In what sense is the brain and consciousness not just biochemicals

[Johnny Dangerous]

You guys still don’t get it, I think I’m gonna give up at this point, you grok it or you don’t. Once you do, you'll get why none of these objections are actually objections.

Nothing you’re saying indicates “objective” phenomena, it indicates an agreed upon and approximate correlation of subjective experiences. It certainly doesn’t indicate that experience is reducible to brain chemicals, of which no one has a direct experience.

For example, we might both have the experience of stubbing our toes. We can talk about stubbing our toes, compare experiences, and we can probably even find ways to not stub our toes in the future, or ways to make our toes feel better. it does not mean we are having the same experience, much less that it has transformed some "objective" phenomena by virtue of us comparing notes. You might say it's "relatively" objective, if you wanted to make that kind of distinction, but that doesn't seem relevant given the original posts questions.

People correlating and studying subjective experiences via experimentation etc. does not somehow change the experiences into objective phenomena. There is no such animal outside of Platonism or some such. No ideal chair, just infinite different experiences of “chair”, with us tacitly agreeing that they are the same experiences through labeling, etc. when we could simply consult our senses directly to know that the experiences are in fact unique to our own mindstream, and that "chair" isn't even the same experience one day to the next.

This is the imaginary or imputed nature, it can seen as unreal even through this mere examination of sense processes.

Let me know when you find that objective phenomena which exists outside your perceptions by something other than inference based on said perceptions, I’ll be waiting.

BTW, I keep getting the impression that people think this is saying "science doesn't work" or something..it's nothing like that at all. I came to and understanding about this from talking to two pretty highly trained (Buddharma wise) and well read ex monks who are teachers, one of whom has a physics degree and one who is a pyschotherapist during a retreat. This is not some anti-science argument and getting stuck on the notion that it is is absolutely missing the point. this has nothing to do with denying the scientific method, etc.

t doesn’t mean that all phenomena only occur subjectively.

Your experience of dying of an undetected illness is subjective. All the argument proves is that there are lots of things we are not aware of, that subjective vision itself is...occluded and partial, which should be no surprise. it is not a claim that a being's subjective awareness is the final and definitive reality, We are ostensibly Buddhists after all, so this certainly would not be a good position to take. In fact, this is precisely what makes it the imputed or imaginary nature.

I did not say that all phenomena everywhere fit into every beings subjective reality, only that all phenomena are experienced subjectively. If you dispute this, you need to explain how phenomena are experienced objectively.

Again it is not a philosophical claim of some kind solipsism, etc.

that doesn’t mean that all phenomena only occur subjectively.

Cool, let me know when you find an objective experience, and how it is possible to have one. How does a mindstream experience objectivity?

[Tata1]

If there is something as objective phenomena its unknownable in principle since all we know is through subjective experience.

[Johnny Dangerous]

If there is something as objective phenomena its unknownable in principle since all we know is through subjective experience.

Exactly!

From that, (keeping on topic wrt to the OP) I'm extrapolating why it is absurd to adhere to the idea that the mind is just chemicals, neurons, or whatever physical structure. I will point out when I asked the physicist-Yogi/scholar I know, he found it a little inaccurate to even label neurons as strictly "physical" anyway, but I did not really have the science background to understand that part.

We have no direct experience of "chemicals" as the mind, and if we did, if objective reality were reduced to merely physical property (which is unfalsifiable anyway, making it a theory outside the bounds of the scientific process) then the subjective experience required to find said "objective" structures would be null and void, as it would be "not real" (being non physical) and only the chemical interaction would be deemed real, but is found only within subjective experience. There is a definite contradiction there.

Again, this is a conundrum at the heart of materialism, and plenty of materialist philosophers (like Daniel Dennet) take on questions like this. I believe his term is "manifest image" - what we actually experience, as opposed to 'scientific image', which is what materialists think, I guess, is somehow objective reality.

[Malcolm]

If there is something as objective phenomena its unknownable in principle since all we know is through subjective experience.

This is a fallacy. If this were the case, anumana, inference, would be impossible, as well as the authority of direct perception.

[Johnny Dangerous]

If there is something as objective phenomena its unknownable in principle since all we know is through subjective experience.

This is a fallacy. If this were the case, anumana, inference, would be impossible, as well as the authority of direct perception.

Well, it's knowable in terms of Gnosis/Jnana in Buddhist terms, but outside of specific Buddhist notions of truth, it is self evident that inference is based on subjective experience, what else would it be based on?

[Malcolm]

If there is something as objective phenomena its unknownable in principle since all we know is through subjective experience.

This is a fallacy. If this were the case, anumana, inference, would be impossible, as well as the authority of direct perception.

Well, it's knowable in terms of Gnosis/Jnana in Buddhist terms, but outside of specific Buddhist notions of truth, it is self evident that inference is based on subjective experience, what else would it be based on?

