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.
Of course they interrelate/interpenetrate. When your mind experiences fear, stress hormones are released. Voila!--the bodymind. Tibetan medicine is based on this understanding. More and more, Western medicine is finally recognizing this basic fact of life.
To assert that "Mind is brain" relies on evidence obtained by the senses processed by mind. It also relies on "other authority" as not many of us have direct evidence of our own brains other than "other authority". Again, that is not the silly assertion that this "other authority" is wrong in the determination that we have brains. But unless we have a brain operation with a mirror we cannot directly ascertain the existence of our own brains. We can directly experience parts of our own bodies though our own senses, but how much more do we project beyond this?
Also the assertion "Mind is Brain" depends on the belief held by the "Mind" because it is a theoretical belief. Theories are mental constructs. In this context the brain is a conceptual projection of the mind. That is what is meant when someone talks about conventional or relative truth, in other words “reality as it appears” in contrast to “reality as it is” which is ultimate truth.
The other extreme view of “Mind is Mind” does not rely on any external authority, as mind is directly experienced by itself. It is has all the data needed in its own system to verify or falsify that idea. That is why mind is the basis of Buddhism, not because this theory is correct but rather that the mind is directly observable; and because of this we have the self-power to fully investigate this phenomenon that we call mind. And through the mind ascertain its relationship to suffering and its cessation and the “outside” world.
If we are limited to "mind is brain" as a starting point, then we are beholden to the current theories of the day for our personal journey. For instance maybe scientists, by studying meditators, may derive a happiness drug, or maybe duplicate the brainwaves of those meditators (I’ve actually seen this suggested in a Scientific American Mind magazine). Then that will be the answer to everyone’s prayers, or not? What happens if you can’t afford it, or the drug company gets wiped out by an earthquake? What complications or addictions would it have, how is it different to heroin, or cocaine? And we already know that theories come and go with time (I think that the stagnation in physics at the moment is an indication that another paradigm shift is due to occur soon, but time will tell). When our self-journey is founded on such a theory and that theory is discredited then have we not also discredited our journey? This is because we are dependent on other-power. We also know that we cannot ultimately place our refuge in others because we cannot control the external environment.
So, I guess, the Buddhist approach is not to question the accuracy of the position taken but to take the stance based on the pragmatic usefulness of the position?
In Buddhism, it [mind] is the fifth skandha. In science, it is 'the object or process of thought'.
I think Buddhism has the better perspective.
When you say mental states are emergent, do you mean that "mind" or "consciousness" are merely neural network properties or do you also mean mental states are irreducible?
Both By which i mean a kind of non-reductive physicalism.... Final proof of the hypothesis that mind is physical would be if we can design artifically intelligent computers...?
If mind is sankhara, all intelligence is artificial. May all beings find the causes of true happiness within. :buck:
Only if you defined mind and intelligence by certain observable criterion. As intelligence. To truly establish that AI had a mental experience LIKE MY EXPERIENCE I would have to experience their experience.
This is like if I have tasted a carot and wonder if orange makes the taste? Then I see a pumpkin I would have to taste the pumpkin to decide if it tasted the same. Even then it could be possible that orange did not cause the taste.
The second part clearly illustrates what Whoknows was describing as apparent truth. It appears the carot tastes a certain way and is orange. Producing another orange entity which also tastes the same as a carot does not prove that orange causes that taste. It is only apparent observation.
If you can feel that how can you explain it without saying that the mind transcends the brain.
Peace is felt via the cessation of certain brain activities. But you seem to be correlating "peace" with the "transcendent mind". Is "peace" the "mind" or is "peace" something that is not "mind" but which the mind senses/feels?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If you can feel that how can you explain it without saying that the mind transcends the brain.
Peace is felt via the cessation of certain brain activities. But you seem to be correlating "peace" with the "transcendent mind". Is "peace" the "mind" or is "peace" something that is not "mind" but which the mind senses/feels?
I'm not saying that the peace I'm feeling shows that the mind isn't the brain. I'm saying that the peace is coming as a result of a connection with the peace of Lama Zopa at the end of the video. And if thats the case then how does his physical brain interact with my physical brain through a recorded video to help produce that feeling of peace?
And if thats the case then how does his physical brain interact with my physical brain through a recorded video to help produce that feeling of peace?
The same way it does when you are sitting next to someone in person - via your senses of sight and sound, which are entirely physical. If a dead and blind person sat in front of this video, they wouldn't feel the same peace, would they?
"If a dead and blind person sat in front of this video, they wouldn't feel the same peace, would they?"
Thats true and likewise a aeeing hearing person might not feel peace either.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited June 2011
And if thats the case then how does his physical brain interact with my physical brain through a recorded video to help produce that feeling of peace?
The same way it does when you are sitting next to someone in person - via your senses of sight and sound, which are entirely physical. If a dead and blind person sat in front of this video, they wouldn't feel the same peace, would they?
So he just goes into a meditative state at the end or something. There's no sounds but the wind and he's just sitting there. So if I watch anyone just sit still and listen to the wind that will produce a feeling of peace? If it is simply sights and sounds wouldn't it just be a matter of reproducing some people in robes meditating on a rock, oh and a cowboy hat too. And I'm not sure that a deaf and blind person wouldn't feel it, idk about that.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Some of you may be interested in watching this. The presentation is by Wolfgang Singer. He gives a fairly physicalist presentation of the brain and conciousness. In the series of meetings theres also good discussion on evolution, quantum physics as well as other topics if anyone is interested.
