Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Or this assertion I received by email of Bodhi Mohammad as the best thing since sliced heads. Ay curumba, can it be true ...
Assalaam alaikum,
The Prophet Muhammad (saws) is the beloved of Allah. He is also the beloved of the muslims. It is because he brought us the Qur’an (through Divine Revelation) as Guide and Healing, and because of his character. He is the one with the best character of mankind in all aspects. He is the most loving, friendly, humble, truthful and compassionate person of all time.
And that is why many many people write and sing about him.
This is a song from an Australian muslima that shows us the great love for our Prophet.
Long live the One True Dharma! (whoever she is)
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I don't remember a single link or reference towards consciousness referring back to religious dogma.
However many believe that religions are attempting to put into words, and failing to do so accurately some metaphysical truth about the universe. So just because they make fantastical and contradictory claims doesn't equate to the physical being all there is, that is a straw man, or maybe an ad hominem?, argument.
@lobster He is so loving that his followers can not tolerate messengers othere than him.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@person said:
I don't remember a single link or reference towards consciousness referring back to religious dogma.
However many believe that religions are attempting to put into words, and failing to do so accurately some metaphysical truth about the universe. So just because they make fantastical and contradictory claims doesn't equate to the physical being all there is, that is a straw man, or maybe an ad hominem?, argument.
For some reason I don't think we could have physicality without the non-physical.
Mind stuff is precisely that. Preferences based on circumstance.
Talking about the process of consciousness as light, energy, love, soul, spirit, qi, prana, ruach or Jedhi Force is all very well for the perpetuation of ignorance or for fanciful stories. It really does not mean anything very much and lacks clarity. Some people prefer such limited or outmoded terms to describe consciousness.
In meditation practice we go inward and find the causes of conscious being. That has been the way of dharma for 2500 years, it works and gives insight and understanding. However it is still susceptible to the vagaries of the very thing under investigation - the mind. In science they are looking and discovering the nature and causes of consciousness.
... and now back to mindfulness ...
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited February 2016
@lobster said:
Mind stuff is precisely that. Preferences based on circumstance.
Fair enough, though I would say that the assumption that matter gives rise to phenomenal mental experience is at this point much the same since there is not the slightest bit of scientific evidence regarding why the data in, data out processing of the brain occurs with consciousness and not simply in the dark.
Yes, consciousness remains in the realm of philosophy but considering that all of us experience all the time an immaterial phenomenon, isn't it incumbent on science to provide the evidence to say that what we experience is an illusion and not an immaterial phenomenon?
BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but the scientific article you linked earlier had the same Integrated Information Theory in it as one of the "scientific" hypothesis for consciousness that I linked earlier. Its interesting though that one of them pointed out that ITT suggests that a computer simulation couldn't become conscious (because it is only a representation) while the other chose to point out that the theory suggests that computers could become conscious (because it says that consciousness is a fundamental and universal property of the universe).
It really does not mean anything very much and lacks clarity.
I agree, it really doesn't. But the implications are deep enough that I think it deserves real consideration.
In science they are looking and discovering the nature and causes of consciousness.
I suspect by this statement that you didn't watch the TED talk. David Chalmers is a respected philosopher not some new age wacko.
Overall its more the tone of your disagreement rather than someone having a difference of opinion. I find it resorts to condescension and mockery rather than an actual refutation. There are people, like Daniel Dennett for example, who actually take this topic seriously but disagree altogether that there even is a hard problem of consciousness or that there is anything immaterial in our experience.
@person said:
Like why aren't we walking around doing everything we normally do but our experience is like being under anesthesia, why is it like something to be us.
That is the Buddhist contention.
Even though the scientific exploration of consciousness is in its infancy, wait till they start exploring the nature of enlightenment, which is even more elusive. Ay curumba.
Will for example a quantum intelligence allowed to change its own program naturally develop into an enlightened unit with the paramitas arising naturally ... or will we have to nudge the emergence of AI Bodi ...
@person said:
Like why aren't we walking around doing everything we normally do but our experience is like being under anesthesia, why is it like something to be us.
