Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Forum for discussion of Tibetan Buddhism. Questions specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
orgyen jigmed
Posts: 72
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 10:26 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by orgyen jigmed »

The tail of the sacred tortoise sweeps all her tracks clear.
But how can the tail avoid leaving traces of its own?
- Hakuin Ekaku
"If the aspiration for enlightenment is your motivation in coming to see me, there is no remedy except meditative practice. I, too, will only practice." - Zurpoche Sakya Jungne
User avatar
treehuggingoctopus
Posts: 2507
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 6:26 pm
Location: EU

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by treehuggingoctopus »

Dennett wrote:As one sets out to answer the Hard Question ("And then what happens?"), one can be sure that no practical, finite set of answers will exhaust the richness of effects and potential effects. The subtle individual differences wrought by epigenesis and a thousand chance encounters creates a unique manifold of functional (including dysfunctional) dispositions that outruns any short catalog of effects. These dispositions may be dramatic -- ever since that yellow car crashed into her, one shade of yellow sets off her neuromodulator alarm floods (Dennett, 1991) -- or minuscule -- an ever so slight relaxation evoked by a nostalgic whiff of childhood comfort food. So one will always be "leaving something out." If one dubs this inevitable residue qualia, then qualia are guaranteed to exist, but they are just more of the same, dispositional properties that have not yet been entered in the catalog (perhaps because they are the most subtle, least amenable to approximate definition). Alternatively, if one defines qualia as whatever is neither the downstream effects of experiences (reactions to particular colors, verbal reports, effects on memory . . . ) nor the upstream causal progenitors of experiences (activity in one cortical region or another), then qualia are, by definitional fiat, intrinsic properties of experiences considered in isolation from all their causes and effects, logically independent of all dispositional properties. Defined thus, they are logically guaranteed to elude all broad functional analysis -- but it's an empty victory, since there is no reason to believe such properties exist! To see this, compare the qualia of experience to the value of money. Some naive Americans cannot get it out of their heads that dollars, unlike francs and marks and yen, have intrinsic value ("How much is that in real money?"). They are quite content to "reduce" the value of other currencies in dispositional terms to their exchange rate with dollars (or goods and services), but they have a hunch that dollars are different. Every dollar, they declare, has something logically independent of its functionalistic exchange powers, which we might call its vis. So defined, the vis of each dollar is guaranteed to elude the theories of economists forever, but we have no reason to believe in it -- aside from their heartfelt hunches, which can be explained without being honored.
The rest here:
https://www.uni-trier.de/fileadmin/fb1/ ... ss_yet.pdf
Générosité de l’invisible.
Notre gratitude est infinie.
Le critère est l’hospitalité.

Edmond Jabès
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Vajrasambhava »

Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:48 pm
boda wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
Because I know. That knowing itself refutes the premise Dennet holds.
From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory. From what I understand, you would also claim that subjective consciousness is illusory (empty). What am I missing?
The difference is self-awareness, as stated above. The self-awareness of consciousness is an irreducible fact that cannot be explained by materialism, not thus far.
Last night I had a debate with an emergentist. He stated that the self-awareness of consciousness is produced by the ARAS (ascending reticular activating system) and this is necessary and sufficient to explain consciousness without calling in cause any other thing. this, he said, make the hard problem of consciousness a naive phylosophical (and non scientifical) perspective surpassed by the science of the last years. A fake problem speculated by people who have to justifies their metaphysical needs, the fear of the oblivion of death. It's not easy to debate with materialists, they effectively have a model where all works fine, self-awareness also. I don't think these things can solve the hard problem of consciousness, but for them there is no problem at all since in their model, self-awareness is well explained by objective tests and results. He also said that this is not reductionism since it's emergentism.
Last edited by Vajrasambhava on Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by narhwal90 »

Even if they're right, does the theory provide the tools to compose the mind, free oneself from grasping, anger and so on?
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Vajrasambhava »

narhwal90 wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:32 pm Even if they're right, does the theory provide the tools to compose the mind, free oneself from grasping, anger and so on?
If it's true, yes of course... no need anymore to compose the mind, for the rest just by dying you obtain such other things you mentioned.
I would like to know what Malcolm personally thinks about this.
narhwal90
Global Moderator
Posts: 3509
Joined: Mon Jan 25, 2016 3:10 am
Location: Baltimore, MD