My question is: does the buddhist theory of mind reject this notion? If so, why, and on what basis?
Yes. On the basis that human beings have an observable existence extending and interacting on a dimension beyond the 4 that you are presently observing and measuring.
"This must be why HHDL believes humans in the future may reincarnate as computers." ??? If this is true, (that HHDL believes people may reincarnate as computers) it represents a genuine ignorance of the phenomenon of the conception of a human being from the point of view of being the mindful practitioner mother observing the phenomenon as it passes through her. A genuine ignorance and a genuine pity, but understandably the result of being a celibate male monk trained by centuries of celibate male monks in turn.
Final proof of the hypothesis that mind is physical would be if we can design artifically intelligent computers.
Actually all that this would prove is that we can build something that behaves like a mind. It does not prove that the mind is physical.
For example there are many different routes to my workplace from home. My arrival at work does not prove that I used a particular route - only that I got there.
John Searle had plenty to say about the computer/mind metaphor.
@BuckyG Well, anything can be a philosophy, if you're a philosopher But most 'philosophies' are nowhere near as practically effective as science is. Its principles of brevity and rigor are admirable IMO.
Its principles of brevity and rigor are figments of the imagination in a world where just about all researchers can be either bought for the right amount of grant money, or be silenced by those who have been.
To truly establish that AI had a mental experience LIKE MY EXPERIENCE I would have to experience their experience.
By this criterion, you can't even establish that other humans have intellignce, let alone machines. The standard test for AI is the Turing Test - which basically says that if a machine can't be distinguished from a human by other humans, then that machine has AI.
Comments
To assert that "Mind is brain" relies on evidence obtained by the senses processed by mind. It also relies on "other authority" as not many of us have direct evidence of our own brains other than "other authority". Again, that is not the silly assertion that this "other authority" is wrong in the determination that we have brains. But unless we have a brain operation with a mirror we cannot directly ascertain the existence of our own brains. We can directly experience parts of our own bodies though our own senses, but how much more do we project beyond this?
Also the assertion "Mind is Brain" depends on the belief held by the "Mind" because it is a theoretical belief. Theories are mental constructs. In this context the brain is a conceptual projection of the mind. That is what is meant when someone talks about conventional or relative truth, in other words “reality as it appears” in contrast to “reality as it is” which is ultimate truth.
The other extreme view of “Mind is Mind” does not rely on any external authority, as mind is directly experienced by itself. It is has all the data needed in its own system to verify or falsify that idea. That is why mind is the basis of Buddhism, not because this theory is correct but rather that the mind is directly observable; and because of this we have the self-power to fully investigate this phenomenon that we call mind. And through the mind ascertain its relationship to suffering and its cessation and the “outside” world.
If we are limited to "mind is brain" as a starting point, then we are beholden to the current theories of the day for our personal journey. For instance maybe scientists, by studying meditators, may derive a happiness drug, or maybe duplicate the brainwaves of those meditators (I’ve actually seen this suggested in a Scientific American Mind magazine). Then that will be the answer to everyone’s prayers, or not? What happens if you can’t afford it, or the drug company gets wiped out by an earthquake? What complications or addictions would it have, how is it different to heroin, or cocaine? And we already know that theories come and go with time (I think that the stagnation in physics at the moment is an indication that another paradigm shift is due to occur soon, but time will tell). When our self-journey is founded on such a theory and that theory is discredited then have we not also discredited our journey? This is because we are dependent on other-power. We also know that we cannot ultimately place our refuge in others because we cannot control the external environment.
So, I guess, the Buddhist approach is not to question the accuracy of the position taken but to take the stance based on the pragmatic usefulness of the position?
Cheers, WK
I would like to bookmark this but then I cannot rely on these ideas too because I might lose the bookmark
May all beings find the causes of true happiness within.
:buck:
Yeah, really. I've come across that a couple of times on the internet. He's fascinated with artificial intelligence.
http://www.radiolab.org/2011/may/31/
Only if you defined mind and intelligence by certain observable criterion. As intelligence. To truly establish that AI had a mental experience LIKE MY EXPERIENCE I would have to experience their experience.
This is like if I have tasted a carot and wonder if orange makes the taste? Then I see a pumpkin I would have to taste the pumpkin to decide if it tasted the same. Even then it could be possible that orange did not cause the taste.
The second part clearly illustrates what Whoknows was describing as apparent truth. It appears the carot tastes a certain way and is orange. Producing another orange entity which also tastes the same as a carot does not prove that orange causes that taste. It is only apparent observation.
Thats true and likewise a aeeing hearing person might not feel peace either.
???
If this is true, (that HHDL believes people may reincarnate as computers) it represents a genuine ignorance of the phenomenon of the conception of a human being from the point of view of being the mindful practitioner mother observing the phenomenon as it passes through her. A genuine ignorance and a genuine pity, but understandably the result of being a celibate male monk trained by centuries of celibate male monks in turn.
For example there are many different routes to my workplace from home. My arrival at work does not prove that I used a particular route - only that I got there.
John Searle had plenty to say about the computer/mind metaphor.