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.
A neuroscientist discusses latest scientific theories on consciousness
Cinorjer
Veteran
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/component/content/article/44-amazing-meeting/1255-video-steven-novella-from-tam-6.html
I'm posting this link to a video that some of you might find interesting. It's a neuroscientist giving a lecture about consciousness, the history of various theories and current scientific thinking. Being a talk given at a Skeptic forum, it is of course slanted to one viewpoint. Still, if you want to talk modern medical understanding of the mind and higher consciousness as compared to the Buddhist skandhas, this tells you what scientists really think.
Some points I agree with (quantum physics is highly misused and the people who throw the term around don't have a clue what it actually means) and several points I think he's way off base. In particular, he keeps talking about "Eastern Mysticism" and lumps all Eastern religions into one when he means Hindu, at best. Also he presents that wacko Deepak Chopra as an example of an Eastern Mystic authority when the man is actually an American TM graduate and runs a business selling fake enlightenment, and he totally misses the point that Buddhism has no problem whatsoever with his scientific description of consciousness. But see what you think. Interesting and informative.
I'm posting this link to a video that some of you might find interesting. It's a neuroscientist giving a lecture about consciousness, the history of various theories and current scientific thinking. Being a talk given at a Skeptic forum, it is of course slanted to one viewpoint. Still, if you want to talk modern medical understanding of the mind and higher consciousness as compared to the Buddhist skandhas, this tells you what scientists really think.
Some points I agree with (quantum physics is highly misused and the people who throw the term around don't have a clue what it actually means) and several points I think he's way off base. In particular, he keeps talking about "Eastern Mysticism" and lumps all Eastern religions into one when he means Hindu, at best. Also he presents that wacko Deepak Chopra as an example of an Eastern Mystic authority when the man is actually an American TM graduate and runs a business selling fake enlightenment, and he totally misses the point that Buddhism has no problem whatsoever with his scientific description of consciousness. But see what you think. Interesting and informative.
0
Comments
You might also like this:
product of mind or outside of mind? did the buddha clarify?
from my experience through meditation, i believe that consciousness is outside the mind. consciousness is the legs but the mind is what is running. so they both need each other to exist
and i would assert that enlightenment is a shift from mind to consciousness.
is there a true distinction between mind and consciousness or is it all mind?
i'm very interested. if anyone knows please answer me!! thank you
1.Form (the brain and body and everything physical that goes on)
2.Sensation (the senses, but also internal senses such as emotional states and internal feelings of well being, etc.)
3.Perception (pattern recognition and assignation of meaning)
4.Mental formations (beliefs, thoughts, habits)
5.Consciousness (our awareness or focus of attention)
Our conscious awareness, or sense of identity and self is, in Buddhist terms, the result of all these skandhas working together. We say the self is illusion not because it isn't there, but that if you take away the skandhas, theres's nothing left. These are the component parts of the self. They all work together in harmony, more or less, what happens with one skandha affects the others, and the sum is greater and unique from the parts.
But I disagree with the neuroscientist who insists the mind is nothing but form. Form is important, but if form was everything, each mind would be alike given the same size healthy brain. Thus even form is empty.
1) vinnana: consciousness
2) citta: mind-heart; creative mind; intellect
3) mano: knowing
consciousness is mere sense awareness
what is defiled/ignorant and later gains enlightenment or behaviour modification is the citta
however, the speaker has described consciousness many times as "subjective experience". this is incorrect. "subjectivity" is created by the "views" (ditthi) of the citta/sankhara khanda
consciousness is just attention or awareness
the speaker also states consciousness "processes information", "talks to itself". this is incorrect. the citta/sankhara khanda processes or talks
With all respect to the guy, I didn't hear any new theories, mainly it was just making fun of - and not believing people who had insights, because he is convinced current neuroscience will one day find out what consciousness is and how the mind works. But really, he has no answer.
And he won't find it this way, because they are observing the mind from the outside. You can't really see what's inside a house by peeking through the window, it's much better to open the door and enter it and have a look around. In the same way you can't you know the mind without looking for yourself. The measuring devices will probably forever be insufficient to make us understand.
So don't let this guy mislead you from meditating
http://www.upaya.org/dharma/zen-brain-2011-consciousness-and-the-fundamental-nature-of-mind-series-all-7-parts/
What Sue Blackmore says is really very Buddhist indeed. I hope she gets somewhere with her Zen practice (or maybe already did, based on what she says)
The doctor spoke what is correct, namely, when brainfunction is disengaged (eg. induced coma), consciousness is also disengaged.
The Buddha basically taught the same, when he advised there is not arising of consciousness without a sense organ.
Your post shows your mind has not realised much via meditation.
Your words are mere advertising, to me. What are you trying to sell?