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by narhwal90 »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:55 pm
narhwal90 wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:32 pm Even if they're right, does the theory provide the tools to compose the mind, free oneself from grasping, anger and so on?
If it's true, yes of course... no need anymore to compose the mind, for the rest just by dying you obtain such other things you mentioned.
I would like to know what Malcolm personally thinks about this.
Thats not what I meant- even if mind and awareness are nothing more than emergent properties of complexity, it is useful to have methods to calm, compose and train the mind- experience shows there are unlimited amounts of pain and conflict available for those who take up anger and grasping. I suppose the "emergentist" would then start talking about modern theraputic methods and so on... I wouldn't propose dying as a solution to anger and grasping though it certainly concludes their expression.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Vajrasambhava »

narhwal90 wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 1:05 pm
Vajrasambhava wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:55 pm
narhwal90 wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 12:32 pm Even if they're right, does the theory provide the tools to compose the mind, free oneself from grasping, anger and so on?
If it's true, yes of course... no need anymore to compose the mind, for the rest just by dying you obtain such other things you mentioned.
I would like to know what Malcolm personally thinks about this.
Thats not what I meant- even if mind and awareness are nothing more than emergent properties of complexity, it is useful to have methods to calm, compose and train the mind- experience shows there are unlimited amounts of pain and conflict available for those who take up anger and grasping. I suppose the "emergentist" would then start talking about modern theraputic methods and so on... I wouldn't propose dying as a solution to anger and grasping though it certainly concludes their expression.
Yes it' useful to have methods to calm the mind and so on, but not necessarily Buddhadharma. Buddhadharma should be useless since with death, liberaton should be naturally obtained and all the paths in buddhism totally disproved and invalidated.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by tobes »

Back to the OP: I see some people have mentioned Nagel. No one has mentioned David Chalmers - has been getting a lot of traction over the last decade or so, refuting Dennett etc.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:32 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:48 pm
boda wrote:
From what I understand, Dennett claims that subjective consciousness is illusory. From what I understand, you would also claim that subjective consciousness is illusory (empty). What am I missing?
The difference is self-awareness, as stated above. The self-awareness of consciousness is an irreducible fact that cannot be explained by materialism, not thus far.
Last night I had a debate with an emergentist. He stated that the self-awareness of consciousness is produced by the ARAS (ascending reticular activating system) and this is necessary and sufficient to explain consciousness without calling in cause any other thing. this, he said, make the hard problem of consciousness a naive phylosophical (and non scientifical) perspective surpassed by the science of the last years. A fake problem speculated by people who have to justifies their metaphysical needs, the fear of the oblivion of death. It's not easy to debate with materialists, they effectively have a model where all works fine, self-awareness also. I don't think these things can solve the hard problem of consciousness, but for them there is no problem at all since in their model, self-awareness is well explained by objective tests and results. He also said that this is not reductionism since it's emergentism.
ARAS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticular_formation

ARAS explains the physiological aspects of brain activity, and about how the brain produces much of what one experiences. But it doesn’t even begin to address the question of on what basis all that chemical stuff imagines itself to be a person.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Vajrasambhava »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:30 pm
Vajrasambhava wrote: Fri Jul 30, 2021 11:32 am
Malcolm wrote: Thu Jul 07, 2016 9:48 pm

The difference is self-awareness, as stated above. The self-awareness of consciousness is an irreducible fact that cannot be explained by materialism, not thus far.
Last night I had a debate with an emergentist. He stated that the self-awareness of consciousness is produced by the ARAS (ascending reticular activating system) and this is necessary and sufficient to explain consciousness without calling in cause any other thing. this, he said, make the hard problem of consciousness a naive phylosophical (and non scientifical) perspective surpassed by the science of the last years. A fake problem speculated by people who have to justifies their metaphysical needs, the fear of the oblivion of death. It's not easy to debate with materialists, they effectively have a model where all works fine, self-awareness also. I don't think these things can solve the hard problem of consciousness, but for them there is no problem at all since in their model, self-awareness is well explained by objective tests and results. He also said that this is not reductionism since it's emergentism.
ARAS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticular_formation

