Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 11:55am PT
|
Science shouldn't be defensive about questions regarding science, from non-scientists. Most scientists understand that demonstrations of assertions go a long way to answering such questions.
And as we understand science, and the way we do science, we can see the possible limits to the method... for instance, what happens if, practically, one cannot verify scientific work? In some ways we've reached that point: how many scientists can confirm the existence of the Higgs Boson? Or the merger of two black holes?
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 12:22pm PT
|
Base I was just questioning your pronouncements regarding dualism/non-dualism and whether you encountered any buddhist takes on dualism in your half day of reading. It didn't sound like it since you said this problem has been addressed for a few hundred years where as buddhism has and the vedanta have been addressing it for thousands of years.
IMO you are way off on "the others" view of science.
|
|
jogill
climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 12:38pm PT
|
Limitations . . . . . true also in math. There are statements that are "true" in the mathematical system (common to most explorations) but cannot be deductively proven true. As if anyone but a few math practitioners care!
Black holes are far more glamorous and important to science.
As for BASE's comments about dualism, I'm glad a science type has volunteered to wade in the swamps of philosophical discourse - thousands and thousands of pages of incomprehensable dialogue of interest only to its practitioners. Kind of like mathematics which is far more concise but nevertheless symbolic babble to many.
PSP's comments about Zen Buddhism at least put an experiential buzz on a deadly boring subject like dualism.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 03:00pm PT
|
I've been reading a lot, but it is a vast subject, the mind. It isn't the only thing that I'm interested in.
When I read about it, and the schools of thought, I instantly recognized the recurring themes on this thread. Thank goodness that it is only the Dualists arguing with the Materialists (who are really best described as Biological Naturalists. e.g. John Searle). If it were a whole argument, we would hear from many other theories of mind, and boy are there a bunch. I was really surprised that it held so many theories, only one of which is reliant on physical anatomy and function.
For the mind to be separate from the brain, it means that anatomy of the brain isn't applicable, or even useful. The mind is something ethereal, or spiritual. The brain is simply the most complicated piece of biological machinery that we've ever seen, but Mind isn't one of its functions. Perhaps it is in a mouse, but surely not us special humans, right?
Something about a purely physical description of mind is odorous to people with certain pre-existing beliefs. I would expect this type of argument to come from Christians who believe in a young Earth. Not experiencing mental voyagers. Such closed minds. You guys are like religious fanatics when it comes to this topic.
What, specifically, is it that you have found which makes you believe that mind and brain are not selfsame?
Will you give up your cerebral cortex to prove that your mind isn't in there? I dare any of you.
Dualism was first postulated by Descartes, around 1600. He knew little about anatomy, specific impairment caused by brain injury or disease, and resulting specific impairments, or the thousands of experiments on living animal brains. Geez. Give it up. If you think that the Mind doesn't reside in the brain, then tell us where it is.
Explain optogenetics for us in a dualist (or any) manner, will you? Right now, that is the cutting edge of neuroscience. Refute it.
Sorry, PSP, I just saw your above post. No, I haven't found anything in my readings about dualism. Or about the brain, for that matter.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 03:55pm PT
|
I have pointed this out before Descartes said "I think therefore I am" and ZM Seung Sahn's response
"I don't think therefore what? " Base look into non-dualism. I figured the europeans would have ventured here but it doesn't seem so. Probably because it can't be properly approached from a discursive/philosophic strategy similar to rock climbing. Although, apparently the christian mystics encountered it in their practice just didn't get out to the public.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 04:08pm PT
|
Ya know? I've read a little about Buddhism. At one point it was attractive to me, because it required neither belief or faith. I have a book called "Buddhism Without Belief."
Faith and belief are two things that I've seen sucker in most of the humans on the planet. People KILL each other over these different faiths. Every day. I can't tolerate it, and want no part in it.
What I did read about Buddhism was the four noble truths, the noble 8-fold path, compassion, an end to suffering, and a way to live goodly.
I never hear Buddhism on this thread. Only arguments over science. For the life of me, I don't think that science has in ANY way refuted the teachings of Buddhists. If anything, studies of meditators show that they have unusual control of normally autonomic functions of their bodies, among other things. Meditation is widely accepted as being GOOD for you. So I have no axe to grind with that. None at all.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 04:51pm PT
|
Jgill:
I appreciate your apology. Cheers back at ya.
What do you hold sacrosanct? What notion cannot be challenged in you? Is there something that you feel is core, essential, to your being (however you want to describe that) that cannot be questioned? Did I understand that logic might be that for you? Maybe prediction? Replicability? Some “-ism” (e.g., empiricism?) or “-ology” that you hold dear or close to your heart? Maybe it’s that center that the “you” looks out from the world and evaluates “the all” that you perceive? Maybe it’s your intellectual capabilities, or your heart, or your instincts, or your intuitions that come first and tend to rule the other inherent capabilities?
With regards to the sanctity or preeminence of reason or logic in our last posts, I heard the echo of my father’s voice in my head: “I think I struck a nerve there.”
So to help us find a common ground for conversation (way before what you consider to be “woo,”), maybe we should start with some axioms, as it were.