That is the Buddhist contention.
Maybe it could be said that the idea of something other than brain being involved in consciousness adds support to religious magicalism. But nothing in anything I've put forward comes about from religious thinking.
Consciousness is an anomaly in the world, there isn't anything else like it. So its perfectly conceivable that its properties could be outside the rest of the observed material universe. Since it is anomalous assuming that it is solely a product of the brain is just that, an assumption.
Take this thought experiment. Huey and Louie are identical twins, their eyes are identical, the same cones, etc. They are hooked up to an fMRI and their brains are scanned while they both look at the same green wall. We can see that the same brain areas light up showing that they are seeing the color green. But there is no way we can know if the color each individually is experiencing is the same as the other. That would suggest that the experience of a phenomena is something other or on top of the physical correlates.
One can disagree of course, but the thinking that leads to the idea that consciousness is more than just physical stuff arises out of more than just religious dogma.
Even though the scientific exploration of consciousness is in its infancy, wait till they start exploring the nature of enlightenment, which is even more elusive.
I just listened to a Buddhist Geeks podcast where he interviewed a couple scientists who wanted to hook meditators up to scan their brains while they were having an enlightenment experience. So there actually are people right now that are looking into that research.
Will for example a quantum intelligence allowed to change its own program naturally develop into an enlightened unit with the paramitas arising naturally ... or will we have to nudge the emergence of AI Bodi ...
Interesting. I wonder though since much of our emotional lives are the result of chemical processes if AI would be capable of virtuous mind states.
@person said: Consciousness is an anomaly in the world, there isn't anything else like it. So its perfectly conceivable that its properties could be outside the rest of the observed material universe. Since it is anomalous assuming that it is solely a product of the brain is just that, an assumption.
Yes, consciousness is rather weird. I find it interesting that in the Dharmic traditions altered states of consciousness have been mapped out in some detail, for example the jhanas in Buddhism.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person said: Consciousness is an anomaly in the world, there isn't anything else like it. So its perfectly conceivable that its properties could be outside the rest of the observed material universe. Since it is anomalous assuming that it is solely a product of the brain is just that, an assumption.
Yes, consciousness is rather weird. I find it interesting that in the Dharmic traditions altered states of consciousness have been mapped out in some detail, for example the jhanas in Buddhism.
The subjective nature of consciousness may forever elude the objective methodology of science. In that scenario it makes sense to look to a way to make unbiased subjective observations.
Early on in psychology there was an attempt at introspection as a means for understanding the mind, it failed miserably as people would usually just try to trick their mind into seeing whatever hypothesis they were studying. Alan Wallace compares this to being like Galileo trying to observe the stars with his telescope mounted on a moving camel wandering through a sandstorm. Mystics have developed many techniques for clearing the mind and developing focus to great, unimaginable levels to our western experience.
I think developing concentration and insight could be an effective way to study consciousness, at least that's the claim. Which, you could say, many have peer reviewed.
Consciousness is an anomaly in the world, there isn't anything else like it. So its perfectly conceivable that its properties could be outside the rest of the observed material universe. Since it is anomalous assuming that it is solely a product of the brain is just that, an assumption.
I am not sure it is so unique or anomalous. Maybe it is.
As far as I understand it 'emergent properties' are the same as 'dependent origination' in Buddhism. I feel it very much is part of the knowable. We know and experience 'speed', which happens, is knowable, is a real phenomenam based on moving parts. It has a real nature even though only the results are manifest ...
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@person said: Consciousness is an anomaly in the world, there isn't anything else like it. So its perfectly conceivable that its properties could be outside the rest of the observed material universe. Since it is anomalous assuming that it is solely a product of the brain is just that, an assumption.
Yes, consciousness is rather weird. I find it interesting that in the Dharmic traditions altered states of consciousness have been mapped out in some detail, for example the jhanas in Buddhism.
The subjective nature of consciousness may forever elude the objective methodology of science. In that scenario it makes sense to look to a way to make unbiased subjective observations.