ARAS explains the physiological aspects of brain activity, and about how the brain produces much of what one experiences. But it doesn’t even begin to address the question of on what basis all that chemical stuff imagines itself to be a person.
Hi PadmaVonSamba,
That's what I think also. This scientist said (I quote him): "By arousing the ARAS we can enable a brain to consciously attend any stimuli above a specific threshold.
We can not verify any indepedence between physical brain mechanisms and mental states. We can only confirm contingency between brain function and mental states. We can even affect the mental outcome by tampering with those specific mechanisms and circuits. By arousing the ARAS system we trigger the ability of the brain to be conscious. A non functioning ARAS result to have an individual who doesn't have the ability to process to have conscious experiences of any stimuli.
That is proven beyond the criterion of Strong Correlations...which that alone would qualify as good enough.
Other part of the brain introduces visual stimuli, other part "scans" for pattern recognition, other part introduces the
info so that the pattern can be recognized (Memory) and other part constructs the narrative (Symbolic language lateral thalamus).
We can identify parts of the brain that we can "damage" and remove the ability from the brain to "remember" to conceptualize , to deal with symbolic language, to reason etc.
We only identify the main role of each area to the complex outcome a conscious experience that it is!. We don't say a conscious experience is that electric signal in a specific area...but the end result of numerous processes in a brain!
Its one thing to locate where fundamental "info" for patterns is "stored" and an other to call that a specific concept or a thought .
A state is a process sustained by the brain for a specific duration. When that state ends, the specific content of that experience is NO longer "online". The brain has moved to the next Stimuli that has a high threshold of arousal.
Emergence is everywhere in nature...From atomic structures we receive molecular structures..from molecular structure's we receive mechanical and chemical properties, from chemical properties we receive electrical properties and biological structures, from biological structures we can receive all kind of properties (life, procreation, mind etc).
In the case of matter...its a fact that living organism develop mental abilities.
in science the label cosnciousness has a specific definitions.
"Consciousness is an arousal and awareness of environment and self, which is achieved through action of the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) on the brain stem and cerebral cortex".
Science describes a specific quality and a necessary and sufficient mechanism for this quality.
Conscious states demand the input of senses, emotions in order to get the rest of the properties going and providing the content in those states.
"Cosciousness" is NOT an existential claim about a magical invisible entity. Its a label of a specific property achieved by the brain interacting with our sensory system and all previous inputs .
Consciousness is the result of a process of a biological mechanism...the brain.
This is what we observe and verify.
Mental and consciousness are not metaphysical. The full extent of the mechanism responsible for their emergence can be in part beyond our current scientific knowledge(metaphysical) but that doesn't mean that we can observe, understand and produce testable predictions and technical applications(diagnostics,medications, surgery protocols) for those biological properties.
They are within our Physika(science) and aspects of their causal mechanisms are After/meta our Physika(science).
Consciousness can be observed empirically, how do you think we were able to name the actual phenomenon?
Do you know that we can actually read complex conscious thoughts of people by just reading their fMRI scans?(up to 85%....far more successful from the communications a marry couple while speaking to each other...lol).
https://www.cmu.edu/dietrich/news/news- ... ughts.html
We have the technology to decode complex conscious thoughts by just reading fMRI scans. So since 2017 we can accurately observe the conscious subjective content of other people.
Of course it shows the causal mechanism responsible for the realization of this property. Causality has specific strict criteria and quality in Science.
It might not show or say anything about the ontology of the phenomenon (what allows this causal mechanism to have this capability) but that again...is not philosophy. That is a pseudo philosophical speculation that cant be informed by our epistemology or falsified by any mean.
Its like saying....ok the liquid is in the cup but we can not prove that the electromagnetic cohesion of its molecules is responsible for the shape of the liquid in it.... Sure you can assume a Ghost cup field outside the cup responsible for the shape of the liquid...or a cosmic microwave oven is responsible for our conscious states.....Great! You are demanding the falsification of a universal negative....Cool that is a fallacy and not part of my burden.
So what! What we can do with a God-like invisible speculation....and how such a speculation can ever qualify as Philosophical when it isn't based on Knowledge but on an argument from ignorance fallacy(we can not prove so magic is real) and a red herring(lack of absolute proof).
I am are here so many hours answering claims like "we can not have an absolute proof of this and that"....when science has established a reasonable case for the Sufficiency and Necessity of the phenomenon.....as reasonable it is to identify a crash of a car as the reason why the driver is dead.
In science, we don't see Processes. We observe them. Processes are not "things" or entities or substances with spatial qualities that interact with photons...so they can not be seen. They are observed by observing the processes responsible for their emergence and we quantify their impact in real world!
Emergent properties do not spring from matter magically. This is what a reductionist approach teach us.
First you need a biological structure with a delivery system for metabolic molecules,stimuli from a parasympatheticc sympathetic system, homeostasis, emotions, a sensory system, environmental stimuli and constant experience of the world and different properties of the mind to construct a model and a narrative of the world. What we observe in Science is marvelous but far from magic.
What is magic is to assume a magical entity or substance that conveniently has the same properties displayed by the phenomenon in question.
We did that mistake before...now it is recognized as pseudo philosophy...we tried to explain combustion by making up Phlogiston, Diseases by making up Miasma, Life by making up Orgone Energy.
"Consciousness"is not a thing for brains to have it.It's a property that brains are capable of. They are capable to focus their attention to stimuli that arouse a specific part of the brain stem.
The big question is how the brain introduce the content, the symbolisms and extracts a narrative...NOT why the brain is conscious. The mechanism to be conscious is pretty simple. Stimuli arrives and arouses the brain which in turn it connects the rest of the brain modules to that stimuli and introduces the content.
Then on what he said about subjective investigaton...
Let's assume that 200 different groups have investigated the phenomenon and have concluded to 200 different subjective interpretations.
So how can we be sure which one is the correct interpretation of those "subjective investigations". what is the correct pathway we should follow to identify the correct one.....and how is this different to Religion?
Science is irrelevant. The method is rendered problematic by logic...not by science. How can we ever confirm the truth value of a "subjective" unfalsifiable claims? I mean. I say that our subjective investigation has ruled that we are all millionaires, since we can vision an invisible giant diamond under our houses. Do you think that a claim should be accepted on face value...because someone had an vivid subjective experience.
I am objectively investigating the physical causal mechanisms of an experience. The subjective content is irrelevant to that investigation even if we managed to decode them
...Again how is this different to more than 4.300 conflicting religious ideologies...Methods are set by logic and the accepted priciples and criteria (Objectivity, reproducibility, Evidence based descriptions etc)."

