the quickest and easyest way to godhead or tao or nirvana or enlightenment.

[Birch]

I'm still not following you.

 

You think that the mind is more realistic, when it is detached from senses? It seems to me that the mind becomes more dogmatic, more idealistic, when it is not taking the body and the emotions in, as every bit as important, as reason is.

 

When I look around at the world, I do not see people who are too aware of their senses; I see the opposite. I see people who are numb to their senses, who only get excited through over-stimulation. I see people who live in their heads, and forget the world of the immediate, which is the world of the senses. They crave novel sensation, precisely because they have tuned out from the sensations that are already there.

 

IME, when I allow my "self" to fall into my senses, when I disappear into the stimulus that my body gives me, then I find that my mind goes quiet, and the world is clear and open. In that state, I am not seeking solutions, but they appear anyway, and guide me through the world. My experience suggest to me that "I" am originally supposed to be a conduit for awareness, nothing more. Not a "mind", not a chooser, not something that figures things out. Merely a conduit.

 

When I fall back into that role, and allow my senses to flow through me unimpeded, then I find that something much wiser than me is able to stretch and take control of my life. I realize then that "I" am only a small portion of the whole, and my power is always limited by my concepts and biases. But when I tune in to my senses, to my overall awareness, I find that all the computation about life is done somewhere else than "me", somewhere that doesn't need me to do anything, but pay attention to right now. I realize that I have been addicted to being a mind, to being a self, to being in control, but that addiction has crippled my growth, and not allowed the greater mind to wake up, and take its natural place in my its life.

 

Excellent post Otis.

Have we had that discussion about mind vs body yoga in a while? Might be time for one of those :-)

 

My take is that it's all together :-) The 'splitty' stuff is off-path IME/IMO whichever way you slice and dice it. I was pondering the Shen (s?) earlier today and I was feeling pretty happy they were all with me and not off roaming places. But I think to have them want to stay with you, well, that's IMO/IME part of practice. I think I prefer the Shens to just the one or two considerations when it comes to self. I recall one of my teachers mentioning the body as a garden.

[goldisheavy]

I can understand better where you are coming from,thanks for sharing.I am glad to have read about your perspective.

Mind is definetly not the core of my being or my heart though.

As you have said there is many ways to think about mind.

 

My way of thinking about the mind is powerful because using my way you don't have to step outside of yourself to become liberated. You simply realize that you are not what you thought you were.

 

In your idea of "mind" you have to discard mind to have some other experience that is outside of mind. If such a thing exists, where is it? Where is the experience taking place if not in the mind? So your way has two challenges. It's logically inconsistent. It posits an experience without a context for that experience (mind is context, a "place" is a context also). And the second challenge is that it estranges you from the liberation. It makes liberation something foreign to your being. Something completely and utterly beyond you as a person. This creates a chasm that shall not be crossed as long as you remain a human being.

 

My method blurs the distinction between a human being and non-human being. It blurs the distinction between what is ordinarily thought of as "intimate" and what is ordinarily thought of as "out there." My way relies on blurring distinctions, on questioning the delineation we throw up all around us and even inside of us. Your way relies on maintaining the distinctions and then trying to jump over from yourself to non-yourself.

 

Your choice.

[suninmyeyes]

My way of thinking about the mind is powerful because using my way you don't have to step outside of yourself to become liberated. You simply realize that you are not what you thought you were.

 

In your idea of "mind" you have to discard mind to have some other experience that is outside of mind. If such a thing exists, where is it? Where is the experience taking place if not in the mind? So your way has two challenges. It's logically inconsistent. It posits an experience without a context for that experience (mind is context, a "place" is a context also). And the second challenge is that it estranges you from the liberation. It makes liberation something foreign to your being. Something completely and utterly beyond you as a person. This creates a chasm that shall not be crossed as long as you remain a human being.

 

My method blurs the distinction between a human being and non-human being. It blurs the distinction between what is ordinarily thought of as "intimate" and what is ordinarily thought of as "out there." My way relies on blurring distinctions, on questioning the delineation we throw up all around us and even inside of us. Your way relies on maintaining the distinctions and then trying to jump over from yourself to non-yourself.

 

Your choice.

For me it is simple.Mind is some thoughts put together of thoughts if there is no thoughts there is no mind.I dont have to discard the mind ,mind drops on its own and I find myself as much larger space than my own mind and understand myself as as multidimensional and not confined only to my thoughts.

That place might be called Nature or God ,but it also includes the individual mind, it is not seperate .So no stepping out ,just fine tunning and changing the point of view.

Personally I dont seek liberation as I think that I am fine as I am and take that as my path.This doesent mean I will never make any sort of effort, and when I do it will be my way and becouse I couldnt do anything else but exactly that.This if understood correctly brings a lot of peace .

[goldisheavy]

For me it is simple.Mind is some thoughts put together of thoughts if there is no thoughts there is no mind.