Early on in psychology there was an attempt at introspection as a means for understanding the mind, it failed miserably as people would usually just try to trick their mind into seeing whatever hypothesis they were studying. Alan Wallace compares this to being like Galileo trying to observe the stars with his telescope mounted on a moving camel wandering through a sandstorm. Mystics have developed many techniques for clearing the mind and developing focus to great, unimaginable levels to our western experience.
I think developing concentration and insight could be an effective way to study consciousness, at least that's the claim. Which, you could say, many have peer reviewed.
It does give me pause for thought when the brain can be fooled by something the mind sees through.
Like an optical illusion which sends misleading signals to the brain even after we know it's an illusion.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Consciousness is an anomaly in the world, there isn't anything else like it. So its perfectly conceivable that its properties could be outside the rest of the observed material universe. Since it is anomalous assuming that it is solely a product of the brain is just that, an assumption.
I am not sure it is so unique or anomalous. Maybe it is.
As far as I understand it 'emergent properties' are the same as 'dependent origination' in Buddhism. I feel it very much is part of the knowable. We know and experience 'speed', which happens, is knowable, is a real phenomenam based on moving parts. It has a real nature even though only the results are manifest ...
So this thread has gone somewhat off topic from my OP. It wasn't really about the cause of conscious events, rather what is it made of. So under emergence or some sort of property dualism, consciousness is caused by the brain but isn't itself reducible to the physical, so then, what is it?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@person said: Consciousness is an anomaly in the world, there isn't anything else like it. So its perfectly conceivable that its properties could be outside the rest of the observed material universe. Since it is anomalous assuming that it is solely a product of the brain is just that, an assumption.
Yes, consciousness is rather weird. I find it interesting that in the Dharmic traditions altered states of consciousness have been mapped out in some detail, for example the jhanas in Buddhism.
The subjective nature of consciousness may forever elude the objective methodology of science. In that scenario it makes sense to look to a way to make unbiased subjective observations.
Early on in psychology there was an attempt at introspection as a means for understanding the mind, it failed miserably as people would usually just try to trick their mind into seeing whatever hypothesis they were studying. Alan Wallace compares this to being like Galileo trying to observe the stars with his telescope mounted on a moving camel wandering through a sandstorm. Mystics have developed many techniques for clearing the mind and developing focus to great, unimaginable levels to our western experience.
I think developing concentration and insight could be an effective way to study consciousness, at least that's the claim. Which, you could say, many have peer reviewed.
It does give me pause for thought when the brain can be fooled by something the mind sees through.
Like an optical illusion which sends misleading signals to the brain even after we know it's an illusion.
Good, I've often had this thought myself. Depending on expert testimony doesn't hold up to scientific standards of proof. Due to the subjective nature of the thing needing to be studied though what other options do we have? Just relying on the word of others isn't sufficient in itself, anyone who really wants to know would have to spend years, maybe a whole lifetime, in deep meditation retreat to find out if some kind of inner knowledge is possible with a clear, concentrated introspection.
@person said: So under emergence or some sort of property dualism, consciousness is caused by the brain but isn't itself reducible to the physical, so then, what is it?
Oi dunno.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I guess it comes down to me wanting to believe that there is more than just physical stuff. I think there is enough uncertainty and enough reason suggestive of something else that its a defendable position. There is something of a secular bias on this board, which is fine, but I feel compelled to stand up for those who come here and hold non physicalist views. And, selfishly, getting legitimate arguments back helps me increase my own knowledge and understanding.
In the book there are several good discourses on whether or not material things can exist without consciousness, consensus seems to be is that consciousness and reality are as two halves of a walnut....
That the tree outside is not me and that 'me' is this house of senses and sense processing/ideation.
"Embodiment starts with the realization that every manifest thing and non-thing constitutes your true body. Your humanness is simply a reflection of the depth of your realization. So it's not that you have to do something to the human body to make it a bigger, vaster, or wider container for the Truth of being to come through. What's most important is to perceive your entire body, which is everything. Then, your humanness will reflect the depth of that realization. Embodiment is not something that you do; it is something that is a result of how far you take enlightenment and how much of yourself you give to it. The entire cosmos is your body. Let your humanness reflect and manifest the whole."