I'm honestly not able to debate this.
Last edited by Vajrasambhava on Sat Jul 31, 2021 3:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

I think the meaning of “consciousness” in the context of ARAS refers very specifically to being conscious-as-opposed-to-being-unconscious, such as being in a coma or perhaps deep sleep.

“Consciousness” in the Buddhist context covers much more than that. Even when in deep sleep, dreaming, where all contact with the outer sensory world may be shut down (my wife can sleep with a loud, blaring TV on) there is still consciousness as far as Buddhist theory is concerned.

To be aware of events occurring in dreams is to be conscious. It’s not a ‘magical’ interpretation, but rather a much more expanded and inclusive notion of ‘awareness’.

And awareness, by the way, is not debatable. Even if 200 religions and 200 scientists each have their own theories about the conscious mind, the fact that everything is either awareness or an object of awareness cannot be refuted. Awareness is absolutely a fact. Even if one argues, “maybe I only think I am experiencing awareness, only dreaming it” there is still awareness of that.

Where Buddhism leaves most of western science in the dust is that while western science studies consciousness, Buddhism directly addresses awareness itself.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Vajrasambhava »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:52 pm I think the meaning of “consciousness” in the context of ARAS refers very specifically to being conscious-as-opposed-to-being-unconscious, such as being in a coma or perhaps deep sleep.

