Can internal feelings be ignored?

 20260602

Can  internal feelings be ignored?

      *do not ignore your own observation..........

      *do not replace your observation with anything else......

 

If humans are to ignore internal feelings,   it meant only one thing:   It meant humans can use their own brain no more.   They will hand over all their own business into a future AI......  

It meant everything can be handled by a computer.

It meant everything is done by a computer.

And it is suicidal.  

You need only to answer one question:

Can you make the computer to dream for you?

Please think of it thoroughly and carefully.

Maybe it is possible for future chemistry and medicine.

You are issued a certain kind of drugs and then you have no dream at all.

You will be a robot.   You'll be controlled.

But the point doesn't stop here:

They can stop you from dreaming,  but they cannot do the dreaming for you.

To dream is the most internal feature of a human being.

What is the point if you are not allowed to dream?

It means you must wake up and you must stand up.

Your internal treasure is your only treasure.

Do not give away your treasure of being a human.

No other machine can dream for you.

It is the bottom line of humans.

Internal feelings cannot be ignored.

ref

    問題之八：怎樣溝通？
　　　　　　　　　(莊子怎樣溝通萬物？)


　　莊子與惠子遊於濠梁之上。莊子曰：「鯈魚出遊從容，是魚樂也。」惠子曰：「子非魚，安知魚之樂？」莊子曰：「子非我，安知我不知魚之樂？」惠子曰：「我非子，固不知子矣，子固非魚也，子不知魚之樂，全矣。」莊子曰：「請循其本。子曰：汝『安知魚樂』云者，既已知吾知之而問我。我知之濠上也。」《莊子外篇：秋水》

　(莊子與惠子在濠水的橋上遊覽。莊子說：「鯈魚這樣從容自在，真是快樂。」惠子說：「你不是魚，怎麼知道魚是快樂的？」莊子說：「你不是我，又怎麼知道我不知道魚是快樂的？」惠子說：「我不是你，當然不知道你。而你也不是魚，你不知道魚的快樂，不是很明顯了嗎？」莊子說：「還是從根本處說吧：你說，你怎麼知道魚是快樂的，你既然已經知道我知道魚的快樂，還問。我是在濠水上知道的。」)（李察按：古文未必比白話文難解。其實這段古文，是不須要翻譯的。譯出來，也不會更容易些。）
　
　　如果只從辯論的角度，只研究是誰辯論勝利了，就不會知道，問題的焦點何在。

　　問題的焦點是溝通。

　　而溝通可以是直接的。魚兒快樂不快樂，可以直接知道，不需要從外在的資料去尋找訊息。　

　　就是憑這一點，就可能知道：這故事，可能是真的。因為，直接從內在與萬物溝通，是莊子的方法。但也需要說明：莊子是主張平衡內外的，莊子並無否定外在資料。

　　至於惠子，表面看好像很雄辯，很理智。但實際上，惠子是否定直接溝通，亦即否定內在溝通的。

　　李察也有類似經驗。有一次，從金魚缸裡撈起了一小袋餵魚的蝌蚪，送到郊外的山澗去野放。那天陽光很好，山澗裡的水很淺，水底有被太陽曬得發黃的青苔。最初還耽心蝌蚪們是否習慣那樣的環境。料不到，一放下去，小蝌蚪們就十分自然的散開了。扭擺尾巴，好像很快樂那樣。

　　如果你問我，你怎麼知道蝌蚪是快樂的。我會告訴你：我是直接感受的。

　　以上的描述：太陽、青苔、曬得發黃的老青苔、山澗、淺水、金魚缸、還有人的耽心、人的疑問（是否習慣）、人的參與（從金魚缸帶到野外），等等一串資料，都是外在的。外在資料，未必需要否定，但也未必可以提供真正訊息。而真正訊息是簡單直接的。他們是快樂的，就是快樂的。

　　至於惠子的方法，卻是隔絕的，未必可以知道魚是快樂還是不快樂。

　　或者現代的科學家會捉幾條上來，解剖，觀察魚的腦電波有甚麼變化，從而推斷魚的心理狀態、、、這類外在方法不能否定。但是，如果只用一種方法，就有所欠缺了。

Zhuangzi and Huizi were strolling on the bridge over the Hao River. Zhuangzi said, "The minnows swim about so freely and leisurely—this is their happiness." Huizi said, "You are not a fish—how do you know that the fish are happy?" Zhuangzi said, "You are not me—how do you know that I do not know that the fish are happy?" Huizi said, "I am not you, so of course I do not know about you. But you are also not a fish, so you do not know that the fish are happy—isn't that perfectly clear?" Zhuangzi said, "Let's go back to the root of the matter. You asked me, 'How do you know that the fish are happy?' Since you already knew that I know the fish are happy, you still asked. I know it right here on the Hao River."

(Li Cha’s note: Classical Chinese is not necessarily harder to understand than modern Chinese. This passage actually needs no translation. Translating it wouldn’t make it any easier.)

If you only look at this from the perspective of debate, studying only who won the argument, you will never grasp the heart of the issue.

The heart of the issue is communication.

And communication can be direct. Whether a fish is happy or not can be known directly—there is no need to search for information from external data.

On this point alone, it is possible to know: this story may well be true. Because communicating directly from within oneself with all things is Zhuangzi’s way. But it must also be said: Zhuangzi advocates a balance between inner and outer; he does not reject external information.

As for Huizi, on the surface he seems very eloquent and logical. But in fact, Huizi denies direct communication—that is, he denies inner communication.

Li Cha has had a similar experience. Once, he scooped a small bag of tadpoles from a goldfish bowl and released them into a mountain stream on the outskirts of the city. The sunlight was beautiful that day. The stream was shallow, and at the bottom lay moss turned yellow by the sun. At first he worried whether the tadpoles would adapt to the new environment. But to his surprise, as soon as he released them, the little tadpoles scattered quite naturally, wriggling their tails as if full of joy.

If you ask me, “How do you know the tadpoles were happy?” I would tell you: I felt it directly.

The above description—the sun, the moss, the old moss turned yellow by sunlight, the mountain stream, the shallow water, the goldfish bowl, a person’s concern, a person’s doubt (whether they would adapt), a person’s involvement (carrying them from the bowl to the wild)—all these are external data. External data need not be denied, but neither do they necessarily provide true information. The real information is simple and direct. They were happy—that’s all.

Huizi’s method, by contrast, is one of separation—it cannot really know whether fish are happy or unhappy.

Modern scientists might catch a few fish, dissect them, observe changes in their brain waves, and thereby infer the fish’s psychological state… Such external methods cannot be dismissed. But if we rely on only one method, something is missing.