No it's still a notion of mind. And the pain of the brick is also an experience. All experiences are in the mind. If I saw a video of a synapse that sight/video/ideation would be an experience. But normally I don't experience synapse. It's not wrong to use the concept of 'physical' of course. I am myself interested in science and more specifically in chemistry. But 'physical' is a label used to understand and divide up the experience to better understand experience. For me it is interesting to consider it a label and the way I think is not refuted by the (existense of ) senses: touch (brick pain), sight,, etc to mind sense.
The mind produces the sensation. If the nervous connection between the foot and brain is tampered with, the sensation can be altered. Stimulating areas of the brain can produce sensations in other body parts, when nothing of the sort is actually happening to said body part.
the idea 'physical' is a notion of mind. But then I am not saying that the foot or sensation is not physical either. But I am certain that 'physical' is an idea. So having a sensation in the foot and labeling it as 'physical' is a perfect example of what is meant by 'fabrication'. It's in the 12 links.
I also tried to explain that 'physical' is a useful concept to understand experience.
'produces' is an odd word I think because the brain is interpenetrated with everything else in the universe.
But I think some traditional teachings talk of organ, that sensed, and sense consciousness. So in that the brain would be part of the organ. And I suppose you could say 'oh the brain is phsyical'.. 'made of atoms' etc And in that traditional presentation all 3: organ, object, and consciousness do not arise alone without each 3 all 3 being there together. (and that's just the pali canon stuff which is regarded as preliminaries in TB rather than the main teaching of what mind is)
But I am certain that my sensation is sensation. I don't experience the molecules in my eyes that absorb UV-vis spectrum and all the mechanism of those molecules going to synapses. I experience light or vision. I know my experience is experience and that is primary.
@Jeffrey said: And in that traditional presentation all 3: organ, object, and consciousness do not arise alone without each 3 all 3 being there together. (and that's just the pali canon stuff which is regarded as preliminaries in TB rather than the main teaching of what mind is)
Actually in the suttas consciousness arises when sense-organ and sense-object are present. So the sense-organ would be the skin and the sense-object would be the impact of the brick, the combination produces consciousness. The mind is regarded as another sense-organ.
I don't think of it that way. I would say a thought is right there with a consciousness and inseparable. And then the brain is deduced* as playing a role just as an eyeball is deduced as playing a role.
deduced rather than directly there as the thought and concsiousness are directly there as raw experience
@Jeffrey said: I don't think of it that way. I would say a thought is right there with a consciousness and inseparable. And then the brain is deduced* as playing a role just as an eyeball is deduced as playing a role.
deduced rather than directly there as the thought and concsiousness are directly there as raw experience
But aren't you conscious of thoughts and feelings? So the thoughts and feelings are sense-objects, in much the same way that sights and sounds are sense-objects.
That's exactly what the difference between dualistic and non-dualistic is. My teacher in her 4 book course the first book ( one thing) we look at is (our own) different language we have for various things. I can't remember the lines exactly but we say some confusing things just in some of the basic phrases we use. And yes you can think of thoughts as 'in' the mind. In our course that was one thing pointed out that we often think of mind as a place that thoughts appear in.
But back to the question of if the mind is a sense organ I would just say that is not what I think of. And I think duality is thinking "i" "perceive" "thoughts" At the same time it is liberating to some degree to realize "oh that is just a thought and "I" can let it go"
It's a two way street I think, environment and the body influence mental events and consciousness influences the body.....to extend this then, the world we see or perceive is shaped by the mind and the shaping comes from the tendencies that consciousness has experienced and accumulated over many previous existences. Collective karma, why we all see the world in a broadly similar way although with separate individual experiences due to our personal karma.
