Paul wrote:A lot of Buddhism is most definitely substance-dualism. This is definitely the Theravadin view, and arguably the sutra madhyamaka view. Tantra is different.
coldmountain wrote:I'm having difficulty trying to conceptualize what 'mental' is as opposed to 'physical'. In the West we've inherited a very dualistic metaphysical system that sees 'mind' and 'matter' as two different types of stuff. When I read Buddhist literature, I sometimes come across ideas that seem to express a similar idea, yet I know Buddhism doesn't posit a dualism.
coldmountain wrote: yet I know Buddhism doesn't posit a dualism.
What is physical? What is mental? Are they independent? Could the physical exist without the mental? Is one metaphysically prior to or dependent on the other?
Thanks and peace.
steveb1 wrote:how is "mind only" maintained against "brain only" ... ?
steveb1 wrote:Thanks, virgo. What I'm trying to get at is how Buddhism defends mind only from the findings of brain science, which suggest - via scanning and other tests - that it is a fact that the mind is purely/merely a brain product. That is, if as HH Dalai Lama says, Buddhism must embrace scientific truth, then how does Buddhism defend mind only from the apparent fact that brain causes mind?
steveb1 wrote:That is, if as HH Dalai Lama says, Buddhism must embrace scientific truth, then how does Buddhism defend mind only from the apparent fact that brain causes mind?
Acchantika wrote:steveb1 wrote:That is, if as HH Dalai Lama says, Buddhism must embrace scientific truth, then how does Buddhism defend mind only from the apparent fact that brain causes mind?
The short answer: It doesn’t need to, as the evidence so far is non-contradictory.
The long answer: There is no universally accepted scientific definition of consciousness, nor agreement on whether consciousness has a specific neural correlate or is a product of the relationship of several. So, technically speaking Buddhism has not yet been given a specific theory to refute. There is no positive evidence that consciousness is solely the product of the brain, and whether this hypothesis is even falsifiable (How do we isolate a brain? Is a synthetic brain even possible? How do we know a subject is conscious? Etc.) and thus a scientific hypothesis is still debated.
Physicalism and Eliminative Materialism in relation to the philosophy of mind are philosophical positions that posit a brain emergent theory of consciousness. As schools of philosophy, these should not be confused with scientific fact, or even close to it, even though these are probably accepted by the majority of scientists and often argued by them. Nevertheless, what the consensus is even on is not obvious. Even within emergent theories of mind there is disagreement, such as whether consciousness is emergent from the bio-chemical, the informational, the quantum or higher-level, non-reductive processes.........
Users browsing this forum: kajibabu and 12 guests