I’ll go first. I’ll admit to only one thing that appears privileged: that there cannot be any doubt of consciousness. It is the base, the foundation, of anything, of everything. Everything else can be doubted, and perhaps should be if I am diligent and conscientious.
Beyond consciousness, I find I cannot *say* with any assurance what anything truly is. The issue here is not that I doubt things nearly so much as everything else appears to me infinitely indescribable, unresolvable, varied—yet the same in essence.
(Perhaps I’ve already offered too much.)
And, hey, . . . Base, you *do* go on with rants. Your mind is all over the place. Focus. Take just one thing at a time. Shine your light on just one thing, look at that one thing very closely, and see what that one thing is. Just take one thing at a time, and dive deep into that one thing. As someone has said: “Get to the very bottom of any one thing, and you’ll have gotten to the bottom of everything.”
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 08:33pm PT
|
I’ll admit to only one thing that appears privileged: that there cannot be any doubt of consciousness. It is the base, the foundation, of anything, of everything
The issue here is not that I doubt things nearly so much as everything else appears to me infinitely indescribable, unresolvable, varied—yet the same in essence (MikeL)
Yes, I think consciousness is ground zero for any discussion of mind. Although, as was mentioned long ago on this thread, awareness doesn't necessarily coincide with consciousness. One's protective reflexes may be triggered by information bypassing the conscious state. So then, should the entirety of awareness be considered part of mind? When you and your meditator colleagues reach the state of empty awareness you are clearly conscious of the experience. Is there a hierarchy here?
As for infinitely indescribable, etc., when I dabble with math I assume the axiomatic structure with which I am most familiar without even thinking of it. So that as I intellectually dabble in the subject I am not aware of all those postulates and rules. Should I attempt to backtrack to those initial axioms - or mechanically get to the very bottom of things, as JL might say - my life would be a grueling dilemma with no redeeming spirit.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 08:45pm PT
|
According to ones developed consciousness one will become aware of need according to time and circumstance.
Thus consciousness (life) precedes awareness ......
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 09:03pm PT
|
I never hear Buddhism on this thread.
I got a good laugh out of that I must say. What in the world do you think most of us who are not scientists are talking about anyway? Even though Largo claims Zen has nothing to do with Buddhism, his vocabulary is straight out of Buddhism. So is Mike L's. PSP and I use a lot also, although we all try to use a more modern vocabulary as well. And for good measure, a little Vedanta is thrown in. Even Werner espouses that philosophy a lot although he doesn't believe in impersonalism.
Just because we don't bash you over the head with a holy book and try to convert you doesn't mean that the eastern philosophies don't permeate most of us who are not strict materialists.
Arnold Toynbee the great British historian once remarked. "The most important event of the 20th century will not be the atom bomb but the fact that Buddhism was introduced to the West".
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 09:09pm PT
|
Base; non-duality is before buddhism. Buddhism is a religion. Non-duality is an experience. You expounded on duality and expressed your opinion of it ("shoddy"); how did you miss non-duality?. ML , JL, Werner, Jan and me are talking about non-duality (mind not attached to thinking, concepts etc.). If you have a dualistic POV non-duality makes no sense. How could it make sense if a person is seeing dualistically.
So you have to do the work/practice to pierce the dualistic view.
I do understand most are not interested in piercing the dualistic view.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 09:37pm PT
|
Yes, non dualism came before religion and is found in almost all religions. The reason many use Buddhist and Vedanta terminology is that some sort of verbal framework is needed, particularly by westerners, to discuss the concept .Eastern philosophies provide the vocabulary to do so better than other traditions.
All the eastern masters say that it is good to shop around for religions and philosophies and to read up on the subject, but at some point you have to actually meditate to go any further.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2016 - 10:02pm PT
|
That's an interesting quote by Toynbee, but I don't see a lot of influence in the West by the introduction of Buddhism into our culture. I suspect if I lived in one of the big cities on either coast I might see more. Certainly LSD, magic mushrooms and such made a big impact back in the 1960s, and some of that may have been interwoven with Buddhism.
I take it there are ashrams and Zen centers here and there all over the US, as there are Yoga studios, but mainly I see the fitness aspect of Yoga and practically nothing of Buddhism here where I live. Boulder I am sure teems with this stuff, but Boulder is on another planet. I am not aware of Buddhist thinking influencing our political discourse or really most other aspects of life in America.
Tell me if I am wrong.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2016 - 08:41am PT
|
as a tangent, but since this thread touches on many philosophical ideas which are poorly explained:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pragmatism/
"James's dilemma is a familiar one: it is a form of the question of how we can reconcile the claims of science, on the one hand, with those of religion and morality on the other. James introduces it by observing that the history of philosophy is ‘to a great extent that of a certain clash of human temperaments’, between the ‘tough minded’ and the ‘tender minded’. The tough minded have an empiricist commitment to experience and going by ‘the facts’, while the tender-minded have more of a taste for a priori principles which appeal to the mind. The tender minded tend to be idealistic, optimistic and religious, while the tough minded are normally materialist, pessimistic and irreligious. The tender-minded are ‘free-willist’ and dogmatic; the tough minded are ‘fatalistic’ and sceptical."