 

I realize this. I think that's a terrible definition of what a mind is. It's not in accord with reality. It's like saying that space is whatever is inside the bottle. As soon as you discard all the bottles, all the space is gone. That's a very limited conception of what a space is. You limit what a mind is in a very similar way.

 

That place might be called Nature or God ,but it also includes the individual mind, it is not seperate .So no stepping out ,just fine tunning and changing the point of view.

 

Mind is what holds and experiences the point of view. By thinking of mind and Nature or God as distinct and different things you create a difficulty for yourself.

Edited July 12, 2011 by goldisheavy

[exorcist_1699]

I'm still not following you....

 

 

 

Whatever mind, no-mind, mindlessness, enlightened Mind..etc we choose to enter , includes its relation to our senses, should not be something we subjectively think or like , but something that is proved to be capable of enhancing our abilities , in both physical and spiritual aspects ; which , in fact, also reflects the requirements of Taoist dual cultivation:

 

 

1) Physical: whether such a mind/no-mind/midlessness/Mind makes us initialize high-quality qi easier ? High-quality qi, of course, is something very easy to be identified , say , in the past you have to eat 3 meals a day, now you only have to eat once in 2~ 3 days yet still being energetic. Or, in the past, you have to s sleep 7~8 hours a day, now you only have to sleep 3~4 hours a day yet still maintaining your sane status;

 

Paying more attention to your senses, your body or your dantian, that kind of attached way definitely does not help you initialize higher-quality qi ..

 

2) Spiritual : whether such a mind/no-mind/mindless/enlightened Mind..etc enahnces your ability of understanding/ reasoning / intuition? For example, in the past, you can never understand a subject named differential geometry, a language called Japanese or those characteristics in programming called OOP , thinking that to you it is too abstract /complicated /demanding in memorizing .. absolutely beyond your reach...,now after your having entered that spiritual status, all those strange symbols, tedious steps of reasoning , tons of vocabularies, all suddenly become simple, comprehensive , a piece of cake...to you.

Edited July 12, 2011 by exorcist_1699

[Otis]

My way of thinking about the mind is powerful because using my way you don't have to step outside of yourself to become liberated. You simply realize that you are not what you thought you were.

 

In your idea of "mind" you have to discard mind to have some other experience that is outside of mind. If such a thing exists, where is it? Where is the experience taking place if not in the mind? So your way has two challenges. It's logically inconsistent. It posits an experience without a context for that experience (mind is context, a "place" is a context also). And the second challenge is that it estranges you from the liberation. It makes liberation something foreign to your being. Something completely and utterly beyond you as a person. This creates a chasm that shall not be crossed as long as you remain a human being.

 

My method blurs the distinction between a human being and non-human being. It blurs the distinction between what is ordinarily thought of as "intimate" and what is ordinarily thought of as "out there." My way relies on blurring distinctions, on questioning the delineation we throw up all around us and even inside of us. Your way relies on maintaining the distinctions and then trying to jump over from yourself to non-yourself.

 

Your choice.

Jumping in here:

 

I see no logical inconsistency in SIME's position. If "my life" is only true when I am alive, then it's silly to talk about "what my life would be like without me". Likewise, if "mind" is only true when there are thoughts (which is what she experiences), then what's the point of talking about "mind without thoughts"?

 

GIH, when you say that "mind is a context", are you not just describing a non-place with an unnecessary word? "Brain" is the context for thought; we know the brain exists because of anatomy. Why do you also need "mind"? What does this extra concept buy you? Calling it a context is just putting a word there, and saying "now I understand", like saying "God is the context for reality". But it's just a word, an added layer of concept, not a description of something useful.

 

You ask: where does the experience take place, that is separate from thought? Well, that begs the question of "where is mind"? You still don't need mind, because both experiences (thought and non-thought) happen in the brain.

 

I don't follow your argument about liberation. Why is "mind" necessary for liberation? IMO, liberation is all about surrendering habit and panic, which are mostly subconscious forces. What good does the concept "mind" do you?

 

You write: "I think that's a terrible definition of what a mind is. It's not in accord with reality." But what reality are you talking about? I don't see any minds, when I look around at "reality". I see people, who presumably have brains.

 

"Mind" is just a metaphor for how we talk about our inner experiences; that doesn't make it a "real" thing.

[Otis]

I see you writing a bunch of assertions, but none of them have even surface validity to me.

 

Whatever mind, no-mind, mindlessness, enlightened Mind..etc we choose to enter , includes its relation to our senses, should not be something we subjectively think or like , but something that is proved to be capable of enhancing our abilities , in both physical and spiritual aspects ; which , in fact, also reflects the requirements of Taoist dual cultivation:

I don't know how you plan on "proving" that detachment from senses "enhances our abilities". I certainly don't experience that; quite the opposite. When I put my attention solely on my senses, I find my body performs at a much higher level, than it does when my attention is drifting off someplace else, or trying to manage my movements, or if I am not feeling.