“Consciousness” in the Buddhist context covers much more than that. Even when in deep sleep, dreaming, where all contact with the outer sensory world may be shut down (my wife can sleep with a loud, blaring TV on) there is still consciousness as far as Buddhist theory is concerned.

To be aware of events occurring in dreams is to be conscious. It’s not a ‘magical’ interpretation, but rather a much more expanded and inclusive notion of ‘awareness’.

And awareness, by the way, is not debatable. Even if 200 religions and 200 scientists each have their own theories about the conscious mind, the fact that everything is either awareness or an object of awareness cannot be refuted. Awareness is absolutely a fact. Even if one argues, “maybe I only think I am experiencing awareness, only dreaming it” there is still awareness of that.

Where Buddhism leaves most of western science in the dust is that while western science studies consciousness, Buddhism directly addresses awareness itself.
Reading again what the scientist said about the ARAS, I guess you're right.
Anyway, I think it's very difficult to debate against them... I think there are no basis for any kind of debating.
The only thing I worry about, is that I don't really know if "mind" is something that goes on after death or if it's physically generated by brain and dies with it.
I mean, ok I know what Buddhadharma says about this phenomena, but, due to lack of my experience on the path I cannot show myself if this is true or not, and I have to admit that this kind of doubt really bothers me a lot, and compromise critically my Dharma path.
I hope I'll find a method to get rid of this materialistic affliction.
Any advice is welcome :twothumbsup:
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17090
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

This is a huge subject.

From my perspective beginning to examine it from the perspective of believing a set of tenets and just wanting to "destroy" another set of tenets is lazy, rather it's worth trying to understand the positions and then make a decision.

Daniel Dennett and David Chalmers have had a number of debates over the "hard problem" of consciousness, they are worth looking into:

https://www.closertotruth.com/series/wh ... dy-problem

Personally I find Dennett (and other materialists) to ultimately have somewhat circular logic, they believe (and this is his claim with consciousness) that everything needs to have empirical evidence - which for them is somehow "not subjective" because it is repeatable phenomena verified by others.

However, it is impossible to experience "objective" phenomena, by definition, no matter how many people correlate their experiences.

In a sense we get to an underlying issue that is part of Western thought, which is that a lot of materialists have an unconscious view of Plato's Ideal Forms, in that they seem to think you can discover something like an ideal form through scientific investigation, whether it is a certain particle, some irreducible physical process, or whatever.

The thing is that here is a contradiction at the heart of it, we cannot subjectively experience the firing of neurons for instance, so trying to reduce let's say a memory or consciousness to a series of neurons (something which Neuropyschology is still sort of rough with it's understanding of, despite progress) is kind of absurd. If all phenomenal experience is reducible to processes which can only be understood indirectly, it means that we can never actually experience "reality" - which is basically what Dennett believes. He believes consciousness is an epiphenomena of matter - in this case neurons firing, etc.

You end up with a worldview that reduces all experience into things which you cannot experience.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:51 pm
[I don't really know if "mind" is something that goes on after death or if it's physically generated by brain and dies with it.
There are Buddhist teachings that suggest “mind” isn’t just one thing, but a process that functions on many levels, and that a very subtle level of awareness occurs which does not rely on any living brain function.
I look at like, mind is to brain as deer is to forest. Yes, they rely on the forest. You can even say that in terms of evolutionary adaptation they are products of the forest, or produced by the forest. In that sense, they are part of the forest. But at the same time, they are not the bushes, trees, or streams.
What our experiences exist as, which we call “mind” are the functions of brain activity. There is no disputing that. You can map it out very specifically, in fact. You can even identify the chemistry released by the endocrine system that we experience as emotions.
But none of that chemistry itself is sentient.
The brain is not “aware” that it is forever trapped inside a totally dark little box made of calcium.

I think that for the brain to produce sentience would be like a computer creating the user of the computer. Of course, in one sense we can say this has happened, figuratively speaking. We are all now staring at our phones all the time. Technology has created a new kind of computer user. But strictly speaking, the computer doesn’t create the awareness of what’s on the screen.

