Dalai Lama on Science

A forum for scholastic discussion/debate.

Re: Dalai Lama on Science

Postby oushi » Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:23 am

Andrew108 wrote:Because not everything is made of mind. But we've had this debate before with the yogachara debate.

Interesting. Can you prove anything exists outside of your mind? If there was a debate about it, then I assume it ended by agreeing upon the fact that nothing can be proven to be more then a presence before mind. Science/Society agreed upon working with collective view. Trusts had been made, allowing people to incorporate experiences of other people as views. We ended up with experience + Views. Experience changes constantly, view can crystallize, that is why it's possible to grasp and hold on to it. What happens when we accept the approach toward view as more authoritative as that toward experience? We apply it, and we grasp. Grasp after something that changes by it's nature. Seed for suffering is planted, and we are destined to suffer sooner or later. We make views out of experiences to be able to grasp the pleasant ones, and avoid those unpleasant. Everyday, pure madness. What is the role of science here? To prove, and refine this approach, sharpening this blade that wound us. There is nothing wrong with science, or intellectualization, problem lies in the approach. We break the mirror to pick up a piece, after piece, trying to make a new one. The result is deformed, full of patters and cracks. It is hard to see who we really are in its reflection.
Why people chase after awakening? To have it all sorted out, to not miss a piece. Peace is found only in completeness. So, what part are you (reader) missing?
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Dalai Lama on Science

Postby catmoon » Sat Sep 15, 2012 9:40 am

viniketa wrote:
catmoon wrote:Yup and it signals to the community that it is high time they should no longer be listened to, as scientists at least. Linus Pauling's senile rants on Vitamin C come to mind.


I forget, did Pauling see God in Vitamin C? :tongue:

I respect your thoughts on this, catmoon, but it seems we outright disagree about the nature of science and scientists. Many of the scientists I know are awed all the time by their own findings and experience a deep sense of the mysteries of the universe we don't see in many churches...


What Is It to be Intellectually Humble?

:namaste:


Well of course they do. Hard to find an astronomer that doesn't. But they rigorously keep that stuff out of the serious papers.
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: Dalai Lama on Science

Postby catmoon » Sat Sep 15, 2012 10:11 am

WUPS!

I just noticed that this is in the academic forum. Time to pull up the old socks with a reference or two.

Beyond the Purview of Science


“Somewhere within the narrowing gap between brain and mind is what Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s double helix, has called his “astonishing hypothesis,” which is “that ‘You,’ your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules.” (from Cheshire, WP, MD, MA, FAAN)

“Crick is correct, up to a point. If he had claimed that mental states “are represented by,” or “correspond to,” nerves and molecules, then his statement would have been germane to his field of molecular biology. With the words, “are in fact no more than,” he has stepped outside the jurisdiction of science and proffered a philosophical assertion which argues that all that is true and can be known about human consciousness is ultimately reducible to matter and its quantifiable interactions.”

In his article published in Ethics and Medicine 24(3):139-142, Dr. Cheshire makes a good point. It is important to distinguish between interpretation of science, extrapolation from science and sheer speculation. Dr. Crick stepped over the line. AITSE’s purpose is to help the public detect unscientific claims made in the name of science, thereby benefiting from good science, based on impartial evaluation of evidence.


This from the AITSE site, which might reasonably be taken as close to the mainstream. Note that Crick was a 1962 Nobel Prize winner and still got called on it.
Also relevant is that Crick's book, "The Astonishing Hypothesis", was published in 1994, making him about 78 years of age at the time.
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: Dalai Lama on Science

Postby viniketa » Sat Sep 15, 2012 2:06 pm

catmoon wrote:But they rigorously keep that stuff out of the serious papers.


Wouldn't it be funny if someone conducted research to show scientists do have spiritual beliefs, but will not publicize them because they think their fellow scientists lack such beliefs?

As to the first part of that question:

There is some truth to the perception that scientists and the academy are “godless.” Yet, to see
the academy only from this monolithic view would overlook the significant numbers of scientists
who do identify with some form of faith tradition (48 percent) as well as those who are interested
in spirituality (about 68 percent). In addition, when we look at the religious backgrounds of
scientists, the picture becomes more complicated. Scientists come disproportionately from
irreligious backgrounds or backgrounds where a faith tradition was only nominally practiced.
http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf


:namaste:
If they can sever like and dislike, along with greed, anger, and delusion, regardless of their difference in nature, they will all accomplish the Buddha Path.. ~ Sutra of Complete Enlightenment
User avatar
viniketa
 
Posts: 819
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:39 am
Location: USA

Re: Dalai Lama on Science

Postby Andrew108 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:39 pm

oushi wrote:
Andrew108 wrote:Because not everything is made of mind. But we've had this debate before with the yogachara debate.

Interesting. Can you prove anything exists outside of your mind? If there was a debate about it, then I assume it ended by agreeing upon the fact that nothing can be proven to be more then a presence before mind. Science/Society agreed upon working with collective view. Trusts had been made, allowing people to incorporate experiences of other people as views. We ended up with experience + Views. Experience changes constantly, view can crystallize, that is why it's possible to grasp and hold on to it. What happens when we accept the approach toward view as more authoritative as that toward experience? We apply it, and we grasp. Grasp after something that changes by it's nature. Seed for suffering is planted, and we are destined to suffer sooner or later. We make views out of experiences to be able to grasp the pleasant ones, and avoid those unpleasant. Everyday, pure madness. What is the role of science here? To prove, and refine this approach, sharpening this blade that wound us. There is nothing wrong with science, or intellectualization, problem lies in the approach. We break the mirror to pick up a piece, after piece, trying to make a new one. The result is deformed, full of patters and cracks. It is hard to see who we really are in its reflection.
Why people chase after awakening? To have it all sorted out, to not miss a piece. Peace is found only in completeness. So, what part are you (reader) missing?

Actually presence is also outside of mind. Absolutely. I didn't really understand the rest of your post.
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Re: Dalai Lama on Science

Postby oushi » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:46 pm

Andrew108 wrote:Actually presence is also outside of mind. Absolutely. I didn't really understand the rest of your post.

Where is this presence, outside of mind? How did you experience it, that you say its absolutely there.
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1362
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Dalai Lama on Science

Postby Andrew108 » Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:56 pm

This is going a bit off topic. So maybe start a new thread?
Andrew108
 
Posts: 1057
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 7:41 pm

Previous

Return to Academic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: LolCat and 11 guests

>