 

1) Physical: whether such a mind/no-mind/midlessness/Mind makes us initialize high-quality qi easier ? High-quality qi, of course, is something very easy to be identified , say , in the past you have to eat 3 meals a day, now you only have to eat once in 2~ 3 days yet still being energetic. Or, in the past, you have to s sleep 7~8 hours a day, now you only have to sleep 3~4 hours a day yet still maintaining your sane status;

 

Paying more attention to your senses, your body or your dantian, that kind of attached way definitely does not help you initialize higher-quality qi ..

Again, your assertion is in complete contradiction to my experience. Putting my attention to my body IME speeds up healing, increases balance, dexterity, strength, and capability. My practice of putting my attention into my senses has made dramatic changes in the shape and function of my body, so I am far more capable now, at 42, then I was when I was 18, when I was very neglectful of sensation.

 

2) Spiritual : whether such a mind/no-mind/mindless/enlightened Mind..etc enahnces your ability of understanding/ reasoning / intuition? For example, in the past, you can never understand a subject named differential geometry, a language called Japanese or those characteristics in programming called OOP , thinking that to you it is too abstract /complicated /demanding in memorizing .. absolutely beyond your reach...,now after your having entered that spiritual status, all those strange symbols, tedious steps of reasoning , tons of vocabularies, all suddenly become simple, comprehensive , a piece of cake...to you.

Again, a bunch of assertions, with no relevance to my experience. IME, my practice paying attention has utterly opened up my ability to comprehend new concepts, as well as my desire to learn.

 

You may have had experiences which support your assertions, although I can't tell, by your posts. But all I see are assertions, all of which are in direct contradiction to years of my experience from practice of immersing myself in my senses.

 

So, you may have a point here, but I sure don't see it yet.

[goldisheavy]

Jumping in here:

 

I see no logical inconsistency in SIME's position. If "my life" is only true when I am alive, then it's silly to talk about "what my life would be like without me". Likewise, if "mind" is only true when there are thoughts (which is what she experiences), then what's the point of talking about "mind without thoughts"?

 

It is wrong to say that mind is only true when there are thoughts. You can sit in meditation without thoughts but you don't become mindless when you do that. Don't take my word for it. Try it and see.

 

GIH, when you say that "mind is a context", are you not just describing a non-place with an unnecessary word? "Brain" is the context for thought;

 

Brain is not the context for thought. It is part of the context at certain times.

 

we know the brain exists because of anatomy. Why do you also need "mind"? What does this extra concept buy you? Calling it a context is just putting a word there, and saying "now I understand", like saying "God is the context for reality". But it's just a word, an added layer of concept, not a description of something useful.

 

Basically you are saying that physicalism offers an adequate account of life. I am saying physicalism is a joke, a really stupid doctrine which offers a deluded faith-based myth more so than a useful account of life. I don't want to get into the details here because discussing the drawbacks of physicalism is commonplace in Buddhist literature and I don't feel any desire at the moment to go over something for the 100th time, something that is talked about in-depth in many writings available to you. It's enough for me to just show you the general direction if you're interested. If you're not interested, that's fine too. Just know that you can't really understand what I am saying from a physicalist POV.

 

You ask: where does the experience take place, that is separate from thought? Well, that begs the question of "where is mind"? You still don't need mind, because both experiences (thought and non-thought) happen in the brain.

 

Experiences don't happen in the brain. That's just your assumption. You should question that assumption. One good question you can ask yourself is this: if experiences happen in the brain, where does the brain happen? If the brain is a container for experiences, then it must be external to the experiences it contains. If the brain is outside experience, then how do we know about the brain?

 

I'm just scratching the surface here.

 

I don't follow your argument about liberation. Why is "mind" necessary for liberation? IMO, liberation is all about surrendering habit and panic, which are mostly subconscious forces. What good does the concept "mind" do you?

 

You write: "I think that's a terrible definition of what a mind is. It's not in accord with reality." But what reality are you talking about? I don't see any minds, when I look around at "reality". I see people, who presumably have brains.

 

"Mind" is just a metaphor for how we talk about our inner experiences; that doesn't make it a "real" thing.

 

Mind is real in the sense that the meanings are real. Do you consider meanings to be real?

[suninmyeyes]

I realize this. I think that's a terrible definition of what a mind is. It's not in accord with reality. It's like saying that space is whatever is inside the bottle. As soon as you discard all the bottles, all the space is gone. That's a very limited conception of what a space is. You limit what a mind is in a very similar way.

 

No ,the space is not gone 'when bottles are discarded' there is nowhere to go when everything takes place in Nature.Space is still there but personality expands when you understand that you are not limited to individual mind only but part of a vaster Nature-'cosmic mind'(for the sake of explanation).Of which you as individual are not a sole contributer.

