical" beings. The more I thought about it and tried to reconcile it with the idea that we are machines, the more things didn't mesh properly. I guess I was looking at the idea of free will and individual and/or collective lesson plans as something not of nature (because we don't have the exact technical details of how they work), hence the idea that they are non-natural, "magical" principles, and assumed that if ordinary humans are integrated with these laws, then that makes us also non-natural magical/spiritual beings. But what is considered "magical" could just be natural laws we just don't understand yet. I sort of just mentioned it I guess to purge myself of some of these ideas. Writing about it helped to organize my thoughts.

As to your question, "who are these higher order beings," there are many spiritual teachings out there that promulgate the idea that humans are immortal spiritual beings having a temporary human experience. I personally don't know what to make of that statement, especially when we take into consideration the implications contained within the story of the evil magician. Again, its just another idea that's been swirling around in my head, so just mentioned it briefly.