Mind versus Self?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby undefineable » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:14 am

ground wrote: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:
ground wrote: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:
ground wrote:Of course on the basis of what can be shown by natural science endless speculations can be added
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby ground » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:43 am

undefineable wrote:
ground wrote: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

undefineable wrote: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. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Dec 31, 2012 7:48 am

ground wrote: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?
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7900
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby undefineable » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:51 pm

ground wrote:
undefineable wrote: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?

ground wrote:
undefineable wrote: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?
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby catmoon » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:11 pm

undefineable wrote: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.
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby undefineable » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:19 pm

catmoon wrote:
undefineable wrote: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.

:buddha2: :bow:
"Removing the barrier between this and that is the only solution" {Chogyam Trungpa - "The Lion's Roar"}
undefineable
 
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 1:34 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Dec 31, 2012 3:51 pm

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).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:00 pm

Good stuff
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:04 pm

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


and that's where the turtles swim?!? :tongue:
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:11 pm

catmoon wrote:...it floats on a sea of quantum foam.
You pseudo materialist! Positing the existence of a foam, how dare you!? :tongue:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7900
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby catmoon » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:18 pm

Image
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Mon Dec 31, 2012 4:18 pm

"I foam, therefore I am"
Catmoon
31/12/2012
Avatar_Month_Foaming_mouth_guy_by_Daffzcookie.jpg
Avatar_Month_Foaming_mouth_guy_by_Daffzcookie.jpg (6.63 KiB) Viewed 471 times
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Former staff member
 
Posts: 7900
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby anjali » Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:46 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:"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. ;)
  • The object of the game is to go on playing it. --John Von Neumann
  • All activities are like the games children play. If started, they can never be finished. They are only completed once you let them be, like castles made of sand. --Khenpo Nyoshul Rinpoche
anjali
 
Posts: 280
Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 10:33 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Dec 31, 2012 8:01 pm

This whole thread is getting :offtopic: Come on boyz get :focus:
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby catmoon » Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:32 am

songhill wrote:This whole thread is getting :offtopic: Come on boyz get :focus:



Well modded sir! Ok guys da boss sez back to topic so I guess we better get it together!
Sergeant Schultz knew everything there was to know.
User avatar
catmoon
Former staff member
 
Posts: 2916
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 3:20 am
Location: British Columbia

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Tue Jan 01, 2013 2:44 am

undefineable wrote:
ground wrote: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.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Karma Dorje » Tue Jan 01, 2013 3:19 am

"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.
Karma Dorje
 
Posts: 731
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2011 10:35 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Tue Jan 01, 2013 5:21 am

Karma Dorje wrote:"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.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby ground » Tue Jan 01, 2013 6:28 am

undefineable wrote:
ground wrote:
undefineable wrote: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

undefineable wrote:
ground wrote:
undefineable wrote: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? :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby muni » Tue Jan 01, 2013 9:19 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote: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.


:smile:
muni
 
Posts: 2735
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 6:59 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deff, JKhedrup, Norwegian, palchi, Simon E., smcj, Thrasymachus, yan kong and 11 guests

>