And even if we suppose that “awareness” itself is a matter-based illusion, that it’s all just mechanical brain function that “thinks” it is aware, there is still an awareness of that illusion.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by tobes »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:51 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:52 pm I think the meaning of “consciousness” in the context of ARAS refers very specifically to being conscious-as-opposed-to-being-unconscious, such as being in a coma or perhaps deep sleep.

“Consciousness” in the Buddhist context covers much more than that. Even when in deep sleep, dreaming, where all contact with the outer sensory world may be shut down (my wife can sleep with a loud, blaring TV on) there is still consciousness as far as Buddhist theory is concerned.

To be aware of events occurring in dreams is to be conscious. It’s not a ‘magical’ interpretation, but rather a much more expanded and inclusive notion of ‘awareness’.

And awareness, by the way, is not debatable. Even if 200 religions and 200 scientists each have their own theories about the conscious mind, the fact that everything is either awareness or an object of awareness cannot be refuted. Awareness is absolutely a fact. Even if one argues, “maybe I only think I am experiencing awareness, only dreaming it” there is still awareness of that.

Where Buddhism leaves most of western science in the dust is that while western science studies consciousness, Buddhism directly addresses awareness itself.
Reading again what the scientist said about the ARAS, I guess you're right.
Anyway, I think it's very difficult to debate against them... I think there are no basis for any kind of debating.
The only thing I worry about, is that I don't really know if "mind" is something that goes on after death or if it's physically generated by brain and dies with it.
I mean, ok I know what Buddhadharma says about this phenomena, but, due to lack of my experience on the path I cannot show myself if this is true or not, and I have to admit that this kind of doubt really bothers me a lot, and compromise critically my Dharma path.
I hope I'll find a method to get rid of this materialistic affliction.
Any advice is welcome :twothumbsup:
I think that being honest with your starting/existing beliefs (as you are) is a good place to start from. As you point out, it is only experience (leading to realisation) that will really be effective in giving you confidence that what the Buddhists propose about mind/consciousness is indeed true - and this takes time, cultivation, effort.

I think that part of this cultivation is analytical, and looking into the philosophical basis for materialism could be fruitful for you: because, despite it having the 'legitimacy' of our time and culture, it is actually really hard to establish philosophical materialism. When you really see how hard it is (and how many epistemic and logical problems are generated), an open ended skepticism comes in very naturally.........and then you're tiptoeing into Madhyamaka without even trying.
Passing By
Posts: 298
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:49 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Passing By »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:51 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:52 pm I think the meaning of “consciousness” in the context of ARAS refers very specifically to being conscious-as-opposed-to-being-unconscious, such as being in a coma or perhaps deep sleep.

“Consciousness” in the Buddhist context covers much more than that. Even when in deep sleep, dreaming, where all contact with the outer sensory world may be shut down (my wife can sleep with a loud, blaring TV on) there is still consciousness as far as Buddhist theory is concerned.

To be aware of events occurring in dreams is to be conscious. It’s not a ‘magical’ interpretation, but rather a much more expanded and inclusive notion of ‘awareness’.

And awareness, by the way, is not debatable. Even if 200 religions and 200 scientists each have their own theories about the conscious mind, the fact that everything is either awareness or an object of awareness cannot be refuted. Awareness is absolutely a fact. Even if one argues, “maybe I only think I am experiencing awareness, only dreaming it” there is still awareness of that.

Where Buddhism leaves most of western science in the dust is that while western science studies consciousness, Buddhism directly addresses awareness itself.
Reading again what the scientist said about the ARAS, I guess you're right.
Anyway, I think it's very difficult to debate against them... I think there are no basis for any kind of debating.
The only thing I worry about, is that I don't really know if "mind" is something that goes on after death or if it's physically generated by brain and dies with it.
I mean, ok I know what Buddhadharma says about this phenomena, but, due to lack of my experience on the path I cannot show myself if this is true or not, and I have to admit that this kind of doubt really bothers me a lot, and compromise critically my Dharma path.
I hope I'll find a method to get rid of this materialistic affliction.
Any advice is welcome :twothumbsup:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1901.10825.pdf

You might want to give that paper a read.

