No self - Science seems to agree...

Tosh

I'm just listening to this book on audio:

The Self Illusion: Why There is No 'You' Inside Your Head

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Self-Illusion-There-Inside/dp/1780330073/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

About the author:

"Bruce Hood completed undergraduate studies in psychology, then received a Master of Arts and a Master of Philosophy from the University of Dundee. He received a PhD from University of Cambridge in 1991, studying the visual development of infants. After moving to the USA he took a place as a visiting professor at MIT and as an associate professor at Harvard University. He directs the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre at the University of Bristol.
He is well known for his ideas that humans are not rational creatures and this innate irrationality leads to religion and superstition.

He has been awarded a Sloan Fellowship in neuroscience, the Robert L. Fantz prize, the International Society for Infant Studies Young Investigator award and elected to fellow status of the American Psychological Association. In 2011 Bruce delivered the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures."

Listening to the audio book is a bit like listening to a dharma lesson.

Victorious

Is this the same guy?

1.

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/05/the-self-illusion-an-interview-with-bruce-hood/

2.

Tosh

Yep, that's the one!

vinlyn

My only comment is that to jump to the conclusion that all of "science" now agrees, is a pretty big leap.

lobster

This understanding, sorry no time to watch video, of 'no self' as an experiential reality is an easy first knowing. You can use meditation to look for an independent self or the process advocated here:
http://liberationunleashed.com/
- a good beginning, nothing more

anatta - wot no self?
http://www.existentialbuddhist.com/tag/not-self/

:clap:

Florian

It's good to see that science is catching up.

Blondel

I don't like to watch boring videos of boring academics!

Tosh

vinlyn said:

My only comment is that to jump to the conclusion that all of "science" now agrees, is a pretty big leap.

Maybe 'is in agreement' or 'is in accordance' or 'is similar in the train of thought' would be better?

Another maybe is that my English and communication skills could do with some improvement.

Victorious

This seems to be just a single persons work @Tosh. The scientific method requires much more for anything to become generally accepted in the academic world.

It is probably too early to make any conclusion as to if "science" is in agreement or in accordance with these conclusions.

But I only read his interview and have not seen the clip or read the book so I am just guessing.

/Victor

vinlyn

Victorious said:

This seems to be just a single persons work @Tosh. The scientific method requires much more for anything to become generally accepted in the academic world.

It is probably too early to make any conclusion as to if "science" is in agreement or in accordance with these conclusions.

But I only read his interview and have not seen the clip or read the book so I am just guessing.

/Victor

You're absolutely right!

It's like saying, "All Buddhists believe..."

Tosh

vinlyn said:

Victorious said:

This seems to be just a single persons work @Tosh. The scientific method requires much more for anything to become generally accepted in the academic world.

It is probably too early to make any conclusion as to if "science" is in agreement or in accordance with these conclusions.

But I only read his interview and have not seen the clip or read the book so I am just guessing.

/Victor

You're absolutely right!

It's like saying, "All Buddhists believe..."

Lucky enough I titled the post to this thread "Science Seems to Agree..." because I'd hate to make blanket statements and generalisations that could get nit picked.

Victorious

Eer. Hate to do this @Tosh but really, not even that gets you off the hook. . You can just go ahead and call me nitpicker if you wish.

But really exiting input all the same! . And btw look at this article:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/consciousness-after-death/

Thanks to you I found wired.com!

/Victor

Tosh

@Victorious. Mr Hood doesn't deal with consciousness, I'm fairly certain his book says that (I'm listening to the audio book so not easy to check) and his work has been peer reviewed; have you seen his academic credentials? I doubt he'd just make stuff up without being able to support it with evidence.

And are you inferring that consciousness is the 'self'?

Zayl

I'm not going to read through this thread or think about the topic. But I started a thread as to why, maybe it will tie into this thread in an interesting fashion, or maybe it won't.

http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19324/depersonalization#latest

Victorious

Tosh said:

@Victorious. Mr Hood doesn't deal with consciousness, I'm fairly certain his book says that (I'm listening to the audio book so not easy to check) and his work has been peer reviewed;

Sounds promising!

Tosh said:

have you seen his academic credentials?