 

Mind is what holds and experiences the point of view. By thinking of mind and Nature or God as distinct and different things you create a difficulty for yourself.

I agree that mind holds the point of view and expiriences.What else?

It is not the only way to exist though.Mind exists through thinking which differs (IMO) from being.

I repeat God and Nature are not distinct or seperate from my self ,most definetly not.I am part of it and I am it at the same time.

 

I wrote all this to clarify ,not to try and convince or impose my point of view.

Edited July 12, 2011 by suninmyeyes

[goldisheavy]

I agree that mind holds the point of view and experiences. What else? It is not the only way to exist though.

 

Yes it is. Why? Because all ways of existing involve a point of view of some sort.

 

Mind exists through thinking

 

This is like saying that space exists through bottles.

 

Or it's like saying that the ocean exists through the waves.

Edited July 13, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Otis]

It is wrong to say that mind is only true when there are thoughts. You can sit in meditation without thoughts but you don't become mindless when you do that. Don't take my word for it. Try it and see.

Well, it all depends upon what you're calling mind, doesn't it?

 

Brain is not the context for thought. It is part of the context at certain times.

 

Basically you are saying that physicalism offers an adequate account of life. I am saying physicalism is a joke, a really stupid doctrine which offers a deluded faith-based myth more so than a useful account of life. I don't want to get into the details here because discussing the drawbacks of physicalism is commonplace in Buddhist literature and I don't feel any desire at the moment to go over something for the 100th time, something that is talked about in-depth in many writings available to you. It's enough for me to just show you the general direction if you're interested. If you're not interested, that's fine too. Just know that you can't really understand what I am saying from a physicalist POV.

Personally, I don't see any contradiction between (what I think of as) Buddhism's central messages, and modern science. They seem in sync to me. Even the Dalai Lama thinks so (and he has said so, specifically about neuroscience). Buddha spoke beautifully of what consciousness looks like from the inside. Only modern science has been able to connect the workings of consciousness to specific areas in the brain.

 

Experiences don't happen in the brain. That's just your assumption. You should question that assumption.

This statement is exactly analogous to a creationist saying that Evolution is nothing but a theory. Both evolution and materialism in neuroscience have an enormous amount of evidence supporting them. Neuroscience even more, because they can measure the activity of a single neuron, and can stimulate specific memories, smells, experiences of God, etc. Are you choosing to exclude the weight of decades of excellent science, because it messes with your idea of "mind"?

 

One good question you can ask yourself is this: if experiences happen in the brain, where does the brain happen? If the brain is a container for experiences, then it must be external to the experiences it contains. If the brain is outside experience, then how do we know about the brain?

The brain happens in the head. We know about the brain, from cutting up heads.

 

You called it a container, not me. The brain is an organ, and experience is just a phenomena that arises from the functioning of that organ (in connection with the rest of the body).

 

You might want to ask yourself, whose mind is this I'm talking about? Could it possibly be my mind? Or is the sense of "mind" the exact same delusion as that of self? It seems most likely to me, that "I" am just a small part of the brain, which is just a small part of the body. I am a cluster of neurons, functions of the animal.

 

Mind is real in the sense that the meanings are real. Do you consider meanings to be real?

Of course not. What is "real" about meanings?

Edited July 13, 2011 by Otis

[goldisheavy]

Well, it all depends upon what you're calling mind, doesn't it?

 

 

Personally, I don't see any contradiction between (what I think of as) Buddhism's central messages, and modern science. They seem in sync to me. Even the Dalai Lama thinks so (and he has said so, specifically about neuroscience). Buddha spoke beautifully of what consciousness looks like from the inside. Only modern science has been able to connect the workings of consciousness to specific areas in the brain.

 

 

This statement is exactly analogous to a creationist saying that Evolution is nothing but a theory. Both evolution and materialism in neuroscience have an enormous amount of evidence supporting them. Neuroscience even more, because they can measure the activity of a single neuron, and can stimulate specific memories, smells, experiences of God, etc. Are you choosing to exclude the weight of decades of excellent science, because it messes with your idea of "mind"?

 

Yes, I do. You choose to accept fallacious physicalist assumptions unchallenged. I don't. I used to be a physicalist. I have analyzed my physicalist ideas and found them to be inconsistent with themselves and reality and thus I rejected them. This means I reject the physicalist metaphysics of science, but I still respect scientists and the scientific method.

 

Also, it's a technical point, but I am not a creationist. I don't believe anything was ever created by anyone.

 

The brain happens in the head. We know about the brain, from cutting up heads.

 

You called it a container, not me. The brain is an organ, and experience is just a phenomena that arises from the functioning of that organ (in connection with the rest of the body).

 

It's a container in a philosophical sense. Calling it an organ instead of container changes nothing and only obscures the meaning. The real point is that in your view the organ is outside the experience like a container is outside that which it contains.