Worse, the purpose of meditation is unrelated to cultivating cravings & delusions about eternal disembodied consciousness.
The purpose of meditation is realising emptiness in order to be free from suffering.
@DD -
please don't be argumentative, DD. I'm sure Sabre isn't 'trying to sell' anything.
You have a right to your opinion of what you may believe his mind may or may not have realised - but what his post shows, is your opinion, not fact.
If you must contribute (and there's no reason why you shouldn't) keep to the discussion, not asserion of what a member is/isn't saying.
For instance, we know what chemical reactions in the brain cause a feeling of pleasure. Thus recreational drugs are a huge industry. We know what chemicals will short-circuit stress. Thus legal mood altering drugs are a huge industry. Yet, everyone has a unique set of triggers for both pleasure and stress, and nothing can predict what turns you on or off, and why it's something different for someone else.
We know the chemical and behavioral mechanics of addiction to the atomic level. We even know genetics play a part in it. However, we don't know why some people reach inside themselves and drag their minds free of addiction, while others fail. We don't know why some people are motivated to help others while other people completely lack compassion. And none of this can be studied by pointing to a spot in the brain and saying "Here, change this wiring and we get a well adjusted person."
In other words, people perform miracles with their minds, beyond anything explained by the neuroscientists.
I was just making a joke, see the smiley at the end of the sentence. The guy in the video to me clearly wasn't taking meditation seriously, making jokes about how it can not be integrated into science, calling it mysticism etc. All fine with me if that's what he thinkgs, but I was just kind of joking back.
I don't see how I stepped on your toes by doing this, but apparently I did, I'm sorry for that. Now don't get personal over it, I did in no way intend it that way. About my meditation experiences you can not say anything. How can you say my beliefs are blind, hmm? May I advise you not to judge someones experiences by a post on a forum. I may not be a 'new guy' and I can handle critique very well, but next time you might set someone off who is a bit unstable and unsure about his/her meditation. Those people get into Buddhism and find these forums too, you know.
Anyway, what I think is missing in most research on the mind is the direct consciousness of the 6th sense, the mind itself. With pure consciousness only of that sense can scientist start to know what they are talking about. A lot of people have theories on the mind, but really saw what it actually is; that it is not just purely a brain function but something beyond that.
Different people around the globe keep coming up with the same kind of experiences that are just neglected by a lot of today's scientists because they don't think it fits their approach. But if enough people experience it, there is a very strong correlation which can be used. That's why I think studies including meditation would be a very valid scientific approach and luckily those are also arising.
I don't say I agree on everything this guy says, but he kind of explains it a bit clearer:
Sabre
Best leave things as they are, ok?
A theoretical physicist might see all kinds of mass and energy in equations, but has no reason to see why it would make life. The equation for that has never been found.
But a biologist says, hey you physicists are wrong, there is life, I can clearly tell. And it evolves, but why it would do things other than procreation and eating, I don't know.
The psychologists come in and say: Hey biologists, that people do all kinds of other things, like art, debating, investigation etc, is all obvious. But why and how exactly we don't know.
Then there is the step above that, the meditators who can say: Ah you psychologists we know how this works. We know ourselves and we can explain to you how this works.
Now this last step is often still disregarded by the whole chain and that's a shame. I think this also was something of Alan Wallace, but I changed it around a bit.
Sabre
I just thought that was important to point out. Whatever DD has to say about that, I'll leave it be indeed, that's fine with me. Sounds like a solid plan.
The discussion about the actual subject we were discussing can continue, however.
If a Moderator makes comment, and deals with a situation, there is absolutely no need for anyone to come back with additional comment, however involved or otherwise, they are.
Your persistence is probably not constructive, and your "pointing out more clearly" superfluous and unnecessary.
I did what was necessary.
You had no need to expand.
consciousness without an object. is this outside of the brain? or does it only function when you have a mind to get to no-mind?
if consciousness does exist based on other thing as pointed out above, what happens when a buddha dies? the buddha enters parinirvana. is that a place? or is it metaphorically pointing to something?
i have a feeling most of these questions cannot be answered, but idk it's interesting to hear all your opinions.
Imagine you walk the street and see a car. First the car meets eye (nothing you can do about that
The mind is almost always there, judging the senses. Samadhi is there to find out how this happens. We can slowly shut down the senses by focusing on 1 thing which is usually the breath.
Parinirvana is the end of suffering, both mental and bodily suffering.
Sabre
Morality & reincarnation teachings = $$$$$$$$$
I think it won't. One needs to look from it from within oneself, allow personal experiences in science. The Buddha also said you can't find all the answers by just talking and reasoning, you have to meditate to find it all out. I think every Buddhist would agree on that.
Sabre