Inference and direct perceptions can be confirmed by second parties. This is the basis for empiricism.

For example, I see smoke, and infer there is a fire. I tell another there is smoke, and thus, there must be a fire. They investigate, confirm there is a fire and let me know that indeed my inference was correct. Hence, there was a fire which produced smoke, and it occurred independently of my specific experience of it.

[Johnny Dangerous]

This is a fallacy. If this were the case, anumana, inference, would be impossible, as well as the authority of direct perception.

Well, it's knowable in terms of Gnosis/Jnana in Buddhist terms, but outside of specific Buddhist notions of truth, it is self evident that inference is based on subjective experience, what else would it be based on?

Inference and direct perceptions can be confirmed by second parties. This is the basis for empiricism.

For example, I see smoke, and infer there is a fire. I tell another there is smoke, and thus, there must be a fire. They investigate, confirm there is a fire and let me know that indeed my inference was correct. Hence, there was a fire which produced smoke, and it occurred independently of my specific experience of it.

Second parties are also using their subjective experience, I get why this applies to general truth claims wrt to relative phenomena, but I don't see how it applies here.

[Malcolm]

Well, it's knowable in terms of Gnosis/Jnana in Buddhist terms, but outside of specific Buddhist notions of truth, it is self evident that inference is based on subjective experience, what else would it be based on?

Inference and direct perceptions can be confirmed by second parties. This is the basis for empiricism.

For example, I see smoke, and infer there is a fire. I tell another there is smoke, and thus, there must be a fire. They investigate, confirm there is a fire and let me know that indeed my inference was correct. Hence, there was a fire which produced smoke, and it occurred independently of my specific experience of it.

Second parties are also using their subjective experience, I get why this applies to general truth claims wrt to relative phenomena, but I don't see how it applies here.

External phenomena are necessary for subjective experience: for example, the blindness of certain dwelling animals due to an inherited trait related to absence of visual stimulation.

[Hazel]

So if knowing relies on inference or an object being directly perceived, then the organ that does the knowing can not be said to exist independently and therefore can not be exclusively brain chemistry?

[Hazel]

So if knowing relies on inference or an object being directly perceived, then the organ that does the knowing can not be said to exist independently and therefore can not be exclusively brain chemistry?

I read back and that's not what is being said I don't think...

But it's a point maybe.

[avisitor]

As Ram Dass said, it is all grist for the mill.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I'm out, have fun guys, can't say any more than I have.

Or, maybe you only think you can’t, based on your subjective experience.

This is how I hear your argument:

All experience is subjective.
Nothing can be known to exist until it is experienced
Therefore, everything only exists subjectively.

and

Nothing has any identity (existence) beyond subjective interpretation
Therefore how we experience things determines what those things are.

If these arguments were valid, then anything that could ever be known or experienced already would be, and anything that could ever be imagined already would have been imagined. It would be impossible for any previously I conceived concept to arise, because, since all phenomena arise from composites, that would mean that unknown composites exist. If they exist unknown, then they aren’t subjective.

For anything to remain unknown or unimagined, there would have to be a cause, a reason why it is not known or imagined. To the dense person such as myself, the cause is obvious. I do not know what is buried under my house because I don’t have any way of knowing. There might be nothing but dirt. There might be gold. There might be toxic radioactive waste slowly killing me. Whatever lies beneath my house is unknown, unexperienced. and therefore lies beyond the sphere of subjectivity.

But to the person for whom nothing can occur (exist) except when grasped conceptually, the cause is conceptualization itself. What I fail to understand is how that’s not, for all intents and purposes, the assertion of ‘self-arising phenomena’ ?

[Johnny Dangerous]

Nope, not what I said, and mostly incorrect assumptions based on what I did write... but it's fine, there's no reason to keep going, from my perspective. There is not much I can do when saying the same thing over and over again and having people call it something else. It's am impasse.

But to the person for whom nothing can occur (exist) except when grasped conceptually,

Friggin' Buddhists, seriously. I made no ontological statements about how things exist whatsoever lol, this was not a conversation about a grand overarching theory of reality, but a specific critique of the notion that the mind is simply chemical processes or reducible to physical properties.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Are you saying that since all that one has to go on is their subjective experience, and since nothing can be shown to occur by a method that isn’t subjective, that therefore nothing at all occurs outside of that experience? Is that it?

To me, that sounds like saying that since microorganisms can only be seen through a microscope, they only exist under a microscope.

[Johnny Dangerous]

It’s like saying that since microorganisms can only be seen through a microscope, they only exist under a microscope.

FFS.

For the nth time I didn't say nothing exists outside of subjective awareness and this is more than the first time I've had to mention that, I said that phenomena are experienced subjectively, and asked for an example of a direct "objective" experience of phenomena. I further said that the process of inference can only happen through analysis and comparison of one's own and others subjective experience. this is simply and self-evidently true.