 

You might want to ask yourself, whose mind is this I'm talking about? Could it possibly be my mind? Or is the sense of "mind" the exact same delusion as that of self? It seems most likely to me, that "I" am just a small part of the brain, which is just a small part of the body. I am a cluster of neurons, functions of the animal.

 

 

Of course not. What is "real" about meanings?

 

You are hopeless. I consider your viewpoint to be an ignorant one.

 

If meanings are not real then brain is not real either. Does having a brain have meaning? If yes the meanings must be real. So when you say meanings are not real you lie to yourself and others. When we say meanings are real we mean two things. You take meanings seriously, one, and two, and you believe at least some meanings are either in and of themselves true or conditionally true of that which they represent depending on your metaphysical beliefs. From there you can logically deduce that if some meanings are real, all are. Etc. But this requires thinking.

 

Buddhism is only compatible with physicalism at the shallowest level. (search for "bompu Zen") It's obvious you didn't get very deep into Buddhism if you claim it's compatible. Dalai Lama is very politically correct when he interfaces with science. He's very gentle. He doesn't say things that are too challenging for the scientists, but he does challenge them. For example, neuroscientists used to think the brain could not change from meditation. At Dalai's insistence they ran some experiments and proved otherwise. In other words, the mind controls the brain. Based on what you pay attention to your brains grows and shapes itself differently. But that's as far as Dalai goes when challenging science. He's very political and a "smooth talker" so he's not going to tell you something he knows will contradict your belief system too deeply.

 

Thinking that consciousness arises from matter is a huge mistake and it will block all your spiritual progress.

 

EDIT: I found a decent video that describes my position with regard to physicalism. Now, this guy is a theist (I think he called himself panentheist, which is not the usual kind of theist though, he might not be a creationist either), and I am not. However, with regard to what he says about the physicalist assumptions, his logic is the same as mine. Here it is:

 

 

I've seen other great videos discussing this. I might be able to find them.

 

Here's David Chalmers, a famous philosopher, talking about why consciousness must be fundamental and why it cannot be a product of matter interaction. This video presentation challenges materialists with some hard questions. David doesn't go far enough to actually smash the view of matter, but he delivers a mortal wound to physicalism nonetheless:

 

Edited July 13, 2011 by goldisheavy

[Birch]

Yes, I do. You choose to accept fallacious physicalist assumptions unchallenged. I don't. I used to be a physicalist. I have analyzed my physicalist ideas and found them to be inconsistent with themselves and reality and thus I rejected them. This means I reject the physicalist metaphysics of science, but I still respect scientists and the scientific method.

 

Also, it's a technical point, but I am not a creationist. I don't believe anything was ever created by anyone.

 

 

 

It's a container in a philosophical sense. Calling it an organ instead of container changes nothing and only obscures the meaning. The real point is that in your view the organ is outside the experience like a container is outside that which it contains.

 

 

 

You are hopeless. I consider your viewpoint to be an ignorant one.

 

If meanings are not real then brain is not real either. Does having a brain have meaning? If yes the meanings must be real. So when you say meanings are not real you lie to yourself and others. When we say meanings are real we mean two things. You take meanings seriously, one, and two, and you believe at least some meanings are either in and of themselves true or conditionally true of that which they represent depending on your metaphysical beliefs. From there you can logically deduce that if some meanings are real, all are. Etc. But this requires thinking.

 

Buddhism is only compatible with physicalism at the shallowest level. (search for "bompu Zen") It's obvious you didn't get very deep into Buddhism if you claim it's compatible. Dalai Lama is very politically correct when he interfaces with science. He's very gentle. He doesn't say things that are too challenging for the scientists, but he does challenge them. For example, neuroscientists used to think the brain could not change from meditation. At Dalai's insistence they ran some experiments and proved otherwise. In other words, the mind controls the brain. Based on what you pay attention to your brains grows and shapes itself differently. But that's as far as Dalai goes when challenging science. He's very political and a "smooth talker" so he's not going to tell you something he knows will contradict your belief system too deeply.

 

Thinking that consciousness arises from matter is a huge mistake and it will block all your spiritual progress.

 

EDIT: I found a decent video that describes my position with regard to physicalism. Now, this guy is a theist (I think he called himself panentheist, which is not the usual kind of theist though, he might not be a creationist either), and I am not. However, with regard to what he says about the physicalist assumptions, his logic is the same as mine. Here it is:

 

 

I've seen other great videos discussing this. I might be able to find them.

 

Interesting post GIH.

But why always with the 'either or' stuff?

If I consider it, I see consciousness like a flame that is passed on. Saying it arises from the brain only is like claiming virgin birth IMO

[goldisheavy]

Interesting post GIH.

But why always with the 'either or' stuff?

If I consider it, I see consciousness like a flame that is passed on. Saying it arises from the brain only is like claiming virgin birth IMO

 

Hi K,

 

If you don't like the 'either or' mentality, you may be interested in what David Chalmers has to say. After you replied I've edited another video with David Chalmers at the end of the post.