@Jeffrey said:> That's exactly what the difference between dualistic and non-dualistic is. But back to the question of if the mind is a sense organ I would just say that is not what I think of. And I think duality is thinking "i" "perceive" "thoughts" At the same time it is liberating to some degree to realize "oh that is just a thought and "I" can let it go"
Clearly there are different models, but the idea of the mind as a space where thoughts arise fits quite well with my experience. I see duality as less about the functional distinction between sense-object and sense-organ and more about the assumption of ownership, eg "my mind" and "my thoughts".
Comments
Time for some nice hot cocoa.
Traditional ignorance from dharma, places the mind stuff of the Buddha (PBUH) as always right.
http://secularbuddhism.org/2013/05/29/a-secular-evaluation-of-rebirth/
Just as the Bible is always right.
Or this assertion I received by email of Bodhi Mohammad as the best thing since sliced heads. Ay curumba, can it be true ...
Assalaam alaikum,
The Prophet Muhammad (saws) is the beloved of Allah. He is also the beloved of the muslims. It is because he brought us the Qur’an (through Divine Revelation) as Guide and Healing, and because of his character. He is the one with the best character of mankind in all aspects. He is the most loving, friendly, humble, truthful and compassionate person of all time.
And that is why many many people write and sing about him.
This is a song from an Australian muslima that shows us the great love for our Prophet.
Long live the One True Dharma! (whoever she is)
I don't remember a single link or reference towards consciousness referring back to religious dogma.
However many believe that religions are attempting to put into words, and failing to do so accurately some metaphysical truth about the universe. So just because they make fantastical and contradictory claims doesn't equate to the physical being all there is, that is a straw man, or maybe an ad hominem?, argument.
@lobster He is so loving that his followers can not tolerate messengers othere than him.
For some reason I don't think we could have physicality without the non-physical.
Mind stuff is precisely that. Preferences based on circumstance.
Talking about the process of consciousness as light, energy, love, soul, spirit, qi, prana, ruach or Jedhi Force is all very well for the perpetuation of ignorance or for fanciful stories. It really does not mean anything very much and lacks clarity. Some people prefer such limited or outmoded terms to describe consciousness.
In meditation practice we go inward and find the causes of conscious being. That has been the way of dharma for 2500 years, it works and gives insight and understanding. However it is still susceptible to the vagaries of the very thing under investigation - the mind. In science they are looking and discovering the nature and causes of consciousness.
... and now back to mindfulness ...
Fair enough, though I would say that the assumption that matter gives rise to phenomenal mental experience is at this point much the same since there is not the slightest bit of scientific evidence regarding why the data in, data out processing of the brain occurs with consciousness and not simply in the dark.
Yes, consciousness remains in the realm of philosophy but considering that all of us experience all the time an immaterial phenomenon, isn't it incumbent on science to provide the evidence to say that what we experience is an illusion and not an immaterial phenomenon?
BTW, I don't know if you noticed, but the scientific article you linked earlier had the same Integrated Information Theory in it as one of the "scientific" hypothesis for consciousness that I linked earlier. Its interesting though that one of them pointed out that ITT suggests that a computer simulation couldn't become conscious (because it is only a representation) while the other chose to point out that the theory suggests that computers could become conscious (because it says that consciousness is a fundamental and universal property of the universe).
I agree, it really doesn't. But the implications are deep enough that I think it deserves real consideration.
I suspect by this statement that you didn't watch the TED talk. David Chalmers is a respected philosopher not some new age wacko.
http://www.ted.com/talks/david_chalmers_how_do_you_explain_consciousness
Overall its more the tone of your disagreement rather than someone having a difference of opinion. I find it resorts to condescension and mockery rather than an actual refutation. There are people, like Daniel Dennett for example, who actually take this topic seriously but disagree altogether that there even is a hard problem of consciousness or that there is anything immaterial in our experience.
That is the Buddhist contention.
Even though the scientific exploration of consciousness is in its infancy, wait till they start exploring the nature of enlightenment, which is even more elusive. Ay curumba.
