Yep. But just to check, was anyone out there offended?

is this the popular opinion here that we are brains?

"You Are A Brain" is not strictly accurate, to my mind, but it's catchy and sufficiently less wrong to be useful as a hook for the concepts.

My preferred clarification is "I'm not my brain, I'm something my brain is doing."

I do not define "enlightened", claim to be enlightened, claim that you are less "enlightened", or say that you would be in any way better if you tried koans, or better if you wanted to try koans. I only said I had found them valuable.

That's good. It's just that the way you used the words in the context did make those claims.

I have a lot more respect for your perspective as presented here than for the logic of the replies that you made. Unfortunately, while there is certainly perspective to be gained in (some) usage of (some) koans, one thing that tends to be uniform is that they encourage sloppy reasoning.

For example, if you say "Woah, go easy there Cam! There are some potential benefits!" then I'll probably acknowledge the point. However, if you feel the previous sentiment but actually reply with explicit claims like "only if..." then your words are no longer opinion or perspective. They are logical claims with very interesting implications. For example, you did make a couple of those claims regarding enlightenment although I can see that your actual beliefs are far less insane!

"As above, so below". This is an explanation of Astrology. As above us the stars and planets move in their courses, so below, on this flat Earth, we follow our Destiny.

I do not believe in Astrology more than I believe the Earth is flat, but I love this sentence, expressing so much in so few words. It is my favourite such quote: beautifully and elegantly expressing an idea which is completely wrong. .

I work in an advice agency. We had an anonymous postcard, which read, "The otherbugger will get on your back if he can That is all the advice you ever need to give If he's on your back already it's TOO LATE!"

I find that both horrible and untrue, but it is elegantly expressed.

that means, more or less by definition, that I don't get it and am unenlightened, right?

Only if you believe that to be the case.

Believe that to be the case? That seems to imply you define 'enlightened' as 'believing that you are enlightened'.

To use a Less Wrong image, only if you are not Winning.

When Eleizer uses that phrase I tend to cringe but mostly let it past without comment because Eleizer tends to include it among a page or three of quite sound reasoning that explains what he is actually trying to convey. Apart from preferring actual true statements on things that are important, the only problem I have with Eleizer's use of the 'rationalism is winning' is that it opens the door for abuse and confusion. Like here for example.

How in the heck does 'only if you are not winning', in the usage as intended on Less Wrong, imply the conclusion 'contempt for koan usage as described implies that I am unenlightened'? It doesn't..

The worst kind of bullshit is that which comes dressed up to look very nearly like insight and happens to include a 'if you don't agree you are naive/unsophiscated/unenlighted/possibly heretical'.

If I say "What a load of crap! This post conveys about as much insight as a Rorschach test!" then that means, more or less by definition, that I don't get it and am unenlightened, right?

Has a dog Buddha-nature?
This is the most serious question of all.
If you say yes or no,
You [lose status by not realizing that the Buddha-nature is first and formost about conveying to others that you have Buddha nature without revealing what it is].

I say we've got more than enough 'buddah-nature' here already thanks. Any use of 'rationalist' without direct relation to utility maximisation or epistimic accuracy in a specific context. Any "can you prove your rationalist mettle and one box on this obfuscated newcomblike problem?"

Has a dog Buddha-nature?
WTF? Tell me what Buddha nature is. Give me a metric to measure it by. Then I'll tell you. Now, why do I care? What useful correlations does Buddha-nature have with anything else I need to know about dogs? Dumbass. Who made you Master and if this institution promotes people based on that kind of nonsense why do I want to be a part of it?

Exercise 2. The accelerator will go to maximum, and the driver would have to brake maximally, until something burned out or the driver put the car out of gear or turned off the cruise control.

Exercise 4. When targets were imposed on British GPs, the effect at my practice was that only a few appointments were available. I had to sit by the phone from 8.30am when the practice opened, phoning, getting the engaged tone, repeatedly pressing the redial button. Then I got the appointment time I wanted. Phone later in the day and there were no appointments available.

A GP may decide that his amour propre (signalling?) is more important than conforming to targets.

Experience on targets appears to indicate that people find ways of meeting the target, which may or may not be by achieving what the target-setter wished to achieve.

Exercise 1. Assuming the truth of the statement that the candle has the effect of raising the temperature of the thermostat like that, (I do not have the knowledge to state whether that is or is not the case) the room temperature will oscillate between 15 and 16 degrees as the temperature of the thermostat continues to oscillate between 20 and 21, until the candle burns out.

Argh, you're right. Changed, along with one or two of kpreid's points.