 

Personally I do reject the reality of matter completely, and there is a good reason for it. I'm just tired of constantly explaining it to people. I used to be a lot more keen on these kinds of explanations in the past, but when these philosophical arguments happen, who am I trying to convince? If I argue for non-materialism am I trying to convince the person I am arguing with or myself? There is probably a lit bit of both. Since I've already convinced myself my desire for such arguments has dropped off significantly.

 

Interested parties can find all sorts of good information about this without my help. After all, I figured it out without a non-physicalist live friend helping me. If I can do it, anyone can.

Edited July 13, 2011 by goldisheavy

[suninmyeyes]

Yes it is. Why? Because all ways of existing involve a point of view of some sort.

 

 

This is like saying that space exists through bottles.

 

Or it's like saying that the ocean exists through the waves.

 

OK I think I have clarified my point by now ,it is fine by me if you think that is not in line with reality and terrible.

Nice talking to you .

[goldisheavy]

OK I think I have clarified my point by now ,it is fine by me if you think that is not in line with reality and terrible.

Nice talking to you .

 

Good. It looks like your way of thinking works well for you, so there is no reason to change it.

[Otis]

Goldisheavy,

 

I am not an absolutist when it comes to materialism, not at all. I've never claimed that materialism is the only possible way of explaining the world. I am agnostic about the workings of the actual world, because I don't see how I could possibly "know" any absolutes. This is a point I make constantly on these boards.

 

That said, of course, we all need to have beliefs, in order to interact with the world, and so it behooves me to make sure that my beliefs are as well vetted as possible, in order to avoid superstition. There are a billion theories out there, as to what consciousness is, and how it comes about. But there is only one source: science, which is actively testing theories in a continual controlled process of refinement and exploration. There is only one source with built-in safeguards, extensive review, and obligatory skepticism about its own conclusions, and that is science.

 

Of course science doesn't have all the answers, and they probably never will. But if we look around at the world today, we can see that there is one driving force which is powerful enough to bend history, to shift how we exist in really dramatic ways, and that is science, (often via technology). Philosophy cannot light a light bulb; spirituality cannot make a computer chip.

 

That's why I choose to look at science first; not because I am dogmatic that science gives us the only answers, but because it consistently shows the greatest explanatory powers of any of our forms of opinion-generation. Also, of course, all other forms of opinion-generation are vastly subject to corruption by wishful thinking, provincialism, and stale paradigms. In general, when science offers a well-tested and perfectly reasonable explanation for something, I don't see any reason to resist that. I am happy to keep an open mind, but I will not deny what science brings in, just because it doesn't match with what I already believe.

 

I am well aware of the "hard problem" of consciousness, and I respect David Chalmers' view, as well as Peter Russell, and other philosophers of consciousness, who see consciousness as the primary material, from which solid matter appears to arise. This is an appealing theory, but unlike materialism, it has (so far) zero explanatory value, and zero evidence backing it up. So, although this theory is appealing to me on an emotional level, I am not ready to embrace it as truth, especially when there is so much evidence supporting the materialist view.

 

I recently posted some links to radio documentaries from the BBC and NPR, because they discuss many of the latest findings in neuroscience, and offer compelling insight into how our experience of consciousness arises from brain material. I am fortunate enough, also to have been a psych major in college, and to have a dad, who is a professor of the neuroscience of consciousness, so I have been kept abreast of many findings, as they come up.

 

As I understand the science, the brain is already incredibly intricately mapped in regards with the physical matter's relationship to phenomena of experience. When a small portion of the brain is damaged, or temporarily disabled, the corresponding function ceases to work. The granularity in the correlation is very precise, so that one small lesion may remove only the recognition of people's faces, without seeming to do any harm to the rest of the experience of vision. Taken as a whole, this body of evidence provides a very compelling argument that consciousness is a phenomenon that arises from the brain. If it were a non-physical phenomenon, and the brain was just a medium (some sort of "antenna") for its connection to the body, then it is unlikely that we would see this level of granularity, because non-physical consciousness itself would not be damaged, only slightly estranged. The reception would get fuzzy, if the antenna were damaged, rather than having precise functions taken off-line.

 

The DVD analogy in your first video is highly flawed, first for the obvious reasons that the brain is not just some playback mechanism, but a live organ, with intricate connections and algorithms. Secondly, because a DVD that is scratched becomes unplayable; it freezes and fuzzes. But the brain which is "scratched" continues to work as a consciousness; only the precise function that corresponds with that neuron cluster is affected. Even gross brain damage, like a lobotomy, does not remove the experience of consciousness from the patient; but there is an enormous change in who that person is, which suggests that consciousness is not singular at all, but only an emergence from the entire range of functioning neurons.