Will for example a quantum intelligence allowed to change its own program naturally develop into an enlightened unit with the paramitas arising naturally ... or will we have to nudge the emergence of AI Bodi ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pāramitā
Careful, you might end up like Frank Skeptic and develop crabby memories of your previous crustacean lives...
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/21806/secular-buddhist-remembers-past-life
Maybe it could be said that the idea of something other than brain being involved in consciousness adds support to religious magicalism. But nothing in anything I've put forward comes about from religious thinking.
Consciousness is an anomaly in the world, there isn't anything else like it. So its perfectly conceivable that its properties could be outside the rest of the observed material universe. Since it is anomalous assuming that it is solely a product of the brain is just that, an assumption.
Take this thought experiment. Huey and Louie are identical twins, their eyes are identical, the same cones, etc. They are hooked up to an fMRI and their brains are scanned while they both look at the same green wall. We can see that the same brain areas light up showing that they are seeing the color green. But there is no way we can know if the color each individually is experiencing is the same as the other. That would suggest that the experience of a phenomena is something other or on top of the physical correlates.
One can disagree of course, but the thinking that leads to the idea that consciousness is more than just physical stuff arises out of more than just religious dogma.
I just listened to a Buddhist Geeks podcast where he interviewed a couple scientists who wanted to hook meditators up to scan their brains while they were having an enlightenment experience. So there actually are people right now that are looking into that research.
Interesting. I wonder though since much of our emotional lives are the result of chemical processes if AI would be capable of virtuous mind states.
Yes, consciousness is rather weird. I find it interesting that in the Dharmic traditions altered states of consciousness have been mapped out in some detail, for example the jhanas in Buddhism.
The subjective nature of consciousness may forever elude the objective methodology of science. In that scenario it makes sense to look to a way to make unbiased subjective observations.
Early on in psychology there was an attempt at introspection as a means for understanding the mind, it failed miserably as people would usually just try to trick their mind into seeing whatever hypothesis they were studying. Alan Wallace compares this to being like Galileo trying to observe the stars with his telescope mounted on a moving camel wandering through a sandstorm. Mystics have developed many techniques for clearing the mind and developing focus to great, unimaginable levels to our western experience.
I think developing concentration and insight could be an effective way to study consciousness, at least that's the claim. Which, you could say, many have peer reviewed.
I am not sure it is so unique or anomalous. Maybe it is.
As far as I understand it 'emergent properties' are the same as 'dependent origination' in Buddhism. I feel it very much is part of the knowable. We know and experience 'speed', which happens, is knowable, is a real phenomenam based on moving parts. It has a real nature even though only the results are manifest ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergentism
The Buddhist view looks more like substance dualism rather than property dualism - see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_dualism
In terms of what the suttas say, see under the headings "Name and form" and "Consciousness" here in DN15 for example: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
It does give me pause for thought when the brain can be fooled by something the mind sees through.
Like an optical illusion which sends misleading signals to the brain even after we know it's an illusion.
So this thread has gone somewhat off topic from my OP. It wasn't really about the cause of conscious events, rather what is it made of. So under emergence or some sort of property dualism, consciousness is caused by the brain but isn't itself reducible to the physical, so then, what is it?
Good, I've often had this thought myself. Depending on expert testimony doesn't hold up to scientific standards of proof. Due to the subjective nature of the thing needing to be studied though what other options do we have? Just relying on the word of others isn't sufficient in itself, anyone who really wants to know would have to spend years, maybe a whole lifetime, in deep meditation retreat to find out if some kind of inner knowledge is possible with a clear, concentrated introspection.
Oi dunno.
I guess it comes down to me wanting to believe that there is more than just physical stuff. I think there is enough uncertainty and enough reason suggestive of something else that its a defendable position. There is something of a secular bias on this board, which is fine, but I feel compelled to stand up for those who come here and hold non physicalist views. And, selfishly, getting legitimate arguments back helps me increase my own knowledge and understanding.
Check out 'The Quantum and the Lotus' by Matthieu Ricard
Thanks, I have it and really liked it. Its been a while since I read it though, I may pick it up again.