Anyway, "mind" itself is not something that can be divorced from the brain, nor can it be said to be equal to the brain. If you honestly look, you'll see that to be the case. You can tune the states of arousal like a rheostat by tweaking the ARAS? Great, most you've shown is that consiousness depends on brain mechanisms to manifest itself, something that is obvious to anyone. Not that brain and consciousness are the same thing.

The Hard Problem of Chalmers has not been solved and cannot be waved away like what your fMRI guy is doing. Whatever he says, he still cannot say why does "blue" for instance appear as this particular shade of hue and not something else. A camera's digital sensor for example, does not presumably, "see" the shade of hue but records electrical signals. Humans still have to artificially put color filters that they can perceive over the digital sensor as well as program software in order to produce an image familiar to them. Likewise, you perceive your consciousness as dependent on a mass of nervous tissue called a brain but why do you perceive it as such? That's a far harder question. Yogis might perceive brain and everything else as dynamism of tsal. If atomswere conscious they would probably perceive it as something else etc.

In well, Dzogchen anyway, if I understood correctly, consciousness is always embodied, so some form of body substrate is needed to express it, so in that sense it's similar to what most people commonly believe but that's only one half of the picture
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Vajrasambhava »

tobes wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:37 am
Vajrasambhava wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:51 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:52 pm I think the meaning of “consciousness” in the context of ARAS refers very specifically to being conscious-as-opposed-to-being-unconscious, such as being in a coma or perhaps deep sleep.

“Consciousness” in the Buddhist context covers much more than that. Even when in deep sleep, dreaming, where all contact with the outer sensory world may be shut down (my wife can sleep with a loud, blaring TV on) there is still consciousness as far as Buddhist theory is concerned.

To be aware of events occurring in dreams is to be conscious. It’s not a ‘magical’ interpretation, but rather a much more expanded and inclusive notion of ‘awareness’.

And awareness, by the way, is not debatable. Even if 200 religions and 200 scientists each have their own theories about the conscious mind, the fact that everything is either awareness or an object of awareness cannot be refuted. Awareness is absolutely a fact. Even if one argues, “maybe I only think I am experiencing awareness, only dreaming it” there is still awareness of that.

Where Buddhism leaves most of western science in the dust is that while western science studies consciousness, Buddhism directly addresses awareness itself.
Reading again what the scientist said about the ARAS, I guess you're right.
Anyway, I think it's very difficult to debate against them... I think there are no basis for any kind of debating.
The only thing I worry about, is that I don't really know if "mind" is something that goes on after death or if it's physically generated by brain and dies with it.
I mean, ok I know what Buddhadharma says about this phenomena, but, due to lack of my experience on the path I cannot show myself if this is true or not, and I have to admit that this kind of doubt really bothers me a lot, and compromise critically my Dharma path.
I hope I'll find a method to get rid of this materialistic affliction.
Any advice is welcome :twothumbsup:
I think that being honest with your starting/existing beliefs (as you are) is a good place to start from. As you point out, it is only experience (leading to realisation) that will really be effective in giving you confidence that what the Buddhists propose about mind/consciousness is indeed true - and this takes time, cultivation, effort.

I think that part of this cultivation is analytical, and looking into the philosophical basis for materialism could be fruitful for you: because, despite it having the 'legitimacy' of our time and culture, it is actually really hard to establish philosophical materialism. When you really see how hard it is (and how many epistemic and logical problems are generated), an open ended skepticism comes in very naturally.........and then you're tiptoeing into Madhyamaka without even trying.
Thank you for replying, but I think that Madhyamaka cannot help me. Dzogchen I think can help me :smile:
Vajrasambhava
Posts: 160
Joined: Sat Dec 01, 2018 1:24 pm

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by Vajrasambhava »

Passing By wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 6:58 am
Vajrasambhava wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:51 pm
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Sat Jul 31, 2021 5:52 pm I think the meaning of “consciousness” in the context of ARAS refers very specifically to being conscious-as-opposed-to-being-unconscious, such as being in a coma or perhaps deep sleep.

“Consciousness” in the Buddhist context covers much more than that. Even when in deep sleep, dreaming, where all contact with the outer sensory world may be shut down (my wife can sleep with a loud, blaring TV on) there is still consciousness as far as Buddhist theory is concerned.