 

If we are to insist that consciousness is something other than what arises from the brain, why shouldn't we insist on the same being true of other organs? Could the liver possibly give rise to its functions, or does it need something "extra-physical" to explain it? Shouldn't we insist that DNA is motivated by some kind of intelligence, to divide and reproduce? But these are just "God of the gaps" explanations, saying "we can't precisely say how it all came about from non-living material, so it must be something beyond matter." That's an enormous leap of logic, very similar to the fallacies of Intelligent Design, which insists "I don't get it, so it must not be true".

 

The hard problem of consciousness, as I see it, dissolves before two opposite arguments. One is what David Chalmers and Peter Russel say: consciousness is the actual material of the universe, and matter arises from that. That's a very elegant and emotionally appealing argument, but as I said earlier, one without any evidence to back it up, thus far. That may change in the future, so I am not one to say "it cannot be".

 

The second answer to the hard problem of consciousness is every bit as elegant and persuasive, but it is extremely unappealing to our emotions, because it makes us very unspecial; it makes us "meat". And that is: consciousness is an illusion. What we have are many functions of the brain, communicating with each other, including some functions which provide an inward, self-reflective view. That inward view is fooled by the processes of the brain into an illusion of "mind", in a similar way to the illusion that happens when the outward view is fooled into thinking that it is looking at the actual world, rather than at its own simulacrum of the world, assembled by heuristics and stimulus from the sense organs.

 

And now to bring Buddhism into the argument. Chalmers says (and I paraphrase): consciousness is something that cannot be denied, because as Descartes pointed out, it is the one thing that I know for sure. But that's a problem, according to Buddhism.

 

Descartes states his one undeniable truth as "I think, therefore I must exist". However, Buddha points out that the "I" is only an illusion. Well, this "I" that both Descartes and Buddha were talking about is exactly and precisely the same thing as the mind. What is it we mean when we say "mind"? It is the experience of me thinking, me contemplating, me imagining, etc. If you take away the "me", all you have is: thinking, contemplating, imagining, etc. In other words, all you have are functions; no self, no mind.

 

In other words, Buddhism and materialism are in complete agreement. Buddha was warning against exactly what you are insisting upon: acting as if "I" was anything more important than the functions of living.

 

In closing, I'd like to share this quote from the Dalai Lama: ""If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

[Vajrahridaya]

Even gross brain damage, like a lobotomy, does not remove the experience of consciousness from the patient; but there is an enormous change in who that person is, which suggests that consciousness is not singular at all, but only an emergence from the entire range of functioning neurons.

 

It's expression into the 3 dimensional unviverse is a function of physical neurons. But, as one will find through meditation and insight derived therein, that consciousness, though it's expression into this dimension will be balked by the lack of firing neurons, it will still have the idea on a deeply non-physical level. A level the vast majority of humanity is just not aware of. It's generally too fast for materialists to catch. I'm teasing you.

 

In other words, Buddhism and materialism are in complete agreement. Buddha was warning against exactly what you are insisting upon: acting as if "I" was anything more important than the functions of living.

 

Only if you go with Stephan Batchelors view of Buddhism.

 

In closing, I'd like to share this quote from the Dalai Lama: ""If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality. By learning from science about aspects of reality where its understanding may be more advanced, I believe that Buddhism enriches its own worldview."

 

Yes, that is an interesting quote and I've always thought so. But, I'm not sure if physical science can produce any hard evidence concerning the non-physical, not hard on this level of being type of phenomena. Even though they are connected and one should be able to get physical readings that one could build mathematical and scientific theories upon. Theories which explain how an occurrence of an extraordinary type has manifested as influenced by a level of phenomena not particular to this dimension and only inter-laced with it, i.e. string theory and such. There are lots of so called x-files in the scientific annals of antiquity. Occurrences manifested in the physical realm that cannot be understood through modern science, as of yet.

 

So, it's good that you are agnostic.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Vajrahridaya

[Otis]

Yes, that is an interesting quote and I've always thought so. But, I'm not sure if physical science can produce any hard evidence concerning the non-physical, not hard on this level of being type of phenomena. Even though they are connected and one should be able to get physical readings that one could build mathematical and scientific theories upon. Theories which explain how an occurrence of an extraordinary type has manifested as influenced by a level of phenomena not particular to this dimension and only inter-laced with it, i.e. string theory and such. There are lots of so called x-files in the scientific annals of antiquity. Occurrences manifested in the physical realm that cannot be understood through modern science, as of yet.

 

So, it's good that you are agnostic.

Hi Vajrahridaya,

 

It's true that science may not be able to, as you say, "produce any hard evidence concerning the non-physical". Which is fine, because, choosing to remain agnostic about the nature of actual reality, means I accept not having a definitive answer.

 

The question I have for myself is: does it make sense to believe in something, for which I have no hard evidence? Metaphors and working models are useful, sure, for getting me close to a working relationship with reality, but do I really need to believe?