No I have not and I am never impressed by titles. I do appreciate people who think for themselves though. He seems to be an original thinker.

Tosh said:

And are you inferring that consciousness is the 'self'?

Nope.

Tosh

Victorious said:

No I have not and I am never impressed by titles.

They're academic credentials, not titles; no-one is asking you to be impressed by them, but you can infer that he's serious and peer reviewed from them.

You seem to like to twist words; you did that earlier in the post too.

Tosh

Zayl said:

I'm not going to read through this thread or think about the topic. But I started a thread as to why, maybe it will tie into this thread in an interesting fashion, or maybe it won't.

http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19324/depersonalization#latest

Hi Zayl,

I've commented on your post, but this isn't about 'death of the ego', it's about understanding what our 'ego' (our self) is. We all need personalities to function in the world.

vinlyn

Tosh said:

Victorious said:

No I have not and I am never impressed by titles.

They're academic credentials, not titles; no-one is asking you to be impressed by them, but you can infer that he's serious and peer reviewed from them.

You seem to like to twist words; you did that earlier in the post too.

Yes, this is an important point. Credentials include far more than titles.

Victorious

Tosh said:

Victorious said:

No I have not and I am never impressed by titles.

They're academic credentials, not titles; no-one is asking you to be impressed by them, but you can infer that he's serious and peer reviewed from them.

Credentials are just very long Titles. Same thing, diffrent words. His seriousness was never an issue. Obviously he is serious if you look at his Credentials. But you are asking me to infer seriousness from his previous merits on his current study. I think each act should be judged in isolation.

Tosh said:

You seem to like to twist words; you did that earlier in the post too.

Nope I just see the world diffrently than most others, my English is lousy and I refuse to be pinned down by grammer or any other rules that others think apply. I.e. I think for my self. Much like mr Hood.

Yours Seriously
Victor

Citta

Victorious said:

Tosh said:

Victorious said:

No I have not and I am never impressed by titles.

They're academic credentials, not titles; no-one is asking you to be impressed by them, but you can infer that he's serious and peer reviewed from them.

Credentials are just very long Titles. Same thing, diffrent words. His seriousness was never an issue. Obviously he is serious if you look at his Credentials. But you are asking me to infer seriousness from his previous merits on his current study. I think each act should be judged in isolation.

Tosh said:

You seem to like to twist words; you did that earlier in the post too.

Nope I just see the world diffrently than most others, my English is lousy and I refuse to be pinned down by grammer or any other rules that others think apply. I.e. I think for my self. Much like mr Hood.

Yours Seriously
Victor

Your reduction of valid credentials to the status of titles is nonsense and derails your argument before you start it.
As does the idea that failing to learn basic grammar indicates a sturdy independence of mind.

misterCope

There's no one in the boat.

Victorious

Citta said:

Your reduction of valid credentials to the status of titles is nonsense and derails your argument before you start it.

Since it is my world I'll do what I like?

Citta said:

As does the idea that failing to learn basic grammar indicates a sturdy independence of mind.

Oh yeah? How would you know? :thumbsup:
I mean can you prove that? Scientifically speaking?

Glorious
/Victorious.

Citta

Ohh-kay.

I will waste no more time.

Victorious

Your loss.

I can be pretty entertaining when driven slightly left of madness by unrational, illogical comments that does not make any sense what so ever.

/Victor

vinlyn

Victor, I have to agree with Citta. You often start off quite well in a discussion, and, for example, this time I was glad to see you back. Then you typically begin to veer off, people get upset, and after a bit you disappear again.

Which is alright. It's your choice. But that's what leads some of us to eventually think we're wasting our time. That's a shame, because you are often rather insightful.

In terms of credentials (and to some extent, even titles), they're very helpful to judge whether or not a person has any background that would make his or her contributions worth listening to. Of course, they don't necessarily mean a new contribution by them is going to be valid. Credentials are earned based on some merit. They don't mean that person is always right or wise.

Victorious

I am very happy to see you too vinlyn.

But the thing is actually exactly as I explained above. I just do not see the world like most people do.

And I am not going to make excuses for my views. If people get upset that is most probably due to their lack of cultivation. In that case they should see me as an opportunity to cultivate. Like DD did.
Nobody can make another person upset nor angry nor happy. That is a personel choice. That is in accordance with the Dhamma. No?