To be aware of events occurring in dreams is to be conscious. It’s not a ‘magical’ interpretation, but rather a much more expanded and inclusive notion of ‘awareness’.

And awareness, by the way, is not debatable. Even if 200 religions and 200 scientists each have their own theories about the conscious mind, the fact that everything is either awareness or an object of awareness cannot be refuted. Awareness is absolutely a fact. Even if one argues, “maybe I only think I am experiencing awareness, only dreaming it” there is still awareness of that.

Where Buddhism leaves most of western science in the dust is that while western science studies consciousness, Buddhism directly addresses awareness itself.
Reading again what the scientist said about the ARAS, I guess you're right.
Anyway, I think it's very difficult to debate against them... I think there are no basis for any kind of debating.
The only thing I worry about, is that I don't really know if "mind" is something that goes on after death or if it's physically generated by brain and dies with it.
I mean, ok I know what Buddhadharma says about this phenomena, but, due to lack of my experience on the path I cannot show myself if this is true or not, and I have to admit that this kind of doubt really bothers me a lot, and compromise critically my Dharma path.
I hope I'll find a method to get rid of this materialistic affliction.
Any advice is welcome :twothumbsup:

Whatever he says, he still cannot say why does "blue" for instance appear as this particular shade of hue and not something else.
Asking ourselves "why" things are like this and not like that is a teleological naive bias. The important thing to know is "how" things are like this and not like that. This is perfectly demonstrable with the principle of cause and effect. i.e If we know how the sky is blue we can estabilsh automatically why it's not any other color. By asking "why the sky is blue and not yellow?" is just irrelevant and it subsumes that we don't know the cause and the effect of the phenomenon we want to estabilish. I think both science and Buddhism reject this teleological speculation :smile:
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9439
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:51 pm The only thing I worry about, is that I don't really know if "mind" is something that goes on after death or if it's physically generated by brain and dies with it.
I mean, ok I know what Buddhadharma says about this phenomena, but, due to lack of my experience on the path I cannot show myself if this is true or not, and I have to admit that this kind of doubt really bothers me a lot, and compromise critically my Dharma path.
There is no reason why it should affect your dharma practice, which should also include practicing patience. You just need to practice patience. I can absolutely guarantee that at some point death will come, and then you will be able to know the answer. Just save that question for the end.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
User avatar
tobes
Posts: 2194
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Texts that destroy ""scientific" materialism

Post by tobes »

Vajrasambhava wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:41 am
tobes wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 3:37 am
Vajrasambhava wrote: Sun Aug 01, 2021 4:51 pm

Reading again what the scientist said about the ARAS, I guess you're right.
Anyway, I think it's very difficult to debate against them... I think there are no basis for any kind of debating.
The only thing I worry about, is that I don't really know if "mind" is something that goes on after death or if it's physically generated by brain and dies with it.
I mean, ok I know what Buddhadharma says about this phenomena, but, due to lack of my experience on the path I cannot show myself if this is true or not, and I have to admit that this kind of doubt really bothers me a lot, and compromise critically my Dharma path.
I hope I'll find a method to get rid of this materialistic affliction.
Any advice is welcome :twothumbsup:
I think that being honest with your starting/existing beliefs (as you are) is a good place to start from. As you point out, it is only experience (leading to realisation) that will really be effective in giving you confidence that what the Buddhists propose about mind/consciousness is indeed true - and this takes time, cultivation, effort.

I think that part of this cultivation is analytical, and looking into the philosophical basis for materialism could be fruitful for you: because, despite it having the 'legitimacy' of our time and culture, it is actually really hard to establish philosophical materialism. When you really see how hard it is (and how many epistemic and logical problems are generated), an open ended skepticism comes in very naturally.........and then you're tiptoeing into Madhyamaka without even trying.
Thank you for replying, but I think that Madhyamaka cannot help me. Dzogchen I think can help me :smile:
You 'think that Madhyamaka cannot help you'. Why?

Madhyamaka and Dzogchen have the same view and the same intent: undoing those entrenched beliefs such that genuine experience can arise.
Post Reply

Return to “Tibetan Buddhism”