 

It seems to me that most beliefs exist to please the ego, by creating a sense of certainty in an uncertain world. If I can say "this, at least, I know to be true", then it may help me sleep better at night. But if I don't need to be reassured, and if I am actively seeking to discard what is unnecessary, then a belief seems a lot less useful. After all, beliefs don't make possibility larger, but make it smaller, by excluding other theories from being true.

 

So, I don't mind that other people have beliefs that I don't agree with. But when it comes to the clarity and flexibility of my own head, I want to have as few beliefs as possible, and make sure that my beliefs make as much sense as possible.

 

And when it comes to unbiased and careful opinion-generation now in the world, I don't see anything that comes close to what science currently offers. And the future of science seems very bright.

 

Of course I have respect for the words of the Buddha, Lao Tzu, and the countless other wise men and women who followed in their paths. I try to read as much material by and about them, as I can. I think that they have illuminated paths of "waking up" that science has not even begun to consider.

 

But when it comes to the question of belief, I don't see the advantage in attaching myself (via certainty) to ideas and concepts that really cannot be proven. Instead, I seek suggestions, possibilities, new ways of looking at things, ways of stretching myself. Certainty, however, is nothing but attachment, the opposite of emptiness.

Edited July 13, 2011 by Otis

[Task]

Edited July 13, 2011 by Task

[Vajrahridaya]

Otis,

 

Sure, I see what you're saying and I agree that this is the most open way to approach life. At the same time, you seem grounded. You seem sure that your body has a valid reality to it.

 

At the same time, you are certain that this is so, right?

 

You believe this to be the way to walk the Earth? I'm just playing with paradox here.

 

Basically, you will have a belief, even a belief in non-belief or certainty in uncertainty. Basically the middle way is subtler I think than either or, but this is language so there are limitations and I think you were getting at that.

 

I am willing to be wrong when it comes to my extra sensory or extra ordinary experiences of life that also have physical evidence reflecting these occurrences making them that much more, "real." I am willing and open to be wrong and open up to a higher level of understanding, or a more grounded level of understanding, considering that physical, 5 sense perceived phenomena is the end all be all of my existence. That these extra sensory levels of perception that have occurred for me, can be explained through science, eventually.

 

Thanks for the conversation. You are indeed broad minded.

[Otis]

Otis,

 

Sure, I see what you're saying and I agree that this is the most open way to approach life. At the same time, you seem grounded. You seem sure that your body has a valid reality to it.

 

At the same time, you are certain that this is so, right?

 

You believe this to be the way to walk the Earth? I'm just playing with paradox here.

 

Basically, you will have a belief, even a belief in non-belief or certainty in uncertainty. Basically the middle way is subtler I think than either or, but this is language so there are limitations and I think you were getting at that.

 

I am willing to be wrong when it comes to my extra sensory or extra ordinary experiences of life that also have physical evidence reflecting these occurrences making them that much more, "real." I am willing and open to be wrong and open up to a higher level of understanding, or a more grounded level of understanding, considering that physical, 5 sense perceived phenomena is the end all be all of my existence. That these extra sensory levels of perception that have occurred for me, can be explained through science, eventually.

 

Thanks for the conversation. You are indeed broad minded.

Thank you, too, for the conversation, as well as your kind words.

 

The funny thing is, I don't talk that much here about my experiences from practice, which include, as you say, things that seem "extra sensory" or "extra ordinary". The main reason why, is that I am very cognizant that the conclusions I derive from my experiences are shaped largely by my wishes and my fears. So I try not to make too much of them, nor hold them up as any kind of truth. They are, instead, flavors and colors that help shade my understanding, but don't decide anything.

 

Just a few years ago, my practice was suggesting loudly to me that the physical world was an illusion, and that the energy world was the true one. But I'm glad that I've had my father, the neuropsychologist, as a moderating influence in my life, because his viewpoint is steeped in empirical data, and he helped reveal that "energy" is every bit as much a metaphor as "physical" is.

 

Now, my mantra is "I don't know". It's important for me not to lock myself into belief, when I see that truth is something that can be approached from many different angles, but probably decided from none of them. I see "emptiness" as the call to shed beliefs, to shed certainty. And I see "ego" as being made up of habits, which are, in a way, little quanta of certainty.

 

That said, it's still fun to write ridiculously long essays on why I believe what I believe, precisely because I see believing as a sacred and important act, one I should not take lightly.

[Vajrahridaya]

Otis,

 

That's very interesting, and very cool that you have a neuropsychologist father, what a boon!

 

I like that, ..."'energy' is as much a metaphor as 'physical'."

[Otis]

Otis,

 

That's very interesting, and very cool that you have a neuropsychologist father, what a boon!

 

I like that, ..."'energy' is as much a metaphor as 'physical'."

I don't think these different viewpoints have to be in contradiction. I think they help complement each other, like wave and particle, in quantum physics. Which one is true? Well, neither, as literal truths. But both, as useful models of truth. Together they can create a more three-dimensional view of ourselves and the world.