In the book there are several good discourses on whether or not material things can exist without consciousness, consensus seems to be is that consciousness and reality are as two halves of a walnut....
Actually 'physical' is a notion of mind.
That the tree outside is not me and that 'me' is this house of senses and sense processing/ideation.
Except when you drop a brick on your foot.
No it's still a notion of mind. And the pain of the brick is also an experience. All experiences are in the mind. If I saw a video of a synapse that sight/video/ideation would be an experience. But normally I don't experience synapse. It's not wrong to use the concept of 'physical' of course. I am myself interested in science and more specifically in chemistry. But 'physical' is a label used to understand and divide up the experience to better understand experience. For me it is interesting to consider it a label and the way I think is not refuted by the (existense of ) senses: touch (brick pain), sight,, etc to mind sense.
There is a physical sensation in your foot - I don't see how this is just a "notion of mind".
The mind produces the sensation. If the nervous connection between the foot and brain is tampered with, the sensation can be altered. Stimulating areas of the brain can produce sensations in other body parts, when nothing of the sort is actually happening to said body part.
the idea 'physical' is a notion of mind. But then I am not saying that the foot or sensation is not physical either. But I am certain that 'physical' is an idea. So having a sensation in the foot and labeling it as 'physical' is a perfect example of what is meant by 'fabrication'. It's in the 12 links.
I also tried to explain that 'physical' is a useful concept to understand experience.
In these terms isn't it the brain which produces the sensation, or more accurately the central nervous system?
'produces' is an odd word I think because the brain is interpenetrated with everything else in the universe.
But I think some traditional teachings talk of organ, that sensed, and sense consciousness. So in that the brain would be part of the organ. And I suppose you could say 'oh the brain is phsyical'.. 'made of atoms' etc And in that traditional presentation all 3: organ, object, and consciousness do not arise alone without each 3 all 3 being there together. (and that's just the pali canon stuff which is regarded as preliminaries in TB rather than the main teaching of what mind is)
But I am certain that my sensation is sensation. I don't experience the molecules in my eyes that absorb UV-vis spectrum and all the mechanism of those molecules going to synapses. I experience light or vision. I know my experience is experience and that is primary.
Actually in the suttas consciousness arises when sense-organ and sense-object are present. So the sense-organ would be the skin and the sense-object would be the impact of the brick, the combination produces consciousness. The mind is regarded as another sense-organ.
Yes I thought of what I said as same thing. All 3 arise together. I would say the brain is the sense organ of the mind.
No, the mind is the sense organ. A thought would be a sense-object.
I don't think of it that way. I would say a thought is right there with a consciousness and inseparable. And then the brain is deduced* as playing a role just as an eyeball is deduced as playing a role.
But aren't you conscious of thoughts and feelings? So the thoughts and feelings are sense-objects, in much the same way that sights and sounds are sense-objects.
That's exactly what the difference between dualistic and non-dualistic is. My teacher in her 4 book course the first book ( one thing) we look at is (our own) different language we have for various things. I can't remember the lines exactly but we say some confusing things just in some of the basic phrases we use. And yes you can think of thoughts as 'in' the mind. In our course that was one thing pointed out that we often think of mind as a place that thoughts appear in.
But back to the question of if the mind is a sense organ I would just say that is not what I think of. And I think duality is thinking "i" "perceive" "thoughts" At the same time it is liberating to some degree to realize "oh that is just a thought and "I" can let it go"
It's a two way street I think, environment and the body influence mental events and consciousness influences the body.....to extend this then, the world we see or perceive is shaped by the mind and the shaping comes from the tendencies that consciousness has experienced and accumulated over many previous existences. Collective karma, why we all see the world in a broadly similar way although with separate individual experiences due to our personal karma.
Clearly there are different models, but the idea of the mind as a space where thoughts arise fits quite well with my experience. I see duality as less about the functional distinction between sense-object and sense-organ and more about the assumption of ownership, eg "my mind" and "my thoughts".
It's kinda like_ candy floss_.....