The rest of it is people trying to get all Madhyamakan and global with a couple of simple statements that are being made in the context of the OP.

Unless you take issue with the above specifically -not with your own assumptions made on what I said- (and I don't know how you would) there is nothing else left to say.

For me this is seriously too frustrating to continue at this point, but I do very much appreciate everyone's time and effort.

[PadmaVonSamba]

It’s like saying that since microorganisms can only be seen through a microscope, they only exist under a microscope.

FFS.

For the nth time I didn't say nothing exists outside of subjective awareness and this is more than the first time I've had to mention that, I said that phenomena are experienced subjectively, and asked for an example of a direct "objective" experience of phenomena. I further said that the process of inference can only happen through analysis and comparison of one's own and others subjective experience. this is simply and self-evidently true. The rest of it is people trying to get all Madhyamaka and global with a couple of simple statements.

Unless you take issue with the above specifically -not with your own assumptions made on what I said- (and I don't know how you would) there is nothing else left to say.

For me this is seriously too frustrating to continue at this point, but I do very much appreciate everyone's time and effort.

Oh, I don’t think there is any disagreement that experiences are all subjective. If your point is that nothing can be experienced non-subjectively, well of course not!
I thought you were conflating the experience of composite phenomena with the arising of phenomena itself.

[LastLegend]

Oh, I don’t think there is any disagreement that experiences are all subjective. If your point is that nothing can be experienced non-subjectively, well of course not!

Before the arising of ‘that sees’ subjective, how does ‘that sees’ arise?

[Tata1]

Are you saying that since all that one has to go on is their subjective experience, and since nothing can be shown to occur by a method that isn’t subjective, that therefore nothing at all occurs outside of that experience? Is that it?

To me, that sounds like saying that since microorganisms can only be seen through a microscope, they only exist under a microscope.

I never said the my dont exist objectively. I said that if they do its unknowable in principle. Which is quite obvious.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Are you saying that since all that one has to go on is their subjective experience, and since nothing can be shown to occur by a method that isn’t subjective, that therefore nothing at all occurs outside of that experience? Is that it?

To me, that sounds like saying that since microorganisms can only be seen through a microscope, they only exist under a microscope.

I never said the my dont exist objectively. I said that if they do its unknowable in principle. Which is quite obvious.

Well, it actually is possible to determine the existence of things for which there is no way of perceiving them, themselves, directly. As long as there is an effect, there must be a cause. As long as an effect is perceived, even subjectively, then a cause must exist.
But if the cause, itself, lies beyond the realm of perception, the cause, itself, cannot be said to be experienced by anyone. And if it cannot be experienced, then it certainly cannot be experienced subjectively.

A good example of this is ‘star wobbling’. Astronomers can detect stars wobbling. The reason why they wobble is because of the mutual gravitational pull of planets that orbit them. The star and the planet are having a sort of tug-of-war, each pulling on the other, and this causes the star to wobble.
The thing is, while the star (barely a speck in the night sky to the astronomer) is big enough to detect, the planet is much too small to be detected. Thus, while one can argue that the star and the wobble are both perceived subjectively, since the planet cannot be perceived at all, it cannot be perceived subjectively, even though the wobble is sufficient, as a result, to determine the existence of a planet, the cause.

[Queequeg]

Are you saying that since all that one has to go on is their subjective experience, and since nothing can be shown to occur by a method that isn’t subjective, that therefore nothing at all occurs outside of that experience? Is that it?

To me, that sounds like saying that since microorganisms can only be seen through a microscope, they only exist under a microscope.

I never said the my dont exist objectively. I said that if they do its unknowable in principle. Which is quite obvious.

Well, it actually is possible to determine the existence of things for which there is no way of perceiving them, themselves, directly. As long as there is an effect, there must be a cause. As long as an effect is perceived, even subjectively, then a cause must exist.
But if the cause, itself, lies beyond the realm of perception, the cause, itself, cannot be said to be experienced by anyone. And if it cannot be experienced, then it certainly cannot be experienced subjectively.

A good example of this is ‘star wobbling’. Astronomers can detect stars wobbling. The reason why they wobble is because of the mutual gravitational pull of planets that orbit them. The star and the planet are having a sort of tug-of-war, each pulling on the other, and this causes the star to wobble.
The thing is, while the star (barely a speck in the night sky to the astronomer) is big enough to detect, the planet is much too small to be detected. Thus, while one can argue that the star and the wobble are both perceived subjectively, since the planet cannot be perceived at all, it cannot be perceived subjectively, even though the wobble is sufficient, as a result, to determine the existence of a planet, the cause.

the cause of the wobble (orbiting planet) is assumed based on observed phenomena. This is a logic matter. It might be acceptable proof (see smoke, there must be a fire) logically, but its limited to its terms. You're mistaking an assumption (however well informed and reasoned) for the cause itself.