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2016 - 09:09am PT
|
Great post, Ed!!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2016 - 09:14am PT
|
Ironic Ed is posting from Plato who was completely God conscious ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Southern Arizona
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2016 - 09:25am PT
|
One issue that might be confusing to us here on this thread is that terms mean different things to different people based upon their reading, their experience, and their conversations with others (which are not always very kind). “Emptiness” “awareness,” even “Buddhism” with its 4 noble truths present either different meanings, or they might be more appropriately termed expressions than definitions.
For example, “emptiness” to novices or external observers might mean “nothing.” To a long-time practitioner, it could easily mean “absolute fullness.” “Dualism” is another term that means different things to different people.
In every field of experience there appear to be naive subjects, novices, and experts; or another set of categories are “incompetent,” “competent,” “virtuosos,” and “masters.” Each different school, training, and level of understanding shift what people are pointing to or attempting to talk about. (And that’s assuming that some things CAN be talked about.)
I wrote to Jgill above that logic, reason, or the scientific method could reflect a bias or a perspective.
Here we are this morning lamenting the death of 50 people in Orlando from a shooting. Singular characterizations tend to make us see one thing as opposed to any or all others.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado & Nepal
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2016 - 09:33am PT
|
jgill, Other than the fact that you live in Colorado Springs which is just as fundamentalist Christian as Boulder is far out, I think you don't see Buddhism as an influence in America for the same reason base doesn't see it on this thread. It does not conform to your expectations of a religion as expressed by the Abrahamic faiths. I've got to do yard work while it's still cool, but I'll get back in more detail a bit later.
Ed, I like that quote by James as I think it pretty well sums up our differences on this thread. Personally I think temperment is more important in these debates than some sort of "truth". I used to talk about left brain , right brain to the annoyance of some, but I think James is pointing out the same difference. Pragmatists are what I would call left brain and idealists are what I would call right brain.
One thing James said that I am pondering is the idea that the right brain is dogmatic. It can be, but it seems to me that is also a left brain specialty, backed up with hand picked logic of course. Then again, maybe in the West idealism is dogmatic whereas in the East not so. Perhaps the fact that so many idealists in the West are no longer dogmatic is one of the measures of the subtle penetration of Buddhism and Vedanta into our societies?
Along these lines, I just read in the NYT yesterday that one of the most popular courses at Harvard now is one on Confucian philosophy.
Since 2006, Michael Puett has taught an undergraduate survey course at Harvard University on Chinese philosophy, examining how classic Chinese texts are relevant today. The course is now one of Harvard’s most popular, third only to “Introduction to Computer Science” and “Principles of Economics.” Mr. Puett and the writer Christine Gross-Loh have distilled the essence of his course into “The Path: What Chinese Philosophers Can Teach Us About the Good Life.” The book has been bought by publishers in 25 countries....
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/world/asia/china-philosophy-harvard-puett.html
I think this shows that even the logical left brain pragmatists know that we need some kind of an ethical structure to support our society and since Confucianism has played that role in East Asia for 2,500 years, are interested in it. East Asian society in my view provides something for everybody - Confucianism for the pragmatic and Buddhism and Taoism for the more idealistic, while most have tried to balance the best of all these views.
Not surprisingly, the Christian missionaries to China (dogmatic idealists no doubt), did not appreciate this approach. Their observation was "The educated ruling classes believe in nothing and the masses believe in everything".
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2016 - 09:46am PT
|
Jun 13, 2016 - 09:14am PT
Ironic Ed is posting from Plato who was completely God conscious ......
Not with a large G , Werner.
Plato's writings talk about "hoi theoi" ( the gods) and "ho theos" ( the god) As generic terms.
When he does reference an entity, he tends to use "to theos" ( the divine being). That's actually pretty rare, and more like the enlightenment concept of a creator removed from man's struggles. ( the declaration of independence talks about Creator and the founding fathers reference Divine Providence, which sounds more like casino winnings that a God)
The active God of Yahweh, the Christian trinity, Allah , etc doesn't exist for Plato and Aristotle.
You rather find the concept of DemIorugos, ie " the one who works for the people" which is more a concept of a collective unifier of the people's own efforts. He sees religion as a tool, a unifying ritual force in the city. He sure doesn't believe gods can be interacted with, ie bought or appeased with sacrifice or asked for help.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jun 13, 2016 - 11:48am PT
|
JG said "Boulder I am sure teems with this stuff, but Boulder is on another planet. I am not aware of Buddhist thinking influencing our political discourse or really most other aspects of life in America.
Tell me if I am wrong. "
Colorado springs has a zen center http://www.smszen.org/aboutoursangha/ just google it and it has a vippassana community from what I can tell and Crestone has a zen retreat center.
Regarding inroads into US culture; one word MINDFULNESS. Although IMO much of "mindfulness" is/has been co-oped to be a new market. Become a mindfulness teacher by taking a couple of classes etc.. But it is about being present and using meditation techniques to do that.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!