Mind versus Self?

[undefineable]

As a friend of natural science I know that neither "self" nor "mind" can be found but the organ "brain" can be found.

Can you explain exactly what 'brain' is?

Also, I understand science to be something you do rather than something you befriend - You might think you're befriending the results, but the meaning of these is limited and requires interpretation in order for any far-reaching conclusions to be reached. That requires philosophy; therefore:

As a friend of natural science I know that "existence" and "non-existence" cannot be found either and they can only be conceived of. Therefore both "existence" and "non-existence" can only be confirmed as mere conciousnesses qua thoughts "existence" and "non-existence" and concomitant imaginations.

, and:

Of course on the basis of what can be shown by natural science endless speculations can be added

[ground]

As a friend of natural science I know that neither "self" nor "mind" can be found but the organ "brain" can be found.

Can you explain exactly what 'brain' is?

Please be referred to books of anatomy, physiology and neurology.
For the time being this may be of help
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain

Also, I understand science to be something you do rather than something you befriend - You might think you're befriending the results, but the meaning of these is limited and requires interpretation in order for any far-reaching conclusions to be reached. That requires philosophy;

There is no agreement but never mind. Understanding is a product of neurons which will disintegrate.

[gregkavarnos]

There is no agreement but never mind. Understanding is a product of neurons which will disintegrate.

So how, within this model, do you explain the bardo of death or the rebirth linking consciousness of the Theravada tradition? How do you explain past life karma? What about fomrless realms?

[undefineable]

Can you explain exactly what 'brain' is?

Please be referred to books of anatomy, physiology and neurology.

To put it more clearly, can you explain exactly what quantum particles and gravity are? Every explanation collapses into the level below it (e.g. brain is neurons/neurons are cells/cells are molecules etc.), one (popularised) analogy being a tower of turtles, but what exactly supports the whole tower?

Also, I understand science to be something you do rather than something you befriend - You might think you're befriending the results, but the meaning of these is limited and requires interpretation in order for any far-reaching conclusions to be reached. That requires philosophy;

There is no agreement

Indeed. Moreover, isn't science better defined as a process than a as a catalogue of results?

[catmoon]

To put it more clearly, can you explain exactly what quantum particles and gravity are? Every explanation collapses into the level below it (e.g. brain is neurons/neurons are cells/cells are molecules etc.), one (popularised) analogy being a tower of turtles, but what exactly supports the whole tower?

We are starting to get a clue about that. Early indications are that nothing supports the tower at all. As you look for ever finer explanations one tends to end up looking at ever smaller things. But there IS an end in sight. If we could shrink ourselves down to the Planck scale (about 10 to the -43 meter), all we would see is chaos. Everywhere everything would appear to be in constant flux, nothing stable, nothing enduring.

So science doesn't stand on anything, it floats on a sea of quantum foam.

[undefineable]

To put it more clearly, can you explain exactly what quantum particles and gravity are? Every explanation collapses into the level below it (e.g. brain is neurons/neurons are cells/cells are molecules etc.), one (popularised) analogy being a tower of turtles, but what exactly supports the whole tower?

We are starting to get a clue about that. Early indications are that nothing supports the tower at all. As you look for ever finer explanations one tends to end up looking at ever smaller things. But there IS an end in sight. If we could shrink ourselves down to the Planck scale (about 10 to the -43 meter), all we would see is chaos. Everywhere everything would appear to be in constant flux, nothing stable, nothing enduring.

So science doesn't stand on anything, it floats on a sea of quantum foam.

[songhill]

We moderns, especially neuroscientists who subscribe to materialism, tend to forget the almost unassailiable arguments of Bishop Berkeley against a real objective world, including real brains who, by the way, coined the term "materialism" in 1713 which he said was nothing but "Atheism a little disguised."

"According to the eighteenth-century Irish empiricist Bishop George Berkeley, "Esse set percipi" ("To be is to be perceived"), which is to say that the so-called objective world is all in the mind. Berkeley argued that our only knowledge of this world is what comes to us through our senses. (Philosophers call this information "sense data.") Beyond these sense data, Berkeley said, you cannot infer anything else, such as the existence of substances out there sending out vibes that stimulate our senses" (Thomas Cathcart, Plato and a Platypus Walk in a Bar, http://goo.gl/Pf4UL).

[Son of Buddha]

Good stuff

[futerko]

So science doesn't stand on anything, it floats on a sea of quantum foam.

and that's where the turtles swim?!?

[gregkavarnos]

...it floats on a sea of quantum foam.

You pseudo materialist! Positing the existence of a foam, how dare you!?

[catmoon]

[gregkavarnos]

"I foam, therefore I am"
Catmoon
31/12/2012

Avatar_Month_Foaming_mouth_guy_by_Daffzcookie.jpg (6.63 KiB) Viewed 390 times

[anjali]

"I foam, therefore I am"
Catmoon
31/12/2012

Avatar_Month_Foaming_mouth_guy_by_Daffzcookie.jpg

Please help me, I can't resist...