If my views can be shown to be faulty I will change them which I have done plenty of times on this site. Like when Vastiel showed me the susima sutta. I do not place any value in "winning an argument" and "not seeming to be wrong" which seems to be very important to most people. It actually seems more important to them than learning something new.

The problem often lies in that people get frustrated since they can not find the argument to disaprove something I said because they actually have not thought the subject through properly. Again not my problem.

And I do not veer. I always have this mindset: Never ever think inside the box for too long and never bend for authority without thinking. :ninja: This too is Dhamma thinking.

To be perfectly honest. I really do not think that people that get upset at the views I present and can not let it go has got anything valuble to add to my development. Because that is pretty juvenile and I got past that in my teens.

What I think about Credentials has nothing to do with Toshes original worry. That I was not taking Mr Hood seriously. As I explained I do. When I said that it might take more for the book to get an accepted status in the acedemic world I said that it was a guess on my part. I will take Toshes word that the book has been Peer Reviewed.

I place the same value in Credentials as in Titles. To me they are the same. I will judge a person by his/her actions that I observed myself not by past said merits nor promises for the future. This is also in accordance with the Dhamma. No? .


All that being said I will kick butt in my own gentle way if stepped on.

Hope I make some sense and that you understand that I actually do not generally post here to piss people off.

Br
Victor

PS
I agree 100% with you on your stand on the russian olympics btw.
DS.

Jeffrey

@Victorious,, credentials means to me that they were in an environment of study and contact with other bright people. You would have to have motivation to learn, enough prior preparation, endowment of the intellect to even be accepted in such an environment. That doesn't mean credentials make you 'right' it just means you have access to those studying. I'm sure you already all know that but I like my reflection, lol.

Victorious

Hi @Jeffrey. I know. . The thing is I trust my own judgement far more than I trust anybody elses. If a person is to stand for their views how can they do that if those views are not based on that persons own judgment?

We make our own beds even those of us that do not know it. And sleep in them we all must sooner or later.

Blondel

Victorious said:

This seems to be just a single persons work @Tosh. The scientific method requires much more for anything to become generally accepted in the academic world.

It is probably too early to make any conclusion as to if "science" is in agreement or in accordance with these conclusions.

But I only read his interview and have not seen the clip or read the book so I am just guessing.

/Victor

The dirty little secret of science is the so-celled scientific method is based on a fallacy. Consider that the SM involves 4 steps: observation, hypothesis, implication and verification. Where the fallacy comes into play is in verification which is the fallacy known as affirmation of the consequent. The logical form is:

a implies b
b is true
Ergo, a is true.

It may actually be the fact that a implies b, b1, b2,b3, b4, etc.

Bodhivaka

Blondel said:

Victorious said:

This seems to be just a single persons work @Tosh. The scientific method requires much more for anything to become generally accepted in the academic world.

It is probably too early to make any conclusion as to if "science" is in agreement or in accordance with these conclusions.

But I only read his interview and have not seen the clip or read the book so I am just guessing.

/Victor

The dirty little secret of science is the so-celled scientific method is based on a fallacy. Consider that the SM involves 4 steps: observation, hypothesis, implication and verification. Where the fallacy comes into play is in verification which is the fallacy known as affirmation of the consequent. The logical form is:

a implies b
b is true
Ergo, a is true.

It may actually be the fact that a implies b, b1, b2,b3, b4, etc.

For being based on a fallacy, it seems to accomplish its purposes quite well; besides, falsifiability is a requirement for any acceptable scientific theory.

All I can say is that if a logical fallacy is what opened up the way for us to communicate on this website using an advanced electrical device via the internet, then thank god for logical fallacies.

Florian

Blondel said:

Victorious said:

This seems to be just a single persons work @Tosh. The scientific method requires much more for anything to become generally accepted in the academic world.

It is probably too early to make any conclusion as to if "science" is in agreement or in accordance with these conclusions.

But I only read his interview and have not seen the clip or read the book so I am just guessing.

