notes on the Dhamma

 A friend wrote to me: I meant this page: https://s.4nt.org/kn/index. html where Milinda is not marked as non-ebt etc... let alone it's only canonized in Myanmar only. I didn't study it much, but lets say 2 out of 3 times i've opened Milinda panha due to an important topics it was adhamma:  #1 is Buddha all-seeing all-knowing? ‘samaṇo gotamo sabbaññū sabbadassāvī, aparisesaṁ ñāṇadassanaṁ paṭijānāti, ‘The ascetic Gotama claims to be all-knowing and all-seeing, to know and see everything without exception, thus: mn71 https://find.dhamma.gift/read/ ?s=sabba%C3%B1%C3%B1&q=mn71#5. 2 Here the Buddha explicitly says that this is not how he spoke. But here , Nāgasena says: "Yes, Your Majesty, the Buddha is all-seeing and all-knowing." https:// suttacentral.net/mil3.6.2/en/ kelly?lang=en&layout= sidebyside&reference=none& notes=none&highlight=false& script=latin #2 Lay aharant And this is the passage I was referring to during the lesson. It's ...

Leaders in the top AI companies are researching whether AI has developed consciousness.  The whole argument can be shut down very quickly and concisely. If you don't even know how consciousness in organic life forms (in humans and animals for example) works,  (like what happens with consciousness at birth, death, comas, etc.) how are you even qualified to determine if inorganic machines designed to behave like humans have consciousness? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ claude AI refined my writing style: Leading AI companies are investing significant effort in researching whether AI has developed consciousness. But this entire line of inquiry can be dismissed quickly and concisely: if we don't even understand how consciousness works in organic life forms—what happens to it at birth, at death, during comas, and so on—how could we possibly be qualified to determine whether inorganic machines, designed merely to mimic huma...