"I foam...." The Fo (佛) character denotes Buddha in Chinese (as in amitofo). Therefore "I foam" becomes "I buddha-am", or "I am buddha". Not a bad affirmation! That quantum "foam" takes on a whole new meaning.

[songhill]

This whole thread is getting Come on boyz get

[catmoon]

This whole thread is getting Come on boyz get

Well modded sir! Ok guys da boss sez back to topic so I guess we better get it together!

[PadmaVonSamba]

As a friend of natural science I know that neither "self" nor "mind" can be found but the organ "brain" can be found.

Can you explain exactly what 'brain' is?

Th brain merely provides the physical environment through which mind is experienced
in the context of a relatively material reality.
Through a human brain, a mind is experienced as human experience.
But if the conditions are that of, say, a dog's brain,
mind is experienced as dog experience.
Brain and mind are like a forest and a deer.
The forest merely provides the physical environment for the existence of the deer.
The deer is not produced by the trees.
At the same time, what has evolved as a deer
meaning its color, its food needs, IS produced by the forest.
The two arise simultaneously.
Likewise, activity of the mind can rewire the brain
and an injury to the brain can affect the working of the mind
just as a mirror with a crack in it will distort the reflection.
So, what is it that "comes to life" in the environment of the brain?
Dharmakaya. Everything.
But because of the brain's limitations, we only experience a limited experience
Even though the mind's true nature is unlimited.
What we call "Consciousness", as we know it, is not what exists after the death of the brain.
But the causes of consciousness, which as not dependent on a physical brain, these remain
not owned by anyone.
Just as the cause of a tree "exists" in a seed.
"Consciousness" is not a thing, and "mind" is not a thing.
these are just vague and ambiguous terms we use to refer to a constant flow of events.
Talking about "mind" is like talking about "wind"
there is no actual thing which exists that is the wind,
even though what we call "wind" can be produced and experienced.
It's just a combination of air and pressure.
No thing inherently exists, ultimately, that can be identified as "mind"
so no wonder scientists have trouble finding it.
.
.
.

[Karma Dorje]

"Brain" and indeed anatomy as a whole are just useful predictive models. They are indispensable maps for investigating certain kinds of cognitive behavior, but these maps are not the territory itself. Brain itself is just a conventional designation, not the cognitive territory itself. To think that the brain is entirely responsible for cognition is not to think very deeply-- one has assumed that the mere labeling activity has itself produced meaning. To say that the brain is very much linked to certain kinds of cognitive behavior is a given. To say that it is solely responsible is to exaggerate.

Don't get the idea that I am too down on the brain, however. I have to agree with Woody Allen: The brain is definitely my second favourite organ.

[songhill]

"Brain" and indeed anatomy as a whole are just useful predictive models. They are indispensable maps for investigating certain kinds of cognitive behavior, but these maps are not the territory itself. Brain itself is just a conventional designation, not the cognitive territory itself. To think that the brain is entirely responsible for cognition is not to think very deeply-- one has assumed that the mere labeling activity has itself produced meaning. To say that the brain is very much linked to certain kinds of cognitive behavior is a given. To say that it is solely responsible is to exaggerate.

Don't get the idea that I am too down on the brain, however. I have to agree with Woody Allen: The brain is definitely my second favourite organ.

Great comment. The maps, we forget, do not make it possible to govern the brain or to know mind. If we govern anything it is not the brain but only the maps we make about the brain.

[ground]

Can you explain exactly what 'brain' is?

Please be referred to books of anatomy, physiology and neurology.

To put it more clearly, can you explain exactly what quantum particles and gravity are? Every explanation collapses into the level below it (e.g. brain is neurons/neurons are cells/cells are molecules etc.), one (popularised) analogy being a tower of turtles, but what exactly supports the whole tower?

Why? I do not need to "explain exactly what quantum particles and gravity are" when I enter a bakery to buy bread. Even if "Every explanation collapses into the level below it" I still enter the bakery to buy bread if I want to have bread. The same holds true when I refer you to anatomy, physiology and neurology. However if you are interested in quantum particles and gravity I would like to refer you to books dealing with physics

Also, I understand science to be something you do rather than something you befriend - You might think you're befriending the results, but the meaning of these is limited and requires interpretation in order for any far-reaching conclusions to be reached. That requires philosophy;

There is no agreement

Indeed. Moreover, isn't science better defined as a process than a as a catalogue of results?

"There is no agreement" means that from my perspective philosophy is not required. As far as definition is concerned I did not suggest a definition. Obviously you are interested in a definition. Maybe Google may be of help? Or Wiki?

[muni]

What I find interesting is that while the brain exists in physical space, thoughts only exist for durations of time, and so when scientists are looking for the mind in the brain, it's like looking for the sound inside of a saxophone.