/Victor

The dirty little secret of science is the so-celled scientific method is based on a fallacy. Consider that the SM involves 4 steps: observation, hypothesis, implication and verification. Where the fallacy comes into play is in verification which is the fallacy known as affirmation of the consequent. The logical form is:

a implies b
b is true
Ergo, a is true.

It may actually be the fact that a implies b, b1, b2,b3, b4, etc.

Hmm. How do the further implications make the argument a fallacy? We can say that b implies a, or that b1 implies a, etc. I could agree that the scientific method has limitations, but not that it is fallacious. I think someone would have noticed by now.

Victorious

This is a known critique of the SM. So somebody did notice.

Victorious

Actually the problem has been solved too.

Primarily by letting the philosophers ponder this great Conundrum while the rest of the scientific community get on with business as usual...

/Victor

vinlyn

So, Blondel, the scientific method is not perfect. Therefore unorganized thought is better? What do you have that is better than the scientific method for what science legitimately investigates?

Citta

Yup a bunch of people making random guesses or using their intuition came up with penicillin, clean drinking water, did away with smallpox, got to the moon, reduced infant mortality rates in the developed world by 80%, invented air travel, utilised electricity to heat and light our homes, and of course invented the PC or laptop that you are using right now.
All done by intuition and the I Ching...rofl.

Blondel

It's a truism to say that a theory whose consequence conflict with the facts can't be true. But if there are more theories than the one giving the same consequences, we have a problem.

Let's say that bruises (a) in children are due to parental abuse (b) so that a implies b.
Bobby, who is 6 years old, comes to the ER with bruises (a). b is true
Therefore, Bobby's parents abused him (a). Ergo, a is true.

This theory is rather limited and certainly not true in all cases because Bobby fell off of his bicycle.

Blondel

vinlyn said:

So, Blondel, the scientific method is not perfect. Therefore unorganized thought is better? What do you have that is better than the scientific method for what science legitimately investigates?

You're right. But some of the finest scientific minds have been every wrong.

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." ~ Lord Kelvin, British mathematician and physicist, president of the British Royal Society

"Radio has no future." ~ Lord Kelvin, 1897

"X-rays will prove to be a hoax." ~ Lord Kelvin, 1895

"The radio craze will die out in time." ~ Thomas Edison, American inventor, 1922

There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." ~ Robert Milikan, Nobel Laureate in Physics, 1923

"There is not the slightest indication that nuclear energy will ever be obtainable. It would mean the atom would have to be shattered at will." ~ Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist, 1932

Not a scientific mind but funny, nevertheless, is this one:

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons" ~ Popular Mechanics, 1949

Best of all.

But nevertheless, we now have a much more humble point of view of our physical laws—everything can be wrong! ~ Richard Feynman

footiam

You don't have to agree with Science.

zombiegirl

Er, so about that OP... How are you finding the book @Tosh ? I watched the video clip and found that it seems that Bruce Hood and I are on very similar footing. Most of the studies and points he made weren't new to me, but there was a moment there when I had to take a step back and realize that he was talking solely from a scientific standpoint and never even mentions anatta or Buddhist views. I can completely understand how you might say this reminds you of a dharma teaching. It made me realize how much I refer to scientific findings to help understand Buddhist teachings. The lines are very blurred inside my own head, it seems.

Tosh

@zombiegirl; the book's very 'Buddhist'. I'm at a part where the author is explaining how we're not discrete packages; that everything we know about ourselves, we know only in relation to other people; how we build our concept of self. He's citing studies done of feral children and children from orphanages in Romania.

It's very good; typical Buddhist themes run through the book.

Victorious

Is he aware that this is a very Buddhist theme?

/Victor

Tosh

Victorious said:

Is he aware that this is a very Buddhist theme?

/Victor

I suspect so, he's studied philosophy, though I know 'Buddhist themes' don't just 'belong' to Buddhism.

zombiegirl

Tosh said:

Victorious said:

Is he aware that this is a very Buddhist theme?

/Victor

I suspect so, he's studied philosophy, though I know 'Buddhist themes' don't just 'belong' to Buddhism.

I love that science and Buddhism have so much common ground. Even the Dalai Lama has said that if science proved Buddhist beliefs wrong, then Buddhism would have to change. When I was first introduced to the concept of anatta, not only did it bother me, but I really rebelled against it. I don't think it was until science began to point me in the same direction that I started to actually understand it.

vinlyn

zombiegirl said:

...

I love that science and Buddhism have so much common ground. Even the Dalai Lama has said that if science proved Buddhist beliefs wrong, then Buddhism would have to change. When I was first introduced to the concept of anatta, not only did it bother me, but I really rebelled against it. I don't think it was until science began to point me in the same direction that I started to actually understand it.

Yes, I like that, too...but, in reality, if science proved Buddhist beliefs wrong, Buddhism probably wouldn't change.

zombiegirl

vinlyn said:

zombiegirl said:

...

I love that science and Buddhism have so much common ground. Even the Dalai Lama has said that if science proved Buddhist beliefs wrong, then Buddhism would have to change. When I was first introduced to the concept of anatta, not only did it bother me, but I really rebelled against it. I don't think it was until science began to point me in the same direction that I started to actually understand it.

Yes, I like that, too...but, in reality, if science proved Buddhist beliefs wrong, Buddhism probably wouldn't change.

It would probably be like everything else... half the pack goes this way, half the pack goes that way... You know religious folks... dissent dissent dissent.

lobster

I tend to work on evidence and experience. For example I have evidence and personal experience of meditation.

I have no evidence or experience of dying and being reborn from a fly. I have heard Buddhist 'teachers' expound this, how can I put this politely, 'doctrine'. I consider it superstitious, uneducated, ignorant and unsubstantiated. Until and in the unlikely event of evidence and experience, I focus on the alleviation of suffering, which some science has given us many opportunities for . . . as has dharma . . . some dharma . . .

Viva Buddha Sense
Viva Educated Sangha
Viva Dharma Science

Tosh

vinlyn said:

zombiegirl said:

...

I love that science and Buddhism have so much common ground. Even the Dalai Lama has said that if science proved Buddhist beliefs wrong, then Buddhism would have to change. When I was first introduced to the concept of anatta, not only did it bother me, but I really rebelled against it. I don't think it was until science began to point me in the same direction that I started to actually understand it.

Yes, I like that, too...but, in reality, if science proved Buddhist beliefs wrong, Buddhism probably wouldn't change.

Ah, but I think Buddhism has changed already in the face of science. Buddhism used to teach a cosmology where they described how the Universe came into being (I'm guessing this is Tibetan Buddhism). Without digging into my books I can't remember what it was called. My teacher said that it's not taught these days and hardly any Buddhists would believe it; maybe some elderly types that are extremely isolated somewhere.

Why? Well because it was proved to be bunkum.

vinlyn

Tosh said:

vinlyn said:

zombiegirl said:

...

I love that science and Buddhism have so much common ground. Even the Dalai Lama has said that if science proved Buddhist beliefs wrong, then Buddhism would have to change. When I was first introduced to the concept of anatta, not only did it bother me, but I really rebelled against it. I don't think it was until science began to point me in the same direction that I started to actually understand it.

Yes, I like that, too...but, in reality, if science proved Buddhist beliefs wrong, Buddhism probably wouldn't change.

Ah, but I think Buddhism has changed already in the face of science. Buddhism used to teach a cosmology where they described how the Universe came into being (I'm guessing this is Tibetan Buddhism). Without digging into my books I can't remember what it was called. My teacher said that it's not taught these days and hardly any Buddhists would believe it; maybe some elderly types that are extremely isolated somewhere.

Why? Well because it was proved to be bunkum.

Well, hate to tell you, but I've seen Buddhist cosmology displayed in dozens and dozens of Theravadan temples in Thailand. Very common.

Victorious

Who went through the trouble of disaproving buddhist cosmology? Besides it ia in pretty good accordance with the bing bang theory. Or so I thought?

vinlyn

I'm curious -- did you mean disproving, or disapproving?

lobster

The theory of Buddhist evolution, the rebirth theory, is not as evidential, as proven by the facts. Though there are particles from flies and stars in my physical being, that is different to superstitious, primitive Buddhist evolutionary theories.

The experience of looking for and finding no self is open to any Buddhist investigator/meditator
http://www.dhammawiki.com/index.php?title=Anatta
It is both scientific and Buddhist.